Su-34 and “Dagger”: dual sensations

94
Su-34 and “Dagger”: dual sensations

While a separate category of Russian media is overwhelmed by joyful hysteria about the use of the 9-S-7760 missile of the Kinzhal complex from a Su-34 aircraft with all the resulting consequences, we will calmly and thoughtfully weigh all the pros and cons of this moment. The situation is really ambiguous, and we will calculate what is more in it, pros or cons, at the end.

Let's start with the missile, because comparing two aircraft so different from the start (MiG-31 and Su-34) will be a very tricky business.



So, our complex is called “Dagger”. And it consists of a carrier aircraft/air launcher and a 9-S-7760 missile, which in turn is a variation of the 9M723 missile of the Iskander operational-tactical complex.


The missile is quasi-ballistic, capable of maneuvering on any part of its trajectory, seemingly hypersonic. However, any ballistic missile can reach hypersonic speeds at the final stage of its trajectory, but this is not so important in principle now.

9-S-7760 has already been used during the Northern Military District at least three times, but it’s difficult to say anything like that here, because the Ukrainian information troops, who have gone into a frenzy, are shooting down “Daggers” in such quantities that even ours are already saying that Russia does not produce that much. It is also difficult to assess the effectiveness, since all the targets attacked by 9-S-7760 were very far behind the front line and it was not easy to obtain confirmation.

In general, the rocket is really impressive, so that foreign experts don’t talk about it. The best way to evaluate a particular type of weapon is to be exposed to it. Well, as you understand, this is not an expert matter at all.

Now to the planes



And here we will undertake to analyze the situation precisely in the light of some individual performance characteristics and performance characteristics, which were discussed specifically in the light of the use of 9-S-7760.

1. Load capacity.

Here the MiG-31 and Su-34 are approximately equal: 9 tons of load for the MiG-31, 8 tons for the Su-34. The weight of the 9-S-7760 is 4 tons, but this does not mean that the aircraft will be able to take two missiles each. It would be normal to carry one product, why – a little lower.

2. Speed, altitude and range

A very important indicator, because the faster the carrier, playing the role of the first stage, can accelerate the rocket, the further it can fly, spending less fuel on acceleration.

The speed of the MiG-31K is 3 km/h at high altitude. Maximum height – 000 m.
The speed of the Su-34 is 1 km/h, the maximum altitude is 900 m.

As a first acceleration stage, of course, the MiG-31K looks more interesting. True, it is inferior in flight range to a bomber, but this is not surprising. The Su-34 can easily fly up to 4 km at cruising speed, but the MiG-000 can fly no more than 31. Yes, refueling can improve matters, but...

3. Weapon control

Here the advantage is clearly on the side of the Su-34. It is a bomber, that is, its sighting equipment and radar are initially focused on working on the ground. Seeing, “showing” the target of the missile’s seeker, highlighting it is normal for the Su-34.

The MiG-31 is primarily an interceptor, the main purpose of which is to fight enemy aircraft. To carry the 9-S-7760, the car was modified, but in essence the MiG-31 was “plowed” precisely because “fast and high” - yes, that’s it. Plus two people in the crew, that is, there is someone to entrust with the responsibilities of aiming and launching the missile.

4. Quantity and replaceability

There will be a lot of words here. In general, what is a “carrier”? It's just a shipping method weapons to the point of its application. Tracked or wheeled chassis for self-propelled guns, a helicopter for an anti-tank missile, a submarine for a cruise or ballistic missile. The closer the weapon is delivered to the target, the closer the launch is made, the less time the enemy will have to react and counterattack.

And since our carrier is a way and method of delivering weapons closer to the enemy, then the appearance of the “Dagger” from the Iskander is completely justified. In this case, the aircraft provides an increased radius of destruction, flexibility of use, and an increase in the warhead by reducing the mass of the engine and the amount of rocket fuel.” Plus, the plane can “hang” in its airspace for a long time, choosing the most advantageous moment to strike. In this case, fuel is not a problem at all; refueling in the air solves it easily.

And here everything is simple: the more carriers, that is, aircraft with crews, the better. In this regard, the MiG-31 is very difficult. The plane is critically old, the youngest are about 30 years old. Yes, strategic bombers smoke the sky longer, but they do not need to fly at speeds of 2-3 Mach, the loads on the wings and fuselage are completely different.

The MiG-31 is not produced and it is more than doubtful that we will be able to start producing these machines. D-30F6 engines have not been produced for a long time. That is, all hope lies in the old hulls and engines overhauled in Gatchina.

But initially the heavy interceptor was not adapted to carry and use such weapons as the 9-S-7760. The aircraft had to be extensively (and at great expense) redesigned to carry and use the 9-S-7760. After all, not only a powerful suspension unit for a heavy missile was required, but also a guidance and weapons control system was needed.

And they re-equipped a number of copies, trained the crews, because taking off from a 9-S-7760 on a sling is something, because due to such a heavy rocket, the center of gravity is expected to shift, and launching a “Dagger” in manual mode is for aces highest category.

But, of course, the main thing is the MiG resource, which is not eternal. But so far there is nothing to replace these aircraft, nor is it possible to resume production, which is also in the realm of fantasy. But there’s nothing to be done here, the country’s border is too long, an interceptor like the MiG-31 is simply necessary.


Therefore, the vehicles remaining in service will be dragged with repairs and upgrades for who knows how many more years, and nothing can be done about it.

By the way, the situation with the Tu-22M3 is no better. Of course, this aircraft is adapted to carry heavy missiles (the standard X-22 “Storm” weighs more than 5 tons), but again the aircraft are 30 years old and, most importantly, there are not so many of them. About 60 pieces for all Russian Aerospace Forces.


And this has its downsides. On the other side they know very well where the Tu-22M and MiG-31 are parked, so before they have time to take off, it already begins on the Internet on the Ukrainian side: they have taken off, they are flying, we are waiting for cruise missiles. Fair? Fair. Nowadays, maintaining surprise is an art that not everyone is trained in.

With the Su-34 it might be more interesting: if, say, two air regiments take off and fly off in different directions, how can you determine which planes are carrying Daggers and which are not? Of course, if the enemy has agents in the airfield areas... And even that is not an option. Planes can take off at night when there is not much visibility.

But the main thing is that the Su-34 is a “living” aircraft. They are releasing it now, more than a hundred have been released and more will be released. But the Tu-22M and Mig-31 are more than doubtful.

Of course, the Duckling is not an ideal carrier, but it has more advantages than disadvantages over older aircraft.


It can produce the speed required to launch the Daggers. It can be used to install hardpoints for a heavy rocket. Yes, one. Otherwise, climbing with two "Daggers" will turn into a long road, and how it will be with speed, you can not predict: it will not happen. But with one missile, the Su-34 will definitely accelerate to the required minimum mark.

About speed. There is a difference between 1 and 900 km/h. Having launched at a lower given speed, the rocket will still accelerate to the required values ​​and move on. Well, the range will drop a little, but if you think about it arithmetically, it’s not critical.

And the crews will have to be additionally trained to take off and land from 9-C-7760. Especially sitting down. But this is not so scary, takeoff and landing exercises with FAB-500 and FAB-1500 are practiced in the flight units of the Aerospace Forces, so there will be no problems with the Daggers.

In general, the Su-34, despite its lower speed and height than the MiG-31, also has quite tangible advantages, such as the modernity of avionics, the initial ability to work on ground targets and the mass character of the aircraft. Each MiG-31K is the fruit of long work and a lot of money. The Su-34 does not need to be upgraded to carry the 9-S-7760.

To summarize: the Su-34 is quite capable of replacing the MiG-31K in terms of using the 9-S-7760 missile. Its advantages as a bomber more than outweigh the advantages of a huge interceptor. And I hope that the number of Su-34s will soon reach 200 aircraft, which will make it possible to deliver Daggers to the launch point, and to use large-caliber bombs, and missiles for all purposes.

That is, if everything is resolved with the carrier, all that remains is to think about ensuring that the carrier pendants are not empty. But the release of such equipment as “Dagger” and “Iskander” is a completely separate issue.

As for our situation, despite weighing the pros and cons, there is still some understatement. Indeed, why did they choose the MiG-31 then? Have you really decided that speed is really everything? After all, the Su-34 with all its advantages was here, with us! Why did everything turn out this way and do we know everything?
94 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -19
    9 September 2023 04: 39
    Indeed, why did they choose the MiG-31 then? Have you really decided that speed is really everything? After all, the Su-34 with all its advantages was here, with us! Why did everything turn out this way and do we know everything?

    Dear Roman Skomorokhov, of course you don’t know, because delving into the topic is not your thing. And to answer this question, just look at the facilities where the SU-34 is produced and everything will be clear as daylight...
    1. +42
      9 September 2023 05: 02
      Frankly speaking, I don’t understand the meaning of such answers. More precisely, I understand, but I wouldn’t want me to be right.
      A person prepared an article (I'm not an aviation specialist, but the author seems to have "chewed" the problem just for people like me) published it. You also posted your comment for everyone to see, but what is in it? Nothing to the point.
      If you do not agree with the author, you want to correct it, write so that everyone understands, otherwise a hint was made of some circumstances and all the silence was hinted at. Then they would write to him personally and discuss some of their personal issues.
      1. -26
        9 September 2023 05: 14
        A person prepared an article (I'm not an aviation specialist, but the author seems to have "chewed" the problem just for people like me) published it. You also posted your comment for everyone to see, but what is in it?

        A person writes articles of such quality on a specialized resource that even stand, even fall. If a person posted his writings somewhere on Zen, there would be no questions for him.
        And here you need relevant content

        Regarding the comment, I posted a specific answer to the author's question, which turned out to be disgracefully short. I will not chew it even more, not Zen.
        1. +17
          9 September 2023 06: 04
          A person writes articles of such quality on a specialized resource that you can stand or fall.

