Purchasing new Su-34s: repeating old mistakes

Epochs and Aircraft




In the post-Soviet space, they love the narrow specialization of winged combat vehicles, although world practice shows that it is gradually becoming a thing of the past. First, let's look deep stories. The Second World War approved the main types of bombers at that time, dividing them into light, medium and heavy. Although, for example, already at the beginning of World War II, the concept of the light Su-2 showed that such an aircraft would not live in a real battle for long (unless, of course, it would have the speed like the British De Havilland Mosquito). The end of the war consolidated the main subtypes fighters, attack aircraft and bombers, but many decades after its completion in the air forces of Western countries and the USSR there will remain a “vinaigrette” of a wide variety of vehicles, a significant part of which will, of course, be supersonic fighters and bombers.

Why did this happen? Firstly, during the Cold War, military technology developed incredibly fast, albeit not as fast as during the Second World War. So several generations of aircraft could be in the air force at once, and it has been so for a long time. Secondly, tactics changed, and this required the presence of highly specialized machines. At one time, a low-altitude air defense breakthrough was extremely popular through flight at very low altitudes with an envelope of the terrain. So, in the 60s and 70s, the American F-111, equipped with a system of enveloping the terrain, capable of operating at low altitudes seemed "ultimatum" weapons. In turn, the fighters had to operate at high altitude, providing cover and gaining dominance in the sky.


However, modern realities have made some adjustments. The use of Panavia Tornado during Desert Storm has shown that a low-altitude breakthrough is fraught with serious risks and losses, even if the enemy is not equipped with the latest technology. More importantly, modern aviation weapons of destruction allow aviation to effectively act against air defense without flying near the ground. Therefore, such aircraft as the F-111, have become little in demand, although no one says that this machine or its direct analogue in the person of the Su-24 were initially bad. Not at all.

The firstborn of a new time


The appearance of the McDonnell Douglas F-80E Strike Eagle in the late 15s marked a qualitatively new stage in the development of attack aircraft, despite the fact that the combat debut in 1991 turned out to be “blurry" and the creators had to eliminate children's diseases characteristic of the new technology for a long time.

And although initially the F-15 was created as an air fighter, a large range of action and good combat load indicators made Strike Eagle a real multifunctional complex. In one of the new photos you can see this aircraft carrying 20 (!) New bombs GBU-39 SDB (Small Diameter Bomb). And in May 2015, Strike Eagle was presented with its new version in the form of SDB II, capable of hitting not only stationary (like GBU-39), but also moving targets.


In general, if we look at modern fighters, such as the Dassault Rafale or Eurofighter Typhoon, we will see how these aircraft differ in terms of functionality from third-generation fighters. One of the Eurofighter’s loading options, for example, involves mounting eighteen of the latest Brimstone air-to-surface missiles. We are not talking about fifth-generation fighters, which have not only wide functional capabilities, but also stealth.

Duckling Fullback


In this situation, Russia continues to buy the Su-34 front-line bomber - the brainchild of the Cold War. Recall that in February of this year it became known that a new contract for the supply of the Russian Sukhoi Aerospace Forces will be signed in the summer of 34. The exact number is unknown, but probably the total number of these machines will greatly exceed one hundred: that is how much has already been built for the Air Force.

It would seem that one can only be happy for the Russian air force, but, in truth, the plane raises too many questions. Here are just a few of them.


Airplane concept. The Su-34 was created with a clear eye on the American aircraft F-111 and Su-24 - aircraft, which, as we saw above, became the swan song of highly specialized tactical bombers. Now, due to the development of modern high-precision aviation ammunition, there is no need for such a machine. Its role may well be taken over by a multi-functional fighter. Simply put, the Su-34 has no real advantages over the Su-30SM or Su-35S, which have practically the same combat radius and the identical payload mass (the comparison with the Su-34 is incorrect - these are cars of different eras) . At the same time, using the Su-24 as a fighter is difficult. This is facilitated neither by the huge mass of the aircraft for a fighter (normal take-off weight is 34 tons!), Nor the low maneuverability associated with this, nor the side-by-side crew accommodation that is constraining the review and poor visibility of the rear hemisphere for both crew members. For some reason, it is not customary to talk about this in the Russian-language media, but the old F-39E is completely devoid of such restrictions. As, however, the new Russian multifunctional fighters.


Obsolescence avionics. Developed in the Soviet years, the Su-34 was outdated not only conceptually, but also from the point of view of the "filling", although it was updated as the complex was brought to serial production. A sharp negative reaction of specialists is caused by the Platan optical system, which has very limited viewing angles and is far from the best “picture” quality to date, to say the least. There are claims to the radar. It is known that the Sh-141 radar station supports simultaneous tracking of up to ten targets when firing at up to four of them, but it is already difficult to surprise anyone with this. But the plane does not have an active phased antenna array (which, incidentally, will also not surprise anyone). Most likely, it will be simply ineffective against inconspicuous vehicles: although, as we already wrote above, it was not created for air battles and is unlikely to be able to fully conduct them, having received even the most advanced radar station in the world.


Unification of the fleet. This is a very sore subject for the modern Russian Air Force, and it does not directly address the shortcomings of the Su-34. However, without considering the situation, it is impossible to understand why the procurement of the Su-34 is not only meaningless, but also harmful. Recall that now the Russian Aerospace Forces are already operating hundreds of new-built Su-35S, Su-30SM, Su-30MK2, Su-27SM3 and MiG-29SMT aircraft, as well as fifty modernized Su-27SMs. And that's not counting the MiG-31 interceptors! Needless to say, all these machines have completely different sets of on-board electronics and, most surprisingly, different engines, although all Sukhoi engines are based on the Soviet AL-31F. Such de-standardization clearly does not paint the Air Force, but this is all the little things against the backdrop of new deliveries of the Su-34 - an aircraft that was de facto late for an entire era, and taking into account stealth fighters - just two.

In this case, the advantages of the Su-34, as they say, are sucked from the finger. As one of these indicate "the ability to act day and night, in any weather conditions" (meaning the defeat of ground targets). The problem is that now any Western modern fighter of generation 4+ and any Russian fighter of a similar generation can do this, provided that a hanging sighting container of the LANTIRN type is used. Fortunately for the rather successful Su-30SM and Su-35S, they do not carry an extra load in the face of the old built-in Plane, like the Su-34, but they have many potential suspension points for modern sighting containers. But what kind of containers they will be is a completely different topic for discussion.
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. qwerty183 1 March 2020 18: 05 New
    • 43
    • 36
    +7
    Everything is lost?
    1. Aerodrome 1 March 2020 18: 12 New
      • 71
      • 50
      +21
      author drink yadu ... yes
      1. Ramzaj99 1 March 2020 22: 08 New
        • 73
        • 21
        +52
        In the madhouse spent the Internet ??
        Or did the author run away?
        Such fantastic nonsense, already breathtaking.
        At Eurofighter, and so the range is not so hot, it constantly flies with additional tanks, and it can bomb an airfield loaded with 18 air unless its airfield. And I wonder HOW this "universal" fighter is fully loaded, will intercept aircraft ???))
        There is nothing universal in aviation and it never will be, the tasks are too different! Drive it into your head with a nail !!
        1. Kalmar 1 March 2020 22: 49 New
          • 42
          • 15
          +27
          Quote: Ramzaj99
          I wonder HOW this "universal" fighter is fully loaded, will intercept aircraft ???

          Loaded with bombs - no way. It's not about that, but about the fact that you can ideally have one type of aircraft that is packed with hanging equipment and weapons for a specific task. Hooked rockets BB - will be an interceptor today. Tomorrow we need to bomb something - we catch bombs. Well, in that vein.

          The multiplier in the form of several different types of aircraft, doing, in essence, about the same thing, is not very pleasant in terms of maintenance and operation. And if the Su-34 does not know anything that the Su-30 or Su-35 could not, then the question of its expediency is quite logical.
          1. Cyrus 2 March 2020 11: 11 New
            • 2
            • 7
            -5
            From your point of view, maybe yes, from my no.
          2. Ramzaj99 2 March 2020 17: 57 New
            • 9
            • 6
            +3
            Quote: Kalmar
            Loaded with bombs - no way. This is not about that, but about the fact that you can ideally have one type of aircraft that is packed with hanging equipment and weapons for a specific task. Hooked rockets BB - will be an interceptor today. Tomorrow we need to bomb something - we catch bombs.

            I would like to at least theoretically imagine how one and the same aircraft, first flies to intercept a supersonic target or drone, and then it flies across the floor of the continent with 5-7 tons of gifts to bomb some sort of bunker .......
            1. Kalmar 2 March 2020 18: 00 New
              • 8
              • 4
              +4
              Quote: Ramzaj99
              I would like to at least theoretically imagine how one and the same aircraft, first flies to intercept a supersonic target or drone, and then it flies across the floor of the continent with 5-7 tons of gifts to bomb some sort of bunker .......

              You should at least read what you comment first. Who says first-then? It’s about one type of aircraft can be used to solve various problems (at any given time - one specific).
              1. Ramzaj99 2 March 2020 18: 03 New
                • 4
                • 5
                -1
                Quote: Kalmar
                We are talking about the fact that one type of aircraft can be used to solve various problems (at any given time - one specific one).

                Yes, I’m talking about that! How can the same type of aircraft chase drones and fly across the continent under load ???
                1. Kalmar 2 March 2020 22: 51 New
                  • 3
                  • 3
                  0
                  Quote: Ramzaj99
                  How can the same type of aircraft chase drones and fly across the continent under load ???

                  So after all, silently and without flapping wings. In terms of range, the Su-34 and Su-35 are not very different. And if it is necessary directly through a half-continent, then this is to strategic aviation.
                  1. Ramzaj99 3 March 2020 17: 42 New
                    • 2
                    • 3
                    -1
                    Quote: Kalmar
                    So after all, silently and without flapping wings. In terms of range, the Su-34 and Su-35 are not very different. And if it is necessary directly through a half-continent, then this is to strategic aviation.

                    Well already decide what you're talking about .....
                    That one master of all trades.
                    That strategic aviation appeared)))
                    Or is he an interceptor today and tomorrow a strategist ?? Storytellers)) .....
                    1. Kalmar 3 March 2020 17: 56 New
                      • 5
                      • 3
                      +2
                      Quote: Ramzaj99
                      Well already decide what you're talking about .....
                      That one master of all trades.
                      That strategic aviation appeared)))

                      First, let's not poke. Secondly, read carefully before commenting. You now argue not with me already, but with some of your fantasies.
                      1. Ramzaj99 3 March 2020 18: 15 New
                        • 2
                        • 2
                        0
                        Quote: Kalmar
                        First, let's not poke. Secondly, read carefully before commenting. You now argue not with me already, but with some of your fantasies.

                        It's not about that, but about the fact that you can ideally have one type of aircraft that is packed with hanging equipment and weapons for a specific task. Hooked rockets BB - will be an interceptor today. Tomorrow we need to bomb something - we catch bombs.

                        Whose Quote?
                        Am I once again asking a simple question?
                        How does the same plane intercept supersonic targets today, and tomorrow it flies to bomb the barmalei in Syria?
                        Or has physics been canceled for sofa experts?
                      2. bk0010 3 March 2020 20: 25 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Ramzaj99
                        How does the same plane intercept supersonic targets today, and tomorrow it flies to bomb the barmalei in Syria?
                        Or has physics been canceled for sofa experts?
                        Canceled, back in the days of F-111. The fact that the family only remembers the percussion variant does not mean that the rest are unrealizable, they really were.
                      3. Kalmar 4 March 2020 08: 51 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        Quote: Ramzaj99
                        Whose Quote?

                        And where in this quote am I talking about your "half-continent"? You do not grab from the context, we are generally about fighters and front-line the bombers were talking.

                        Quote: Ramzaj99
                        How does the same plane intercept supersonic targets today, and tomorrow it flies to bomb the barmalei in Syria?

                        Do you know such a concept as a "fighter-bomber" or "multi-purpose fighter"? Or should planes be sent to Syria exclusively from aerodromes near Moscow (all of a sudden, a sabzhevy Su-34 is also not an assistant here)?

                        In general, I urge once again: figure out what exactly you are arguing about.
                      4. Ramzaj99 4 March 2020 18: 27 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Kalmar
                        Or planes to Syria should be sent exclusively from Moscow airfields

                        Flight range: - is such a concept familiar ??
                        Universality is good for those who have a military airfield in each country of the world, or even not one, but where there is no airfield, there is an aircraft carrier.
                        It is also good in Europe, where for 1000 km you can fly through 3 countries.
                        But what about those who have great distances, and there is no way to have an airfield at every point in the world ??
                        Once again I am talking about ordinary physics.
                        A fighter with huge tanks and hung with various missiles can never fulfill its functions, or it can, but much worse than a specialized machine.
                        Same thing with a bomber. There is a choice between speed and maneuverability and the amount of bomb load.
                        The fighter can now work out missiles on the ground.
                        And the Su-34 itself carries air-to-air missiles. Will he cope with a specialized machine? Perhaps, but doubtful.
                        The concept of universality is very beautiful, especially for couch troops. But it can never be compared with specialized equipment.
                      5. Kalmar 5 March 2020 09: 29 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Quote: Ramzaj99
                        Flight range: - is such a concept familiar ??

                        Yeah. Therefore, read where Russian aviation works in the same Syria. And if there are no airdromes in close proximity, then you will have to drive strategists, like the British during the Falkland. So I did not offer to replace the straggs with fighter jets; it is only about FB and IB.

                        Quote: Ramzaj99
                        The fighter can now work out missiles on the ground.
                        And the Su-34 itself carries air-to-air missiles.

                        So that’s what it was all about. Su-34 can carry explosives, but for air combat, he can not conduct - this is not his topic. Su-35, for example, can carry bombs and air-to-surface missiles - it is also intended for this.

                        And here is the question: does the Su-34 really solve the problem of hitting the ground so much better as to keep it as a separate class? Or does it all come down to "flies a little farther, carries a bit more load"?

                        Well, then, after answering this question, we apply the economics of war and look: it’s advisable or not. Because it is undoubtedly very cool to have specialized equipment for everyone, but expensive.
          3. Sunstorm 8 March 2020 19: 44 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Try 10 conditional X1 planes to load rockets for hunting conditional drones. And 10 more conventional X1 planes with missiles to strike at ground targets. The whole problem for you comes down to the fact that you can’t imagine 20 planes at the airport? Start small then, imagine that there are 1 pieces of X2 aircraft ...
        2. Alexey LK 3 March 2020 06: 43 New
          • 5
          • 1
          +4
          Quote: Kalmar
          We are talking about the fact that one type of aircraft can be used to solve various problems (at any given time - one specific one).

          It is possible to use something, in theory, but the specialized equipment will have higher efficiency. So this is the task of finding the optimal balance between unification / specialization. And now, please state your arguments regarding how you calculated that unification is more profitable than specialization in this case, i.e. how did you arrive at the optimal balance. Because just making statements is simple, but backing them up with arguments is not so simple.
          And look at this one more thing - aren't all of the models under consideration (Su-27, -30, -34, -35) one family? Those. Of course, they have a slightly different set of equipment, but not so that it is completely different, and the engines - not so that it is completely different. It's not the same thing to create from 4-5 completely different samples in the same class ...
          1. Kalmar 3 March 2020 08: 26 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            Quote: Alexey LK
            efficiency will be higher with specialized equipment

            Who would argue. The question is in the resources: will there be enough of them for the creation and operation of this very specialized equipment in sufficient quantities.

            Quote: Alexey LK
            please state your arguments regarding how you calculated that unification is more profitable than specialization in this case

            I did not claim that it is more profitable. Well, I say - if.

            If:
            1. A specialized aircraft is much better at solving certain problems;
            2. These tasks often arise or are very important;
            3. have money for it all
            the creation of an additional type of aircraft is justified. Does this apply to the Su-34? If yes, then there are no questions, a suitable and necessary aircraft. Perhaps it’s even more suitable for modern wars than multi-role fighters: it is imprisoned for attacks on ground targets (most often required), and air battles are still rare nowadays.
      2. 3danimal 23 March 2020 11: 10 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        34th does not fly across half the continent (confused with F-111). Ferry range 4000 km without PTB, the Su-35s - 3500 km (3000 - Su-30SM). With disparate capabilities.
    2. Leaning 2 March 2020 22: 50 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      You, comrade, need to sell in NATO, 35th) essno, not Su ...
    3. Alexey LK 3 March 2020 06: 46 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Kalmar
      The multiplier in the form of several different types of aircraft, doing, in essence, about the same thing, is not very pleasant in terms of maintenance and operation.

      Everything is relative. Now let's estimate this very ... disagreement, that is, in the NATO Air Force ...
      1. Kalmar 3 March 2020 08: 29 New
        • 1
        • 3
        -2
        Quote: Alexey LK
        Now let's estimate this very ... disagreement, that is, in the NATO Air Force ...

        Let's. Let's see which of them still holds front-line bombers.
        1. Bad_gr 3 March 2020 16: 29 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Kalmar
          Quote: Alexey LK
          Now let's estimate this very ... disagreement, that is, in the NATO Air Force ...

          Let's. Let's see which of them still holds front-line bombers.

