American edition of The Drive: Russian Su-34 bomber has no analogues in the world

January 22 2022 29

The Russian Su-34 fighter-bomber is a beautiful, intriguing, unpretentious and unique aircraft that has no analogues in the world, writes the American edition of The Drive.

Su-34 has "crazy quirks". The nose of the fuselage has a flattened shape, for which the aircraft is called the "Duck". Inside is the Sh141 radar, behind which is a spacious double cabin with K-36DM ejection seats for the pilot and navigator.

The cockpit has one projection and five large liquid crystal displays, and even a sewage device for crew members. Thanks to the Platan optical system, the aircraft can hit ground targets with high accuracy at any time of the day.

An auxiliary power unit is located in the rear fuselage. Initially, they planned to place a rear hemisphere surveillance radar there, but changed their minds. At the same time, the Su-34 chassis have a tandem arrangement of wheels, which allows the fighter-bomber to operate even from low-quality runways. The Pika complex is used as a means of RER, and the Khibiny module is used for electronic warfare.

Most likely, in the future, the aircraft will undergo a modernization procedure and it will have even more capabilities.

- say the analysts of the publication.

We remind you that recently American experts recognized The Su-34 is the undisputed champion in terms of fuel capacity, taking into account the volume of both internal and external tanks.

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Joker62

0

23 January 2022 03: 31

Though a balm for the Soul for the aircraft manufacturer of this miracle ... A trifle, but good to hear ....
AICO

0

23 January 2022 05: 43

Because it is made by hand, for people, and not ... for rear-wheel drive !!!
sgrabik

-1

23 January 2022 12: 15

The aircraft undoubtedly turned out to be good, but time does not stand still and the need for a deep modernization of this machine is long overdue.
Teaser

-4

23 January 2022 15: 07

All the functions assigned to the Su-34 can be performed with great success by the Su-30SM. Launching it into production and mass production is an empty and meaningless transfer of people's money.
Look at the Americans: after the F-111, they made the F-15E, but they considered it unnecessary to reproduce the likeness of the F-111 at a new level. In the USSR, the Su-111 was created in the F-24 parity, the Su-15SM was created in the F-30E parity - but why else was the Su-34 needed? To have a front-line bomber, where is the kitchen, toilet and supply room?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30#Specifications_(Su-27PU/Su-30)

Empty weight: 17,700 kg
Gross weight: 24,900 kg
Max takeoff weight: 34,500 kg
Fuel capacity: 9,400 kg internal
Hardpoints: 12 hardpoints with a capacity of up to 8,000 kg
combat radius - 1500 km [they lie, of course, but 1100 km he will]
Maximum speed: Mach 2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34#Specifications_(Su-34)
Empty weight: 22,500 kg
Gross weight: 39,000 kg
Max takeoff weight: 45,100 kg
Fuel capacity: 12,100 kg internals
Hardpoints: 12 × on wing and fuselage with a capacity of 8,000 kg
1,100 km (radius of action with standard 8,000 kg weapons load)
Maximum speed: Mach 1.8

Moreover, the Su-30SM is also an excellent fighter, while the Su-34 is not ...
1. wamp
  
  +1
  
  23 January 2022 15: 19
  
  Quote: Teaser
  but what else did the Su-34 need? To have a front-line bomber, where is the kitchen, toilet and supply room?
  
  You were just too lazy to find out that this is an armored aircraft, designed to work in conditions of intense shelling by various types of weapons. Its main advantage is survivability. It was made based on the Su-25, but for a larger scale in the theater of battles.
  1. Half a hundred second
    
    -4
    
    23 January 2022 19: 25
    
    Quote: Wamp
    This is an armored aircraft designed to operate under conditions of intense shelling by various types of weapons.
    
    Hospidya, what a blizzard! Did you write the Su-34 into attack aircraft? I just want to exclaim - "Mykola, wake up, you're both ...".
    Remember: the Su-34 is a front-line bomber, a tactical strike aircraft. It was created as a replacement for the front-line Su-24. It is the BAPs, previously armed with Su-24s, that are now being re-equipped with Su-34s. "Rooks" are in service with assault squadrons.
    To begin with, pull up the materiel, because your comments are sloppy)
    1. wamp
      
      -1
      
      24 January 2022 03: 28
      
      Quote: Half a century and a half
      Remember: the Su-34 is a front-line bomber, a tactical strike aircraft.
      
