Su-34: proven excellence
This material is a kind of compilation from what was heard in different interviews, fairly revised, since no one canceled certain prohibitions for quite reasonable and valid reasons. The flight crew is generally not very talkative initially, and then there are the limitations of our time.
However, over a year and a half of the use of the Su-34, in any case, a certain amount of information has accumulated, from which some conclusions can be drawn.
Looking ahead, I will express my satisfaction that they did not differ much from what we published in relation to the Su-34. Su-34: justified superiority
And for overclocking, I will issue such a thesis, which everyone who is against it will then try to challenge in the comments. It's normal for us, so...
The Su-34 is the best aircraft in the world for work on ground targets.
And then we start bombarding with arguments:
- plane Initially designed as a tactical bomber. Not a conversion from a fighter, like the F-15 "Strike Eagle" (although we will return to it a little later), but a normal bomber with all the consequences;
- a decent number of types of weapons were adapted and developed for the aircraft;
- the aircraft is equipped with almost everything necessary for very accurate bombing, which is very important;
- Su-34 is very well booked. Perhaps even more effective than the Su-25 (it is necessary to understand separately and not here), the only weak point is the cockpit glazing;
- Structurally, the aircraft is very strong. Here the legacy of the Soviet school affects, in which it was customary to lay a triple margin of safety.
Now in more detail.
Indeed, the Su-34 was created as a replacement for the Su-24 and, first of all, it is a bomber. In general, the term "fighter-bomber" itself is not very successful. There is a combat aircraft that is designed to destroy aircraft, that is, a fighter. And yes, any of the available weapons can be hung on a modern fighter. Including air-to-surface missiles and bombs of all kinds.
The question is, however, how effective the application will be.
An example is the MiG-29 of the Ukrainian Air Force, which tried to portray something like that, because the Su-27 is even less adapted to work on the ground. And what? And essentially nothing. Yes, as a means of delivery to the launch point of imported ammunition with pre-entered coordinates, the MiG-29 will do. But no more than that, because the imported weapons that have flooded into Ukraine speak with the MiG-29 in different languages. And with the Su-24 too.
That is, as a MiG-29 bomber, it is not at all good, as a fighter it is also not very good. Still, age does matter. And another confirmation of this is not a single Su-34 shot down by the Ukrainian Air Force. Air defense systems, small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery, tactical missiles on the ground - yes, but not a single one from the actions of Ukrainian pilots.
(We are adults for the most part, so we will treat the fairy tales of “Privid Kyiv” about 15 shot down as follows: there is a language - speak.)
That is, we can say that the bomber with the possibility of a fighter from the Su-34 came out completely. Of course, let's not prevaricate, after gaining combat experience in Syria, the Su-34s rarely operate without cover, and the Su-35 is still one of the best fighters in the world. And to put MiG-29 and Su-27 against him is like students against riot police. There is noise, but not much.
Theoretically, the Su-34 is able to fight off any fighter if it has the appropriate weapons for this. However, whether it is worth checking it, if it is possible to cover it with aircraft that were originally intended for this, I don’t know. In general, the bomber crew has enough headaches in flight without even thinking about how to repel an attack by enemy fighters.
If you look at the experience of our former potential, then their work on a fighter-bomber was rather ragged. Many can cite the same F-15E Strike Eagle as an example, but I recommend that everyone familiarize themselves with history the appearance of this aircraft in maximum detail.
In short, the original F-15 is an air superiority fighter. That is, an analogue of our Su-27, completely unsuitable for work on the ground. And history has preserved information about how the US Air Force themselves were against the fact that, in their opinion, an excellent fighter was spoiled by modifications and alterations into a bomber.
But in the end, McDonnell-Douglas and Boeing proved that for “only” $274 million, a fighter can be converted into a bomber, which promises certain prospects. A similar conversion of the F-16 would cost about 405 million. And as a result, a fighter-bomber was made from a two-seat combat training aircraft.
How cool he is is a separate conversation. But comparing the F-15E Strike Eagle with the Su-34 is somewhat uncomme il faut, a comparison with the Su-30MK is more appropriate here. Which, let's say, is also more of a fighter.
If it were possible to put the accents in this way, it would turn out that the F-15E and Su-30MK are fighter-bombers, and the Su-34 is a fighter-bomber. That is, first of all, he is a bomber, but the fighter base of the Su-27 makes itself felt. It can snap very harshly in aerial combat, if necessary.
But the foundation is not the main thing. Still, the differences between the Su-27 and Su-34 are very large. The main difference from the F-15E and Su-30 is the transverse placement of crew members, which facilitates their interaction in flight.
