Military Review

Su-34: justified superiority

143
Su-34 is a kind of aircraft. The fact that he works from dawn to dusk as part of a special operation in Ukraine, I personally hear, despite all the soundproofing, because the Voronezh airfield "Baltimore" is one and a half kilometers in a straight line.



Possible losses real and imagined


I would like to start this material with losses. The Su-34 is such an aircraft, which is just as honorable to shoot down as the Su-35S, which we have already talked about. That is why Ukrainians shoot them down in packs in the information space. Kharkiv, Melitopol, Volnovakha, Chernihiv…

With the evidence base somehow not very, I note. No, of course, the wreckage of the plane, piled in a heap, is a confirmation. And the star, and the tricolor coloring of the keel ...

But how ukroSMI work today, everything needs to be checked there 33 times, because they are still wizards. Give them free rein, they will sentence the entire 47th Bomber Regiment. And they all fly...

And "interviews" with the "downed" pilots, and "press conferences" also somehow do not cause bouts of pessimism. The staging is more than rooftop. So it’s hard to say where the truth is, because some (Russians) are simply silent, like dumb ones, the second (Ukrainian) mold so many fakes that it’s sometimes very difficult to determine where the truth is and where it isn’t.

There are currently no confirmed Su-34 losses by the RF Ministry of Defense.

About the plane


Quite a lot has been written about the Su-34 both in terms of performance characteristics and in terms of assessing capabilities. The aircraft seems to be of the “4 ++” generation, but from my personal point of view, all these “pluses” are for managers selling military equipment to other countries, since theoretically I can influence prices.

In fact, the Su-34 is a front-line bomber that is able not only to repel the attack of almost any modern fighter, but also significantly complicate its further existence. We can say that the Su-34 is a classic fighter-bomber, a versatile aircraft capable of solving various tasks.


Unlike two-seater colleagues in the class (F-15E and Tornado), the Su-34 has an in-line arrangement of crew members in the cockpit. There is a feature in this. The cabin is fundamentally arranged differently. The entrance to it is not through a reclining lantern, but through a hatch, which is located behind the landing gear and a door (!) At the rear of the cab.

Because of this, the nose of the aircraft acquired a characteristic flattened shape, with sharp side edges, turning into influxes in front of the front horizontal tail.

Well, the nickname "duckling" is from here.


The cabin itself, one might say, is huge. Crew members have the opportunity not only to take a vertical position during the flight and warm up, but also to cook food or perform physiological actions in the compartment behind the pilots' seats. In general, in the case of a long-range flight, the crew of the Su-34 feels much more comfortable than the crews of other aircraft. And if you wish, you can even lie down in the compartment in full growth.

Naturally, there is a serious air conditioning system on board and maintaining pressure up to an altitude of 10 meters at a level of 000 meters.

The cabin was armored with titanium armor, at the same time it protected the consumable fuel tank and engines. The total weight of the armor was 1480 kg. For comparison, the latest modifications of the Su-25 have a total weight of armored elements of 1100 kg.

The air intakes were made unregulated, since the aircraft needed the maximum speed not at altitudes above 10 thousand meters, but much lower. For the sake of extracting maximum speed closer to the surface of the earth, engines and engine nacelles were redesigned.

The use of titanium and composite materials, coupled with the rejection of the mechanism for changing the sweep angle of the wing, facilitated the design of the aircraft and made it possible to compensate for the armor and increase the number of weapons carried, while maintaining the excellent flight characteristics of the prototypes.

But armor and engines are not the most important thing in aircraft design today. Electronics on board plays a very important role both in flight and in the use of weapons.


The Su-34 was equipped with a digital control system, an active safety system, and a system for dampening longitudinal oscillations of the aircraft during flights in turbulent conditions. The active safety system had modes for spinning out of a spin and bringing it to the horizon, and made it possible to perform aerobatic maneuvers at low altitudes and supersonic speeds.

The flight control system, which uses elements of artificial intelligence, controls not only the state of on-board systems, but also the physical condition of the crew. In addition, this system allows you to automatically return to the airfield and make a landing approach in the event of a crew failure.

For combat work, the Su-34 has two target detection systems: television and infrared. The systems can be used both separately and together, if the conditions of use depend on the weather or time of day in terms of lighting.

The airborne radar is multi-mode, with a phased antenna array, detects air targets at a distance of 200-250 km. Can detect small ground targets. The second rear-view radar is capable of not only detecting enemy attacks from the rear hemisphere, but also directing air-to-air missiles.

Plus, the installation of containers with the Khibiny electronic warfare system at the wingtips significantly increases the survivability of the aircraft in combat conditions.


A quite fair question may arise: are the losses of the Su-34 possible?


The answer is complex and simple at the same time.

The main thing is that we are completely unaware of what and under what conditions the Su-34s were shot down. There is no clear information about the first at all, except for pictures of debris on the ground. The defeat of the second aircraft was recorded on the ground using a telephone. That is, in fact, the plane was caught at a low altitude and fired with the same Stinger. 1-2 seconds of rocket flight - no warning system can cope. It is possible that the situation was exactly the same in the first case.

The actions in Ukraine are very different from the actions in Syria, where the Su-34s could operate from a high altitude, outside the actions of the same Stingers. And, as you know, the terrorists simply did not have long-range air defense systems.

The Armed Forces of Ukraine still have at their disposal a certain number of S-300s and Buk, which are quite effective air defense systems. Here the main role is played by a short distance, which does not give time to work out the aircraft's defense systems or to maneuver the crew. The same "Stinger" flies to a maximum range of some 6 seconds.

In principle, the Su-34 in Ukrainian conditions is simply obliged to work from heights at which MANPADS cannot reach it. In the end, there are not so many decent medium and long-range air defense systems left at the disposal of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. But there are a lot of Stingers. And the chances of catching a plane at a low altitude, it turns out, are enough.

Of course, what happened in reality, if we find out, we will find out much later. But I express the hope that it will nevertheless become known, as with Tvardovsky, they will find “who shot where they hit” and will be awarded accordingly. For 15-20 years.

But I would like to know.

Literally two words about weapons



Air gun GSH-301. 30 mm caliber, 180 rounds of ammunition. With a rate of fire of 1800 rounds per minute, the b / c is consumed in 6 seconds.

12 suspension units under the fuselage, engine nacelles and wings, allow you to hang up to 8 kg of various weapons.

Very often in reports from Ukraine we hear that it was with the Su-34 that high-precision weapon. By the way, this is quite correct and logical. The navigator-bombardier is able to provide accurate targeting of ammunition without distracting the pilot from piloting. In this regard, only the Su-34 of ours can compete with the Su-30, but the "thirtieth" pure water heavy fighter, which also carries half as much weapons.

In Ukrainian conditions, there is no point in using heavy attack aircraft of the Tu-22M3 type until ALL Ukrainian air defense systems are destroyed. It will be difficult to get away from the Tu-22M missiles, the aircraft is larger and less maneuverable than a front-line bomber.

So it is on the Su-34 that all the training of targets with high-precision weapons from the air falls.

To do this, the “duckling” has X-59M tactical cruise missiles, which can be used without entering the air defense coverage area at all, from a distance of up to 250 km. There are Kh-29, Kh-25M, S-25L air-to-surface missiles, which, although they seem to be considered as anti-ship missiles, are not theoretically used against ground targets. X-59M each aircraft can take up to three pieces, X-29 and the rest - up to six.

Adjustable bombs 1500 kg (2-3 pieces) or 500 kg (up to 6 pieces). We leave all these tales from Ukrainian broadcasters that “this is a Russian bomb lying” because a bomb that was dropped from an airplane simply cannot lie like that. In such cases, it simply carries it to the ground.

Is it possible to work with conventional bombs? Yes, it is possible. Up to 16 FAB-500, up to 22 FAB-250 or up to 34 FAB-100. Plus, inherited from predecessors, you can hang up to 6 units with NAR S-8 (120 missiles) or S-13 (30 missiles), as well as up to 6 S-25 missiles. Yes, the S-25 is a very stupid missile. Unmanaged. But she has warheads weighing 150 kg, of which 58 are explosive charges, the rest is 9000 fragmentation elements.
In fact, of the entire world family of fighter-bombers, the Su-34, if not the most “punching” (and who compared it in battle?), then definitely the most comfortable. This was said by the pilots themselves, with whom it was a pleasure to talk. Of course, they did not fly the F-15 and Tornado, but there were those who could compare with the Su-24.

It is somewhat incorrect to compare the use of the Su-34 in Syria and in Ukraine. In Syria, it was possible to calmly peck at columns of militants with conventional bombs, completely without thinking about extraneous things.


