Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News #2

Mir wrote:Posted today by Hole showing the unique blue colour of the Su-34 ready to go in Ukraine >>

The little ECM pod under the belly is only carried by the Su-34. 

It's a very shitty ECM pod

I wasn't saying it is not a su-34 on the pic. I'm saying su-35 can carry this missile too and use it and that even il-38 can use it for stand off attacks and are better plateform to have than useless su-34.

So saying su-34 is good because it launches a cruise missile from friendly sky is dumb. You can use abd il-76 if you want for that purpose. Or su-35 that can really fight enemies.

We saw su-35 doing SEAD and interceptions of migs during a same mission. Meanwhile su-34 is launching missiles from russian territory and being used as a dumb su-25A. Even su-25SM2 are of better use than su-34.

@alamo could you quote 1 of your answers were you provide facts ? I provided you facts. Su-34 aren't used for deep strike like they were designed for. They get destroyed even with their jammers on and US have now a capture set of last su-34 jammer to study very well. They do very low flying attacks on the front because they are affraid of ukro AD.

You haven't provided any fact. You just troll. If you have nothing better to say just **** off and don't answer.

Mir wrote:It's a very shitty ECM pod

Yeah the mighty that jammed Donald Cook but can't jamm ukrainian soviet made systems.

Really nice. Even better now that US have its two little brothers to study.

The missiles on the Su-34's in the pictures are not long range cruise missiles that can be launched from outside Ukrainian territory.

"But su-35 can use it too"....

Isos wrote:"But su-35 can use it too"....

You are the one making claims that the Su-34 is "scared" to enter Ukrainian territory because it is so shitty. The pictures above from the SMO proves that you are wrong - simple as that.

Point is no matter what evidence we present your ego will not except it. French wine is the best wine in the world you know - what can I say

Isos wrote:
So saying su-34 is good because it launches a cruise missile from friendly sky is dumb.

Meanwhile su-34 is launching missiles from russian territory and being used as a dumb su-25A.

Su-34 aren't used for deep strike like they were designed for.

It amazes me how cynical you are to write these things even after I posted here that even Ukrainian sources admit that Russia has used the Su-34 to carry out attacks hundreds of kilometers into Ukrainian territory.

"According to Ukrainian command “central” on August 16th Russian Aerospace Forces launched an attack on Ozernoe military airfield.
According to the source, the airfield was attacked by two X-59 missiles from a Su-34 aircraft.
https://t.me/DonbassDevushka/19581
Note: Ozernoe military airfield is hundreds of kilometers inside Ukrainian territory"

Mir wrote:

Isos wrote:"But su-35 can use it too"....

You are the one making claims that the Su-34 is "scared" to enter Ukrainian territory because it is so shitty. The pictures above from the SMO proves that you are wrong - simple as that.

Point is no matter what evidence we present your ego will not except it. French wine is the best wine in the world you know - what can I say  

They aren't entering ukraine. It's a fact, not my opinion.

After 8 months they just launch stand off missiles from safe friendly areas or bomb safe place on the front where they are sure there is no AD.

Ukrainians film kalibr everytime they use it. If su-34 was flying above ukraine and above their cities there would be videos. The only one we saw where provided by russia and were above the front with no AD activities and they were flying very low.

Belisarius wrote:

Isos wrote:
So saying su-34 is good because it launches a cruise missile from friendly sky is dumb.

Meanwhile su-34 is launching missiles from russian territory and being used as a dumb su-25A.

Su-34 aren't used for deep strike like they were designed for.

It amazes me how cynical you are to write these things even after I posted here that even Ukrainian sources admit that Russia has used the Su-34 to carry out attacks hundreds of kilometers into Ukrainian territory.

"According to Ukrainian command “central” on August 16th Russian Aerospace Forces launched an attack on Ozernoe military airfield.
According to the source, the airfield was attacked by two X-59 missiles from a Su-34 aircraft.
https://t.me/DonbassDevushka/19581
Note: Ozernoe military airfield is hundreds of kilometers inside Ukrainian territory"

Take a map genius.

That airfield is within 200km from the border of Belarus. Last versions of kh-59 have 290km range.

Another proof they use su-34 from safe places.


Su-34 should be ruling over the skies of ukraine today if we beleive how they describ the plabe in their military shows.

What they need to do is stop that su-34 production and build a su-57 bomber version.

Su-57 without the expensive radar. Take an old radar which is good for terrain mapping and ship detection. Replace the 3d thrust engines by a normal engine to reduce cost. Use a targeting pod instead of build in targeting systems. Don't bother with multirole just make it as cheap as possible for bombing. Buy 600 of them.

Isos wrote:[

Take a map genius.

That airfield is within 200km from the border of Belarus. Last versions of kh-59 have 290km range.

Another proof they use su-34 from safe places.

Su-34 should be ruling over the skies of ukraine today if we beleive how they describ the plabe in their military shows.

Kh-29 missile on Su-34 during SMO. Missile range depending on variant 10-30kms

And ? Which target ?

Mir wrote:

Let me guess. It was accross the border ?

You mean like Israel uses F-35s and the latest model F-16s.

You have a warped understanding of military hardware... something that is not invincible is shit.

In a war against a third world country with no direct support like ISIS and the Kurds in Syria then there have been zero losses, but in a near peer conflict against a former soviet state with full HATO support including western air defence equipment then a few losses are to be expected.

It is surprising you don't understand and appreciate that.

Also your assumptions was that the Su-34 was not being used... photos were provided showing it being loaded with weapons that are presumably being used, you then step back your accusations that it is using stand off weapons... well that is what it was designed to do...

Claiming it is useless because it is too vulnerable to use as a classic bomber have also been refuted with information about it bombing various front line enemy positions...

Next it will be shit because you don't like the colour scheme.

