Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 5/17/2005 4:19:08 PM EDT
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/03/31/subombers_.shtml

Russian Plant Launches Production of New Sukhoi Tactical Bomber

MosNews

The Novosibirsk Chkalov Aviation Production Association (NAPO) is launching production of the Su-34 bomber, the plant’s general director, Aleksandr Bobryshev, has told Itar-Tass.

NAPO has begun implementing a state order for the Russian air force, building the first Su-34 mass-production tactical bomber, Bobryshev explained.

“The Su-34’s radio-electronic equipment can be compared to fifth-generation aircraft,” Bobryshev said. The Su-34’s onboard equipment and weapons allow it to destroy precise protected targets in any weather, day or night. “This multipurpose aircraft can make missile strikes against targets on the ground and is also effective in air combat,” Bobryshev said.

Bobryshev said that five such tactical strike aircraft would be built in the next two years. The prototype Su-34s, which have successfully undergone tests, were also built at the Novosibirsk plant.

The aircraft has a take-off weight of 44.3 tons, a combat payload of 8 tons and a maximum range of 4,000 km. If refuelled once its range extends to 7,000 km.

NAPO is part of the Sukhoi holding.



Sukhoi Su-34 Long range strike aircraft

Powerplants:
Two 16,755lb / 27,577lb afterburning Saturn/Lyulka AL-35F turbofans.

Performance:
Max speed at 36,000ft Mach 1.8
Max speed at sea level Mach 1.14
Range with max internal fuel 2160nm.

Weight:
97,800lb.

Dimensions:
Wing span 48ft 3in
Length 82ft 8in
Height 20ft 4in
Wing area 667.4sq ft.



Accommodation:
Pilot and weapon systems operator side by side.

Armament:
One 30mm GSh-301 gun in forward starboard fuselage. Two wingtip stations for self defence AAMs. Six underwing, plus centreline and under intake hardpoints for full range of Russian precision guided bombs and missiles, anti radiation missiles, anti ship missiles, rockets and conventional bombs.

History:
The Su-34 is a two seat (side by side, rather than tandem) development of the Su-27 fighter intended for long range strike, replacing older types such as the Su-17, MiG-27 and Su-24.

When the Su-34 first appeared in 1991 confusion surrounded its intended role, with the first prototype, '42', variously identified as an aircraft carrier trainer designated Su-27KU (Korabelnii Uchebno or shipborne trainer) and a strike fighter as the Su-27lb (Istrebitel Bombardirovschik or fighter-bomber). It may well have been that the two seat side by side 'Flanker' was originally designed for carrier training for Su-33 pilots, but instead was adopted for strike. The Su-27IB first flew in April 1990.



Features of the Su-34 include side by side seating, twin nosewheels and tandem main undercarriage units, canards, AL-35F turbofans, a Leninetz phased array multifunction radar with terrain following/avoidance, a retractable inflight refuelling probe, broader chord tailfins, multifunction displays in the cockpit and modern avionics.

Access to the cockpit is via an integral ladder aft of the nosewheel, while behind the two crew seats in the humped fuselage is a small galley and toilet.



The crew sit on Z-36 zero/zero ejection seats and the cockpit is protected by titanium armour.
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 4:22:19 PM EDT

Let's see...Clinton sells our technology to China...China sells it to Russia...Russia uses it against us.

And NOT ONE person in Washington DC will call Wild Billie Boy a traitor.
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 4:26:31 PM EDT
Several novel features there.
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 4:27:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:
Several novel features there.



Yeah really. A galley on a 2 seater? Cool.
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 4:29:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/17/2005 4:31:42 PM EDT by SPECTRE]
Looks like they finally copied the F-111
So what, they can afford to build 4 or 5 and they will slowly be destroyed at air shows.
I also love how all their "latest and greatest" seem to be mixed copies of our planes.
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 4:29:46 PM EDT
That bird is huge.
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 4:32:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/17/2005 4:34:00 PM EDT by wes15a2]
It sounds about as capable as the F-111 we used in Gulf War I.
The galley/ toilet features are cool, but are they really necessary?


ETA: damn, spectre beat me to my observation!
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 4:33:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/17/2005 4:36:04 PM EDT by lowdrag82]
The crew sit on Z-36 zero/zero ejection seats and the cockpit is protected by titanium armour.


Hmmm.....Let's hope he doesn't have to belly in or else he will HAVE to punch out.


