Defense Ministry plans to sign a new contract for the supply of Su-34

Defense Ministry plans to sign a new contract for the supply of Su-34

A new contract for the supply of the Russian Air Force for the Su-34 front-line bombers will be signed this summer. The Ministry of Defense plans to purchase several dozen modernized aircraft, TASS reports citing a source in the military-industrial complex.


According to the statement of the news agency source, it is planned to conclude a contract for the supply of the Su-34 batch of the Russian Aerospace Forces, which have undergone modernization as part of the Sych development work.

The military department plans to conclude a contract this summer with Sukhoi Company PJSC for the supply of several dozen Su-34s with advanced combat capabilities to the troops. The aircraft will integrate the latest radio-electronic equipment created as part of the Sych development work

- leads TASS source words.

As the agency’s interlocutor explained, the R&D Sych was completed in 2019. As part of this modernization, it is planned to install suspended reconnaissance containers on the Su-34, as well as significantly expand the range of aviation weapons. Within the framework of this development work, it is planned to modernize the entire fleet of the Su-34s in service.

Su-34 - Russian multifunctional fighter-bomber designed for striking aviation weapons of destruction on ground targets of the enemy in operational and tactical depth in the face of strong opposition. It belongs to the 4 ++ generation and allows for the implementation of basic combat missions without escort by fighter cover. Uses long-range guided weapons of the air-to-surface and air-to-air class with multichannel application. Equipped with a highly intelligent radar counteraction and defense system. Flight range - up to 4 km, top speed - up to 000 km / h, combat load - up to eight tons.
Photos used:
https://www.sukhoi.org/
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

62 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. rocket757 19 February 2020 09: 52 New
    • 12
    • 6
    +6
    The armor is strong and our planes .... in short, you need as many of them as you NEED!
    1. rocket757 19 February 2020 10: 07 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      It’s just interesting, who appreciated it that way? those who are for or those who are against ...
    2. RideMaster 19 February 2020 10: 31 New
      • 5
      • 14
      -9
      Su 25 is truly our best attack aircraft (s)
      1. rocket757 19 February 2020 10: 36 New
        • 10
        • 3
        +7
        34 is not an attack aircraft, they are different in functionality, tactics of application, although some functions overlap.
        1. RideMaster 19 February 2020 10: 40 New
          • 5
          • 11
          -6
          This is the memechik I made so local. Means that your informational post is a complete zero. Why did you write it - a question.
          I'm talking about your first comment above.
          1. rocket757 19 February 2020 11: 07 New
            • 0
            • 4
            -4
            I was just joking.
            I never write enthusiastically about what is already clear.
            About armaments in general, I ceased to be enthusiastic, for a long time, because most often you realize that it is scary, although technology can just be the height of perfection in terms of design work, technology and production.
            Likely it comes to some in due time that you want a peaceful sky above your head ... at the same time you realize that it will not be yet, and the country SHOULD arm itself with the latest technology, teach, and prepare warriors for protection.
            In short, such a "peaceful militarist" on a military site ... happens.
        2. Piramidon 19 February 2020 11: 23 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: rocket757
          34 no attack aircraft

          He is not even a Su-25
      2. 210ox 19 February 2020 10: 39 New
        • 6
        • 1
        +5
        Is it about Su25?
        1. RideMaster 19 February 2020 10: 44 New
          • 4
          • 8
          -4
          Corrected. Su 34 is truly our best front-line bomber)
          1. Piramidon 19 February 2020 15: 57 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: RideMaster
            Corrected. Su 34 is truly our best front-line bomber)

