Military Review

Su-34 vs. F-15E, or How not to compare combat aircraft

143
Recently, an extremely interesting article by the distinguished Yevgeny Damantsev was published on the pages of “Military Review” The “red” level of threat to the Russian videoconferencing system: the result of the unspoken race “tactics” of the Su-34 and F-15E ”. The title was so intriguing that the article was swallowed up in a moment. However, as it was read, almost every paragraph raised more and more new questions, the answers to which, alas, were not found in the material of the respected author.


Necessary disclaimer: the author of this article does not consider himself an expert in the field of aviation, and everything that will be said below is his point of view, which, of course, may not be the ultimate truth.

So let's start with the title. It turns out that between the American F-15E and our Su-34 there is some kind of unspoken race. It must be remembered here that the first F-15E were transferred to the US Air Force in December 1988, deliveries were made before 2001, and the 236 aircraft of this type were built for the US Air Force.



In principle, the Su-34 could have been launched into a series in 1994, but the collapse of the Union and the subsequent chaos prevented the aircraft from taking the wing. But in 2000's, they still remembered him - on the eve of the massive write-off of the Su-24.

Of course, a lot of time has elapsed since Soviet times: it was necessary to adjust the production of components previously produced in the countries of the “near abroad”, the aircraft equipment also needed to be improved. Therefore, it is not surprising that the state tests of the Su-34 continued until 2011, and the aircraft entered service with the Russian Air Force only in 2014. In other words, today we have two cars, one of which is just starting its service, and the second on 2018, it has already reached 18-30 years from the moment it entered the wing and, in general, is already close to the end of its life cycle.

What race can there be between these two planes? We could talk about the race, if we put the Su-34 in operation in the 90-s of the last century. But if we put the aircraft into service after 26 years after its American counterpart, this is no longer a race, but rather a topic for a sad joke.

If it is not clear what the race is, then all the more it is not clear what its outcome might be: in the article, the distinguished author compares the capabilities of F-15E and Su-34 to date. I must say that such a comparison, despite the difference in the age of the American and domestic cars, is quite legitimate. The fact is that today the tactical bomber niche in the USAF is represented by F-15E, so that it and Su-34 have similar tasks that, if a military conflict happens, they will have to be solved without discounts on the age of the machines or the lack of equipment.



Where does the comparison of the Su-34 and F-15E begin? With the message that the F-15 has come into useweapon - tactical long-range cruise missile AGM-158B JASSM-ER (hereafter - quotes from the article by the respected E. Damantsev):

“Firstly, the acquisition of strategic strike qualities by all US Air Force squadrons equipped with Strike Eagle tactical fighters without exception.


Is this probably good? From the point of view of E. Damantsev, it’s even excellent, because US planes get a “long arm” that our planes do not seem to have. But the author of this article creeps in vague doubts, and the reason is this.

A tactical bomber (in our country this class of aircraft was called a front-line bomber) is an aircraft designed to launch air strikes against ground (surface) targets of the enemy in operational and tactical depth under the conditions of strong opposition from enemy air defenses. In other words, a tactical bomber has its own peculiar and very specific tasks on the battlefield.

Generally speaking, strategic tasks, which mean the defeat of strategic objectives on the territory of the enemy, should be solved by strategic aviation. To do this, she has specialized aircraft and the same weapons.

Can the F-15E, having received the AGM-158B JASSM-ER, effectively carry out the tasks of a strategic bomber? Let's get a look. E. Damantsev writes:

"With a mixed flight profile without refueling, the strike range of this missile from the F-15E will approach 2500 km (comparable to the strikes of the Tu-22М3 long-range bomber using airballistic missiles of the X-15 family)."


Well, let's try to figure it out. F-15E combat radius when flying on a mixed profile with PTB (outboard fuel tanks) is 1 270 km. The JASSM-ER range of the AGM-158B is usually indicated by the 1 300 km. The total strike range of the F-15E is 1 270 km + 1 300 km = 2 570 km. It seems to be - that's right, but there is one discrepancy - we do not know with what combat load an American aircraft is capable of flying the combat radius 1 270 km. Because quite often for fighter-bombers (and the F-15E is still very close to them), the maximum combat radius is indicated not for the shock, but for the anti-aircraft variant of the combat load, which is usually understood to be a pair of AMRAAM missiles (the mass of one such missile is of the order of 161 kg) and the same "Sidewinder" (91 kg), that is, a little more than nothing.

Now take the Tu-22M3M. Its combat radius is usually indicated by 2 410 km at subsonic speed and along a mixed profile - i.e. in conditions similar to those reported for F-15, but ... with a load of 12 tons. Considering the fact that the range of the X-15 airballistic missile is of the order of 285-300 km, the maximum impact range of the Tu-22М3М is indeed 2 695 - 2 710 km. True, the Tu-22М3М will “deliver” a lot more missiles than the F-15E to this distance, or else, if the ammunition load decreases, it can take additional fuel and increase its combat radius.

But another thing is strange: why does E. Damantsev accept for comparison X-15, and not X-32 with its range 800-1 000 km?



In this case, the strike range of the Tu-22М3М increases to 3210 – 3410 km, which is more in 1,25-1,33 than in F-15E. And how many AGM-158B JASSM-ER missiles can take on the ultimate combat radius of the F-15E, and how many X-32 - the Tu-22М3М?

Immediately there is another incomprehensible point. Dear author writes:

“Without refueling in the air, launches can be carried out at facilities in the Belgorod, Kaluga, Pskov and Leningrad regions (subject to take-off from AvB Leikhenhes). In the case of a single refueling of F-15E over the territory of Germany or Eastern Europe, the most important objects of the Kuban, Volga region and Western Urals will be within reach. ”


No, the question is not how to convince Angela Merkel to divide Germany again into two parts, so that F-15E can refuel over its western territory. God bless him, and with the Western Urals, but, for example, from the Russian-Latvian border to Perm in a straight line - 1685 km. And in order to launch a JASSM-ER with its maximum range of 1 300 km through this city, it is necessary to invade our airspace almost on 400 km. Is it really at this time that our air defenses and the VKS will peacefully slumber in the sun?

Again, here you can argue that the US Air Force in its combat power roughly corresponds to the Air Force of all other NATO countries plus the Russian Aerospace Forces combined, and that if they are given time to accumulate in Europe and they will need much, they will invade and we will not stop them. This, of course, is true, but the article compares the fighting qualities of the two aircraft. There is no doubt that the consideration “our plane is better because we have ten of them yours” is extremely weighty in a real conflict, but when comparing the performance characteristics it is hardly appropriate.

But back to our missile carriers. Tu-22М3, unlike the American plane, can go on cruising supersonic, but in this case its combat radius is reduced to 1 500 - 1 850 km, but the F-15 will have obvious problems with it: the plane for long flights to supersonic speeds not optimized.

Thus, the F-15E, neither in terms of strikes by the most modern cruise missiles, nor in the speed of strikes of these strikes, nor in the number of missiles “under the wings”, has the slightest advantage of the Tu-22М3М. But the Tu-22М3М is a non-strategic bomber, it is a cross between a full-fledged “strategist” and a tactical bomber. It’s even funny to compare the capabilities of the F-15 with a real strategic missile carrier, like the Tu-160. Tu-160 flying into the air above the airfield into the air and without flying will shoot out its cruise missiles twice (according to other sources, almost fourfold) further than the F-15E can do at the ultimate combat radius. In other words, F-15E, of course, can be used as a strategic bomber ... but it will be a very, very bad strategic bomber. And even the squadron F-15E smashes to one specialized aircraft of this class.

Does this mean that equipping the F-15E with AGM-158B JASSM-ER long-range missiles is a mistake? Of course not. The ability to suspend a new JASSM-ER under the wing of an American aircraft means that, in addition to its main tasks, F-15 can now hit targets located behind 1 300 km from the launch point. In some circumstances, this can be extremely useful.

However, the key to this phrase is “in addition to its main tasks”.

We have already said above that the task of a tactical bomber is to destroy enemy objects to the operational and tactical depth. And the ability of the F-15E to carry the AGM-158B does not add anything to the ability to solve this problem - for this, the long-range JASSM-ER is simply redundant. Again, a simple example - let's say someone in our ministry of defense took the equipment of the F-15E with long-range rockets to heart, issued the necessary TK, and the designers hung a X-34 or X-101 cruise missile on the Su-102, either 4 500 whether 5 500 km distance, or even more. The technical possibility for this exists, the rocket weighs less than 2,5 tons, which is more than available for Su-34. And yes, in this case, our plane ... eghkm ... the arm becomes obviously longer, but does this increase the capabilities of the Su-34 as a tactical bomber? In general, no, because the X-101 is intended entirely for other tasks.

In order to strike at targets deep in the enemy’s battle formations (or behind them), a tactical bomber must be as visible as possible to the enemy. He is not the "king of the air", and should avoid meeting with enemy fighters. It should be "invisible" for ground defense components, but it needs to be able to suppress and destroy these components. At the same time, the aircraft must be able to “work” in a difficult interfering environment, if necessary - to use interference, protecting itself from unnecessary “attention”. Therefore, the key technologies for a tactical bomber are:

1. Technologies to reduce radar visibility - "stealth".

2). Equipment that provides maximum opportunities for detecting and classifying enemy objects with passive, non-emitting means, such as, for example, an optical-electronic surveillance and sight system.

3. Perfect aiming systems to ensure the destruction of the target used by ammunition.

4. Electronic countermeasures and other means of protecting the aircraft.

So, oddly enough, but the article by E. Damantsev does not contain this analysis. He examines how well the F-15E and Su-34 can perform the functions of a strategic bomber, he examines the capabilities of these planes in aerial combat, comparing their radar, but he does not compare the capabilities of these machines at all when performing their tasks. destroy enemy ground objects in a difficult situation.

Instead, we read:

“If the state machine has JASSM-ER, which has a range of 1200 km, then our Su-34’s main long-range caliber is X-59МК2 Ovod-M” with a range of 285 km ... ... As a result, the maximum The “depth” of the Su-34 strike using the “Gadfly-M” is only 1415 km against 2500 km from the F-15E “Strke Eagle”.


Of course, measuring the length of ... hands is an interesting and fascinating exercise, but this does not determine the capabilities of a tactical bomber. And then, if we undertake to compare something, it would be nice to do it correctly. The “depth” of the strike E. Damantsev thinks so: 1 270 km of combat radius F-15 + 1 200 km of distance JASSM-ER = 2 470 km. The combat radius of the Su-34 is 1 130 km, the flight range of the Gadget is 285 km, 1 130 km + 285 km = 1 415 km.

Everything would be fine, but only for the Su-34 its combat radius is taken during low-altitude flight from the PTB, and for the F-15E it is taken with a mixed flight profile. But if you take comparable figures (for the low-altitude profile for both aircraft), then the combat radius will be 800 km from the American Eagle and 1 130 km = from the Su-34. Accordingly, it turns out that the impact depth of the F-15E is 2 100 km (taking into account the fact that the JASSM-ER still flies not on the 1 200, but on the 1 300 km), but on the Su-34 - 1 415 km. Well, when flying along a mixed profile (assuming that such a Su-34 is more than 1,41 times, i.e. as much as its combat radius is "at the ground"), we will get the depth of impact 2 078 km 2 570 m from the "American."

But that's not all. The fact is that the X-59MK2 “Ovod-M” range in 290 km is declared on “MAKS-2015”, and here we cannot exclude that this is an export version, limited in the 300 range, km, and for domestic VKS it maybe more. Although - may not be. The fact is that tactical bomber aviation is focused on "work" on the operational depth, i.e. 200, a maximum of 300 km from the front line, and the Ovod-M shoots it through. Where even more?

Next E. Damantsev talks about the advantages of the American AN / APG-82 (V) 1 radar, and this, of course, is the case - the American AFAR is more perfect. By the way, how much?

