Author Topic: SU 34 Full Back  (Read 5967 times)

Offline Gman

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
SU 34 Full Back
« on: March 18, 2015, 07:37:22 PM »
This is one of my fav xSoviet/current Russian aircraft.  I was always a big F111 fan, and thought that its ability to carry such a large load, and the PaveTac system of the day, made it a fantastic medium sized strike aircraft.  Something the US and most allied nations lack now, since it and the A6 Intruder have been retired.  No more medium strike.  Some of the specialized weapons it carried can now only be carried by the B2, (penetrator bombs) now, and possibly the B1/B52.  It's a shame to lose that type of capability, while China is building a stealth variant in this category (J20), while Russia and some others maintain this SU34 in that category.  I remember Eagl saying something once that he wished the US would build a strike aircraft like the J20.  I'm sure the SU34 falls into that slot as well, minus some of the low observable stuff.

This set of videos came out today, fantastic stuff, some of the best I've seen on any Russian/Soviet aircraft.  The SU34 is incredible.  Huge cockpit, extra room for the pilots and even a place to stand up a little for a bit, make a large difference in crew efficiency and the ability to stay alert on long missions.  The side by side seating has advantages for communicating as well.  The load it carries is impressive, and it still has a decent ability to fight vs airborne threats.  Compare it to the F111 or A6 in this area, and there is no comparison.  Very interesting aircraft, a threat that I'm sure the West has studied a great deal.

Some of the narration in the vids is a little over the top - "SU34 is best boamer in warld, and can fight all fighters and defeats them" sort of stuff, but the 4th vid's footage from pylon mounted GoPros is worth it.


http://theaviationist.com/2015/03/18/su-34-cockpit-videos/

« Last Edit: March 18, 2015, 08:03:41 PM by Gman »

Offline master80

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 35
Re: SU 34 Full Back
« Reply #1 on: March 18, 2015, 08:31:05 PM »
While it isn't the prettiest aircraft (IMO) it gets the job done with the crew comfortable in that huge cockpit.

It's a shame the US doesn't have an aircraft like that!

(cue government shoving the F35 in our faces)
~242nd Sloppy Terminators~
huh what happened

Offline matt72078

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 37
Re: SU 34 Full Back
« Reply #2 on: March 19, 2015, 02:21:25 AM »
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.

"Best in the wing, hat in the ring!"

Offline Scherf

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
Re: SU 34 Full Back
« Reply #3 on: March 19, 2015, 06:34:46 AM »
Comparative range of F 15 and Su 34, with similar bombloads?
... missions were to be met by the commitment of alerted swarms of fighters, composed of Me 109's and Fw 190's, that were strategically based to protect industrial installations. The inferior capabilities of these fighters against the Mosquitoes made this a hopeless and uneconomical effort. 1.JD KTB

Offline Gman

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
Re: SU 34 Full Back
« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2015, 04:22:47 AM »
Eagl having flown the E model, posted some great stuff before in the forum about how the USAF still needed a larger medium attack aircraft, it was in one of the many F35 threads, I'll see if I can find it. 

As fantastic as the F15E is and has been for the USAF and the other forces that fly it, it's hard pressed to fill that slot that medium strike aircraft like the F111 and A6 for the Navy held for so long. 

Offline Rich46yo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
Re: SU 34 Full Back
« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2015, 10:36:20 PM »
How do you compare a huge export success with an airplane the Russians cant even give away?
"flying the aircraft of the Red Star"

Offline XxDaSTaRxx

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
Re: SU 34 Full Back
« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2015, 10:46:31 PM »
Eagl having flown the E model, posted some great stuff before in the forum about how the USAF still needed a larger medium attack aircraft, it was in one of the many F35 threads, I'll see if I can find it. 

As fantastic as the F15E is and has been for the USAF and the other forces that fly it, it's hard pressed to fill that slot that medium strike aircraft like the F111 and A6 for the Navy held for so long.
Here's yer strike aircraft

Quote from: Latrobe
Do not run.
Face your opponent with all you have.
If you die you have something to learn.


Offline Zimme83

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3077
Re: SU 34 Full Back
« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2015, 10:52:40 PM »
Doesnt work, can still see the plane. they must fix that smoke device.
''The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge'' - Stephen Hawking

Offline SFRT - Frenchy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5420
      • http://home.CFL.rr.com/rauns/menu.htm
Re: SU 34 Full Back
« Reply #8 on: March 20, 2015, 11:24:45 PM »
Looks like the successor of the SU24 on a Flanker platform  :old:
Dat jugs bro.