          And what only front-line bombers bring inconsistency, and the rest do not?
          We look, the Turkish Air Force:
          ___________ Combat aircraft
          Canadair NF-5A multirole fighter 17 pcs
          Canadair NF-5B training fighter --- 10
          F-16C Block 30 multirole fighter 27
          F-16C Block 50 multirole fighter 162
          F-16C Block 50+ multirole fighter 14
          F-16D Block 30 multirole fighter 8
          F-16D Block 50 multirole fighter 33
          F-16D Block 50+ multirole fighter 16
          Northrop F-5A multirole fighter 18
          Northrop F-5B training fighter ----- 8
          McDonnell Douglas F-4E 51 multirole fighter
          __________ Transport aircraft
          Boeing 737—700 transport aircraft ------ 1
          Boeing 737-700BBJ administrative aircraft 1
          Boeing KC-135R tanker - 7
          CASA CN-235 transport aircraft --------- 2
          Tusas CN-235M transport aircraft ------- 46
          Cessna 650 Citation VII administrative aircraft 2
          Cessna Citation 550 II administrative aircraft 2
          Gulfstream 550 administrative aircraft ----- 1
          Beechcraft King Air Beech 350 administrative aircraft 5
          Lockheed C-130B transport aircraft -------- 6
          Lockheed C-130E transport aircraft -------- 12
          Lockheed C-130R transport aircraft --------- 7
          Lockheed C-130H transport aircraft --------- 1
          Transport Allianz C.160D transport aircraft -16
          Raytheon 200 administrative aircraft -------- 6
          Airbus A400M transport aircraft ------------ 9

          Fine ?
          1. Kalmar 3 March 2020 17: 54 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            Quote: Bad_gr
            ___________ Combat aircraft

            AND? I see, basically, a large number of modifications of the F-16 and slightly smaller F-4. Apparently, they took what was on the market at the time of procurement. I do not quite understand what this example illustrates.
            1. Bad_gr 3 March 2020 20: 07 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: Kalmar
              I see mainly a large number of modifications of the F-16

              But the fact that F-16 different modifications differ from each other no less than the Su-30 from the Su-35 do not take into account? They have different engines, radars, electronics, even the chassis, and then they are different. This is only for F-16, but they also have 3 types of multi-role fighter in service (NF-5A, F-5A, F-4E). By the way, according to front-line bombers, the F-4 mainly plays this role.
              1. Kalmar 4 March 2020 08: 44 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Quote: Bad_gr
                But the fact that F-16 different modifications differ from each other no less than the Su-30 from the Su-35 do not take into account?

                Did they buy them at the same time in different versions? Or did they just take in batches the modification that they could acquire at that particular moment?
                1. Bad_gr 4 March 2020 10: 47 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Kalmar
                  Did they buy them at the same time in different versions?

                  And what does this change for staff serving this park?
                2. Kalmar 4 March 2020 12: 12 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Quote: Bad_gr
                  And what does this change for staff serving this park?

                  Nothing: he, the staff, is probably sad about this. And it will be even more saddened if it is loaded with an additional class of aircraft. But the Turks themselves do not do aircraft; buy what you have to. We have a choice: we can not build a Su-34, but instead make them a Su-35. Or vice versa.
                3. Bad_gr 4 March 2020 13: 15 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Kalmar
                  We have a choice: we can not build a Su-34, but instead make them a Su-35. Or vice versa.
                  And why do so, abandoning specialized aircraft, which perform their combat mission much better than generalists in favor of a uniform fleet, if even the Turks, who buy most of the consumables and spare parts for their mixed planes abroad, do not have such a fleet?
                4. Kalmar 4 March 2020 14: 16 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Quote: Bad_gr
                  And why do this, abandon specialized aircraft that perform their combat mission much better than generalists

                  I have written about this several times here. If it is really “much better”, if this “own task” is so in demand, then, of course, you should not refuse.
                5. Bad_gr 4 March 2020 15: 56 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Kalmar
                  If really “much better”, if this “own task” is so in demand

                  In my opinion, putting on one side of the scale an increase (or not increase) in the combat effectiveness of equipment, and on the other a slight increase (or reduction) in the work of writing papers by a supplier, are somehow not very comparable values.
                6. 3danimal 23 March 2020 11: 29 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Logistics does not change “a little”, and it is by no means just writing paper. These are days, weeks and months in anticipation of important parts and nodes, not to mention the financial side.
            2. 3danimal 23 March 2020 11: 27 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Not much better. And as regards the “high-tech” equipment of the Su-34, there are generally doubts when comparing with the Su-35s.
  2. Alexey LK 6 March 2020 00: 07 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Kalmar
    Apparently, they took what was on the market at the time of procurement.

    Gold words! And even more - not just what was on the market, but also what at that moment turned out to be the best in terms of cost / effectiveness ratio. Then several years pass, budgets appear again, but the ratio "on the market" changes - and the decision on purchases also changes! This must be remembered by all "analysts" who criticize the lack of unification (in any army and in any kind of armed forces). I'm not talking about other factors - non-military and non-economic (this is not necessarily corruption) - they also often contribute to decision-making - for example, access to new technologies.
  3. Revival 30 May 2020 15: 03 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Illustrates nothing, rather the opposite.
    Artificially separated 100500 modifications f16, well, so different
  • Legat_01 2 March 2020 02: 58 New
    • 21
    • 30
    -9
    1. "At Eurofighter and so the range is not so hot."
    Typhoon has the usual range for a 4+ generation fighter.

    2. The option of loading Eurofighter with 18 missiles involves the use of a central PTB. The mass of one Brimstone is only 50 kilograms. As you can see, nothing is impossible, which in practice was shown by the F-15E with SDB.

    3. "There is nothing universal in aviation." There is already and further this direction will only develop. Take for example any modern multi-functional fighter.
    1. Ka-52 2 March 2020 05: 25 New
      • 49
      • 6
      +43
      Ilya Legat once again sculpts a "hunchback", imagining himself an expert in the field of aviation.
      The use of Panavia Tornado during Desert Storm has shown that a low-altitude breakthrough is fraught with serious risks and losses, even if the enemy is not equipped with the latest technology. More importantly, modern aviation weapons allow aviation to operate effectively against air defense without flying near the ground.

      do not write such nonsense. Firstly, the main losses of the Tornado occurred on the GR1, which were attack fighters, and not tactical bombers. The problem of the large losses of the Tornado in the year 91 is not a problem of the concept, but a mistake in using these attack fighters. Which sent to the bombardment of objects covered by air defense systems and MZA. In such a situation, ANY (any, Ilya!) Would have killed the most embarrassed IFI.
      Jaguar A, (serial number A91, fighter squadron 2/11 of the French Air Force) - shot down by air defense systems when attacking the Ahmed al-Jaber airfield at low altitude
      F-15E, (335th tactical fighter squadron of the 4th tactical fighter wing of the U.S. Air Force), - shot down by an air defense system during a massive attack on a fuel and lubricants plant in the Basra area with Mk.82 bombs.
      F-16C, (614th tactical fighter squadron of the US Air Force) - shot down by air defense systems during the massive bombing of Baghdad.
      F-16C (614th US Air Force Tactical Fighter Squadron), shot down by air defense missile systems during a massive bombardment of Baghdad.
      etc. too lazy to list further. There are dozens of examples. The problem is not in airplanes and concepts. And the fact that the bomb attack of objects with unsuppressed air defense usually ends with the loss of aircraft. The legate, as always, draws conclusions from his own fantasy universe.
      Ilya, stop writing about airplanes. Do useful work, knitting or something ....
    2. Serg koma 2 March 2020 08: 02 New
      • 11
      • 2
      +9
      Quote: Legat_01
      3. "There is nothing universal in aviation." There is already and further this direction will only develop. Take for example any modern multi-functional fighter.

      And who, in what Charter, claims that the SU-34 is obliged alone (with one type of aircraft), without fighter cover, to confront enemy aircraft? Listen to you and the bombers are not needed, the fighter due to refueling can hit 50 kg. a bomb at any distance from basing places
    3. Alexey LK 3 March 2020 07: 01 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Legat_01
      "There is nothing universal in aviation." There is already and further this direction will only develop. Take for example any modern multi-functional fighter.

      It should be conducted not only about what is - it is as it is for various reasons, including not related to purely military, tactical considerations - but also about how it should be in order to achieve optimal efficiency, including taking into account the cost. After all, there is such a trend - recently, the costs of the purchase, repair and maintenance of military aircraft are such that the share in them of the part that goes to increase due to the lack of unification is not so big, because a huge proportion of "fixes" - i.e. fixed costs, which are decomposed into units of production, regardless of their large or small series. The costs of "dissimilarity" are relatively large during development, and during production and, especially, during operation, are not so significant. Therefore, if the sample was inherited as a Soviet legacy, then why not take advantage of it? Not to mention the fact that if they abandoned the Su-34, then what would happen to the Novosibirsk aircraft plant?
  • Host Tavern 4 March 2020 18: 18 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    But why buy anything at all, we’ll fight with sticks. wassat
  • 3danimal 23 March 2020 11: 08 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Su-35s in the shock version with an aiming container has a very decent range. At the same time, he remains an excellent fighter, against which the 34th has almost no chance.
  • Chaldon48 1 March 2020 18: 19 New
    • 4
    • 5
    -1
    No, not everything, something will develop.
  • dvina71 1 March 2020 18: 40 New
    • 60
    • 22
    +38
    Yeah .. very all-weather and incredibly accurate American planes smashed one city in Iraq, and the second in Syria. Together with their inhabitants, in attempts to suppress point resistance .... Curved and oblique and blind Su .. nullified the asset and human and technical fighters in Syria .. leaving the city in decent, for war .. kind of ....
    But sofa experts with a ruler always have something to complain about ...
    1. 3danimal 23 March 2020 11: 34 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Compare the scale and complexity of the Desert Storm (I recall, Iraq was then the strongest in the air defense region) and the barmaley bombings in Syria.
  • Bar1 1 March 2020 19: 19 New
    • 24
    • 7
    +17
    The radar and optical station can be replaced with new ones. You can put a more powerful AL41 engine and there will be a modern airplane, everything is in our hands.
    1. ProkletyiPirat 1 March 2020 22: 52 New
      • 3
      • 12
      -9
      Quote: Bar1
      You can put a more powerful AL41 engine and there will be a modern airplane, everything is in our hands.

      Now if the su-34
      1) limit by integrated circuit as a su-57 with relief due to composites and stealth due to angles and coatings
      2) increase the internal volume to accommodate additional weapons, fuel and special equipment
      3) install engines with controlled thrust vector
      4) maintain double crew, as well as front and rear horizontal tail
      Well then, it would really be a “multifunctional fighter-interceptor-bomber”
      1. Stalllker 2 March 2020 01: 52 New
        • 8
        • 0
        +8
        This one will be another plane
      2. ANB
        ANB 2 March 2020 02: 23 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        . Well then, it would really be a “multifunctional fighter-interceptor-bomber”

        SU-57?
        Sorry, could not resist wink
    2. Cympak 2 March 2020 03: 15 New
      • 6
      • 2
      +4
      You can’t just put a new AL-41 engine instead of AL-31 on a plane. Also, it is impossible to fix a 3.5 liter engine instead of a 1.6 liter on a car.
      With a radar, it’s also not easy: the diameter of the locator, the mass of the radar and the subsequent weight distribution of the aircraft, the required power. And the fact that just instead of an oval Su-34 radar station stick a round from the Su-35 is nonsense.
      1. Bar1 2 March 2020 05: 07 New
        • 1
        • 6
        -5
        Quote: Cympak
        You can’t just put a new AL-41 engine instead of AL-31 on a plane.

        They put nichy on su27 and it turned out su35, but the radar must of course be made appropriate for the contours of su34.
        1. Cympak 2 March 2020 14: 33 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          If you put on the Su-27 a new radar from the Su-35 will new aircraft (larger diameter radar radome, alteration of the nose contours, additional energy generators for a more powerful radar, a new weight distribution ....). And the new aircraft is a full-scale test system, both LTH and TSA. And this is time and money.
      2. PilotS37 2 March 2020 15: 39 New
        • 5
        • 1
        +4
        Quote: Cympak
        And the fact that just instead of an oval Su-34 radar station stick a round from the Su-35 is nonsense.

        Why?!!
        The minimum size of the bow of the Su-34 (vertical) is the same as that of the bow of the Su-35, since both of them go back to the bow of the T-10C!
        If a modern radar can be pushed into the Su-35 nose, then it can also be pushed into the Su-34 nose!
        (About weight distribution and energy supply requirements - I agree: there may be problems, but hardly catastrophic.)
  • figwam 1 March 2020 19: 37 New
    • 54
    • 8
    +46
    the Su-34 has no real advantages over the Su-30SM or Su-35S,

    Su-34 has an armored tank, an armored cockpit and armored glass of the crew, which increases the survivability of the crew and aircraft, while on duty in the sky the crew has the opportunity to go to the toilet or get up and warm up lunch, and drink coffee at night, which increases the standby time unlike fighters .
    1. illi 1 March 2020 20: 24 New
      • 15
      • 23
      -8
      This is not an attack aircraft, what for him an armored tank and a cabin? If something flies at his working height (obviously not 12.7), then an armored tank with a cabin will definitely not help him.
      1. figwam 1 March 2020 20: 53 New
        • 19
        • 3
        +16
        Quote: illi
        This is not an attack aircraft, what for him an armored tank and a cabin?

        The bombing range of the Su-34 from 200 meters and above.
        1. Kalmar 1 March 2020 22: 52 New
          • 12
          • 6
          +6
          Quote: figvam
          The bombing range of the Su-34 from 200 meters and above.

          Of course, I am not an expert, but if the enemy has at least some kind of air defense, bombing him from 200 meters is an idea. For this, they also came up with guided weapons in order not to play without the need for kamikazes.
          1. figwam 1 March 2020 23: 16 New
            • 7
            • 5
            +2
            Quote: Kalmar
            Of course, I am not an expert, but if the enemy has at least some kind of air defense, bombing him from 200 meters is an idea.

            But what about attack aircraft and helicopters, it turns out they are not needed as a class?
            First, enemy air defense is destroyed, and then aircraft bomb bases, command posts, warehouses, accumulations of equipment, etc.
            1. Kalmar 1 March 2020 23: 54 New
              • 9
              • 1
              +8
              Quote: figvam
              But what about attack aircraft and helicopters, it turns out they are not needed as a class?

              How does this follow from my statement? I just noted that to beat forehead against enemy air defense is a bad idea, if you can not do this.

              Quote: figvam
              First, enemy air defense is destroyed, and then aircraft bomb bases, command posts, warehouses, accumulations of equipment, etc.

              Yes, roughly in that order. And do not smash the enemy anti-aircraft guns in order to point them at the head to drop something.
              1. Mavric 2 March 2020 04: 34 New
                • 3
                • 1
                +2
                And I am embarrassed to ask: And who will crush the air defense, if not Su 34?
                1. Kalmar 2 March 2020 09: 44 New
                  • 2
                  • 1
                  +1
                  Quote: Mavric
                  And I am embarrassed to ask: And who will crush the air defense, if not Su 34?

                  I believe that anti-radar missiles of long range should be engaged in air defense pressure. The range of appropriate tools for the Su-30/34/35, as far as I know, is no different.
                2. Cyrus 2 March 2020 11: 19 New
                  • 3
                  • 4
                  -1
                  Squadron of combat sofas and armchairs with commentators of course).
            2. Whalebone 2 March 2020 12: 29 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              The functions of front-line aviation pass to attack drones.
          2. Cyrus 2 March 2020 11: 15 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            And how will you destroy all MANPADS and will you have enough dough to extinguish all this with high-precision weapons.
            1. Kalmar 2 March 2020 12: 09 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Cyrus
              And how will you destroy all MANPADS and will you have enough dough to extinguish all this with high-precision weapons.

              Precision weapons hit the target; At the same time, MANPADS do not reach the carrier. This, KMK, will be somewhat more profitable than substituting a front-line bomber with a crew for MANPADS.
          3. PilotS37 2 March 2020 15: 45 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Kalmar
            Of course, I am not an expert, but if the enemy has at least some kind of air defense, bombing him from 200 meters is an idea. For this, they also came up with guided weapons in order not to play without the need for kamikazes.

            It turns out специалисты Design Bureau of the Dry Times of the 1980s were idiots? ..
            1. Kalmar 2 March 2020 16: 50 New
              • 1
              • 2
              -1
              Quote: PilotS37
              It turns out that the specialists of the Sukhoi Design Bureau of the times of the 1980s. were idiots? ..

              You may be coming out somehow; I do not have.
            2. illi 2 March 2020 19: 09 New
              • 2
              • 2
              0
              It turns out that the specialists of the Sukhoi Design Bureau of the times of the 1980s. were idiots ?.

              You would have set IL-2 designers as an example. That is because they did not provide for IL-2 any protection against MANPADS
              1. PilotS37 5 March 2020 10: 34 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: illi
                You would have set IL-2 designers as an example. That is because they did not provide for IL-2 any protection against MANPADS

                First, where does the IL-2? - Kalmar expressed himself in the sense that he, not being a specialist in military aviation, nevertheless, I am sure that the specialists of the Sukhoi Design Bureau committed stupidity by installing armor on the Su-34. And I just clarified, did he mean exactly that? - He immediately reversed.
                Secondly, on machines developed in the 1980 ... 90s, anti-MANPADS ("heat traps") anti-aircraft systems were installed normally. As well as systems to combat enemy locators.
                So I don’t understand what you are talking about.
        2. illi 2 March 2020 19: 03 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          The question is that this is an outdated concept. Now, to drive the Su-34 to such heights can only
      2. ABM
        ABM 1 March 2020 20: 54 New
        • 10
        • 2
        +8
        anti-aircraft rocket fragments if?
      3. ProkletyiPirat 1 March 2020 22: 56 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: illi
        This is not an attack aircraft, what for him an armored tank and a cabin?