The pilots themselves spoke out in terms of the fact that visual control over the flight of the Su-34 is much more effective, especially for night flights.
Naturally, a single pilot can quite successfully control the launch of missiles in a modern aircraft. When it comes to bombing, alas, everything is in principle at the level of the IL-2 and FW-190: I dropped it somewhere there, in the target area. And in order for the bomb to hit, and even where it is needed, you still need a separate sight, a rangefinder, equipment that will provide a bunch of corrections - in general, everything that a navigator-scorer, as he used to be called, does. Although KAI (collimator aviation indicator) has not been canceled either.
And there is no getting away from it. So far at least. There, further, when there will be artificial intelligence, cooler than that of politicians, then we'll see, but for now - our navigator is everything.
Of course, the latest avionics is great. Okay, not the latest, but modern. A multifunctional airborne radar with phased array, capable of simultaneously tracking several air and ground targets, thermal imaging, television and laser navigation and sighting systems, as well as an electronic warfare complex, is useful and strong.
Plus, the avionics is capable of providing automated low-altitude flight in the mode of enveloping the terrain. It is very important during night flights-breakthroughs through the enemy defenses to strike at his rear and communications.
The Su-34 is by no means a low-altitude aircraft, but it has a very impressive armor. If in numbers - even more impressive than that of the Su-25, 1480 kg versus 1050 kg for an attack aircraft. Armor, of course, does not ideally protect, but significantly reduces the likelihood of MZA and MANPADS being hit by fire.
The real minus of the Su-34 is the obviously insufficient armor of the cockpit glazing. A very unpleasant thing, the Buk air defense system, strikes from the upper hemisphere and its combat elements easily pierce the glazing. Naturally, sometimes causing fatal wounds to the crew.
Yes, 34s are shot down by air defense systems, and MANPADS, and MZA. And nothing can be done about it, these are military actions in which anything can happen. And the Su-34s suffered losses, precisely from the action of air defense, because both sides suffered losses from air defense. It is worth recognizing that it was the air defense that forced the planes to use different tactics than at the beginning of the NMD. But even then everything was clear: our bombers flew to a very great depth, there is evidence of distances of 800-1000 km from airfields, that is, several hundred kilometers from the front line.
Now, when both sides bristled with missiles aimed at the enemy, the planes do not fly so deep, and all combat work is carried out closer to the front line. And in the rear, cruise missiles work more and Drones. Accordingly, losses have become much less.
Air defense in Ukraine looks peculiar. On the one hand, it has not lost its relevance, no matter what they say in the DIMK of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, it exists and it works. Another question is that it is not able to cover the ALL territory of Ukraine. It is difficult for a country with a large territory, we see it in our country too. But in Ukraine, everything is much more complicated, so the Ukrainian military moved from the Soviet practice of covering areas to ambush tactics. This is less effective in terms of saving objects, but it allows you to shoot down more aircraft.
Therefore, it is worth looking not so much at the number of downed aircraft, they were shot down and will be shot down again, this is a war. It is necessary to look at the level of survival of the crews. But here everything is pretty decent. The number of Su-34s shot down and destroyed on the ground declared by the Ukrainian side ranges from 17 to 21, but these figures, in my opinion, are naturally overestimated, and quite overestimated.
For some reason, even the plane in Yeysk got into the official list of losses, although Ukraine had nothing to do with its crash. Further, several aircraft were found "in the liberated territories", the level of submission of the material - "presumably".
If we take cases that are confirmed by our side, it turns out that out of all 10 cases that look reliable and are confirmed by at least some evidence, the death of the crew occurred only in two, partial (one person) - in three more. Which really confirms that the Su-34 is a very strong aircraft and the crew has a chance.
If we take the official statistics of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, then in 13 confirmed cases of the destruction of Su-24 bombers of the Ukrainian Air Force, the crew died in full strength in 9 cases, in three more one of the crew members died, and only in one (!!!) case did the crew survive in full composition.
I think it's better to look for evidence and not worth it.
Real case. The crew of one of our Su-34s was ambushed. This is when a long-range radar “shines” you “in the face”, they see you, you see them. And everyone is waiting for the plane to fly past the air defense system actually standing in ambush with the radar turned off. The plane flies, the radar turns on and the launch into the rear hemisphere follows almost point-blank.
A very effective maneuver, especially if the route of our aircraft has already been calculated.
So the ancient "Wasp" shot down the Su-34. Yes, four rockets were fired, two hit the engine. The crew simply did not have time to do anything to protect themselves, flew off as far as possible and ejected. Alive, after a while they were picked up by a search group.