Terror flieger since 1941.
------------------------

Offline Gman

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
Re: SU 34 Full Back
« Reply #9 on: March 21, 2015, 07:58:57 AM »
Quote
How do you compare a huge export success with an airplane the Russians cant even give away?

I only compared the SU34 to the F111 and A6 in terms of a2a combat ability, something the Fullback is far superior to either of those planes from the same category of medium strike at, even though it isn't its primary function.

I compared the F15E to the F111/A6, as there are very critical munitions that the F15E can't drop that the F111 could.


I don't think anyone would argue the Su34 is superior to the F15E in any way, other than perhaps  load capacity, and even that is arguable depending on where you read those stats from.  The F15E however is inferior to what the F111 could do in terms of loadout and range.  The US seems to have abandoned the whole medium strike concept, while the Russians Su34 is sort of a pseudo medium striker, as the F15E can lift nearly as much, and go further with that load, and has far better weapons/systems, as well as probably being as good in the a2a arena if not better, although there are many who disagree with that on other forums.  Eagl would probably have a good idea on this point.

The Fullback is an incredible aircraft in its own right though IMO, considering how big it is, it's very maneuverable, something that still does matter even today.  It just proves that the Soviets/Russians still build...odd things that often turn out to function adequately.  There really is only one other a/c in the world that can be considered at least close to a medium striker that is designed to be able to "self escort" if need be.  At least until the J20 is in service.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2015, 08:00:47 AM by Gman »

Offline Scherf

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
Re: SU 34 Full Back
« Reply #10 on: March 21, 2015, 05:13:57 PM »
As above, I'd really like to see comparative ranges with equivalent bomb loads, or range on internal fuel only, etc.
... missions were to be met by the commitment of alerted swarms of fighters, composed of Me 109's and Fw 190's, that were strategically based to protect industrial installations. The inferior capabilities of these fighters against the Mosquitoes made this a hopeless and uneconomical effort. 1.JD KTB

Offline Rich46yo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
Re: SU 34 Full Back
« Reply #11 on: March 21, 2015, 06:02:33 PM »
To be honest I dont believe much what the Russians say. Im far more impressed with their export numbers, which is why I respect some of their AA systems.

The SU-34 strikes me as an airplane looking for a mission. Like the 111 did. There are more versatile SU's that fit the Jabo/Fighter multi-role better since I question the effectiveness of a bomb dumpers ATA ability. Its big, heavy, and you just cant paint on true stealth. It lacks the range of the Backfire it was meant to replave, that is if they have even made the maritime version of it yet.

Some of this can be made up for with tanker aircraft and stand off weapons, as we do. But the only Aircraft carrier they have is mother Russia so it is nothing but another peripheral medium bomber.

Its nice to see the Russians building something we did in the late '80s. But their potential customers seem to be unimpressed. They wont be able to build the numbers of air frames they say they intend to without exports. Their Mil/Indust complex is heavily dependent on exports. So whats that leave them with? Besides a generation behind.....again.
"flying the aircraft of the Red Star"

Offline Scherf

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
Re: SU 34 Full Back
« Reply #12 on: March 21, 2015, 11:29:40 PM »
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.
... missions were to be met by the commitment of alerted swarms of fighters, composed of Me 109's and Fw 190's, that were strategically based to protect industrial installations. The inferior capabilities of these fighters against the Mosquitoes made this a hopeless and uneconomical effort. 1.JD KTB

Offline Rich46yo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
Re: SU 34 Full Back
« Reply #13 on: March 22, 2015, 04:33:31 PM »
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.

Yeah thanks to Kopp and his wide experience flying military aircraft <cough>. Was it one hour or two hours in the back seat of an F-18?
"flying the aircraft of the Red Star"

Offline Scherf

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
Re: SU 34 Full Back
« Reply #14 on: March 22, 2015, 09:33:56 PM »
It all again brings me back to my original question - how far can the damn thing go, with what, without refuelling?
... missions were to be met by the commitment of alerted swarms of fighters, composed of Me 109's and Fw 190's, that were strategically based to protect industrial installations. The inferior capabilities of these fighters against the Mosquitoes made this a hopeless and uneconomical effort. 1.JD KTB