This is also why we have Strike Eagles and (if it ever gets funded) bomber versions of the F-22
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 4:33:49 PM EDT
Oh, and they still can't build car, washing machine or anything else of value all while their economy is as crappy as ever.
Keep it up Ivan.
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 4:36:25 PM EDT
I think that the "galley" is more of a warming box or a microwave oven. No one is going to be pushing hot carts up the aisle on that thing.


Ah the good old Platypus. A warmed over configuration of an aircraft developed in the late 70s.

But when you get right down to it, the first of that layout, the F111 and Su 24 haven't exactly spawned a whole herd of the side by side layout. I expect there's a good reason for this. Frankly, the big crew compartment seems like a wonderful thing for crew comfort and a shitty design for frontal drag and an increased frontal target.

One more thing I am not getting. What is there in the Su34 that the Russians gleaned from the Chinese who stole from the US?

Link Posted: 5/17/2005 4:37:56 PM EDT
You need to losen up the tin foil hat.....


Originally Posted By Ustulina:
One more thing I am not getting. What is there in the Su34 that the Russians gleaned from the Chinese who stole from the US?


Link Posted: 5/17/2005 4:41:10 PM EDT
So it's their F-15E. I expect they want the capability against towelheaded and BCG-wearing neighbors. I'll get worried if PRC gets their hands on some.
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 4:46:12 PM EDT
Eh? What am I not getting. I mentioned that I was unaware of positive evidence that the Russians have incorporated technology that the Chinese have stolen from the US.



I think the Platypus is a good looking and interesting aircraft. I was quite interested when it first got shown off in around 1995 or 96. I read with interest when Putin zoomed around over Chechnya in one.

But my point is, interesting as the Su34 is, what does it really offer over for example an upgraded Su24, which is about the same size or bigger (+- 24 m in length).

I would think that something in the size class of the Backfire or the blackjack would be a lot more impressive to me. But the Russians have never been able to afford that.

This is a tactical aircraft, and one that has been around the horn already.

Please tell me what I am missing.
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 4:47:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:
Looks like they finally copied the F-111
So what, they can afford to build 4 or 5 and they will slowly be destroyed at air shows.
I also love how all their "latest and greatest" seem to be mixed copies of our planes.



Hey Spectre,

Nice call. Pig with lipstick.
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 4:51:39 PM EDT
The Russians have planned to replace it with the SuperHornet as soon as it is available.
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 5:04:55 PM EDT
Why dont they upgrade the Tu-160 like we're doing with the B-1b?
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 5:09:16 PM EDT
Minibar?
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 5:15:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zippy_The_Wonderdog:
Minibar?



"Hey Mike, I think Ivan's been hitting the vodka again! He just strafed a grain silo!"
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 5:41:02 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 5:46:13 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 5:49:58 PM EDT
I honestly thought you were talking about a T-34 variant!

It looks like a Strike Eagle, 1980 vintage. The airframe looks 20-30 years old to me. Wonder how long it was in development?

Does not look very stealthy.
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 5:52:18 PM EDT
We should buy Russian planes for training purposes, not to mention the SU-27-35 are exceptional doggfighters.
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 5:57:46 PM EDT
I like it
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 6:01:26 PM EDT
More Ruski targets!!!
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 6:05:04 PM EDT
You should see the "museum" at Nellis AFB in NV. The last time I was there I saw some very cool shit. I have no idea how we get this stuff. MIG's, small arms, SU's, support equipment.
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 6:09:24 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 6:14:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KA3B:
Armament:
One 30mm GSh-301 gun in forward starboard fuselage. Two wingtip stations for self defence AAMs. Six underwing, plus centreline and under intake hardpoints for full range of Russian precision guided bombs and missiles, anti radiation missiles, anti ship missiles, rockets and conventional bombs.


Those outboard wing pylons are huge radar signature generators.
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 6:30:20 PM EDT
Lets see...

Massive unshielded turbofan compressor blades... check.

Externally carried weapons... check.

No ability to break sound barrier w/o afterburner... check.

Gigantic active phased radar array... check.

Lack of thrust vectoring... check.

Hope it never runs into an F/A-22. Actually, I hope it does.
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 6:35:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:
The Russians have planned to replace it with the SuperHornet as soon as it is available.



The damn Superhornet again.

