SU 34 Full Back

[Rich46yo]

It all again brings me back to my original question - how far can the damn thing go, with what, without refuelling?

Difficult to say due to all the sources. "Clean" its probably less then the F35C, or at most equal. With drop tanks its roughly 2,500 miles, the same as the F-15S/E. The Backfire bomber could fly almost 1,400 miles clean. The SU-34 carries about 8,000 lbs of ords. The F-15E about 23,000 lbs. Boeing also applied stealth advancements to its latest versions of the F-15.

[PR3D4TOR]

The SU-34 is the replacement for the SU-24 Fencer, not the Tu-22M Backfire.

[Rich46yo]

The SU-34 is the replacement for the SU-24 Fencer, not the Tu-22M Backfire.

Yes but production for the Backfire ended in the early '90s. The majority of the ones still in use were built in the '80s and 30 years is pushing it for Russian jet engines. Its assumed a variant of the SU-34 would be built for maritime strike should a priority for it become important. Like it was in The Cold War when the Backfire was considered a very serious threat to convoys and their escorts.

[PR3D4TOR]

Russian naval aviation has been gutted by the latest military reforms. All their strike and fighter aircraft are being transferred over to the VVS including the Backfires. Looks like the future of Russian naval aviation will be limited to ASW and carrier operations, plus other non-combat support roles.

[PR3D4TOR]

I ask because there's a number of folks down here who think we should have got the Sukhoi to replace the 111, instead of the *cough* F-18.

The reason Australia should not buy the Flanker has got noting to do with performance, but the fact that Russia is not an ally to Australia or any other NATO country. Reliable logistical support and spare parts are a lot more important than any performance advantage. Like Gman has stated there are no suitable aircraft to replace the F-111 in the medium strike role, but the F-18 is a good strike fighter. The Flanker or Fullback isn't a F-111 either. More like a reduced capability F-15E.

[Mister Fork]

...the F-18 is a good strike fighter. The Flanker or Fullback isn't a F-111 either. More like a reduced capability F-15E.

Agreed.  The Super Hornet even more so.

Gman - wasn't the Su-34 designed around being a shorter range heavy lift bomber/attack aircraft?  If memory serves me correct, designed to replace the SU-24 (as mentioned by Predator) and more of a 'stand-off' platform weapons delivery - rather than a 'mud hen' like the F-15.  But more specialty work around AAA battery hunting, guided munitions, and cruise missile delivery.

[Mace2004]

Interesting video but the "fight" was nothing but a bit of tail chasing with no defensive moves.  I saw vapes on the 34 only once and none from the 27 and I think the pilot only mentioned 5G once and there was what, one sorta "vertical" move? It really doesn't demonstrate much but the very first flight in BFM 101 which is unfortunate as I'd like to have seen a full on fight even if the 34 started offensive.  I'd guess about 5 seconds until the 27 neutralized him and another 15 seconds max till the 34 was defensive.  I did notice the 34 appears to have some very nice handling qualities with no noticeable negative factors like wing rock under G or adverse yaw during rolls but it's only a video.  The side/side seating and rear bulkhead is nice for holding hands and sharing a cappuccino but would make the 34 a grape in a visual fight.  I flew the F-111 a couple of times and could not get over the almost complete lack of rearward visibility even when doing simple things like wingovers.  I'd turn to look back over the shoulder to clear my turn and all I saw was bulkhead, felt very blind and vulnerable. I thanked God that we didn't buy the F-111B model.  As an adversary I'd be much more concerned about the Eagle than the 34, at least in a visual engagement and especially with AIM-9X.  Haven't really kept up with the FSU so I don't know if they've got anything comparable to the 9X but assume the 34's forward quarter missiles and radar are probably pretty effective, still,  it would be a tough match against a 15 with AESA and AMRAAM.  Admittedly, I've always been a fan of the E model, and always argued the Navy would have been much smarter building an F-14E rather than relying on the Hornet.

[Gman]

Yes, a Mace sighting/posting!

First things first, Mace, have you heard about the F14 sim from DCS?  Any comments about that?  Their website had over 85 pages of responses in less than 12 hours, so I think the sim community is very pumped.  I'm sure you'll have a lot of great intel and stuff to say about it as things plod along.

Regarding the 34 and the side by side cockpits - I'd forgotten about that tbh, your description of what it's like was excellent (F111 but same idea).  I suppose having to look out the far window over your WSO or whatever they call him would be even harder than the already sucky view over your own left shoulder.

Regarding the Aim9x, I know the SU34 carries the Archer/AA11 as its primary SRM, more so than the AA8 shorter range Aphid.  I'd always read and been told the Archer was far superior to the Aim9m, and the Sidewinder only gained parity, possibly a bit of superiority, but not a lot, over the AA11 once the Aim9x came along.  What were the US Navy guys like you told about the Archer, I'd read that it was a rude shock for NATO forces when they started testing the AA11 the Germans got when Germany reunified and kept some of them with the Mig29s they kept for the first decade or so after 1990.

Is any of that true?  Was the AA11 that much better than the Aim9m, or was it just a function of having that helmet mounted sight system giving that off axis shot capability that made it so much superior (supposedly), or was the missile itself a lot better too?