        Initially, the Su-34 was created as a "super maneuverable low altitude "fighter-bomber to overcome air defense / missile defense by hiding in the terrain".
        1. Cympak 2 March 2020 03: 24 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          But unlike the F-111 and Su-24, the wing load is less, due to which maneuverability is higher, and flying near the ground is not very comfortable - it shakes a lot
          1. PilotS37 2 March 2020 15: 49 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Cympak
            But unlike the F-111 and Su-24, the wing load is less, due to which maneuverability is higher, and flying near the ground is not very comfortable - it shakes a lot

            The F-111 and Su-24 were shaking violently, which did not have an automatic control system, but the Su-34 has it! So here everything rests not on the physiology of the pilot, but on the power of the drives and the strength of the airframe.
            1. rudolff 2 March 2020 16: 15 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              The Su-24 SAU-6 with envelope relief.
              1. PilotS37 2 March 2020 16: 34 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: rudolff
                The Su-24 SAU-6 with envelope relief.

                "Relief envelope" is an envelope relief: at high speeds, the pilot simply does not have time to react to changes in the "picture", therefore, the machine takes control at the macro level.
                Shaking near the ground is a “micro-level” (by the way, dear, the first flyers of the 1910s and 20s suffered from it, by the way, since then the load on the wing was generally ridiculous by modern standards): it gives rise to atmospheric turbulence, which the SAU-6 simply doesn’t see. And on machines of the T-10 family there is a full-fledged self-propelled gun, which can "catch" relatively small vibrations of the aircraft. Of course, in order to completely dampen the shaking when passing at supersonic near the ground, very powerful drives are needed. So, most likely, the Su-34 at the ground is also "shaking", but in principle it is easier to solve this problem on it than on the Su-24.
                1. rudolff 2 March 2020 16: 43 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  I do not know such nuances. I only know that such a system of automatic control on the Su 24 was originally and, according to the pilots' stories, they were afraid to turn it on at low altitude flight. Purely psychologically. One of the designers of the car complained about this fear. For what I bought, for what I sold. I am not a pilot.
                  1. ProkletyiPirat 2 March 2020 19: 03 New
                    • 0
                    • 2
                    -2
                    F-111 and Su-24 are machines of a completely different class, and they were "shaking" not so much because of speed, load on the wing and self-propelled guns, but because of the "plumage" or rather its inefficiency when enveloping the relief, which is why the Su- 34 and installed both front and rear plumage in order to better control the machine and thereby reduce the lower boundaries of the LTX. This was mentioned by the chief designer in one of the documentaries.
                    1. PilotS37 5 March 2020 10: 21 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                      F-111 and Su-24 are machines of a completely different class, and they were "shaking" not so much because of speed, load on the wing and self-propelled guns, but because of the "plumage" or rather its inefficiency when enveloping the relief, which is why the Su- 34 and installed both front and rear plumage in order to better control the machine and thereby reduce the lower boundaries of the LTX.

                      You will be surprised, but you wrote the same as me. Only by greatly distorting what was heard somewhere earlier. But in those “glorious times” I just worked as an aerodynamicist at Sukhoi Design Bureau and I understand perfectly what I’m talking about, because I solved a similar problem on another machine (which I stated in my post above).
            2. The comment was deleted.
        2. illi 2 March 2020 18: 46 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Well, as it were, the point of the article is that the concept is out of date. And now on such pilgrims no one goes below 5000. For PZRK already have the most backward. And consequently, all these bells and whistles of an attack aircraft are useless, they only increase the cost of the car and reduce the performance characteristics.
          1. akarfoxhound 2 March 2020 21: 18 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Did you or your comrades "fly" into the cockpit? Or in design bureau they trusted to be engaged in analytics before working out the concept? Or is it always more visible from the sofa?
            1. illi 3 March 2020 16: 38 New
              • 1
              • 2
              -1
              You should listen to all planes with an unarmored cockpit, or book or write off, so that no one flies into the cockpit. And you probably write from a particularly secret design bureau from whose bowels you are not even allowed to go home.
              But seriously, for a high-altitude bomber, which in fact became su-34 armor is unnecessary. Yes, however, the su-34 itself is redundant. His role is quite capable of fulfilling fighters. What happens in other countries, where specialized bombers were replaced by non-versatile aircraft.
              1. akarfoxhound 3 March 2020 17: 59 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                Firstly, nobody said “about all airplanes,” secondly, whom to listen to - I’m only listening to colleagues with more experience than I have with respect to the proper combat use of my swallow (you, judging by the above, were clearly not around), thirdly, the task of booking is to save the crew, not the plane. For onboard engineers provide shielding engines and duplication of control. And such a cockpit of more than one pilot after the defeat of the aircraft returned home alive. Fourth, people from the KB regularly travel around the shelves "for impressions." Well and fifthly - to me and my drum colleagues, what do you think of the effectiveness of combat use from your home. And that’s it’s all serious ...
        3. 3danimal 23 March 2020 11: 40 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Yes, with an eye on the obsolete and decommissioned F-111.
          The 1980s and 00s are somewhat somewhat apart from each other on the timeline.
      4. Bad_gr 2 March 2020 12: 24 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: illi
        This is not an attack aircraft, what for him an armored tank and a cabin? If something flies at his working height (obviously not 12.7), then an armored tank with a cabin will definitely not help him.

        And what can fly to him? Large-caliber projectile? Hardly. Most likely, these will be fragments from an anti-aircraft missile, which, as a rule, are designed not to hit directly, but to undermine their warhead somewhere near the plane.
        1. illi 2 March 2020 18: 58 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          The fact of the matter is that an armored cabin and a tank, an airplane will not save from a high-altitude air defense system or an air-to-air missile. A pilot can more easily protect PPE for example. And all these bells and whistles are good for small heights (Su-25) when a lot of small-flying things flies over you.
          1. Bad_gr 3 March 2020 17: 40 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: illi
            The fact of the matter is that an armored cabin and a tank, an airplane will not save from a high-altitude air defense system or an air-to-air missile.

            By the way, on the topic. If you recall the downed Malaysian Boeing over Ukraine, then in a similar situation the Su-34 pilots would most likely survive (a titanium armored capsule with wall thickness up to 17mm + bulletproof glass), and there’s a big chance that the plane was brought to their airfield.
      5. kytx 7 March 2020 07: 27 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Shards can fly in
    2. Nikolay Ivanov_5 1 March 2020 21: 51 New
      • 19
      • 4
      +15
      The author of the publication does not know what he is writing about.
    3. Fighter 1 March 2020 22: 34 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Unlike fighters, he does not see anything ...
      1. figwam 1 March 2020 22: 42 New
        • 5
        • 4
        +1
        Quote: Fighter
        Unlike fighters, he does not see anything ...

        A plane that does not have a radar sees nothing, but it has one.
    4. Cympak 2 March 2020 03: 19 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      You just need to fly above 3-5 km and not think about anti-aircraft artillery, and there are effective electronic warfare systems against MANPADS and other short-range air defense systems
      1. 3danimal 23 March 2020 11: 42 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        EW does not work against MANPADS with infrared / ultraviolet seeker.
    5. PilotS37 2 March 2020 15: 43 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Here the most important thing: "... in front of the Su-30SM"!
      Su-34 is produced at the Novosibirsk plant, historically part of the Sukhoi Corporation, and Su-30SM - at the Irkutsk plant, the technical base of the Irkut Corporation.
      As the saying goes, "feel the difference" ...
  • iouris 3 March 2020 14: 25 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: qwerty183
    Everything is lost?

    Everything flows, everything changes ... for the worse. To stay on the level, super effort should be applied.
  • Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 1 March 2020 18: 11 New
    • 36
    • 4
    +32
    I remember that after the cessation of the production of Su-24 and the departure for modernization and repair, the Novosibirsk aircraft plant almost threw its ends. Need a balance. The production of the “Okhotnik” UAV is essentially experimental there, and will remain so for a few more years if competencies are not transferred at all to another enterprise. It does not do weather, as does the production of fuselage components for the SSJ. Considering that the threshold of zero profitability for the existing capacities of the Novosibirsk aircraft plant is at the level of about 10 boards per year, without a new contract for the SU-34 will have to disperse employees. A total of 124 cars were to be built before 2020. The Novosibirsk plant, instead of 12 planned aircraft, produced up to 18 units per year.
    1. Stirbjorn 1 March 2020 18: 18 New
      • 26
      • 8
      +18
      Quote: Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
      The Novosibirsk aircraft plant almost threw back its ends.

      I think the main argument in favor of continuing procurement of the Su-34. In fact, the author is certainly right, all countries have long been switching to a unified type of combat aircraft, but the plant needs to be rescued until they come up with what kind of aircraft product they will produce. So let them continue to buy, it’s better than to withdraw to offshore
      1. Kleber 1 March 2020 18: 21 New
        • 13
        • 5
        +8
        Yes. The most important thing is to maintain production capacity as potential. Upgrading a plant is always easier than building a new one.
        1. Alf
          Alf 1 March 2020 22: 31 New
          • 10
          • 2
          +8
          Quote: Kleber
          The most important thing is to maintain production capacity as potential.

          The most important thing is to keep experienced PEOPLE. Pros will run away and where to get others? To recruit boys with diplomas that do not distinguish a bolt from a nut?
      2. Nikolay87 1 March 2020 18: 21 New
        • 23
        • 3
        +20
        At least it is necessary to at least replace all those standing in service with the SU-24. In general, soon Serdyukov, at the head of the UAC, will unify everything for you hi
        1. ancestors from Don 1 March 2020 18: 24 New
          • 12
          • 34
          -22
          Today, the Basmachi shot down two Su-24s in Idlib, so we will give them to the Syrians.
          1. dvina71 1 March 2020 18: 44 New
            • 9
            • 9
            0
            Quote: Ancestors from the Don
            Today, the Basmachi shot down two Su-24s in Idlib, so we’ll give them to the Syrians

            Where did the firewood come from? MO loss did not declare .. there were a fallen l-39 and a Turkish UAV .....
            1. ancestors from Don 1 March 2020 18: 45 New
              • 14
              • 21
              -7
              Have you turned off the Internet? To get started, Yandex news. Syrian command confirmed.
              1. dvina71 1 March 2020 18: 50 New
                • 14
                • 13
                +1
                Quote: Ancestors from the Don
                To get started, Yandex news.

                The news aggregator ... this is such a goldsmith in search of value among the flows of crap ... and judging by the history of the welfare of goldfish ... it’s not a very profitable business. Poke the link and get into the cesspool Pipe ... no, thank you .. Is there a link to officialdom?
                1. Qiman Kyrivo 1 March 2020 18: 55 New
                  • 3
                  • 6
                  -3
                  Sana. Or RIA news?
                  1. The comment was deleted.
              2. Serega Dezhko 1 March 2020 20: 25 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                They talked about the downed two Syrian aircraft and six Turkish drones.
            2. Qiman Kyrivo 1 March 2020 18: 54 New
              • 6
              • 6
              0
              Syrian aircraft. This is even on TV news said
              1. dvina71 1 March 2020 19: 16 New
                • 9
                • 16
                -7
                Quote: Qiman Kyrivo
                Syrian aircraft

                Uk r .. whose ancestor is from the Don, clearly hints that our planes ... Read his post above ... if you got into the discussion ...
                1. Qiman Kyrivo 1 March 2020 19: 21 New
                  • 10
                  • 4
                  +6
                  Firstly, not a Ukrainian but a Belarusian ancestor .. Secondly, I live in Siberia. I do not hint at anything.
                2. Qiman Kyrivo 1 March 2020 19: 25 New
                  • 14
                  • 6
                  +8
                  No one has ever called me Khokhlom. It's tin .. Fascism is some kind.
                  1. ancestors from Don 1 March 2020 19: 31 New
                    • 22
                    • 12
                    +10
                    Forget it, there are a lot of schoolchildren from all kinds of patriotradings, it is impossible to conduct a dialogue with them, only speech ((((
                3. Qiman Kyrivo 1 March 2020 19: 33 New
                  • 5
                  • 5
                  0
                  Do you know the Altai Territory? Where is it located?
                  1. Doliva63 1 March 2020 20: 19 New
                    • 2
                    • 8
                    -6
                    Quote: Qiman Kyrivo
                    Do you know the Altai Territory? Where is it located?

                    Well, this is where Putin holds the Altai Club, no? repeat
                    1. Qiman Kyrivo 1 March 2020 22: 22 New
                      • 1
                      • 2
                      -1
                      Which, which club? fool
                      1. Doliva63 2 March 2020 18: 51 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        Quote: Qiman Kyrivo
                        Which, which club? fool

                        And here. Found. Valdai is called. Not him, not? But very good in tune laughing
                      2. Qiman Kyrivo 2 March 2020 19: 24 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Far away ...
          2. Cyrus 2 March 2020 11: 20 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            And now that no one else lost planes during the fighting?
        2. Badger 1 March 2020 20: 30 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Whose aircraft are old Syrian, or six UAVs in Turkey?
    2. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 1 March 2020 18: 32 New
      • 13
      • 3
      +10
      Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov said the start of production of the Okhotnik shock drone will begin in Russia after 2024. And this is if again the terms do not go to the right. And the Novosibirsk aircraft plant must somehow live. If you still order a couple of dozen Su-34s will be at least something. All the same, billions of dollars are being sent abroad to countries of a potential adversary.
      1. Alf
        Alf 1 March 2020 22: 33 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        Quote: Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
        All the same, billions of dollars are being sent abroad to countries of a potential adversary.

        It is more necessary.
      2. 3danimal 23 March 2020 11: 46 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        So can deal with the economy? Attract investment, raise the standard of living of the "middle class" above 2 minimum wages? wink
    3. smart ass 1 March 2020 19: 09 New
      • 6
      • 11
      -5
      Country new problems old, we produce, what we can and not what is demanded by the market, hence the problems
      1. Doliva63 1 March 2020 20: 21 New
        • 1
        • 5
        -4
        Quote: Clever man
        Country new problems old, we produce, what we can and not what is demanded by the market, hence the problems

        That is, the Air Force is also a market, adit? belay
    4. Zaurbek 1 March 2020 20: 17 New
      • 6
      • 2
      +4
      Is it difficult to transfer the plant that produces Su34 to the latest versions of the Su30 / 34?
      1. Cympak 2 March 2020 03: 31 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        The transition to the Su-30 means significant costs for the retooling of production and retraining of personnel, and most importantly
        , why, when the plant in Komsamolsk-on-Amur already produces them and there are reserves to increase production.
        1. PilotS37 2 March 2020 15: 53 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Cympak
          The transition to the Su-30 means significant costs for the retooling of production and retraining of personnel, and most importantly
          , why, when the plant in Komsamolsk-on-Amur already produces them and there are reserves to increase production.

          Su-30 launches a plant in Irkutsk.
    5. Winnie76 1 March 2020 20: 46 New
      • 11
      • 5
      +6
      Quote: Stirbjorn
      In fact, the author is certainly right, all countries have long been switching to a unified type of combat aircraft, but the plant needs to be rescued,

      Not well if all countries are of course an argument. Therefore, it is urgent to write off the Tu-22, Tu-160, MiG-31, Su-25. Pak YES and Pak DP close. Well, as in "all countries." And the S-350/400/500 also write off. Nobody does that. The hedgehog is clear to all progressive humanity, the future belongs to multi-functional fighters.
      1. Stirbjorn 1 March 2020 22: 18 New
        • 5
        • 8
        -3
        Quote: Winnie76
        The hedgehog is clear to all progressive humanity, the future belongs to multi-functional fighters.

        At the moment - this is a simple statement of fact
        PS How is it with the air supremacy in Syria of our VKS ?! The defenselessness of the Turks and so on ?! Something Poddubny is not sure of this dominance, judging by the latest reports
        1. Vlad.by 1 March 2020 23: 03 New
          • 4
          • 7
          -3
          You never know who and what is not sure ...
          Our task is not to get involved in direct military operations against the Turks. For now, anyway. Therefore, the Turkish f-16s are still off and no strikes were made at Turkish air bases.
          I admit that this will change soon. But most likely, these tasks will be solved by the hands of the Syrians or Iranians.
          But, will be solved 100%.
          The losses of the Turks will only grow
        2. Winnie76 2 March 2020 01: 47 New
          • 2
          • 3
          -1
          Quote: Stirbjorn
          PS How is it with the air supremacy in Syria of our VKS ?! The defenselessness of the Turks and so on ?!