"Target detection range with 1 EF apt. m is APG-82 of order 145 km, which is 60% better than W-141 (B004) installed on Su-34! ”


Generally speaking, Raytheon is extremely reluctant to share information about its radars: for AN / APG-82 (V) 1, the author of this article came across such data - detection of a target with 3 EPR. m at a distance 170 km. For Su-34 - 120 km, which generally speaking gives superiority in 41,7%, and not in 60%. But the question is different - W-141E is integrated with television, thermal imaging and laser navigation and sighting systems, a complex of electronic reconnaissance, electronic countermeasures and active interference, but what about AN / APG-82 (V) 1? Previously, the same F-15E terrain rounding mode was possible only when using LANTIRN overhead containers, and now? By the way, for Ш-141 this is one of the regular modes of operation. Speaking of AN / APG-82 (V) 1, E. Damantsev writes:

"... separate groups of receiving and transmitting modules can be used for directing jamming in the direction of enemy radio equipment."


This is an excellent skill. As far as the author of this article knows, our radar systems are able to do the same, but perhaps the author is mistaken. But no mistake can be that the combat capability of the aircraft is determined not only by the radar, but by all its systems. The newest REP complexes (the same Khibins) put a number of electronic countermeasures of the Su-34 on a par with such electronic warfare monsters as the specialized American E / A-18G “Growler” aircraft, which certainly exceeds the similar capabilities of the F-15Е .

E. Damantsev scares us with the implementation of the LPI (“Low Probability of Intercept”) mode. The fact is that today the entire airspace of the planet is riddled with radio waves of one purpose or another - a huge number of radar stations, radio stations, repeaters, cellular communications and other sources of radio emission have long filled the reality around us and form a kind of “background radio noise”. Roughly speaking, the LPI mode consists in the fact that the radar of an aircraft generates a signal of very complex and constantly changing modulation and of such strength that it disguises it as “background noise” in power at the receiving station of the irradiated aircraft. The idea is that separate and not similar to each other signals that are not distinguished by power from the “white noise” will not be perceived as the irradiation of the enemy radar.

Without going into details, let us pay attention to E. Damantsev's other words:

“... to detect such a source of radiation can only specialized means of electronic intelligence, for example, the new ACT L-150" Pastel ".


But the fact is that Su-34 are armed, including SPO L-150 "Pastel". And then what is the advantage of the LPI mode on the F-15E?

Arguments about the capabilities of on-board radar stations of US and Russian tactical bombers are certainly interesting, but there is one not unimportant nuance. The fact is that a tactical bomber is usually used for the destruction of targets, the location of which was established earlier, by means of space, air, or other intelligence. Therefore, the task of a tactical bomber is to reach the target as imperceptibly as possible, to carry out additional exploration, using airborne sighting systems and destroy the target. Ideally, in the performance of a combat mission, a tactical bomber should not include its own radar at all - because the best way to tell the enemy: “I'm here, right now, I’ll do it!” In modern war, probably, does not exist.

Radar combat aircraft does not provide a circular review, it searches in a certain sector in the direction of its movement. At the same time, the radio electronic surveillance stations of the enemy (and ours, of course) are able to detect the radiation of enemy radars at much greater distances than onboard radar - to detect the target. On the other hand, a number of radar stations can work not only in active, but also in passive mode, being a good means of electronic reconnaissance, which would be very useful for a tactical bomber. Do AN / APG-82 (V) 1 and W-141E have such capabilities? Alas, from the article, we do not know.

Completing the radar analysis, E. Damantsev makes an excellent conclusion.

“Considering the higher resolution of the first one, the possible LPI mode, the ability to create directed interferences, as well as the ability to form“ dips ”in the directivity pattern at the source of the REB source, the total potential of the F-15E in air superiority tasks and distances over 50 km many times exceeds Su's capabilities -34.


It remains only to say that the task of "winning air superiority" was never put before a tactical bomber. The main tasks of the domestic bomber aviation are:
· The destruction of nuclear missiles;
· The defeat of airplanes (helicopters) and other objects on the airfields (sites);
· The defeat of command and control centers and ground elements of the hands;
· Defeat of manpower and military equipment (Tanks, artillery, air defense) of the enemy in operational depth;
· Destruction of railway stations, bridges, ferries and other objects;
· The defeat of airborne and amphibious assault forces in the areas of loading and disembarking.

Bombers may also be involved in aerial reconnaissance.

If we compare F-15E with Su-34, it would be nice to start with analytics on weapon guidance systems for ground targets. Su-34 and F-15E appear here as spokesmen for different concepts, because the American plane is focused on the container placement of similar systems, while at Su-34 it is integrated. Each method has its own advantages and disadvantages. So, for example, the container complex degrades the aerodynamics of the aircraft and increases its EPR, but on the other hand, if there are clusters of bombs and missiles under its wings, then a couple of containers do not particularly solve anything. On the other hand, it is easy to remove the container and install a new one, but the integrated guidance system is much more difficult to replace, if at all possible. The American F-15E at one time demonstrated high efficiency with the container system LANTIRN, and today, as far as the author knows, it is being replaced with an even more modern Sniper-XR system, which, by some parameters, is at times superior to the old system. At the same time, relatively recently, about the “Platan” Su-34 it was customary to be expressed solely on foul language. In the internet, the phrase of an unnamed "experienced aircraft engineer" wanders:

“It is impossible to compare the Platan sighting system installed on the Su-34 with the American Sniper-XR. It is the same as comparing the “hunchbacked” Zaporozhets with the brand-new Mercedes. But “humpbacked”, unlike “Platan,” sometimes works. ”


Maybe it certainly is, but only the Su-34 still showed excellent work in Syria, which is completely incompatible with idle sights. Does it mean that Platan does work sometimes? Or was some other complex installed on the Su-34? Does it have all-weather capability, can it be used at night?

Wanting to get relatively cheap precision weapons, the Americans took the old free-fall bomb and fastened a JPS navigator to it, getting a JDAM controlled one. We went the other way by inventing a sight, which allows us to repeatedly increase the accuracy of the bombing of conventional free-fall ammunition. Our path is cheaper and, perhaps, more correct. Of course, SVP-24 "Hephaestus" will not replace the adjustable bombs, because, although it significantly increases the accuracy of bombing, the free-fall ammunition will never be as accurate as the controlled one. But now our strike aircraft can use precision-guided munitions, or strike the adversary with conventional bombs with very high accuracy, while the F-15E has no second possibility. At the same time, the use of high-precision ammunition (even relatively cheap, like JDAM) is not always justified. But there is another point of view that the increased consumption of aerial bombs with a lower chance of hitting a point target makes the use of the SVP-24 “Hephaestus” comparable in cost to JDAM. Who is right?

That's what you want to know, starting to read the article, which compares the capabilities of the Su-34 and F-15E. But when, instead, you see arguments about who their “above-mentioned” airplanes are “cooler” in aerial combat, you feel a little deceived. Because declaring a “red threat” because F-15E surpassed Su-34 in terms of the possibilities of winning air supremacy is about the same thing as talking about the collapse of Samsung smartphone manufacturers, because Apple’s similar products are not like more convenient to open beer bottles.

But back to the article of the respected E. Damantsev:

"As for the use of the Su-34 in interception operations, in contrast to the Strike Eagle, the maximum speed with suspension in the 1,7M does not quite correspond to these tasks."


If we still undertake to argue about who flies better - whale or hedgehog, then let's pay attention to some nuances.

Without a doubt, the American aircraft is capable of developing 2,5 mach, and this is noticeably larger than the 1,8M Su-34. But ... it is known that, although the maximum take-off mass of the Su-34 and F-15E differs, it is not at all several times the 45 100 kg of the Su-34 and 36 741 kg of the Eagle. Su-34 is heavier than F-15E by 22,8%. But the capacity of the internal fuel tanks the difference between these planes is radically 5 942 kg in F-15E vs. 12 000 kg in Su-34. In this parameter, the Su-34 exceeds the American aircraft in 2,02 times! How does the American plane manage to have a combat radius that is more or less comparable to the Su-34?

The answer is very simple: the F-15E is equipped with conformal tanks. Unlike PTB, they do not hang under the wings, but are directly adjacent to the aircraft and cannot be dropped in the air. So - the capacity of these tanks in F-15E is 4 275 kg, bringing the total fuel to 10 217 kg, which, in fact, equalizes the combat radii of the Su-34 and F-15E. Of course, both aircraft can increase fuel reserves by using conventional PTB, but this is not the case now.

The fact is that conformal tanks, with all their advantages, are far from having the best effect on the aerodynamics of the aircraft. And the F-15E, “dressed” in them, loses sharply in speed - with conformal tanks it can develop ... 1,8М, i.e. exactly as much as the Russian Su-34. Thus, the F-15E, of course, can "work" and an interceptor, but only due to a sharp drop in the combat radius. You can, of course, abandon the conformal tanks, use conventional PTB (they hold 5 396 kg of fuel), but firstly, the radius will still be much inferior to Su-34 with PTB, and secondly - the speed of F-15E with PTB is limited 1,4M. So the only way for this aircraft to fight as a fighter at some distance from the home airfield is to take off and patrol PTB, and in case of anything, drop outboard fuel tanks with all the fuel that remained in them and join the battle .

And finally, the last (in order, but not least) aspect. It is known that in the initial period of the Second World War, the German tank forces were extremely successful, despite the fact that the German tanks, in their main performance characteristics (speed, caliber of guns, thickness of armor) were at best "middling" - in the forces of the anti-Hitler coalition much more powerful and / or heavily armored vehicles. Of course, in the successes of the “Pancerwaffe” there were many components, but among them not the last role was played by the fact that the German combat vehicles were extremely (for their time) convenient for their crews. In this regard, the Su-34 represents a big step forward for domestic aviation - here and landing pilots shoulder to shoulder, which facilitates interaction, and a toilet with a mini-kitchen for long-haul flights, and cabin “conditioning”, in which up to a height of 10 is thousands of meters. there is no need to wear oxygen masks ... Ergonomics, anyway, it means a lot, but, unfortunately, we will not see a comparison of the Su-34 and F-15E on this parameter in E. Damantseva. It's a pity.

What is the conclusion of the foregoing? He is very simple. The quality of military equipment is determined by its ability to perform the tasks for which this technique was created. Therefore, a comparison of the technical characteristics of military equipment should be carried out not "in general", but in relation to its specific tasks, and not every one, but characteristic of this class of military equipment. A two-handed sword gives its owner an overwhelming advantage against an enemy armed with a regular knife ... unless it is a fight of fighting swimmers at a depth of twenty meters.

Thank you for attention!
Author:
143 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. figwam
    figwam 20 February 2018 15: 39
    +16
    By the way, the combat load of the F-15E is 11 tons, and the Su-34 is 8 tons, but 11 tons, taking into account the PTB and conformal tanks, if the F-15E is completely filled, then 5 tons are left for service. And the Su-34 also has an armored cockpit which increases the weight of the aircraft, but also increases the chances of the crew to survive.
    1. Romario_Argo
      Romario_Argo 20 February 2018 16: 52
      +10
      and write correctly (!)
      what is the bomb load: F-15 - 5 tons, at Su-34 - 9 tons and 12 tons with a radius of less than 1000 km.
      1. figwam
        figwam 20 February 2018 17: 21
        +2
        Romario_Argo

        I wrote this because the Americans always overstate the performance characteristics, and we underestimate it.
        1. dauria
          dauria 20 February 2018 20: 01
          +4
          that Americans always overstate TTX


          And lying is not necessary. It’s enough to keep silent about the details. For example, the radar range for a "typical" target. This parameter is statistical and must be paired with the probability of correct detection. If you take 0,5 - we get 100 km, and from 0,7 - then "only" 75 km, and against the background of the earth, generally 30 km. And such subtleties of a cart and a cart.
          1. supertiger21
            supertiger21 20 February 2018 23: 33
            +19
            Reading the article, I immediately recognized the familiar handwriting of a VO old-timer in aviation. And yet I was not mistaken, an excellent article from Andrei. good I remember earlier, four years ago, similar articles with a rich description and comparison of the performance characteristics of airplanes were common, but now they are in short supply ... Basically, anything is political ... But still, like today, sometimes we see. Definitely put an asterisk! wink
    2. Su24
      Su24 21 February 2018 00: 30
      +6
      What is the conclusion from the foregoing?