Also, when you say it would take the Su27 5 seconds to neutralize that Su34 when it was behind it, what does that mean precisely?  Does neutralize mean getting out of that cone of vulnerability to be shot at with guns and a IR missiles?  If so, what is the criteria for that?  I understand the 15 seconds till defensive, meaning I think that it's the point when the Su27 would have turned the fight into a situation where it was gaining advantage on the 34.

Also, regarding the F15E vs Su34 loadouts, I think the Su34 can carry nearly 12000KG of ord, that's over the 23000 lbs the F15E is rated out, like I said, this was the only "advantage" I could find, if you can even call it that, of the 34 over the 15E.  I have no idea which can carry what in terms of range.

Regarding the AESA/F15E vs the SU34, any idea on how well that Passive electronic scan array radar on the SU34 works?  They claim very high power and the out to 250km range, but like Rich said, the Russians are known to..embellish...their claims often.  They also say there is a reward facing radar, and can mount the AA11 facing aft on some pylons, and shoot in reverse.  I've never seen much or read much anywhere on this capability or how it works in practice.  How do the new Amraams with the AESA the F15E uses, that combo of the SuperHornet and F15C radar, work compared to the AA12/Adder threats out there?

Lots of question I realize, but no better person to get answers/discussion from than Mace or Eagl.  (Puma as well).

[Perrine]

Haven't really kept up with the FSU so I don't know if they've got anything comparable to the 9X but assume the 34's forward quarter missiles and radar are probably pretty effective, still,  it would be a tough match against a 15 with AESA and AMRAAM. 

K-74M & M2 variants of R-73 "archer"?

also, FSU = former Soviet Union?

[DaveBB]

Looks like the SU-34 is what the F-111 (TFX) was designed to be.  Very multi-role fighter.  But like everything the Russians make, the success of it is dependent on logistics (training, upgrades, maintenance, supporting systems).

[Gman]

A good article regarding off boresight and HMS short range missile systems.  I referrences the AA11 Archer and the advantage I was speaking of that the Soviets had during the cold war - a bit off topic from the OP, but still a relevant issue IMO.  Nice to see the best fighter in the world getting the HMS and Aim9x now - as unlikely as close range fights may be for the F22, or at least as unlikely the F22 would want to stick around for one, and rely on its ability to stay low observable and use its long range weapons, it is possible for it to get into close range fights, and this upgrade will allow the F22 to compete with the majority of other fighters out there which have it. 

It's ridiculous to think that many Mig21s out there now have an HMS with the excellent AA11 or other missiles, while the F22 relies on 25+ year old tech with the Aim9m in that arena.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-its-sad-that-the-f-22-just-fired-its-first-guided-a-1704889474

[icepac]

1961 calling.......from 91,000 feet.

[Rich46yo]

G the odds of the SU 34 even living long enough to know the F22 was even there in the area are about none. F22's never fly alone so the single plane AMRAMM load out for them would be double what you think. Its seems the funds to develop them further dried up when it became obvious there was no real mission for them, or even an adversary capable of threatening them. And of course the Cold War ended, tho before the Raptor first flew.

But make no mistake, even a single squadron of them at Kadena totally changes the balance of air power in Asia.

Im glad we are further developing them. Another factor that has occurred since the period of F22 design is the further development of strike doctrine. The ranges of striking power of F18s, F35s, F15Es, F16s...ect have been extended by both air refueling and standoff weapons. In fact the ultra accurate, long range weaponry of air land and sea assets available to a strike commander is pretty astounding. As is our ability to control and manage the electromagnetic battlespace and to do all this as a networked system.

In short there are poor chances for ATA engagements when the enemys air defense network is annihilated in opening night strikes and what they have left to get in the air is both blinded and poorly coordinated. Look at Iraq, Bosnia, Libya. Maybe not a 4 star adversary but they had some pretty good Russian weapons and training, but in the end it didnt matter a whit. The Russians would do a little better, so would the Chinese even tho they have zero experience in modern warfare. In the end it wouldnt matter. Neither could control the battle space in the air.

I highly doubt the Russians could even stand against NATO fighting alone without America.

I have no doubt the SU-34 would be a very good Cold War strike fighter. But it would be like us pinning our hopes for the next 20 years on the F15E, "which BTW we pinned hopes on for the LAST 20 years". The Fullback is already a legacy aircraft no matter what they hang off it and no matter what they paint on it. Which would explain its total lack of export customers. 

[artik]

I present to you the F-111's successor, and probably more of the inspiration for the SU 34 than the F-111 was.  The F-15E Strike Eagle.

(Image removed from quote.)

Also this one as well...



Storm is coming... by xnir, on Flickr

[Mister Fork]

One word...
AWACS

Stands off over 300km away which no A2A missile has the range. During the Gulf War, the radar feeds I saw was like a video game version of Harpoon. AWACS can stream their own feeds into other control centres for analysis as well, not just the AWACs crew so field and wing commanders can make joint decisions on the information who are also getting situation map feeds from other units which overlays one another an can be fed into one big map, or into separate displays - i.e. navy, army, air, or combined, or navy/air (that was always on). And Air/Army was always up.

The Su-34, as a interesting weapons/standoff platform, would need to operate in an environment where AWACS aircraft are not able to track them and would be ideal in regional situations dealing with less technical hostiles.  It's too bad Russia is not in our good books right now because if the SU-34 could plug into a AWACs setup, would be a good extension for surveillance and engagement.