Signed a new contract for front-line bombers Su-34

Signed a new contract for front-line bombers Su-34

The Russian Ministry of Defense signed a new contract for the construction of about 20 Su-34 front-line bombers. This was reported by TASS with reference to a source in the military-industrial complex.


According to the source, the military department signed with Sukhoi a new three-year contract for the construction of about 20 Su-34s in a standard version, with certain changes made based on the experience of operating previously purchased bombers. The contract for the batch of upgraded Su-34M is planned to be signed in 2021.

Last week, a contract was signed between the Ministry of Defense and PJSC Sukhoi for the construction of about 20 Su-34 front-line bombers

- the agency leads the words of the source.

Recall that in February of this year, plans were announced to sign a contract for the supply of several dozen Su-34 front-line bombers. At the same time, it was clarified that it was planned to conclude a contract for the supply of the Russian Air Force for the batch of Su-34, which had undergone modernization as part of the Sych development and development work, completed in 2019.

As part of this modernization, it is planned to install suspended reconnaissance containers on the Su-34, as well as significantly expand the range of aircraft weapons. In the future, it is planned to modernize the entire fleet of weapons of the Su-34 to the level of the Su-34M.

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

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Doccor18 9 June 2020 12: 36 New
    • 19
    • 6
    +13
    The best, to date, fighter-bomber in the world.
    1. Zaurbek 9 June 2020 13: 15 New
      • 9
      • 7
      +2
      Of all the Su24 and Su34 in the world?
      1. cobalt 9 June 2020 20: 40 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Well, there is still a tornado, the Chinese jh-7 have a “flying leopard”, the amers have the f-15e, and the Poles and Angola fly old people su-22, the last jaguars fly among the Indians. So there’s a bit more of them.
        1. Zaurbek 9 June 2020 21: 21 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Well, F15E and its later versions are quite perfect. Hardly. Tornado and Mirage 2000 D peers Su24.
    2. 5-9
      5-9 9 June 2020 14: 47 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      What kind of fighter is he? If by this word we mean tactical strike aircraft, then probably .... although the IS and MiG-27 were ....
    3. Alex777 9 June 2020 15: 34 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      VO3A (Andrey) May 30, 2020 10:55
      You need 300 pieces, this is the minimum quantity.

      Alex777 (Alexander) May 30, 2020 11:07
      I can’t say anything against 300.
      It is likely that this will be so. hi

      Slowly moving in the right direction. smile
  2. Nikolay Ivanov_5 9 June 2020 12: 37 New
    • 5
    • 6
    -1
    Now you can sleep more calmly.
    1. Tiksi-3 9 June 2020 13: 02 New
      • 8
      • 8
      0
      Quote: Nikolai Ivanov_5
      Now you can sleep more calmly.

      and before this contract they slept poorly ??)))
      1. Nikolay Ivanov_5 9 June 2020 13: 03 New
        • 4
        • 2
        +2
        The good thing is that new equipment is entering the troops.
      2. Gust 9 June 2020 13: 24 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        The same standards, just worried about the production chain. A pause of even 1 year affects badly qualifications, competencies and cooperation.
  3. Threaded screw 9 June 2020 12: 38 New
    • 15
    • 2
    +13
    The contract for the supply of S-400 and S-350 air defense systems, a contract for Su-34 front-line bombers, today is just a holiday.
    1. bayard 9 June 2020 13: 29 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      2020 is the year of completion of a number of weapons procurement programs, and new contracts are being concluded.
      Regarding the order of about 20 Su-34s in their previous appearance - a competent decision - production cannot be stopped until the Su-34M is ready. Yes, and make up for the loss (due to accidents) of these aircraft in the shelves is necessary.
      1. alexmach 9 June 2020 13: 38 New
        • 3
        • 9
        -6
        Some kind of strange logic. An order to load production ... But is such an order needed. Did they know yesterday that the contract expires in 2020? Or did you realize yesterday that you need a Su-34M in a "new look"? Then, probably, it was necessary to finish the work on the formation of this new look by the end of the old contract and already prepare the capacities for the production of new aircraft.
        1. bayard 9 June 2020 14: 41 New
          • 6
          • 1
          +5
          Quote: alexmach
          Some kind of strange logic. An order to load production ... But is such an order needed

