Su-34 Fullback Capability

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
Were they in any danger of not being able to hit a designated target in daytime or night? That thier premier Su24 planes couldnt hit a target at night? That the whole RuAF n SovietAF was incapable of hitting a ground target accurately? I doubt so.
First i said presission, and theres no friggin way a soviet erra Su24 could achieve presission strikes on a single target comperable to that achieved by a IRT pod/PGM equiped western fighter (especially at night), no more than a Ju 87 could have. It was massed firepower, never presission for Ivan, so no i doubt they could bomb that accuratly, but they didnt need to becasue of the area coverd by massed munitions.

Your talking high altitude PGM capability vs conventional dumb bombs. The advantage of that should be plainly obvious to blind freddy. But in case you think being able to "hit" a target with rockets or bombs is comperable to hiting it with a single PGM accuratly i'll illustrate the difference. 1, you have focused lethality, meaning you can use a single weapon for a single target rather than hitting a wider area with several munitions to ensure a kill. 2, High altitude, you can accuratly hit small targets, reliably at 10,20,30 000ft (depending on the wether) which means you platform is much, much, much safer becasue you are above 90% of the threat. 3, You can hit a single target with a single weapon meaning you can hit many more targets per sortie. A single Su24 carrying a dumb load would most likely drop its whole payload on an area target to ensure it hit what it was supposed to, one carrying the same number of PGM's can hit 6 individual targets.

Basically they can hit more targets per sorty, safer, reliably, precisely at high altitude. That's a huge advantage for the RuAF and one they did not enjoy before the introduction of damocles (EO guided aside). THAT was my point.
 

nevidimka

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #22
Well, i was referring to Optical, radar, tv guided amunitins. Dont know about their Laser guided munitions.
But your probably right.
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
Well, i was referring to Optical, radar, tv guided amunitins. Dont know about their Laser guided munitions.
But your probably right.
AFAIK they lacked a contemporary intergrated IR/EO targeting pod that could be added to all of their tactical strike assets which could not for the most part self designate, hence the need for a western option.
 

johngage

New Member
AFAIK they lacked a contemporary intergrated IR/EO targeting pod that could be added to all of their tactical strike assets which could not for the most part self designate, hence the need for a western option.
Ozzy Blizzard, what you don't know bout combat aircraft can be written on the back of a postage stamp ! :)

Want to ask your opinion regarding this piece of Russian kit:
DECM active jammer (SAP518M)

Been trying to find info on each but haven't been able to come up with anything.
 

Chrom

New Member
Were they in any danger of not being able to hit a designated target in daytime or night? That thier premier Su24 planes couldnt hit a target at night? That the whole RuAF n SovietAF was incapable of hitting a ground target accurately? I doubt so.

I would really like to know the parameters n conditions used for the comparative testing n results if its available.

Most RuAF Su-24 is of 80x origin and is PGM-capable both day and night. Ofc, 80x equipment is much worse than 200x found on some modern western bombers - but it is still PGM. TV-guided, laser-guided.

Su-34 and latest Su-24 upgrade posses comparable capabilities to modern western fighters - although there are only few of them in RuAF currently.
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
Ozzy Blizzard, what you don't know bout combat aircraft can be written on the back of a postage stamp ! :)

Want to ask your opinion regarding this piece of Russian kit:
DECM active jammer (SAP518M)

Been trying to find info on each but haven't been able to come up with anything.
Thanks for the complement mate, but you'll find what i don't know about combat aircraft could be writen on a HUGE potage stamp, Britanica sized if you know what I mean. There are alot more knowledgeable members arround here than me. :)

I don't have an opinion on that specific peice of kit because I'm not aware of its specific capabilities.

Perhaps GF, Magoo or even GD can comment, some of them actually work in EW so they may be able to comment more ably than I.
 

tphuang

Super Moderator
Actually, su-24s were probably capable of firing LGBs and TV-GBs, since they came out in the 70s. The MKKs were definitely design to carry them. As fo TV/EO pod, they have decent ones, even with the ones they got, it still managed to achieve 4 to 7 m CEP. Not that bad really.

But the problem with the Russians is that not much new have come out recently. They still don't have SGBs yet and the LGBs are a little archaic now for PGMs.
 

Chrom

New Member
Actually, su-24s were probably capable of firing LGBs and TV-GBs, since they came out in the 70s. The MKKs were definitely design to carry them. As fo TV/EO pod, they have decent ones, even with the ones they got, it still managed to achieve 4 to 7 m CEP. Not that bad really.

But the problem with the Russians is that not much new have come out recently. They still don't have SGBs yet and the LGBs are a little archaic now for PGMs.
SU-24 is absolutely certainly capable of both LGB and TV-guided PGM's - both bomb, short-range missiles and long-range (up to 90km) tv-guided missiles. They employed such weapon back in 80x Afganistan war, and also in more recent Chechen conflict. Ofc, it is still later 80x technic with all problems.

SGB - if you mean glider bombs, then russians have long-range missiles instead. Not as cheap - but with much longer range and can be launched from low altitude, not entering long-range SAM's envelope.