          This question is more likely for the administration of this site. If some kind of evaluation of articles is carried out, then the level of the article is appropriate. If not, what specialized resource can we talk about?
          Alternatively, if you have constant (possibly justified) complaints against the author, it may make sense to contact the site editors so that such authors are edited more carefully.
          ,
          I posted a specific answer to the author’s question, which turned out to be outrageously short. I won’t chew it any more, it’s not Zen.

          And yet I don’t agree with you. Yes, not Zen, but it is better to give detailed arguments; not everyone, I repeat, is an expert on certain issues.
          1. +21
            9 September 2023 06: 34
            Alternatively, if you have constant (possibly justified) complaints against the author, it may make sense to contact the site editors so that such authors are edited more carefully.

            At the very bottom of the page there is a section "About the publication"

            And if you look at it, there is a list of employees

            That is, you propose to complain to the Head of the Department, R. Skomorokhov, about the author, R. Skomorokhov? drinks
            1. +3
              9 September 2023 07: 43
              That is, you propose to complain to the Head of the Department, R. Skomorokhov, about the author, R. Skomorokhov?

              Thank you, until today there was no need to study the list of VO employees. There is truth in your words, but the head of the department also reports to someone, and most importantly, this does not answer my first comment.
              PS below bayard is very clear, he has laid everything out on the shelves.
        2. +41
          9 September 2023 07: 10
          Quote: spektr9

          A person writes articles of such quality on a specialized resource that even stand, even fall. If a person posted his writings somewhere on Zen, there would be no questions for him.
          And here you need relevant content

          Regarding the comment, I posted a specific answer to the author's question, which turned out to be disgracefully short. I will not chew it even more, not Zen.

          Well, if you don’t want to bother yourself with editing or posting your own content, then let me try to do it.
          So - the author's mistakes.
          Considering and comparing the performance characteristics of both aircraft, he completely lost sight of the fact that the MiG-31K launches the “Dagger” not from its maximum altitude and not even at its maximum speed. Namely - from a height of 15 m and at a speed of 000 km/h. And taking into account the ceiling of the Su-2500 at 34 m and a maximum speed of 17 km/h, the Kinzhal can be launched at the same altitude, but at a lower speed, which, if it affects the range and maximum speed of the Kinzhal, then very slightly . If, after separation from the MiG-000 (as stated in official releases), the Kinzhal flies 1900 km. , then when launched from a Su-31, this range can be about 1500 km. Which, taking into account the fact that launches are rarely carried out at maximum speed, is not critical.
          What else has the author not taken into account?
          What is now being prepared for the series (or already?) of the Su-34M with new avionics and... new engines. Namely - with the AL-41F-1S, whose afterburner thrust is 14 kg.s. Those. only by 500 t.s. less than the MiG-1.
          Let me remind you that the MiG-31 launches not at its maximum speed, but at “cruising supersonic” - i.e. at incomplete afterburner. By the way, for the MiG-25 it was also exactly 2500 km/h. It is the most comfortable for the airframe and allows you to not waste so much engine life.
          Why am I doing this?
          This is of course my guess, but... one more digression. The Su-34's air intakes are not adjustable (!); they are optimized for flight at transonic and low supersonic speeds. That is why, even at altitude, the Su-34 at maximum afterburner develops only 1900 km/h, although the engine power allows much more. This simplifies and reduces the cost of design and simplifies aircraft maintenance.
          But let’s say that when modernizing the Su-34M, it will be installed not only engines from the Su-35S, but also air intakes, or more precisely, entire engine nacelles from the Su-35S? And this is not only for the sake of unification and a much longer engine life (4000 engine hours versus 2500), but also for the sake of much better performance characteristics? And if with adjustable (like, say, the Su-30SM) air intakes, the Su-34 could easily accelerate to 2100 or even 2200 km/h on older engines, then with the more powerful PA-41F-1S, its maximum speed will be even higher.
          - Why is this for an ordinary tactical bomber? - you ask... - I answer - in this modification, the Su-34M becomes not only an ideal carrier of the “Dagger”, but also promising air-launched anti-ship missiles. And such bombers could be used to equip the regiments of the revived MRA, which is necessary for the revival.
          Do you understand? For the sake of “Dagger” alone, one would not have to bother with such things, but if we link both of these needs, then... wink This is simply an ideal solution to two problems at once with one plane.
          And we are going to build and purchase such aircraft in much larger volumes than previously stated. So, out of 9 newly formed air regiments, only ONE will be fighter. feel Therefore, the rest will be bombers. And since we don’t have any other bombers in production, it means that all the remaining 8 regiments will be on the Su-34.
          Well, maybe one such regiment will be reserved for Long-Range Aviation; after all, the Tu-160, although with difficulty, has begun to be built and delivered.
          So, in addition to those already built, at least 200 of these vehicles in the form of Su-34M will come to the troops.
          And in the case of adjustable air intakes and engines, the AL-41F-1S Su-34M will be able to reach 2400 km/h and even 2500 km/h at an altitude. wink And the “Dagger” will fly at the very stated speed.
          In the meantime - for used and a range of 1200 km. will be quite enough.
          Quote: spektr9
          just look at the facilities where the SU-34 is produced and everything will be clear as daylight...

          And yes - the capacity of the plant named after. At Chkalov’s peak, they were producing 18 Su-34s per year, then they were counting on a new order and tried to exceed the plan... But then they had to sharply curtail production, because they wanted to curtail their production altogether with the crooked towers... It blew away. Now, when orders have expanded sharply, I think the plant will be able to produce up to 30 aircraft per year. Although not right away. In addition, the Yak-130 was also produced at the same enterprise. And since the Yak-130M with new engines and possibly a light attack aircraft version is being prepared for testing, the plant faces very interesting and long work.
          1. +24
            9 September 2023 07: 46
            then let me try to do it.
            So - the author's mistakes
            .
            hi Thank you, it's nice to read such comments, I immediately remember VO several years ago.
            1. +7
              9 September 2023 10: 11
              Quote: Arkadich
              then let me try to do it.
              So - the author's mistakes
              .
              hi Thank you, it's nice to read such comments, I immediately remember VO several years ago.

              good
              Removed from the tongue. Thanks again for your detailed and most importantly clear comment.
              Unfortunately, there are fewer and fewer such participants.
          2. +1
            9 September 2023 07: 56
            it is possible to decipher the civil code of air-launched anti-ship missiles
            1. +3
              9 September 2023 09: 46
              it is possible to decipher the civil code of air-launched anti-ship missiles

              Probably a "hypersonic air-launched anti-ship missile."
            2. +4
              9 September 2023 11: 24
              Quote: Vasya Vasiliev_3
              it is possible to decipher the civil code of air-launched anti-ship missiles
              .
              I think it meant a hypersonic anti-ship cruise missile.
              And further in the text we are talking about the revival of naval aviation.
              1. +4
                9 September 2023 12: 05
                Quote: velikoros-xnumx
                I think it meant a hypersonic anti-ship cruise missile.

                Exactly . The abbreviation has not yet been established, but writing the full name/classification in words is too lazy. Therefore, as in the cadet notes.
          3. 0
            9 September 2023 09: 13
            Or you can skip the circus with horses and equip the Su-30 with the Dagger. Which has everything in order with air intakes, speed, and range. This is the first. And second. The Mig-31K launches the product not in straight flight, but on a trajectory section close to ballistic. This is all just to achieve maximum range. As for the statement that speed is not critical, let us recall the energy formula from the school physics course: em squared, divided by two. From this formula it can be seen that a twofold increase in speed gives a fourfold increase in energy. So speed is critical. That is why - MiG-31K.
            1. +16
              9 September 2023 13: 06
              Quote: Mr. PeZhe
              Or you can skip the circus with horses and equip the Su-30 with the Dagger. Which has everything in order with the air intakes, and with the speed, and with the range.

              It is forbidden . There will be no show without a circus and horses.
              The Su-30SM is least suitable for this purpose. Firstly, it has a much less durable airframe. Secondly, its maximum speed is slightly more than 2100 km/h, which does not affect the weather. And most importantly, it was created precisely as an MFI. That is, first of all, it is a fighter. And only then a little bomber.
              And the composition of its on-board equipment is, if not an order of magnitude, then many times weaker - for tasks of an impact nature.
              And the Su-30SM carries less fuel on board than the Su-34.
              And the cabin itself of the Su-34 is an order of magnitude more convenient specifically for long-distance flights and performing strike missions, when the best interaction between crew members is ensured.
              You see how many reasons there were to make this particular choice.
              Quote: Mr. PeZhe
              And second. The Mig-31K launches the product not in straight flight, but on a trajectory section close to ballistic.

              Actually, this is not entirely true. The MiG-31K climbs to an altitude/flight level of 15 m, accelerates to 000 km/h, after which, making a small hill, it drops a rocket, which then starts its own engine. At the same time, he can launch/disconnect it in horizontal flight, and the rocket will still, after starting the engine, reach the desired trajectory. If you saw the footage of the Kinzhal launch, you should have noticed that it detached almost in horizontal flight, and having disconnected and fallen several tens of meters and started the engine, it abruptly began to climb. The launch vehicle provides the rocket with an initial impulse at a given altitude.
              If such a launch is carried out by the Su-34, it will most likely be from horizontal flight (it’s simply safer for the carrier, the missile will come off easier), from the same altitude, but at a speed a quarter less than that of the MiG-31.
              And we must remember that the main acceleration impulse of the rocket is still provided by its engine, accelerating it to 10 M+. That at such speeds the difference is 600 km/h, I think you can calculate for yourself. After all, the launch height remains unchanged. So the range will of course decrease, but by 100, 200, well, 250 km.
              Quote: Mr. PeZhe
              speed is critical.