      The conclusion is that the author wrote a long and stupid sheet, in which he was mainly engaged in commenting on the opponent’s text, rather than comparing two planes, as it seemed to be stated at the beginning. It’s sad.
      1. avt
        avt 21 February 2018 10: 07
        +10
        Quote: Su24
        . It’s sad.

        request Sadly, it is a fact - if they are not able to comprehend what is written, then this is not the author’s problem, but your misfortune. But judging by aplomb about
        Quote: Su24
        the author wrote a long and stupid sheet, in which he was mainly engaged in commenting on the opponent’s text,
        own such secret knowledge that even it seems that the article itself has not been read from the beginning, well, about
        Recently, an extremely interesting article by the respected Evgeny Damantsev “Red” threat level for the Russian Air Force was published on the pages of “Military Review”: the outcome of the secret race of “tactics” of the Su-34 and F-15E became clear. ”
        And in general, from the field of psychiatry
        Quote: Su24
        and not by comparing two planes, as it seemed to be stated at the beginning.

        For even the headline reads
        Su-34 vs. F-15E, or How not to compare combat aircraft
        So yes
        Quote: Su24
        It is sad.

        Your comment resembles a scene from a specialized doctor who shows the patient pictures and asks to say that he sees and receives different answers for different images .......... (put the right one yourself). And to the question - why exactly ,,,,,,,? And I always think about ......
      2. Setrac
        Setrac 21 February 2018 19: 51
        +3
        Quote: Su24
        The conclusion is that the author wrote a long and stupid sheet, in which he was mainly engaged in commenting on the opponent’s text, rather than comparing two planes

        Yepta, you at least read the table of contents to the end before commenting.
    3. Sergei1982
      Sergei1982 21 February 2018 16: 07
      +1
      Quote: figvam
      and the Su-34 is 8 tons

      Not so long ago, Bondarev talked about 12 tons, well, we take the maximum take-off 45 tons - the weight of the aircraft is 22,5 tons - the maximum fuel supply of 12,1 kg remains 10400 kg. Yes, and a typical airplane usually still has 2-4 tons, the load is important as a substitute for it with a fuel and energy tank.
  2. Alex_59
    Alex_59 20 February 2018 15: 40
    +9
    It seems to be - that’s all right, but there is one problem - we don’t know what combat load an American aircraft can fly to the combat radius of 1 270 km. Because all the time for fighter-bombers (and the F-15E is still very close to them) the maximum combat radius is indicated not for the strike, but for the anti-air version of the combat load, which is usually understood as a pair of AMRAAM missiles (the mass of one such missile is of the order of 161 kg) and the same number of “Sidewinder” (91 kg), that is, a little more than nothing.
    The carcasses of the rockets on the external suspension are not frailly thrown in frontal resistance, so you should not dream about 1270 km from the word "completely". The Tu-22M with X-15 rockets compares favorably with the fact that they are hidden inside the glider, however, those X-15 have long been gone, and the X-32 is also the same “brake”.
    and the designers hung an X-34 or X-101 cruise missile on the Su-102, with either 4 500 or 5 500 km of range, or even more.
    Will not work. According to the load limit on the attachment points.
    but the F-15E will have obvious problems with this: the aircraft was not optimized for long flights at supersonic speeds.
    And not only the plane. The rocket is also unlikely to be able to tolerate prolonged heating when flying in supersonic sound. And he will not fly at all on “normal” supersonic with these JASSMs. Too good resistance will be.

    By the way, today in our city there was a strong “bang-bang”. Our guys are having fun - someone unsuccessfully went to supersonic near the city. ))))
    1. DarkMatter
      DarkMatter 20 February 2018 16: 39
      +1
      Will not work. According to the load limit on the attachment points.

      What about the new smaller version of the X-101, namely the X-50? Kab-1500 drags the same drying.
    2. Serg4545
      Serg4545 20 February 2018 16: 55
      +1
      //Will not work. According to the load limit on the attachment points.//
      Is it hard to come up with something like an adapter? Which would be attached to adjacent attachment points. And already on the adapter hang the rocket. Thus, the load is evenly distributed between neighboring nodes and the load on each particular node will not exceed the calculated one.
    3. figwam
      figwam 20 February 2018 17: 07
      +1
      Quote: Alex_59

      and the designers hung an X-34 or X-101 cruise missile on the Su-102, with either 4 500 or 5 500 km of range, or even more.
      Will not work. According to the load limit on the attachment points

      On the approach is a new cruise missile for the Tu-22m3, product 715 with a range of 4000-5000 km for the inside of the fuselage with smaller dimensions and weight than the X-32, X-101-102, if the task is set, then they can hang on the Su-34 . The Bramos Indians on the Su-30 drag.
      1. lance
        lance 20 February 2018 20: 23
        0
        but it’s not a secret that everyone dragging the su30, dragging the su34 without problems. about the suspension is the same moot point. but as long as there is a strategist, why should 34 do this?
      2. NEXUS
        NEXUS 20 February 2018 22: 55
        +8
        Quote: figvam
        On the approach is a new cruise missile for the Tu-22m3, product 715 with a range of 4000-5000 km for the underfuselage compartment with smaller dimensions and weight than the X-32, X-101-102,

        The X-50 does not have such a range ... the claimed range is 1500 km. It is subsonic (with a cruising speed of 700 km / h, the maximum speed reaches 950 km / h), and its main feature is the reduction in size compared to the X-32 ... which will allow it to be placed in the 22nd internal bomb bay.
        This is our answer to Chamberlain called AGM-158 JASSM, which has a range of 1000 km, and the X-50 1500 km.
        Although in range there is such an opinion ...
        However, the report of the Omsk Design Bureau for 2014 indicates priority work on creating a new engine of the same family with significantly improved characteristics - “Product 37M”. And, I must say, there is a significant maneuver to improve performance. Because TRDD-50 began to be mass-produced in 1980. Moreover, it was produced in Ukraine. In 2000, it was decided to establish production in Russia, in connection with which the Omsk design bureau had to do significant restoration work. In parallel, they created another modification - TRDD-50B. However, in all current engines not so fresh technological level is used. So the “37M product” for the X-50 rocket is based on new technologies, technologies of the XNUMXst century.

        Therefore, information from Russian media sources that the “Product 715” will have a range comparable to X-101 missiles, or, in extreme cases, X-55 missiles (2500 km), does not seem science fiction. Of course, for this the mass of the warhead was reduced in order to free up space for fuel. Actually, the precedent for the appearance in the defense industry of such a "fantasy" already exists. True, on a smaller scale. Until 2010, the anti-ship missile X-35 had a range of 130 km. After its engine underwent a deep modernization, as well as the layout of the rocket, the X-35U appeared. Having the same dimensions, it acquired a twice as long range - 260 km.

        Thus, the Tu-22M3 will immediately receive two additional advantages. Firstly, the number of precision missiles that he will be able to take on a combat mission will increase. Secondly, it will be able to fire at enemy ground targets without entering the zone of its air defense. Of course, there will be help for our two more strategic missile carriers.

        As for the other qualities of the X-50, then various sources say about the same thing. The missile has an electronic warfare complex that creates electronic interference, and it is also equipped with towed traps for homing missile defense. The flight profile can be high-altitude, creeping or combined.

        So, there the range in fact (and not according to applications) can be not inferior to the Kyrgyz Republic Caliber-2600 km.
  3. Sedoy
    Sedoy 20 February 2018 15: 50
    +2
    A tactical bomber (in our country this class of aircraft was called a front-line bomber) is an aircraft designed to deliver strikes by air means of destruction against ground (surface) targets of an enemy at operational and tactical depths in conditions of strong opposition by means of enemy air defense.
    Generally speaking, strategic tasks, which mean the defeat of strategic objectives on the territory of the enemy, should be solved by strategic aviation. To do this, she has specialized aircraft and the same weapons.


    dubious argument ...
    there is nothing wrong with the fact that the "tactical" will have a "long arm" and be able to not enter the area of ​​"strong counteraction by the enemy’s air defense."
    and you don’t have to call “strategists” to solve tactical tasks ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      20 February 2018 16: 01
      +14
      Quote: Sedoy
      there is nothing wrong with the fact that the "tactical" will have a "long arm" and be able to not enter the area of ​​"strong counteraction by the enemy’s air defense."

      There is nothing wrong with that, therefore it is written
      In some circumstances, this can be extremely useful.

      The question is that it still remains a secondary task for a tactical aircraft, but it is necessary to compare by the ability to perform the main tasks
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 20 February 2018 22: 30
        +11
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        There is nothing wrong with that, therefore it is written

        Everything is written in the case ... one addition, it seems like we are adopting the "Drill" avibomb (PBK-500U SPBE-K) ... But it’s already correctable and flies 30 km (according to open sources), against 28 km of planning bombs equipped with the JDAM system. I mean that alongside SVP-24 we also have high-precision bombs that will perfectly reach the target themselves. So here you also need to see who is more equipped in this matter.
  4. Berber
    Berber 20 February 2018 15: 51
    +1
    I do not understand why compare f15 and tu22? Just count the number of these and realize that the comparison is not correct. A comparison of f15 and su34 is correct, if only because the tasks are similar. The plus is that the f15 functionality is expanding due to a new rocket.
    1. figwam
      figwam 20 February 2018 16: 07
      +4
      The Americans were forced to remake the F-15 fighter into a strike modification, before this the F-111 performed this task, but due to design flaws it was withdrawn from service. The Su-34 was originally created as a full-fledged front-line attack aircraft to replace the Su-24.
      1. Berber
        Berber 20 February 2018 16: 17
        +3
        I must say, very well they succeeded.
        1. figwam
          figwam 20 February 2018 16: 21
          +1
          Berber

          And no one knows this, the Americans have always fought against the weak and backward countries.
          1. Berber
            Berber 20 February 2018 16: 25
            0
            Think another fake about a rocket?
            1. figwam
              figwam 20 February 2018 16: 37
              +2
              No, I mean that an adversary with a modern air defense system, electronic warfare will prevent the aircraft and this missile from fulfilling its missions.
              1. Berber
                Berber 20 February 2018 16: 49
                +2
                I think of the situation. All the same, a decent range.
          2. staviator
            staviator 20 February 2018 16: 43
            0
            And no one knows this, the Americans have always fought against the weak and backward countries.

            In Korea, they actually fought in the air with the USSR, and the forces were approximately equal. (By air battles)
            1. figwam
              figwam 20 February 2018 17: 38
              +2
              staviator

              Actually, the victory in the air battles of the sky of Korea, the USSR against the USA, 3: 1 in our favor.
              Specifically, the F-15E fought against Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Libya.
              1. Thunderbolt
                Thunderbolt 20 February 2018 19: 17
                +1
                Quote: figvam
                And no one knows this, the Americans have always fought against the weak and backward countries.

                Quote: figvam
                an adversary with a modern air defense system, electronic warfare will prevent the aircraft and this missile from fulfilling its missions.

                But how do you know then that they will not let you complete the task? Purely theoretical means assumptions, because the countries in which you hint at the military experience of war with a equipped enemy are even less than the same Americans.
  5. Sedoy
    Sedoy 20 February 2018 16: 01
    +5
    Total limiting range of impact F-15E is 1 km + 270 km = 1 km. ..but there is one problem - we don’t know what combat load an American aircraft can fly to a combat radius of 300 km. .


