"Hell of a duckling": Su-34 bomber for 60 seconds

Su-34 is a Russian multifunctional fighter-bomber designed to attack enemy ground targets in operational and tactical depth. TV channel "Star" talks about one of the newest aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Force.

Su-34 was created as a replacement for the Su-24 front-line bomber, while the designers took into account the presence of a large number of fourth-generation fighter aircraft from a potential enemy. That is why the aircraft is able not only to strike at ground targets, but also to conduct air combat.

Read the full article and watch the video can be on the site "Star" - "Hell of a duckling": Su-34 bomber for 60 seconds

Comments

[210ox]

Replacing the Su24 is a must. The plane is quite old and unreliable, unfortunately ..

[Stas157]

Su-34 is a great plane, but expensive. Even for our country. An excellent substitute for something happens when it is not more expensive in price, but better in quality. But, the old Su-24 is cheaper and more economical than the modern Su-34. It’s not easy that the majority of sorties in Syria are carried out by the old Su-24.
Smashing the Papuans doesn’t need such an advanced aircraft as the Duckling. Namely, this is the most demanded in the world. For this, even a Yak-130 with SVP-24 would do. Therefore, along with such a formidable aircraft as the Su-34, you need some sort of cheap bomber.
So the market confirms this, the Su-34, in spite of its high qualities, is in no hurry to buy, even after it has shown itself in Syria. But the cheap Yak-130, which has not shown itself anywhere, is taken by many. And if the Yak-130 was sharpened to work on the ground, then buyers clearly increased.

[Alexey-74]

It’s not just about the market. There is a concept of modern warfare, and as you know, it can strike unexpectedly ..... and since the Su-24 was successfully bombed against the Papuans, this will not work in a modern lightning war ...... that means our fleet should be sufficiently equipped with new ones “Ducklings” is, after all, the country's prestige.

[yehat]

the park should not only be equipped, but also trained
which means that ducklings must fly.

[okko077]

Dear, Stas157, stop talking nonsense! Since when has the SU-24 become cheaper and more economical than the SU-34? Your sick imagination is not based on anything. The terms of preparation for the departure, the consumption of kerosene, the cost of one hour of departure and labor costs are much higher, and the reliability of the SU-24 .... Both of these planes are front-line bombers and are used for other purposes in Syria, because of other machines, but more precisely, IBA planes, simply not. They (SU-17M4 and MIG-27) were completely destroyed at storage bases ..... SU-24 with SVP-24 was created on the initiative of a private developer and made its way through the decade, despite the fierce resistance of Sukhoi, who shoved its mediocre refinement under brand SU-24 M2. The exact number of SU-24 equipped SVP-24s is unknown ... and how this modification is combined with M2 is difficult to figure out .... The Su-34 complex is not the same and has a difference from the SVP-24 .... And as for the Yak- 130 an interesting thought, but it is not yet progressing due to the small capacities for their production, and most importantly, to the stupidity of the command of the airborne forces ... The story with the introduction of SVP-24 on Su-24 confirms this ... Moreover, the idea of ​​making an attack aircraft from Su often sounds -34. Such stupidity is not surprising ....

[Stas157]

Quote: okko077

Dear, Stas157, stop talking nonsense! Since when has the SU-24 become cheaper and more economical than the SU-34? Your sick imagination is not based on anything. The terms of preparation for departure, the consumption of kerosene, the cost of one hour of departure and labor costs are much higher, and the reliability of the SU-24 is much lower ....

But what is your imagination based on, not a sick imagination, based on? The fact that the Su-24 is more economical is evident from the fact that its engines have less thrust. And then the Su-34 is corny heavier than the Su-24. So which plane will be more economical, which is lighter and less powerful, or which one is heavier and more high-torque?

[okko077]

From experience in the process of serving in the Air Force ... I happened to serve the Su-17M3, Su-24 and Su-27, the latter became the basis for the Su-34 and does not differ in powerplant and concept from the Su-27 .... Listen and remember ... Dummies can compare power plants and combat radii ... Su-24 tucks 9 tons and plus 3 tons into hanging tanks and is forced to fly with them even in Syria ... SU-24 was made to deliver nuclear weapons and break through enemy air defense , and in one direction, no one thought about the economy and costs ... The weight of the empty ones is almost the same ...

[Krabik]

Moreover, the new equipment develops production, raises the salary of workers and gives pilots a great opportunity to fly on new equipment, rather than on old garbage.

[AlexG83]

No matter how good the Su-24 is, the Su-34 is an outdated log (it looks like a log and flies like a log). You pilots apparently do not mind?

[Krabik]

The SU-24 was good when it was new, and now it’s a lot of garbage ...

[AlexG83]

The Su-34 glider is more "flat", the wing area is larger, due to this - the overall "glider lift" is larger. It is easier for him to take off with a full load, it is easier to land even with cut down engines. :)
It can be used as a fighter. On Su 24, do not attach the Khibiny to the wingtips, and is there an APU on it?
In general, where did you get the data, how many Su-34s have export orders?

[iouris]

"Thunder Papuans" - this is not a job for the Su-24. This machine is designed to "smash" NATO in Europe, from extremely low altitudes. And "profitability" for a military aircraft is not a criterion. Of course, the obsolete Su-24 is distinguished by a high specific fuel consumption, high labor costs for preparing for the flight, etc. Currently, there is no “economical aircraft” for the “rout of the Papuans”.

[Voyager]

Quote: Stas157

The fact that the Su-24 is more economical is evident from the fact that its engines have less thrust.

Less traction does not mean that the engine is more economical. In addition, the difference in thrust in these aircraft is small. More economical is the aircraft, which, in terms of the combination of parameters, is more profitable to use, requires less repair, maintenance and modernization. All this is not about the outdated Su-24