              The speed of the Su-34 is quite sufficient to launch the Kinzhal and therefore is not at all “critical”. It only affects the range, and even then not significantly. Not significant specifically for the current conflict. Because when entering from the north or south, the “Dagger” is guaranteed to reach ANY point used.
              And if engine nacelles are installed on the Su-34M (it’s better to do this assembled than to sculpt a paleative... and unification again) from the Su-35S, then the launch speed of the Kinzhal will be the same as when launching from the MiG-31 .
              But the MiG-31 is an old aircraft, with a service life of up to the middle of the next decade. And there won’t be many of them for these purposes anyway... a serious modification of the airframe is needed to strengthen the pylon. And the Su-34M can be made right at the factory for just such a load and such a pylon. And such aircraft will serve for a LONG time. There will be a LOT of them.
              Why do you need a LOT of them?
              For mass application. Because single strikes, even from the most high-precision and irresistible missiles, will not bring any particular benefit. This is what we observe in the SVO experience. But the massive, concentrated use of such missiles can qualitatively change the state of affairs and the balance of power. Inflict maximum one-time damage on the enemy, or simultaneously destroy all of his critical targets at once... say, command posts, administrative centers, critical infrastructure and weapons depots.
              Let's say we need to launch a massive nuclear strike with tactical ammunition... say, in Europe or Japan. smile
              Do you really think that such blows can be delivered... gradually, little by little, several at a time? lol Of course not . The strike must be one-time, knocking out at once the entire defense system of the enemy country. So as not to return to this again and not wait for an answer from him. Or wait, but VERY weakened.
              And for this to happen, there must be a LOT of such “Dagger” carriers in one flight. After all, their targets will be air defense/missile defense facilities, command centers and their strategic nuclear forces bases (submarine submarine bases, air bases where nuclear bombs and missiles are stored). And the “Calibers” and “Iskanders” will fly to the remaining targets.
              1. -5
                9 September 2023 14: 56
                The Su-30SM is least suitable for this purpose. Firstly, it has a much less durable airframe

                Not true. Both aircraft are based on the original Su-27 airframe and have the same strength characteristics (overload restrictions). Only, unlike the Su-30, the Su-34 has to constantly carry a titanium armored cabin, which is absolutely useless and radically reduces performance characteristics in operations at medium and high altitudes. But this armored cabin has nothing to do with the strength of the airframe.
                And most importantly, it was created precisely as an MFI. That is, first of all, it is a fighter. And only then a little bomber.
                And the composition of its on-board equipment is, if not an order of magnitude, then many times weaker - for tasks of an impact nature.

                The MiG-31's on-board equipment capabilities for strike missions are many times weaker than even the Su-30's. But this did not stop it from being converted into a drummer.
                For mass application. Because single strikes, even from the most high-precision and irresistible missiles, will not bring any particular benefit.

                A massive blow with an expensive high-precision weapon? The navel will come undone. Therefore, I would prefer to see 10 Geraniums in a massive strike rather than 000 Daggers.
                1. +9
                  10 September 2023 00: 28
                  Quote: Mr. PeZhe
                  Not true. Both aircraft are based on the original Su-27 airframe and have the same strength characteristics (overload restrictions).

                  They have one base - T-10. But this does not mean at all that their airframes are identical; for each aircraft they were calculated, tested and fine-tuned for each aircraft personally.
                  You won’t argue that the Su-27 and Su-35S have exactly the same airframes, designed for exactly the same loads? smile You won't, will you? winked
                  Otherwise, they would have spun saucers on the old glider and everything that it (Su-35S) does in the sky.
                  The Su-35S airframe is much stronger and can withstand much greater loads/overloads.
                  So what can we say about the Su-34, which was developed according to Soviet technical specifications. The Su-34 is much HEavier than the Su-27 and Su-30. It was intended to be... a heavy STORMMAN!! That is why its cabin is so well armored - better than that of the Su-25. In addition, the most critical parts of the fuselage are armored. And this is all weight.
                  And such a booking is JUSTIFIED. And this was confirmed by the experience of their use in the SVO, when, after bombing strikes from WWI, pilots often recorded the hit of fragments of their own bombs on the lower part of the cockpit and, after landing, picked out the fragments that were stuck in the armored skin of the fuselage. Without this protection, we would have lost significantly more aircraft in the first phase of the air strike.
                  The maximum take-off weight of the Su-34 and MiG-31 is approximately the same (about 44 tons), while the MAXIMUM combat load of the Su-34 is 12 kg. (twelve tons!!). And so many bombs were loaded onto these planes more than once during the hot phase of the conflict in Syria. The maximum (not maximum, which is loaded with insufficient fuel in the VTB) load is 000 kg. And the normal load for a standard flight is usually half of the maximum load (8 kg) in order to save airframe life. That's how much they load on them during an ordinary flight... if not less. But this depends on the specific task.
                  Quote: Mr. PeZhe
                  The MiG-31's on-board equipment capabilities for strike missions are many times weaker than even the Su-30's.

                  It does not matter . When choosing a carrier for the Kinzhal (and we worked on it for a long time), we simply remembered that we have several MiG31s equipped with a powerful medium pylon for suspending a heavy anti-satellite missile. So they were used during testing, and then, having adopted the entire complex, they decided to leave everything as is and began to equip the MiG-31 airframes taken out from storage into carriers of the “Dagger” - fortunately, we already had experience, they don’t look for good from good, but avionics The MiG-31 still had almost everything changed during overhaul and modernization.
                  But when the question arose about the need to sharply increase the number of Kinzhal carriers, there could be no talk of any MiG-31s. They are too old, after modernization they will only last 10-15 years. At the same time, the costs of modernization and maintaining technical fitness will be much higher than for new combat aircraft. So the choice of media is obvious.
                  Pies must be baked by a pie maker. But if he also sews boots... it may happen that he absent-mindedly puts the boots in the oven. Joke .
                  The bet on IFIs is valid ONLY for small, poor and dependent countries. Such as NATO countries. An all-rounder is good for everyone, but he will always lose to a good professional in each of the nominations. It will be worse than a pure fighter and will lose outright to a specialized bomber. at the same time it will be prohibitively expensive.
                  Do you know what the purchase price for the Su-30SM is for the Defense Ministry? For the period 2012 - 2016 ?
                  30+ million dollars at the exchange rate of those years.
                  What was the price of the Su-34 at the same time? With its two-ton titanium cabin, fuselage armor and very rich (although not so modern) avionics?
                  $28 million !!!
                  Do you understand?
                  You advocate for a “simpler” MFI as a carrier of the “Dagger”, you curse the Su-34 for its armor and extra weight... for its “narrow” specialization... and at the same time it is almost 10% CHEAPER than your counterpart. lol Don't you find this funny?
                  And all because you need to know the subject of the dispute, or at least be interested in it. In the United States at one time they wanted to rely on MFIs... primarily in carrier-based aircraft. why - it’s clear. F-14s were very expensive, complex and troublesome to maintain, they were expensive, but ... the F-18 seemed to be capable of anything. fellow And the Swede, and the reaper, and the banjo player.
                  And they wrote off all the F-14s without any regret... fortunately the USSR was gone and they had no rivals left on the planet.
                  But... it suddenly turned out that the F-18 is still not as good as a fighter. No, in close combat he was quite good, but already at mid-range... he was worse. Not to mention the fact that it could not carry long-range missiles for a simple reason - its nose cone did not accommodate a sufficiently powerful radar, and what was included was not satisfactory.
                  And in strike missions it often turned out to be weaker than the good old A-6 and A-7.
                  But THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. It is possible to create a multifunctional fighter, and even a very good one (and monstrously expensive) ... but it is impossible to prepare a “multifunctional” universal pilot - a master of air combat and strikes against a variety of ground, surface, moving, stationary and maneuvering targets. Here basic instincts are developed that are often opposite. mutually exclusive .
                  In the Far East in the late 90s and early 00s, when aviation was being reduced, they tried to train Su-27 interceptor pilots in bombing attacks.
                  They tried it once... Fortunately, the generals were still literate and understood everything - they waved their hand and said “never.” Or the MFI pilot must be trained from the cadet bench. And it will turn out so-so.
                  But the specialization paid off.
                  Therefore, in the USA, after those experiments, they decided to make a separate strike and purely fighter version on the basis of one aircraft. And train pilots according to their specialization. That’s why they have specialized aircraft in both the Air Force and the Navy based on the F-15 and F-18 gliders.
                  True, recently they have been playing around with MFI again (F-35) and as a result - “Chinese opera” (hu yi nya).
                  Quote: Mr. PeZhe
                  A massive blow with an expensive high-precision weapon?

                  This is exactly what a REAL war looks like, not a negotiated jump on blood. Namely, a massive strike with specially designed high-precision missiles on command centers, administrative centers, arsenals, bases, airfields and critical infrastructure.
                  Quote: Mr. PeZhe
                  I would prefer to see 10 Geraniums in a massive strike

                  And how did these wonderful UAVs affect the course of the air defense system?
                  The Russian Armed Forces immediately launched a rapid and unstoppable offensive? The enemy is defeated and thrown into dust? Maybe their power grid has been destroyed? Maybe the railway transport stopped?
                  They already existed - these 10 "Geraniums". They are good as an auxiliary tool, as a tool for solving some tactical problems in order to keep the enemy in suspense. But they will never (!!!) penetrate a highly protected bunker at a depth of tens of meters (or hundreds if there is a penetrating nuclear warhead). So a salvo of 000 “Daggers” in a special design (and a regular warhead is utter stupidity in a Real War) can decide the outcome of the war in the shortest possible time. But 500 "Geraniums" - no.
                  1. -5
                    10 September 2023 07: 33
                    It didn’t work out with the Su-34 - they brought in the Su-35? Here is the data on the maximum operational overload of the Su-30 and Su-34: Su-30 - 9, Su-34 - 7. This is the price for an armored cabin that is unnecessary at medium and high altitudes.
                    So a salvo of 500 “Daggers” in a special design (and a regular warhead is utter stupidity in the Real War)

                    That is, in the end it all comes down to a massive nuclear strike on cities with a population of over a million. "And how he breathed, how he breathed!" (With)
                    1. 0
                      11 September 2023 00: 12
                      Quote: Mr. PeZhe
                      data on the maximum operational overload of the Su-30 and Su-34: Su-30 - 9, Su-34 - 7.

