Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News #2

It was spotted on su-34 in Syria back in 2018 during the NATO missile attack.

Yes, that was for testing.

How many Su-34s does the Russian Navy operate?

Having missiles like the Kh-35U available on aircraft like the Su-30SM and Su-34 would be far more flexible than being on a boat or a land based missile system.

The Russians are not as air power focussed as the west is.

The Navy would be more likely to sent a patrol boat if there is an incursion or potential incursion... as we saw with the British corvette violating Russian waters in the Crimea.... the planes were Su-24s and they had iron bombs for warning "shots".

Being a coastal thing if they had to sink it it most likely would have been via a missile launched from a shore battery... or 10.

Russia certainly has the capability together with the Kh-31's for example.

And the Kh-59 and Kh-59M (AS-13 and AS-18) and newer models as well...

Even the Ka-52 is set to use the Kh-35. It would be a waist sinking a small missile strike craft with something like the Kh-32 or Kinzhal.

I would expect for small missile boats that Hermes or even Kh-38 would be used to remain outside the range of MANPAD air defence.

Kh-35 is pretty useless for the aircaft. They have better weapons like kh-31 for anti ship or kh-59 for ground attack.

Kh-35 is actually a rather good missile... many western naval CIWS struggle with missiles flying below 5m... Phalanx being an obvious example...

I would not say that any of the current Russian anti-ship missiles are useless - they are by far the best in the world as far as I am concerned.

I totally agree and would suggest a regiment of flanker type aircraft launching dozens of missiles could be smart and being able to carry about 6 decent anti ship missiles per aircraft and there being 24 aircraft means you could climb to reasonable altitude and speed and launch some Kh-35s, and then appear to turn away, and then ten minutes later climb and accelerate again and launch a volley of Kh-31s timed so they arrive first... the enemy ships will likely notice the activity and wonder if they are under attack... with the second volley of high flying mach 3.5 missiles they will know they are under attack and be able to track the missiles streaking towards them.

But then a ship like a British frigate with 48 missiles is going to struggle... and as it is dealing with the high flying fast missiles will it notice the 4m altitude subsonic missiles sneak over the horizon heading towards them?

For ships like the upgraded Udaloy then having UKSK means a choice of weapons, but equally in any ship group it might be fighting there will be ships that don't require supersonic missiles to take out... support ships... troop transport ships... tankers... a few Kh-35s can take those down in the background while the faster missiles are dealing with the bigger threats...

What missile to use (including ATGM's) would depend on the situation. For example you won't use an ATGM on a small missile ship if there is a significant anti-air threat in the area.

Kh-25L or Hermes would be good choices... even the Grom glide bombs/rocket powered bomb based on the Kh-38 would be rather useful for a variety of targets.

The Russians like the Soviets will certainly use air power together with submarines as their primary strike asset against NATO's navies.

This is probably true, but don't expect them to turn into HATO and suddenly start depending on air power for everything, they will remain largely defensive, and so the anti ship capacity they will use most will be coastal batteries... which includes the Uran (Bal), but Uran is primarily a light anti ship weapon that can be carried by tactical fighters and helicopters as well as smaller patrol ships.

It wont be the core of the Russian Navy like the Harpoon is for the western navies.

The Tu-22M3 is a prime example of that power.

And as I pointed out the Tu-22M3 will likely be carrying Kh-32s, or another weapon that allows good standoff launch range performance for the aircraft.

The Su-34 is more likely to end up with something like a Brahmos-M type smaller lighter faster version of Brahmos... but based on Zircon... that is maybe 1 ton to 1.5 tons each so it could perhaps carry five-six missiles at a time, or an upgraded Su-33 might do the same.

With the British destroyer's incursion and the few brave NATO ships that followed, the Russians showed a lot more teeth than the few warning bombs that were dropped by the Su-24. There was clear footage of Su-30SM's armed with Kh-31's escorting these ships.

That was the Get out of here Stalker... scene.... if it was a British carrier group with landing ships, the aircraft would be fitted with anti radiation models of the Kh-31, and air to air missiles to deal with British carrier based aircraft, but the ships themselves would likely be attacked and sunk with coastal anti ship missiles fired in enormous numbers to overwhelm the defences of the British ships.

With shore based missiles like the Bal and Bastion systems - you will have to wait for the enemy ships to get into range before you can engage them. Something like the Su-30SM armed with a Kh-31/35/59 can basically pick and choose where and when to strike. That's the flexibility I'm talking about.

But where do you decide to sink the ships?

One could argue that the Black Sea is a Russian dominated lake, but it has HATO countries that could host enormous numbers of western fighters if they wanted to... a military coup that overthrows Erdogan and leads to a pro US/pro UK anti Russian idiot could lead to Turkey allowing all sorts of ships into the Black Sea...

Sinking ships in the Med does not really help Russia because the Su-30s would be vulnerable all the way there and back and while a regiment of Flankers could launch 100 + missiles at the British ships, they are probably not the missiles you would want to lead with for such an attack... the new longer ranged Kh-31s move at Mach 3.5 over about 300km or so but they have much better missiles... why would they not use those?

The Kh-35 and Kh-31s are excellent missiles for inside the Black Sea or Baltic or Pacific or Northern fleet and out at sea they could also be used in specific situations against certain ships where you only want a 145kg boom instead of something much bigger, but neither are likely to become their primary anti ship missile... the Kh-31 being valuable in this sense as a passive homing anti radar missile too.