Isos wrote:
I provided you facts

You criticize the Su-34 for having a mechanical scan radar when in fact it has a Pesa radar.
You criticize Iskander's accuracy when there are videos of him directly hitting a Buk.
You don't provide facts, what you do is provide lies/disinformation.

Isos wrote:
If you have nothing better to say just **** off and don't answer.

Of course you want no one to answer you, because every time someone does you end up being refuted.

Isos wrote:
They get destroyed even with their jammers

Half a dozen lost Su-34s and Ukraine begging the West for AD since the beginning of the war indicate that the flanker spends more time destroying than being destroyed.

Isos wrote:
They do very low flying attacks on the front because they are affraid of ukro AD.

The curvature of the Earth helps to hide aircraft flying at low altitude, but even so, on a flight at 15 meters altitude an aircraft can be detected at more than 30 km by ground level radar, and on a flight at more than 100 meters could be detected at hundreds of kilometers and I have not seen any video of the Su-34 flying at less than 100-50 meters altitude.
Arguing that Su-34s fly low for fear of Ukrainian AD makes no sense simply because that would be of little help even more so on flat terrain like the Ukrainian.

Isos wrote:
US have now a capture set of last su-34 jammer to study very well.

And Russia has thousands of Stingers and Javelins captured, as well as countless Harm, Brismonte and Himars that fell without detonating to study well.

Isos wrote:
That airfield is within 200km from the border of Belarus. Last versions of kh-59 have 290km range.

They are not using the Kh-59, but the Kh-29 with a range of 10-30 km, if the airfield is 200 km from the Belarusian border it means that the Su-34 are launching missiles 170-190 km inside the Ukrainian territory.

Also your assumptions was that the Su-34 was not being used... photos were provided showing it being loaded with weapons that are presumably being used, you then step back your accusations that it is using stand off weapons... well that is what it was designed to do...

After 7 months it barely enters Ukrraine and launches missiles from outside ukraine. 0 deep strike.

It's a failed aircraft.

You criticize the Su-34 for having a mechanical scan radar when in fact it has a Pesa radar.
You criticize Iskander's accuracy when there are videos of him directly hitting a Buk.
You don't provide facts, what you do is provide lies/disinformation.

Pesa radar that has a 120km range against a fighter. Against new fighter with reduced it has much less range. Its ground mapping capabilities were already criticized.

I never said Iskander is shit. I said it isn't as good as advertized. Proof is that airfield where it missed all the targets.

Of course you want no one to answer you, because every time someone does you end up being refuted.

No he just trolls and never bother talking seriously. He is just a pro russian trolls that get triggered everytime you dare to criticize something russian.

Half a dozen lost Su-34s and Ukraine begging the West for AD since the beginning of the war indicate that the flanker spends more time destroying than being destroyed.

Half a dozen for 0 deep strike like it was supposed to do is embarassing. .

If they do use it against western cities of ukraine they would quickly loose all of their fleet.

The curvature of the Earth helps to hide aircraft flying at low altitude, but even so, on a flight at 15 meters altitude an aircraft can be detected at more than 30 km by ground level radar, and on a flight at more than 100 meters could be detected at hundreds of kilometers and I have not seen any video of the Su-34 flying at less than 100-50 meters altitude.
Arguing that Su-34s fly low for fear of Ukrainian AD makes no sense simply because that would be of little help even more so on flat terrain like the Ukrainian

Made up and fake numbers. And in reality terrain is not flat. You fly low only to escape radars, there is no other advantage. After 7 months of war they still fly very low and only on the front which means ukrainian AD are still operating at artillery range which means russians have issues detecting them 30km away which is really bad for them.

And Russia has thousands of Stingers and Javelins captured, as well as countless Harm, Brismonte and Himars that fell without detonating to study well.

There is nothing to learn from that. HARM lock passively on your radars. Himars is a mlrs. Meanwhile jammers can be countered if hou know how they work.

They are not using the Kh-59, but the Kh-29 with a range of 10-30 km, if the airfield is 200 km from the Belarusian border it means that the Su-34 are launching missiles 170-190 km inside the Ukrainian territory.

No argument so you change your arguments

It's you and your source who said they use kh-59. Read again and calm down. Sucking russian dicks won't help you have a better life.

ALAMO wrote:As I have already said, his entries are too ridiculous to even answer them.
The most hilarious part of it is how much a butthurt and ego emanation can spoil common sense.

This a typical reply of a troll that is just pro something and spend his time saying my stuff better than yours because I said so. You remind me f-16.net dumbasses but in a russian version.

It's only your ego that is hurt. Pictures of downed su-34 everywhere and you can't come up with an argument that explain rationally why it is so bad so you just troll whoever criticize it to make him stop.

We saw that with russian drones too. They sucked and you attacked all the people criticizing them. And now that they have to buy iranian drones you can't explain it rationnally. Well, the only explaination is that they are just as good as su-34. They suck and iranians make better drones.

@Isos

Don't know why but something tells me that this is a fake profile

Cheers mate!

Nothing says it quite like a picture

Mir wrote:Nothing says it quite like a picture  

Isos writes nonsense. I wrote him nicely that some people have more cars in their collection than France has tanks and howitzers.
And when he mentions "arguments", I think there is no stronger argument than this. I wonder what those huge tens of billions of dollars are going to, on overpriced 40+ (the Rafale project is that old) year old planes that have not proven themselves anywhere.
And if he believes that the country can be saved by "wings", then I don't know what to write to such a man. Terrain, without victory on the field there is no victory in the war.

Yes the Rafale is great but it is an old design. The demonstrator flew back in 1986. I really do like the French fighters but somehow they never built the ones I really liked - like the Mirage G8, the F2 and the Mirage 4000. I guess they were too expensive - even for the French!