Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News

GarryB wrote:The Argentines had Sea Dart and so they didn't expect them to use Exocet in a way that would allow the British to effectively use their Sea Dart missiles to defeat them, so they expected the Sea Wolf system to keep their ships safe.

Have looked it up and the Sheffield was sunk will operating as a radar picket screen for the carrier, so it was unlikely to be the ship sunk because they were communicating with London.

Yes, still the point is that neither Type-42 nor Type 21 i.e. the ships damaged or sunk in the Falkland war carried Sea Wolf that were instead carried by Type-22, no one of which was targeted by an Exocet.
First ones got Sea Dart, in a very low end arrangement unable to target more that one target at time, and the others had the already outclassed Sea Cat.
Type-22 on the other side had an efficient anti air missile but carried no gun, just old 40mm Boford mounts, so every time they have to lend some fire support to the troops on ground they have to send two ships.
MMI officers and gun crews still laughing about it...

GarryB wrote:The amusing thing is that I don't remember reading about the Argentines launching more than one Exocet at one target in any of their attacks... the Soviets of course intended to launch as many missiles as they could from as many different platforms.

Still laugh out loud when I remember one official speaking for the British Navy who was asked about the high loss rate of ships in the conflict stating that the Soviets didn't have anything like Exocet, so there was nothing to worry about... even at the time I remember thinking that was bullshit... and I had no access to any information about Soviet military equipment at that time (or since).

The Russkies also had 'swarm-drone' tactics with their missiles decades before it became a popular thing, which is still vastly superior to those that are now advertised currently. Those swarm drones that are advertised are literally orders of magnitude less lethal than what the USSR Navy had, but the current narrative is that the Federation is 'years behind in UAVs' . Ironically one of the most advanced drones ever created in the 2010's (RQ-170) was defeated by the export variant of the antiquated Soviet-era ECM tech (Autobaza).

Two more Su-34 arrive at Chelyabinsk making a total of 14 delivered to the VKS this year.

https://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12207045@egNews

Ground mapping by Su-34 radar. It looks like long range mapping with lower resolution.

franco wrote:Two more Su-34 arrive at Chelyabinsk making a total of 14 delivered to the VKS this year.

https://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12207045@egNews

14 have been delivered so far or they will be delivered until th end of the year?    Because till now i have counted 6xSu34 delivered. And with the last ones 8 in total


2x https://www.russiadefence.net/t947p650-su-34-tactical-bomber-news#226192

2x https://www.russiadefence.net/t947p675-su-34-tactical-bomber-news#233971

2x https://www.russiadefence.net/t947p725-su-34-tactical-bomber-news#237799

Now i see the bmpd article. 14 in that regiment with aircrafts transferred from other units also as we saw earlier in 2018

With the receipt of two Su-34 airplanes transferred on December 6, 2018, the total number of vehicles of this type in the 2nd Guards Bomber Regiment reached 14.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3443769.html

115 in total if we exclude 7 prototypes and 1 test aircrafts (123 all as the article says)

* bmpd says however that 10 aircrafts have been delivered in 2018 so far but i have counted 8

GarryB wrote:

Ground mapping by Su-34 radar. It looks like long range mapping with lower resolution.

That looks pretty good resolution to me... for radar... thnks for posting.

The Russkies also had 'swarm-drone' tactics with their missiles decades before it became a popular thing, which is still vastly superior to those that are now advertised currently. Those swarm drones that are advertised are literally orders of magnitude less lethal than what the USSR Navy had, but the current narrative is that the Federation is 'years behind in UAVs'

As you point out the wolf pack design of the missiles cooperating and sharing tasks and information is the sort of technology the west is talking about now for use with swarm drones... 1970s vs 2018... yeah... who exactly is behind...

Of course when F-35s gets the ability to detect targets and pass information on to nearby ship or SAM sites it will be new and high tech...

As advertised at 2:30




....BTW as you can tell at the beginning of the video, the F-35 is the only multi role 5G fighter , with its unmatched super-cruising and dogfighting...

Well, it is good to start the day with a laugh.

But seriously… even the latest version of the MiG-21 could beat it in a dogfight.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

GarryB wrote:

Ground mapping by Su-34 radar. It looks like long range mapping with lower resolution.

That looks pretty good resolution to me... for radar... thnks for posting.