            Man, are you, or a real moron, or are you mowing under him? How did you start to blunt?
        2. rocket757 19 February 2020 11: 12 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          As I understand it, the Su 34 is replacing the Su 24, which is the same front-line bomber of the previous generation. Su 25 "Rook" attack aircraft.
          1. RideMaster 19 February 2020 14: 23 New
            • 3
            • 2
            +1
            Nevertheless, - su 25 is truly our best attack aircraft (s)
            ))
            1. rocket757 19 February 2020 14: 33 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              According to reviews, the plane is good. Everything has its time, at the moment there is only one more such class. The American A-10 ... there’s nothing more to compare.
              1. Ax Matt 19 February 2020 17: 18 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Not about the Su-34 (it’s out of competition and another class of aircraft in general!) In a sense, the A-10 has slightly better combat characteristics than the Su-25. The main ones: there are more suspension points and a greater carrying capacity (not by a lot), more diverse weapons. Engines spaced more successfully than the "Rook" (this is important for the attack aircraft). But the Su-25 has a greater modernization resource, higher flight characteristics, and reservation. Now the Supergrach has already gone into the series (avionics have been modernized, sights ...) Then, as the Warthog began to be removed from service (about 234 pieces left), although NATO still has no replacement for it! Simply, the resource has already been exhausted in all respects. The mattress covers even jerked in order to replace them with lightweight light attack aircraft, but they realized in time: “they are completely useless against Russia” ... laughing
                1. rocket757 20 February 2020 06: 56 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Stripes, who did not forget how to think, realized that having written off the A-10, there was simply Nothing to replace it with them and with all the others! so sho modernize as they can, that's all business.
  2. serg.shishkov2015 19 February 2020 09: 54 New
    • 2
    • 5
    -3
    In 1994 he found out about him from the magazine * Wings of the Motherland *, immediately fell in love with him! Handsome man! An interesting nickname is the Platypus!
    1. bessmertniy 19 February 2020 10: 12 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Beauty is not bad, but the main thing is the good characteristics and front-line efficiency that it has.
      1. Ax Matt 19 February 2020 17: 25 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Even Tupolev said: A beautiful car and flies beautifully! With the characteristics and efficiency of the "Duckling" a complete order ... proved.
    2. Orkraider 19 February 2020 12: 45 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Welcome
      hi

      And there is still a very interesting color))))
    3. Ax Matt 19 February 2020 17: 23 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      "Platypus"...?! Ha ha ... Well this is necessary ... lol fool DUCKLING !!! I heard a bell, but don’t know where he is ...
  3. Yrec 19 February 2020 09: 55 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    It would be interesting to know the opinion of a pilot flying a Su-34 over Syria about this aircraft.
  4. V1er 19 February 2020 09: 56 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Good news! Good luck to our engineers.
  5. aszzz888 19 February 2020 09: 59 New
    • 7
    • 1
    +6
    In the framework of this development work, it is planned to upgrade the whole park armed with the Su-34.
    And this is the second good news. Although earlier there were discussions on this issue.
  6. Nikolaevich I 19 February 2020 10: 07 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    I just don’t understand why the Su-34 is persistently called the “4 ++ generation”! ? Well, I agree to "4+" ... recourse
    1. RideMaster 19 February 2020 10: 30 New
      • 7
      • 8
      -1
      You understand so thoroughly what exactly the first plus means, and what the second? I envy you such specific knowledge.
      1. alexmach 21 February 2020 10: 44 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Nothing essentially means. Marketing conversations.
    2. Ax Matt 19 February 2020 17: 38 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Usually, it is customary to designate 4 ++ generation to designate airplanes based on a 4th-generation airframe (in this case, an integrated midplane on the T-10 / su-27), but with a significant amount of composite materials in the structure, which reduces EPR and with elements of the structure itself leading to an increase in stealth (keels, tilt angles of elements ... etc.) is the "+", the next "+" in the modernization of avionics (AFAR, laser sights ...) and engines with a controlled thrust vector. This is brief. Until the full fifth generation, 4 ++ is not enough only for the following indicators: the impossibility of after-flight over-sound (cruise flight), the design of the general contours and tilt angles and the mount points of the weapons outside the fuselage, which significantly “shines” the aircraft on radars.
      1. Nikolaevich I 20 February 2020 01: 39 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        About the "difference of generations" every doldonit "who is what a lot"! “Simplified” we can say this: 1. Generation-4 +: as a result of modernization, the Yeroplan acquires some features, “gadgets” that are characteristic of 5th generation aircraft, but which were not (or “poorly developed”) in 4th aircraft generation ... 2. Generation-4 ++ ....! "Almost" 5th generation! Up to the 5th generation, 1-2 properties of the 5th generation aircraft are "not enough" ... The Su-34 has (?): 1. supersonic cruising flight .; 2. AFAR; 3. stealth invisibility; 4. The ability to use missiles (RVV) range of St. 100 km ?? Why, similar in a number of “signs”, the Su-30 belongs to generation-4 +; and Su-34-to -4 ++ generation? After all, they were created around the same years ... and, if my memory serves me, on the "base" of the Su-27UB! And one more “little thing” in confirmation of “who’s what the hell” ...: the same Su-30, which is usually attributed to the 4 + generation, but you can also find articles where the Su-30 calls itself the “-4 ++ generation” "! I do not exclude the possibility that after further modernization, the “resulting” Su-34M and Su-30SM3 aircraft can be attributed to the 4 ++ generation, but this is a matter for the future ... let's hope that the next one!
        1. Ax Matt 20 February 2020 01: 57 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          I don’t have the habit of "idle talk". What I was taught in VVU, I write. Although, you have little to understand at all ... confusion. All that I understood: the Su-30 on the engines and radar is frankly weak (compared to the same Su-35). Therefore, 4+. And now he needs modernization. Which will be done. Most likely, after modernization (with imported components) it will be sold for export ... as an option.
  7. Siberian 66 19 February 2020 10: 07 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Finally, the intelligence container will be hanged. This was very lacking !!!
  8. svp67 19 February 2020 10: 16 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    As part of this modernization, it is planned to install suspended reconnaissance containers on the Su-34, as well as significantly expand the range of aircraft weapons.
    This is good, since very soon the resource that Su-24 is ruthlessly operating now will end and the entire "bomb load" of the front-line bomber will fall on the shoulders of the "duckling"
  9. RideMaster 19 February 2020 10: 28 New
    • 5
    • 13
    -8
    Oh, this is the case, instead of unnecessary modernization of the su 25. As I understand it, the su is 34m. I would still replace the first su 34 then with these and at least a squadron of Syrians. Oh, somehow let not be stingy about my pension and give it to the Syrians)))
    1. bars1 19 February 2020 11: 06 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      No, this is the Su-34NVO its main feature is the ability to carry reconnaissance containers. In fact, the replacement of the Su-24MR. Su-34M more thorough modernization. Work began in 2018. the first plane is planned to be lifted in air in 2022.
  10. Foxnova 19 February 2020 10: 57 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    On the basis of su 34 it is necessary to revive marine missile aircraft
  11. askort154 19 February 2020 11: 00 New
    • 7
    • 1
    +6
    The military department plans to conclude a contract this summer with Sukhoi Company PJSC for the supply of several dozen Su-34s with advanced combat capabilities to the troops.