          Congenial Threat, dear Stirbjorn. I repeat for those in an armored train. I wrote that in the event of a full-fledged conflict between Turkey and the Russian Federation, the air forces within a few days gain dominance in the air. As a result of the destruction of military and civilian infrastructure. As far as I know, there has not been a single strike on Turkish territory.
        3. 3danimal 23 March 2020 11: 49 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          One base with 50 aircraft will never cope with the strongest country in the region.
      2. 3danimal 23 March 2020 11: 48 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Why did PAK YES to the unborn be cut?
        Pure demagogy (“I don’t like one specialized aircraft - but let’s give up everything altogether”).
    6. Captain Pushkin 1 March 2020 21: 24 New
      • 15
      • 4
      +11
      Quote: Stirbjorn
      the author is certainly right, all countries have long been switching to a unified type of combat aircraft,

      "The whole world" passed in the 50s on multi-purpose aircraft. He exploited, fought for multipurpose in the 60s and in the 70s he began to switch to highly specialized ...
      This swing back and forth is not the first time swinging. You can’t keep up with fashion. Here it is better to think with your own head, given all the factors, all the pros and cons.
      1. 3danimal 23 March 2020 11: 50 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        In the 50s there were no modern multifunctional radars and WTOs. Incorrect negative
    7. Garris199 1 March 2020 21: 52 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      Why not let the plant produce the SU-30 SM for example? Already a hundred more universal machines would be. And so the park of modern IFIs barely reaches the park of the same Turkey. Although ours without a container still work the same way on the ground as the F-16block 50 can not.
      1. Fighter 1 March 2020 22: 37 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Su-30SM - obsolete in '98
        1. Garris199 1 March 2020 22: 51 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          In this case, the SU-34 is outdated in the 80s
          1. vik669 1 March 2020 23: 26 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            Why are you worried - the MIG-35 is on the way and maybe it will be organized for the especially gifted sharakhs then ...!
            1. Firelake 2 March 2020 00: 33 New
              • 3
              • 3
              0
              Mig35 is not needed. Too expensive
              Su34 must be sent in mra.
              Su30 / 35 should be done as an MFI.
              A light fighter must be done with the 1st engine. A modern air defense missile in FIGS. One or two. But the economy does not care.
              I hope ours will make the single-engine lightweight on the engine for the su57.
              1. bk0010 2 March 2020 23: 36 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                The states have a fighter (F-15D) and a striker (F-15E) different planes. Even if they make a single aircraft, then different crews will prepare for it: one crew for fighter tasks, another crew for drums, otherwise they will beat the fighters and not get anywhere on the ground. The engine is now not the most expensive part in an airplane, so it’s impossible to fundamentally reduce the price this way (as during the Second World War), but the chances of losing a pilot or an airplane increase. Although the price of the life cycle is well reduced.
              2. 3danimal 23 March 2020 11: 52 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                A good idea good
                It remains to solve the issue of reliability and engine life (comparing with the F-16).
        2. The comment was deleted.
    8. Cyrus 2 March 2020 11: 18 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      But the USA just doesn’t want to write off its own attack aircraft, and the rest = weak-forces ...
    9. 3danimal 23 March 2020 11: 43 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Let them release 30/35. Lockheed generally builds NEW plants for the production of F-35.
  • rudolff 1 March 2020 18: 36 New
    • 17
    • 7
    +10
    With this plant, in general, everything is complicated and muddy. They wanted to give the Su-34 to Komsomolsk-on-Amur, then combine the plant with Irkut, then the Russian Guard began to lay claim to the factory airfield.
    I agree with the author of the article. Maybe it makes sense to increase the Su-35S series instead of the Su-34? Is it really difficult and expensive to reorganize production in the same Novosibirsk?
    1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 1 March 2020 18: 56 New
      • 17
      • 2
      +15
      hi The Okhotnikov Novosibirsk aircraft plant will rivet in the future. The main thing is that it didn’t work out like with the Su-34, they thought and thought for 20 years, and when they thought it up, the Novosibirsk aircraft plant almost lay in the next world. As for the increase in the Su-35 series, KnAAZ was heavily underloaded this year. From 2010 to 2018 there are an average of 20 Su-35S, Su-27SM3, Su-30M2 and Su-57 riveted annually, in 2019 only 10 Su-35S passed and one Su-57, which almost immediately crashed in the taiga during factory tests. MO rushes from corner to corner, sometimes not knowing what it wants. They don’t need a zoo in the troops, the Su-57 seems to be what it needs, but it’s too expensive. The current rate of entry of the Su-35 into the troops is insufficient to replace the “workhorse” in the form of the Su-30SM. If you would like to replace them with Su-30SM, then you would have bought at least 2 times more than now and did not give birth to Su-30SM1. For 2 years they tried to unify the Su-30SM with the Su-35; as a result, the Su-30SM1 and the supplies of the Su-30SM workhorse are still not in the iron. The implementation of the fresh contract of 2018 for 36 Su-30SM stalled. What has already become a fact is the Irkutsk Aircraft Plant, and so the whole of 2019 did not reduce the almost 16 thousandth team for the production of eight Su-30SM, four Yak-130 and two MS-21. The volume of production fell by 2 times compared to 2018. If in 2020 the volumes do not recover, significant reductions will begin. Nevertheless, in the next 5 years, the Irkutsk Aircraft Plant will still be heavily dependent on military orders until it is put on the MS-21 stream. If in the 00th situation at the Irkutsk aircraft plant, relatively stable export supplies smoothed out, now there are problems with this too.
      1. Zaurbek 1 March 2020 20: 20 New
        • 5
        • 2
        +3
        The ideal option is the modernized Su30 (with AFAR and new turbojet engines) and Su57 .... and Su35 (in the fresh version) for export and plugging holes in the supply of Su57.
  • starik80 1 March 2020 20: 57 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    All is true planes by planes, and the competence and people must be preserved.
  • bayard 1 March 2020 22: 30 New
    • 7
    • 3
    +4
    The author seems to have delved into the topic so much that he did not bother to see how many planes were delivered to the troops ("about a hundred"), as well as the fact that the Su-34 is not a fighter-bomber, a tactical bomber.
    These are different things.
    And the purpose is also different.
    Su-34 should be quickly considered as a replacement for the Tu-22M3 (not the marine version).
    As for the obsolete avionics, no one has just stamped around, and the fact that it was launched in the series immediately after the five-day war, in the form in which it existed in the prototype from the mid / late 90s, is also said a lot. Then urgently needed to build new aircraft, and the finished project was only Su-34. Therefore, they launched into the series in the form in which it was. Updating avionics to the modern will be carried out during the scheduled repair and replacement of engines.
    But such aircraft are needed.
    And in the amount of not 120 - 124 pcs. , and at least 200 pcs. , and as an optimum - 240 pcs. (ten regiments in a two-squad configuration).
    Why so many?
    Because maintaining the fleet of such a number of aircraft is most convenient for industry in terms of production, provision of spare parts and consumables. As well as in terms of training the flight-lifting personnel and aircraft, maintaining the airfield infrastructure.
    That's why the Su-34 is not suitable, because it is for service in naval aviation - insufficient visibility into the rear hemisphere and to the right for the pilot (the navigator closes). The experience of using it over the sea in tight formation with clouds and wind ... I hope everyone remembers - recently it was. And the reason for the incident, including due to poor visibility on the right for the pilot. The magnificent Su-30 has already been selected for naval aviation, it has both visibility and the ability to engage in combat, and there are no problems with striking surface / ground targets.
    Therefore, all critics need to come to terms with the idea that the Su-34 VKS is needed, and is needed precisely as a tactical bomber.
    What are its advantages compared to the same Su-30?
    The ability to make long-distance flights / relocation with sufficient comfort for pilots. A convenient, spacious cabin allows you not to tire very much to carry out long duty in the air (patrolling, waiting for target designation, independent search or designation of a threat). The fact that Russia again appears overseas military bases has become a familiar fact. There is already talk of bases in Venezuela, Cuba, Vietnam, Africa ... This will require the transfer of military aircraft there, with air refueling, flying over unfamiliar terrain ... and the crew’s fatigue during such flights will be in full swing. For such flights and deployments at the far reaches of the Su-34 is best suited. In it, pilots can go to the toilet (I’m sorry) and drink coffee and a bite to eat.
    In addition, the Su-34 has an armored cabin. Well armored. For a tactical bomber, this is a very good option.

    With regard to the modernization and replacement of avionics, it was already voiced the desire of the aerospace forces to unify avionics and engines Su-34, Su-30SM \ SM3 and Su-35. AL-41F is not only more powerful and high-torque, but also more resourceful engines, almost twice. Modernization of the avionics Su-30 and Su-34 to the level of Su-35 will not only increase their combat capabilities, but also simplify and reduce the cost of operation. If during the modernization the backlog from the Su-57 will be used (the same AFAR “Belka” for the Su-34 and OLS), then we will get just a wonderful airplane.
    And by the way, the pilots like him.
    1. shahor 1 March 2020 23: 32 New
      • 1
      • 4
      -3
      Quote: bayard
      Su-34 should be quickly considered as a replacement for the Tu-22M3 (not the marine version).

      In fact, you are right. But. The replacement of the Tu-22 could be an aircraft of the F-15x type. The payload is 13 tons. How many su-34? Speed ​​is 2500. What is the Su-34. New engines plus conformal tanks - range - is quite comparable. The world's fastest on-board computer and the latest Breo. But it was created as a fighter. Those. maneuverability is all right. In the configuration, the fighter carries up to 30 rockets of centuries. That's how you need to modify dry.
      1. bayard 2 March 2020 01: 05 New
        • 12
        • 1
        +11
        Quote: shahor
        The replacement of the Tu-22 could be an aircraft of the F-15x type. Payload - 13 tons

        For Russia, an aircraft based on the F-15? belay Do not believe the American booklets and the declared specifications, in fact they are very much overpriced, or presented extremely incorrectly. F-15, this is not such a big plane, in size it occupies an intermediate position between the MiG-29 and Su-27. He is LESS Su-27. And in order to lift the mythical 13 tons into the air, it must take off with almost empty tanks (20% of the full refueling percentage) and with the maximum allowable take-off weight. And ONLY for the sake of this record.
        By the way, the maximum load of the Su-34 is 12 tons (without much extreme), although in reality it will never take that much either.
        Quote: shahor
        How many su-34?

        This year, the second contract ends (it remains to put 8 pcs.) And there will be 124 ... although taking into account losses (accidents / disasters) 120 - 121.
        Quote: shahor
        Speed ​​- 2500

        The F-15 claimed 2650 km / h from birth (in a special record-breaking version - the most lightweight glider, re-engineered engines, minimal fueling), and the designated 2500 will be without suspended weapons. Aerodynamic drag request
        Quote: shahor
        What is the Su-34.

        1900 km \ h, real, with a load. By the way, for a long service in the air defense, watching the real flights of the F-15, a speed above 1700 - 1900 km / h was never recorded.
        Quote: shahor
        New engines plus conformal tanks - range - comparable

        Old engines of 10 kg / s would look quite ridiculous, and they have conformal tanks from the mid \ late 500s as standard.
        The range can be ONLY comparable, because the "Eagle" glider is much smaller, and therefore the fuel supply.

        Quote: shahor
        The world's fastest on-board computer and the latest Breo. But it was created as a fighter. Those. maneuverability is all right. In the configuration, the fighter carries up to 30 rockets of centuries. That's how you need to modify dry.

        Kohl, THIS (F-15X) plane is not yet in the American airforce, the Pentagon has just ordered a TRIAL batch of these Pepelats (dozen) for the REPUBLICAN GUARD (self-defense forces of the continental states). No one had ever seen him in the eye. Only in pictures.
        Of course, there will be no problems, and the avionics of the penguins were always on top, but let's talk about REAL things.

        And yet I still did not understand, did you offer the F-15X to the arsenal of the VKS? Did I understand you correctly ? lol
        1. shahor 2 March 2020 01: 26 New
          • 0
          • 4
          -4
          Quote: bayard
          Have you proposed the F-15X to the arsenal of the VKS?

          I suggested trying to create a similar car. By the way, the Saudis and Qatar have already purchased a total of 50 cars. 25 Israel wants to buy, as soon as it forms a government. They are attracted by a bunch of f-35 target designation -f15x- arsenal. After all, there is an interesting Amber suspension, which allows you to cling to it up to 4 missiles. And Su-34- I doubt very much that a new radar can be shoved into it. Look at the duck nose nose fairing. It is clear that when the aircraft was created, with those technological capabilities, such a placement of the radar was the only possible and justified. But today, no. A new fairing, a new breo, a new engine is a new aircraft. Can it really get too big? Well, at least on the basis of the Su-30?
          1. bayard 2 March 2020 02: 43 New
            • 8
            • 1
            +7
            Quote: shahor
            I suggested trying to create a similar car.

            Nikolay, she \ they have long been created. And it was the appearance of these machines, and their success in the market, operating experience, that prompted the United States to create a 4 ++ aircraft. I'm certainly about the Su-30 and Su-35.
            And the Su-34 appeared much earlier than them. As soon as it was adopted by the Su-27, work immediately began on its modifications. And one of the first was the Su-32 (future Su-34) - like a DECK AVIATION aircraft. They were going to use it with aircraft carriers of the Kuznetsov and Ulyanovsk type. And its front plumage (duck) was used to compensate for the heavy cabin. Later, the same plumage was used in the Su-30 - duplicated from the Su-34.
            Quote: shahor
            After all, there is an interesting Amber suspension, which allows you to cling to it up to 4 missiles.

            Such a suspension is easy to implement on any of the combat aircraft, just change the pylons with the corresponding suspension units.
            Quote: shahor
            And the Su-34- I doubt very much that you can shove a new radar into it. Look at the duck nose nose fairing. It is clear that when the aircraft was created, with those technological capabilities, such a placement of the radar sheet was the only possible and justified.

            And what is wrong with its fairing? What does it have in the cross section an ellipse, and not a circle? Well, duck phased array can take any form - even a circle, at least a square, at least an ellipse.
            The Su-34 has a double cab with landing on an automobile, therefore the cabin section, as well as the cowl section, is larger than that of the Su-27 or Su-30, but it has a different shape. I don’t see any problems with integration of even the Irbis, the Belka with the Su-57, if there is a lack of energy, you can increase the power \ change the generators. Unification with the Su-35 can be very useful. You can just as in Lego take all the best from the avionics of the latest versions 4 ++ \ 5 and integrate into your existing glider.
            The F-15X analogs are Su-30SM and Su-35.
            Su-34 from a completely different category.
            If the first, these are excellent fighters with strike functions, then the Su-34 is a bomber. It is the bomber, maximally sharpened for this function.
            But at the same time he can take an air battle. But the latter is an option, not the main quality.
            And he is very comfortable. For long-term operation from standby mode, it is better not to come up with it. And with long flights, the peculiarity of his cabin is a very advantageous option.
            All previously released cars, when it comes to replacing engines, can go through modernization. With the replacement of avionics, engines, OLS ... and there will be a completely new car with simply amazing capabilities.
            And attempts to switch to universal multi-functional fighters for all occasions are either from poverty, or from greed, or from laziness or stupidity. A professional is always better than a station wagon - tested by time and experience of real wars.
            Quote: shahor
            Can it really get too big? Well, at least on the basis of the Su-30?

            These are different niches. Su-30 is a station wagon. Su-34 is a specialist. They complement each other perfectly.

            But the fact that Israel decided to purchase a batch of F-15X due to the reduction in procurement of F-35 is a very competent decision. I never doubted the capabilities of their analysts.
            1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Bad_gr 2 March 2020 12: 27 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: bayard
          By the way, the maximum load of the Su-34 is 12 tons (without much extreme), although in reality it will never take that much either.

          There was information that in Syria they flew with such a bomb load.
          1. bayard 2 March 2020 13: 07 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Bad_gr
            There was information that in Syria they flew with such a bomb load.

            There, the distances are small, so you can load to the full and underfill fuel - so as not to overload the glider. I think that in the case of replacing engines with AL-41F, such a load for them may become the norm. Of course in exceptional cases - the glider must be protected.
          2. shahor 2 March 2020 17: 19 New
            • 3
            • 3
            0
            Dear bayard! Thanks for the interesting comment. Recently, it is so rare in VO to get the opinion of a competent person who patiently explains his position to a less knowledgeable opponent. Without going to insults and labeling. Thank you for your time.
    2. Firelake 2 March 2020 00: 36 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Remove the armor and there will be a good bomber jacket. And overweight and price. Front needs. But the front-line itself is already outdated as a concept.
      1. bayard 2 March 2020 01: 21 New
        • 8
        • 0
        +8
        The Su-34 carrier armor is part of the power pack. The whole glider will have to be redone. And it’s not so expensive, it’s cheaper in purchases than Su-35, and even Su-30SM. With armor and high take-off weight.
        This aircraft is already in the army.
        Well established.
        It can be produced in the required quantities at no extra cost (unless the upgrade will cost something for the upgraded version).
        It has a huge modernization potential.
        PILOTS LOVE him.