    Yes, what's the difference when performing tactical tasks ...
    a missile range of 1300 km is enough for such tasks ...
    however, the aircraft itself will not enter the air defense zone - that’s all that is required ...
    in this section ...

    and ours will have to call TU-22 ...
    and our cat wept and they do not submit to tactical leadership, but almost to the Kremlin
    only with the "approvals" of high authorities can these eagles fly out on a mission ...
    Well, and how long will the tactical chief of this "go-ahead" wait ... :)
    when already nafig will not need to ...

    You can not read further ...
    1. Berber
      Berber 20 February 2018 16: 16
      +2
      That's what I'm talking about. How can tactics and strategists be compared? And if you compare with a similar technique, which one? Che the author is sophisticated.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        20 February 2018 16: 24
        +11
        Quote: BerBer
        How can tactics and strategists be compared?

        (shrug) Damantsev didn’t compare me, and it’s incorrect
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      20 February 2018 16: 23
      +7
      Quote: Sedoy
      a missile range of 1300 km is enough for such tasks ...

      This is called a sparrow cannon.
    3. Lock36
      Lock36 20 February 2018 22: 05
      +5
      Only one question: WHERE is he going to shoot at 1300 km? Does he have a means of detection at such a distance? IMHO here, even AWAX will not help him ...
      1. Snakebyte
        Snakebyte 21 February 2018 09: 06
        0
        A cruise missile flies along a programmed route to a target discovered by intelligence (for example, a satellite). Directly to the carrier, there is no need to detect the target yourself.
        1. glasha3032
          glasha3032 21 February 2018 13: 00
          0
          And if the satellites were shot down from the very beginning of the war?
          1. Snakebyte
            Snakebyte 21 February 2018 13: 03
            0
            In addition to satellites, there are other types of intelligence. A satellite for guidance is not required, you only need to specify the coordinates of the target.
            No one will send an airplane on a mission if the goal is not defined.
        2. Lock36
          Lock36 21 February 2018 14: 12
          +1
          Yes, but in such a situation, this is pure work of a strategic bomber. Only.
          That is, you can only shoot at pre-explored fairly large stationary objects. And on the fig for such an F-15E task?
          1. ZVO
            ZVO 21 February 2018 18: 35
            +2
            Quote: Lock36

            That is, you can only shoot at pre-explored fairly large stationary objects. And on the fig for such an F-15E task?


            Efficiency and profitability.
            It’s one thing to drive a strategist with a bunch of air tankers from somewhere from Minot or Whiteman, it’s another thing to raise a link from Ramstein or Spangdahlem or Kecskemét or hundreds of similar addresses ...
  6. Sedoy
    Sedoy 20 February 2018 16: 04
    +2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    you need to compare according to the ability to perform basic tasks


    eats but, but here it’s about how to compare just “Kalash” and “Kalash” with a grenade launcher ...
    with a grenade launcher is still preferable, do not call the "strategist" grenade launcher ... :)
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      20 February 2018 16: 30
      +3
      Quote: Sedoy
      eats but, but here it’s about how to compare just “Kalash” and “Kalash” with a grenade launcher ...
      with grenade launcher is still preferable

      All right. If in both cases - Kalash.
  7. shinobi
    shinobi 20 February 2018 16: 18
    0
    Steeper not cooler, let them go through our air defense first.
    1. Berber
      Berber 20 February 2018 16: 34
      +2
      The fact is that they will not enter the air defense zone.
  8. yehat
    yehat 20 February 2018 16: 18
    +1
    SVP-24 "Hephaestus" comparable in cost to JDAM. Who is right?

    a bomb drop system is preferable to an American, because in local conflicts with the logistics of the supply of ammunition is much easier. It's no secret that a lot of bombs are needed.
    1. Technologies to reduce radar visibility - "stealth".
    2). Equipment that provides maximum opportunities for detecting and classifying enemy objects with passive, non-emitting means, such as, for example, an optical-electronic surveillance and sight system.
    3. Perfect aiming systems to ensure the destruction of the target used by ammunition.
    4. Electronic countermeasures and other means of protecting the aircraft.

    add / export target designation to the list, as this technology is already on the F-35.
    the integrated guidance system is much more difficult to replace, if at all possible

    the issue of simplifying the replacement of equipment has long been a problem in technical specifications
    these are new installation standards, and some options for modularity and other measures.

    and the last one. F-15E is a classic attempt to create a universal shock platform with its pros and cons.
    the fact that it is not much different from other fighters on radars is one of the pluses of the chosen concept, but another thing is important - the USA had another great analogue of the Su-34, F-111, which is much more similar to the Su-34 and the United States from it refused. The question is why? And it is unfortunate that nothing is said why the F15E remains.
    But in fact - just a cheaper solution to the problem.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 20 February 2018 17: 21
      +6
      "F-15E - a classic attempt to create a universal strike platform" ////

      It turned out well. Israel plans to buy another F-15E squadron, so
      how can they successfully carry heavy concrete bombs and cruise missiles that
      can't f-35. At the same time, without all the suspensions for working on the ground, the F-15E becomes
      completely modern aggressive fighter.
    2. Foxmara
      Foxmara 20 February 2018 19: 37
      +2
      Quote: yehat
      the United States had another great analogue of the Su-34, F-111, which is much more similar to the Su-34 and the United States abandoned it. The question is why?

      You yourself answered your question: "The main argument for the complete replacement of the F-111 with the F15E was mainly the high cost of operating the first." It initially came out several times more expensive than planned. Because the military wanted everything at once (doesn’t it remind anything?), As a result, the engineers solved the problem, but for a lot of money.
  9. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 20 February 2018 17: 14
    +8
    "Maybe it’s certainly so, but only the Su-34s still showed excellent work in Syria,
    which is completely incompatible with broken sights "////

    This one just did not happen. In the beginning, they were generally recalled to Russia in a friendly manner, since all aircraft were refused
    avionics devices (including sights), moreover, they are different for everyone. And they worked with Khmeimim Su-24 in the old fashioned way.
    Then the Su-34 was returned, but the exact bombs ended, and the expensive bombers were idle.
    1. yehat
      yehat 20 February 2018 17: 47
      +2
      there were no exact ones
      there were ordinary bombs.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 20 February 2018 17: 52
        +3
        And as I understand it, there were a few KABs on hand?
        They tried to use them with a hanging aiming container Su-34.
        But then the sights did not work, then the bombs junk. And then they ended completely.
        And they finally switched to Su-24 with the FABs and Hephaestus.
        1. yehat
          yehat 21 February 2018 11: 25
          0
          the number of precision bombs can be neglected.
          even Americans, with their inexhaustible logistics, are constantly short of precision munitions.
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 21 February 2018 19: 58
            +1
            Quote: yehat
            even Americans, with their inexhaustible logistics, are constantly short of precision munitions.

            With high-precision ammunition for aircraft, the same canoe as with guided projectiles for guns can be created, but it’s cheaper to immediately shoot missiles without any guns or aircraft.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      20 February 2018 19: 39
      +2
      Quote: voyaka uh
      This one just did not happen. At first they were generally recalled to Russia together

      There is other information - that all the main problems of the Su-34 were eliminated about a year before the operation of the airborne forces in Syria and that the su-34 worked perfectly as free-falling bombs. I don’t know anything about the return of the Su-34 to the Russian Federation, although I try to follow the news.
      1. ZVO
        ZVO 20 February 2018 20: 29
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I don’t know anything about the return of the Su-34 to the Russian Federation, although I try to follow the news.


        Returned.
        By the way. there is an opinion that one came back disassembled in an IL-76 truck ...
        Tumbled the same way as in Buturlinovka.
        1. Varna
          Varna 23 February 2018 18: 56
          0
          [quote = ЗВО] [qu ote = Andrey from Chelyabinsk] I don’t know anything about the return of the Su-34 to the Russian Federation, although I try to follow the news. [/ quote]

          Returned.
          By the way. there is an opinion that one came back disassembled in an IL-76 truck ...
          Tumbling in the same way as in Buturlinovka. [/ Quote]

          But I have an opinion that Zvo, halts and a professorship company can’t leave the USSR in any way - everyone leaves, leaves, but they just can’t leave: they flew by air (without a promise to return wink ) ... and again to us through the window (crossed out) dash - the Internet, though in a somewhat disassembled and hit by life state (manifested by bile senile malice in the comments))). .
          What to take from them, Jews are Jews, they are pulled back like a cat's own trash - let it rub its face in its native aromas.
          1. ZVO
            ZVO 23 February 2018 19: 41
            +3
            Quote: Varna

            But I have an opinion that Zvo, halts and a professorship company can’t leave the USSR in any way - everyone leaves, leaves, but they just can’t leave: they flew by air (without a promise to return wink ) ... and again to us through the window (crossed out) dash - the Internet, though in a somewhat disassembled and hit by life state (manifested by bile senile malice in the comments))). .
            What to take from them, Jews are Jews, they are pulled back like a cat's own trash - let it rub its face in its native aromas.


            Varna why did you hide your romanian badge?
            Why the hell are you sitting on the Russian forum?
            come on. move in your own country towards the European Union and Great Romania - your homeland and you have nothing to do here.
            Do you understand Russian?
            Or how else to explain?

            I am Russian, I live in the Samara region for almost 50 years.
            Yes, because of my work responsibilities, I traveled half the ball ...
            Half of the Arab world, half of Southeast Asia. Half of Europe.
            But he was not in Israel.
            I had such a job.
            I saw Sumgait, I saw Sukhum.
            I have a higher education and 2 retraining courses at Vuzovskiy - i.e. 3 higher. it turns out.
            He began work in the 80s, at the Samara Aviation Plant.
            By virtue of his work, he visited all Samara aerospace enterprises and not one dozen each. and even a hundred times.

            And do not you write me in the Jews! Do you understand the vile creature? Got it?
            I am Russian, but I respect Jews!
            I have been and will be a patriot of my country all my life.
            And he raised his children as patriots.
            And when it was possible to stay to live and work in a normal European country. like Ireland - they returned anyway to Russia.
            They, my children went to Austria, to the grave of their great-grandfather who died on May 2, 1945 ...
            To such a vile person like you - this date does not say anything.
            You are a fat troll.
            Nothing. as my grandmothers said.

            And I'm not such a Moldavian. like some ...
            I have not sold my country, and I won’t go to EU citizenship. like some moldavashki ...
            1. ZVO
              ZVO 24 February 2018 23: 23
              0
              Quote: ZVO

              I have not sold my country, and I won’t go to EU citizenship. like some moldavashki ...


              Varna!
              Well, where are you selling entity?
              Why aren’t you answering anything? Maybe because you're corrupt? do you have anything to say in return? H ..... you’re a nickname in life, such as you drove to the very bottom, and now you are trying to express yourself online. But since your essence is full of holes, you do not answer anything ... The enemy of Russia is the real enemy - and rightly so you ... Such enemies of Russia must be destroyed even in Romania ... You still need to surpass the Russian Spirit puppy ...
    3. NEXUS
      NEXUS 20 February 2018 23: 17
      +8
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Then the Su-34 was returned, but the exact bombs ended, and the expensive bombers were idle.

      Che seriously? And what is KAB-500S and KAB-500od? ...
      Is this what they hang in Khmeimim on the SU-34? Not the KAB-500S, no?

      This is not her 34th throws off?