                      And what ? Are you surprised and outraged that bombers have a lower permissible overload than a fighter? Funny .
                      Quote: Mr. PeZhe
                      This is the price for an armored cabin that is unnecessary at medium and high altitudes.

                      The Su-34 operates at low and extremely low altitudes. For this reason, his air intakes were adapted for flights at precisely these altitudes and made unregulated.
                      Quote: Mr. PeZhe
                      That is, in the end it all comes down to a massive nuclear strike

                      In a war with NATO and their allies - THIS IS THE ONLY WAY.
                      Quote: Mr. PeZhe
                      by cities with a population of over a million??? belay

                      For headquarters, arsenals, naval bases and air bases, administrative and logistics, industrial centers.
                      Did it surprise you?
                      Don't be surprised anymore.
                      1. -4
                        11 September 2023 03: 59
                        Quote: bayard
                        Did this surprise you? Don't be surprised anymore

                        Too lazy to search, you write a lot. But you seem, in your own words, to be an air defense specialist, nothing more. Where does so much aplomb come from? I don't understand request
                      2. +2
                        11 September 2023 09: 20
                        Quote: Repellent
                        you write a lot.

                        Time has come.
                        Quote: Repellent
                        But you seem, in your own words, to be an air defense specialist, nothing more.

                        This is basic education and the beginning of service, there were other education and areas of activity. In addition, the Soviet air defense formations had their own fighter aircraft, both interceptors and helicopters (my division had a Mi-24 squadron) to intercept targets like Rust. And air defense works in close conjunction with the Air Force, Civil Aviation, and Military Aviation. Counters the means of aerospace attack, the carriers of which are, incl. and the fleets of a potential enemy. It is necessary to know all these VKN means and their carriers, to monitor their development, to know all their performance characteristics, tactical techniques, flight routes, directions of probable attacks.
                        This is especially true for combat command and control officers, especially RIC.

                        Quote: Repellent
                        Where does so much aplomb come from?

                        I could ask in response “where does so much bile come from,” but... just look who I’m answering to.
                        Quote: Repellent
                        This is an alarmist who is sensitive to the situation.

                        In Donetsk, all the alarmists died out back in 2014. And the situation has been happening here for more than 9 years. Age, life experience and qualifications allow us to assess what is happening.
                        Quote: Repellent
                        I do not understand

                        It's not obligatory .
                      3. -1
                        13 September 2023 23: 30
                        Quote: bayard
                        Quote: Repellent
                        I do not understand

                        It's not obligatory .

                        You have learned to be rude, yes.

                        Quote: bayard
                        Quote: Repellent
                        Where does so much aplomb come from?

                        I could ask in response “where does so much bile come from”, but... just look who I’m answering to

                        And you know for sure Who are you answering to?

                        Quote: bayard
                        there were other educations and areas of activity

                        NOT FEELABLE YET.

                        You sang there that the Ukrainians would blow up the dam. I said no. I'm right, in the end, and you - ahem... were wrong, as usual. Hence the label "alarmist". It suits you, yes. hi
                      4. 0
                        11 September 2023 20: 04
                        And what ? Are you surprised and outraged that bombers have a lower permissible overload than a fighter? Funny .

                        It’s funny when an uneducated body claims that the Su-34 airframe is stronger because it is heavier. Don't embarrass yourself.
                        The Su-34 operates at low and extremely low altitudes. For this reason, his air intakes were adapted for flights at precisely these altitudes and made unregulated.
                        Is it time for awesome stories about the launch of the Dagger from WWI? Why did you drag in small and extremely low heights in the topic about “Dagger”? Don't embarrass yourself #2.
                        For headquarters, arsenals, naval bases and air bases, administrative and logistics, industrial centers.

                        For this, Daggers are practically not needed (except to defeat the ZKP). There are enough old X-55s, which are long overdue for decommissioning.
                        Did it surprise you?
                        Don't be surprised anymore.

                        For some reason you decided that you have the right to tell me? Don't embarrass yourself #3.
                      5. 0
                        12 September 2023 04: 24
                        Quote: Mr. PeZhe
                        It's funny when an uneducated body claims

                        Are we being rude again? You have not yet confirmed your education, nor your understanding of the operational tasks of Aviation.
                        Quote: Mr. PeZhe
                        claims that the Su-34 airframe is stronger because it is heavier

                        The strength of the Su-34 airframe is not designed for maneuvering at maximum overloads, but for carrying the maximum combat load and armor. Learn the materiel - the Su-34 was created according to Soviet technical specifications as a HEAVY ATTACK AIRCRAFT. For this purpose, he has an armored cabin and armored lower part of the fuselage in the most critical places.
                        The Su-34, with a slight lack of fuel, quite normally lifts 12 tons of combat load.
                        And with the "Dagger" suspended, he does not have to conduct a maneuverable battle, but carry out launches at a given altitude, at a given speed. Without overloading your glider. The normal load for the Su-34 (half of the maximum / not maximum) is 4 tons. The "Dagger" weighs a little more + the pylon and additional reinforcement of the airframe in the area of ​​the central pylon. In total, this is five tons +, complete “nonsense” for the Su-34.
                        Quote: Mr. PeZhe
                        Is it time for awesome stories about the launch of the Dagger from WWI?

                        Really? I definitely didn't write about this. And you are a manipulator, my friend, why were you so twisted? lol
                        Quote: Mr. PeZhe
                        Why did you drag in small and extremely low heights in the topic about “Dagger”?

                        Then, to explain (not to you, it’s probably useless to you) why the Su-34 has UNADJUSTABLE air intakes. It was attack aircraft and fighter-bombers operating at low altitudes that were equipped with such simplified air intakes, tuned/adapted for transonic/transonic/small supersonic speeds. The Su-17, MiG-27 and Su-34 had such (unregulated) air intakes. Therefore, despite having quite powerful engines, their maximum speed at altitude was noticeably lower than that of fighters with the same engines.
                        But.
                        If now the Su-34M is to become both the carrier of the “Dagger” and (possibly) an MRA strike aircraft (carrier of the civil protection anti-ship missile system), then it would be quite justified to equip them with normal adjustable air intakes, taking the entire engine nacelle from the Su-35S or even the Su-57 - for optimization operation of the AL-41F-1S at altitude and to achieve maximum speeds there. In this case, the Su-34M with the Kinzhal on the suspension will be able to reach speeds at altitudes (10 - 15 km) of up to 2400 - 2500 km/h. And the “Dagger” will fly at a completely normal range.
                        Did you understand?
                        And I stated this quite clearly in the posts above.
                        Quote: Mr. PeZhe
                        For headquarters, arsenals, naval bases and air bases, administrative and logistics, industrial centers.

                        For this, Daggers are practically not needed (except to defeat the ZKP). There are enough old X-55s, which are long overdue for decommissioning.

                        Sit down - TWO.
                        All of the above targets/objects are usually covered by fairly powerful air defense/missile defense systems, are located deep in enemy territory, and in the first strike the missiles will have to break through the air defense/missile defense system.
                        A missile launcher, subsonic, albeit in WWI, flying to a target over enemy territory will be detected (if it is not Papuans), fighters will be scrambled and intercepted. WWI fighters are not a panacea; the Ukrainian Armed Forces have already understood this and are achieving results. So, in order to defeat these targets in the first minutes of the conflict, weapons are needed that can pass through the enemy’s air defense/missile defense like a knife through butter. This is the “Dagger”, which will be used en masse in these attacks.
                        The Iskanders will work as the second echelon at their range, knocking out, together with the Kinzhals, all control centers, administrative centers, arsenals (primarily nuclear weapons), airfields and troop deployment sites. And only after this will the Kyrgyz Republic come and begin to destroy the infrastructure. And they will not be wearing “white gloves”, but will be wearing standard special equipment.
                        Quote: Mr. PeZhe
                        There are enough old X-55s, which are long overdue for decommissioning.

                        And they are written off - according to you. Using, as a rule, as provocateur missiles, decoys, or re-equipping them with conventional warheads.
                        Quote: Mr. PeZhe
                        For some reason you decided that you have the right to tell me?

