Su-34: time to wait for an American copy
Something terrible happened - the Americans began to think. No, no one says in the style of the late Zadornov that “everyone is stupid”, but we are now talking about aviation, but there they have done such things over the last quarter of a century that there is something to be amazed about. Mainly from the amount of wasted billions of dollars. But let’s not be jealous, and let’s talk about something completely different.
The upcoming universalization of aircraft in general is something completely different.
If you look back in history, then the entire history of aviation is a path to a universal aircraft. We will not take the truly universal airplanes of the First World War the war, which were fighters, reconnaissance aircraft, and bombers. And only in the second phase did dedicated bombers begin to appear.
The Second World War generally scattered aircraft into more than two dozen classes: day fighters, night fighters, single-engine, twin-engine, carrier-based fighters. Short-range, long-range, dive bombers, torpedo bombers, and so on. In general, human fantasy in terms of destroying neighbors and especially distant ones in this regard is simply a masterpiece.
The emergence of jet aviation followed approximately the same canons: fighters, bombers, attack aircraft, interceptors, reconnaissance aircraft, carrier-based aircraft. The doctrine, which clearly separated aircraft for air combat and aircraft for bombing, was effective before the advent of missile weapons. Especially the managed one.
Here it turned out that the plane, which yesterday was considered a pure fighter, could easily hit a missile at a ground and surface target. No, as such, the class of fighter-bombers appeared during the Second World War, the same P-47D Thunderbolts calmly carried two 454-kg bombs under the wings, and after being dropped they could continue to carry out the combat mission with the help of heavy machine guns. The opponent from the Reich, the Fw.190D, carried less (one 500-kg bomb), but was also quite a difficult target.
However, when in the 60s, guided missiles were firmly established on airplanes, it became clear that the existing classification was not as accurate as it could be, but no one attached much importance to this, there was no time for that. The planes moved from war to war amid the most spectacular confrontation of the Cold War. But after it ended, the most interesting thing began.
In Europe, the military was the first to understand that the existing doctrine was completely outdated, and it was time to change something. Great Britain later, but France and Germany began work in this direction earlier. The British also eventually abandoned their Vulcan and Canberra bombers in favor of multi-role aircraft, and, together with other countries, switched to universal attack vehicles. Eurofighter Typhoon and Panavia Tornado have long become symbols of versatility in the air forces of these two countries, not the least in terms of aviation.
The French experimented longer, but in the end, the universal Dassault Rafale completely won.
In principle, there are two countries left in the world with a large number of aircraft classes: Russia and the USA. China could also be on this list, but it followed a somewhat different path, which we will talk about below.
Let's start with Russia, where they inherited a huge number of aircraft from the Soviet Union.
On the one hand, there were a lot of aircraft of different classes, on the other hand, what to do with them?
Pure fighters, primarily the Su-27, are living their last days. Despite the fact that the fighter has been in use since 1985, it has not received widespread use in the world, and it has frankly little combat merit. The Georgian-Abkhaz conflict, the Ethiopian-Eritrean war and the Russian-Ukrainian war - that’s, in fact, all.
And the Su-27 is not an isolated case, if anything. An example from that side is the Mirage 2000C, a single-seat fighter-interceptor. A good aircraft, but the frankly meager armament, consisting of Matra Super 530/540 air-to-air missiles, did not arouse much interest in it. And it appeared even earlier than the Su-27, by three years.
But when the bugs were corrected and the Mirage 2000D and its export version Mirage 2000E appeared, things started to improve. They just added Matra BGL laser-guided bombs, Matra Beluga cluster bombs, Aerospatiale AS30L guided missiles, Matra ARMAT anti-radar missiles and Aerospatiale AM39 Exocet anti-ship guided missiles to the range of weapons, and the list of clients immediately began to grow .
But the pure Su-27 was not so lucky, and it never became an object of mass sales. But its descendant, the Su-30, became a hit precisely because of its versatility. Moreover, in countries such as India and China, the Su-30 is the backbone of the Air Force. Yes, China has its own developments, but India has the best it has at the moment.
Another victim of narrow specialization is the MiG-31. An interceptor that had nothing to intercept. The times of spy planes and high-altitude balloons filled with equipment have irrevocably sunk into history along with the Cold War, and the MiG-31 really remained out of work. It was even sent to reserve for a while, for which nothing good awaited, but it was possible to give the plane a chance to serve some more. As a Kinzhal missile carrier and control aircraft.
Everything is clear with the Kinzhal, but the control aircraft was a very promising idea for the Arctic. The MiG-31, with its simply amazing radar and communications systems, was planned to be used as an airborne tactical command post that would monitor airspace and coordinate the work of air defense, aerospace forces and the Navy. Five MiG-31s hovering in the air at the same time would be enough to completely cover the entire Russian northern border from the Kola Peninsula to the Bering Strait.