      And this is not KAB-1500 ... also adjustable ...
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 21 February 2018 09: 28
        0
        Of course they did. But there were problems. I wrote:
        "... there were a few KABs.
        They tried to use them with a hanging aiming container Su-34 "
        ... "and then the bombs are over"
        The practice was very helpful, anyway.
        1. yehat
          yehat 21 February 2018 11: 28
          +2
          why a hanging container?
          this is not f-15e, all the necessary equipment is already on the plane
      2. yehat
        yehat 21 February 2018 11: 27
        0
        it's a fake laughing
        but seriously, such bombs were used only in close proximity to civilian targets in order to minimize left-wing destruction.
  10. Outsider
    Outsider 20 February 2018 17: 22
    +11
    The Su-34 is a completely superfluous aircraft in the Russian Air Force, which was launched and released only by inertia, but because someone wanted more dough. Therefore, he deservedly does not enjoy any demand in the world market.
    It is precisely because the United States abandoned the F-111 scheme and took the path of further modernization of the F-15E — the installation of a powerful radar with AFAR, another new avionics, and confronted fuel tanks — the author of this article somehow ignored the presence of PTBs, which increase the amount of fuel in general to a breathtaking number: 34,483 pounds = 15,642 kg:
    http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/technology/fuel-syst
    em / 93-fuel-quantity-indicator
    The most optimal would be to further bring to mind the Su-30SM. And now it would have to be compared with the F-15E. (What is the point? Tears alone ...)
    And to be proud that in the front-line bomber (this is the true class of the Su-34) there is a toilet and a kapterka, and on the way to the goal the pilots there can fry the mackerel and cope with great and small need - not seriously somehow ...

    But at least eat up for the last time, but poop to send ...
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 20 February 2018 17: 56
      +5
      "Su-34 - completely superfluous in the Russian Air Force" ///

      I think so too. good He wrote about it, but pecked ...
      You just need to hang the hanging sights on the very decent Su-30 and Su-35,
      give the aircraft AFARs finally. And do not suffer with this muddy armor.
      1. the most important
        the most important 20 February 2018 21: 09
        +1
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Su-34 - completely superfluous in the Russian Air Force "///
        I think so too. He wrote about it, but pecked ...
        You just need to hang the hanging sights on the very decent Su-30 and Su-35,
        give the aircraft AFARs finally. And do not suffer with this muddy armor.

        Your F-35 "bird" shot down .... so take care of its modernization! And the SU-34 is the plane of its niche, I hope that after Syria they will draw conclusions and it will be brought to mind. And it has great potential for modernization, from the engine to the radar.
        1. ZVO
          ZVO 20 February 2018 22: 18
          +8
          Quote: the most important
          And it has great potential for modernization, from the engine to the radar.


          I, as a person who worked on the enterprises in the Soviet era, was taught that when you hear such words, know. made shit. which must be completely redone ...
          From the engine to the radar.
          let's damn it, and for three years I have not stood in service, but already we will redo everything ...
          For everything was done through the ass.
          Well then, probably, it was necessary for those designers, those military men who set the tasks - to shoot?
          For spending hundreds of billions of money on something. that nichrome does not work, but Syria showed. that the Su-34 does not work. otherwise he would not have been turned so quickly there.
          And everything needs to be redone under the guise of words about the huge potential for modernization.

          Immediately you see the propagandist. and not a working nifig engineer ...
          1. the most important
            the most important 21 February 2018 14: 39
            +3
            Quote: ZVO
            And everything needs to be redone under the guise of words about the huge potential for modernization.
            Immediately you see the propagandist. and not a working nifig engineer ...

            Wow, how much pathetics !! And you did not try to read what I wrote twice to learn the meaning? SU-34 made its first flight on April 13, 1990 !!! He is 28 years old! Of course, this is not critical ... But the years go by. The AL-31-M1 engine installed on the SU is advanced for its time. But today there is a more advanced AL-41F1, which has more traction and resource. And on the way an even more advanced engine. The radar-Ш-141, by itself, is probably good, but when adopted by the AFAR or ROFAR, it will yield to them in terms of its performance. Given that the aircraft will be produced for about 30 years, or even more, it will go without saying that during this time it will receive both a new engine and a new radar. And what am I wrong ??? This is nonsense if after 30 years it will be produced according to the drawings of 1990 !! As an engineer in one of my formations, I can say that the development of a new one should begin even at the time of assembly of the first product. And the fact that the forefront is yesterday, today is no longer in the forefront, and tomorrow will already be irrevocably behind. Therefore, all aircraft must undergo modernization in accordance with the spirit of the times.
            1. ZVO
              ZVO 21 February 2018 18: 44
              +1
              Quote: the most important
              Quote: ZVO
              And everything needs to be redone under the guise of words about the huge potential for modernization.
              Immediately you see the propagandist. and not a working nifig engineer ...

              Wow, how much pathetics !! And you did not try to read what I wrote twice to learn the meaning? SU-34 made its first flight on April 13, 1990 !!! .


              You are replacing concepts.
              I don’t care when the prototype took off.

              The real facts are:
              In the fall of 2011, the act of completion of state tests was signed.
              March 20, 2014 - the aircraft was put into service ..
              The aircraft must work at the forefront for at least 15 years without modernization.
              And only then it will be possible to start block / stage-by-stage upgrade.
              And these 15 years, he must fully comply with the realities of existing tasks.

              Все.
              pasta karapuziki.
              Why take into service a deliberately outdated and stupid in its current form aircraft?
              Just to "work for work" ???
              no result?
              Su-34, excluding R&D, is currently in production at least 2 billion rubles. Pure cost.
              Let's cut now half a trillion for the release of pre-obsolete technology. then we will allocate a trillion for its modernization.

              Awesome.
              The VPK lobby is rubbing its hands pretty.
              All kinds of Sechins. Deripaska and others are just children in comparison with our defense industry saws.
              1. the most important
                the most important 22 February 2018 17: 27
                0
                Quote: ZVO
                I don’t care when the prototype took off.

                Sumptuously!!! Urgently stop powdering the brains with the alteration of TU-160 in TU-160M ​​and further in TU-160M2 !!!
                Quote: ZVO
                Let's cut now half a trillion to release pre-obsolete technology

                Did I say that the aircraft is outdated ??? And here it is. that in 10 years it can be made even better, I'm sure of it!
                You still read carefully what is written ... and do not worry without a reason.
                1. ZVO
                  ZVO 23 February 2018 19: 51
                  +2
                  Quote: the most important
                  Quote: ZVO
                  I don’t care when the prototype took off.

                  Sumptuously!!! Urgently stop powdering the brains with the alteration of TU-160 in TU-160M ​​and further in TU-160M2 !!!
                  Quote: ZVO
                  Let's cut now half a trillion to release pre-obsolete technology

                  Did I say that the aircraft is outdated ??? And here it is. that in 10 years it can be made even better, I'm sure of it!
                  You still read carefully what is written ... and do not worry without a reason.


                  You yourself write carefully ...
                  When did the Tu-160 get into operation?
                  In 1987 year
                  How many years have passed before the decision to modernize it was made?
                  Count yourself?

                  And here only three years ...

                  think. just think with your head ... more often.
                  Try to examine the situation from different angles
      2. Alex_59
        Alex_59 21 February 2018 07: 44
        +2
        Quote: voyaka uh
        "Su-34 - completely superfluous in the Russian Air Force" ///
        I think so too. He wrote about it, but pecked ...

        I agree that it is superfluous, so not everyone pecks. But why exactly this airplane is available, I understand perfectly. This is due to the fact that there was a huge failure in the 90 and 00. Now you just need something new to fly on. It is necessary to give something to the regiments flying before on the Su-24. Su-30 and -35 are produced at other enterprises than Su-34. Therefore, there is an order for 34. This is firstly the inertness of thinking, secondly, the desire to at least somehow saturate the combat units, thirdly, to load the industry (NAPO is not ready for the release of Su-30 and -35, but is ready for the release of -34).
        By a combination of factors, we see this compromise and forced decision. Let it be better than nothing.
      3. yehat
        yehat 21 February 2018 11: 30
        +2
        I do not agree.
        Russian strike aircraft have different conditions - they are regularly substituted in these conditions
        weakly protected fighters are more expensive to use.
        and the su-34 is not superfluous. you just need to replace it with something su-25.
    2. lance
      lance 20 February 2018 20: 31
      +3
      I understand that you are not a tactician, are you a strategist? Su34 showed full professional suitability in Syria, it makes no difference to them that they can hang up and stand up for themselves even with f15
      1. Rushnairfors
        Rushnairfors 21 February 2018 10: 12
        +5
        They can’t resist f15, do not write what you do not know
        1. aKtoR
          aKtoR 22 February 2018 14: 18
          +2
          Why not? We are adults and we must understand that the confrontation has in mind not just a "bodalovo" one who is superior, but the ability to accomplish the combat mission with both planes: We are to bomb the group, but to cover them with a pair from a relatively large distance. In the open information there is no data on the opposition of the Su-34 with the Khibiny armament system "aircraft DRO - F-15". Therefore, your statement is not correct without providing additional information.
    3. NEXUS
      NEXUS 20 February 2018 23: 25
      +9
      Quote: Outsider
      The Su-34 is a completely superfluous aircraft in the Russian Air Force, which was launched and released only by inertia, but because someone wanted more dough. Therefore, he deservedly does not enjoy any demand in the world market.

      It is not superfluous, as they are trying to close the niche of the attack aircraft, albeit expensive. In fact, the SU-34 is a bomber claiming to be the same attack aircraft. As a fighter, it is against the F-22, for example, nothing at all ... for this there are SU-35 and SU-30, and in the near future SU-57 .
      The tasks are different ... but as I have repeatedly said, the line of heavy fighters is very long for us. It’s understandable that since we were 30 in the rush to saturate our airborne forces in order to modernize our fighter aircraft (with a relatively inexpensive heavy weight), and after that the SU appeared -35С, superior to the 30th in many respects. Well, on the approach and the 57th, which is a priori more effective than the 30th and 35th, but the price is still very high, in comparison with the aforementioned heavy fighters. And therefore, purchases will be in small batches, until the price is optimized into something acceptable for the Moscow Region.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. Korb
      Korb 21 February 2018 04: 26
      +8
      You can consider anything you like .... that's only thank God that our military and designers do not listen to you :)

      "The Su-34 is a completely superfluous aircraft in the Russian Air Force, sold and released only by inertia, but because someone wanted more dough. Therefore, it is deservedly not in any demand on the world market." - I don’t even know what this liberal nonsense is .... "In principle, the Su-34 could be launched in series in 1994, but the collapse of the Union and the ensuing chaos prevented the aircraft from becoming winged." - And the concept and development - even earlier - what is the loot in the Soviet Union?!?! or is it a deliberate desire to pull an owl on a globe ???? But aviation needs to be developed ??? And why does our liberals have the best mattress way ???? They abandoned F111 - REDEMPTED !!!!! a fighter in a bomber - let’s and we will wash the SU30 in a bomber !!! At the same time, for some reason, it is not taken into account that the SU34 and SU30 are the development of SU27 - another concept of combining a fighter and a tactical bomber, and no one has yet proven which is better.

      "Therefore, he is deservedly not in any demand in the world market." - this is nonsense !!!!!! How can bombers be in demand on the market - at least strategic, at least tactical?!?! They even try to save mattresses with their money by combining everything that is possible and impossible (one F35 is worth it :)) - why talk about others .... and then ... and who needs tactical bombers ??? Those who need it — either try to cut their own, or depend on mattresses — NATO countries, Australia — not only NATO - so where to use it for it ??? Africa, South America ??? - funny ..... there are China and India - who buy our planes anyway, but still try to save money - the same Indians from SU30 have already washed down the strategist with Brahmos - in vain a lot of countries have begun to develop and produce conventional subsonic helicopter attack aircraft - bombers - it’s much cheaper and more convenient to drive barmaleis with them, and the size of most countries allows them to close this niche, and they do not expect a full-scale war. It’s only Russia from whom it wasn’t necessary to fend off, therefore it is necessary to do things proceeding from the concepts of the big war.