      Those. you stubbornly claim that he does not have titanium armor (I am silent about active self-defense systems). Divine innocence.
      And there was a moment when there was a question of further development of the Su-25 line, since the Su-34 completely covers its strike functionality. Su-25 saved the ability to work with dirt and asphalt roads.
      1. Teaser
        
        +1
        
        24 January 2022 04: 54
        
        Those. you stubbornly claim that he does not have titanium armor (I am silent about active self-defense systems).
        
        There is. But the Su-30SM does not, and the F-15E / F-15EX does not. Clearly, everything is in Boeing "well, tu-py-e!" (C)
        
        Divine innocence.
        
        It is childish naivety to believe that since "the Russian Su-34 bomber has no analogues in the world," then, by virtue of this, it automatically becomes the best in the world. Just to make an analogue - no one has given up on FIG. As unnecessary.
        
        And there was a moment when there was a question of further development of the Su-25 line, since the Su-34 completely covers its strike functionality. Su-25 saved the ability to work with dirt and asphalt roads.
        
        The "parity" in the USA for the Su-25 aircraft is the A-10C. To say that the Su-34 can replace the Su-25 is simply ignorance. Some short-sighted Americans in the leadership also believed that the F-35 could replace everyone, including the A-10C - but no! You're naughty! Didn't work with the replacement. And they extended the service life of the A-10C until the 20XXth year ...
        
        wamp
        
        0
        
        24 January 2022 05: 21
        
        Quote: Teaser
        It is clear that in Boeing everything is "well, tu-py-e!" (With)
        
        This is your opinion. I thought about this but on a different plane. And here they simply did not order MO.
        
        Quote: Teaser
        It is childish naivety to believe that since "the Russian Su-34 bomber has no analogues in the world," then, by virtue of this, it automatically becomes the best in the world. Just to make an analogue - no one has given up on FIG. For uselessness.
        
        The Americans do not have a system for the high-precision release of conventional bombs (Platan?). Therefore, the Su-34 can complete the task of destroying almost any ground target, without any artistic dive, while remaining at an inaccessible height for field air defense. Using high-precision guided weapons, it can destroy moving vehicles, displacing the need for the Su-25, which is no longer going to be produced.
        
        Quote: Teaser
        The "parity" in the USA for the Su-25 aircraft is the A-10C. To say that the Su-34 can replace the Su-25 is simply ignorance.
        
        If I'm "ignorance", then how to call your level?
        "A pile of whale shit at the bottom of the ocean"? ("Worms", Robert Flanagan)
        
        Quote: Teaser
        Some short-sighted Americans in the leadership also believed that the F-35 could replace everyone, including the A-10C - but no! You're naughty! Didn't work with the replacement. And they extended the service life of the A-10C until the 20XXth year ...
        
        Who has shown short-sightedness once, can repeat it many more times.
        
        gunnerminer
        
        -3
        
        24 January 2022 10: 57
        
        Therefore, the Su-34 can complete the task of destroying almost any ground target, without any artistic dive, while remaining at an inaccessible height for field air defense. Using high-precision guided weapons, he
        
        SVP does not take into account the direction and strength of the wind near the Earth's surface. When bombing from a height of 5000 meters and above, the deviation is decent, with a wind speed of 5 m / s.
        
        wamp
        
        -1
        
        24 January 2022 14: 51
        
        Quote: gunnerminer
        SVP does not take into account the direction and strength of the wind near the Earth's surface.
        
        All the little things are taken into account. With a laser, you can measure any movement, any object, and even remove sound.
        
        gunnerminer
        
        -4
        
        24 January 2022 15: 48
        
        There is no such laser meter on board the Su-34. And the sound pickup too. Otherwise, all the oppositionists and foreign special forces would have been beaten back in the spring of 2016.
      2. Half a hundred second
        
        -3
        
        24 January 2022 09: 23
        
        Quote: Wamp
        Those. you stubbornly claim that he does not have titanium armor
        
        and you give my quote, where did I state this? Or we will enroll you in noble blizzards.
        That you are not a specialist, and not even an amateur at all, is already clear to everyone. Now let it be clear that you are a demagogue and a liar.
        
        Quote: Wamp
        And there was a moment when there was a question of further development of the Su-25 line
        
        yeah, and even the Yak-130 was offered to replace him. Would you call him a stormtrooper too?
        
        Quote: Wamp
        Divine innocence.
        
