Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:32 am

    I am actually surprised they haven't fitted something like President-M self defence system with DIRCM and other protections from optical and IR guided missiles.

    Flying low and fast will make the aircraft subject to MANPADS attention...

    Of course in lower intensity conflicts I would expect flying at medium height would improve their chances of spotting targets and yet remain out of reach of a lot of ground fire.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9432
    Points : 9924
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News

    Post  George1 on Thu Dec 29, 2011 7:47 am

    i think full gray, it will be fantastic camouflage

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Dec 29, 2011 10:07 am

    The US likes full relatively light low visibility gray.

    The effect of the blue underside will obviously be effected by underwing ordinance, but the idea is generally sound.

    Looking at the photos it is interesting... these planes might be new, but I suspect they have been flown supersonically already just looking at the paint wear on the leading edge root extensions in this photo:


    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9432
    Points : 9924
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News

    Post  George1 on Thu Dec 29, 2011 12:26 pm

    Kh-15 anti-ship cruise missile can be carried by su-34??

    TheArmenian
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1511
    Points : 1674
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News

    Post  TheArmenian on Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:14 pm

    GarryB wrote:Looking at the photos it is interesting... these planes might be new, but I suspect they have been flown supersonically already just looking at the paint wear on the leading edge root extensions in this photo:

    I think that "paint wear syndrome" is called: snow Very Happy

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News

    Post  SOC on Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:05 am

    TR1 wrote:Well, the grey Su-34s arrived. And they are uggggggggggggly.

    Don't know about you, but I think the new paintjob is pretty damn slick.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News

    Post  GarryB on Fri Dec 30, 2011 2:38 am

    Kh-15 anti-ship cruise missile can be carried by su-34??

    It should be able to... the question is, does the Kh-15 anti ship missile actually exist.

    The Kh-15 is an anti radiation missile normally fitted with a low yield nuclear warhead and is used for SEAD operations carried on Tu-22M3 aircraft. The Tu-22M3 can carry up to 10 Kh-15s at one time with 4 externally on pylons and 6 in an internal rotary launcher.

    Because the Tu-22M3 is seen in the west as an anti carrier aircraft (which was one of its roles) many western experts speculated on an anti ship version of the missile... after all a rocket with a range of 250km that climbs to 40,000m and then dives on its target at mach 5 would be a tricky thing to stop as few SAMs can hit targets at that height, so it is only really vulnerable on the launch aircraft and during its high speed dive on the target.

    The question is what sort of guidance could they use.

    I think that "paint wear syndrome" is called: snow

    DOH!!!! You are right... at the time I thought it was strange... Russian paint technology is pretty good normally.

    Don't know about you, but I think the new paintjob is pretty damn slick.

    It is quite a departure from normal, I would like to see more photos of it in the air before I decide, because really I like or don't like a paint job based on how effective it is, not how pretty it makes the plane look.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News

    Post  TR1 on Sun Jan 08, 2012 2:39 am

    SOC wrote:
    TR1 wrote:Well, the grey Su-34s arrived. And they are uggggggggggggly.

    Don't know about you, but I think the new paintjob is pretty damn slick.

    I agree, my initial impression was based on those few first photos where it looked like ass. Much better in the high res.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News

    Post  TR1 on Sun Jan 08, 2012 2:47 am

    George1 wrote:Kh-15 anti-ship cruise missile can be carried by su-34??

    Kh-15 is not in the inventory any more Sad .

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News

    Post  medo on Sat Jan 21, 2012 4:53 pm

    It's interesting, that only last two dark gray 05 and 10 have modified tail stinger, while other four are in standard color and have standard stinger. Could this two are dedicated SEAD / DEAD version of Su-34 equipped with inside jammers, jamming pods, towed decoys and anti-radar missiles to have a plane like EA-18 Growler or EA-6 Prowler?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:17 pm

    That is certainly possible... in fact considering experience in Georgia I would think their need for ELINT and Jammer aircraft is greater than it ever was.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News

    Post  medo on Sun Jan 22, 2012 10:11 am

    It will be interesting to see in this and next years, how many dedicated SEAD Su-34 versions will be build. They need at least a squadron or two to replace old Mig-25 in this role.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jan 22, 2012 12:19 pm

    And despite the Mig-25 being quite good in this role, it will benefit them to reduce the range of aircraft in service and hopefully remove another engine type from the maintainence schedule...

