General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Gman on March 18, 2015, 07:37:22 PM
Title: SU 34 Full Back
Post by: Gman 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.
Title: Re: SU 34 Full Back
Post by: Scherf on March 19, 2015, 06:34:46 AM
Comparative range of F 15 and Su 34, with similar bombloads?
Title: Re: SU 34 Full Back
Post by: Gman 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.
Title: Re: SU 34 Full Back
Post by: Rich46yo 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?
Title: Re: SU 34 Full Back
Post by: XxDaSTaRxx 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.
Title: Re: SU 34 Full Back
Post by: Zimme83 on March 20, 2015, 10:52:40 PM
Doesnt work, can still see the plane. they must fix that smoke device.
Title: Re: SU 34 Full Back
Post by: SFRT - Frenchy on March 20, 2015, 11:24:45 PM
Looks like the successor of the SU24 on a Flanker platform :old:
Title: Re: SU 34 Full Back
Post by: Gman 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.
Title: Re: SU 34 Full Back
Post by: Scherf 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.
Title: Re: SU 34 Full Back
Post by: Rich46yo 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.
Title: Re: SU 34 Full Back
Post by: Scherf 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.
Title: Re: SU 34 Full Back
Post by: Rich46yo on March 22, 2015, 04:33:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: SU 34 Full Back
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 23, 2015, 12:53:44 PM
The SU-34 is the replacement for the SU-24 Fencer, not the Tu-22M Backfire.
Title: Re: SU 34 Full Back
Post by: Rich46yo on March 23, 2015, 02:37:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: SU 34 Full Back
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 23, 2015, 02:50:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: SU 34 Full Back
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 23, 2015, 03:07:12 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.
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.
Title: Re: SU 34 Full Back
Post by: Mister Fork on March 23, 2015, 03:33:57 PM
...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.
Title: Re: SU 34 Full Back
Post by: Mace2004 on March 23, 2015, 04:04:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: SU 34 Full Back
Post by: Gman on March 23, 2015, 05:11:01 PM
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).
Title: Re: SU 34 Full Back
Post by: Perrine on March 30, 2015, 10:16:19 PM
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?
Title: Re: SU 34 Full Back
Post by: DaveBB on April 02, 2015, 05:06:50 PM
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).
Title: Re: SU 34 Full Back
Post by: Gman on May 17, 2015, 10:29:42 AM
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.
Title: Re: SU 34 Full Back
Post by: Rich46yo on May 18, 2015, 02:23:16 PM
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. :salute
Title: Re: SU 34 Full Back
Post by: artik on May 20, 2015, 09:33:09 AM
Storm is coming... (https://flic.kr/p/s27opd) by xnir (https://www.flickr.com/photos/xnir/), on Flickr
Title: Re: SU 34 Full Back
Post by: Mister Fork on May 20, 2015, 10:16:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: SU 34 Full Back
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 20, 2015, 10:28:43 AM
Stands off over 300km away which no A2A missile has the range.
That is about to change though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-100_%28missile%29
Title: Re: SU 34 Full Back
Post by: Mace2004 on May 20, 2015, 03:26:19 PM
Don't underestimate the difficulty of targeting aircraft at such extreme ranges. I could get into all of the problems but let's just say there are many. Also, don't overestimate the ease with which we can develop and maintain the air picture, it's hardly a video game if your adversary has sophisticated jamming capability. Unlike the Iraqis, the Russians have put tremendous effort and resources into EW. It would not be Iraq again. That's not even considering the worst case scenario which would be the intelligent employment of EMP weapons.
Title: Re: SU 34 Full Back
Post by: Oldman731 on May 20, 2015, 08:41:15 PM
Perhaps, but most military equipment is hardened against EMP. At least the equipment I used in the late 90's were all 'EMP' proof (MIL-STD-464) and the AWACS should have most of their main systems built to MIL-STD-2169. That isn't saying that ALL systems are EMP proof, but it's a nuke. And the moment a 'nuke' is used for EMP or small tactical warhead, I think we all have other issues to worry about and maybe losing a couple of cockpit instruments not hardened...but whether or not you'll have an actual airport or safe place to land.