          Definitely needed. The plane showed itself and the need to expand its fleet was finally realized. But at first they wanted to stop at this amount, they say they changed the Su-24 in the VKS, and in the naval aviation we changed it to the Su-30SM, but the realities of the needs of the Moscow Region changed somewhat, so even the merchant line to “minimize costs” failed.
          Such aircraft are really needed, and only for VKS in a quantity of at least 200 - 240 pcs. . They are also needed in naval aviation - as MRA near / middle zone aircraft, but this will require a new version of this airplane - with an increased wing area to reduce landing speed and increase payload weight, as well as combat radius.
          Well, the Chkalovsky plant can be congratulated - there will be work.
          Quote: alexmach
          Did they know yesterday that the contract expires in 2020? Or did you realize yesterday that you need a Su-34M in a "new look"?

          At the plant, they were already preparing (not of their own free will) to completely curtail production and dismiss employees. Under capitalism and a market economy, they try not to think about the prospect - "thinking is harmful" request , and the plant proactively worked on an improved version, in order to at least interest something. Fortunately, the situation in the world began to change, which even came to the bourgeoisie ... not over the head, but it did.
          The bourgeois think in a utilitarian way - it was necessary to renew the fleet, allocated money, and updated.
          At a minimum.
          All !
          Close the factory or look for orders on the side.
          But the Su-34 did not go for export - it's still a bomber, not a multi-functional, albeit with an option. And in the world the demand for MFIs.
          But in our VKS Su-34 oh how come. And if they decide on a new modification for MPA, then he generally will not have a price.
          In the meantime, they simply decided that the number of Su-34s is not enough ...
          1. alexmach 9 June 2020 14: 49 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Under capitalism and a market economy, they try not to think about the prospect - "thinking is harmful"

            Yes, the fact of the matter is that such large-scale projects as re-equipment should be planned for a decade ahead. The fact that the plant was loaded for a year is good. Well, in a year they will again be preparing to curtail production. And there should be a clear plan. “Now we have a contract for a year - we’ll continue to master the modernized version, if we don’t have time with the modernized version, we will again load the production with classic ones.”
            1. Alex777 9 June 2020 15: 41 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              The fact that the plant was loaded for a year is good. Well, in a year they will again be preparing to curtail production. And there should be a clear plan. “Now we have a contract for a year - we’ll continue to master the modernized version, if we don’t have time with the modernized version, we will again load the production with classic ones.”

              Still, they wanted us to be informed: "the contract has been signed," instead of "the signing of the contract is planned." wink
              If planning had not been carried out, then it would not be easy to take and sign a contract.
              My IMHO - not everyone began to tell us. And it is right. hi
              1. alexmach 9 June 2020 16: 28 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                My IMHO - not everyone began to tell us. And it is right

                Yes, perhaps from this point of view this is really correct. Remembering the mistakes with Armata, Kurganets and Bumirang ...
            2. bayard 9 June 2020 16: 03 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: alexmach
              And there should be a clear plan. “Now we have a contract for a year - we’ll continue to master the modernized version, if we don’t have time with the modernized version, we will again load the production with classic ones.”

              So it seems that such a plan is being implemented. Only this contract is not for a year, but for three. During this time, and should appear Su-34M, which will be the next contract.
              Now, just common sense has triumphed - and the production will be preserved, and the MO will receive new planes.
          2. Cyril G ... 9 June 2020 18: 00 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            A marine Su-34 with a new radar and the ability to suspend three Onyxes would be the optimal solution for the fleet.
            1. bayard 9 June 2020 19: 15 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: Cyril G ...
              Sea Su-34 with a new radar and the ability to suspend three Onyx

              As far as I know, there are no air-based Onyxes in service, and therefore will not be. But the promising air-based Zircon missile is quite expected for the Tu-22M3M. But even a Tu-22M3M with a rocket in the normal mode cannot be taken up for suspension - a limitation on landing weight with a minimum fuel supply, but unused ammunition. In the best case, for the Tu-22M3M there will be - 2 such missiles, and even then in the case of an increase in the wing area (which seems to be planned).
              The hypothetical Su-34M2 on suspensions will most likely have ONE Zircon or Dagger type missiles, but at the same time up to 4 light-weight anti-ship missiles - X-35 and X-31, + explosives can be suspended on other nodes for self defense. But such a complete body kit will be possible only for work in the near zone - at a distance of 500-1000 km. to the launch line.
              But even as such, two hypothetical Su-34M2s will have greater combat value than one Tu-22M3 when operating on a combat radius of up to 2000 km. But at the same time it will be cheaper and at its own cost (2 Su-34M2 versus 1 Tu-22M3M), and the cost and complexity of the infrastructure, and the cost of operation.
              1. Cyril G ... 9 June 2020 19: 24 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                But Bramos wearable Su-30MKi is. That is, there is no fundamental problem ... From the word in general
                1. bayard 9 June 2020 19: 48 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Cyril G ...
                  But Bramos wearable Su-30MKi is.