        Well, at least they said something true about themselves. I am well aware that there is armor on the 34th, and what places it covers, and also why it was put there (although I think it was put there by mistake - but this is my opinion and has nothing to do with the essence of the dialogue). But it wouldn’t hurt for you to first pull up the materiel and shove your ambition in one place, because you have zero knowledge and experience, and the CSF has already climbed out of all the cracks. It seems to be a novelty for you that there is someone who knows and can do more than you?
2. gunnerminer
  
  -5
  
  24 January 2022 10: 55
  
  The Su-34 has an inconvenient location for pilots. Aerospace Forces personnel noted this. The pilots’ visual review sectors are limited. The capsule adds weight. It does not positively affect the survivability of the engine, planes and fuselage. -32 Su-34 cannot carry.
  1. wamp
    
    -1
    
    24 January 2022 15: 17
    
    Quote: gunnerminer
    The Su-34 has an inconvenient location for pilots. The military personnel of the Aerospace Forces noted this.
    
    It has always been convenient, but not everywhere possible.
    
    Quote: gunnerminer
    Pilots' visual field of vision is limited.
    
    What are limited? The second of the crew?
    
    Quote: gunnerminer
    The capsule adds weight. It does not positively affect the survivability of the engine, planes and fuselage.
    
    And not just the capsule. There are a lot of things for survivability ... Ten tons heaped up.
    Consoles and fuselage - they are not afraid of holes - fuel does not flow, control lines are duplicated ....
    
    Quote: gunnerminer
    The crew operates at altitudes beyond the reach of fragments and the action of small arms.
    
    Why give in. Even in a tank it’s unpleasant when you shoot him with a pistol. But there are all sorts of unexpected situations when you have to work and survive.
    
    Quote: gunnerminer
    Aviation anti-ship missiles X-32 Su-34 cannot carry.
    
    This is for the Tu-22 naval aviation.
    1. gunnerminer
      
      -5
      
      24 January 2022 15: 52
      
      Do not neglect communication with the flight crew of the Aerospace Forces. At least remotely. In Naval Aviation, attack missile-carrying aircraft were eliminated by Presidential Decree in 2011. Tu-22 was decommissioned for 50 years. Replaced with Tu-22M3. Read the newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda on this topic.
Teaser

-2

24 January 2022 05: 38
Quote: Wamp
Quote: Teaser
It is clear that in Boeing everything is "well, tu-py-e!" (With)

This is your opinion. I thought about this but on a different plane.

Is it really one of the six stealths created in the USA ?!

And here they simply did not order MO.

Oh, it's MO! It does what "its left foot wills"!

Quote: Teaser
It is childish naivety to believe that since "the Russian Su-34 bomber has no analogues in the world," then, by virtue of this, it automatically becomes the best in the world. Just to make an analogue - no one has given up on FIG. For uselessness.

The Americans do not have a system for the high-precision release of conventional bombs (Platan?).

"Hephaestus". Who told you such nonsense?! All Soviet, and then Russian bomber sights are the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of those sights that, on the orders of Comrade Stalin, were "torn off" from three "captured" B-29s ... Naturally, systems like Hephaestus were on American aircraft during the Korean War (1950-1953), and in the Vietnam era they were already much more advanced than Hephaestus. And in the era of "Desert Storm"!

Therefore, the Su-34 can complete the task of destroying almost any ground target, without any artistic dive, while remaining at an inaccessible height for field air defense. Using high-precision weapons, it can destroy moving vehicles, displacing the need for the Su-25, which is no longer going to be produced.

You have read stupid tales and are broadcasting them - as if a bunch of boxes with incandescent lamps depicting "Hephaestus" can replace high-precision bombs, with KVO \u3d 1-XNUMX meter - laser-guided, television-guided, active radar-guided, guided by GPS.... This is a fairytale.

Quote: Teaser
The "parity" in the USA for the Su-25 aircraft is the A-10C. To say that the Su-34 can replace the Su-25 is simply ignorance.

If I'm "ignorance", then how to call your level?

?? The level of a highly trained military specialist.

"A pile of whale shit at the bottom of the ocean"? ("Worms", Robert Flanagan)

Do not overdo it with self-criticism!

Quote: Teaser
Some short-sighted Americans in the leadership also believed that the F-35 could replace everyone, including the A-10C - but no! You're naughty! Didn't work with the replacement. And they extended the service life of the A-10C until the 20XXth year ...

Who has shown short-sightedness once, can repeat it many more times.

Maybe! They, the bourgeoisie, this happens from time to time. Here the release of the F-22 was halved, then "hair tore" in all places ... Whether Pogosyan in Russia matters: how will he release something - he will release it! That Su-47 - "six-winged pentagon" - absolutely unnecessary to anyone, then the Su-57 is complete squalor ...
But all this - "has no analogues in the world"!
Therefore, no one in the world takes it for free ...
======================
- Only this system is called not "Platan", but of course "Hephaestus" (and I was confused after all! ):
Sergey Latyshev

0

24 January 2022 10: 35

All right. And the plane is good, and there are no analogues.