        They almost hated the Su-24, they didn’t want to relearn it, they even wrote reports about dismissal or transfer ... the aircraft almost cursed.
        From personal experience communicating with the flyers and technicians of the Kurdamir Regiment a year after the rearmament from Su-17 to Su-24.
        They were very unhappy.
        And this one is LOVED.
    3. Bad_gr 2 March 2020 01: 37 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: bayard
      And the cause of the incident, including due to poor visibility on the right for the pilot ....
      For group aerobatics, no doubt, visual visibility near the aircraft is needed. But apart from the pilot’s eyes ... on the Su-34, sighting equipment includes a multi-mode airborne radar (BRL) with a phased array B004 developed by the Leninets holding company; a rear-view radar, an optical-electronic aiming system with an integrated laser-television sighting system system and helmet-mounted target designation system. ... "In general, all sorts of electronic means to see what is happening around him enough.
      On the first machines of this equipment 7 tons. On the Su-27 - 3 tons. This is me to the fact that:
      Quote: bayard
      Modernization of avionics Su-30 and Su-34 to the level of Su-35
      It is hardly possible, since the Su-34 has much more specific equipment than other aircraft. And it is impossible to completely unify them among themselves. Although they are universal, but the Su-35 copes better with air targets, and the Su-30 works better on the ground, for which he and the PGO have been preserved, and it justifies itself at low altitudes (reduces the load on both the airplane glider and the pilot )
      1. Bad_gr 2 March 2020 02: 01 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Bad_gr
        (BRLS) with phased array B004 developed by the Leninets holding
        This is on the old, if I understand correctly. The new ones are equipped with the 141Sh radar system. "..... The forward viewing area of ​​the nose locator 141Ш in azimuth and elevation is ± 60 °, the standard error of measuring the coordinates of the target in range, azimuth and elevation in the zone is ± 10 ° in azimuth and up to 15 km in range worse than 15 m, and the resolvable element of a ground or surface target in high resolution (VR) mode at a scale of 2,5 x 2,5 km is 15 m.
        The rear view locator antenna has a similar phased array, but less. It was placed in a tail stacker larger than the base Su-27 in order to detect aircraft attacking from the rear hemisphere and to provide pre-emptive bombardment of them with air-to-air missiles. ...
        .... Together with the Password system, both radar systems are involved in target recognition in the "friend or foe" mode .... "
      2. bayard 2 March 2020 03: 30 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: Bad_gr
        For group aerobatics, no doubt, visual visibility near the aircraft is needed. But besides the eyes of the pilot "... on the Su-34, sighting equipment includes

        I meant visibility specifically for the pilot, which is important both in group piloting and in air combat. Here you will not be full of devices alone. Therefore, I believe that the choice for naval aviation of the Su-30SM, as a single one, is the right one.
        And the Su-34 is good just like a bomber - long-haul flights, long duty in the air, it is much easier to carry on the Su-34, which means there will be more return from the pilots.
        Quote: Bad_gr
        On the first machines of this equipment 7 tons. On the Su-27 - 3 tons. This is me to the fact that:
        Quote: bayard
        Modernization of avionics Su-30 and Su-34 to the level of Su-35
        It is hardly possible, since the Su-34 has much more specific equipment than other aircraft. And it is impossible to completely unify them among themselves.

        I had in mind the unification of the engine (AL-41F is still pulling and the resource is 2 times larger), for general-purpose avionics - a data exchange and encryption system, electronic warfare, power, OLS, visualization systems, etc. That is, everything is possible , for the sake of facilitating the supply, maintenance, repair, training (retraining).
        And in general, I believe that the Su-34 fleet should be brought up to at least 200 units, and preferably to 240. Maintaining such a fleet of spare parts, consumables, modernization is much more convenient. In addition, it is precisely this type of aircraft that is preferable to keep at our existing and future military bases abroad, it is they who are more convenient to carry out maneuver by forces of the airborne forces over long distances. Moreover, their price is almost lower than that of the Su-30 SM ...
    4. 3danimal 23 March 2020 11: 56 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Now a reasonable question arises: who will pay for all this and how. You can recall how the economy of the USSR rained down after falling oil prices and huge military / political spending.
      1. bayard 23 March 2020 20: 17 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: 3danimal
        You can recall how the economy of the USSR rained down after falling oil prices and huge military / political spending.

        I remember how the USSR fell in, and there were much less economic reasons for this than is commonly thought. It was a political decision of the political leadership, which took a very long time to be realized, systematically, in cooperation with future "international partners".
        If you are talking about today, then read \ listen to Khazin, he has laid out everything for a long time \ painted on the shelves. And I completely agree with him on this issue. The Russian financial system is extremely under-monetized (the ratio of money supply to GDP) - 2–2,5 times. Therefore, if a political decision is made to decouple it from external decision-making centers in financial policy, then Russia can easily - within a few years, can add another 100-150% of the total money supply in it now. Without any harm to its stability (financial system), and ensure annual economic growth of 7 - 7,5%. Easy and laid back.
        And it’s better to do this not by simply distributing loans to state-owned companies, medium and small businesses, people, mortgage loans (this is important, but you need a balance, or it will storm like in the West), but by direct budget spending on large investment projects, government procurement, infrastructure projects, procurement weapons (!) and the development of the Armed Forces.
        And there will not be any inflationary spurt, on the contrary, due to lower credit rates and the availability of capital, inflation will decrease ... in the most natural way. And direct budget spending, saturating the economy with money, will make it easier for business and the public to return previously taken loans, because the money supply in circulation will be enough for a quick turnover of capital in the economy. Simply, the money supply in the economy will come in line with the country's GDP. There will be a balance. Harmony Sufficiency of funds for everything needed.
        Believe me, I know what I'm talking about, because one of the programs (proposed) by me, even in my very young years, led to the salvation of one of the most important sectors of the Russian economy from collapse, bankruptcy, and sale ... just the one in which you have problems (yes read it all now) so much concerned.
        Read Khazin, or listen - he is a great clever girl.
        And all the necessary measures for this can be implemented after the adoption of amendments to the Constitution.
        If there is a state will.
        And the country already has everything necessary for this.
        hi
        1. 3danimal 24 March 2020 06: 51 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          Khazin has been plaguing the US financial collapse (which is about to happen) for more than 10 years. Not serious.
          Strong-willed decisions can only force the economy, which the Bolsheviks have been doing for a long time.
          1. bayard 24 March 2020 07: 38 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: 3danimal
            Khazin has been plaguing the US financial crash for over 10 years

            Isn’t that so? 10 years already ?
            The US financial system has been living on the apparatus of artificial respiration all these years ... as well as the kidneys, heart, liver, and is located in the half-committee. Managed by no means market methods, due to rampant borrowing.
            For the Russian budget, there will be no catastrophe with low oil prices - according to the budget rule, all the difference from falling oil prices will go from the reserve fund (which could not be used in peacetime). All budget programs will be financed in the same volume. And in the event that Russia is untied from unfavorable international treaties (namely, for this constitutional reform), the funds will be sufficient for ANY programs we need.
            Oil, gas, coal - all together bring to the Russian budget 40% of the income. Of these, oil is half this share, i.e. about 20%. Part of this loss (significant) is offset by the maneuver of the ruble exchange rate, so not much will go out of the egg. In addition, a cheaper ruble will stimulate the export of industrial goods and agricultural products, which is also useful for the economy and budget.
            It will become more difficult for the population, but future changes (expected) in monetary policy will correct everything over time.
            Or there will be a war.
            But then we will win.
            And there will be a new world ... but completely different.
            Without the US Federal Reserve, the City of London, the World Bank and other attributes of the old world.
            1. 3danimal 24 March 2020 10: 43 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              A cheaper ruble will drop the purchasing power of citizens. Have you not felt this in the last 6 years? At the expense of people, “compensation” took place, they are “oil” ... “They will correct it over time” - an excuse for the poor, they say, tolerate and it will be better (or you will get used to it).
              Unbinding from contracts will give extra money? Take an interest in how much we import.
              Unlinking is done for other purposes. (But they try to justify it in every way)
              About the war in general fool
              Which one? Full-blown? Conventional or nuclear? And how many of our people do you plan to burn in it?
              1. bayard 24 March 2020 12: 37 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                Quote: 3danimal
                A cheaper ruble will drop the purchasing power of citizens.

                It was expected, they talked about this for more than six months. And they promised a course of up to 100 rubles. per dale And the start of all this swindling was not given by Sechin or Putin. Russia is simply responding to challenges. It is protected. And as in any war (and this is war), it is impossible to fight without losses. And first of all the civilian population suffers.
                These are the laws of war.
                This is not our choice, this is our challenge.
                Challenge accepted .
                Quote: 3danimal
                Have you not felt this in the last 6 years?

                I felt this much earlier and sharper than many - I will soon be 6 years in war. I live. And I lost more of yours and those who cry the loudest.
                We don’t cry.
                We suffer hardships and hardships.
                And as expected - steadily.
                Quote: 3danimal
                Unbinding from contracts will give extra money?

                Unlinking from the agreements will allow denouncing such a wonderful agreement as the “Central Bank Agreement”.
                Have you heard about this?
                Allows you to cancel not mentioned at night the aforementioned "Budget Rule".
                A juvenile rule when foreign agencies take children from their parents.
                And no foreign courts and arbitrations will be able to either convict or fine the Russian state and Russian citizens.
                And money will appear in the economy when it is not the branch of the US Federal Reserve and the IMF - the so-called "Central Bank of the Russian Federation" that will deal with the money issue, but as it should be for each sovereign state - the Treasury of the Russian Federation. Controlled only by the government and the head of state.
                It’s just that the economy will receive as much money as it produces wealth. This is called monetization and should be approximately 100% of GDP. Now in Russia - 40%. And hence the lack of credit and working capital. Economics as a human body, in which only 40% of the required amount of blood. What is the condition of a person who has lost 60% of his blood?
                And the economy should be full-blooded.
                Then there will be enough forces and funds for everything necessary.
                Money must be poured through investments in production, including defense construction, and cash flow through cooperative ties, settlements with contractors, wages and taxes, will flow through the entire circulatory system of the economy.
                This is the nature of money.
                You need to know her. Comrade Stalin knew her.
                The Chinese know her.
                She was known, but perverted to the USA.
                And in our country they know her, but they cannot put knowledge into practice due to international obligations (since Yeltsin).
                After constitutional reform, the hands will be untied.
                1. 3danimal 24 March 2020 23: 08 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Too much conspiracy theories. On the other hand: all of the above will be appreciated on central TV.
                  1. bayard 24 March 2020 23: 21 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    I do not indulge in such nonsense (TV), but for some reason now it is customary to call conspiracy theology a critical analysis of history and modern political, military and social processes.
                    I call it differently.
  • Kleber 1 March 2020 18: 15 New
    • 11
    • 6
    +5
    Thank you for buying something. Moreover, the Su-34 is a good aircraft.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • rocket757 1 March 2020 18: 22 New
    • 16
    • 5
    +11
    Another point of view, nothing more.
    The fact that beyond the hill there is its own concept of building and using aviation is not an indicator, not an absolute. It may be different, your own.
    And now .... but sho say comrade .... who is in the know?
    1. Romario_Argo 1 March 2020 18: 43 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Well, if the Su-34 is not satisfied and the country finds money, then I agree to the Su-57,
      let him and in Novosibirsk produce 18 boards per year and 12 in Komsomolsk-on-Amur = 30
    2. Dog
      Dog 1 March 2020 18: 58 New
      • 4
      • 4
      0
      Quote: rocket757
      The fact that beyond the hill there is its own concept of building and using aviation is not an indicator, not an absolute.

      I support. They barked a low bow here, you know
      1. rocket757 1 March 2020 19: 12 New
        • 4
        • 2
        +2
        Adopting someone else's experience is not shameful, it’s even sometimes useful! But it’s not just like that, only when it is justified, fits into its own strategic tasks. In your military concept.
        Everything must be done Wisely!
        1. Dog
          Dog 1 March 2020 19: 24 New
          • 6
          • 1
          +5
          Quote: rocket757
          Adopting someone else's experience is not shameful, it’s even sometimes useful!

          That's right. Having carefully conducted a preliminary analysis of the experience, sometimes it’s not a sin to adopt it. But only occasionally. And we have the fact of having some kind of practice in the West is already 100% argument for the fact that this should be done. You can often hear from our officials that we are introducing paid parking, because they do this in "civilized countries"; that free medicine in the "civilized world" does not exist, and we should eradicate our own; that they raise the retirement age everywhere - that means we simply cannot do without it well, etc. etc .. This is a trauma from the 90s, when "at the civilized west", without regard to common sense, "we learned to live." We still can’t break the habit.
          Serdyukov won generally stupidly offered to buy equipment in the west, because everything is better there than ours.
          1. rocket757 1 March 2020 19: 38 New
            • 3
            • 2
            +1
            You have to evaluate different things based on your experience! And here, sometimes, there is a big ambush, because your experience may not be enough!
            We have our own achievements, which we can certainly be proud of .... we had, have, failures in some areas, which we often try to cover up with "our understanding" ..... although this is obvious incompetence on these issues.
            In short, it happens in different ways. I hope that everything will lead to an objective understanding of where we have a lot and where it is empty and fix the obvious flaws.
            You can’t lag behind, an effective answer should be ready for everything.
            1. Dog
              Dog 1 March 2020 19: 54 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: rocket757
              based on my experience

              When there is not enough experience, analysts will help. Hundreds and hundreds of analysts tied into well-formed structures.
              A good example is the Chinese space program. When “on the shore” they gathered all the experience of other states, carefully analyzed it and chose their development path, taking into account the data obtained and the specifics of their state.
              We have practically nothing to do with this today. The army has at least a general staff. And the economy, social programs, medicine, etc. Parliament and ministries / departments are involved, where of the real people doing something, there are only actually lawyers who simply draw up decisions made by individual individuals. And individuals make decisions either on a hunch, or "relying on foreign experience." Even Alexander Mikhailovich Vasilevsky, in his memoirs, well described the moment that the times of brilliant commanders who take solely brilliant decisions have long passed, and now the "collective mind" rules.
              1. rocket757 1 March 2020 20: 15 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Unfortunately, there are very stubborn faces, with very wide epaulets, in high positions! Their especially correct opinion is overcome with great difficulty!
    3. 3danimal 23 March 2020 11: 59 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Concepts are different, with different efficiencies. At one time, we believed that personal computers could not and should not be.
  • frolov andrey 1 March 2020 18: 22 New
    • 8
    • 4
    +4
    Better than 100 Su34 in 1-2 years than 76 Su-57 for 8 years !!!
    1. Zaurbek 1 March 2020 20: 21 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      And than 100pcs Su30SM?
    2. KVK1 1 March 2020 20: 22 New
      • 2
      • 5
      -3
      I don’t understand this mathematics ... request
      for 2019, one plane (but not even that)
      for 2020, another plane ...
      and then immediately 76?
      76 Su-57 fighters. This is a very sharp turn, even considering that the car will fall in price by 20%. The United States, with a military budget of $ 700 billion, buys 60-70 F-35s per year. It takes a whole percentage of the budget. If Russia spends one percent of its military budget on the Su-57, the Ministry of Defense will receive 2027 fighters by 54. And this is at best. How to achieve the stated numbers, and what should be the redistribution, is a real mystery.
    3. 3danimal 23 March 2020 12: 00 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I assure you, well, if so many are built in 20 years. And with recent events (collapse in oil prices), the timing is generally in question.
  • URAL72 1 March 2020 18: 25 New
    • 5
    • 4
    +1
    In general, I agree with the author, and very much for the Su-35, But how can I load Novosibirsk? And the price is half as much ...
    1. Dog
      Dog 1 March 2020 18: 59 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: URAL72
      very much for the Su-35, But how to load Novosibirsk? Yes, and the price is half as low