      "And to be proud that in the front-line bomber (this is the true class of the Su-34) there is a toilet and a cabin, and on the way to the goal, the pilots there can fry the mackerel and cope with large and small needs - not seriously somehow ... But at least somehow ... eat up at last, but poop to send ... "- and these are exactly the words of a liberal and a shit-man who hates his Motherland and compatriots ... Not only is it just disgusting to say that about people who do everything so that such shit lives in a peaceful country - Have you ever flew a bomber yourself, couch warrior and strategist ???? That is, you, flying a comfortable passenger plane for 2 or 3 hours, never used the toilet ???? But on bombers (especially on strategists) they fly by 12 and even more - they do not need this ???
      There is such a German general - to serve better on a German submarine, and to fight - on a Russian ... Russian equipment has always been criticized for the lack of convenience and comfort - now the situation is changing for the better - now is it bad ???
  11. Mukronom
    Mukronom 20 February 2018 17: 53
    +6
    Everything would be fine, but only for the Su-34 its combat radius is taken during low-altitude flight from the PTB, and for the F-15E it is taken with a mixed flight profile. But if you take comparable figures (for the low-altitude profile for both aircraft), then the combat radius will be 800 km from the American Eagle and 1 130 km = from the Su-34. Accordingly, it turns out that the impact depth of the F-15E is 2 100 km (taking into account the fact that the JASSM-ER still flies not on the 1 200, but on the 1 300 km), but on the Su-34 - 1 415 km. Well, when flying along a mixed profile (assuming that such a Su-34 is more than 1,41 times, i.e. as much as its combat radius is "at the ground"), we will get the depth of impact 2 078 km 2 570 m from the "American."

    It must be remembered that with a mixed flight profile, the range of the missile also falls, since the maximum range for them is indicated when starting from maximum altitude and speed.

    I also consider incorrect any comparisons between SVP-24 and JDAM, because Hephaestus is a bomb sight giving ~ 80% certainty of hitting a factory-warehouse target with 6 tons of cast iron, and JDAM is ammunition for hitting single small-sized targets of dot headquarters". It's like comparing napalm tanks with BetAB.
    1. Mimoprohodil
      Mimoprohodil 20 February 2018 21: 39
      +4
      Quote: Mukronom
      the maximum range for them is indicated when starting from maximum height and speed.
      This applies to supersonic missiles. Subsonic missiles are launched at subsonic speed. http://www.ktrv.ru/production/68
    2. Rushnairfors
      Rushnairfors 21 February 2018 10: 16
      +3
      Hephaestus is not a bomb sight, it is a computer system that, in addition to solving the problems of bombing, is also intended for aircraft driving. The SVP consists of a whole set of blocks and assemblies. search the internet and read
  12. Sagaidark
    Sagaidark 20 February 2018 18: 18
    0
    Andrew, something you do not appear in VK)
    and the article is generally good
  13. sleeve
    sleeve 20 February 2018 18: 36
    +1
    Still cold-blooded amateur experts have not yet transferred to Russia. Although where is "amateurism" here? Bravo.
  14. aKtoR
    aKtoR 20 February 2018 18: 48
    +7
    Very interesting article. Thanks to the author)))
    I would like to clarify a couple of points. Since the article referred to the delivery of the aircraft in the 1994 year, many people remember that difficult time ... This time made an indelible imprint on the Su-34 aircraft (and its subsequent series during modernization). Upon delivery of this complex, almost all systems greatly exceeded the permissible mass requirements. The aircraft became heavier and in this design was put into service with an overwhelming set of different systems and weapons. To carry out weight loss work - there wasn’t, there isn’t and there will be no funds (it’s practically necessary to spend several thousand flights). This way he came out and nothing can be fixed.
    In the west, it is somehow not mentioned that aircraft of the F-15 type have no small restrictions on maneuvering - relatively old airframes. In the west, it is somehow not customary to scold, they praise the goods more. Our airplane can maneuver at maximum speed and this is confirmed by tests.
    And the last. Su-34 is not a front-line bomber))) This is a multifunctional COMPLEX. Comparison of foreign cars and Zaporozhets not only in detection and guidance systems.
  15. KKND
    KKND 20 February 2018 18: 49
    +6
    Article tin! The 5th grader beat the 2nd-grader. The war of sofas!
    Guys you rap-battle on this subject must be muddied. Damantsev vs Andrey.
    Lord. tsiferka’s war is cool, it’s only related to life with a comprehensive analysis of pages so 500.
    For example, Su-34 has more fuel than F-15. Good. Why can the radius of action be measured? You need to know the mode of operation of the turbojet engine during the flight (its fuel consumption for thrust, resource, ambient temperature (height, see Carnot cycle), etc., etc.) midship, change in speed and acceleration. The fact that you and Damantsev write tsiferki in the Internet, completely from the ceiling.
    Wanting to get a relatively cheap high-precision weapon, the Americans took the old free fall aerial bomb and fastened a JPS navigator to it, getting a controlled JDAM. We went the other way, having come up with a sight that allows us to repeatedly increase the accuracy of the bombing of conventional, free-falling ammunition. Our path is cheaper, and perhaps more correct.

    This pearl is hard to comment on. Radar bomb sights were invented a long time ago, and I’m sure of it on the F-15E, even though I didn’t fly. He even has F-16 old versions.
    Ideally, when carrying out a combat mission, a tactical bomber should not include its own radar at all - because there is no better way to tell the enemy: "I'm here, right now, as I hit!" probably does not exist in modern warfare.

    RADARophobia among ordinary people is progressing. And what about the pilots in WWII without a radar sight they threw bombs “on the boot”, and by the way, some of them achieved impressive results (brain-computer) without jokes.
    And finally, the last (in order, but not in importance) aspect.

    Well, of course I’m wet ... the author’s important fantasies about WWII had to be screwed on, where without them ...
    In general, Andrey, I don’t understand anything in the maritime business and I was glad to read you, but Damantseva beat it beyond good and evil ... I'm in shock ...
    1. lance
      lance 20 February 2018 20: 35
      0
      to beat or not to beat, as well as to drink or not to drink, etc. if you read your koment, did you fly on f-16?
      1. KKND
        KKND 20 February 2018 20: 55
        0
        Quote: Lance
        f-16you flew

        In the simulator.
        1. lance
          lance 21 February 2018 11: 29
          +1
          Tell me where he is with us, the same is worth it.
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 21 February 2018 09: 40
      0
      "We went the other way, inventing a scope that can significantly improve accuracy
      bombing of conventional, free-falling ammunition. "////

      “Inventing” is a strong word. Hephaestus is a cosmetic alteration of the American sight
      a B-29 bomber that fell at the end of World War II in the Soviet Far East and
      was copied by personal order of Stalin on the last screw without changes.
      And Hephaestus smears in exactly the same way as the American sight - for carpet bombing, it is imperceptible and insignificant, but for a single bombing from a height it is very noticeable: out of 8 bombs, one gets at best.
      1. Rushnairfors
        Rushnairfors 21 February 2018 10: 24
        +6
        You’re wrong, we’ve almost completely switched to hephaestus and I can tell you that now we bring six zeros regularly, there are misses, but this is primarily due to the operation of the equipment installed on the plane initially, specifically on our planes there are problems with the NK45, hephaestus it doesn’t work autonomously on any aircraft; it is interfaced with an NK, a sight, a bunch of other sensors. The planes on which all this works properly bomb almost impeccably. Su24 so they generally stack bombs during maneuvers; hephaestus considers everything. But of course I personally do not consider SVP a breakthrough, and I prefer the WTO
        1. lance
          lance 21 February 2018 11: 33
          0
          rushneirfors where you fly if in Syria say the number
          1. Rushnairfors
            Rushnairfors 21 February 2018 16: 40
            +5
            Lance, I apologize, but I can’t tell you this, I hope you will understand. My type is Tupolev. 22.
            1. Rushnairfors
              Rushnairfors 21 February 2018 16: 42
              +5
              By the way, I answered the above a bit sharply, please forgive me
              1. lance
                lance 21 February 2018 17: 18
                0
                I know your type, it's not sharpness. pure battle f15 90%, but I talked about the fact that he can stand up for himself
                1. Rushnairfors
                  Rushnairfors 21 February 2018 22: 44
                  +3
                  Thank you for understanding. About your comment, I didn’t understand correctly, certainly Su34 is far from Su24 or Su25 and if he can stand up for himself. His big problem is the engines from su27, they are rather weak for such a machine,
                  1. Korb
                    Korb 30 March 2018 08: 08
                    0
                    not all at once, the dviguns will change to the SU-34, with modernization, we do not have a mattress military budget.
  16. Tsoy
    Tsoy 20 February 2018 18: 58
    +3
    Until you disassemble the author, who claimed that the round nozzle is a minus of Russian aircraft. I won’t say exactly which article, but I remember exactly this statement. He also proposed an SLBM to attack the United States AUG. And much more. His articles are pearl on pearl. With a serious face there is nothing to do there. I go to VO, I see a pretentious pretentious heading and I don’t go there, because I know whose name I’ll see at the end.
  17. Lesorub
    Lesorub 20 February 2018 19: 08
    +2
    between the American F-15E and our Su-34 there is a kind of unspoken race.

    If you compare the F 15E and Su 30M and its modifications.
  18. turbris
    turbris 20 February 2018 19: 45
    +1
    I don’t understand why in general these theoretical comparisons are made to advertise experts? What are they comparing? Open public performance characteristics, which are also advertising? And it turns out any expert, which TTX wants, and will lead such, here they write in the F-15E combat load of 11 tons? This means that with such a load, the plane can take off and circle around the airfield, no more, because this is the maximum load, and not combat. And so you can talk about any performance characteristics, evaluate this or that type of weapon, and even more so an airplane can only be based on the results of field tests or participation in hostilities. And these data are closed, so numerous experts are also science fiction writers.
  19. Usher
    Usher 20 February 2018 20: 13
    +1
    Bravo. Already got these Americanophiles.
  20. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 20 February 2018 20: 52
    +2
    Here regarding the conclusions with the author I absolutely agree !! good
    Comparison of something is a relative thing ... Isn’t it, Andrei Nikolaevich? wink
    So it turns out that if you want to compare something objectively, you have to honestly look at all sides of the subject. And if he wants a comparison that is “right” for anyone, then there is already a wide field of activity for playing with numbers in the right angles.
    Andrey, getting drunk on the material is interesting (although the craving is more for marine engineering structures than for demonic birds smile ) yes drinks hi
  21. Vladimir SHajkin
    Vladimir SHajkin 20 February 2018 22: 56
    0
    Then, in that article, I’m not so expanded, but I also noted in the comment that the comparisons are not suitable, not correct.
  22. Su24
    Su24 20 February 2018 23: 08
    0
    Quote: figvam
    By the way, the combat load of the F-15E is 11 tons, and the Su-34 is 8 tons, but 11 tons, taking into account the PTB and conformal tanks, if the F-15E is completely filled, then 5 tons are left for service. And the Su-34 also has an armored cockpit which increases the weight of the aircraft, but also increases the chances of the crew to survive.


    Ghm, according to the Su-34 RLE, its maximum combat load is 12,5 tons.
    1. Town Hall
      Town Hall 21 February 2018 01: 10
      +2
      Quote: Su24
      Ghm, according to the Su-34 RLE, its maximum combat load is 12,5 tons.




      And you try to look at things with your own eyes instead of the muddy numbers from advertising-patriotic prospectuses .... for example, on a video from Syria with which the MO filled Youtube. You really see what the real payload of the Su-34 is. A pair of bombs. It's not 5 tons . at ranges of 200-300 km.


      This incidentally applies to the Tu-22
      1. Korb
        Korb 21 February 2018 03: 27
        +6
        And you try to analyze the video from Syria instead of your eyes clouded by NEPATRIOTISM - Su-34 (and all our bombers) flew on a SPECIFIC task, for which you need a SPECIFIC (and not all that is possible !!!) number and type of bombs - flew out - dropped - they were struck, they returned - and in a new way .... no one was rushing there by type - yeah, I have 12 tons of bombs - a couple here, flew another 200 km - four here ... Sometimes you need to turn on the brains .... or are you from 5 columns ???? :)
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 21 February 2018 20: 07
          +1
          Quote: Korb
          no one was worn there by type - yeah, I have 12 tons of bombs - a couple here, flew another 200 km - here four ....