What for are now analogues, if one and a half times smaller single-engine F35 takes almost the same amount of combat load.

Let's make a "checkmate", then we'll see ....
1. Half a hundred second
  
  -2
  
  24 January 2022 13: 06
  
  Quote: Sergey Latyshev
  What for are now analogues, if one and a half times smaller single-engine F35 takes almost the same amount of combat load.
  
  don’t tell me) the F-35 cannot take half of what the Su-34 is capable of lifting, and if you hang it on it to the maximum (and the cargo compartments of modifications A and C include no more than 2,2 tons, modifications B - no more than 1,3 tons), then you can forget about stealth and vertical takeoff and landing.
  
  In general, it is rather strange to compare a front-line bomber with a fighter-bomber, especially a single-engine one.
  1. Teaser
    
    0
    
    24 January 2022 14: 02
    
    F-35 and half of what the Su-34 is capable of lifting cannot be taken
    
    In fact, in the non-stealth version, the F-35A will be able to lift, well, sooo much, sum up the penultimate line and translate into kilograms:
    
    22,300*0.4536=10,115.28 kg. More than 10 tons!
    
    and if you hang on it to the maximum (and the cargo compartments of modifications A and C include no more than 2,2 tons, modifications B - no more than 1,3 tons), then you can forget about stealth and vertical takeoff and landing.
    
    - Undoubtedly. Vertically, it does not take off from any combat as intended, it can only land empty - the F-35B is the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL)
    
    In general, it is rather strange to compare a front-line bomber with a fighter-bomber, especially a single-engine one.
    
    Here, of course, the point is not the number of engines, but the combat capabilities in a serious war, the level of the Third World War, when it is necessary to destroy, for example, long-range air defense systems. And here the F-22 and F-35 easily "take out" the S-400, each dropping 8 small diameter bombs GBU-39 or GBU-53A from the stratosphere from a range of 100+ km, while the Su-34 will never be able to safely for destroy yourself the battery of the Patriot air defense system, or the Israeli Sling of David:
    
    Therefore, the F-35 was produced in the amount of about 700 units, and the line behind it lined up from 12 countries, and the "titanium" Su-34 wished to buy, apparently, only Algeria?
    Of course, they cannot be compared, these are aircraft from two different centuries - the XNUMXth and the XNUMXst.
    1. Half a hundred second
      
      -3
      
      24 January 2022 14: 46
      
      Quote: Teaser
      More than 10 tons!
      
      let's count. Let's take the most load-bearing modification of the F-35A and load it to the maximum (in a way that no one will ever load). In the internal compartments - two 2000-pounders plus a pair of AIM-120. On the underwing we will take the maximum - each AGM-158A JASSM, on the terminal ones - on the AIM-120 missile. Total 2x908 kg + 4x1020 kg + 4x165 kg plus weight for holders and launchers - a total of about 7 tons. This is the maximum that the F-35 can squeeze out of itself. And I’m not sure that the 2nd and 9th nodes are designed for a ton, in reality, most likely there are up to 500 kg.
      SKVP will take at least a ton less (it does not fit 2000-pound bombs into its internal compartments)
      
      It's decent for a single-engine car, but the 34th can take more and fly further. and without being so stressed. Which is not surprising - aircraft of different classes.
      
      But if the armor were removed from the Su-34, then at least a ton of weight would be released
Teaser

+1

24 January 2022 15: 14

Quote: Half a century and a half
Quote: Teaser
More than 10 tons!

let's count. Let's take the most load-bearing modification of the F-35A and load it to the maximum (in a way that no one will ever load). In the internal compartments - two 2000-pounders plus a pair of AIM-120. On the underwing we will take the maximum - each AGM-158A JASSM, on the terminal ones - on the AIM-120 missile. Total 2x908 kg + 4x1020 kg + 4x165 kg plus weight for holders and launchers - a total of about 7 tons. This is the maximum that the F-35 can squeeze out of itself. And I’m not sure that the 2nd and 9th nodes are designed for a ton, in reality, most likely there are up to 500 kg.

- No no no! To ship - so to ship!
In the internal compartments two 2000-pound bombs + 2 AIM-120D:
902*2+152*2=2,108 кг.
On the inner underwing pylons, two GBU-28, 2,268 * 2 = 4,536 kg.
For the middle pylons, two bombs of 902 kg each, for a total of 1804 kg, for the end pylons - 2 AIM-9X missiles each, 90 kg each, for a total of 180 kg.
Folding:
2,108+4,536+1,804+180=8,628 kg. Fuck it too...