      It turns out one 35th should be compared with 2 34th?
  • Gust 1 March 2020 18: 34 New
    • 26
    • 9
    +17
    Author, where does pessimism come from? Penguin, for example, is just such a versatile aircraft. He knows how to do everything, but equally shitty. As an air fighter, a little better than the fourth generation. All its advantage goes away in the absence of support for AWACS. It will not be able to throw iron exactly on the ground - it is vulnerable to reduction (yes, high-precision buns quickly end, as practice shows). There is no radius either. So just the Su-34 is one of the most successful aircraft.
    1. rocket757 1 March 2020 19: 16 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      Versatility is not the golden mean!
    2. Firelake 2 March 2020 00: 41 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      They have a cheap bomb. But in general, they use b-1b as a support aircraft. Penguins only Israel uses. And quite effective. But. F35i, according to amers, is the best possible modification of the IFI ...
    3. 3danimal 23 March 2020 12: 05 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Su-30 is also slightly better than the 4th generation: wink
      Without AWACS, the F-35 is a network-centric aircraft with an excellent radar with AFAR, a very strong situational awareness and inconspicuous, in addition.
      Throwing bombs can be very effective (there is its own modern sighting system). There are a large stock of high-precision bombs; is there always the opportunity to remake conventional bombs using JDAM kits (why aren’t our analogues created)?
      1. Gust 24 March 2020 19: 00 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I wonder why the Su-34 booking and two engines ?? Probably for the most part to bomb cast iron from an acceptable height, which however is reachable for artillery and MANPADS. The penguin does not have this, and it will carry out bombing beyond the reach of these weapons with a large increase in aiming errors - therefore, a priori its effectiveness is precisely below that of the Su-34. And yes, AFAR is not critical for this, there are more TSU from the ground or UAV.
        To use JDAM you do not need a stealth aircraft - you can do this from a great distance and altitude as usual. There are analogs- Drill offhand and kits for remodeling, even somewhere offered.
        1. 3danimal 24 March 2020 23: 20 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          About JDAM (where are our analogues?): You will be surprised, but the radius of its use is significantly less than the destruction range (for 4-generation aircraft) of many modern air defense systems.
          Throw the Su-25T / SM cast iron better, it is cheaper and better protected.
          Having received a rocket from a BUK, the 34th will not return to base. As well as after the line from Shilka or Volcano.
          The 35th JDAM (or something more long-range) can be launched pointwise from a safe distance. There is enough money and sets.
          What is the argument about? Too different filling and application concepts. But for the 34th - it is outdated, and it was created for it.
  • Whalebone 1 March 2020 18: 35 New
    • 14
    • 5
    +9
    Su-34 must be made the basis of the MPA, and they will perfectly perform the function of the coastal fleet for much less money. RCC, guided bombs, 2 explosive missiles, all under the control of the Premier and no AUG will come closer to the shores of the Russian Federation closer than 1500 km. Two hundred cars will be enough for the eyes to cover all the maritime borders of the Russian Federation, and the deployment of an air regiment in Kaliningrad and Syria will cover the entire Baltic Sea to the North Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean.
    Regular Khibiny, long flight range (add conformal tanks) large BN, crew convenience and here it is, not very expensive to manufacture and operate a marine aircraft. Four Su-34s with a salvo of 24 missiles will drown any Aegis cruiser or destroyer, cause damage to the KUG, close the coastal zone.
    No need to spend the loot on incomprehensible underships, plus mobility of movement will strengthen any prospective theater of operations in a matter of hours. At the same time, 5-6 hundred highly experienced naval pilots will be in service, who will retain and transfer competencies to those who will one day begin to work from the deck of an aircraft carrier.
    1. rudolff 1 March 2020 18: 49 New
      • 8
      • 2
      +6
      Yes, the MRA Su-34 is the place.
    2. BREAKTHROUGH READY 1 March 2020 19: 50 New
      • 5
      • 5
      0
      And why the hell do you need it in an MPA with an armored cab and a radius of action like fighter-bombers?
      For example, the Indians "Brasos" screwed to the Su30 and are happy.
      1. Whalebone 1 March 2020 20: 33 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        Comfortable tanks will increase the combat radius to 1,5 thousand km, and we don’t need more - the A2AD zone is provided.
        The armored car and tanks are a greater resource of the glider, glass can be replaced with ordinary ones. The crew is in much more comfortable conditions than in the Su-30. There is no pretzel to write out to anyone, but to fight off the enemy fighter with 2 missiles, turn around and go home afterburning - there will be enough strength. We must act with the AWACS aircraft, and if there is a risk of a massive air attack - under the cover of the Su-35.
        1. BREAKTHROUGH READY 1 March 2020 20: 50 New
          • 5
          • 5
          0
          Conformal tanks and the radius of su30 will increase in the same way.
          Removal of heavy armored cabins will entail a significant shift in alignment and, as a result, a complete rearrangement. And all in order to get another unique Su-27ABVGD?
          For a car with a flight duration of several hours, crew comfort is not as critical as that of strategists.
          1. Whalebone 1 March 2020 21: 11 New
            • 4
            • 3
            +1
            No need to remove the cabin - correctly noted from the fragments of air defense systems ala Buk can protect and save lives. The armor is integrated into the glider, and not mounted, the car is lifting, the resource of the glider is increased. He doesn’t need an AFAR, he’ll direct the Prime Minister on his target, and will put Khibiny’s interference. It remains to think up very small anti-missiles for the defense of the “runaway” and that’s all. No worse than the Tu-22M3, but significantly cheaper and more versatile. 30 years is enough, even in the AUG you can work out a massive attack from different directions.
    3. Firelake 2 March 2020 00: 43 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      More than agree. But ships are needed and first of all
  • Zaurbek 1 March 2020 18: 37 New
    • 12
    • 3
    +9
    I totally agree. We are still silent about the possibility of dramatically increasing air defense in the necessary directions (the Su34 will not strengthen it, and the Su35 has almost caught up with Mig31 in this) and are silent about the training of pilots and their unification, too. In fact, Su30 / 35 should be mass aircraft, differing only in 1 or 2 local cockpit. And it’s better in general, like the Mig 35. There is one flashlight, or 2nd pilot or additional tank. Adjusted even for PFAR and container, all the advantages of Su34 are absent. And the VKS gets both a bunch of drums and a bunch of air defense fighters.
  • K-50 1 March 2020 18: 41 New
    • 5
    • 6
    -1
    The use of Panavia Tornado during Desert Storm has shown that a low altitude breakthrough is fraught with serious risks and losses, even if the enemy is not equipped with the latest technology.

    Damn, they found something to compare. "Tornadoes" were created to fight the Soviet Union, and on this proposed site of military operations, deserts and other flat surfaces were not supposed. The only exception is part of Ukraine.
    When moving over the surface typical of the USSR, it was precisely the tactics of gaining superiority, because the numerous systems of the air defense of the Soviet Union "prevailed". You can ask the result of their actions for pin dosniks in Vietnam. yes fellow lol
    Neither the mass of the machine, which is huge for a fighter, contributes to this (the normal take-off weight is 39 tons!), nor the low maneuverability associated with it

    The Su-34 covers the “penguin” Fu-35, like a bull to a sheep and does not particularly bother, in terms of maneuverability, the speed is comparable, the radius of the “penguin” is lower than the baseboard. lol
    1. Saxahorse 1 March 2020 21: 37 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      Quote: K-50
      They found something to compare with. Tornadoes were created to fight the Soviet Union, and no deserts or other flat surfaces were supposed to be on this alleged site of military operations.

      On the great Russian plain there are no flat surfaces? Look at the map .. wassat
    2. Zaurbek 3 March 2020 17: 37 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And 5 F35 work on the ground, like 10 Su34
  • Siberian 66 1 March 2020 18: 43 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    If they were to buy from the Su-35S air regiment a year, it would be possible to reason. And when 10-15 Su-35S per year arrive at the Air Force Forces, you’ll be glad of any purchase of Su-34. And about the maneuverability in battle ... All this is very debatable. The whole world is switching to long-range air-to-air missiles and, accordingly, stalling from such a launch in afterburner. And here who has stealth, electronic warfare and AFAR are more fashionable ... Amerikosy will not climb into the dog dump. And do not forget about naval aviation, which we have successfully destroyed for many years .. And there will be ducklings to the yard. To teach RCCs to drag, and they promise a suspended reconnaissance container for the Su-34M, and even the EW container to hang more powerful, and it’s quite possible to drive alien frigates and cruisers. So I think in vain the author calls on the Su-34.
  • 2Albert 1 March 2020 18: 45 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    The F-15SA specifically flew in Yemen as soon as it encountered the Hussite air defense. In general, in all sorties, 2xPTBs are primarily visible, i.e. he goes on combat with a subsonic at 800 km / h. and noticeably less bn. For Israel, where the enemy is at hand, this is not relevant. But for example, the F-15 no longer has a chance against Iran, and it is unlikely that it will be raided as against a reactor in Iraq.
  • Nikolay87 1 March 2020 18: 51 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    A small excerpt from the opinions of pilots and experts, from which we can conclude why the SU-34 occupies a certain place.
    “The Su-30SM and Su-35 are designed to solve virtually identical combat missions. The main difference between the Su-30 is the availability of additional space (the Su-35 is single). The Su-30SM is convenient for long flights when the second passenger acts as a navigator, greatly facilitating the work of the pilot."
    "Sergei Bogdan, a test pilot at the Sukhoi Design Bureau, claims that the Su-35 has super-maneuverability to remove all restrictions regarding the angle of attack. The aircraft can take off from a short or damaged strip, and it requires no more than three hundred meters to to break away from the earth’s surface.The fighter can perform a sharp turn 360 degrees in order to find the enemy, and then continue the flight.
    Deputy Commander of the Russian Aerospace Forces Lieutenant General Andrei Yudin, a member of the Russian Knights aerobatic team, explained why they prefer the Su-30SM fighter, although they could choose the Su-35:
    “- In fact, the Su-30SM and Su-35 perform the same tasks. But the Su-30 is double, which is more convenient on long flights, which are often performed by “Russian Knights”. This is more comfort for pilots, they fly very often. On long-haul flights, one can fly, the second - to fulfill the duties of a navigator. ”
    And here is a single Su-35 - a pure fighter. By the way, the American analytical publication The National Interest in ranking the most deadly weapons in Russia gave the plane first place. "

    Remembering how our SU-34s are usually covered by the SU-30 or SU-35, I dare to assume that such aircraft in combination will be more effective than 2 standardized aircraft. IMHO
    1. Dog
      Dog 1 March 2020 19: 09 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Quote: Nikolay87
      Remembering how our SU-34s are usually covered by the SU-30 or SU-35, I dare to assume that such aircraft in combination will be more effective than 2 standardized aircraft. IMHO

      Above was a mention that the 34th cost is 2 times less.
      It turns out that instead of 3 SU-35 for the same money, you can have two bundles of SU-35 / SU-34. In my opinion, the situation here is not in favor of the first option.
      1. Nikolay87 1 March 2020 19: 15 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: Dog
        Quote: Nikolay87
        Remembering how our SU-34s are usually covered by the SU-30 or SU-35, I dare to assume that such aircraft in combination will be more effective than 2 standardized aircraft. IMHO

        Above was a mention that the 34th cost is 2 times less.
        It turns out that instead of 3 SU-35 for the same money, you can have two bundles of SU-35 / SU-34. In my opinion, the situation here is not in favor of the first option.

        It is not a matter of cost, but of efficiency (read as a destination). You are trying to find a universal, single weapon for all tasks. Above, I tried to convey that this approach is not always true.
        1. Dog
          Dog 1 March 2020 19: 30 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: Nikolay87
          You are trying to find a universal, unique weapon for all tasks

          Not no, I'm against the author’s ideas.

          Quote: Nikolay87
          It's not about the cost

          In the Second World War, for example, close attention was paid to the cost of weapons produced. Recently, a good article on the site was about one and a half. It is curious to read how that one-and-a-half during the war years became cheaper, compared with peaceful production, sacrificing one or another of its qualities.
          In the simplest comparison, cost is quantity. And if the number is such that grandfather Hegel already wins, so to speak, quality, then this is the best choice.
  • Dog
    Dog 1 March 2020 18: 55 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    the advantages of the Su-34, as they say, are sucked from the finger. As one of these

    Sort the whole list, please!
    And then the benefits, in your opinion, are sucked out of the finger by everyone, but only one of them was dismantled. Prejudiced looks.

    due to the development of modern high-precision aviation ammunition

    Any country will go bankrupt, conducting any kind of long-term operation with such ammunition. Keeping weapons of less intelligent but cheaper ammunition in the arsenal is simply necessary. As well as the means of working with them.
    1. SovAr238A 1 March 2020 19: 36 New
      • 5
      • 9
      -4
      Quote: Dog

      due to the development of modern high-precision aviation ammunition

      Any country will go bankrupt, conducting any kind of long-term operation with such ammunition. Keeping weapons of less intelligent but cheaper ammunition in the arsenal is simply necessary. As well as the means of working with them.


      You are wrong.
      Indeed, the massive use of high-precision ammunition leads to a very quick loss of the opposing side.
      Its infrastructure is completely reset to zero.

      Bridges and tunnels, tank farms and pipelines, power substations and power transmission lines, water supply systems, central distribution warehouses of food retail chains and military units providing rear support.

      Destroy them, and completely only them - and the war will end in 2-3 weeks.
      Even if you do not destroy a single tank and not a single soldier.
      Surrender.
      Все.
      And ours and not ours.
      1. Dog
        Dog 1 March 2020 19: 38 New
        • 4
        • 4
        0
        Quote: SovAr238A
        Destroy them, and completely only them - and the war will end in 2-3 weeks.

        Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya
        Chechnya, Syria
        1. SovAr238A 1 March 2020 20: 03 New
          • 6
          • 6
          0
          Quote: Dog
          Quote: SovAr238A
          Destroy them, and completely only them - and the war will end in 2-3 weeks.

          Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya
          Chechnya, Syria


          Iraq 1991 - 24 days.
          Iraq 2003 - 19 days.
          Libya 2011 - 4 days for the complete destruction of the Air Force and Air Defense of Libya.

          Chechnya, Afghanistan - did not have their own air defense and regular air forces.

          Syria - until Russia came there - was taken out cleanly by everyone who wanted to.
          Israel is doing this now, knocking out Iranian advisers.
          1. Dog
            Dog 1 March 2020 21: 24 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -1
            Quote: SovAr238A
            Chechnya, Afghanistan - did not have their own air defense and regular air forces.

            Who cares? The Air Force then used them. And for everything else they used. And not just a few days, as you are trying to imagine, but for long and long years. And to use all this time only smart ammunition is very, very expensive. We would obviously not pull. Therefore, we - we must look here for a way out, for a similar case, namely, to return to the good old cheap ammunition, having beaten, perhaps, this is a new way.
            1. Firelake 2 March 2020 00: 47 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              They sculpt to ordinary bombs jps sensor and control. And that’s all. And get smart BP at a price almost normal.
          2. Alf
            Alf 1 March 2020 22: 39 New
            • 4
            • 3
            +1
            Quote: SovAr238A
            Iraq 1991 - 24 days.
            Iraq 2003 - 19 days.

            Especially if you buy enemy generals in advance.
      2. Salty 1 March 2020 19: 43 New
        • 6
        • 2
        +4
        Quote: SovAr238A
        Surrender.
        Все.
        Both ours and not ours

        For Europe, it will work. Our ... ours, I would not begin to mention so indiscriminately, I myself am from ours)))
        1. SovAr238A 1 March 2020 20: 06 New
          • 11
          • 4
          +7
          Quote: SaltY
          Quote: SovAr238A
          Surrender.
          Все.
          Both ours and not ours

          For Europe, it will work. Our ... ours, I would not begin to mention so indiscriminately, I myself am from ours)))


          A soldier fights only when he has enough weapons, food, and overnight.
          Take it all off - and after 5 days there will be nothing to fight.
          There will be nothing to refuel tanks.
          No one will give cartridges.
          No one will give you food.
          There is no electricity.
          no drinking water.

          All the reserves that were - ran out - and there was no where to replenish — all infrastructure was destroyed.

          Whatever the hero, but ...
          1. Salty 1 March 2020 20: 07 New
            • 5
            • 7
            -2
            Quote: SovAr238A
            Whatever the hero, but ...

            One question: did you serve?
          2. bk0010 1 March 2020 20: 39 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            No “buts”: the USSR was preparing for a nuclear war, when all of the above would be destroyed. And he was not going to give up. He created a state reserve, developed fast recovery tools and post-nuclear time technology such as LVSh. And here it will be possible to walk on the street even without a gas mask. No, after the destruction of the infrastructure, everything will only begin.
            1. SovAr238A 1 March 2020 20: 59 New
              • 3
              • 7
              -4
              Quote: bk0010
              No, after the destruction of the infrastructure, everything will only begin.


              Russia is not the USSR.
              Do not forget that the Soviet Union has been gone for 30 years.
              And people are different.

              And remember Yugoslavia. How quickly did its population want in the EU after the war then ...
              1. Dog
                Dog 1 March 2020 21: 32 New
                • 1
                • 4
                -3
                Time is changing, fashion is changing, people are not changing when.
                1. SovAr238A 1 March 2020 21: 55 New
                  • 5
                  • 8
                  -3
                  Quote: Dog
                  Time is changing, fashion is changing, people are not changing when.


                  False and rotten pathos ...
                  Stop it ...

                  During the Great Patriotic War, there were 28 million Ukrainians in the Red Army.
                  This is 16% of the population.
                  Killed in battle - 1.4 million
                  This is 16% of the losses.

                  Do you understand statistics?
                  As they lived, they perished.
                  an average of 5% of the population killed Russians, Ukrainians, Tatars, Jews, Chuvash, Mari.
                  For our country.
                  Real citizens of the Soviet Union.

                  And now?
                  People do not change? So you say?
                  1. Dog
                    Dog 1 March 2020 22: 37 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    Quote: SovAr238A
                    Lying and rotten pathos

                    I don’t remember where this quote came from, but the context was, you will be surprised, not at all flattering for people. It seems that people have always been rascals and will remain so. So pathos here does not smell, even vice versa.

                    Quote: SovAr238A
                    And now?

                    I don’t quite understand you. Are you not happy that people are not dying now? What are you speaking about?
            2. Alf
              Alf 1 March 2020 22: 42 New
              • 4
              • 3
              +1
              Quote: bk0010
              No, after the destruction of the infrastructure, everything will only begin.

              The Americans used a bomb that knocks out all the electronics in enemy weapons and was horrified to learn that microprocessors are not used in AKM.
  • Amateur 1 March 2020 18: 56 New
    • 13
    • 7
    +6
    For some reason, automakers are not striving to produce universal (for example) 5-ton cars for all occasions: neither as a taxi, nor as a dump truck.
    But a universal aircraft that will perform equally badly as a fighter-interceptor and a front-line bomber is a fashionable trend. But the stupid Soviet habit of the mid 70's. "do as in America because they are smart," for some reason it pops up from time to time.
    1. BREAKTHROUGH READY 1 March 2020 19: 33 New
      • 6
      • 6
      0
      For some reason, automakers are not striving to produce universal (for example) 5-ton cars for all occasions
      Quite the contrary, modern passenger cars are multifunctional to the limit, and besides, one should not bring any rational idea to the point of absurdity.
      And here’s a universal plane that is equally good will perform both the functions of a fighter-interceptor and a front-line bomber - this is a weapon of victory.
      1. Amateur 1 March 2020 19: 50 New
        • 3
        • 3
        0
        multifunctional modern cars to the limit

        Merce-Maybach plowing field is an incredible steepness.
        А
        But a universal aircraft, which will equally well perform both the functions of a fighter-interceptor and a front-line bomber
        - airplane from a song:
        So as not to drink, not to smoke,
        And he always gave flowers.
        He gave his salary to the house,
        Mother-in-law called mom.
        I was indifferent to football,
        But the company is not hungry.
        And besides, that he
        And he was handsome, and smart.
        1. BREAKTHROUGH READY 1 March 2020 20: 01 New
          • 3
          • 4
          -1
          Mears Maybach plowing field - this is incredible steepness
          not worth bringing any rational idea to the point of absurdity
          Mers-Maybach drives on roads and can carry both passengers and take cargo in the trunk, it can only be used on the home-work-store-house route, or a round-the-world tour can be arranged.
          This is the multifunctionality of a healthy person, without crossing a bulldog with a rhino.
          Since the arable land has already been mentioned, I recommend that you pay attention to modern tractors, which with various replaceable modules can do anything in the world.
          Technology should not be "unparalleled in the world", it is created to solve problems with minimal losses.
          1. Whalebone 1 March 2020 21: 18 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            About Maybach, sorry, they wrote nonsense. It costs like 2 dozen universal cars, or 10 different specializations. The example is unsuccessful. Have you heard about the “sparrow cannon”? This, for example, is what the Russian Aerospace Forces have been doing for 5 years in Syria. Babakhs were fed with cast iron, a resource burned. It is clear that the pilots were trained, but from an economic point of view, it was necessary to collect all the junk and work out its resource to zero, and leave it there.
    2. SovAr238A 1 March 2020 19: 54 New
      • 8
      • 2
      +6
      Quote: Amateur
      For some reason, automakers are not striving to produce universal (for example) 5-ton cars for all occasions: neither as a taxi, nor as a dump truck.
      But a universal aircraft that will perform equally badly as a fighter-interceptor and a front-line bomber is a fashionable trend. But the stupid Soviet habit of the mid 70's. "do as in America because they are smart," for some reason it pops up from time to time.