For close high-alt work common LGB and TV-guided bombs are good enouth.
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
SU-24 is absolutely certainly capable of both LGB and TV-guided PGM's - both bomb, short-range missiles and long-range (up to 90km) tv-guided missiles. They employed such weapon back in 80x Afganistan war, and also in more recent Chechen conflict. Ofc, it is still later 80x technic with all problems.

SGB - if you mean glider bombs, then russians have long-range missiles instead. Not as cheap - but with much longer range and can be launched from low altitude, not entering long-range SAM's envelope.

For close high-alt work common LGB and TV-guided bombs are good enouth.
Does the Su-24 have a fleet wide day/night self designating capability for LG PGMs? I dont think so. Thats what damocles is for, and if its intergrated fleet wide it will provide a truely comprehenseive PGM capability (almost) comperable to wester air forces (J-series).
 

Firehorse

Banned Member
I wonder if it could be navalized for CATOBAR? I doubt it could take off from a ski-jump with a full warload! Except the stealth, IMO, Su-34 is comparable to American B-2!
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
I wonder if it could be navalized for CATOBAR? I doubt it could take off from a ski-jump with a full warload! Except the stealth, IMO, Su-34 is comparable to American B-2!
I doubt it, considering the massive extra weight over base line flanker and comperable powerplant.

As for it being comperable to the B2, well the whole idea behind a B2 was to take a package, move it several thousand kilometers and make it as stealthy as possible. You could also claim an M-16 and a baseball bat are comperable without the bullets.

Su-34 is more akin to a self escorting F-111 and it provides an excellent capability, however you cant compare it to strategic strike assets of the calibur of the B2.
 

Firehorse

Banned Member
The B-2 has
.. in a conventional role, staging from Whiteman AFB, MO; Diego Garcia; and Guam can cover the entire world with just one refueling. www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-2.htm
Su-34 Fullback has a
Range: 3,775 miles (ferry)
, and with refuelings can be comparable to the B-2.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Mn_7VsjmtE&feature=related"]YouTube - Sukhoi SU-32 (SU-34) Fullback fighter-bomber[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPPVi-z3LdU&feature=related"]YouTube - Su 34 Fighter Bomber[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9L5qJE6MH4&feature=related"]YouTube - Su-34 ( Fullback )[/ame]

Among the things mentioned in these clips: it has radar-absorbing paint and is almost invisible to radars; will perform some Tu-22M3 missions; can engage in dogfights (something the B-2 isn't capable of); has provisions/accomodations for crew rests on extra-long missions.
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
Almost invisble to radars becasue of radar absorbing paint somehow comperable to a B-2? :eek:nfloorl: Any RCS reduction measures would be comparable at best to the F/A-18 E/F which means tactically significant, NOT VLO.

Su-34 is not a true strategic aircraft of the likes of the Tu-160 or B-1B let alone the only strategic VLO asset operational anywhere, the B-2 spirit. It is more akin to the F-111 but it can self escort which is a huge advantage. Its an intermediate platform, not truely strategic or tactical. But your claiming because of its range and limited RCS reduction measures its comparable to a B-2 spirit? Thats ridiculous. They are completely different types of platforms with completely different roles and completely different design goals. Its a very capable aircraft and brings a unique capability to the RuAF. It will be able to effectively conduct long range strike operations without relying on escort assets which is again a huge advantage because it can utilise its range advantage to the full. Its an excellent platform but it is in no way comparable to a B-2.
 

Chrom

New Member
Does the Su-24 have a fleet wide day/night self designating capability for LG PGMs? I dont think so. Thats what damocles is for, and if its intergrated fleet wide it will provide a truely comprehenseive PGM capability (almost) comperable to wester air forces (J-series).
Su-24 is considered as night-capable aircraft. It have both FLIR and radar for target acquisition at night.

I fail to see why LG PGMs wouldnt work at night.
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
Su-24 is considered as night-capable aircraft. It have both FLIR and radar for target acquisition at night.

Fleet wide EO targeting and designation capability????? Haveing a FLIR & radar does not mean you have ATFLIR/Damocles like day/night capability.

I fail to see why LG PGM's wouldnt work at night.
Well that depends on your target aquisition and designation kit.
 

Chrom

New Member
Fleet wide EO targeting and designation capability????? Haveing a FLIR & radar does not mean you have ATFLIR/Damocles like day/night capability.
Under "fleet wide", do you mean networking? Or what?


Well that depends on your target aquisition and designation kit.
Of course, 80x style FLIR is not thermals, but still mostly good enough for night work against predetermined target.
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
Under "fleet wide", do you mean networking? Or what?
Sorry, what i meant was across the whole fleet of platforms, i.e. do they all have the capability?


Of course, 80x style FLIR is not thermals, but still mostly good enough for night work against predetermined target.
Sticking an old flir n the fron and a laser designator (?) isnt comperable to modern EO targeting pods. Sure they could hit targets at night, so could the RAF in 1944, but i doubt they could do it precicely (although it would no doubt give them a night strike capability).
 

Salty Dog

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
The B-2 has

Su-34 Fullback has a , and with refuelings can be comparable to the B-2.