                  Do you propose adopting an Indian missile?
                  "Brahmos \ Onyx" is no longer so relevant for VKS and MRA, especially since the Indian "Brahmos" is pretty lightweight and has a relatively low range - about 300 km. maybe a little more. And weakened warheads, which is not surprising - the weight is reduced from 4000 to 2500 kg.
                  Quote: Cyril G ...
                  That is, there is no fundamental problem.

                  Fundamental - no, but also special needs - too. Air-based Zircon, which is an order of magnitude superior to the airborne Bramos, is expected to be in service, and the X-31 is in service, it will not yield to many Bramos, especially if you launch up to 4 such missiles in one gulp ( MiG-29, Su-30MS, Su-34, Su-35, etc.).
                  Su-34M \ M2 as a carrier of "Zircon" and "Dagger" is perfect. Both of these missiles are an order of magnitude superior to the Bramos in terms of aggregate combat qualities.
                  1. Cyril G ... 9 June 2020 20: 36 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Quote: bayard
                    Yes, and the X-31 is in service, it’s not much to give to that “Bramos”,

                    Are you so joking?
                    X-31AD - Launch range up to 160 km, with warhead weight - 110 kg.
                    Bramos - Launch range up to 300 km, with warhead weight up to 300 kg.
                    And I’m telling you just in case, aviation RCC is always easier than shipboard, at least due to the lack of a starting engine.
                    1. bayard 9 June 2020 22: 24 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      The extreme modification of the X-31 has a range of 210 km. Together with it, X-35s can be used in which the warhead is a little more powerful and has a water line impact of 260 km. And they are light - 4 pcs. on the MiG-29 it rises normally. For others - more, you can take a number.
                      In addition, there is already a “Dagger” and soon there will be a “Zircon”.
                      Su-34 can take one heavy missile and 4-6 explosive missiles.
                      Su-34M2 will be able to take, in addition to one heavy missile, take up to 4 small missile PCs + 4 explosive missiles. From the line of the order of 1000 km to the target, heavy missiles are launched that knock out the main goals of the enemy’s order, and from the line of the order of 200 km. launching light missiles to finish off the enemy. It is precisely for the possibility of such a variant of combat use that it is extremely desirable to obtain a hypothetical modification of the Su-34M2, but this is already a prospect at the end of this decade.
                      If such a decision is made.
                      1. Cyril G ... 9 June 2020 22: 28 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        Do you know for certain that Zircon exists? And then I'm full of doubts ...
                      2. bayard 10 June 2020 00: 37 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        I even know its starting weight in the air launch option.
                        Why confusion, if the rocket has long been in testing, it has already successfully launched from the ship and the target hit. So, the US intelligence community does not doubt its existence at all - since 2012. Moreover, the American press was the first to speak of the first reports of a new hypersonic missile. In the same 2012
                        And that first start was from an air carrier.
                        And our propaganda only later - much later joined the game - when the war in the Donbass ignited. If American propaganda didn’t make a fuss then, we might still not know anything about it, just as we hadn’t heard anything about the “Dagger” until it appeared in trial operation.
              2. sivuch 10 June 2020 10: 22 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                How simple it is for you. The problems with the Brahmos suspension were also very serious, not only with the mass, but also with the aerodynamics (hefty ingot between the VZ). They have been solved for more than ten years. And if initially the Bramosa wanted to add to all Indian MKIs, now it’s only to 40, specially modified.
                1. Cyril G ... 10 June 2020 10: 29 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  No. About the newly built MKI for Bramos in the know. Is it definitely impossible on the Su-34?
                  He and under the wings 2 tons of pylon for three campaigns.
                  1. sivuch 10 June 2020 10: 35 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Why not ? I’m talking only about the Su-30, that it is easy and simple to hang RCC with the weight of Bramos on it. And just the Su-34 is much easier with this. In theory (as in practice - I don’t know) 3 similar products are possible. In the same theory, 3 PTB-3000s can be suspended, but there are no such photographs, and, NNP, the pilots were not taught this. But one rocket, I repeat, is entirely possible.
                    1. Cyril G ... 10 June 2020 12: 11 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      You misunderstood me somewhat, or more likely, I have not clearly outlined my idea ....
                      I actually thought about the Su-34 / 34M. In my opinion, the Pacific Fleet should be equipped with 3rd squadrons (2 near Vladik, one in Yelizovo), 2 squadrons to the North, 2 to the Black Sea Fleet, and 3 to Ostafyevo, as a ShAP of central subordination - the reserve of the Navy Civil Code. And this step is an order of magnitude more important than puzzling impotent barren aircraft carrier attempts .....
                      And the Su-34 as a sea attack aircraft, let’s say, is so pretty. The cabin provides long-term duty on the plane in readiness for departure, and that is not unimportant in comfortable conditions. The aircraft is able to fight with and with the air, and with the sea, and even possibly with an underwater enemy. We recall the study of the 90s - the Su-32FN.
        2. Bez 310 9 June 2020 18: 37 New
          • 1
          • 3
          -2
          Quote: bayard
          They are also needed in naval aviation - as MRA near / middle zone aircraft, but this will require a new version of this airplane - with an increased wing area to reduce landing speed and increase payload weight, as well as combat radius.