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News

    Post  TR1 on Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:55 pm

    Don't expect any dedicated SEAD Su-34s throughout this decade, they first need to get adequate numbers of the aicraft into service. However given the pods available, a dedicated variant may not be needed at all.

    MiG-25 hasn't been used in realistic SEAD role for years, they fly a few of them for reco at this point, but we can consider it gone for all practical warfighting purposes.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jan 22, 2012 11:59 pm

    MiG-25 hasn't been used in realistic SEAD role for years, they fly a few of them for reco at this point, but we can consider it gone for all practical warfighting purposes.

    Yet, as the conflict in Georgia showed SEAD is critical... and a dozen SEAD dedicated Su-34s would be worth rather more than 500 strike Su-34s right now.

    With 12 Su-34s dealing with enemy air defences then even the Su-24M can perform the strike roles needed for now.

    As shown in the conflict Tu-22M3s were used to bomb enemy airfields... with better SEAD the results would have been rather different.

    Right now sophisticated SEAD is what they lack... and a decent fixed wing jammer aircraft wouldn't be a bad idea too.

    Lets face it, the SEAD and jammer versions of the Su-24 will have aged more than the strike versions, and will need replacing first.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9432
    Points : 9924
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News

    Post  George1 on Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:40 am

    Concerning the anti-ship role that some friends raised in previous posts, the Su-32FN, a maritime strike variant intended to replace Russian naval aviation Su-24s.

    We know that 12 Su-30M have been ordered to replace black sea fleet Su-24 naval strike aircrafts. And possibly there will be the same replacement for the Su-24 of the former naval assault aviation regiment in Chernyakhovsk, Kaliningrad. (Does anyone have info?)

    In pacific and northmen fleet heavier Tu-22 are used, with primary role to "kill" us aircraft carriers and secondary other heavy ships. No Su-24 were used in the past in these fleets.

    I doubt that the Su-32FN will make it into front-line service.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News

    Post  TR1 on Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:48 am

    Just to nitpick, the 12 Su-30SMs for the BSF have not been ordered yet, but remain a possibility mentioned by Serdykov.


    I was curious why the obvious contender for the Su-24 replacement, the Su-34, was not purchased for this role. Might have to do with production ability @ NAPO, might not. I have not heard anything about naval trials for the aircraft, maybe it has just not been adapted for the role. I still think it is likely we will see it in Navy colors before the end of the decade.

    One thing I am very intersted in is the current state of the V004 radar, solid information on which is incredibly sparse. One would hope it is a much more potent unit for A2G than say Bars.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9432
    Points : 9924
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News

    Post  George1 on Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:41 am

    TR1 wrote:Just to nitpick, the 12 Su-30SMs for the BSF have not been ordered yet, but remain a possibility mentioned by Serdykov.


    I was curious why the obvious contender for the Su-24 replacement, the Su-34, was not purchased for this role. Might have to do with production ability @ NAPO, might not. I have not heard anything about naval trials for the aircraft, maybe it has just not been adapted for the role. I still think it is likely we will see it in Navy colors before the end of the decade.

    One thing I am very intersted in is the current state of the V004 radar, solid information on which is incredibly sparse. One would hope it is a much more potent unit for A2G than say Bars.

    I think however that Su-30SM are better for that case because they can perform both air-defense and strike roles.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jan 23, 2012 10:38 am

    We know that 12 Su-30M have been ordered to replace black sea fleet Su-24 naval strike aircrafts. And possibly there will be the same replacement for the Su-24 of the former naval assault aviation regiment in Chernyakhovsk, Kaliningrad. (Does anyone have info?)

    There was a news report where naval strike capability was being transfered to the Air Force. The Tu-22M backfires were going to DA and the land based fighters and interceptors and strike aircraft going to VVS and FA.