                        You have also decided a lot about yourself. But you are wrong.
                        Quote: Mr. PeZhe
                        Do not disgrace

                        Why lower yourself so low? First of all, incompetence?
                        Quote: bayard
                        It's not obligatory .
                      6. -1
                        12 September 2023 08: 33
                        The strength of the Su-34 airframe is not designed for maneuvering at maximum overloads, but for carrying the maximum combat load and armor. Learn materiel
                        Do I understand correctly that the Tu-160 airframe, designed for a payload of 45 tons, is stronger than the Su-34 airframe? I don’t even know whether to laugh or cry. An indicator of the strength of an airframe is its limitations on the available overload. I have already given you the numbers - Su-34 - 7, Su-30 - 9. Therefore, your statement that the Su-34 airframe is stronger than the Su-30 airframe is a lie. I drew your attention to this fact three times, but you prefer to sit in a puddle.
                        If now the Su-34M is to become both a carrier of the “Dagger” and (possibly) an MPA strike aircraft (carrier of the GZ anti-ship missile system), then it would be quite justified to equip them with normal adjustable air intakes

                        You can (in your wet dreams) equip the Su-34 with any engines and air intakes adapted for them, but a heavy armored cabin, useless at medium and high altitudes and radically reducing performance characteristics, is here to stay. Therefore, as an upper stage for the Kinzhal, the Su-34 is a much worse platform than the same Su-30. As your ARGUMENT, you began to cite the advantages of the Su-34 in WWI and WWII. What does this have to do with the Dagger - only the voices in your head know.
                        Sit down - TWO.
                        All of the above targets/objects are usually covered by fairly powerful air defense/missile defense systems, are located deep in enemy territory, and in the first strike the missiles will have to break through the air defense/missile defense system.

                        Monsieur hasn’t heard anything about the saturation of air defense? Haven’t you heard about false targets in the form of the same Geraniums? But I’m sure that you can spend expensive, super-scarce Daggers on this. At the same time, turning the country's budget inside out. Sit down, COL.
                        And they are written off - according to you.

                        Not a single X-55 has ever flown to Izhevsk. Switch to softer drugs.
                      7. 0
                        13 September 2023 00: 58
                        Quote: Mr. PeZhe
                        I don’t even know whether to laugh or cry.

                        When the patient does not know whether to cry or laugh... he must be treated.
                        Quote: Mr. PeZhe
                        I have already given you the numbers - Su-34 - 7, Su-30 - 9.

                        What is the maximum overload for the MiG-31 airframe?
                        And does this affect his ability to be the bearer of the "Dagger"?
                        And the simplest question is: does ... maneuverability matter for the carrier of the "Dagger"?
                        Quote: Mr. PeZhe
                        Therefore, as an upper stage for the Kinzhal, the Su-34 is a much worse platform than the same Su-30.

                        Once again for those in need of treatment. For the Su-34, the combat load in the form of the "Dagger" is not excessive and critical, does not require serious modifications to the airframe, and its speed and altitude characteristics are sufficient for launching at a given altitude and at a given speed. In addition, the Su-34 is a bomber, and when not on duty with the Dagger under its belly, it can perform other strike missions. For example, strike UPAB-500\1500\3000. The method of using these ammunition (from an altitude of up to 14 m and at high supersonic speeds) is quite correlated with the work on launching the Kinzhal, therefore such vehicles can be used in a much wider range than the MiG-000K. The useful return from such aircraft and their crews will be higher.
                        Quote: Mr. PeZhe
                        a heavy armored cabin, useless at medium and high altitudes and radically reducing performance characteristics, is not going anywhere.

                        It is integrated into the airframe and its weight distribution, is capable of protecting the crew at high/medium altitudes from the damaging elements of RVV, and contributes to the survivability of the crew. And it doesn’t particularly affect the performance characteristics, especially for the BOMBER. With adjustable air intakes, the speed of the Su-34 would be the same as that of the Su-30SM - 2100 - 2150 km/h.
                        And what is the difference?
                        Quote: Mr. PeZhe
                        The Su-34 is a much worse platform than the same Su-30.

                        Tell this to the Ministry of Defense and the Commander-in-Chief of the Aerospace Forces, as well as the commission that made the decision to use the Su-34 for these purposes.
                        Quote: Mr. PeZhe
                        As your ARGUMENT, you began to cite the advantages of the Su-34 in WWI and WWII.

                        Again the antics of the alien guard (PeZhe) lol
                        The Su-34 was created for work at low/medium altitudes, which is why it has such air intakes. With classic adjustable air intakes, its speed will be at the level of the Su-30SM, despite the heavier planet. The overclocking characteristics will be slightly lower, but for the range of its tasks this does not matter much.
                        Are voices bothering you?
                        You don't know whether you should cry or laugh?
                        Take your last breath, blow the Bubble and leave this topic alone.
                        Quote: Mr. PeZhe
                        Monsieur hasn’t heard anything about the saturation of air defense?

                        What do you know about this?
                        How many targets can modern radars track simultaneously?
                        On what basis are the highest priority goals identified?
                        What is the speed of the KR and Geranium and can one be passed off as the other?
                        And why come up with complex schemes with a slow and unguaranteed air defense breakthrough, if high-priority targets must be destroyed with lightning speed in the first hour of the war?
                        Quote: Mr. PeZhe
                        expensive super-scarce Daggers.

                        Where does such concern about the Budget of the Motherland come from?
                        Seryozha, you are from another planet. "Dagger" is an ordinary missile - the same "Iskander-M" with enhanced thermal protection. And they use Iskanders to attack barracks and stand-alone medium-range air defense systems... And they didn’t go broke.
                        Quote: Mr. PeZhe
                        The Su-34 is a much worse platform than the same Su-30.

                        If there is a special need, you can also perform an operation with a kitchen knife, but for some reason surgeons prefer to do it with a scalpel. And with the help of other SPECIAL tools.
                        Why do you think?
                        Quote: Mr. PeZhe
                        softer drugs.

                        Stop drugs Sergei. Try drinking.
                        And soon you will forget about airplanes, rockets and a budget turned inside out.
                        Or just do something useful.
                      8. 0
                        13 September 2023 18: 36
                        Quote: bayard

                        When the patient does not know whether to cry or laugh... he must be treated.
                        Once again for those in need of treatment.
                        Again the antics of the alien guard (PeZhe) lol
                        Are voices bothering you?
                        You don't know whether you should cry or laugh?
                        Take your last breath, blow the Bubble and leave this topic alone.
                        Seryozha, you are from another planet.
                        Stop drugs Sergei. Try drinking.
                        And soon you will forget about airplanes, rockets and a budget turned inside out.
                        Or just do something useful.

                        What a funny specimen. Decided that narcissism, turning into narcissism, can replace education and knowledge of materiel.
                        But these verbal shocks don’t bother me, so let’s continue.
                        Quote: bayard

                        What is the maximum overload for the MiG-31 airframe?

                        The maximum available overload of the MiG-31 is a little more than 5. And the strength of its airframe is lower than the strength of the airframe of the same Su-30. Despite the fact that the MiG-31 is heavier. You claim that the Su-34 airframe is stronger than the Su-30 airframe because it is heavier. Are you still saying this? Without any verbiage, just - yes or no?
                        Quote: bayard
                        It is integrated into the airframe and its weight distribution, is capable of protecting the crew at high/medium altitudes from the damaging elements of RVV, and contributes to the survivability of the crew.

                        The armored cabin of the Su-34 is designed to protect the crew from bullets and shells/fragments of MZA shells. No one has ever included in the technical specifications the ability of an armored cabin to hold missiles or missiles. On a black day for our aviation - May 13 - the results of the defeat of the Su-34 were no different from the results of the defeat of the Su-35 and electronic warfare Mi-8, which did not have an armored cabin.
                        Your next glide path into a puddle.
                        Quote: bayard
                        What is the speed of the KR and Geranium and can one be passed off as the other?

                        And this is not necessary. Geraniums, as a rule, are used as a strike weapon, the X-55 - again, as a rule - as a LC. Moreover, their roles can be easily changed before the strike.
                        Isn't it too difficult for you?
                        Quote: bayard

                        Tell this to the Ministry of Defense and the Commander-in-Chief of the Aerospace Forces, as well as the commission that made the decision to use the Su-34 for these purposes.

                        Our “amazing” Defense Ministry and the Aerospace Forces Commander-in-Chief, who showed themselves “in all their glory”, slept through the unmanned revolution, did not teach aviation in A2AD, did not order group electronic warfare aircraft for the Aerospace Forces, capable of operating from combat formations, and did not provide the Aerospace Forces with a sufficient number of aircraft in the twenty pre-war years AWACS aircraft and tankers are not authority for me. Rather, it's the other way around.
                        Quote: bayard

                        "Dagger" is an ordinary missile - the same "Iskander-M" with enhanced thermal protection. And they use Iskanders to attack barracks and stand-alone medium-range air defense systems... And they didn’t go broke.

                        It is precisely because expensive and scarce Iskanders were used for purposes that did not require the use of BR that we are now seeing their use in homeopathic quantities. So yes, we went broke. "Dagger" (like "Iskander") are very expensive missiles, which must be used at targets that are optimal for them (buried and protected targets). For everything else there are cheaper KRs and MUCH cheaper Geraniums.
                        Quote: bayard

                        And why come up with complex schemes with a slow and unguaranteed air defense breakthrough, if high-priority targets must be destroyed with lightning speed in the first hour of the war?

                        I once again suggest that you switch to softer drugs. The “first hour of the war” has long passed - the war is in its second year.
                  2. 0
                    10 September 2023 23: 40
                    . And all because the subject of the dispute must be owned, or at least interested in

                    It's in vain to throw around beads. A person has formed his own opinion (which is not bad at all) with an existing superficial understanding of the subject of discussion and an unwillingness to carefully read the necessary basic material for a truly interesting discussion.
                    . Here basic instincts are developed that are often opposite. mutually exclusive .

                    To roughly draw an analogy, it’s probably something similar to the control and behavior in skids and on slippery surfaces of cars with front or rear wheel drive. Actions that help get a rear-wheel drive car out of a skid can be fatal with a front-wheel drive car and vice versa.
                    1. -3
                      11 September 2023 00: 18
                      Quote: velikoros-xnumx
                      You're wasting your beads in vain

                      There are no beads. Read the chela carefully, at least a year in advance. This is an alarmist who is sensitive to the situation. A special case of mental disorder. No more.
                      1. +1
                        11 September 2023 00: 41
                        Quote: Repellent
                        Quote: velikoros-xnumx
                        You're wasting your beads in vain

                        There are no beads. Read the chela carefully, at least a year in advance. This is an alarmist who is sensitive to the situation. A special case of mental disorder. No more.