The Russkies also had 'swarm-drone' tactics with their missiles decades before it became a popular thing, which is still vastly superior to those that are now advertised currently. Those swarm drones that are advertised are literally orders of magnitude less lethal than what the USSR Navy had, but the current narrative is that the Federation is 'years behind in UAVs'

As you point out the wolf pack design of the missiles cooperating and sharing tasks and information is the sort of technology the west is talking about now for use with swarm drones... 1970s vs 2018... yeah... who exactly is behind...

Of course when F-35s gets the ability to detect targets and pass information on to nearby ship or SAM sites it will be new and high tech...

As advertised at 2:30




....BTW as you can tell at the beginning of the video, the F-35 is the only multi role 5G fighter , with its unmatched super-cruising and dogfighting...

They decrease the robustness of the system.

What happens is they saying the next:
1. saving cost by making everything more integrated
2 They recognise the integration cost is way more than the actual system cost
3. They cut back the capabilities / procurement number to keep a lid on the increasing cost.
4. The system capability maintained by decreasing the redundancy.

Now, the thing that happens will be the equivalent of running a complicated scheme of dishwashing washing during lunch to decrease the number of tableware ,and save money on it. It will be a complex system, easy to breakdown, and the received benefit will be way less than calculated due to the increase maintenance/ management cost.

So, they will have a system that can be defeated by ECM jamming, and the jamming on its own can cut back to fraction the system capability.

They transform the robust and reliable military stuff to cheap consumer stuff ,that cheap when works, but it can works only in a narrow range of conditions.

GarryB wrote:

Ground mapping by Su-34 radar. It looks like long range mapping with lower resolution.

I remember seeing the radar display of a ground attack Tornado in the 1980s... the display was red and it was a mess... they used it but I don't know how they worked out what was what.... in comparison the display above almost looks like a grainy photograph...

Ground mapping from Su-24M radar.




ground mapping at AJS-37 Viggen




High res SAR APG-76

Ground mapping of Hmeimim airbase from Su-35 Irbis radar.

Singular_Transform wrote:

They decrease the robustness of the system.
{}

Now, the thing that happens will be the equivalent of running a complicated scheme of dishwashing washing during lunch to decrease the number of tableware ,and save money on it. It will be a complex system, easy to breakdown, and the received benefit will be way less than calculated due to the increase maintenance/ management cost.

So, they will have a system that can be defeated by ECM jamming, and the jamming on its own can cut back to fraction the system capability.

They transform the robust and reliable military stuff to cheap consumer stuff ,that cheap when works, but it can works only in a narrow range of conditions.

So what is your vision of 5g fighter? simple? ekhm Russia is going exactly the same road BTW.

Cyberspec wrote:From another angle

It's in the air again.

medo wrote:

Ground mapping of Hmeimim airbase from Su-35 Irbis radar.

Holy molly. The Su-35 has better terrain mapping than Su-34! Unless my eyes deceive me. They should look into Su-34 to use something new for radar.

miketheterrible wrote:

medo wrote:

Ground mapping of Hmeimim airbase from Su-35 Irbis radar.

Holy molly.  The Su-35 has better terrain mapping than Su-34!  Unless my eyes deceive me.  They should look into Su-34 to use something new for radar.

Irbis from Su-35 have really excellent terrain mapping resolution. Radar from Su-34 is older than irbis, but the area in the Su-34 picture is also quite wider comparing to just a part of Hmeimim base with Su-35. In wider area small object are more together, what make lower resolution on the screen. I wonder, what resolution have Su-34 radar if they select only the bridge over the river to have similar area as Hmeimim base.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

They decrease the robustness of the system.
{}

Now, the thing that happens will be the equivalent of running a complicated scheme of dishwashing washing during lunch to decrease the number of tableware ,and save money on it. It will be a complex system, easy to breakdown, and the received benefit will be way less than calculated due to the increase maintenance/ management cost.

So, they will have a system that can be defeated by ECM jamming, and the jamming on its own can cut back to fraction the system capability.

They transform the robust and reliable military stuff to cheap consumer stuff ,that cheap when works, but it can works only in a narrow range of conditions.

So what is your vision of 5g fighter? simple? ekhm  Russia is going exactly the same road BTW.

No, the russians going to different direction.