    All they seemed to be keeping were ship based aircraft and maritime patrol aircraft types.

    I was curious why the obvious contender for the Su-24 replacement, the Su-34, was not purchased for this role. Might have to do with production ability @ NAPO, might not. I have not heard anything about naval trials for the aircraft, maybe it has just not been adapted for the role.

    Some of the first photos of the Su-34 were flybys of the kuznetsov, which led to the assumption that it was a two seat carrier aircraft... either a trainer or a two seat strike aircraft.

    The slow production rate means other models will likely have higher priority for the moment, though if the K gets cats then a navy version could become a consideration. Imagine a model with a fixed radar antenna array on its back for navy AWACS use... I am sure Sukhoi has.

    I think however that Su-30SM are better for that case because they can perform both air-defense and strike roles.

    The Su-34 is no dogfighter, but would be a potent air to air opponent.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News

    Post  medo on Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:41 pm

    TR1 wrote:Don't expect any dedicated SEAD Su-34s throughout this decade, they first need to get adequate numbers of the aicraft into service. However given the pods available, a dedicated variant may not be needed at all.

    MiG-25 hasn't been used in realistic SEAD role for years, they fly a few of them for reco at this point, but we can consider it gone for all practical warfighting purposes.

    Those dark gray Su-34 are different than the rest of Su-34 and they are not recce version. They have different equipment in tail stinger, which could show on stronger jamming devise and towed decoy system, what could mean it is SEAD platform.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News

    Post  TR1 on Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:08 pm

    medo wrote:
    TR1 wrote:Don't expect any dedicated SEAD Su-34s throughout this decade, they first need to get adequate numbers of the aicraft into service. However given the pods available, a dedicated variant may not be needed at all.

    MiG-25 hasn't been used in realistic SEAD role for years, they fly a few of them for reco at this point, but we can consider it gone for all practical warfighting purposes.

    Those dark gray Su-34 are different than the rest of Su-34 and they are not recce version. They have different equipment in tail stinger, which could show on stronger jamming devise and towed decoy system, what could mean it is SEAD platform.

    Check it out, they discussed the tail stinger here. You read Russian right Medo? It just an APU. The grey birds have nothing in the way of stronger jammers or decoys compared to the other aircraft of the batch.

    http://paralay.iboards.ru/viewtopic.php?style=12&f=5&t=114&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=1890

    This page and the next.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News

    Post  medo on Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:01 pm

    Why would Su-34 need additional or stronger APU if it doesn't have more powerful electronics. Radar is the same, so the only other equipment, which need more power is jammer.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:20 am

    I have read that the new APU is to make the aircraft more independent of ground support and that it replaces an external APU on all new Su-34s.

    I still think a SEAD and Jammer version of the Su-34 would be more useful now than more strike aircraft.

    Strike aircraft without SEAD and Jammer support are very vulnerable, yet with a few SEAD/Jammer aircraft they are much safer and are able to do a much better job.

    Perhaps they have a SEAD/Jammer suite of pods that can be fitted to the Su-34 so they can all be jammers/SEAD aircraft or strikers.

    We have seen all sorts of jamming and sensor pods for the Su-30 and other members of the Flanker family.

    This APU has intakes at the vertical tail surface roots near the fuselage, so they are clearly designed to operate in flight as well as on the ground... perhaps the extra power they generate is to power new jammer pods.

    Obviously for the SEAD role they can already carry loads of ARMs and sensor pods and things and I would think all the extra onboard electronics is not just to find targets, but also to find threats and deal with them too.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News

    Post  TR1 on Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:38 pm

    http://orenburg.rfn.ru/archive/rnews.html?id=3094&date=06-01-2012

    Work on universal reco containers for Su-34 underway.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News

    Post  TR1 on Sat Jan 28, 2012 1:23 am

    http://aviaforum.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=291909&d=1327702857

    http://aviaforum.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=291910&d=1327702857

    Wow.......

    Sponsored content

    Re: Su-34 Tactical Bomber: News

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 3:10 pm


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 06, 2016 3:10 pm