      Because:

      1. The cost of preparing any pilot for a 5th generation plane approaches the figure of 10-12 million dollars at the exit from the school. The cost of the pilot of the 4th generation aircraft is 5-8 million dollars.
      And the pilots commission quite a lot and leave a lot long before retirement.
      And on the 5th generation, no more than 20% of the available 4th generation pilots can fly. This is a fact recognized by our military doctors and pilots as well.

      2. The cost of his (pilot's) further service - is growing quadratically, if we consider all operating costs. Read the rest above.

      3. The cost of the aircraft in the 50s did not exceed 500 thousand dollars. Now the normal figure is 120-150 million dollars.
      The cost of missiles, maintenance equipment, the cost of training a BAO technician is also growing geometrically.
      Stupidly pure mechanics are no longer so needed; mechanics with excellent knowledge of computers and computer logic are needed. And there are few of them and they will be expensive to learn.

      4. The life cycle of an aircraft at a cost of $ 120 million = $ 250-300 million (this is with the cost of fuel, upgrades, repairs, spare parts and engines, etc.) Do not forget about it ...

      5. The presence of different aircraft models doubles the range of warehouse spare parts, doubles the number of highly specialized repair specialists, etc. etc. Multiplely more expensive in logistics and storage.



      And so in everything.

      All countries of the world understand that if they now have the same quantitative composition of their Air Force as 30-40 years ago, then in the first they will simply go broke, in the second they simply will not find the right number of pilots and technicians.

      Accordingly, there is a tendency to reduce the number of purchased equipment.
      And attempts to universalize it.
      With reduced ownership costs.
      Either you have 70 universal aircraft, or you only have 30 fighters and 30 bombers.
      And these small quantities (if 30 each) will not allow you to defend yourself or attack, for 70 universals will either bring down 30 fighters or 30 bombers. Because the first they will fill up with quantity, and the second ... not fighters.
      1. Amateur 1 March 2020 20: 00 New
        • 1
        • 7
        -6
        for 70 wagons for any or 30 knocked down fighters
        1. SovAr238A 1 March 2020 20: 08 New
          • 4
          • 4
          0
          Quote: Amateur
          for 70 wagons for any or 30 knocked down fighters


          Have you carefully read the written text? Did you comprehend it?
      2. Nikolay87 1 March 2020 20: 04 New
        • 3
        • 7
        -4
        And these small quantities (if 30 each) will not allow you to defend yourself or attack, for 70 universals will either bring down 30 fighters or 30 bombers. Because the first they will fill up with quantity, and the second ... not fighters.

        I am not an expert, but in my opinion it is “math on the knee”, which has nothing to do with real military operations.
        1. SovAr238A 1 March 2020 20: 09 New
          • 7
          • 6
          +1
          Quote: Nikolay87
          And these small quantities (if 30 each) will not allow you to defend yourself or attack, for 70 universals will either bring down 30 fighters or 30 bombers. Because the first they will fill up with quantity, and the second ... not fighters.

          I am not an expert, but in my opinion it is “math on the knee”, which has nothing to do with real military operations.


          And do you understand and understand the mathematics of the content of aviation of various types?
          Is she real or is she on her knee too?
          1. Nikolay87 1 March 2020 20: 23 New
            • 2
            • 5
            -3
            Quote: SovAr238A
            And do you understand and understand the mathematics of the content of aviation of various types?

            Yes, more or less.
            You explained that it is better to have one universal weapon, then what is cheaper (in short). And you know what is even cheaper - do not build at all! But just let me think if we are building, then we need it. If we have two large design bureaus for the production of aircraft, and each with its own approach, not surpassed for its class, is it worth it to unify them?
            MIG-31 - stratospheric, SU-35 - super maneuverable, SU-30 / SU-34 - universal, SU-25 - attack aircraft, etc. Combine them all in one plane? I think even the KLA will not be able to do this.
            Cost reduction is what our "effective managers" do. Is it worth clarifying that for an accountant, defense spending is generally a red line item. How Kudrins and other pubic hair tore when Volodya allocated money for rearmament.
            1. SovAr238A 1 March 2020 20: 34 New
              • 4
              • 7
              -3
              Quote: Nikolay87
              Quote: SovAr238A
              And do you understand and understand the mathematics of the content of aviation of various types?

              Yes, more or less.
              You explained that it is better to have one universal weapon, then what is cheaper (in short). And you know what is even cheaper - do not build at all! But just let me think if we are building, then we need it. If we have two large design bureaus for the production of aircraft, and each with its own approach, not surpassed for its class, is it worth it to unify them?
              MIG-31 - stratospheric, SU-35 - super maneuverable, SU-30 / SU-34 - universal, SU-25 - attack aircraft, etc. Combine them all in one plane? I think even the KLA will not be able to do this.
              Cost reduction is what our "effective managers" do. Is it worth clarifying that for an accountant, defense spending is generally a red line item. How Kudrins and other pubic hair tore when Volodya allocated money for rearmament.


              Why only 2 aircraft models
              F-16 and F-15 and partially F-18
              they won all the wars in which they participated, despite the presence of their enemies and Mig-25, and Mig-29, Dryers of all stripes ... Ie a bunch of highly specialized aircraft almost always inferior to one fighter and a pair of station wagons ???
              1. Nikolay87 1 March 2020 20: 39 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Let's not talk about abstract things and will compare specific examples and specific incidents. But here, I'm afraid we will carry far beyond the performance characteristics of aircraft. So, if, objectively, in terms of economics and universality of weapons, we have nothing more to add, I propose that everyone be left to their own opinion, for further debate will lead us far from the point. hi
                1. SovAr238A 1 March 2020 21: 01 New
                  • 1
                  • 4
                  -3
                  Quote: Nikolay87
                  Let's not talk about abstract things and will compare specific examples and specific incidents. But here, I'm afraid we will carry far beyond the performance characteristics of aircraft. So, if, objectively, in terms of economics and universality of weapons, we have nothing more to add, I propose that everyone be left to their own opinion, for further debate will lead us far from the point. hi


                  Well, look at the wars of the last 40 years and that's all ...
                  those 40 years in which there were F-15, 16,18 and our aircraft ...
  • 7,62h54 1 March 2020 19: 18 New
    • 8
    • 5
    +3
    To the author’s couch, but to attach wings. And sit softly, and the review is good.
  • bober1982 1 March 2020 19: 23 New
    • 12
    • 7
    +5
    Su-34 could not be created with ....... looking back at the F-111 and Su-24, by such a statement, the author shows his complete ignorance.
    The article itself is sucked from the finger.
    1. SovAr238A 1 March 2020 20: 24 New
      • 7
      • 3
      +4
      Quote: bober1982
      Su-34 could not be created with ....... looking back at the F-111 and Su-24, by such a statement, the author shows his complete ignorance.
      The article itself is sucked from the finger.


      Oh well...

      by Su-34.
      Work on the T-10B was carried out on the basis of the unfinished construction of the T-10KM-2 deck-based training aircraft with the seat of the instructor and the trained pilot nearby. It became obvious to the developers that an aircraft with such a layout of a two-seat cockpit has significant reserves for expanding its field of application (as a bomber, reconnaissance aircraft, refueling officer, jammer, etc.). The Air Force also showed interest in a two-seat attack aircraft, designed to replace the gradually obsolete Su-24M front-line bomber.

      by Su-24.
      As the Soviet general designer Alexander Yakovlev mentioned in his memoirs: "From a design point of view, the F-111 jet aircraft shown by the Americans, with a flight speed of 2700 kilometers per hour, was of interest."
      The Soviet delegation was specially targeted at F-111 people - Oleg Samoilovich from Sukhoi Design Bureau. He recalled: “In 1967, an international aviation exhibition was held in Le Bourget, where I was sent on a business trip to study primarily the design of the F-111 aircraft. The car was behind the fence, inside which were guarded by three US military police (MP). On the first day, I took pictures of the F-111 from afar, but I was primarily interested in the details: the design of the air intake and nozzles, the suspension of the horizontal tail, the number and size of access hatches, etc. Therefore, on the second day, I gathered courage for the photographer I was already driving close to the car. On the third day I was insolent to the point that I began to shoot the plane at point blank range, accompanying each shot with a detailed commentary in my notebook. My close attention to the F-111 did not go unnoticed. On the fourth day, as I prepared for when shooting, all of a sudden, two of the plane’s guards began taking pictures on both sides of me already. That's how I “lit up” for the first time. Of course, I no longer approached the F-111. However, this was not necessary. In the first three days, I managed to make more than a hundred unique detail shots, which later helped us a lot in creating the Su-24. "
      The fact that ours really captured (bought up) one of the F-111s in 1968 is a stretch, but I still believe ...
      I want to believe.
      Big and very big money work wonders ...
    2. Orkraider 1 March 2020 22: 15 New
      • 8
      • 1
      +7
      Quote: bober1982
      Su-34 could not be created with ....... looking back at the F-111 and Su-24, by such a statement, the author shows his complete ignorance.
      The article itself is sucked from the finger.



      Greetings!
      hi
      It would be funny to bring Ilya with one acquaintance. He waited for his duckling for several years, retrained, and when I crossed with him a year ago to Koltsovo for a glass of tea .. we would see delight in his eyes, in response to the question: “so how, was it worth it?”
      If those who pilot them say about them that this is a dream and a fairy tale, then it is worth it.
      But the radar and the replacement of the plane tree will be, it is a matter of modernization, there will be boards - there will be modernizations.
      There will be no planes and a plant - there will be nothing.
      I'm glad duckling!
      PS: there is no real news what changes will be in the new board. Any disputes are meaningless.
  • xomaNN 1 March 2020 19: 37 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    The Russian aircraft industry can offer the Russian Air Force only what is available now. In 5-10 years there will be something newer ...
    1. SovAr238A 1 March 2020 21: 05 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Quote: xomaNN
      The Russian aircraft industry can offer the Russian Air Force only what is available now. In 5-10 years there will be something newer ...


      My friend...

      Modern aircraft has been developed for many, many years.
      From the moment of rolling out the first test to the first serial, 10 years pass ...
      In order to roll something out by 2025, it was necessary in 2000 to begin full-scale financing of the development and production of a new model ...
      1. EvilLion 2 March 2020 10: 23 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Why do you need a new model? Containers, however, have long been in development, however, the results are not visible. Perhaps just in the presence of the Su-34, he went into the series before the fighters.
  • BREAKTHROUGH READY 1 March 2020 19: 38 New
    • 7
    • 3
    +4
    In general, the article is completely new.
    Competent people chewed it all and proved it in the "happy zero".
    However, I read, and I wonder how the local edition, known for strictly following the "party line", missed such a critical article ?!
  • Nick Russ 1 March 2020 19: 39 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Well, it seems like the Su34 has a maximum combat load of 12 tons, while in the Su35 it has 8 tons.
  • cherkas.oe 1 March 2020 19: 53 New
    • 6
    • 7
    -1
    I read the three lines of the article and began to feel sick, scrolled the article down and realized why - Ilyusha Legat. I didn’t even doubt that he had planted it, at the genetic level.
  • Alexey Kartashov 1 March 2020 20: 06 New
    • 6
    • 6
    0
    another sperm who thinks smarter than the Air Force commander
  • Gust 1 March 2020 20: 10 New
    • 6
    • 5
    +1
    Quote: BREAKTHROUGH READY
    In general, the article is completely new.
    Competent people chewed it all and proved it in the "happy zero".
    However, I read, and I wonder how the local edition, known for strictly following the "party line", missed such a critical article ?!

    Whether it’s the Penguin case, he proved everything to everyone. And the reaper, and the Shvets, and the igrets on the pipe;)). Dumb Americans continue to purchase 4 ++ fighters, bombers, are looking for an A10 attack aircraft, dumb Chinese do the same, and only to the author and a few narrow specialists everything became clear even in zero. And as soon as the Pentagon spends money on this get along ...
    1. BREAKTHROUGH READY 1 March 2020 20: 42 New
      • 5
      • 4
      +1
      Penguin just a few years in combat units, "all to prove" he has yet to
      (And you, apparently, have already decided everything for yourself without any evidence?)))
      “Dumb Americans” have been building exclusively multi-functional fighters for 30 years, and the recently ordered f-15ex carries the same range of ammunition as the f35. The only difference is the lack of "stealth." Personally, I think the "dumb Americans" issued a contract for their purchase to support the pants "Boeing", which is currently experiencing not the best time.
      looking for a plane to attack the replacement of A10
      Attack aircraft are a thing of the past. If even the experience of Georgia, Donbas and Syria has not taught you anything, then I don’t even know ...
      The drones have long been occupied by a niche, the fact that the Turks showed on a variety of videos this week, American UAVs arranged almost 20 years ago.
    2. Alf
      Alf 1 March 2020 22: 47 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Rafale
      Dumb Americans continue to purchase 4 ++ fighters,

      Even going to resume the release of the F-15.
  • Locksmith 1 March 2020 20: 17 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    [quoteAnd what these containers will be is a completely different topic for discussion.] [/ quote]
    There is such a popular joke, about Tipo Isabella laughing , well, really isabella, by the way at home and I call the alarmists - Isabella !!
  • Badger 1 March 2020 20: 23 New
    • 4
    • 4
    0
    What is the author's competence in this matter? Or is this a copy of certain negative notions from the Indonesian newspaper of a paid journalist?
  • Ros 56 1 March 2020 20: 28 New
    • 8
    • 10
    -2
    How sick of these sofa theorists-theoreticians on scabies on the slimy. That is not so and this is not commercials, but Sushka listens and hollows the barmalei.
  • JD1979 1 March 2020 20: 30 New
    • 10
    • 9
    +1
    Ilya, do not be offended, but do not disgrace your articles at the tape.ru level. Su-34 is first and foremost a direct heir ... Oops))) Su-25. This is a bomber attack aircraft, and not as they began to repeat all sorts of school thrones one after another - a fighter-bomber. Damn ten years ago there was no such degeneracy of the brain ... You write about universalism, but from your own text and examples it is clear that in the West they are trying to narrow down specialization, sharpen it, for certain tasks))).
    Threat. An old Soviet joke on the topic: the Chukchi is not a reader - the Chukchi writer.
    1. viper1979 1 March 2020 21: 02 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      By the way, the fighter-bomber found out about the concept in the 90s. The game was like that. Fighter-Bomber. Tornado, Wiggen, Phantom and our MiG-27.
      1. EvilLion 2 March 2020 10: 22 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Neither the tornado nor the MiG-27 are fighters from the word at all. The tornado interceptor did not enter.
      2. PilotS37 2 March 2020 16: 13 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: viper1979
        By the way, the fighter-bomber found out about the concept in the 90s. The game was like that. Fighter-Bomber. Tornado, Wiggen, Phantom and our MiG-27.

        Back in the Korean War, the Americans had F-84s that worked exclusively "on the ground" and when the MiG-15 appeared they dropped all suspensions and went home, and F-86s that fought with the Migas on equal terms, but "didn't work" on the ground .
        Books must be read smart, not play toys!
  • KCA
    KCA 1 March 2020 20: 44 New
    • 4
    • 4
    0
    I would like to answer the author with the name of one American film - “Don’t threaten the southern central, drinking juice in your quarter”, of course, people don’t understand anything in the Moscow Region and the General Staff, and, based on the combat use of the SU-34, they simply foolishly ordered a new batch Well, or else cut, dvapil, or tripil and lobbyism, right?
  • Vagno Krivlev 1 March 2020 20: 54 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    In general, the reasoning seems to be correct, but ..... the budget of the Russian Defense Ministry is not American, but in principle the SU-34 is like a T-34 tank during the Second World War!
  • viper1979 1 March 2020 20: 59 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    author, did you have experience in the combat use of the su-34 Tell Fighter Bomber about it, and then we'll laugh together.
  • Drummer 1 March 2020 21: 28 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +4
    Old song. Why is the lack of a radar with AFAR given as a disadvantage of the Su-34 if no modern multi-purpose fighter of the Russian Federation has it? The article ends with a hint about the continuation of the suspension systems, although, in general, it should begin with this. It’s clear to Kose that they aren’t capable, that's why they order the Su-34.
  • Warrior MorePhoto 1 March 2020 21: 33 New
    • 5
    • 4
    +1
    I will also make my contribution)
    So:
    1. 1 (Su 35) and 2 pilots - on the ground it is better 2 + a convenient and comfortable cabin, in which I drank coffee and continue to combat duty.
    2. The combat load corresponds to what is needed, especially if the combat radius is 600-800 km, then a squadron where everyone can throw 12 tons each will be instructive and also economically attractive somewhere. Let it be even high-precision ammunition.
    3. Exceptional specialization is not always bad, because it’s one thing to learn how to drive in a passenger car and in KAMAZ it’s good, but if you are a specialist in a rally among cars it’s excellent, all the more work on the ground it will always be, especially true for the land power that we are. Respectively, training of narrow specialization will bear fruit.
    4. I completely agree with the authors about MPA. For fleets, and we have 5 of them (I never forget the Caspian flotilla, or consider it as a reserve). Moreover, the size of our country determines the efficiency of the transfer, because in fact we are surrounded (the Baltic states, Poland, Turkey, Japan, etc.) and if there is skew somewhere, then only aviation can quickly fill it. Yes, MRA was given to strategists, but strategists should have support.
    5. Khibiny - excellent, can it be improved? - always good.