In Ukraine, obviously, one has to take into account the peaceful infrastructure of the cities where the terrorist battalions and the Armed Forces of Ukraine have dug in, using non-combatants as a shield. Hence - only high-precision guided weapons or the use of conventional weapons with a huge number of restrictions. This is understandable, understandable and losses.

But in fact, it is here that the Su-34 can show and realize its strengths to the maximum. Accuracy and survivability. Something that is no longer available to either the Su-24M or the Tu-22M. And it remains only to be glad that our Aerospace Forces have such an aircraft at their disposal.
Author:
143 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. bandabas
    bandabas 18 March 2022 03: 36
    +2
    Yes, forum users will forgive me.
    From "Assy" -
    "Our pilots are nice guys,
    Heaven is their home.
    They are not sad looking at the world from above.
    Air Force. Air Force.
    Air Force.
    Air Force
    area of ​​special attention.
    Air Force
    Universal machine.
    Universal machine."
  2. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 18 March 2022 03: 39
    +38
    The use of titanium and composite materials, coupled with the rejection of the mechanism for changing the wing sweep angle
    Dear author, what a refusal?! Refusal implies the presence on the source code, but where is such a mechanism on any Su-27 clone? "Duckling" and Su24 have in common only the purpose and branded prefix Su!
    And the plane is great!
    1. Monar
      Monar 18 March 2022 04: 50
      +18
      As an option. Failure at the design stage. :)
      But here is an ambush. As far as I understand, the Su-34 "legs grow" from the Su-27. And certainly not from the Su-24.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 18 March 2022 04: 54
        +10
        Quote: Monar
        As far as I understand, the Su-34 "legs grow" from the Su-27. And certainly not from the Su-24.

        Here I am about that.
      2. Fitter65
        Fitter65 18 March 2022 06: 32
        +10
        Quote: Monar
        But here is an ambush. As far as I understand, the Su-34 "legs grow" from the Su-27. And certainly not from the Su-24.

        The first demonstration of an aircraft called Su-27IB (fighter-bomber) was in Machulishchi, in 1992. Board number 42 blue. He, in fact, was a standard Su-27 with a double cockpit, where the pilot and navigator sat shoulder to shoulder, like the Su-24 (this is the first thing that unites the Su-24 and Su-34), and in the photographs in front the plane seemed a little " crooked". Then, in the future, the aircraft began to acquire a "modern" familiar look. Well, during the production process it was called differently from the Su-27IB to the Su-32FN / 34. And what unites this aircraft with the Su-24 is not only what I wrote above, but also the fact that they came from the same design bureau, but also of course, they are produced like the Su-24 at the Novosibirsk Aviation Plant. There is no desire to comment on something more, from the word at all. And by the way, one and a half kilometers from the airfield, this is not one and a half kilometers from the runway ...
        1. Monar
          Monar 18 March 2022 07: 06
          +1
          Thanks for the clarifications. But let's be more precise. The variable geometry wing was not abandoned when designing the Su-34. And much earlier.
          But the pilot landing scheme raises a number of questions for my humble opinion. Especially when the prefix "fighter" is attached to Drying.
          1. Fitter65
            Fitter65 18 March 2022 07: 58
            +8
            Quote: Monar
            . The variable geometry wing was not abandoned when designing the Su-34.

            When designing the Su-34, the option with a variable geometry wing was not considered at all.
            Quote: Monar
            But the pilots' landing scheme raises a number of questions for my humble opinion.

            And what's wrong with the landing scheme?
            Quote: Monar
            Especially when the prefix "fighter" is attached to Drying.

            So the Su-27 seems to be a fighter all his life. By the way, the Su-24 at first also went like a fighter-bomber. By the way, the F-111 was generally considered a purely fighter at first ...
            1. Monar
              Monar 18 March 2022 08: 45
              +5
              About the landing scheme is a personal sofa opinion. Electronics is a good thing. But there is no side-to-back view at all.
              So the Su-27 seems to be a fighter all his life.
              I'm talking about 34, not 27.
              I repeat. For 34-ki, I consider the term fighter inappropriate. As for the 24th and 111th. The ability to fight enemy aircraft is a necessary and necessary thing. But the main goals of the 34-ki is the earth. Under this he is imprisoned. Kudos to the designers.
              Medium range bomber. This is what determines its purpose more realistically.
              1. Fitter65
                Fitter65 18 March 2022 13: 07
                +11
                Quote: Monar
                I repeat. For 34-ki, I consider the term fighter inappropriate. As for the 24th and 111th. The ability to fight enemy aircraft is a necessary and necessary thing. But the main goals of the 34-ki is the earth.

                I don’t know why, but it is believed that the term fighter-bomber came from the Americans. Although back in the days of World War II, in 1940, the Germans introduced this term. With each fighter squadron, they created a bomber squadron, and even regiments of the same fighters, which, in addition to the function of a fighter, could strike on the ground. Then, at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, out of necessity, we sent away everything that could strike at the advancing Germans ... And so the Americans in 1944, summarizing the experience of the warring, having a developed industry that supplied many aircraft, but did not have a real aircraft for the battlefield , something equal to our IL-2. And on the other hand, not seeing opposition in the air, they had no where to put such a mass of aircraft. And so they began to adapt their fighters for strikes on the ground. By the way, one of the famous American aces Francis Gabreski was shot down during an assault strike on a German airfield, either in the second or in the third call. After the war, they did not abandon their idea and quickly aging jet fighters, the first generation, they began to transfer to the category of attack aircraft, but since there was still a lot of piston aviation in the world, they, these first reagents, were able to maintain their fighter capabilities ... And already in the aircraft of the hundredth series, they immediately laid down the possibility, in addition to conducting air combat, to strike on the ground. Our situation was slightly different. Kukuruznik (not to be confused with the well-deserved An-2) completely abolished attack aircraft, well, it turned out that it is very expensive to send heavy bombers to strike at a target for which a couple of "hundreds" is enough. But again, considering that Kukruznik was more admired by supersonic speeds and missiles, then our first Su-7B fighter-bomber appeared .., No, of course we still had regiments on aging MiG-17s, which in the late 60s were like would be "attack aircraft" ... Well, in short, everyone has ministries of DEFENSE, and the fighter seems to be purely defensive weapons, but the bomber is purely out of necessity ... It is clear that the Su-24 and Su-34 cannot conduct an equivalent maneuverable air battle they can, but the message itself, well, or a purely reflex from the 60s, remained. Well, I’m so briefly retelling, I gave out other people’s thoughts, just a long time ago in the late 90s, a monograph was published about fighter-bombers, well, who and why. Unfortunately, the magazine itself "left" me, of course I don’t remember the name, although if you search on the Internet, you can find it. Well, so, Fighter-Bomber = Izyaslav, where it is profitable, he is Izya, where necessary, he is Slava.
                1. Monar
                  Monar 18 March 2022 18: 24
                  +2
                  Thanks for the clarification.
            2. iz odessy
              iz odessy 18 March 2022 22: 11
              +1
              f111, who at first was considered a "fighter"?
              1. vadivm59
                vadivm59 20 March 2022 18: 45
                0
                and the letter F (F) in the name of the sample does not mean anything to you? it was then that the FB-111 appeared. fighter-bomber.
        2. Boratsagdiev
          Boratsagdiev 18 March 2022 12: 41
          -4
          So it was originally supposed to be much simpler and work on up to sound (the engines were different and counted on a maximum of 1600 km.h) like a workhorse like the Mig-29 at one time.
      3. surok1
        surok1 23 March 2022 19: 00
        0
        And the Su-27 from the Tu-144. This is a double delta.
    2. Mar.Tirah
      Mar.Tirah 18 March 2022 05: 35
      -26
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      Dear author, what a refusal?!

      If the author posted false information about the downed SU-34s, there is a reason to start checking the site by the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 18 March 2022 05: 43
        +13
        Quote: Mar. Tira
        If the author posted false information about the downed SU-34s, there is a reason to start checking the site by the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

        But there is no need to throw! The author wrote very well about this issue. And this fits perfectly into the losses announced by the RF Ministry of Defense!
        1. Mar.Tirah
          Mar.Tirah 18 March 2022 06: 31
          -23
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          And this fits perfectly into the losses announced by the RF Ministry of Defense!

          Voice it! Just not Ukrainian ones about 44 downed planes. You can’t try, you won’t find them. And I consider the rest alarmism and jitters against the backdrop of rumors. .Do not repeat yourself.
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 18 March 2022 06: 44
            +9
            Quote: Mar. Tira
            Sound! Only not Ukrainian about 44 downed planes.
            What is so modest? Ukrovoeny report at least a hundred shot down.

            "Russian military personnel are showing courage and heroism in the course of carrying out combat missions of a special military operation. Unfortunately, there are dead and wounded of our comrades," Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said on Sunday.

