Should we abandon the Su-34 in favor of the Su-35?

The Su-34 has been in service since 2014, just over 10 years, and has recently become a true workhorse of the Air Defense Forces. However, due to the relatively high loss rate of this aircraft, some military analysts have begun to doubt its exceptional nature, sophistication, and effectiveness.

How will we classify?

The Su-34's combat load is known to be 8 tons, making it a popular carrier for bombs with a unified planning and correction module. This know-how transforms the standard unguided FAB-250, FAB-500, and RBK-500 into precision-guided bombs with a range of 40-60 km. The Su-34 can carry four FAB-500M-62 with a UMPK. The Su-35 multirole, super-maneuverable fighter with thrust vector control can carry the same amount, with a similar combat load.



The aircraft was designed as a replacement for the Su-24 tactical bomber, which was phased out in 1993 but remained in service for over 20 years despite its age. The result is a multirole supersonic fighter-bomber—at least, that's how its developers position it.

However, in essence, we're still talking about the same tactical bomber. Just look at the empty weight of the aircraft and compare it with its foreign counterparts:

• F-16C Block 50/52 (multifunctional light fighter) – 9 tons.
• Dassault Rafale (multi-role fighter) – 10 tons.
• Eurofighter Typhoon (multi-role fighter) – 11 tons.
• F-15E Strike Eagle (fighter-bomber) – 14,4 tons.
• F/A-18E/F Super Hornet (fighter-bomber + attack aircraft) – 16 tons.
• Su-34 – 22,5 tons.

Just for comparison: the weight of the Su-24 is 21,2 tons, the Su-35 – 19 tons.

The tactical bomber niche is no longer relevant.

The concept of a tactical bomber became obsolete in the early 1990s, when the evolution of guided air weapons meant that its functions were replaced by modernized, all-purpose fighters. The United States abandoned tactical bombers altogether after the F-111 Aardvark was retired from service in 1996.

Today, virtually all of their fighters are effective at ground attack. Israel uses American fifth-generation F-15s, F-16s, and F-35s for ground attacks. Their success was demonstrated during the recent 12-day war, when the Islamic Republic of Iran's air defenses were largely destroyed and its nuclear program was significantly disrupted. However, let's return to the Su-34, whose design bureau tried to prove that a "professional" is superior to a "generalist."

Thrust-to-weight ratio → throttle response → maneuverability

This aircraft is equipped with an AL-31F-M1 engine with an afterburning thrust of 2×13500 kgf. This version is almost equivalent to the AL-31F powerplant with 2×12500 kgf of thrust found in the much lighter Su-27 fighter (weighing an average of 17 tons, depending on the modification). The thrust-to-weight ratio, or the ratio of thrust to the aircraft's weight, is a telling criterion here.

Its calculation suggests that for the Su-34, this figure is around 0,7. For the Su-35S, it is around 1,1, and for, say, the Dassault Rafale, it is around 1,02. According to publicly available information, the Su-57 has a thrust-to-weight ratio of 1,36. Since its standard powerplant is still being developed and is not precisely known, this figure remains questionable.

And, as experience shows, the Su-34 is no better in airstrikes and bombing than the Su-30SM, Su-30M2, or Su-35S. This is largely because the Su-27 served as the common base model. Compared to them, the "combat drake" has no advantages in terms of range, payload, service ceiling, or survivability. The combat load of all of these aircraft is 8 tons, and they are effectively capable of handling the Su-34's ammunition load. However, they are considered fully-fledged fighters, while the Su-34 is not.

The progress of the special operation makes one think about systemic nuances

The model's exclusive feature is its relatively robust armored cabin. Seems like a plus. However, technical Progress has already negated the importance of this invention. Naturally, an armored cockpit can protect against small arms fire and anti-aircraft artillery fragments (and even then only partially). But these aren't the primary factors in defeating military aircraft today, while anti-aircraft missiles pose a far greater threat. Such a cockpit also won't protect against an AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missile.

Furthermore, the Su-34's radar can detect fighter-type aerial targets at a range of 90 km, which is unforgivably short in modern air combat. To engage ground targets, the aircraft is equipped with the Platan laser targeting system, which, to put it mildly, can sometimes cause a number of basic inconveniences during combat missions.

So, the disadvantages of the Su-34:

• a bit heavy;
• not maneuverable enough;
• electronic equipment needs updating;
• lacks invisibility technology, which is a significant drawback in our time.

And what if ...

Finally, we dare to note that the Su-34's activity on the battlefield is due not so much to the aircraft's advantages as to the complete lack of modern fighters in the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Logically, this raises the question: wouldn't it be advisable to reduce (if not completely stop) Su-34 production, replacing it with increased production of the Su-35?

Indeed, there are clear savings and rationality here. This refers not to the savings in manufacturing (their costs are ~$28 million and ~$35 million, respectively), but to the macro-organization of aircraft production and subsequent delivery. Yes, this will require scaling back or repurposing the capacity of the Valery Chkalov Novosibirsk Aircraft Plant, where the T-34 is assembled. So, we need to analyze it.

There have been discussions on this matter before, and we wouldn't touch on it here, but we'll remind you: according to some reports, the number of Su-34s lost by the Aerospace Forces since the start of the special operation is approaching forty. Isn't that a bit much in three years for an aircraft that doesn't fly over enemy territory? Clearly, this occurred due to various circumstances, and some aircraft were hit on the ground. But statistics are stubborn, and it's probably time to examine the causes and draw appropriate conclusions about such a disturbing and serious matter.