          How interesting...
          And who will these planes destroy in the "near / middle zone"?
          What are these zones?
          And about the "decrease in landing speed" tell us more,
          What is your desire connected with?
          1. bayard 9 June 2020 19: 25 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Why do you need this?
            Are you an aviator?
            Of course not, otherwise they would not have been asked such questions.
            Quote: Bez 310
            And who will these planes destroy in the "near / middle zone"?

            All whom the Motherland orders.
            Surprised?
            Quote: Bez 310
            And about the "decrease in landing speed" tell us more,
            What is your desire connected with?

            It is connected with the experience of communicating with MPA veterans about the payload for the Tu-22M3 and the limitations of this landing characteristics of the aircraft.
            Aircraft often land without consuming ammunition. yes
            1. Bez 310 9 June 2020 21: 46 New
              • 1
              • 2
              -1
              Yes, I’m a bit of an aviator, but I don’t understand about the “landing speed reduction”. If possible, tell me why you are so concerned about this landing speed?
              And this moment was of interest - "about the payload for the Tu-22M3 and the limitations of this landing characteristics of the aircraft."
              I read somewhere that the "backfire" can land with 3 missiles and a minimum fuel residue, it seems that the RLE allows you to perform a number of landings with a weight greater than the maximum landing.
              You talk there with the "MPA veterans" deeper, they will tell you.
              1. bayard 10 June 2020 00: 17 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Bez 310
                I read somewhere that a backfire can land with 3 missiles and a minimum fuel residue,

                You read nonsense, he won’t even sit down with two - restrictions on landing weight.
                With only one!
                Sometimes for the show off, and for the sake of the parade / window dressing with one tucked in and one empty.
                All .
                An attempt to land a Tu-22M3 with two missiles on a suspension and on the "last bucket of kerosene" led at best to repair and a new permit for operation only through a design bureau commission. As a result, during the exercises without firing, they flew with two empty ones (sometimes even three), and on practical launches with only one.
                In the upcoming modification, the M3M plans to increase the wing area - just to reduce landing speed and increase maximum landing weight in order to reach the possibility of landing with 2 missiles.
                Quote: Bez 310
                Yes, I'm a little aviator

                Apparently, after all, a little, otherwise they would have heard about such things, but not read brochures.
                I’m not an aviator myself, I’m one of those who doesn’t let them fly ... and doesn’t fly myself (air defense), but since these are related classes (and we had our own aviation before), I had to communicate with many.
                Quote: Bez 310
                RLE allows you to perform a number of landings with a weight greater than the maximum landing.

                You tell about this to the crews of those Tu-22M3 that were bombed in Syria, tell us, they will laugh. Yes, at the same time ask what bomb load was taken.
                I give a hint - no more than 8 tons.
                But more often in general 6 tons.