            And to imagine that pilots are not among the dead is at least stupid.

            Quote: Mar. Tira
            No need to repeat.
            There is no need to be like.
          2. Vadim237
            Vadim237 18 March 2022 14: 27
            -2
            We definitely lost three Su 34s in Ukraine.
            1. Cheerock
              Cheerock 18 March 2022 14: 38
              -4
              Exactly two.
            2. Osipov9391
              Osipov9391 18 March 2022 17: 05
              0
              At least 4 units lost. A couple near Kiev at the end of February,
              one each near Kharkov and Chernigov in March.
              Only very naive or zombified people can not specifically notice the last two cases and reject them exactly as captured pilots Krishtop and Krasnoyartsev.
              The facts there are ironclad, friends confirmed.
              And I’ll say even more - they call the relatives of these pilots from Ukraine and promise to send them in parts ...
              1. ole1
                ole1 18 March 2022 17: 46
                -4
                Unfortunately yes. With caution, we can say that the loss of the 4th aircraft is confirmed by both photographic material and interrogations of pilots and witnesses. I wish it was less..
                1. Osipov9391
                  Osipov9391 18 March 2022 17: 49
                  -1
                  While it is difficult to say why. A possible piloting error led to a MANPADS missile hitting Krasnoyartsev's plane.
                  Near Kiev, perhaps the crew was sown and did not look at the SPO that its Buk was irradiating.
                  But there are reasons.
                  1. ole1
                    ole1 18 March 2022 17: 53
                    -3
                    According to Su 34, it is even more or less clear that they fly at low altitude. Although why do not they work with a built-in plane tree at a height? But the loss of su 30 (there is even an assumption that they shot down 2) is a completely obscure story.

                    In general, there are clearly not enough hanging containers for aiming
                    1. Osipov9391
                      Osipov9391 18 March 2022 23: 27
                      -3
                      According to the Su-30SM, I know for sure that 4 pieces were lost:
                      Kaliningrad Lieutenant Colonel Khasanov (pilots died);
                      Crimean captain captain Kozlov (pilots in captivity).
                      Both MA Navy vehicles.
                      And a couple more burned down at the Millerovo airfield after being hit by a Ukrainian UAV.
                      It's just that I know exactly where the facts are.
                      1. ole1
                        ole1 19 March 2022 12: 23
                        -3
                        I counted only downed ones. According to Miller, it’s not clear - I only saw a photo where they put out su 30. And it’s not clear if this is Photoshop. And even if the photo is not fake, who allowed to take pictures and upload them to the public? And even if they extinguish, the damage to the aircraft is not clear.
                      2. Osipov9391
                        Osipov9391 19 March 2022 12: 52
                        0
                        There 2 were burned down in Millerovo. It was not "Tochka-U" but a drone. He attacked the station on duty. He was shot down and he fell to where the ammunition lay. They detonated.
                        There were dead and wounded.
                        So I was told by people close to those events.
                      3. ole1
                        ole1 19 March 2022 12: 54
                        -2
                        Aircraft burned down or are subject to restoration?
                      4. Osipov9391
                        Osipov9391 19 March 2022 12: 59
                        0
                        It seems like they are not eligible. They were covered with fragments of the drone and shrapnel from the scattering of ammunition.
                        The first plane was burning on the left, the second plane on the right. But not for long.
                        And what's next and how so far they are silent.
                      5. ole1
                        ole1 19 March 2022 17: 40
                        +1
                        If so, it's a very sad loss.
                      6. House 25 Sq. 380
                        House 25 Sq. 380 21 March 2022 13: 02
                        -1
                        And why are you posting photos of some burning barns?
                      7. Saladine
                        Saladine 19 March 2022 15: 26
                        -2
                        It is authentically known - evidence in the studio ...
              2. Rutrick
                Rutrick 19 March 2022 11: 01
                -1
                Wasn't there a Su 30 near Chernigov?
                1. Osipov9391
                  Osipov9391 19 March 2022 12: 54
                  0
                  No, Su-34. From MANPADS.
              3. Saladine
                Saladine 19 March 2022 15: 25
                -4
                Will you announce the names of informed acquaintances?
              4. FRoman1984
                FRoman1984 21 March 2022 07: 49
                -1
                Three seems to be. One near Irpen (Kyiv region, fell on a residential building), one near Chernigov, one near Kharkov.
    3. Wertgan
      Wertgan 18 March 2022 07: 50
      +9
      Roman copied half of the text from a book about the Su-34. There, the refusal was considered in the context of such a Su-24
      1. avg avg
        avg avg 18 March 2022 09: 27
        +4
        And what surprises you? This is how the novel writes according to the principle: with the world on a thread-bare shirt! Hence, there are inconsistencies in his articles, etc. etc. But the royalties from publications regularly drip!
  3. Pavel57
    Pavel57 18 March 2022 04: 02
    +5
    For each conflict, one or another type of aircraft is optimal. On both sides, the attack of troops - is substituted for MANPADS. Is it possible now to get by with UAVs and helicopters - it's hard to say.
  4. Lech from Android.
    Lech from Android. 18 March 2022 04: 03
    0
    Of course, what happened in reality, if we find out, we will find out much later.

    The author has already learned from one aircraft ... as you yourself said.
    Here, the pilot's error was visible, who risked attacking the target from a low altitude ... the rocket went after it and it was likely that it hit the engine.
    Designers need to refine the system of protection against such a case.
    War reveals all the shortcomings of weapons.
    The rest of the SU-34 justified itself perfectly.
    The British deployed their air defense in Poland ... they say more dirty than the Stingers ...
    1. kytx
      kytx 18 March 2022 13: 14
      0
      But until 888, the Moscow Region did not want to buy it, they supposedly considered it very expensive.
    2. logix1312
      logix1312 18 March 2022 14: 03
      +4
      The Poles, of course, can host anything, but they are unlikely to risk using them over the outskirts of the sky. Otherwise, I think, their existence will not exceed a few minutes. But these are not disposable stingers.
      1. Osipov9391
        Osipov9391 18 March 2022 17: 07
        -2
        The Poles can limit the flight zone over Lviv, sort of like to protect their embassy and other things.
        And no one will touch the territory of Poland - any strike on it will immediately hook the Americans there and lead to war with the United States.
        The NATO Secretary General has already warned about this.
        1. Hot Dyusha
          Hot Dyusha 18 March 2022 22: 05
          +10
          They can only warn their mother. Lviv in the territory where the war is going on. If you don't like it, take your people out (which they did). If he arrives, then he will arrive and the psheks will not rock, believe me.
          1. Osipov9391
            Osipov9391 18 March 2022 23: 31
            -6
            If something arrives in Poland, then this is an almost guaranteed conflict with the United States.
            Although I doubt that the Americans themselves will allow it there - the Patriot air defense system is always ready there.
            They cover objects in missile defense.
            Well ... well, why am I explaining this to you? Things like missile defense are very well guarded against all sorts of threats from the air and from the ground.
            1. max702
              max702 18 March 2022 23: 57
              0
              USA for logs?
              1. Osipov9391
                Osipov9391 19 March 2022 02: 33
                +4
                Understand one thing, as if someone were not talking about "defensive systems" of missile defense, then what the Americans deployed in Poland and Romania is part of their strategic offensive nuclear arsenal and early warning systems at the same time.
                There are powerful radars observing the sky over Russia thousands of kilometers away.

                And such objects are very well guarded - fighters on duty, air defense systems ready to shoot down any targets that come close, and certainly minefields.
                For the US and NATO, these facilities are strategic and their security is certainly very high.
                1. max702
                  max702 19 March 2022 10: 26
                  +3
                  Quote: Osipov9391
                  their security is certainly very high.