                        Who do you mean?
                      2. -3
                        11 September 2023 01: 05
                        Quote: velikoros-xnumx
                        Quote: Repellent
                        Quote: velikoros-xnumx
                        You're wasting your beads in vain

                        There are no beads. Read the chela carefully, at least a year in advance. This is an alarmist who is sensitive to the situation. A special case of mental disorder. No more.

                        Who do you mean?

                        You answered @bayard. Are there other interpretations? wink
                      3. +1
                        11 September 2023 01: 20
                        Quote: Repellent
                        Quote: velikoros-xnumx
                        Quote: Repellent
                        Quote: velikoros-xnumx
                        You're wasting your beads in vain

                        There are no beads. Read the chela carefully, at least a year in advance. This is an alarmist who is sensitive to the situation. A special case of mental disorder. No more.

                        Who do you mean?

                        You answered @bayard. Are there other interpretations? wink

                        Apparently you were wrong to stop continuing pharmacological therapy. It’s a pity, because the key to success and stabilization of the mental state is the continuity of the course of treatment.
                        In general, how is it with Gaidai that “everyone will be cured.”
                        I wish you health and all the best.
                      4. -3
                        11 September 2023 01: 33
                        Quote: velikoros-xnumx
                        Apparently it was in vain that you stopped continuing pharmacological therapy.

                        I don’t understand, my sunshine. What are you about? More details please Yes what
          4. +2
            9 September 2023 10: 59
            Comment on an independent expert article.
            And a practical guide to action.
            The question now for the real modernization of our combat aircraft fleet - AL-41F engines - is how many and at what pace can they be produced, how quickly to modernize them for specific tasks, and... will our economists and exporters already use up money for these purposes, as happened before? Obviously they are not fighting on our side; where possible, they will make a mess with the next “didn’t do it.”
            1. +12
              9 September 2023 13: 19
              Quote: faterdom
              - AL-41F engines - how many and at what pace they can be produced, how to quickly upgrade them for specific tasks,

              The AL-41F-1S does not need to be modernized, it was created specifically for the Su-35S (T-10) airframe, their production has been established, its characteristics, incl. operational, much higher than the AL-31F, and it (41st) was originally planned to be installed on these two models (Su-30SM and Su-34). But the old air intakes of the 31st are not suitable for it; it needs more air. Therefore, the AL-41F-1S will be installed on all new Su-30SM2 and Su-34M, but when re-engining already released aircraft during mid-repair, they will install a new modification of the AL-31F - in the same size as the previous one, but using L-41F technologies -1C. So as not to alter the airframe so radically that it is unjustified.
              There should be enough engines for everyone. And now several times more aircraft will be produced than in previous lethargic years. And all of them (Su-30SM2, Su-34M, Su-35S and even Su-57, until the Izdeliye-30 is completed) will fly on the AL-41F-1S.
              And this is good .
          5. 0
            9 September 2023 13: 51
            The Yak-130 was not even close in Novosibirsk.
          6. 0
            23 October 2023 13: 57
            30 Su-34s per year cannot be achieved in Novosibirsk in peacetime. 20 would be very good. It is necessary to collect components, engines, avionics, etc. from all over the country, 100% complete, otherwise the plane will not fly. He simply will not be allowed to fly.
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. The comment was deleted.
    2. -12
      9 September 2023 11: 36
      Dear Roman Skomorokhov, of course you don’t know, because delving into the topic is not your thing. And to answer this question, just look at the facilities where the SU-34 is produced and everything will be clear as daylight...

      Nothing is clear. Like there are not enough of them, Su-34? So they mostly stand idle anyway, and sometimes they shoot from their territory, about 5 kilometers from the LBS.

      It is definitely clear that the 40-year-old MIG-31 has proven to be better in modern warfare than the 10-year-old Su-34.
      As well as Tu-22 with strategists. Yes
      1. +5
        9 September 2023 12: 45
        How should you shoot while hovering over Kiev? Are you mentally stuck in World War II? Are you giving us a carpet bombing “A la Dresden” with the help of a TU-160? Regarding the number of flights of the aircraft you indicated, I have no doubt that you have complete information from reliable sources laughing
        1. -6
          9 September 2023 18: 43
          How should you shoot while hovering over Kiev? Are you mentally stuck in World War II? Are you giving us a carpet bombing “A la Dresden” with the help of a TU-160? As for the number of flights of the aircraft you indicated, I have no doubt that you have complete information from reliable sources laughing

          What you say is true. It’s not possible to hover over Kiev, or rather it worked, but not for long. That's why this is the tactic now. Helicopters also no longer go deep; tanks hide behind the infantry.
          “Outdated” missile carriers were actually able to operate under these conditions.

          The number of sorties is not important, what is important is that they do not work as planned, and they cannot carry a heavy rocket.
          So it's not a matter of production capacity. wink
  2. +4
    9 September 2023 04: 50
    overwhelmed with joy hysteria about

    It looks like Mr. Skomorokhov decided to add a little rudeness to the “breadth of his competence.” So, for a change...
  3. +3
    9 September 2023 04: 53
    ...initial ability to work against ground targets

    It’s a little unclear - the SU-34 initially had the ability to work on targets 1000-3000 kilometers from the ammunition launch point???
    1. -5
      9 September 2023 05: 04
      What difference does it make what you throw, cast iron on your heads, or a rocket for 1000 km?
      1. +8
        9 September 2023 06: 36
        Quote: Andrey Moskvin
        What difference does it make what you throw, cast iron on your heads, or a rocket for 1000 km?

        By dropping cast iron on heads, you can get a response from the person you are dropping it on, and launching a rocket 1000 km from this response guarantees the survival of the crew. Well, or almost guaranteed... wink
    2. +7
      9 September 2023 13: 23
      Quote from tsvetahaki
      It’s a little unclear - the SU-34 initially had the ability to work on targets 1000-3000 kilometers from the ammunition launch point???

      Certainly . It doesn’t really matter to him whether he carries three FAB-1500s or three X-102s, which have a range of 5500 km. will fly away from the launch point. Only these missiles have their own standard carriers. But the X-50 (which has a range of 2500 km) will be quite a standard load for it.
      1. +3
        10 September 2023 03: 59
        Quote: bayard
        Quote from tsvetahaki
        It’s a little unclear - the SU-34 initially had the ability to work on targets 1000-3000 kilometers from the ammunition launch point???

        Certainly . It doesn’t really matter to him whether he carries three FAB-1500s or three X-102s, which have a range of 5500 km. will fly away from the launch point. Only these missiles have their own standard carriers. But the X-50 (which has a range of 2500 km) will be quite a standard load for it.

        The article is not about delivering something somewhere and having it fall from the carrier (with an engine or not), but about the possibility of sighting systems, which are better on the SU-34 than on the MIG-31.
        This is what the question is about.
  4. +1
    9 September 2023 05: 02
    "As for our situation, despite weighing the pros and cons, there is still a kind of understatement." - your situation, Mr. Skomorokhov, ours is in many ways different from yours.
  5. -2
    9 September 2023 05: 03
    why did the moments costly remake them into daggers instead of mass dryers right away? to reach NATO countries or what? Well, they would strike with a dozen daggers and would it change?
    and then "suddenly" it turned out that there were so many enemies that even xiao an would not be enough for everyone and it was pointless even to shoot them, which means you can attach daggers for drying ... when the Kremlin already starts thinking years ahead, and not six months.
  6. +3
    9 September 2023 05: 14
    And he, Dagger, generally climbs under the su34? And the fact that the plane lifts 8 tons does not negate the fact that holders up to one and a half tons are designed. They need to be redone, and possibly the insides should be strengthened, as the Indians remade the su30 under the brahmos
    1. Eug
      +7
      9 September 2023 05: 48
      Definitely, it is necessary to redo the entire Integrated Power Scheme - KSS - as they “cleverly” call it. In terms of balancing, most likely, the usual capabilities of the control system will be sufficient, but certainly in terms of height and launch speed, the restrictions are very “narrow”. And yet, I have long believed that it is necessary to make practically a single type of aircraft as a long-range interception complex and a naval missile carrier, in the “weight category” between the MiG-31 and Tu-22. For the Black Sea and the Baltic, the Su-30 (34) with anti-ship missiles is quite enough, but for the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet...
      1. 0
        9 September 2023 06: 24
        You described the TU-128. Exactly the same.
      2. -3
        9 September 2023 11: 41
        Definitely, it is necessary to redo the entire Integrated Power Scheme - KSS - as they “cleverly” call it. In terms of balancing, most likely, the usual capabilities of the control system will be sufficient, but certainly in terms of height and launch speed, the restrictions are very “narrow”. And yet, I have long believed that it is necessary to make practically a single type of aircraft as a long-range interception complex and a naval missile carrier, in the “weight category” between the MiG-31 and Tu-22. For the Black Sea and the Baltic, the Su-30 (34) with anti-ship missiles is quite enough, but for the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet...