                And who painted you so beautifully?
                Really twin from ATO?
                1. Bez 310 10 June 2020 07: 33 New
                  • 1
                  • 2
                  -1
                  Everything is clear with your knowledge about aviation in general, and about the backfire in particular - news from the TV, seasoned with a huge aplomb.
                  I will not argue with you, argue with an amateur - do not respect yourself. But I’ll say something. The “Backfire” does not fly with 3 missiles just because in this load case it will not fly far, and not because it cannot land with them.
                  Now I’m just an “MPA veteran”, the son of an “MPA veteran,” the brother of an “MPA veteran,” but at one time the navigator of the backfire regiment worked, so I know all the loading options for this aircraft, as well as the possible landing weights.

                  You ..., stop carrying the blizzard, it’s funny to read your speculation.
                  1. bayard 10 June 2020 12: 23 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    Quote: Bez 310
                    Now I’m just an “MPA veteran”, the son of an “MPA veteran,” the brother of an “MPA veteran,” but at one time the navigator of the backfire regiment worked, so I know all the loading options for this aircraft, as well as the possible landing weights.

                    Well, about the landing scales in more detail, please, "navigator of the regiment." I’ll clarify - with a fuel reserve of 15 minutes of flight, what is the maximum load for landing?
                    Or didn’t such information be given to navigators?
                    1. Bez 310 10 June 2020 13: 47 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      RLE Tu-22m3 secret.
                    2. bayard 10 June 2020 14: 24 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      Quote: Bez 310
                      RLE Tu-22m3 secret.

                      Quote: Bez 310
                      I read somewhere that the "backfire" can land with 3 missiles and a minimum fuel residue, it seems that the RLE allows

                      So how much fuel must be drained from the Tu-22M3, so that 3 (THREE) missiles are picked up, and take off with them?
                      A navigator?
                      "Shelf" ... lol
                      And how many rockets do you need to throw \ shoot into white light to land safely with a minimum fuel supply?
                      Does the “navigator” of the regiment “at least know the X-22 starting weight?
                      Or maybe he talks about some other rockets?
                    3. Bez 310 10 June 2020 14: 40 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      Do not grimace.
                      You don’t understand anything on the merits of those issues
                      who ask, "headlines are picked up," why
                      trying to argue with a professional?
                      What were you talking about? About the impossibility of landing with 3
                      missiles by weight restrictions?
                      I repeat once again - you are wrong, the RLE Tu-22m3 allows
                      landing with 3 missiles. But the fact is that with 3
                      missiles will not go to strike, since the flight range with
                      3 missiles are very small. About all this I told you earlier
                      and wrote, so listen to the opinion of the person,
                      which this plane not only saw in pictures.
                      You can find all weight data on the Internet, and I
                      I can’t tell you, because the RLE is secret.
                      I stop the argument with you, because you have to "... argue about taste
                      oysters ... with those who ate them. "
                    4. bayard 10 June 2020 16: 17 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      Quote: Bez 310
                      Do not grimace.

                      And who is grimacing on our site?
                      Yes with such an avatar? ... smile
                      Quote: Bez 310
                      trying to argue with a professional?

                      I have enough professionals for disputes and conversations, but this is not your case. request

                      Quote: Bez 310
                      What were you talking about? About the impossibility of landing with 3
                      missiles by weight restrictions?

                      Exactly . yes
                      Quote: Bez 310
                      I repeat once again - you are wrong, the RLE Tu-22m3 allows
                      landing with 3 missiles.

                      Oh, don’t promise. lol Although, if the missiles are dry (empty like a drum), then yes - show off at the parade. Then yes - it will sit down.
                      With empty.
                      Three.
                      You probably have seen enough of such flights \ have read. smile and didn’t even ask if the rockets were refueled.
                      The maximum payload during landing at the Tu-22M3 with fuel for 15 minutes. flight - 8 (EIGHT) tons.
                      MAXIMUM.
                      A rocket weighs 6 (six) tons.
                      So sit ONLY ONE!
                      It’s safe.
                      And the reference data on 24 tons of payload is the same data on 6,5 tons for the F-16. With a third of fuel in the internal tanks.
                      Therefore, TAKE OFF then it (Tu-22M3) with three missiles - takes off.
                      But SEAT cannot.
                      Even with two!
                      And if with two on the last bucket of kerosene, I can’t, then it is ONLY emergency, with subsequent detection, reconciliation, repair and, through the design bureau commission, access to new flights. yes
                      With me at one checkpoint, the real navigator of the regiments served. We provided them with jobs and communications.
                      What a professional you are, if you don’t know that the air defense (and especially the RTV) is dealing with aviation issues. Especially combat control officers. That has long been a part of the Russian Aerospace Forces as well as air defense and air forces.
                      That RTV units provide radar coverage of the situation for, precisely, navigators of the Air Force (and MRA, too - for combat interaction).
                      What's on the same Pacific Fleet, air defense representatives are always present at the military council ...
                      So do not blow your cheeks from your avatar, but look at least ... on Wikipedia, or something, or take a walk through specialized sites to present yourself with such an aplomb as the "navigator of the regiment" and the "grandson of the veteran MPA."
                      So stupid
                      Quote: Bez 310
                      RLE Tu-22m3 allows
                      landing with 3 missiles.