                  That's the whole point .. Maybe. for sure, it should be so .. Yeah .. And then the ancient Tu-142 flies through several NATO countries and no one notices it until it falls .. Believe in the brightest Valinor further, there will be a surprise ...
                  1. Lucy
                    Lucy 25 March 2022 17: 43
                    0
                    And then the ancient Tu-142?
        2. surok1
          surok1 23 March 2022 19: 13
          -1
          Putin also kind of warned. Or do his words no longer count?
    3. Roman Efremov
      Roman Efremov 18 March 2022 21: 25
      0
      Compare too! The British have a rather serious air defense system there (there was an article on VO), Stinger should not even be mentioned.
    4. K9_SWAT
      K9_SWAT 19 March 2022 17: 25
      +1
      It is necessary to do KAZ, as for armored vehicles.
  5. Radio operator and engineer
    Radio operator and engineer 18 March 2022 05: 50
    +9
    Pilots love the SU34. For the first time made for the pilot, and not just the BZ.
  6. TELEMARK
    TELEMARK 18 March 2022 06: 10
    +10
    Thanks to the author, but there are two questions, even though I'm not a pilot:
    1. The location of the crew, I doubt that shoulder to shoulder is called in a row.
    2. The combat load of the Su-30 is no less than 2 times. From open sources - the same 8 tons.
  7. Two
    Two 18 March 2022 07: 03
    +5
    Good, kind and reliable "iron"! And let iron all evil spirits!
  8. Ros 56
    Ros 56 18 March 2022 07: 34
    +2
    yes I read everyone, the main conclusion is that the plane is cool. With what I congratulate all members of the forum and especially the pilots of this wonderful machine. good
    Well, you can cheer for that. drinks All with the upcoming weekend. hi
  9. Viktor28
    Viktor28 18 March 2022 08: 18
    +5
    I live on the glide slope of the Baltimore. When landing, the planes pass over the house at a height of 50 meters. You can take a good look at them. The second week, along with the Su-34, the Su-30 fly, how much is not very clear. I saw two landing. They probably all work together. Already by the sound we can distinguish them.
  10. Vladimir 290
    Vladimir 290 18 March 2022 09: 14
    +6
    "We leave all these tales from Ukrainian broadcasters that "this is a Russian bomb lying" because a bomb that was dropped from an airplane simply cannot lie like that. In such cases, it simply smashes it to the ground." This point is a little unclear. Here I personally had to see our unexploded bomb (probably just 500, although I could be mistaken, but quite large). In the Czech Republic, 50m from our location, she broke through a three-story building and lay in the basement, almost like new. I was still thinking then how they would neutralize it.
    1. Osipov9391
      Osipov9391 18 March 2022 17: 11
      +4
      It is possible that the crew dropped bombs and other munitions without detonating when the plane was hit by a MANPADS in Chernihiv. This function is provided in the event of an emergency.
  11. Yak28
    Yak28 18 March 2022 09: 30
    0
    The plane is certainly good, but in such a war, the MiG 27 would certainly have coped, modernized of course.
    1. yehat2
      yehat2 18 March 2022 16: 15
      +2
      Quote: Yak28
      The plane is certainly good, but in such a war, the MiG 27 would certainly have coped, modernized of course.

      Mig 27K or Mig27M, or did you mean an amendment to modern equipment?
      they might have done it, but it seems to me that the su-34 has much more survivability and ease of use, as well as much less problematic engines.
  12. English tarantas
    English tarantas 18 March 2022 09: 37
    -1
    Baltimore

    I understand that for most modern Russians this is ketchup. But why was it impossible for propaganda purposes to give a non-national American name to an object that would be mentioned in the news?
    1. kytx
      kytx 18 March 2022 13: 18
      +6
      In our case, Baltimore is derived from "Baltic Sea". And what about the Americans?
      1. English tarantas
        English tarantas 18 March 2022 16: 42
        +2
        And where are the Americans?

        While this
        Baltimore formed from "Baltic Sea"

        no one knows, and no one even comes to mind. But Hollywood did its best and many remember that there is such a city and district in the USA, and someone will even remember a city in Ireland and a person with such a surname. Just as with the word concentration camp, we remember not just a concentration camp, but a Nazi one, but with the word council, we remember the communists. The meanings of words may change. I understand that domestic propaganda had good reasons to ignore this issue and give the ideological work to those who changed the meaning of this word, but it’s strange that they are now putting a bolt, although it seems like we’ve been “opposing” the West for many years, we haven’t even done our favorite renaming, although the streets and cities were normally renamed.
  13. Wildcat
    Wildcat 18 March 2022 09: 52
    +11
    In fact, the Su-34 is a front-line bomber that is able not only to repel the attack of almost any modern fighter, but also significantly complicate its further existence. We can say that the Su-34 is a classic fighter-bomber, a versatile aircraft capable of solving various tasks.
    - IMHO, no matter how much I watched the video from the SU34, I did not see any other air-to-air weapons, except for short-range infrared missiles and a cannon (moreover, the pilots do not have a helmet-mounted control system).
    Accordingly, we are not talking about any air combat, "to repel an attack by almost any modern fighter" and "significantly complicate its further existence" in principle.

    IMHO, the Su-34 is an excellent (as far as possible) machine for "working on the ground", serial, which is important! Su-34 is "here and now".
    Apparently, this is a good replacement for the Su24 and for the Tu 22 (there is no other). Refueling in the air, the physical ability of pilots to work for a long time. The fact that the pilots sit "side by side" IMHO simplifies communication, which is important (although with air tankers we ... are not very good).
    A solid reservation is also a necessary thing in our conditions, when the aircraft is forced to work near the ground, it increases the chances of saving the aircraft or crew.

    The second rear-view radar is capable of not only detecting enemy attacks from the rear hemisphere, but also directing air-to-air missiles.
    - what kind of missiles to direct?

    In principle, the Su-34 in Ukrainian conditions is simply obliged to work from heights at which MANPADS cannot reach it.
    IMHO, if you work with "cast iron" from such heights, then you can hit a target the size of a house. Big house. Hence the problem with "hang up to 8 kg of various weapons" - you can "hang" it, but it's hard to hit.
    You can throw bombs of 500 kg for a long time and not get hit, therefore, "partners" and "run away" into "small-diameter bombs", their analogues and other guided weapons plus reconnaissance / target designation containers: it’s really cheaper to kill, planes and pilots are safer, and collateral damage is less.
    I would like to see at least our analogues of jade / laser jade, well, at least we can attach a control kit to the bomb?

    "because a bomb that was dropped from an airplane simply cannot lie like that. In such cases, it simply blows it to the ground" - well, seriously, what is it ...
    1. Hexenmeister
      Hexenmeister 18 March 2022 10: 38
      +2
      I have not seen any other air-to-air weapons, except for short-range IR missiles and a cannon (moreover, the pilots do not have a helmet-mounted control system).
      Accordingly, we are not talking about any air combat, "to repel an attack by almost any modern fighter" and "significantly complicate its further existence" in principle.
      I think it's a little different! Officially, more modest data on radars and V-V missiles are officially indicated; formally included in the armament are:
      The Sh-141-02E multifunctional radar station with a phased array antenna, manufactured by OAO TsNPO Leninets, provides detection of fighter-type air targets at ranges up to 120 km. Viewing angles are ±60°. The number of simultaneously tracked air targets by the radar of the Su-32 aircraft reaches 10, while the aircraft can simultaneously fire at 4 of them.
      In the air-ground mode, the radar provides:
      - detection of a target of the "railway bridge" type at ranges up to 100 km;
      - simultaneous tracking and firing of 4 ground targets;
      - mapping of the earth's surface with high resolution.
      To destroy air targets, short-range air-to-air missiles with an infrared homing head R-73E and RVV-MD - up to 6 pieces, as well as medium-range air-to-air missiles with an active radar homing head RVV-AE - also up to 6 pieces.

      That is, according to the characteristics, it turns out approximately a variant of the "light" modernization of the N-001 from the Su-27, which is understandable, the developer of the radar is "non-core" for air combat, and all hope for the Su-34 in long-range air combat is for the complex interaction "radar-electronic warfare ", and for close combat there are radar modes without NSC.
      PS I fully admit that all this data is for an attempt to sell the aircraft for export, it is painfully often a confusion of the Su-34 and Su-32.
      1. Wildcat
        Wildcat 18 March 2022 11: 03
        +1
        hi
        I rummaged more carefully, found only P27 (with a "semi-active" or "active" "head", I don't understand), but definitely not IR
        https://www.vesti.ru/article/1769647
        1. Hexenmeister
          Hexenmeister 18 March 2022 11: 19
          +1
          https://www.sukhoi.org/products/samolety/254/
          1. Wildcat
            Wildcat 18 March 2022 11: 27
            +1
            IMHO, this is
            all this data is for an attempt to sell the aircraft for export, it is painfully often the confusion of the Su-34 and Su-32.
            . There, for example, there is no data on the R27, but it is "in fact" on the Su34. And what is written there, IMHO, is not visible to be hung.
            1. Hexenmeister
              Hexenmeister 18 March 2022 11: 43
              +2
              Well, the Su-35 was also usually shown to us from 27ER, but it makes no sense to "lure" third-party buyers with this missile. In peacetime, this missile can also be shown to suppress an attempt to violate the border. We do not know the full composition of weapons according to the terms of reference. This only confirms the idea that air combat is, to put it mildly, not the main occupation for the Su-34.
        2. Bongo
          Bongo 19 March 2022 11: 12
          +2
          Quote: Wildcat
          I rummaged more carefully, found only P27 (with a "semi-active" or "active" "head", I don't understand), but definitely not IR

          UR R-27 with AR seeker does not exist in nature. And the very suspension of medium-range air combat missiles on a front-line bomber is essentially absurd.
          1. Wildcat
            Wildcat 19 March 2022 12: 10
            +2
            hi
            Good afternoon!
            A couple of times I came across information, IMHO, even at MAKS they laid out:
            "R-27AE, ER, P AA-10 ALAMO D
            The aircraft missile R-27AE developed by GosMKB LVympel belongs to medium-range guided missiles and is designed to combat air targets.
            The missile has inertial control with radio correction and active radar homing in the final flight segment. "
            "At a number of air shows, materials were presented on the R-27EA missile variant with a combined guidance system. In this variant, the ARGS-27 seeker is used - inertial, with radio correction and active radar homing in the final section, which ensures the implementation of the "fire and forget" principle. "

            IMHO, in the video above, it was clearly not the "IR head" that was visible, but the rest is unknown to me ...
            suspension of medium-range air combat missiles on a front-line bomber is essentially absurd
            in that particular case, it was IMHO, our answer is "NATO and Turkey personally", they say, if you attack our bomber, you will get it.
            And the authorities need to report something about the measures taken. "Air-to-air missiles on the Su34" for the report is the very thing. Yes, and the video for Vesti turned out to be good.