        And for a “land” warrior carrier too. Optimally - for 2 Dagger type missiles. hi
  7. +6
    9 September 2023 05: 21
    About speed. There is a difference between 1 and 900 km/h

    If these machines are considered as simple means of delivery, neither speed nor distance matter. The main thing is that it delivery vehicle did not fall into the zone of responsibility of enemy air defense ...
  8. -5
    9 September 2023 05: 34
    Article about carrier aircraft. But it is still about the ultimate effectiveness of the Dagger.
    It has already been quite competently discussed at VO that the use of a single missile, be it Caliber, Burya or Dagger, does not cause significant damage to the enemy.
    Unless it hits a very important point object, which probably doesn’t exist in the Northern Military District.
    What is the Dagger capable of?
    It is effective to raid the headquarters where the military council is taking place. But it doesn’t come every hour or day. Well, wander around the arms depot. The effect will be like that of an average high-explosive bomb.
    Another thing is that targets are hit in a certain depth of enemy defense.
    Any TR and OTR become really effective only when equipped with “special” warheads, that is, nuclear ones.
    Then one missile from the Kinzhal or the same Iskander can actually destroy a tank brigade. And not only tank ones.
    Therefore, I believe that despite the urgent need to use the Dagger in the air defense system, its use in its effectiveness does not pay for the production costs.
    A rocket is not manufactured in one day or one month.
    Thousands of people are involved in the production of ONE copy.
    The cost of the product is quite high.
    And so the rocket was suspended from the plane and an hour later it was gone. Just press the button....
    Therefore, isn't it better to focus on converting high-explosive bombs into planning ones?
    They are no less effective than rockets, but at a price two orders of magnitude cheaper.
    1. GGV
      +4
      9 September 2023 07: 31
      Let me disagree with you. There were very grandiose booms in the very rear of the Sumerians, for example in Khmelnitsky. The ammunition depot burned brightly and for a very long time and exploded. These are the goals that justify the production of missiles.
      1. -3
        9 September 2023 11: 51
        for example, in Khmelnitsky, the ammunition warehouse burned brightly and for a very long time and exploded.


        Is it really possible that no one except Dagger could destroy those warehouses?
        The same Caliber, which is at least 10 times cheaper than the Dagger.....
        1. +5
          9 September 2023 13: 38
          Quote: assault
          The same Caliber, which is at least 10 times cheaper than the Dagger....

          In those cases, a warhead penetrating to great depth was needed. They were hitting heavily buried fortified bunkers.
  9. 0
    9 September 2023 05: 36
    Why is everything so twisted and do we know about everything?
    Thank God you don’t know everything!
  10. +8
    9 September 2023 06: 38
    Someone explain why half of the article is devoted to supersonic speed of various carriers, if the Dagger is launched at subsonic speed?
    1. 0
      9 September 2023 06: 44
      We must assume that we are talking about the speed of delivery to the launch point. Moreover, I can’t imagine that the MiG will drag a missile at a speed of 2M. There is no need for words at all.
    2. 0
      9 September 2023 07: 02
      Quote from: mad-max78
      Someone explain why half of the article is devoted to supersonic speed of various carriers, if the Dagger is launched at subsonic speed?

      Where did this data come from? At least some kind of proof...
    3. +6
      9 September 2023 08: 08
      Someone explain why half of the article is devoted to supersonic speed of various carriers, if the Dagger is launched at subsonic speed?
      Well, it is this speed that is written in the passport data of airplanes (although it is not indicated that without external suspensions), but this is not essential for the author. After all, it is written!
  11. +3
    9 September 2023 06: 44
    where did you find out that the Mig-31K accelerates the Kinzhal to 3000 km/h? He and the "Dagger" can fly up to 2,000 km/h, which is enough!
  12. +6
    9 September 2023 06: 50
    About 9 tons of combat load for the MiG-31, this is unexpected - 5 tons is official.
    As for why the MiG-31 and not immediately the Su-34, you can probably refer to the mystery of the Russian soul and, oddly enough, limited funds - ready-made developments for the MiG-31I and Iskander were used (I’ll state right away - these are my personal conclusions/conjectures / assumptions)
    1. -3
      9 September 2023 12: 07
      You can probably refer to the mystery of the Russian soul and, oddly enough, limited funds

      Well, whatever one may say, 10-12 Tu-22M3 M, capable of carrying 4 Daggers both in range and speed, are much better suited for the role of “Dagger Bearers” than the MiG-31K or Su-34M.....
      I believe that spending huge amounts of money on converting MiG-31 fighters into missile carriers was nothing more than a PR campaign by the Kremlin to “intimidate” its partners.
      But there, too, it’s not just stupid children sitting there who understand perfectly well that for a real victory, thousands and tens of thousands of weapons are needed, and not just one indicative squadron of MiG-31K.
      1. +2
        9 September 2023 12: 45
        Quote: assault
        Well, whatever one may say, 10-12 Tu-22M3 M, capable of carrying 4 Daggers in both range and speed, are much better suited for the role of “Dagger Bearers” than the MiG-31K

        The MiG’s launch line is further, in European conditions this is important, no one will allow you to walk freely over it. But for some reason the modification in the form of an accelerating stage did not take place right away (perhaps the notorious lack of funds)
        Why is it better in speed?
        And yes, in Europe they are not stupid children and they are afraid not just of “Daggers”, but of “Daggers” with a nuclear warhead, you don’t need tens of thousands of them, the main thing is to get there.,


        1. +1
          9 September 2023 13: 30
          Quote: assault
          Well, whatever one may say, but 10-12 Tu-22M3 M, capable of carrying 4 Daggers.....
          As I understand it, the “Dagger” is not a cheap weapon, and its use is justified only in cases where “Calibers” and the like cannot cope. A target appeared - the plane took off, and the Dagger did what others could not.
          Why do you need a plane with 4 Kinzhal missiles?
  13. -1
    9 September 2023 07: 10
    About Indeed, why did they choose the MiG-31 then? Have you really decided that speed is really everything? After all, the Su-34 with all its advantages was here, with us! Why did everything turn out this way and do we know everything?
    Surely there is no idea that during this time “Dagger” could have been finalized for use from different media? And tomorrow it turns out that launch is possible from the entire line of aircraft of the Su-27+ family.. And again the cry, why was that possible? It's possible, but not right away...
    rs: Otkel info that "Dagger" weighs 4 tons? A reference to the fact that the Iskander missile weighs so much? So where did they get the idea that the Dagger is exactly the same? Questions..
    1. +1
      10 September 2023 02: 02
      Since the dagger is an aero Iskander. Look at the rockets, don’t you see the similarities?
  14. +1
    9 September 2023 07: 58
    Well, how can you talk so superficially?
    The Su-34 fuselage does not have the structural strength to hang a Dagger on it, between the engine nacelles.
    Well, no. Never planned.
    Its maximum PTB is 2000.
    Accordingly, it is necessary to completely rebuild the aircraft with the required reinforcements. Modernization, and a deep one.
    Just like it happened with the MiG-31K.

    And therefore to say that every Su-34 “can”?
    Yes, nothing like that.
    Either immediately assemble new reinforced machines, or overhaul the old ones ..
    1. +3
      9 September 2023 11: 59
      Quote: SovAr238A
      The Su-34 fuselage does not have the structural strength to hang a Dagger on it, between the engine nacelles.
      Well, this is not. Never planned...
      The Su-34, with a combat radius reduced to 1000 km, can take up to 12 tons of bomb load, which has been used more than once in Syria. That is, he is able to lift 12 tons, but for a 4-ton rocket his airframe is rather weak? Special mounts for this rocket - yes, you can’t do without it. But if this was done for the MiG-31, then on the Su-34 this task should be simpler.
      1. +5
        10 September 2023 10: 43
        It's about load distribution. The famous Mriya lifted 250 tons. But if you roll a four-meter cast-iron ball into it - the same 250 tons - then it will grunt, because the floor of the cargo compartment is clearly not designed for such a load concentration
    2. +3
      9 September 2023 18: 13
      Most likely there will be strengthening of the machine. Not all Su-34s will be able to carry it. Like the Brahmos of the Indians. But from above it will be impossible to see which Su-34 is below. So it will be enough to have 3-4 of these in a regiment
  15. -6
    9 September 2023 07: 58
    Why are all these planes needed? Let the Su35 carry this missile and produce only it.
  16. +2
    9 September 2023 08: 05
    after all, taking off from a 9-S-7760 on a suspension is something, because due to such a heavy rocket, the center of gravity is expected to shift
    And I don’t even want to comment on this. The author does not know what the alignment range is.
  17. -1
    9 September 2023 09: 44
    "Klava, I'm lying around!" For some reason, everyone is sure that reducing the launch speed will only affect a “some” reduction in the flight range of the “Dagger”! “Experts” even talk about the reduction in speed in passing, as if it were an insignificant fact... but is it so? Starting speed affects both marching speed and range! There is such a way to fly a rocket as flying in an “artificial vacuum”! In this case, the starting engine (accelerator, upper stage) accelerates the rocket to a given speed... well, for example, 5M! Then the main engine is turned on, the thrust of which is “designed” to overcome atmospheric resistance at a given altitude! The rocket flies “as if in a vacuum”, maintaining the starting speed while the main engine is running... After the main engine stops working, the speed begins to fall... If the starting speed, for some reason, is lower and the rocket accelerates to speed M3,5-4, then the main engine will not reach the speed of 5M... The speed may increase by some value, taking into account the lower atmospheric resistance at a lower speed; but most likely not up to 5M! If a ramjet with adjustable thrust is used as a propulsion engine and the “product” is equipped with an atmospheric resistance sensor, then the “product” (missile) will fly at the same speed M3,5-4 as set by the upper stage while the propulsion engine is running! Therefore, creating the starting speed required for performance characteristics is important! Therefore, as in the joke: "In the family, I decide everything! I said: for football... that means for football! [Or maybe to my mother? Said to mom, means to mom!
  18. -4
    9 September 2023 10: 08
    Quote: Tlauicol
    They need to be redone, and perhaps the insides need to be strengthened, just like the Su30 was redone for brahmos for the Indians