    Finally, take a breath in the factory. There were rumors about the MO refusing further orders for the Su-34 (in comments on VO). Apparently not everything suited them as a result of the “break-in” in Syria.
  12. God save the king 19 February 2020 11: 16 New
    • 4
    • 6
    -2
    The last mass-produced front-line bomber in the world.
    Why doesn’t Russia switch to fighter-bombers, again “on its way”?
    1. Prjanik 19 February 2020 11: 49 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I think when it is possible to relatively calmly work cleanly on the ground, as in Syria, it is more convenient to do this with the Su-24/34, and not the Su-30.
      1. God save the king 19 February 2020 12: 05 New
        • 5
        • 2
        +3
        According to the developers, the Su-30 with an aiming container is no worse than the Su-34.
        1. Prjanik 19 February 2020 12: 08 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          But the load he has a little less and no armored cabins, dumb at low altitudes.
          1. God save the king 19 February 2020 12: 16 New
            • 5
            • 6
            -1
            The load is almost the same, the presence of an armored car for a high-speed car is more a disadvantage than an advantage: at low altitude it will not help, at high it is not needed.
            1. Prjanik 19 February 2020 12: 25 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              As a whole, if you take the Su-30 with a container, the difference is small, but in the future the Duckling would be worth upgrading precisely as a front-line bomber, and the Su-30 is universal, with the theory of replacing the Su-57.
              1. God save the king 19 February 2020 12: 36 New
                • 5
                • 4
                +1
                The duckling would be worth upgrading
                It’s still understandable to upgrade, but to continue building and ordering this "archaic, which has no analogues in the world" is too much.
                The construction of a mass series of a single combat aircraft (the same Su-30, with the theoretical replacement for the Su-57), would be the best option to increase the combat potential of the air fleet, which is now pretty thinned out.
                1. Prjanik 19 February 2020 12: 48 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Undoubtedly, the Su-30 / Su-57 are necessary for the war against a modern adversary, but imagine that you need to bomb the barmaley, and then the front-line bomber with a higher payload will be more profitable, rather than an ultramodern multi-functional fighter or strategic missile carrier.
            2. bars1 19 February 2020 16: 22 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              The current Su-30SM are not capable of raising 1500kg bombs (Su-35S and Su-34 can) And it is not clear whether it is possible to modify the combatant armpits for this. It is better to switch to the Su-57, and the production of the "classics" needs to be stopped. Well, or just leave Su-35S
              1. God save the king 19 February 2020 16: 47 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                The current Su-30SM are not capable of raising 1500kg bombs
                Indian Su30 generally 3 "brahmos" (2,5 tons each missile) carry. It is clear that it’s not on standard suspension units, but the fact of a huge backlog is obvious, I think it will not be difficult to add on 30 KAB-1500.
                1. sivuch 19 February 2020 22: 00 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Can I have such a photo? And while only 40 cars and with one rocket are planned.
          2. Grigory_45 19 February 2020 12: 48 New
            • 3
            • 2
            +1
            Quote: Prjanik
            and no armored cabins