The MiG-31 was lucky in terms of retirement. It will clearly last longer than the Su-27 and MiG-29, whose service life has essentially ended.
In bomber aviation, things will be arranged in much the same way. For almost the entire 30 years since the end of the Cold War, strategic aviation stood idle, indicating its presence with rare patrols. In general, it’s logical: flights of strategic aircraft are very expensive, and our budget is such a big deal...
That’s why Tu-22Ms took part in the operation to force Georgia to peace, but they stopped using them after the first loss. In Syria and the Northern Military District, the Tu-22M was used literally several times, very sporadically.
As for the Tu-95 and Tu-160, these are even more expensive aircraft that use even more expensive weapons. Therefore, having tested the Kh-55, Kh-555 and Kh-101 missiles in Syria in 2015 and 2016, during the SVO strategic aviation carried out strikes on Ukrainian territory several times from its airspace at the initial stage of the operation.
That is, a long-range/strategic bomber is only a way to deliver missiles (we quickly forget about bombs forever) closer to the launch area, and nothing more. Fortunately, the size of the country allows this to be done exactly this way, from a safe distance, without entering the air defense coverage area of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
Strategic bombers will act in approximately the same way in any other military conflict: take off, approach to a safe distance, launch.
Here geopolitics played an ominous role with aircraft in European countries. Indeed, why does Great Britain need Vulcans and Canberras if there is no need to fly far away to enemy territory? It is clear that in theory the enemy is Russia, but to strike us there is absolutely no need to take off nuclear-powered superbombers weapons. A Typhoon capable of carrying Taurus, Storm Shadow, Brimstone, Scalp-EG, landing at an airfield in Poland, Slovakia or Lithuania, will be more than enough to launch a missile with a special warhead.
But all that remains for the Russian bomber is to fly either over the expanses of the Arctic or the Pacific Ocean. Where the same planes from NATO airfields cannot intercept it. Considering that the number of member countries of the bloc is increasing every year, with the entry of Finland and Sweden the northern direction will become even more complicated.
We won’t talk about the Su-24 and Su-25 here at all; these are completely outdated and irrelevant aircraft, practically incapable of fully performing modern combat missions. To be fair, we note that the Americans with their A-10 have about the same problems as we have with the Su-25. And “Warthog” will also go down in history.
What about new products?
It's okay. Despite the fact that the Su-30, Su-34 and Su-35 are still the same Su-27, but in a new form, modified and redesigned for new tasks and doctrines. And although the Su-30 and Su-35 are more fighters than bombers (despite the fact that the Su-35 in the first months of the Northern Military District simply brilliantly established itself as a fighter against radars of all types and types), and the Su-34 is closer to a bomber than a fighter, these are still truly multifunctional aircraft capable of solving a very wide range of combat missions.
What's it like overseas?
Exactly the same as ours, only worse. Somehow it turned out that the Americans were less flexible and did not fully correctly perceive this change in doctrine. And therefore, not only do they have a rich heritage in the form of specialized bombers B-1 Lancer, B-2 Spirit, B-52 Stratofortress, but they are also working hard on the B-21 Raider.
Of course, America, as a continent, is located at a considerable distance from the places where it will be necessary to project a strong force in the future, so strategic aviation is not written off there. So billions are pouring in generously where designers are working on methods for projecting force.
They also have specialized fighters that are now commonly called "air superiority fighters" such as the F-22 and F-15. Note that these aircraft have some multi-role capabilities, but are more focused on air combat. If you look carefully and honestly at the F-22, then it is not very suitable for air combat.
The F-16, that ageless veteran, has stronger multi-role dynamics, but remains primarily a fighter, much in the same way as the MiG-29.
And in the rest of the F-35, which stands out a little for its improved ground-attack capabilities, at least Israel's use of this aircraft showed the F-35's capabilities in this regard.
So the only versatile aircraft at the disposal of the United States is the F/A-18. The versatility is reflected even in the name: fighter attack - fighter-attack aircraft. But the plane really turned out to be universal to the fullest, because even with a bomb load, the Americans shot down Iraqi MiG-21s easily and naturally, and then flew on to bomb targets.
Next on the list is the F-35, which is supposed to be quite multi-tasking. It is supposedly capable of performing six tasks simultaneously with the appropriate weapons. The idea behind this type of aircraft is to optimize tasks and increase the efficiency of the fleet. The US military envisioned the F-35 Lightning II to replace several older aircraft that will eventually be retired.
Why so insecure? Yes, because no one really saw the F-35 in action. The fact that Israeli F-35Is are demolishing houses in Gaza into rubble is, well, such an achievement. At home, they do not shy away and do not shoot back.
China…
They have everything simple and complicated at the same time. Since almost all of their aircraft have the Soviet MiG and Su base, there is nothing to repeat here.