            And now I came across a photo of 500 kg of "cast iron". Attributed to the same Su34. It's the 21st century, 2022. Su 34 at low altitude in the SMU enters the attack with "cast iron" in the area of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbMANPADS. The result is obvious.

            Well, guided munitions are not visible in sufficient quantity and nomenclature. And it is not visible in sufficient UAVs, including armed ones.

            Although we have been fighting for more than a year, including in Syria, and it would seem that one could see how "they" are fighting and how communications, guidance and defeat of targets are arranged with "close air support."

            Judging by the fact that weapons in the Armed Forces of Ukraine reach the front line within a week from the day NATO announces that another Panzerfaust3 is delivering, "battlefield isolation" is also not 100% to put it mildly.

            And in terms of absurdity, this is already in the part of AWACS, it is not clear how Ukrainian aviation has survived so far. I'm not talking about "ukrovideo", there are no dates or links to the place, but even our Defense Ministry again claims to be another drone. https://www.vesti.ru/article/2691351
            1. Hexenmeister
              Hexenmeister 19 March 2022 19: 22
              +1
              There is no 27A rocket, this is nothing more than a project, perhaps even with mock-ups, but without any serial production, and the video was 27ER.
            2. Bongo
              Bongo 20 March 2022 03: 43
              +3
              Quote: Wildcat
              The missile has inertial control with radio correction and active radar homing in the final flight segment. "
              "At a number of air shows, materials were presented on the R-27EA missile variant with a combined guidance system. In this variant, the ARGS-27 seeker is used - inertial, with radio correction and active radar homing in the final section, which ensures the implementation of the "fire and forget" principle. "

              Serially "active" missiles of the R-27 family have never been produced. In service there are "semi-active" and with IG-GOS. A credible source also claimed that there were "passive" - ​​designed to destroy air targets emitting in the radar frequency range. But I have not seen such missiles. request

              And here are some more photos from my personal collection.


              In the photo, the Su-27SM with the R-73, R-27R and R-27T missiles.


              Su-35S of the first series

              Training apparatus

              Well, that's understandable.)

              1. Wildcat
                Wildcat 20 March 2022 11: 20
                +1
                hi
                Thank you!
                As always, guides/exhibitions and real life are two big differences.
    2. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 18 March 2022 10: 44
      -1
      Su-34 is another example of sabotage. It would never occur to anyone in the world to create, and most importantly, purchase a front-line bomber from the Cold War era in the 21st century. The purchase of 80 ~ 100 multi-purpose Su-30s, instead of ~ 120 bombers, would be many times more effective.
      This is for then, now it is necessary to speed up the development of the Su-75 and a single-engine jet UAV based on it. Better late than never.
      1. Wildcat
        Wildcat 18 March 2022 11: 15
        +4
        hi
        IMHO, "maemo sho maemo".
        Better Su34 yesterday and today than Su75 and UAVs based on it tomorrow (which is not a fact at all).

        Relatively "better-worse". IMHO, in theory, the Su30 as a multifunctional one is better, but in practice: how often does an IS perform the functions of a fighter? Above, I posted a link to the Su34 with the P27, well, now is he a very good fighter?

        Yes, and it is possible to make a multi-purpose aircraft, but in reality it is even more difficult to make multi-purpose crews.

        For work on the ground, as it is being done now, IMHO, the Su34 is better than the Su30.

        Moreover, IMHO, that the Su30 and Su34 have different manufacturers, "everyone should be given something to eat."
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 18 March 2022 12: 35
          -1
          Quote: Wildcat
          Well, how often does IS perform the functions of a fighter?

          It’s better to ask how much and who has IS left in principle. The same F-15E and its modernization are multi-role fighters, why we call it a fighter-bomber is not clear. This classification is outdated and aircraft in this class have not been developed in "Western" countries since the 70-80s.
          Quote: Wildcat
          but making multi-purpose crews in reality is even more difficult.

          This is the second element of sabotage noted in the correspondence, after the reduction of flight schools there is a huge shortage of qualified pilots.
          Quote: Wildcat
          To work the earth as it is done now, IMHO, Su34 is better than Su30.

          Throwing cast iron and storming NARs - yes, the Su-34 will be better in this. But this has nothing to do with modern warfare.
          Quote: Wildcat
          that the Su30 and Su34 have different manufacturers, "we must give everyone a meal."

          All the pains of aviation went through. This is the 3rd element of sabotage. The production of the same type but technically different Su-30\34\35 aircraft greatly complicates and increases the cost of production and operation, instead of unification, artificial variety.
          1. Wildcat
            Wildcat 18 March 2022 16: 11
            +4
            All the pains of aviation went through.
            "It hurts - it means alive."
            I do not write that this is an ideal option, I write that so far it is the most appropriate, IMHO.
      2. iz odessy
        iz odessy 18 March 2022 22: 18
        -3
        judging by the data of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, even multiplied by 3, you are right. Efficiency is a question, but "affectability" is depressing. Moreover, the air defense of the Armed Forces of Ukraine fundamentally has nothing that could confuse the normal Soviet air defense
    3. Ol willy
      Ol willy 18 March 2022 15: 34
      -2
      So KABs have been around for a long time ... in reference books at least
    4. yehat2
      yehat2 18 March 2022 16: 28
      -5
      Quote: Wildcat
      IMHO, the Su-34 is an excellent (as far as possible) machine for "working on the ground", serial, which is important! Su-34 is "here and now".
      Apparently, this is a good replacement for the Su24 and for the Tu 22 (there is no other). Refueling in the air, the physical ability of pilots to work for a long time. The fact that the pilots sit "side by side" IMHO simplifies communication, which is important (although with air tankers we ... are not very good).
      A solid reservation is also a necessary thing in our conditions, when the aircraft is forced to work near the ground, it increases the chances of saving the aircraft or crew.

      as an urgent replacement for the su-24 and tu-22 in the role of a front-line bomber, yes, the su-34 is rated well. but looking at world experience - the f-111, the jaguar and a number of other machines, it seems to me that the su-34 is far from the ceiling of our current technologies, you can make the bomber noticeably better. Let me remind you that the Su-34 appeared at a time when, apart from small-scale developments of dry, we could not get anything. And in my opinion, the machine has a very noticeably limited potential and it is already worthwhile to deal with a new strike machine within 30-45 tons, in parallel with the Pak Fa and Su-75.
      Especially since there is already a new engine. If the strike capabilities of the machine were raised to the f-111A without a noticeable increase in weight, loss of armor and other important performance characteristics, then this would be an excellent machine. And the restrictions on the combat load of the su-34 simply oblige them to help with larger vehicles.
      I think that based on the nodes of the Su-27-Su-35, Su-57 and Su-34 series, it is quite possible to make a new machine that will greatly surpass the Su-34.
      But ... do we have a strong team that is able to pull this work?
      Finally, it seems to me important to have a machine that can accurately work with free-fall bombs from a great height, with thruster systems and gliders.
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 18 March 2022 17: 20
        +2
        Quote: yehat2
        If we were to raise the strike capabilities of the machine to f-111A without a noticeable increase in weight, loss of armor and other important performance characteristics,
        Did the F-111 have armor? Here is his front end after the bird strike:

        The cabin itself, of course, is stronger, but I did not find any mention of any armor.
        Unlike ours, where the pilots are covered with titanium armor and armored glass.