            But what's the point ??? Su-34 is not a ground attack aircraft. And at high altitude from the armored car, the sense of zero. But it would be possible either to lighten the aircraft by almost 1,5 tons, or to take more fuel and ammunition.
            1. Prjanik 19 February 2020 12: 55 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Yes, you can do a lot, and throw the stove out, outhouse, reduce the size of this cabin if necessary.
              1. bars1 19 February 2020 16: 17 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                It’s easier to develop a new aircraft than to modify the Su-34 in such a way
                1. sivuch 19 February 2020 21: 59 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  And do not disfigure it like that. What you need - a radar with ground work is better than the current one and a replacement (or a very serious modernization of Platan
            2. tomket 19 February 2020 16: 44 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Gregory_45
              But what's the point ??? Su-34 is not a ground attack aircraft. And at high altitude from the armored car, the sense of zero. But it would be possible either to lighten the aircraft by almost 1,5 tons, or to take more fuel and ammunition.

              Well, recently, one Su-34 in dense formation drove another wing through the cockpit, would it be an ordinary flashlight, most likely it would be demolished. Or another example, in Afghanistan there were losses of Su 17 from the defeat of a pilot during take-off from large-caliber rifles or machine guns. and during the Desert Storm, there were often cases of injuries to pilots by rocket splinters. So the armor will not hurt.
              1. Grigory_45 19 February 2020 16: 52 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: tomket
                Quote: Gregory_45
                But what's the point ??? Su-34 is not a ground attack aircraft. And at high altitude from the armored car, the sense of zero. But it would be possible either to lighten the aircraft by almost 1,5 tons, or to take more fuel and ammunition.

                Well, recently, one Su-34 in dense formation drove another wing through the cockpit, would it be an ordinary flashlight, most likely it would be demolished. Or another example, in Afghanistan there were losses of Su 17 from the defeat of a pilot during take-off from large-caliber rifles or machine guns. and during the Desert Storm, there were often cases of injuries to pilots by rocket splinters. So the armor will not hurt.

                Booking is justified only on attack aircraft (and then, not only the cockpit should be booked, but also all vital aircraft systems)
                Why do not they put armor on the Su-24, Su-30, MiG-29, Tu-22M3 ???
                1. sivuch 19 February 2020 21: 56 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  And why was it put on the MiG-27 and later phantoms?
                  You think that enemy missiles are either waving or blowing the plane into the trash. By the way, the "excess" weight is not at all one and a half tons.
  13. rudolff 19 February 2020 11: 38 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Somewhat blurry statement. Is it the supply of new machines for an improved project or the supply of modernized combatant aircraft? It’s just that I have more than once encountered such verbiage in statements, and in fact, “delivery” implied modernization.
    1. Paranoid50 19 February 2020 12: 32 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: rudolff
      in fact, "delivery" meant modernization.

      Here, everything is transparent, Rudolph. hi Initially, the drill will be the shaman.
      Within the framework of this ROC, in the future it is planned to modernize the entire fleet of Su-34s in service
    2. bars1 19 February 2020 16: 28 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      It is clearly written that from the beginning new ones will be riveted, and then they will also upgrade combat units. Although they will certainly not buy reconnaissance containers on all aircraft. But the ammunition will expand.
  14. Shraik 19 February 2020 12: 11 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: rudolff
    Somewhat blurry statement. Is it the supply of new machines for an improved project or the supply of modernized combatant aircraft? It’s just that I have more than once encountered such verbiage in statements, and in fact, “delivery” implied modernization.

    I also ask this question. But even if there is simply a modernization of existing ones, then this is also good. The army will receive a modernized plane, and people will work.
  15. East Kazakhstan 19 February 2020 12: 56 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    With or without AFAR?
    1. bars1 19 February 2020 16: 24 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I'm afraid that without. A new radar is promised for the modification of 2022 ...
  16. Oleg kubanoid 19 February 2020 13: 47 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Quote: God save the King

    Why doesn’t Russia switch to fighter-bombers, again “on its way”?

    at the moment it is expensive .. the point is to switch when you already have more than 100 SU-34.
  17. ugol2 19 February 2020 22: 42 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    There are never many good planes.
  18. Imperial Technocrat 20 February 2020 19: 27 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Perhaps the best combat aircraft in the world