                      even a student armed with Wikipedia will not write.
                      Quote: Bez 310
                      You can find all weight data on the Internet, and I
                      I can’t tell you, because the RLE is secret.

                      Why didn’t you look into these “weight data” before writing nonsense?
                      I just know them.
                      But I won’t bring yet, so as not to drive you into even greater embarrassment.
                      Eat oysters.
                      bully
                    5. Bez 310 10 June 2020 16: 54 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      Well, you still have to put you in your place.
                      The weight of the "empty" aircraft - 68000, the weight of 3 "full" missiles
                      - 17400, maximum landing weight - 88000.
                      (All data is taken from the Internet.)
                      68000 + 174000 = 85400
                      88000 - 85400 = 2600.
                      If you take into account exactly the maximum landing
                      weight, then the landing will be with 3 rockets and the rest of the fuel
                      - 2600.
                      But there is a note in the RLE - landing with
                      landing weight (much more than 88000), quantity
                      such landings should not exceed ...% of the total
                      number of landings.
                      And again I repeat - do not argue with a professional!
                      So I will never argue with a plumber, as
                      I don’t understand anything in his important business.
                    6. bayard 10 June 2020 22: 38 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      What a dashing navigator you are:
                      Quote: Bez 310
                      If you take into account exactly the maximum landing
                      weight, then the landing will be with 3 rockets and the rest of the fuel
                      - 2600.

                      Gpos. = 78 - 88 t.
                      That is 88 tons. This is the maximum landing weight.
                      The fuel at the first approach is usually 10 - 12 tons (4th turn) is calculated taking into account the approach to the alternate aerodrome.
                      Gmax. = 96 tons, but such landings should be no more than 2% of the total number of landings. And after such a landing, a TEC, tragus, leveling, commission of the design bureau and conclusion ...
                      Therefore, it is VERY rarely possible to land with 2, but this is at your airfield and in good weather. Then the balance for landing is about 6 - 8 tons.
                      And you ?
                      2,600 ...
                      With fueled rockets. no
                      Reckless ...
                      And the empty weight is still closer to 70 tons.
                      Therefore, no one has ever flown with 3 missiles fueled.
                      And this is not only due to the small radius with such a load, but also on security issues.
                      And, as a rule, they didn’t fly to practical firing from the 2nd — it was suddenly canceled, and the weather would let you down.
                      Unless in real combat.
                      After all (rockets), and if necessary, drop the problem - heptyl (s).
                      From here the question arose of increasing the wing area during the upcoming modernization (the Tu-160 was also planned) - primarily to improve landing characteristics.
                    7. Bez 310 10 June 2020 22: 45 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      I proved to you that landing with 3 full missiles is possible.
                      I’m not interested in anything else; all the capabilities of the aircraft have long been known to me.
                    8. bayard 10 June 2020 22: 49 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Bez 310
                      I proved to you that landing with 3 full missiles is possible.