Check the F-35, under powered, slow, small, its strength coming from "networking", "stealth" "superior electronics" and so on.
Check the typical russian jest ,or su-57, big, twin engine, powerful, alone with degraded stealth more capable than the F-35 with full whistles and belts.

The system depending on robust elements, and the interconnection makes everything more powerful.
In the USA doctrine the system has weak elements, and the performance of elements depending on the interconnections.

Singular_Transform wrote:The system depending on robust elements, and the interconnection makes everything more powerful.
In the USA doctrine the system has weak elements, and the performance of elements depending on the interconnections.

Cannot imagine the US doing this on purpose but in the end you are right, they are over-reliant on hi-tech toys with many practical issues. I guess the need for overwhelming superiority to keep an aggressive foreign policy tolerated at home causes them exaggerating in the cutting-edge side of their weapons beyond what is really effective.
Russia cannot outspend the US and do not aim at utter superiority in any field to make aggression profitable, therefore they must carefully analyse the sensibility of their solutions against a determined American effort in any direction before committing the budget for development. The result is that they normally as you say opt for single elements with little or no clear weak spots that could be easily exploited, from carriers with ASM missiles to super-manoeuverable fighters that are also LO and networked. In war every element should be capable to hold its own at least minimally instead of being hostage of its supporting assets.

Singular_Transform wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
So what is your vision of 5g fighter? simple? ekhm  Russia is going exactly the same road BTW.

No, the russians going to different direction.

Check the F-35, under powered, slow, small, its strength coming from "networking", "stealth" "superior electronics" and so on.
Check the typical russian jest ,or su-57, big, twin engine, powerful, alone with degraded stealth more capable than the F-35 with full whistles and belts.

The system depending on robust elements, and the interconnection makes everything more powerful.
In the USA doctrine the system has weak elements, and the performance of elements depending on the interconnections.

BTW and in Russian doctrine  there are  no weak elements?


OK then we are actually talking about an implementation of 2 different approaches.  I'm afraid that comparison one to one makes not much sense because F-35 and Su-57 doctrine of application can vary so much it might be not really comparable.


Do you have more view on US doctrine wrt stealth? if tis so bad why they gone that way?  American can be ruthless invaders but they are not definitely not stupid.

LMFS wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:The system depending on robust elements, and the interconnection makes everything more powerful.
In the USA doctrine the system has weak elements, and the performance of elements depending on the interconnections.

Cannot imagine the US doing this on purpose but in the end you are right, they are over-reliant on hi-tech toys with many practical issues. I guess the need for overwhelming superiority to keep an aggressive foreign policy tolerated at home causes them exaggerating in the cutting-edge side of their weapons beyond what is really effective.
Russia cannot outspend the US and do not aim at utter superiority in any field to make aggression profitable, therefore they must carefully analyse the sensibility of their solutions against a determined American effort in any direction before committing the budget for development. The result is that they normally as you say opt for single elements with little or no clear weak spots that could be easily exploited, from carriers with ASM missiles to super-manoeuverable fighters that are also LO and networked. In war every element should be capable to hold its own at least minimally instead of being hostage of its supporting assets.

definitely the convincing way of perceiving things. I wonder why US gone so much against maneuverable fighters and made stealth main asset?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:definitely the convincing way of perceiving things. I wonder why US gone so much against maneuverable fighters and made stealth main asset?

Implied in my previous post. They do not want attrition, they want to effortlessly eliminate blips on the screen while remaining unseen and unscathed. As a defender attrition is unavoidable and hence tolerated, as a voluntary aggressor it is not. Hence IMHO the bet in stealth both as military asset and as a tool of propaganda.

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:definitely the convincing way of perceiving things. I wonder why US gone so much against maneuverable fighters and made stealth main asset?

Implied in my previous post. They do not want attrition, they want to effortlessly eliminate blips on the screen while remaining unseen and unscathed. As a defender attrition is unavoidable and hence tolerated, as a voluntary aggressor it is not. Hence IMHO the bet in stealth both as military asset and as a tool of propaganda.

VLO will work every time only with technological advanced adversary not that good. Then I wonder how their doctrine address this?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
VLO will work every time only with technological advanced adversary not that good.  Then I wonder how their doctrine address this?

Mainly by not fighting advanced adversaries
Imperial military is a tool for power and profit, not for defence of the homeland after all.