"Alex, I'd like Superhornets for $500, please"
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 7:05:15 PM EDT
I believe those are ECM/ESM pods. I'm surprised it took them this long to get it into service, I saw the earlier builds around years ago. Fencer is getting a little long in the tooth.

I don't think I'd go knocking the 'plane until seeing what they've got inside. I wouldn't be surprised to find a glass cockpit.

NTM
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 7:08:47 PM EDT
I hear its already being replaced by the SuperHornet.
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 7:10:01 PM EDT
Bah, waste of time. Just use the SU25.
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 7:16:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Thekatar:
Lets see...

Massive unshielded turbofan compressor blades... check.

Externally carried weapons... check.

No ability to break sound barrier w/o afterburner... check.

Gigantic active phased radar array... check.

Lack of thrust vectoring... check.

Hope it never runs into an F/A-22. Actually, I hope it does.




Eventually it will however it will not be Russian pilots flying. I suspect arab or Chinese will be the marks.
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 8:54:04 PM EDT
Re; the Tu160. I think that they have around 15 of these in any sort of condition. I believe it might have been 16, but at least one crashed. Very impressive and very unaffordable aircraft.

Link Posted: 5/17/2005 9:00:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Ustulina:
Re; the Tu160. I think that they have around 15 of these in any sort of condition. I believe it might have been 16, but at least one crashed. Very impressive and very unaffordable aircraft.




The coolest aircraft they ever made.
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 9:04:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/17/2005 9:05:38 PM EDT by DLoken]

Originally Posted By lippo:
Let's see...Clinton sells our technology to China...China sells it to Russia...Russia uses it against us.

And NOT ONE person in Washington DC will call Wild Billie Boy a traitor.



And where is the stolen US technology in this plane? Moron. Last I looked Russia has a LONG history of developing military aircraft.

If you really want to look at where a lot of the tech came from we both took lots of it from the Germans after WWII.


Eventually it will however it will not be Russian pilots flying. I suspect arab or Chinese will be the marks.


Just like Iranians flying F14s .
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 10:52:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Swindle1984:

Originally Posted By Zippy_The_Wonderdog:
Minibar?



"Hey Mike, I think Ivan's been hitting the vodka again! He just strafed a grain silo!"



heavy.gif
Link Posted: 5/17/2005 10:57:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/17/2005 11:01:50 PM EDT by vito113]

Originally Posted By avengeusa:

Originally Posted By obershutze916:
It looks like a gracefull version of the F-111. Yet another copy from the land of Vodka, whores and midnight knocks on doors.






Nope, It's a development of the SU-27… a rather good fighter.

BTW, those intakes have mesh screens in them… give the russians some credit, they DO have a clue about LO, they did the original theorywork, Poitr Ufimtsev.

Looks like a damn fine strike aircraft to me… affordable, fast, long legs, good weapons load and able to look after itself in a fight.


ANdy
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 3:45:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By avengeusa:

Originally Posted By obershutze916:
It looks like a gracefull version of the F-111. Yet another copy from the land of Vodka, whores and midnight knocks on doors.






Nope, It's a development of the SU-27… a rather good fighter.

BTW, those intakes have mesh screens in them… give the russians some credit, they DO have a clue about LO, they did the original theorywork, Poitr Ufimtsev.

Looks like a damn fine strike aircraft to me… affordable, fast, long legs, good weapons load and able to look after itself in a fight.


ANdy



And some folks in Congress are saying we really don't need the F-22 to stay ahead.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 4:01:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By avengeusa:

Originally Posted By obershutze916:
It looks like a gracefull version of the F-111. Yet another copy from the land of Vodka, whores and midnight knocks on doors.






Nope, It's a development of the SU-27… a rather good fighter.

BTW, those intakes have mesh screens in them… give the russians some credit, they DO have a clue about LO, they did the original theorywork, Poitr Ufimtsev.

Looks like a damn fine strike aircraft to me… affordable, fast, long legs, good weapons load and able to look after itself in a fight.


ANdy




I see no bubble canopy - limited rearward visibility. A problem if this bird is supposed to be self-escorting. Very much cuts down on the "Observe" of OODA. Also squared vertical stabs - not exactly an RCS reducing measure there. Plenty good for bombing Checnyans I am sure.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 4:05:30 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 4:10:03 AM EDT


+



=



Which is a nice big fat target for these;



Link Posted: 5/18/2005 4:20:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:
[
BTW, those intakes have mesh screens in them… give the russians some credit, they DO have a clue about LO, they did the original theorywork, Poitr Ufimtsev.