          I’ll say more - most likely the fuel there is not completely used up, but only to fly to the target and back, plus 25% aerodynamic reserve ...
        2. Town Hall
          Town Hall 23 February 2018 01: 28
          +1
          Quote: Korb
          no one was worn there by type - yeah, I have 12 tons of bombs - a couple here, flew another 200 km - here four .... Sometimes you need to turn on the brains ..




          The scheme in which the su-34 unit is loaded with a couple of bombs as in the video, driven 300-400 km from the airport, returned, again a couple of bombs, and so 5-6 times a day - it certainly seems brilliant to you .... like driving from Russia to Syria under-Tu-22 with five five hundred ... and back for a new cargo ....


          Admired by your strategic thinking
          1. ZVO
            ZVO 23 February 2018 09: 57
            +2
            Quote: Town Hall
            Quote: Korb
            no one was worn there by type - yeah, I have 12 tons of bombs - a couple here, flew another 200 km - here four .... Sometimes you need to turn on the brains ..




            The scheme in which the su-34 unit is loaded with a couple of bombs as in the video, driven 300-400 km from the airport, returned, again a couple of bombs, and so 5-6 times a day - it certainly seems brilliant to you .... like driving from Russia to Syria under-Tu-22 with five five hundred ... and back for a new cargo ....
            Admired by your strategic thinking


            Come to a new reality ...
            The past 40 years already.
            1 task - this is 1 goal - this is 1 plane - this is 1 departure ...
            There are no more combinations and never will be.
            And everyone came to this.
            1. Town Hall
              Town Hall 23 February 2018 12: 34
              +2
              Quote: ZVO
              The past 40 years already.
              1 task - this is 1 goal - this is 1 plane - this is 1 departure ...



              Seriously? .... and precisely according to this concept do airplanes make under multi-ton payloads and with a dozen suspension points? .... all ingenious
              1. ZVO
                ZVO 23 February 2018 14: 19
                +1
                Quote: Town Hall
                Quote: ZVO
                The past 40 years already.
                1 task - this is 1 goal - this is 1 plane - this is 1 departure ...



                Seriously? .... and precisely according to this concept do airplanes make under multi-ton payloads and with a dozen suspension points? .... all ingenious


                Yeah. Seriously.
                Read articles, memoirs, memoirs, etc. about how those were destroyed. or other objects since 1980.
                There are many.
                This is Israeli, and American, and even ours you can find.
                If you want.
          2. Korb
            Korb 30 March 2018 08: 01
            0
            thanks for the compliment love That's right, you correctly understood my message ....
            Firstly, the “Tu-22 with 5 five-hundred-year-old" incentives - they loaded the Tu-22 as much as they had enough fuel, they wanted to use them from the Iranian airfield inadvertently - the shoulder is less - the load is higher - and the possibility of running in crews for full-scale purposes is excellent, and the issue of costs is here last
            Secondly - “the su-34 unit is loaded with a couple of bombs as in the video, driven 300-400 km from the airport, returned, again a couple of bombs and so on 5-6 times a day” - do not forget, we are - albeit in a friendly, but to a foreign country, and each flight should be verified by 200%, so that there are no overlaps, accidents and errors - this is still a war, the operating environment is constantly changing - and also so that the dogs from the "free press" do not even get claws, otherwise it will a lot of screech, snot and drool to fly - and here, too, costs are not in the first place
  23. roman.roman24773
    roman.roman24773 21 February 2018 02: 35
    +2
    Almost on the Military Review, I read that the location in the cockpit of the SHOCK aircraft is shoulder to shoulder is not good (this is also true for the Ka-52 Alligator helicopter). Each of the two crew members, the pilot and the weapons operator, with this arrangement sees the environment only in a hemisphere, and not a sphere, if they are located one after the other / there are generally two pairs of eyes watching potential and actual threats, of which the attackers will pretty much / . In short, with the minuses, the placement scheme is: ////////// And so the article is suitable
    1. Town Hall
      Town Hall 23 February 2018 12: 39
      0
      And from a safety point of view, placing both pilots in the same cockpit is far from a good solution .... but the main thing is to declare the failed solutions with genius and achievements and the thing is in the hat ... from the same opera, call a tiny microwave with the big word Kitchen on board and to rush with this senseless device as with a written bag
      1. Korb
        Korb 30 March 2018 08: 29
        0
        Town Hall - as I understand it, here you are working out ov grants for the scumming of our country in general and military equipment in particular ....
        "And from the point of view of safety, placing both pilots in the same cockpit is far from a good decision .... but the main thing is to declare the failed decisions with genius and achievements and the thing is in the hat" - and you generally saw IDEAL things, objects in this not the best of the worlds or solutions?!?! Who and when proved that the decision of the pilots nearby is a disastrous decision?!?! any solution will ALWAYS have pros and cons - and the only task for designers (for example, after choosing a specific pilot layout for this machine) is to neutralize the minuses and strengthen the pros .... but how they managed it will only show time ...
        "from the same opera, call a tiny microwave with the big word Kitchen on board and rush about with this meaningless device like a written bag" - why did you get the idea that someone was rushing around with this ??? or is it your wet dreams, or is there nothing more to complain about the SU-34 ??? That is, the indignation of the British tankers after traveling on abrams about the lack of a boiler for hot water in them to drink tea - is this normal?!?! hot water boiler for tea, Karl !!!! in the tank !!!! oh yes, this is "enlightened Europe", they can rush with their "written bag" ....
  24. Bongo
    Bongo 21 February 2018 03: 12
    +6
    Andrew, put the article a plus, especially since I myself have compared these machines. But with all due respect, do not repeat other people's nonsense:

    But something else is strange: why E. Damantsev takes for comparison X-15And not X-32 with its flight range 800-1 000 km?

    The X-15 aerobalistic missile taken out of service at the moment came only with a "special warhead." And the presence of X-32 with LRE in the troops is not confirmed.

    As for the "respected Evgeny Damantsev", he lives in his virtual world, in which the missile defense systems are deployed in the Kuril Islands. wassat
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 21 February 2018 07: 48
      +5
      Quote: Bongo
      As for the "respected Evgeny Damantsev", he lives in his virtual world, in which the missile defense systems are deployed in the Kuril Islands.

      And our SSBNs secretly approach the statue of liberty so that after sailing up our sailors take a selfie with her. ))))))))
      1. lance
        lance 21 February 2018 12: 40
        0
        What do you have against pro in the Kuril Islands and where exactly? torus2mu and with300 there really is. Yes, and in no case do I protect anyone.
        1. Bongo
          Bongo 22 February 2018 01: 47
          +2
          Quote: Lance
          What do you have against pro in the Kuril Islands and where exactly? torus2mu and with300 there really is. Yes, and in no case do I protect anyone.

          Since when did the Tor short-range military air defense systems become effective against ballistic missiles? There really is a Torov division on the islands, but what about the Three Hundreds, if you want, we can talk in more detail.
          On which island of the Kuril ridge are the positions of C-300P or C-300В available?
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      21 February 2018 08: 46
      +3
      Quote: Bongo
      And the presence of the X-32 with a rocket engine in the troops has not been confirmed.

      hi So the AGM-158B JASSM-ER, according to Damantsev, has just been adapted for use with the F-15: :))) And the X-32 seems to have been adopted
      1. Rushnairfors
        Rushnairfors 21 February 2018 10: 33
        +6
        Andrey, good afternoon. As for the x32-, they have not yet accepted it, there was a failure at the extreme tests, it almost ended in disaster.
        Regarding the launch range, now the declared range of x32 is about 600 km, 800-1000 is a type of advertising, we talked with testers who were flying at extreme launches, the task was to launch the rocket with the maximum !!!!!!! range 470km !!! 470 but by no means 800 or even 700. But I personally have long stopped referring to what various experts write in numerous articles, I believe only people who exploit (develop, test), that is, communicate with iron. The same thing about x50 - we have not even heard of this miracle, they will test it, they will adopt it, I will squeak with joy until it is not there.
  25. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 21 February 2018 09: 27
    +3
    we don’t know what combat load an American aircraft can fly at a combat radius of 1 km

    The range drop depending on the configuration of the combat load can be up to 30% of the radius of combat use.
    issued the necessary technical specifications, and the designers hung on the Su-34 cruise missile X-101 or X-102, with it either 4, or 500 km range, or even more. There is a technical possibility for this; the rocket weighs less than 5 tons

    It is only easy to write - the paper will endure everything.
    In solving such a design problem, weight plays a smaller role than the dimensions and weight distribution of the payload, the aerodynamic forces acting on the aircraft / rocket complex, etc.

    Of course, in the success of the “Panzerwaffe” there were many terms, but among them not the least role was played by the fact that German combat vehicles were extremely (for their time) convenient for their crews

    In general, the 33rd factor is insignificant in battle.
    The main reasons for the success of the Panzervaffe are competent management, experience - which affected tactics, intelligence.
  26. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 21 February 2018 09: 51
    +2
    "But there is another point of view that increased bomb consumption at a lower chance
    hit a point target makes the use of SVP-24 "Hephaestus" comparable in cost
    with JDAM. Who is right?"//////

    It is necessary to compare: how many targets were hit during ONE sortie.
    Hephaestus: 4 bombs - 1 target.
    JDAM: 4 bombs - 4 targets.
    1. Rushnairfors
      Rushnairfors 21 February 2018 10: 39
      +6
      There are different situations, for example, in Chechnya, when there were chichi in the greenhouse and the PAN could only give approximate coordinates, where it would be more efficient as a pair to pour 8-10 FABs or NARs on this very greenhouse, well, if on bridges, individual planes in the parking lots , warehouses, RLposts or other point targets - here I agree with you 300%.
    2. Horon
      Horon 21 February 2018 21: 54
      +2
      JDAM: 4 bombs - 4 targets.

      4 bombs and a motorcade in the trash. The accuracy of the defeat is the sum of the factors: the quality of the obtained coordinates of the target and the accuracy of the weapons used. If the pilot does not see what he shot at all, and the reconnaissance gives only approximate coordinates, then the exact bombs are worthless, or the task will not be fulfilled, or the bombs will have to be thrown in handfuls.
      1. Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
        Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg) 23 February 2018 14: 41
        0
        without JDAM, VKS can't hit a wedding procession
        1. Horon
          Horon 23 February 2018 22: 21
          +2
          ??? It’s necessary to have a bite, otherwise your thoughts somehow disconnected! There are examples where the videoconferencing hunted for a wedding procession and missed? And why did the VKS have to hunt for a wedding procession?
    3. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 26 February 2018 10: 08
      +1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      JDAM: 4 bombs - 4 targets.

      4 adjustable ammunition, for 4 penny "carts"
  27. parma
    parma 21 February 2018 11: 04
    0
    And why did the author also drag carcasses? The impact eagle on the radar looks + - like an ordinary one, and therefore it’s more difficult to determine where it will fly from .... This fits well with the US strategy - a long-range high-tech strike without delivery! The carcasses do not look like a fighter in signature (can I confuse something?) ... Therefore, if dear Andrei decided to include in the “brawl” two conditional classmates also the older brother of one of them, then you should also consider B-1 for example. ..And in general, a comparison of a separate technique without a general picture of verbiage and perversion ....
  28. Snakebyte
    Snakebyte 21 February 2018 11: 27
    +3
    Wanting to get relatively cheap precision weapons, the Americans took the old free-fall bomb and fastened a JPS navigator to it, getting a JDAM controlled one. We went the other way by inventing a sight, which allows us to repeatedly increase the accuracy of the bombing of conventional free-fall ammunition. Our path is cheaper and, perhaps, more correct. Of course, SVP-24 "Hephaestus" will not replace the adjustable bombs, because, although it significantly increases the accuracy of bombing, the free-fall ammunition will never be as accurate as the controlled one. But now our strike aircraft can use precision-guided munitions, or strike the adversary with conventional bombs with very high accuracy, while the F-15E has no second possibility. At the same time, the use of high-precision ammunition (even relatively cheap, like JDAM) is not always justified. But there is another point of view that the increased consumption of aerial bombs with a lower chance of hitting a point target makes the use of the SVP-24 “Hephaestus” comparable in cost to JDAM. Who is right?