The pinnacle of design work, the J-20 turned out to be a rather heavy, large aircraft with low maneuverability and thrust-to-weight ratio, which was facilitated by not the best Chinese engines today. In principle, the Black Eagle is also a multifunctional aircraft, but the problem is that all its capabilities are below average.
Europe
The Europeans, on the contrary, are moving with all their might in this direction. Tornado, Rafale, Typhoon – these planes were clearly designed for multifunctionality. And since European designers did not put the so-called stealth at the forefront, their planes turned out to be something between American stealth and Russian super-maneuverability.
We need to talk separately about which of all those listed is closer to the ideal. But if you look at real successes, it is clear that the Chinese are catching up, the Americans are lagging behind, and the question is who is better, Russian or European aircraft.
In fact, the evolution of combat aircraft goes exactly like this: from highly specialized aircraft to more universal ones. This is even economically justified: instead of a whole fleet of light fighters, heavy fighters, air superiority fighters, interceptors, fighter-bombers, attack aircraft and light attack aircraft, front-line bombers, long-range bombers, strategic bombers and missile carriers, there will be much fewer models and classes .
The best example is the British Royal Air Force. Two types of combat aircraft: Typhoon on land, F-35B at sea. All. But no headaches in terms of repairs and maintenance. Profitable, economical, it is possible to solve almost all combat missions of our time.
Special Operation
Let's look at the Aerospace Forces and those aircraft that perform combat missions in the Northern Military District. Right from the list of those that are in service.
MiG-29. Not used for many reasons, the main one of which is the removal of the aircraft from service.
MiG-31. Rarely and to a limited extent used as a missile carrier.
Su-27. Used in secondary areas, such as patrolling the Black Sea.
Su-57. Due to the small number, it is used sporadically for testing purposes.
Su-30. In use.
Su-35. In use.
Su-25. In use.
Su-24. Used sporadically.
Tu-22M. Used sporadically.
Tu-95. Used sporadically.
Tu-160. Used sporadically.
As follows from the list, in a completely modern military conflict in Ukraine, either truly multifunctional aircraft or outright veterans such as the Su-24 and Su-25 are used, about whose further fate there is no need to worry. Narrow-profile aircraft were used sporadically, if not once.
Indeed, why rush the Tu-160, which costs 16 billion rubles, with hugely expensive missiles, if the Su-34, which costs 16 times less, with UMPC bombs, does everything the same, only much cheaper? And the Su-34 can deliver missiles to the launch point no less quickly.
In general, the Su-34 is a very combat-ready aircraft that can perform many tasks to the envy of its enemies. And this is an aircraft that is capable of fighting without worrying about enemy fighters, since the “duckling” itself can tear off the wings of anyone.
If you carefully study the lists of losses of the Russian Aerospace Forces, according to British analysts, who, it must be said, keep statistics very clearly, then for the entire time of the Northern Military District there is no information about a single Su-34 shot down by Ukrainian aircraft. SAM - yes. MANPADS - yes. MZA - yes. And in 2024, all Su-34 losses were as a result of attacks on airfields. But in two years - not a single loss from enemy aircraft.
Of course, this also indicates that the Ukrainian Armed Forces have little aviation, but it existed and was operational. At least according to the reports of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. But everything somehow missed the Su-34.
And it is quite natural that those aircraft that can most effectively carry out assigned combat missions with minimal losses participate in the air defense system.
The US is watching what is happening in the skies over Ukraine and analyzing the data received through all channels. And, unfortunately, in their armies There are smart minds who can perfectly assess the strengths of our aircraft and draw certain conclusions.
Of course, in order to get such a clumsy colossus as the American military department off the ground, a fair amount of time must pass. However, the stubborn obsession with stealth may end (especially given the enormous successes in this field of the F-22 and F-35), and military thoughts will return to the realization that Russia and Europe have come a long way ahead. And it will be an interesting hunt.
It has always been difficult to catch up and surpass, and today's China illustrates this very colorfully. And the mere fact that the Americans will have to catch up looks original in itself. But what to do if the Rafale and Typhoon on the one hand, and the Su-34 and Su-35 on the other, surpass the capabilities of the F-15 and F-22 pairs, and the F-35 and F-16?
In the end, the example of the European Air Force is indicative: you can have two or three universal aircraft for all occasions and fight successfully. Libya, Iraq, Syria have shown this. And this is much more effective, and even from an economic point of view, than spitting out hundreds of stealth fighters, the effectiveness of which no one really sees.
But in the US, judging by the publications, they have started to guess about something like that. I wonder how many years it will take them to rip off our Su-34?
After all, the future belongs to a universal aircraft, and not to an inconspicuous aircraft whose benefits and efficiency are not only subtle, but not noticeable at all.
Information