They told about the case when the Kh-29 rocket exploded almost immediately after the descent. Half a ton of explosives. Something went wrong inside her. The plane shook violently, was cut with shrapnel, but it returned to base, albeit with significant damage.
About weapons. More precisely, about the most widely used. About bombs.
If now someone thinks that “throwing cast iron is the last century”, alas, he is categorically wrong.
Yes, there is UMPC. An interesting help that allows you to drop a bomb that will fly, orienting itself in space to where it was told.
However, there is such an important aspect here: the bomb flies along the coordinates that were laid into it on the ground. Yes, being guided, but completely “not seeing” the target, unlike missiles with the same thermal seeker. Our UMPCs do not yet have separate seekers for bombs. Perhaps there will be, but not yet. So such a “smart” bomb (actually not very) flies along the coordinates.
That is, it works great for static objects: a tank car in an oil storage (large tank car), a bridge, a railway station, a barracks. These are excellent targets for the UMPC and the bomb.
But let's take a picture of active hostilities such as "offensive". What it is? And this is the dynamic movement of masses of equipment and people in a certain direction and in certain areas of the terrain. And here the work on the coordinates is all, stop. There is no static, even a slowly crawling tank at a speed of 7 km / h during the time the bomb is approaching from the UMPC will certainly leave the affected area if thrown from a distance of 10-15 kilometers.
Su-34 is a tactical bomber. That is, unlike a strategic colleague, he cannot turn a piece the size of half of London into a desert at a time. But the “duckling” can do what the strategist cannot: very accurately drop the “cast iron” on the heads of targets moving in space.
Speaking with pilots and navigators (yes, it’s easier for me to do this, after all, a regiment on the Su-34 in the city is no joke) and reading / listening to infrequent stories on the Web, I came to the following conclusion: indeed, the Su-34 has everything to provide precisely tactical bombing.
A breakthrough in the offensive, a crossing, refueling and replenishment points for a b / c, columns on the march - all these are just ideal targets for normal FABs to work with. And there is nothing so critical in the fact that on the advancing infantry or landing, not with a laser-guided bomb of the L-JDAM type, but with a conventional one, but using decent aiming equipment.
By the way, last year, in that very September, which many will remember for a long time, it was land mines from aircraft that caused damage no less than fierce shelling of our artillery. And thanks to them, including the advancement of Ukrainian troops was stopped.
And therefore, when it caught fire in full, when there is a breakthrough, when the artillery simply does not have time to get into position and shoot at the enemy, who is moving at a decent speed - then you can expect the situation to be resolved exclusively from air assistants, no matter, rotary-winged or winged. This is the essence of tactical response: quickly hung up, quickly flew, quickly dumped on the heads of the enemy. All. And for such work, the Su-34 is simply perfectly adapted.
Cluster munitions, you say? Hold our "Red Bull!"
The car has everything: the rigidity of the supporting body, engines that provide speed and maneuverability, electronics, sights, weapon. Speed and maneuver is a separate song. We saw a lot of evidence in photos and videos of how riddled Su-25s and attack helicopters flew to the bases. With the Su-34, everything is somewhat different: you have to manage to get into it.
Of course, there are situations when nothing will save, but: according to the testimonies of the pilots themselves, the Su-34 is capable of disrupting the aiming of the same Stinger or missiles of old models due to maneuvers.
Total. A little over a year ago, having called the Su-34 perfection, after a year of combat work I can definitely say: nothing is embellished. Su-34 is an ideal tactical strike aircraft capable of operating in the entire range of altitudes, from 50 to the ceiling. Plus, a set of weapons can be called the most satisfying all the requirements for a bomber.
Today we are all looking at how Western planes are expected in Ukraine. They hope to solve all the problems of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, both in the air and on the ground, with their help.
However, here I would conduct a short historical digression during the Second World War. We had two countries whose air armies by 1945 had come to a state of a certain imbalance: the bomber and assault units were actually destroyed, and the remaining aircraft could not properly inflict damage on the enemy. Why? Yes, because all the efforts of the defense industry were thrown into the production of fighters.
In general, everyone knows the result.
Balance is what keeps the effectiveness of any army. And fighters alone, albeit not bad ones (F-16 Block 50/52 can no longer be called good, they are a bit old), problems cannot be solved. And there are practically only a few bombers left in the Ukrainian Air Force. Yes, Hymars and other toys, of course, are of great help, but they cannot replace aviation. Add - yes. Replace - no.
And we have a Su-34. And that says a lot.
Information