    There are incorrect assumptions. A system for aiming free-falling bombs, similar to Hephaestus, has been created and used in NATO for a long time - AN / ASG-19 was still on the F-105. The problem here is not to drop the bombs exactly at the right time (this is done by the automatics upon reaching the calculated point of discharge), but to precisely determine this point, i.e., find the target and indicate the aiming system to the aiming system. Even if this succeeds, it is necessary to precisely aim the aircraft at the target with minimal lateral deviation; it is impossible to compensate for it in this option.
    That is why the Americans took the path of turning low-cost conventional bombs into manageable ones.
    Domestic developers went their own unique way. They took the finished (expensive) guided bomb KAB-500 and replaced the laser seeker with a satellite receiver (already ready, it did not have to be developed). And this elementary development cost the state 350 million rubles.
    Money successfully mastered. It was not possible to reach the set KVO of KVO = 6 m (only 8 m), but it’s okay, the TTZ was adjusted to indicate the required KVO of 10-12 m. GLONASS was excluded from the satellite systems used, and all aircraft were excluded from carriers front-line aviation, except for the Su-34. The creation of a variant of the X-25 guided missile with satellite guidance was also excluded from the TTZ structure, and they were not even engaged in a missile, although these works were paid for under the agreement.
    Details of the tragicomic history of the creation of domestic high-precision satellite weapons can be found at http://www.warandmeasure.com/trials/20110317kab50
    0s.html
    As for the accuracy of the use of domestic weapons in Syria, it also raises great doubts, this deserves a separate article. However, such an article has been around for almost 2 years:
    http://www.milconskam.com/articles.php?nazarticle
    = 1602
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      21 February 2018 19: 17
      +3
      Quote: Snakebyte
      A system for aiming free-falling bombs, similar to Hephaestus, has been created and used in NATO for a long time - AN / ASG-19 was still on the F-105.

      Only a small nuance - it is not similar to Hephaestus :))))
      1. Snakebyte
        Snakebyte 22 February 2018 12: 19
        0
        AN / ASG-19 is not similar, yes. It’s just for the example that such systems were used in Vietnam.
  29. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 21 February 2018 12: 11
    +1
    I understand a former regiment navigator would write an article or an analyst gene. the headquarters with the rank of lieutenant colonel of aviation, or with experience in managing air force units - but two authors who are far from aviation, trying to judge the combat use of a particular aircraft, according to the TTX numbers - looks very funny, not professional.
    A lot of assumptions, assumptions, incorrect calculations, erroneous conclusions in both articles.
    1. lance
      lance 21 February 2018 12: 35
      0
      you can believe the assumptions will be with the colonels, there above the comrade already talked about balwankas. but for what, how they were tested, what they wanted to know, etc. know units. only when received in droves and not even received, but when used, everything falls into place.
    2. avt
      avt 21 February 2018 12: 45
      +2
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      I understand a former regiment navigator would write an article or an analyst gene. headquarters with the rank of lieutenant colonel of aviation, or with experience in managing air force units

      Or at worst Kostya Sivkov would have painted the odds.
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      A lot of assumptions, assumptions, incorrect calculations, erroneous conclusions in both articles.

      Pee-and-and-from! All this
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      A lot of assumptions, assumptions, incorrect calculations, erroneous conclusions in both articles.

      IN STUDIO! I insist on the shame of the author navigator Georges! And then it’s just like it’s not comme il faut ..... comes to mind
      You would read something, otherwise you know ... - Oh, and so I read, I read! ..
      So what are you reading? This ... how is it, Engels' correspondence with this ... How is his devil? .. with Kautsky! ...
      Yes, I do not agree! - What, with Engels or with Kautsky? - With both!
      Yes, and what can you offer? - What is there to offer? And then they write, they write ... Congress, some Germans. The head swells! Take everything, and divide! ..
      And here's another question inspired
      What do you say about elephants, dear Sharikov? Well, I don’t understand, or what? A cat is another matter ... Elephants are useful animals ...
      1. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 26 February 2018 10: 41
        +1
        Quote: avt
        IN STUDIO! I insist on the shame of the author navigator Georges! And then it’s just like it’s not comme il faut ..... comes to mind


        I have a couple of specialists from acquaintances - one former floor navigator on the Su-24, the other taught at the navigators' school, has combat experience on the Su-24, but they will not write.
        What is obvious to them is that they chew green cadets at the school of navigators for 5 years, and then 15-20 years of experience in service, training and combat missions, about some they can only hint something under the bottle ...
    3. Varna
      Varna 23 February 2018 19: 11
      0
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      I understand a former regiment navigator would write an article or an analyst gene. the headquarters with the rank of lieutenant colonel of aviation, or with experience in managing air force units - but two authors who are far from aviation, trying to judge the combat use of a particular aircraft, according to the TTX numbers - looks very funny, not professional.
      A lot of assumptions, assumptions, incorrect calculations, erroneous conclusions in both articles.


      The smartest comment of all.
      In general, I have no idea why the articles are not written by former flyers, walkers on the seas, shooting at birds - are they shy or are they forbidden? Millions of such - and only a few, like Svateev, write there really is nobody else. And we all, for lack of others, listen to and read all kinds of snowstorms, like the Khazin epos about 8 or 9 submarine compartments — all nonsense; where the nonsense of the article is replayed only nonsense of comments.
      1. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 26 February 2018 10: 31
        +2
        Quote: Varna
        In general, I have no idea why the articles are not written by former flyers, walkers on the seas, shooting at birds - are they shy or are they forbidden? Millions of such - and only a few, like Svateev, write there really is nobody else. And we all, for lack of others, listen to and read all kinds of snowstorms, like the Khazin epos about 8 or 9 submarine compartments — all nonsense; where the nonsense of the article is replayed only nonsense of comments.


        They (the navigators) are not interested. And they write those who did not study as a navigator, did not fly, did not encounter practical application.
        My classmate with combat experience on the Su-24, taught at the school navigators. Another navigator of the Su-24 regiment after the service came to my department - so, despite talking to professionals in this matter, I was also not above the “heard something” level.

        I do not have tables, the calculation of the flight load and refueling, wind at the level, speed and turns on the route and the mass of nuances that will affect the flight range.

        But to me, with relatives in aviation and friends with combat flights on the Su-24, it would be ridiculous to write about aviation on the numbers of the technical characteristics. And for them, professionals, it’s just not interesting to write common truths, for them it’s a waste of time.

        And here people who have no idea about the fuel reserves on the boat about, about which wind on the echelon is the oncoming / passing / lateral, add on “tsifiki from booklets” combat radius + firing range by combat load, and he will generally be able to fly to this range with this load gentlemen "comedians" from aviation?

        Maybe you need to familiarize yourself with the rules for determining the air navigation fuel reserve (ANZ fuel), the undeveloped fuel balance, the estimated amount of fuel for each specific aircraft?

        And what is written in such articles is such a "popular" ....
  30. Outsider
    Outsider 21 February 2018 18: 38
    0
    Quote: yehat
    the number of precision bombs can be neglected.

    - If you want to really work effectively with bomber aircraft on the battlefield, you cannot “neglect” them.
    even Americans, with their inexhaustible logistics, are constantly short of precision munitions.

    - And this is the second question.
  31. Outsider
    Outsider 21 February 2018 18: 41
    0
    Quote: figvam
    Romario_Argo

    I wrote this because the Americans always overstate the performance characteristics, and we underestimate it.

    - This is a "hell with two!" Look at the performance characteristics of the Su-57 - it's super-duper-uberlet! 2600 km / h top speed! With old engines! How many with new ones - even scary to say! lol
    Americans will never draw such characteristics ... wassat
  32. Outsider
    Outsider 21 February 2018 18: 51
    +3
    Quote: Su24
    What is the conclusion from the foregoing?


    The conclusion is that the author wrote a long and stupid sheet, in which he was mainly engaged in commenting on the opponent’s text, rather than comparing two planes, as it seemed to be stated at the beginning. It’s sad.

    1. F-15E, the first release, was able to fly over the flat terrain at a speed of 900 (!) Km / h at altitude 30 (!!) m with automatic enveloping of the terrain over the plain (elevation difference up to 200 meters).
    At what altitude is Su-34 capable of doing TODAY?
    Here is an article 25 years ago:
    http://pentagonus.ru/publ/18-1-0-261
    2. Today, the F-15E has a radar with AFAR, one of the most advanced and powerful. From the radar station that is on the Su-34, its crews have been "crying and crying" for more than a year.

    Not that we compare ...
  33. Outsider
    Outsider 21 February 2018 18: 55
    0
    Quote: Korb
    You can consider anything you like .... that's only thank God that our military and designers do not listen to you :)

    - They would be happy ... Yes, they won’t blunder ... crying
  34. hetzer250789
    hetzer250789 22 February 2018 17: 27
    0
    100500+ to the author for the article. Although there is some adequate response to Damantsev’s fantasies. With the technical characteristics of the radar station it’s generally 10ku. There is practically no data on them. It’s worth considering the composition of the aircraft’s armament, in particular, regarding the defeat of surface targets . Here there are needles in general about nothing
  35. Outsider
    Outsider 23 February 2018 22: 27
    0
    Quote: hetzer250789
    ... Still, to consider the composition of the armament of aircraft, in particular, with regard to the defeat of surface targets. Here there are needles in general about nothing

    -?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F
    -15E_Strike_Eagle # Specifications_ (F-15E)
    Air-to-surface missiles:
    6 × AGM-65 Maverick
    2 × AGM-84 Harpoon
    2 × AGM-84H / K SLAM-ER
    AGM-130
    AGM-154 JSOW
    AGM-158 JASSM
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-84H/K_SLAM-ER
  36. Antares
    Antares 23 February 2018 23: 44
    +1
    I was just pleased to read the comments under the article. It’s good that there was little politics ..
    Thanks to Andrey.
    I note that having a radius of 1300, it is not necessary to fly from the Baltic.
  37. TimurEkgardt
    TimurEkgardt 28 February 2018 17: 54
    +2
    I saw a vidos on YouTube where the MiG-29 and F22 Raptor took off.
    Yes, these are not the planes that are in the article, yes, I even wrote different generations of planes. But on only one vertical take-off, the MiG broke the raptor, which in turn crap one's pants on the first couple of hundred meters. So it’s not worthwhile to closely compare foreign and domestic equipment. And if you want to compare, then either go to the pilots, or designers. At the extreme, watch the video how I did it.
  38. Outsider
    Outsider 2 March 2018 23: 28
    0
    Quote: TimurEkgardt
    I saw a vidos on YouTube where the MiG-29 and F22 Raptor took off.
    Yes, these are not the planes that are in the article, yes, I even wrote different generations of planes. But on only one vertical take-off, the MiG broke the raptor, which in turn crap one's pants on the first couple of hundred meters. So it’s not worthwhile to closely compare foreign and domestic equipment. And if you want to compare, then either go to the pilots, or designers. At the extreme, watch the video how I did it.

    “Timur, why write nonsense - very patriotic, but terribly stupid?” Even among the young pioneers there are practically no people who would oppose the MiG-29 and F-22. laughing repeat
  39. Bell pepper
    Bell pepper 7 March 2018 02: 25
    0
    And how many AGM-158B JASSM-ER missiles can take on the ultimate combat radius of the F-15E, and how many X-32s can the Tu-22M3M?


    And how many Tu 22 different modifications do you have in service ?? Less than 100 !!! And how many Tu 22 m3m ??????

    And how many Americans F 15E ???? not less than 250 !!!!!!

    So build guys, build !!!!

    Work brothers.