        Considering that most of the air defense missiles are not designed for a direct hit, but explode next to the aircraft, knocking it down with fragments, then which one is better suited for war?
        By the way, in Syria, up to 34 tons of bombs were loaded on the Su-12, which is allowed according to the passport (with a decrease in the combat radius)
        1. yehat2
          yehat2 18 March 2022 17: 32
          -3
          you did not understand. Of course, the protection on the f-111 is weak, I mean, without loss of protection at the current level of the su-34.
    5. Bongo
      Bongo 19 March 2022 11: 09
      +5
      Hello!
      Quote: Wildcat
      Su-34 is an excellent (as far as possible) machine for "working on the ground", serial, which is important! Su-34 is "here and now".

      There is no limit to perfection, and I will not talk about the "features" of the Su-34. With regard to what is stated in this article, some statements of a technical nature are not true. So, in the rear of the Su-34 there is no radar, but there is an auxiliary power unit for autonomous power supply at the airfield.

      Photo of the auxiliary power turbine in the tail section. It is perfectly clear that this is not a radar.
  14. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 18 March 2022 09: 59
    -1
    Strange plane, not very clear to me::
    1. Why is 34ka more load-bearing in relation to 30ke? TRD Al31 (both there and there), there is no armored cab on 30k ....
    2. When using a hanging container on the 30k, there is also a 2nd crew member who can be an operator.
    3. The presence of an armored cabin ..... is it needed?
    4. If you bother on a cabin like the 34ke (the armor is still under the "?"), Isn't it logical to make the bomber more distant, moving closer to the Tu22. there are more powerful Al41 turbojet engines ... even more powerful "30s" are on the way ....
    5. And of course, a more modern (and the same for all Sushki) PFAR from Su35S suggests itself (or better, AFAR in general). He will appear on the Su30SM2 and 30ka will see better.
    6. Having 100 Su30SM2s in service, we have 100 fighters and 100 bombers (with containers with optics), and having 100 Su34s .... we have 100 bombers. Pilots are also different.
    7. If you look at the latest hostilities, then the VKS bombs from 5-6 t.m. with the help of Hephaestus .... and he is already on all Sushki.
  15. Maks1995
    Maks1995 18 March 2022 10: 01
    0
    The plane is good and beautiful.
    IMHO, there are few specifics in the article, there are too many general arguments.
    Basically just a repetition of the famous
  16. yehat2
    yehat2 18 March 2022 10: 41
    -2
    from Voronezh to Ukraine 350 kilometers in a straight line
    do they fly that far?
  17. Commodore Arctic
    Commodore Arctic 18 March 2022 10: 54
    +4
    Let me tell you right now - I DO NOT Compare our Su-34 !!
    Just an interesting fact!

    FB-111 - a bomber of a very respectable age - does not go in comparison with the Su-34 - Estessna! soldier


    Unlike two-seater colleagues in the class (F-15E and Tornado), the Su-34 has an in-line arrangement of crew members in the cockpit. There is a feature in this.


    But, it used an in-line arrangement of pilots!




    In addition, an interesting ejection system was created there.



    In the event of an accident or combat damage, the entire cockpit was shot back!
    Parachutes are in the fairing behind the pilots. For a softer landing, special balloons were inflated from the bottom of the cockpit in front and behind!

    A very original solution for the development of 1962!
    1. Lt. Air Force stock
      Lt. Air Force stock 18 March 2022 13: 42
      +6
      Quote from Commodore Arctic
      Let me tell you right now - I DO NOT Compare our Su-34 !!
      Just an interesting fact!

      The F-111 had a huge payload of 14,29 tons. The combat radius is 2140 kilometers.
      1. Commodore Arctic
        Commodore Arctic 18 March 2022 14: 24
        +1
        Aha! I read ... my father had a book "Supersonic Aircraft" by Tsikhosh - a lot was written there, including on FB-111
        1. yehat2
          yehat2 18 March 2022 16: 05
          +1
          Quote from Commodore Arctic
          including FB-111

          this is one of the aircraft of the US Air Force that most interested me.
          For the moment of creation - just an amazing car.
          1. Commodore Arctic
            Commodore Arctic 18 March 2022 16: 11
            +2
            Aha
            From foreign cars I liked 3 models: FB-111, F-16, “Tornado”
            Very interesting and unique planes!

            Of the aircraft of the USSR, I really like Myasishchev's M-3
            1. yehat2
              yehat2 18 March 2022 16: 47
              -1
              Well, from the Soviet ones, I was interested in the Mig-21 and Mig-25, the bombers were somehow not very good.
      2. yehat2
        yehat2 18 March 2022 16: 04
        +1
        Quote: Lt. air force reserve
        F-111 had a huge combat load of 14,29 tons

        no need to advertise. If you look at it like that, they all have a huge load on their aircraft, but if you take a real load with a normal supply of fuel, then everything looks much more normal. Most likely we are talking about the maximum load during flight without turning the wings from the takeoff mode.
        a lot in common between f-111C and su-34. close mass, close performance characteristics, adjusted for booking, close load, close tasks.
        But the first is not a very maneuverable low-altitude breakthrough aircraft, and the second is more of a strike fighter.
  18. _Ugene_
    _Ugene_ 18 March 2022 12: 13
    0
    Su-34 in Ukrainian conditions is simply obliged to work from heights at which MANPADS cannot reach it
    it is possible to work from such heights only with high-precision missiles, otherwise there will be a large spread and casualties among the civilian population, and we don’t have so many precision-guided weapons, it’s too expensive
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 18 March 2022 14: 31
      0
      For that, there are aiming complexes that make it possible to make unguided bombs accurate, and at the expense of high-precision weapons of the aviation MO it orders thousands of pieces a year from KTRV. The same X 29, X 25 with satellite guidance X 31, X 58, X 59, KAB 500, KAB 1500.
    2. Commodore Arctic
      Commodore Arctic 18 March 2022 14: 48
      0
      Using Hephaestus bombing equipment is not a question
      1. _Ugene_
        _Ugene_ 18 March 2022 15: 10
        +5
        Hephaestus does not make high-precision weapons out of KABs, accuracy is certainly increasing, but not so much that these weapons would be used in residential areas from where civilians are not allowed to leave
        1. yehat2
          yehat2 18 March 2022 16: 07
          -2
          well, it probably depends on the caliber of the bombs. No matter how exactly you throw a 5-ton bomb, there won’t be a quarter, but if 50-250kg, it can work out for sure.
    3. Osipov9391
      Osipov9391 18 March 2022 17: 15
      +2
      At high altitudes in Ukraine, Buk, S-300 and MiG-29 operate on our aviation. And sometimes successfully.
      1. _Ugene_
        _Ugene_ 18 March 2022 17: 23
        0
        this is just the smallest of all the problems, all the moments either landed or there is nowhere to take off, in order for the radar to take off in an instant, the target must first be detected, and where are these radars, they were knocked out first of all, beeches and s-300, if they remain, are almost never used , because they know that they will immediately lose these remnants
        1. Osipov9391
          Osipov9391 18 March 2022 17: 53
          +5
          This is the biggest problem today. MiG-29s are hidden in hangars and other structures in Western Ukraine. They fly from some old airfields/civilian airports/highways.
          And they rise when the NATO AWACS on duty in the skies of Poland report to the Ukrainian headquarters "face" here and there.
          There are several dozen beeches, they are mobile and wander through the forests. If their radars are off but impossible to find.
          1. Hexenmeister
            Hexenmeister 18 March 2022 21: 02
            +2
            How is it that the ancient MIG-29, whose radar has a detection range below the far boundary of the launch zone of 77 missiles, which has 27 missiles as weapons even without "E", before which the radar must switch to continuous tracking mode, from which even the ancient PDFs began to yell, can pose a threat in a dogfight with modern fighters ???
            1. Sanguinius
              Sanguinius 18 March 2022 21: 31
              +1
              So, the same MiG does not have to fight exclusively with the Su-30 and Su-35 ... the same Su-34 / 24M, Su-25, they can hardly oppose anything, even with the ancient MiG-29. Especially if the shtatovtsy transmit all the information to the ukrams, our attack aircraft are easy to watch for, and then try to get away from their fighters. You don’t have to think so captivatingly, before the conflict with Ukraine, everyone thought that their army was nothing and we would tear them apart, air defense can’t shoot down anything, and planes basically can’t fly, BUT REALITY is NOT THEORY, everything turned out to be to another.
              1. Hexenmeister
                Hexenmeister 18 March 2022 22: 21
                +3
                Speaking of realities, estimate the distance from the borders of Poland or Romania to Donetsk, and will an AWACS aircraft be able to see something there at low altitudes ??? And also I repeat, the Ukrainian Su-27 and MiG-29 cannot accept anything from the Americans in real time! Or do you have information that ours do not control the airspace in the combat area, the distance to which from the borders of Russia is much less?
                1. Osipov9391
                  Osipov9391 18 March 2022 23: 41
                  +4
                  And who gave you the information that the Ukrainian MiG-29 and Su-27 have ancient radars and missiles?
                  In Khmelnitsky (Novator) they made the H019 and H001 radars. In Kyiv (Radionix) they made bypass channels and calculators for these radars.
                  And Ukraine has been actively modernizing these fighters for the last 8 years.