Presumably Su-34 with an outboard tank with a built-in Sych reconnaissance container

production ongoing
Novosibirsk - Eltsovka airfield
Date: October 16, 2021

A bad system if you ask me. If I correctly understand it's a fuel tank with EW/EO system inside ? Too big and the good thing about fuel tank is that you can throw them away and not be slow down by it.

This one you can't.

Su-34 has already inbuild systems that could have been upgraded.

It comes down to aerodynamics though... the turbulance a long narrow pod might actually create more drag than a larger pod that better fills the cavity, so putting fuel in there allows a better fit and less extra drag.

The fundamental advantages of an external pod remain... the extra fuel will offset the extra drag of the pod being carried... and in peace time it is pretty rare for most countries to actually drop the tanks because recovery and of course panel beating and repair cost money too.

The point is that this is a large pod that should have enormous volume space for extra electronics that can be very very up to date and changed all the time without having to sent aircraft away to get upgrades and tweaks.

More importantly they could design it so the fuel in the pod could be pumped through the electronics bays for cooling for high energy jammers or other equipment that could otherwise overheat.

The Flanker series don't normally use external fuel tanks anyway so I suspect this is about overcoming increased drag from the pod to restore flight range, rather than adding flight range with a fuel tank that also has some electronics inside.

It means there is plenty of space in the pod for adding extra electronics if needed without having to design a brand new pod too.

All round I think it is clever... didn't they have three new separate pods that share a design shape that fills the gap between the engines?

Yes I can agree to a certain extend with you but the Su-34 is first and foremost an attack aircraft and although it is very well equipped to defend itself from air attack it would certainly try to avoid contact when on a strike or reconnaissance mission.

The Su-34 is to replace the Su-24, but the Su-24 included recon and jammer model versions too which would also need to be replaced.

The Su-34 is fully multirole but specialist recon and jammer models can be expected with the appropriate pods and equipment as used with the Su-24MP et al.

Mir wrote:Ok so from what I can gather there is currently an order for an additional 76 aircraft. These are all new built to the NVO standard and the rest will all be upgraded to this standard as well?

24 are the ammount of current contract, with NVO standard

the next expected order for 76 Su-34M was not signed, still there are not Su-34M prototype

Any enemy carrier or amphibious assault task force approaching the Russian coastline would initially be attacked by the Tu-22M3's with Kh-32's and Mig31's with Kinzhals and SSGN's with Tsirkons etc. As I've said before - these are the principal weapons and missiles Russia would use in attacking major enemy naval ships.

Any left overs would be sunk or disabled by Su-34's and Su30SM's armed with Kh35/59 and Kh31. Any ships surviving that lot would only then get the attention of the coastal batteries. Russia is certainly not going to wait for any attacking force to first get into land based missile range before attacking these approaching ships. Mind you surface ships and subs will probably feast on the left over well before most of the Bal and Bastions would get a chance to get into action.

But at what point does the shooting start?

I would think an amphibious assault would be disguised as an exercise or some other subterfuge... somewhere like the Baltics with a landing attempt at Kaliningrad that is synchronised with attacks from other directions on land... it might not be apparent that it is a naval attack till the enemy ships are very close to land.

The Bal (URAN) and Bastion (Onyx) could engage targets from the shore out to about 250km for the former and 500km for the latter without any aircraft needing to get airborne... freeing up those aircraft for other duties... the point is that shore batteries are ready to fire 24/7 in any conditions which frees ships and aircraft for other jobs in different places along the coast or further out to sea.

Oniks range must be even greater. It was made to replace p-500/700/1000 which had ranges between 500-1000km.

It is a ramjet powered missile that flys at sea level... when the P-500/700/1000 were running on turbojet engines in full AB to fly supersonic at low altitude it was very inefficient and burning lots of fuel resulting in 5 to 7 ton missiles that are the size of small fighter planes.

The ramjet powered Onyx has a much more efficient propulsion with a ramjet so it is smaller and lighter, but because it flys at very low altitude it is not much faster but burns rather less fuel to do approximately the same thing.

Its flight range is normally given as about 300km for the land based missile, and 600km for the ship based model that operates at higher altitudes for the first portion of its flight.

Equally if the Iskander adopted a simple dumb ballistic flight path it could get better range too but would be easy to shoot down so it doesn't.

I don't think soviet navy back then would accept a new missile with a range smaller than its predecessor.

The reduction in size and weight means rather than only their heaviest and biggest ships and subs being able to carry it (Oscar I and II, Slava and Kirov and Kuznetsov class ships) the Onyx can be carried on new corvettes and on the Kirov instead of 20 missiles it can carry up to 80.

But then the Zircon is due soon with over 1,000km range and mach 9 flight speed... talk about spoiled for choice.

Speed must also be greater than the official 2.5 mach.

It would be much greater if it flew at altitude, but that makes it too vulnerable so it maintains a sea level flight profile which makes it exceedingly hard to engage...

For instance a F-35 on normal CAP patrol detects a group of Onyx missiles approaching the new British carriers... the missiles are moving at mach 2.5 at 10m above the waves and they are 20km away from the fighters off to one side... the only thing they could do is contact an escort ship and deliver the missile coordinates to the ships so they can engage with active radar homing missiles... because the Sidewinder and AMRAAM would not accelerate to high enough of a speed to intercept a target at that altitude and would be much much shorter ranged weapons at that altitude.

The Onyx has jammers and decoy dispensers and can detect active radar locks so it would detect the incoming threats and could perform some basic manouvers to make them rather hard to intercept...

I don't really take those official data as the real ones. Russians must lie about them to surprise US defences when they use it.

The US monitor tests and pay good money for information... and some people can't help boasting...