ANdy



Are these screens the same ones that are on the SU-27, which are only used to prevent FOD?
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 4:21:30 AM EDT
DAG GUM!



That is a VERY LARGE hole in the ground.

Wonder what they're mining?
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 4:34:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bvmjethead:
DAG GUM!

img274.echo.cx/img274/5099/ec02028121wo.jpg

That is a VERY LARGE hole in the ground.

Wonder what they're mining?



Borates

www.infomine.com/careers/eoc/usborax.asp
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 5:50:18 AM EDT
Gentlemen,

Please do not underestimate the capabilities of the Russian designers or this plane. While it may not be up to the stealth or flight capabilities of an F-22, nonetheless it is very likely a very formidable opponent, especially in the maritime strike role.

This plane is a logical follow-on to the SU-24MK Fencer nuclear capable strike fighter of the '80s and '90s. While preparing for GW I, I was part of a team involved in exploiting that aircraft, especially the EW suite. We were VERY impressed at that planes capabilities to attack naval ships and survive, even in a powerful AAW missile environment. We were also stunned to learn that the former Soviet Union had sold fully capable Fencers to Saddam!

This plane is very probably loaded with EW gear and trust me, that can be a force multiplier.

Please believe me, there are ways to fool ground based and shipboard sensors and to completely spoof incoming AAW missiles, whether fired from a ship or an opposing fighter. When you can do that...with some high level of confidence, then you need not worry about an F-22 nor an Aegis ship. EW tricks can significantly increase a combat aircraft's chances of survival. The Russians know this very well. They are VERY good at radar and EW design.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 6:42:29 AM EDT
A toilet in the back. Mmmm I would not want to be in their when they do a barrel roll or if your buddy had some bad mexican the night before.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 7:59:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By obershutze916:
I am still not worried. While Rissan aircraft look very cool and sport all kinds of special equipment on them, they are still inferior.

They tend to have multiple weapons and detections sytems due to each individual system not being on par with the West.

Then the real problem comes in. Lack of training for their crews and support crews. They do not fly nearly as much as they should and the support crews do not get the training they should. if the weakest point is the pilot, the rest is poinless. This is not a fault of the aircraft rather the government who buys it.

Most claims of the abilities of Russian aircraft have been proven to be untrue or highly exagerated.

I would have thought the SU-27 to be a great aircraft as well, but if it was, why is it being replaced so soon?

Very nice looking airframe never-the-less.



It's not replacing the 27, it's augmenting it, much as our Strike Eagle augmented our F-15C's.

The parallels are eerie: The SU-27 is their equivalent, roughly, to our F-15C, and the SU-34 is replacing their SU-24, a rather strikingly similar design to the F-111 which the Strike Eagle replaced.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 9:59:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sterling18:

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:
Looks like they finally copied the F-111
So what, they can afford to build 4 or 5 and they will slowly be destroyed at air shows.
I also love how all their "latest and greatest" seem to be mixed copies of our planes.



Hey Spectre,

Nice call. Pig with lipstick.



Yeah, but you can only put so much lipstick on that pig.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 10:26:02 AM EDT
The Su-24 Fencer is the Russian version of the F-111. The Su-34 is a much more sophisticated aircraft in every way.

www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/su-34.htm

Su-34 (Su-27IB - Istrebitel-Bombardirovshchik) is a two seat ("arm-to-arm") strike variant that first flew in 1990. It features frontal wings and a large flattened nose with sharp edges (like the SR-71) reduce radar cross-section. This new ship-borne fighter is fitted with two AL-31FP engines with vectored thrust. Using them allows either the take-off distance or maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of the aircraft to be increased by 10-15 per cent. In the nose is a new multi-mode phased-array radar with terrain-following and terrain-avoidance for low-level attack. The aircraft has a distinctive large "sting" in the rear which contains the NO-14 radiolocation system, a radioelectronic countermeasures system, and a fuel tank. The NIIP NO-12 rearward radar that monitors enemy fighter activity behind the aircraft, and as needed, direct R-73 short-range and R-77 medium-range AAMs at the targets.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 10:34:00 AM EDT
Too bad for the russians their pilots will have almost no time in simulators.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top