SKVP will take at least a ton less (it does not fit 2000-pound bombs into its internal compartments)

- Yes, of course.

It's decent for a single-engine car, but the 34th can take more and fly further. and without being so stressed. Which is not surprising - aircraft of different classes.

- I said above - their combat capabilities are incomparable. Su-34 is an aircraft for the wars of the last century, F-35 is for this.

But if the armor were removed from the Su-34, then at least a ton of weight would be released

- On a modern theater of operations, the Su-34 is not a tenant at all - even with armor, even without armor ... For stealth fighters, it is just a flying target.
1. gunnerminer
  
  -5
  
  24 January 2022 15: 57
  
  It is difficult to argue with the last argument. If only to increase the fighter support. But the Su-35S is criminally few combat-ready. And there are even fewer pilots of the 1st class. Crews on non-stealth aircraft are in a losing position. Because whoever saw it first, shoot it. And only the highest professional training of pilots and technicians can save us from complete defeat. Hel Havir has never been subject to massive layoffs. Including educational institutions.
2. Half a hundred second
  
  -3
  
  24 January 2022 18: 00
  
  Quote: Teaser
  - No no no! To ship - so to ship!
  On the inner underwing pylons, two GBU-28
  
  and where did you get the idea that a 5000-pound can be hung on the underwing pylons of the "Lightning"? What is the permissible weight of the load on the pylons?
  From IS, the only carrier of this bomb, as far as is known, is the Strike Eagle
  1. Teaser
    
    0
    
    24 January 2022 22: 27
    
    I gave you a download scheme, take a closer look? And the suspension units are standard for this weight ...
    1. Half a hundred second
      
      -3
      
      24 January 2022 23: 53
      
      Quote: Teaser
      I gave you a download scheme, take a closer look?
      
      yes I looked. The scheme does not in the least negate the fact that 5000 pounds in the Lightning BC do not appear and never did. The table, most likely, indicates the maximum non-destructive load on the wing structure. Weight of pylons, APU, etc. is taken into account as the weight of suspended loads, and these things are not weightless at all. Therefore, the mass of the ammunition itself, suspended on the knot, will be less than those same 5000 pounds.
      And look at the discrepancies in the table. 350 pounds is 158 kilos, which is less than the weight of AMRAAM even without APU.
      Even something is wrong in your table
Teaser

0

24 January 2022 22: 31

Quote: gunnerminer
... Crews in aircraft without stealth technology are in a deliberately losing position. Because whoever sees it first shoots. And only the highest professional training of pilots and technicians can save us from complete defeat.

The "highest training" of pilots does not affect the EPR of the aircraft in any way. So she won't help.
Teaser

0

25 January 2022 04: 24
Quote: Half a century and a half
Quote: Teaser
I gave you a download scheme, take a closer look?

yes I looked. The scheme does not in the least negate the fact that 5000 pounds in the Lightning BC do not appear and never did. The table, most likely, indicates the maximum non-destructive load on the wing structure. Weight of pylons, APU, etc. is taken into account as the weight of suspended loads, and these things are not weightless at all. Therefore, the mass of the ammunition itself, suspended on the knot, will be less than those same 5000 pounds.

No, no: if it says 5000 pounds, that's exactly what it means. The fact that there is no (for example) GBU-28 in the ammunition nomenclature does not mean that it cannot be hung there if necessary. Suspension units for all bombs are standard.
http://airwar.ru/weapon/ab/gbu28.html
It's just that the F-15E can give her the best starting conditions - altitude and speed. But no one bothers to hang on the F-35, for example, a promising cruise missile, with the appropriate weight. The service life of the aircraft is tentatively determined until 2070 - many new products may appear during this time ...

And look at the discrepancies in the table. 350 pounds is 158 kilos, which is less than AMRAAM...
Even something is wrong in your table

https://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html
The maximum weight for the AIM-120D is 157 kg.

... even without taking into account APU.

But the APU there is part of the aircraft design and has nothing to do with the weight of the URVV.
Here (2:48 ET) is how the AIM-120 is ejected:
Teaser

0

25 January 2022 17: 58

Quote: Wamp
Quote: gunnerminer
SVP does not take into account the direction and strength of the wind near the Earth's surface.

All the little things are taken into account. With a laser, you can measure any movement, any object, and even remove sound.

No need for tales. Intermediate wind a laser from an airplane cannot measure. Therefore, it cannot be taken into account as a reset point correction.