                  The R-27 missiles at the Artem plant in Kyiv were made of all modifications and it is not known which ones were delivered to the Armed Forces of Ukraine in recent years.
                  Upgraded missile heads were made in Kyiv at the Radar plant.

                  And I did not mention that AWACS from Poland sees to Donetsk. This is not necessary.
                  He can easily see up to Kyiv and Zhytomyr.
                  And our Su-25 / Su-24 / Su-34 taking off from the airfields of Belarus immediately become noticeable.
                  Data immediately from AWACS to Ukrainian headquarters - from there they transmit ZRV in certain squares, and at the very last moment they turn on radars for capturing and firing in order to minimally unmask themselves.
                  The same goes for fighter jets. Somewhere from the Ivano-Frankivsk and Lvov regions they immediately fly out to meet them.

                  And do not forget about the agent network in the same Belarus. She also gives information, perhaps who, when and where will fly.
                  1. Sanguinius
                    Sanguinius 19 March 2022 01: 00
                    +1
                    Totally agree with you!
                    Among other things, RQ-4B Global Hawk UAVs and other airborne reconnaissance and electronic / electronic intelligence equipment are constantly looming near Ukraine.
                    1. Osipov9391
                      Osipov9391 19 March 2022 02: 26
                      +2
                      Everything about our troops in Ukraine is fully known to NATO, and from there the information is merged into the Ukrainian headquarters.
                      Today, the information was that a Su-30SM was shot down near Odessa, and a Su-34 near Kiev. But so far there are no photos of the wreckage and our informants are silent.

                      Around the clock in the skies of Poland, Romania and the Black Sea is a pair of Rc-135, AWACS, E-8 and strategic UAVs.
                      Ukraine often uploads radio intercepts of Russian troops to the network.
                      This is what American RTR aircraft provide them with.

                      And mobile Beeches are extremely difficult to destroy - they roam in the forests of Central and Western Ukraine. Until they turn on the radar, they are invisible to anyone. And they do it at the last moment.

                      I think that the Ukrainian MiG-29 and Su-27 that have undergone modernization have approximately the same capabilities as our MiG-29SMT and Su-27SM.
                      Why ? Yes, because until 2015, deliveries from Ukrainian enterprises went to Russia for our equipment.
                      And it is naive to think that Ukraine has reinvented the wheel twice in terms of modernization of H001 and H019. They did it like in Russia - a bypass channel + an additional digital computer. Therefore, the detection range has increased.
                      Although radars are not needed at all to attack the Su-34, Su-25 and Su-24M.
                      Just go to the calculated point and shoot. One fighter can put at least 3-4 strike aircraft at a time, because I think that the "Ghost of Kyiv" is not fiction, but a real pilot with a Soviet education.
                      1. Lucy
                        Lucy 25 March 2022 17: 56
                        0
                        on the Black Sea is a pair of Rc-135?
                      2. Lucy
                        Lucy 25 March 2022 18: 13
                        0
                        Question. And you are couch, or literate. Let's say at least at the operational-tactical level with a heterogeneous use of forces and their means? Do you understand these abbreviations - ZRVB, RO, FIR, RP, etc.? Your thoughts for the average sucker will do, and in general they are logical. Of course, you can spin in the skies of Poland, Romania. But they are spinning around the border, and not around the clock, and for some reason they go to England, Europe, Turkey, Sicily for the night. But at what distance and where exactly, relative to the borders of Ukraine and Moldova, did you look? Are you deliberately not writing about the control of the airspace of the A-50 DB area? And when do the Su-30cm work and how do you know?
                2. Sanguinius
                  Sanguinius 19 March 2022 00: 59
                  +1
                  I think the comrade from above "Osipov9391" has already given you an exhaustive answer to this.
                  1. Hexenmeister
                    Hexenmeister 19 March 2022 10: 47
                    0
                    Talking about bypass channels and new computers, you forget about the main thing, the modernization of this level corresponds at best to the level of the early-mid 90s, and to fully comply with this level, some more things are needed that are not in Ukraine! Further, in Ukraine there were precisely serial plants, all the developers were from Russia, and Ukraine, at best, can only repeat what was in the original documentation from Russia, although it can be painted in a different color.
                    1. Osipov9391
                      Osipov9391 19 March 2022 13: 03
                      +2
                      And what does it matter? When attacking attack aircraft, a fighter generally does not need to turn on the radar if there is such information support from the allies.
                      Until 2014, documents were transferred to Ukraine from Russia to finalize this and that.
                      But they developed a lot themselves. Helmet-mounted target designation systems (Arsenal, Kyiv), registration and warning systems (Electronprilad) and a whole lot more for their aircraft.
                      I know the approximate nomenclature and possibilities.
                      1. Hexenmeister
                        Hexenmeister 19 March 2022 13: 24
                        +1
                        Direct! Air combat without radar in the realities of the MiG-29 is extremely short ranges on the border of close combat. SUV fighters of Ukraine do not have any means of obtaining tactical information from the outside, so all help is the voice of the dispatcher and the search under their noses. The registration system and other things do not affect combat capabilities in any way, and the NSC is already a battle in conditions of visual visibility, there are more effective close combat modes. And I wonder what improvements can be made in 2014, on systems that are "abandoned" in Russia?
                      2. Osipov9391
                        Osipov9391 19 March 2022 16: 25
                        +2
                        You forget that turning on the radar on a Ukrainian fighter is an automatic way to impersonate yourself - the Su-25SM and Su-34 have quite sensitive L-150 Pastel stations that will detect this radiation.
                        They do it at the last moment to launch R-27R/ER missiles.

                        And do not forget that there are R-27ET heat-seeking missiles induced from the OLS completely passively.

                        The capabilities of the RLPK of Ukrainian fighters are approximately at the level of the Su-27SM and MiG-29SMT.
                        They are of the same development time.
                      3. Hexenmeister
                        Hexenmeister 19 March 2022 19: 10
                        0
                        What other "development" ??? There is a Russian development in terms of radar, which was produced at the Ukrainian serial plant. If they were able to repeat it, then it should be understood that the same Russian SMT is a COMPLEX of measures for modernization, and by repeating only work on the radar, the level of SMT will never be reached, and they don’t have everything else !!! So it turns out that in modern conditions Ukrainian fighters all have very mediocre characteristics that will work at best from an ambush, but ambushes, as a rule, pass only once, and then a "counter-ambush" follows an ambush, and "demonic" capabilities are attributed to them from which all enemies flee in fear...
                      4. Osipov9391
                        Osipov9391 19 March 2022 23: 37
                        +2
                        There were enterprises in Ukraine that cooperated with Russia until 2014. Some components H019 and H001 for Russia were produced and finalized there.
                        Deliveries then went to Russia for the new MiG-29SMT and the modernization of the Su-27SM.
                        Therefore, their capabilities are approximately equal. But this is the level of development of the early 2000s.
                        What was worn after was only about more convenient interfaces for modern cockpits and weight / size reduction.
                      5. Wildcat
                        Wildcat 20 March 2022 00: 22
                        0
                        hi
                        IMHO, on air battles, not a single video confirmation has yet been posted on either side.
                        Although there are applications for victory from both sides.
                        Ukrainian fighters all have very mediocre characteristics that will work at best from an ambush, but an ambush
                        - "from an ambush" IMHO, this is operating at low altitude, but in a situation where there are hundreds of MANPADS on the ground, and there is no connection with air defense, the pleasure is below average. IMHO, Su27 over Kiev was a classic example of "friendly fire".
                      6. Lucy
                        Lucy 25 March 2022 18: 17
                        0
                        Clear. All the same, a sofa, which is a pity.
          2. Chikua
            Chikua 23 March 2022 08: 41
            0
            What's new on the fronts?
      2. Lucy
        Lucy 26 March 2022 12: 55
        0
        How high is the height? And why fly on them, and most importantly - where? And on small ones, and PMV, what does not allow you to work?
  19. Bad_gr
    Bad_gr 18 March 2022 14: 51
    +2
    The entrance to it is not through a reclining lantern, but through a hatch, which is located behind the landing gear and a door (!) At the rear of the cab .....
    View from the cab, through the front door
    Cabin Entrance
  20. Ol willy
    Ol willy 18 March 2022 15: 32
    +3
    Quote: Yak28
    The plane is certainly good, but in such a war, the MiG 27 would certainly have coped, modernized of course.