    In which cases we DO NOT need Su 34:
    1. If we had 70 pieces of 22350M (like Arly Burke in striped) and at least 2 - 4 aircraft carriers with a displacement of 45 tons (at least).
    2. If you could afford instead of Su 34, do 12 pieces a year Su 57 (in addition to 76 pieces until 2028) + Hunters 12-24 to them

    What to improve:
    1. avionics
    2. Radar
    These two points as a whole can be brought to mind while not greatly increasing the cost of the aircraft.
    Now we are testing a new hanging container, under which it will be possible to resolve these issues.

    Ps
    REAL military operations have been going on for 5 years, and on the last days we see that not only with barmales on dumbbells, therefore, the complete absence of this category of aircraft was evaluated practically and all the pros and cons were weighed, even for economic reasons.
  • Imperial Technocrat 1 March 2020 21: 35 New
    • 5
    • 4
    +1
    Rave. Professional pilots think differently, I believe their opinion more than the sofa Vasya from the forum
  • Klingon 1 March 2020 21: 51 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    I completely agree with one thing - a hodgepodge of different types of equipment and unification is our hobby, it’s worth looking at both our fleet and the tank fleet. This is not good for logistics, but in times of war it will become a hell for industry
    1. TatarinSSSR 1 March 2020 22: 50 New
      • 6
      • 3
      +3
      I totally agree. Everything needs to be unified now, both in aviation, and in armored vehicles, and in the navy. We have some kind of game - one hundred and five hundred modifications of attack aircraft, fighters, tanks, ships. What does one series but completely different. Really criminal attitude. Modularity, interchangeability - this is the way to accelerate the repair and change of weapons. And the crews also need to learn multifunctionality. For example, a strike aircraft pilot must have air combat skills. At least to avoid enemy fighters. And the tank crew must be able not only to conduct combat in movement in attack, but also be able to clearly work in defense - in backward movement, on a march in retreat, from cover and so on.
      1. Klingon 2 March 2020 01: 02 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        with backward movement and negative gun pointing angles our tanks generally have a longstanding problem wassat
        this is the same with the review of the rear hemisphere of our attack aircraft:
        conclusion: you need to change the concept of application in modern reality
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Starlei.ura 1 March 2020 22: 18 New
    • 7
    • 7
    0
    As near-war cretins get it, no fighter will ever become a decent bomber in any way, but due to the increase in suspension units, it will also cease to be a fighter. Go put a candle on Ilona’s mask and pray the Great II. According to the results of 08.08.08, one su-34 demolished the entire air defense of Georgia.
    1. Klingon 2 March 2020 01: 12 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Starlei.ura
      As near-war cretins get it, no fighter will ever become a decent bomber in any way, but due to the increase in suspension units, it will also cease to be a fighter. Go put a candle on Ilona’s mask and pray the Great II. According to the results of 08.08.08, one su-34 demolished the entire air defense of Georgia.

      found with which air defense country to compare and then now is not 2008, but as it were already 2020.
      what does Musk have to do with this? Musk builds rockets, maybe he doesn’t always succeed, but unlike someone he doesn’t build skyscrapers in the form of missiles and a yacht the size of a destroyer
  • Vladimir SHajkin 1 March 2020 22: 18 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Perhaps everything is possible, but in this description of the bad there is no very significant factor, a fighter or attack aircraft are different preparations, of course you can hang some fighter aiming devices, but it is impossible to learn with new devices right away. Because experience is known to be gained over the years.
  • Pavel57 1 March 2020 22: 23 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    There are a couple more factors - NAPO needs to be downloaded. And the military wants to have a bomber.
  • Old26 1 March 2020 22: 25 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Quote: Whalebone
    Su-34 must be made the basis of MPA,

    And they planned to use it in naval aviation. EMNIP even the designation was his SU-32 NF.

    Quote: JD1979
    Ilya, do not be offended, but do not disgrace your articles at the tape.ru level. Su-34 is first and foremost a direct heir ... Oops))) Su-25.

    In fact, as far as I remember, from the time of his show in Mochulishchi he was positioned as a replacement for the SU-24. This alone suggests that he is not the direct heir to the SU-25. Or "hereditary traits" - is it an armored capsule with a crew?
    1. PilotS37 2 March 2020 16: 18 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Old26
      In fact, as far as I remember, from the time of his show in Mochulishchi he was positioned as a replacement for the SU-24.

      “Su-24 replacement” does not mean “direct successor to the Su-24”: the concept may be different, but the position may be the same.
  • TatarinSSSR 1 March 2020 22: 43 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    That's honest - I'm not special in aviation at the know-it-all level. Even through Wikipedia and air forums. But ... As for the need, the SU-34 is not needed - it is up to the military and the Defense Ministry to decide. But my personal opinion (I do not pretend that it is the only true one) is that most likely due to the fighting in Syria, where the SU-34 is intensively driven in the tail and mane, they are clearly worn out, moreover, in terms of glider so on engines. And although there it seems like rotation is taking place - but the cars rolled out their resource in a short time. It’s time to write them off. Replacing them with other SU-34 combatant aircraft from regiments in Russia is apparently already dangerous, since there are not so many of them in combat condition. And there are no replacements in the form of completely new strike aircraft, ground mainly for work on the ground, and are not yet in sight. That's why we ordered a batch. To make up for ushatannye in Syria.
    1. Garris199 1 March 2020 23: 22 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      So there 30 year old SU-24s operate mainly and the resource has not yet been worked out. They drove the SU-34 ...... and recalled it for modernization, since in terms of work efficiency, iron is inferior to pensioners 24kam with Hephaestus.
    2. EvilLion 2 March 2020 10: 17 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Now they do not make a resource for less than 20 years. The intensity of use in Syria is not very high, a couple of departures for a maximum of 2 hours, a total of 3-4 hours of flights a day to the car, if it flies every day, which is also wrong. With thousands of hours of resource, this is not a big problem.
  • Ded_Mazay 1 March 2020 22: 43 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    A fighter is a fighter. An attack aircraft is an attack aircraft. A bomber is a bomber. And attempts to cross the hedgehog with a snake, if something can give, are two meters of barbed wire.
  • sar1260 1 March 2020 22: 44 New
    • 10
    • 2
    +8
    It seems to me that the author simply does not understand the issue he is trying to write about.
    To begin with, the Su-34 was far from being developed with a clear eye on the American F-111 and Su-24 aircraft - aircraft that, as we saw above, became the swan song of highly specialized tactical bombers. The Su-34 was just developed as a shock development of the legendary Su-27 and only because the attempts to use the Su-27 as a fighter-bomber showed that the tasks that this aircraft is capable of performing on ground targets are narrowly limited. For this reason, in the late 80s, they began to develop the Su-27IB, which in the course of further improvements was called the Su-32, and the Su-34, which was already very different from both previous versions, went into the series. Su-27IB and was a direct prototype of the Su-34.
    I don’t understand how you can talk about the “swan song” that the author is trying to call the Su-34, if he actually closed the entire line of front-line attack aircraft, because it can also be used as an attack aircraft (though it's like a sparrow cannon ... ), a fighter-bomber and actually a front-line bomber.
    Yes, indeed, in terms of the main (in relation to this topic) characteristics of the Su-35S, it almost completely coincides with the Su-34 - both in practical range and in the mass of the combat load and in the number of suspension points, but ... if on the Su-35, addition to the equipment of the fighter to hang equipment for "work on the ground", then firstly it will sharply reduce the mass of the combat load, and secondly it will reduce the number of suspension points to accommodate weapons. At the same time, in terms of its maneuverability, the Su-34 is practically not inferior to the same F-15E and, if necessary, is capable of conducting air combat using melee and medium-range missiles with a thermal and radar seeker, which is quite enough in my opinion.
    Radar not with AFAR? So what? After all, he does not have a radar with a mirror antenna based on mechanical scanning, but with a VAR, which in scanning speed is not inferior to the AFAR and is capable of ensuring simultaneous operation of the aircraft both on the ground and in the air-to-air mode.
    So the article is actually "sucked out of the finger" ...
    1. EvilLion 2 March 2020 10: 14 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      and only for the reason that attempts to use the Su-27 as a fighter-bomber showed that the tasks that this aircraft is capable of performing on ground targets are narrowly limited.


      To understand this, no practice is needed, all that the Su-27 can do is eyeballs and illuminate the missiles with a laser rangefinder.
    2. Drummer 8 March 2020 08: 23 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The author of the article is right, and the F-111 and Su-24 were also conceived as heavy multifunctionals, so, in terms of ideology, the Su-34 is their direct descendant (minus the concept of breaking through the air defense zone at the WWII that has lost its relevance).
      Secondly, the practice of military operations in the same Syria shows that the Su-34, with a bomb load of 11 tons, most often flies to missions with a pair of five-hundredths. Obviously, the potential of the machine is poorly used, it is advisable to use something simpler and cheaper for such tasks, but there is an ambush - there are basically no suitable alternatives. So they take what they give.
  • Chess knight 1 March 2020 22: 52 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    In December 2019, there was an article from the military-industrial complex on the topic of Su 34M ... Let me remind you - the first model will be ready by 2022, there will be a new radar, navigation systems, improved display systems in the cockpit, will receive a new architecture that will allow the installation of modern systems, there will also be a new EW.
    Given the fact that their price is two times lower than the Su 35, this is a super plane, which is very, very necessary.

    And by the way, in August 2019, the Moscow Region signed a modernization contract, respectively, those "new" ones that will arrive before 2022 will be improved as much as possible. And after testing the 34M samples, it is possible to launch the modernization of existing ones, we will have just 130 of them. here you have a great fleet of bombers, with good payload and quite good combat radius. What do not like?
  • Bat039 1 March 2020 23: 09 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    The nonsense is complete. The Su-34 is capable of fighting the Su-27 on equal footing, it has been proven in training battles, so that the machine can stand up for itself. The cockpit on the Su-34 has a reservation, which increases the survivability of the machine when working on ground targets. Unarmored fighter-bomber fighters do not live long when working on ground targets; it has been proven by the use of an unarmored Su-17 fighter-bomber in Afghanistan.
    1. EvilLion 2 March 2020 10: 11 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Su-17s lived better, because they simply did not get into them.
  • akarfoxhound 1 March 2020 23: 24 New
    • 3
    • 4
    -1
    Ilyukha, let me curiosity, besides the interest in airplanes in airline magazines, do you have any real connection with the operation, development, VKS Academy ... do you have any relation to “real hardware”? Somehow I doubt very much after reading this opus, written in the bright epistolary genre ...
    winked
  • Protos 1 March 2020 23: 52 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    @ ALL MATERIAL POLYMERS wassat
  • bang 2 March 2020 00: 05 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Multifunction fighters (IFIs) are now not popular for a good life. It is expensive to develop a highly specialized aircraft. MFIs are cheaper, but more difficult to meet different needs on one platform. F-35 is a prime example. Yes, and new aircraft do not always live up to expectations, because, again, not from a good life in the United States with 2 aircraft of the 5th generation, no one is in a hurry to write off the old F-15.
    In Europe, primarily Germany, they rack their brains than replace the obsolete Tornado. MFI Eurofighter is not suitable, the American F-35 do not want.
    The Dry Family is an alternative. On the same base, the Su-27 created different platforms for different tasks.
  • Sarkazm 2 March 2020 03: 04 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Quote: Alf
    Quote: Kleber
    The most important thing is to maintain production capacity as potential.

    The most important thing is to keep experienced PEOPLE. Pros will run away and where to get others? To recruit boys with diplomas that do not distinguish a bolt from a nut?
    Gold words!!!
    These local aspects are like those three little pigs, they have everything according to the principle “What should we build a house”, they say, a click of the fingers and yesterday’s philologist is already driving the Russian space, we can’t build a couple of clicks and already a corn-mill ...

    If by plane. Many forgot that the Su-34 lost a lot for a simple reason - for the sake of economy. But even in the form that is now, it has no analogues.
    Su-34 has an armored cockpit, all vital components are also covered with armor, which ensures high survivability of the aircraft and crew safety.
    Due to the large volumes in the glider, it is possible to place large reserves of fuel and equipment.
    Su-34 has a longer flight range and a larger combat radius than a multi-functional fighter. The aircraft’s landing gear design allows it to fly from runways even with unpaved surfaces, not to mention highway sections, etc. where it seems like the Su-27, -30, -35 can take off and land and this is done during the exercises, but for the Su-34 this is an ordinary task.
    Due to landing pilots side by side, a wide and large cockpit, unlike a multifunctional fighter, it has all the amenities, from the possibility of cooking on board (warming up) to sanitary amenities, the ability to stand up to its full height or lie on the floor, all of the above allows the crew perform tasks in the conditions of long or long flights. Which in many cases allows him to replace the same Tu-22.
    On external suspensions, the Su-34 can carry missiles and bombs of greater mass.
    With the implementation of all that was originally planned during the modernization and production of new aircraft, the Su-34 will practically not need any special ground-based equipment with the possibility of autonomous basing and dispersal of aircraft if necessary.

    This is a magnificent aircraft and much has been achieved on it thanks to the very successful design of the Su-27, our "likely friends" do not have such a machine. The F-15 is not an aircraft with an integrated layout, etc., therefore, on its basis and if you wish, do not create an analogue of the Su-34, but the F-16 despite all attempts to increase its flight range by placing conformal tanks on top of the fuselage, etc. .d. initially a medium single-engine fighter, and by virtue of this alone has limitations.
    In short, do not confuse horseradish with carrots gentlemen sherspects.

    Su-34 is a magnificent multi-functional bomber and dot. It is only necessary to modernize it, that is, to implement all its plans, bring avionics to modern requirements and modernize the engines taking into account the latest developments on them for the Su-35S.
  • Nikolaevich I 2 March 2020 04: 09 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    As N. Mordyukova was indignant in one of the films: "Well, what kind of guys they went! First give him that ... and then ... once and again!" In fact, how to understand the “military men” who sobbed soberly in the 90s, regretting that “such a wonderful aircraft as the Su-34 disappears,” and then rejoiced, “as small as they are,” when they decided to take the Su-34 into service ... and now they scratch the tepericha in the back of the head, wondering: "And what do we need him for?" Although, in fairness, it is worth saying that at the "moment" the adoption of the Su-34 into service, in one "militarized" magazine there was an article in which the author expressed doubts about this aircraft! The meaning of his doubt ...: Su-34 is good, but his "train" leaves! If it was adopted during the period of time when it was created ... then this is “one” .... but when an aircraft is adopted, so many years after the development is completed ... when there are already signs of obsolescence. ... this is “different”! (Please note that this was “voiced” in the article I read ... and therefore, do not throw slippers at me ...!) But is the situation with the Su-34 so “fraudulent”? Hard to say! I’m not an aviation Copenhagen! I can only refer to what I once read and those remaining in my memory (considering age ... sclerosis ...)! So ... I recall that they wrote about booking the Su-34 ... about titanium armor ... In addition, he called him a fighter-bomber! And the “fighter-bomber” is “almost an attack aircraft”! (For example, once, the “official” Su-7 fighter-bomber was unofficially often called an attack aircraft! Maybe this is because there were “no / even” “real” attack aircraft at that time?) Maybe it’s worth against the “background” of conversations about the obsolescence of the Su-25 and the cessation of production thereof, to improve in Su-34 "quality attack aircraft"?
    I do not quite understand the author’s criticism regarding the “unification”! The author himself declares a “long list” of the same type of aircraft! Su-27, Su-30, Su-33, Su-34, Su-35- this is one "platform", one glider (T-10) ... one engine (if you do not pay too much for "modifications", "derivatives "...) Why not unification? The mentioned “twinkle” -in a minority!
    1. Bad_gr 2 March 2020 12: 08 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      Su-34 is good, but its "train" leaves!

      The Su-34 was created as a replacement for the Su-24, so its “train” cannot go anywhere, there are no other modern aircraft in this class.
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      Su-27, Su-30, Su-33, Su-34, Su-35- this is one "platform", one glider (T-10) ... one engine (if you do not pay too much for "modifications", "derivatives "...) Why not unification? ....

      I support this point of view.
  • Sancho_SP 2 March 2020 08: 35 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Do not forget that in the practice of recent decades, any aircraft, primarily a strike.

    Use expensive fighter jets as attack machines — spend resources, risk losing a car, use more pilots to deliver tons of bombs, etc.

    Therefore, the Su-34 is the same MFI, but with a strong shift of functions towards the shock machine. Which is logical, because in all conflicts where Russia has been involved for the last decades, there are an order of magnitude more strike missions than air battles.

    Moreover, if one draws deeper, it is precisely for the tasks of work on land / sea that fifth-generation machines should be sharpened, and not under Air battles.