    After all, they converted the Su30 into a brahmos for the Indians, which is weak for Russian aircraft. We make the Su-30, and why don’t the Indians sell brahmos missiles to the Russian-Indian ones. Yes, they say that we have Onyxes, put the Zircon hypersonic missile on the su30. Or everything goes for sale over the hill, but our troops get nothing. So the Indians boast about their brahmos, even the Anglo-Saxons admire them, the Indians even for export They started selling only to non-Russians, and they don’t give us anything for Russian oil, but gasoline has become more expensive for Russians. This is some kind of sabotage, they obviously want to send Putin to the pitchforks, depriving him of advanced weapons. Here is another example of the setups of our effective managers and generals. The Su30 Indians not only shoot further at our Su30s, but also see further not only air targets but also ground and sea targets. Yes, they have Israeli-French electronics, but we added this electronics, which was impossible This is to slam it and put it on 10 to our su30. Another example of sabotage is the KA-31sv (KA-35) helicopter for radio reconnaissance of ground targets, the detection range of a train of 3 cars or the movement of 3 trucks on the road is 200 km. Aviation of the Indian Navy - 14 Ka-31, as of 2017. In August 1999, India ordered 9 Ka-31s for a total of $207 million. The contract was completed by the end of 2004. In 2009, 5 more Ka-31s were ordered at a cost of about $20 million each].
    Chinese naval aviation - 9 Ka-31, as of 2016. And in Russia there are only 2 copies, but they don’t see anything; I’m constantly refining them. In China and India, they conduct excellent reconnaissance, they can’t boast enough about it. It doesn’t work for us. The KA-31sv (KA-35 could be useful in the Northern Military District in Ukraine, it doesn’t need airfields, it can operate from any lawn, quickly reconnaissance and quickly escape, when it is discovered and constantly fly along the front. Another example is Russian MLRS with a range of 120 km sold to Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan with these MLRS with a range of 120 km destroyed all the TOCHKA-U missiles of Armenia, covered all 6 installations with one salvo, but in Russia this does not work and there are no shells .
    Set of combat equipment "Warrior". with the help of this Azeri connection, they took the Armenian mountain fortress of ShuSHU of one company, correcting aviation strikes. During the exercises, it was used to interact with aviation, namely to issue target designations to Su-24M bombers. And here in Russia, again, Ratnik does not work and communications, the range is 3 km, at the beginning of 1941 communications were better. And the Belarusian Old Man, an ally, sold Polonaises to Azerbaijan with MLRS with a range of 300, Azerbaijan can be sold, but the Chinese have banned the Russians?
    1. 0
      9 September 2023 14: 16
      Didn't you serve in the army? We have a ton of iron in every unit, but people who know how to use it cannot always be found in the entire army, except perhaps at the manufacturing plant, and even that is not a fact, some samples have not been produced for a long time, and everyone has conveniently forgotten how to use them . Maybe they will appear now? A friend of mine’s son graduated from military school this year, his father says that he doesn’t know how they were trained in their specialty, but as for marksmanship training, in the army he shot with everything that was required for infantry, and these officers rarely even fired with a machine gun, according to his son , the cartridges took longer to collect than the fire itself lasted. But I think that in the specialty, it’s unlikely that they are trained by professionals, my son is already writing, they trained completely differently than what you have to do in the service.
  19. 0
    9 September 2023 11: 16
    The MiG-31 does not fly 3000 km/h. Wear and tear of the airframe plus the aging of the cockpit canopy (yes, yes - it can simply fly off, but the Russian Federation cannot make a new one). Maximum 1500 at altitude.
    1. +5
      9 September 2023 14: 29
      Alas, your information is old. After the capital upgrade, everything was updated and replaced at the factory. By the way, MiG flashlights are now made not from organic materials (they really don’t know how) but on the basis of silicate glass.
      1. -4
        9 September 2023 14: 40
        It's all like that on TV. We have MiGs in our city. Let's talk. The lanterns are just as old as they were - cloudy, faded, and they still stand. Half of the avionics are in the form of dummies. It is impossible to integrate the latest chips into a plane developed in the 70s. On TV - yes, everything is super modernized. In fact, it is just a deception. And profanity. And, by and large (the opinion of engineers), the Mig-31 is long overdue for scrapping. And forget about him. For good.
        1. +2
          9 September 2023 16: 26
          Quote: Rooivalk
          In fact, it is just a deception. And profanity.

          A little more than half of the aircraft have undergone capitalization and modernization. the rest are in process and waiting, everything is official and does not contradict you in particulars.
          Quote: Rooivalk
          And, by and large (the opinion of engineers),

          The newer the aircraft and the less wear and tear the better, including for engineers.
  20. +2
    9 September 2023 11: 42
    Seeing, “showing” the target of the missile’s seeker, highlighting it is normal for the Su-34.

    This is of no value, given the range of objects hit by the "Dagger".
    As for the idea itself - the design ability to be used like this, this is definitely good, and even excellent. Because unification and solutions for it for technology are always a “+”, because situations are different. But I still wouldn’t be delighted with such use of the Su-34 - the airplane, even without such tasks, is maximally involved in the air defense system, and anyway it is not intended for such use. You can hammer nails with a microscope, but how much it will be enough as a microscope in such conditions is another matter, and whether it won’t cost a pretty penny.
    It’s one thing when the Su-34 is operated in normal modes at the front, and another thing when it needs to approach the limits to accelerate the product.
    As a plus, we can add the increased unpredictability of our actions. This is always a strong card.
    In short, I welcome the opportunity, but the practice raises concerns.
  21. +2
    9 September 2023 11: 46
    By the way. A continuation suggests itself: “How to replace the MiG-31 and Tu-22M3?”
  22. -1
    9 September 2023 12: 50
    Simple physics. The UPAB-500B glide bomb flies from 15 km to 40 km in range. But they probably dropped it at speed so that it would fly further away. Therefore, the speed of the aircraft does not matter much. Just the height so that there is less resistance. And the difference in the ceiling is not so great.
  23. +1
    9 September 2023 12: 54
    A person writes articles of such quality on a specialized resource that even stand, even fall. If a person posted his writings somewhere on Zen, there would be no questions for him.
    And here you need relevant content

    Regarding the comment, I posted a specific answer to the author's question, which turned out to be disgracefully short. I will not chew it even more, not Zen.

    And what, VO - this site is about aviation, since you call it specialized? What is too much in your answer is aplomb. But there are no specifics at all. A hint to others, they say, look for information on the production of the SU-34 yourself - this is not the answer.
    1. +4
      9 September 2023 13: 34
      Quote: D-east
      Regarding the comment, I posted a specific answer to the author’s question, which turned out to be outrageously short.
      This is not an answer, but unfounded criticism (there is nothing to support your opinion)
      Quote: D-east
      I will not chew it even more, not Zen.
      How can you chew empty chatter? Or by “chewing” do you mean confirming your point of view with facts?
  24. +5
    9 September 2023 13: 17
    Indeed, why did they choose the MiG-31 then? Have you really decided that speed is really everything?

    Version: we used developments from Pegasus, a project to launch satellites from an airplane using an “airplane + rocket” combination, where the airplane acts as the first stage. This requires a heavy suspension unit.
    1. +5
      10 September 2023 03: 58
      Actually, initially there was an anti-satellite complex MIG-31 + missile. Then they decided to fire the missile at ground targets, and then they decided that it could be launched from the ground from a mobile soil complex. And the last one went into series. So perhaps then everything will return to normal and we will see the anti-satellite dagger, since it also reaches orbit if desired
  25. -2
    9 September 2023 13: 57
    But what, there are countries that have many times more strategists than we do? This is to the question, is 60 carcasses a lot or a little?
  26. +3
    9 September 2023 20: 43
    Mr. Skomorokhov, once again, “delighted” the reading public of VO and found a fairly “weighty” argument to “touch a nerve” of our aviation experts.... I, too, will join the “chorus” of aviation arbitrators. The truth is a little on the other hand... The "Dagger" was created, with impressive characteristics and capabilities, but about the aircraft platform - I want to cry... We use and plan to use what is available... Is this correct? It seems to me that no.... Effective carriers (platforms) must be created for promising and effective ammunition. Domestic combat aviation, over the past 30 years, it seems to me, has become fixated on the “upgrade” of Soviet basic developments, represented by the SU-27, MIG-29. Where is the new attack aircraft, transport aircraft, bomber, anti-aircraft defense aircraft, and finally the carrier of effective "Daggers"? Design bureaus (Ilyushin, Tupolev, Mikoyan and Gurevich, Sukhoi, Beriev) seem to still exist, but where are the results of the flight of design thought? Or have the years of active construction of capitalism in Russia destroyed the schools of aviation design? And now we are forced to “attach” another effective ammunition to what else is available that is flying (swimming, crawling on the ground)? Although....
  27. +2
    10 September 2023 01: 57
    ": ambivalent feelings
    -------

    Maybe then see a psychiatrist???

    . Yes, and instant-31. do not accelerate to 3000. They are old and fall constantly.

    Ps. Oh... only after I wrote this message I saw that Skomorokhov was having fun again... hmm... everything is logical.
  28. +2
    10 September 2023 10: 23
    1) Where is the confidence that the 31st is capable of accelerating up to 3000 with such a fool on an external suspension? 2) Somewhere infa slipped that at the maximum of the 31st, the strength of the windshield of the cockpit canopy is critical, which is no longer produced today. I don't know if this is true or not...
  29. 0
    25 October 2023 15: 18
    Author - Here the advantage is definitely on the side of the Su-34. It is a bomber, that is, its sighting equipment and radar are initially focused on working on the ground. Seeing, “showing” the target of the missile’s seeker, highlighting it is normal for the Su-34.
    That we will work on the front line for SD??? What are you going to use to highlight the light for 500-1000 km????