    All started up on the metal already
    1. iz odessy
      iz odessy 18 March 2022 22: 25
      -1
      101%, And "KAIRA" on bombing solved everything necessary ... and cheaper
  21. WapentakeLokki
    WapentakeLokki 18 March 2022 16: 17
    -1
    photo from the cockpit of the Su-34 .. catches the eye WASHED, as it were, liners on the pilots' seats .. what is this ... in a bomber the cost in .. lyam rubles is such a horror ... why are we saving on matches here ?? ?
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 18 March 2022 18: 27
      +2
      Quote: WapentakeLokki
      photo from the cockpit of the Su-34
      Judging by the dashboard, this is an old modification of the Su-34, which is why the seats are so shabby (how old is it?). The cockpit on the Su-34 changed several times. Here are three of them:
  22. FRoman1984
    FRoman1984 18 March 2022 16: 35
    0
    A good aircraft that needs urgent modernization.
    Rather weak radar, low thrust-to-weight ratio, low combat load with such and such an aircraft mass, rather weak AL-31F engines. Instead of a toilet, they would have made an additional fuel tank better - this is not a strategist.
    According to losses: 1 shot down near Chernigov, 1 shot down near Irpenep, one near Kharkov. Telegram is full of videos.
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 18 March 2022 17: 33
      +1
      Quote: FRoman1984
      Instead of a toilet, they would have made an additional fuel tank better - this is not a strategist.
      Instead of this toilet, put a fuel tank?
      Or is there a full-fledged toilet somewhere on this plane, with a drain tank?
      1. FRoman1984
        FRoman1984 19 March 2022 03: 42
        0
        This means that the layout of the cabin allows a crew member to stand up, sit down, and warm up food in this room.
        This is probably important when flying for 12 hours, like strategists, but for front-line bombers, due to this room, you can increase the range.
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 19 March 2022 18: 22
          0
          The plane can fly. 12 hours. So long that people need to take a break from constantly sitting in a chair. Why does he still need to increase the range ?? I don't understand at all.
  23. Aviator_
    Aviator_ 18 March 2022 16: 50
    0
    Application of titanium and composite materials coupled with the rejection of the mechanism for changing the sweep angle of the wing,
    This scheme was popular 50 years ago, in the 70s. Since then, it has been completely abandoned both here and around the world, having achieved the required characteristics without it.
  24. Couchexpert
    Couchexpert 18 March 2022 17: 36
    -7
    Briefly about the article: "Su-34: excuses instead of superiority." In general, a typical example of what is produced and operated is not what is needed, but what is obtained / available.
    1. Nirag013
      Nirag013 20 March 2022 12: 15
      -1
      "What a pity that all those people who absolutely know how to govern the state are already working as taxi drivers and hairdressers!" (c)
  25. Diverter
    Diverter 20 March 2022 18: 42
    0
    My deep couch opinion.
    the author is completely off topic T 10.
    Because the article is in the trash
  26. vadivm59
    vadivm59 20 March 2022 18: 52
    0
    the comfort of the crew is amazing. Compare with the TU-22M3, heaven and earth. The crew sits like in cages, neither get up nor warm up in a long flight. crew they think last.
  27. FRoman1984
    FRoman1984 21 March 2022 07: 54
    -1
    Pilots and raid, experience first. Second, the car.
    After the Victory, I really hope that there will be explanations of how one of the Su-34s was shot down over Chernigov from MANPADS.
  28. Lucy
    Lucy 25 March 2022 19: 13
    +1
    Quote: Osipov9391
    The capabilities of the RLPK of Ukrainian fighters are approximately at the level of the Su-27SM and MiG-29SMT.
    They are the same development time.

    Here is the statement. Let's say. What about in practice? Instrument guidance, it was also automated on the MiG-21 in the 60s, did not fundamentally change anything (formula). Instead of PSA (gears and other things), everything has become smaller, it is faster to count, and on microcircuits. Do you know in practice how the MiG-29 pilot, at minimum approach speeds of 1500 km / h, works at the first stage (piloting) in order to reach the radar turn-on line? Where (instruments), what (arrows, bulbs) is displayed, where it rings, what frequency the buzzer is, and why it rings, when it stops ringing and why. What are one-time commands, and smooth ones, what is the difference. And how, according to your logic, instead of a digital computer, should a pilot calculate on a kneeling tablet when he should turn on the radiation to "high", given that he does not know the target's angle, altitude, approach speed, target maneuver? Is he "chasing shooters"? even as a pubic variator with OPB-15 should solve differential equations, and considering it to decide when to launch the R-27, and not stupidly wait like a Su-30cm pilot when at the SEI from a range of 90 km (this is the target detection range of the MIG-29 radar at high altitudes, 60 km - on the Federal Law) appear PR? From all your comments, including the wedding general Konashenkov, I would like to know from which bases the MiG-29s fly. All lanes, airfield radars, PRV, RSP, RSBN, PAR, PRMG were destroyed. But they say by gypsy mail that they sometimes fly from Skatinov. It's the bases. The MiG-29 is not a bicycle and everything is beautiful on TV, but it needs not only to lay the tank / parachute, adjust the tanker, AUV refueling with gases and liquids, but also maintenance, including missiles. Are you familiar with this abbreviation - PPR? So yes, you can fly from highways, but you need to have an idea how this is done not from the state acceptance of the TV channel Kumzhutovich Zvezda. There are still a lot of nuances, including the radio lighting equipment of the motorway, even when using GPS, the coefficient of adhesion, on the street, in the geographical regions of Bendery, there is still snow, sometimes it freezes, then it will rain. Yes. About the level. So it is necessary that the rocket be at the level, otherwise the R-73 can also be launched into the teaching staff, having discovered (capturing) the CC for 250 km, and wait a long time for the PR to be.
  29. Lucy
    Lucy 25 March 2022 19: 59
    +1
    Quote: Osipov9391
    The capabilities of the RLPK of Ukrainian fighters are approximately at the level of the Su-27SM and MiG-29SMT.
    They are of the same development time.

    And on Ukrainian fighters, the TWT in the radar was replaced with an Israeli, Swedish TWT?
  30. Lucy
    Lucy 26 March 2022 10: 33
    0
    Quote: Osipov9391
    And do not forget that there are R-27ET heat-seeking missiles induced from the OLS completely passively.

    Well, well, well. Master of combat use, describe how this happens in practice. And preferably starting from takeoff. Yes. And what is OLS, or KOLS, OEPS, how does a Ukrainian pilot work with it, especially in conjunction with the equipment of those aircraft that loiter in Poland, Romania? Or everything ingenious is simple. And for this there is TAI-43, TA-57? And one blank. And does the TP determine the range to the target when using the UR "BB"? If so, what is the physical principle? And is the target detection range of the TP in the PPS (you intercept only in the PPS) more than in the ZPS? And what is the range of measuring the distance to the target with an LDmeter (this is just in case if it suddenly turns out that the TP does not determine the range). A citizen from your practice on the Su-27, MiG-29, there were no cases when the "unfortunate OBU" poked you at the target, and you were looking for it not only with your right hand (RUS) but also with your left (on the ORE). This is me about the fact that in order to obtain a given P = 0.7 and > to hit the target, you need a relatively accurate control center, although the radar mirror has decent degrees of in-plane scanning of the VP. Do you feel (or feel) the difference in numbers between the ability of AWACS, A-50, in - to simultaneously aim at the target, and - to give out the control center? I recently asked you a question in this thread whether you are a couch or not, and then answered it. It remains to find out if you are active or passive (... heat-guided R-27ET missiles induced from OLS completely passively) an expert using only https://www.flightradar24.com/NATO11/2b45c5c8
  31. Lucy
    Lucy 26 March 2022 13: 01
    0
    Quote: Osipov9391
    Therefore, their capabilities are approximately equal.

    I'm not Stanislavsky, but I don't believe it. Who are them? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENVwDpVyZEI. Well, write even without a link in a competent technical language about - approximately.
  32. Baikal57
    Baikal57 1 May 2022 11: 32
    0
    Uv.aviation people! Al-41F1 for the Su-34, theoretically, what height can it keep for maximum efficiency of the AFAR radar, since the United States is switching to the F-18 superhornet instead of Boeings, but what about the 30 "product itself ????
  33. squid
    squid 15 June 2022 21: 04
    0
    Try to compare the characteristics of this newest product of the Soviet defense industry, which first took to the air in 89, with the American FB-111 of later versions, which at about the same time was already ending its life cycle and being removed from service. The 111th is better in everything - range, speed, load, etc., etc. At the same time, it also had (since the 60s!) A system for automatically rounding the terrain at low altitudes at any time of the day - as far as I know, we have such still no.