                      Only theoretically, which no one has done and will not do, except perhaps with weight and size mock-ups to prove the potential.
                      I talked about practice.
                    9. Bez 310 10 June 2020 22: 56 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      Tie ...
                      You are just ridiculous in your attempts to tell
                      me about the plane on which I flew.
  • Pvi1206 9 June 2020 12: 42 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    [quotecontract for the construction of approximately 20 Su-34 front-line bombers] [/ quote]
    original wording ... to puzzle partners? ... or decide how much you need? ...
  • PalBor 9 June 2020 13: 15 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    I did not understand a bit (without collision). And the contract for 76 Su-34, announced earlier, is it another, or did they reduce 76 to "about twenty"?
    1. Tugarin 9 June 2020 13: 24 New
      • 8
      • 1
      +7
      I think that this order is in the current configuration, so that it would take NAZ for now. And for the year they plan to prepare the production of Su-34M
      1. PalBor 9 June 2020 13: 25 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        AND! Su-34 and Su-34M. Understood thanks.
        1. Voyager 9 June 2020 13: 40 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          A total of almost a hundred. Very well.
  • jonht 9 June 2020 13: 51 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    The duckling had a long way to join the troops, almost according to the tale "About the Duckling Duckling".
    A good plane, there would be more of them in naval aviation: 2000 km combat radius, good nomenclature, good maneuverability and speed, and if you finish hanging containers, then today it will be an ideal option for the Navy.
    1. Cyril G ... 9 June 2020 18: 04 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      In the late 90s, an option was proposed which, in addition to the function of a sea drummer, was supposed to use anti-submarine weapons .. By hanging the compartment between the engines with torpedoes and the RSLB.
    2. Bez 310 9 June 2020 18: 43 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Quote: jonht
      2000 km combat radius

      Where does this radius come from?
      Without weapons and with "flying over the ceilings" with hanging tanks?
      1. jonht 9 June 2020 23: 29 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        From the article, 4000 maximum is indicated there, although if the Su-34 starts to mount a refueling system it will increase.
        PS I know about the fuel reserve on planes, but there is no data on the range of the Su-34M, and there are promised more advanced engines in terms of fuel efficiency.
        1. Bez 310 10 June 2020 07: 37 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          The combat radius is not at all half the maximum range,
          it depends on many factors, and on average, for the Su-34 is
          about 1000-1300 km.
        2. Piramidon 10 June 2020 10: 52 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: jonht
          if they begin to mount a refueling system on the Su-34

          And where did this system go, that it needs to be mounted again? request

          1. jonht 10 June 2020 12: 24 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            I confess, I forgot.
            A refueling system should also be returned somewhere during modernization .... Perhaps on the Tu-22?
            1. Piramidon 10 June 2020 13: 00 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: jonht
              Maybe on the Tu-22

              This is more accurate. At the time, the Tu-22M3 refueling rods were removed. Now, according to rumors, they are going to return to their place.
  • pavelty 9 June 2020 14: 14 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    What kind of crap, about 20 units, does the RF Ministry of Defense so do not sign contracts on state defense orders?)
  • Ratmir_Ryazan 9 June 2020 19: 02 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Why build 20 Su-34s if they are already preparing for the Su-34M series ?!

    Only recently, it seemed like there was news that they signed a contract for 76 Su-34Ms, now that they reduced it to 20 Su-34s?
    1. Cyril G ... 9 June 2020 20: 28 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      No. The main contract for 76 Su-34M + 20 Su-34 so that the plant does not stand.
      1. Ratmir_Ryazan 9 June 2020 21: 44 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        And why not immediately start building the Su-34M ?!
        1. Bez 310 9 June 2020 21: 51 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          There is no such plane yet, it is only in dreams ...
    2. Piramidon 10 June 2020 11: 02 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
      Why build 20 Su-34s if they are already preparing for the Su-34M series ?!

      The fact of the matter is that they are PREPARED. How long this preparation will last, with our traditional shifts, is not known, but the plant should not stand.
  • Zaurbek 10 June 2020 05: 54 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    In progressive countries, the main caliber of such KR machines is subsonic, such as the Scalp with a range of 900 km in different versions, and the RCC is one of them. It is a pity that there is not even a progress with the modernization of the Su30 and its replacement with the Su34.
    1. sivuch 10 June 2020 10: 43 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      In my opinion, they tried to explain to you that as a Su-30 bomber it can never replace the Su-34. Unfortunately, unsuccessfully.
      1. Zaurbek 10 June 2020 12: 40 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I don’t have to explain. Explain this to the Americans who use the F15E and its modern modifications with the AFAR ... and who, after leaving the F111 weapons, did not continue it. And in the bombing Americans Doki.
        1. sivuch 10 June 2020 15: 47 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          You see, they have bombers already. And in general, an example of type But the Americans have no proof. Each country chooses based on its capabilities and needs.
          And with the subsequent post, I agree.
    2. Cyril G ... 10 June 2020 12: 18 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      In the so-called progressive countries, no one has such a probable adversary as the AUG of the US Navy.
      1. Zaurbek 10 June 2020 14: 43 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Here you are right .... AUG with their air defense is so easy not to break through. On new missiles, bet on stealth and group intelligence.