YouTube - Sukhoi SU-32 (SU-34) Fullback fighter-bomber

YouTube - Su 34 Fighter Bomber

YouTube - Su-34 ( Fullback )

Among the things mentioned in these clips: it has radar-absorbing paint and is almost invisible to radars; will perform some Tu-22M3 missions; can engage in dogfights (something the B-2 isn't capable of); has provisions/accomodations for crew rests on extra-long missions.
Thanks for the videos mate. I also noted that after the Su-34 flight the pilot's squadron mates all lined up in formation. The Su-34 pilots were presented bouquets of flowers and even kissed by their commanding officer. Some tight camaraderie those Russian airdales!!
 

Chrom

New Member
Sorry, what i meant was across the whole fleet of platforms, i.e. do they all have the capability?
Since about mid 80x. ALL Su-24 had this.


Sticking an old flir n the fron and a laser designator (?) isnt comperable to modern EO targeting pods. Sure they could hit targets at night, so could the RAF in 1944, but i doubt they could do it precicely (although it would no doubt give them a night strike capability).
I dont understand you. Su-24 can see its target at night. Su-24 can employ its PGMs at night. TV-guided missile TV-heads have LLTV/FLIR version. LG bombs and missiles can hit laser designated targets at night. How is that not hitting targets precisely - i'm fail to understand.

As i said, noone thinks 80x era FLIR and FCS are as capable as later 200x modern pods. But saying what they cant do they job at all - is very wrong.

P.S. There is ongoing upgrade program Su-24M to M2 variant. It is unknown how many are upgraded to M2 variant yet.
 

Firehorse

Banned Member
It is more akin to the F-111 but it can self escort which is a huge advantage. Its an intermediate platform, not truely strategic or tactical. But your claiming because of its range and limited RCS reduction measures its comparable to a B-2 spirit? Thats ridiculous. They are completely different types of platforms with completely different roles and completely different design goals. Its a very capable aircraft and brings a unique capability to the RuAF. It will be able to effectively conduct long range strike operations without relying on escort assets which is again a huge advantage because it can utilise its range advantage to the full. Its an excellent platform but it is in no way comparable to a B-2.
That's the point- the VLO B-2s still need SATCOM and/or been given EW support, while the Su-34s can self escort. While the B-2s are truly "strategic", they are very expensive to maintain- for all intents & purposes, the Su-34 can do the same job for le$$, IMHO. The B-2 can only be used as a heavy bomb truck, requiring escorts, special hangars, and associated support personnel specifically trained for it. It needs land bases, while the Su-34 has potential for navalization.
There are also EW/maritime strike versions, with big MAD boom for ASW.
The SU-34 is the base model intended to replace the SU-24 strike aircraft and is equipped primarily for missions against shorebased targets wheras the SU-32FN is a navalized variant optimized for antishipping and even ASW through the installation of a "Sea Snake" maritime sea-skimming search radar, magnetic anomaly detector(MAD) and a sonobouy launcher - the "Sea Snake" radarstation is said to be capable of detecting a submarine periscope breaking the surface at a distance of 150km and even small airborne targets up to 250 km away. The armament of the SU-32FN includes: the Kh-31p antiradiation missile, the Kh-31A, Kh-41 Moskit, and the Kh-59M anti-ship missiles and conventional and reactive torpedoes.

The SU-32FN and the SU-34 are primarily strike aircraft - very heavy and with only moderate agility and speed, nevertheless they have a powerful air to air capability in the multifunctional radar station and the Vympel R-27 and the advanced Vympel R-77(RVV-AE) medium range AA-missiles. Furthermore both aircraft have a Builtin GSh-301 30mm cannon with 180 rounds and an elaborate selfdefence system - it consists of a Pastel radar warning reciever, MAK IR-sensor, Otklik laser warning, Sorbtsiya ECM wingtip-pods, chaff/flare dispensers and the NIIP NO-12 rearward facing radar, which is located in the huge tailcone on a raised bracket assembly above the drag chute door.
SU-34 with extended drag chute - the huge tailcone also houses the rearward facing radar, which can be used to track upto a range of 50-60 Km and can be used to guide the R-73RDM2 short range infra-red guided missile. The aircraft doesn't need to turn around to intercept the enemy or make a positive lock-on. Once fired, the R-73RDM2 is capable of flipping 180° and engaging the enemy.
The rearward facing radar can detect, track and lock targets directly behind the aircraft and is used for target aquisition for the new super agile thrust vectored R-73 IR-homing AA-missile which can be launched in a rearward direction(the tailcone of the SU-32FN may house a MAD and a sonobouy launcher for ASW instead of the rearward facing radar). The SU-32FN/34 also has an EOS (electro optical sighting) system controlled by the pilots head-movements through a helm mounted sight.
http://iron-eagles.tripod.com/eb_ac_files/su32.htm
And in fact, the SALT considered the Tu-22Ms as "strategic" if they had
refueling probes, and to comply with it, Russia had them removed. So, since current & future Su-34 with refueling systems can do Tu-22M3's missions, by extrapolation it is logical to consider them "strategic" as well, IMO.
 
Top