More bombs, fewer resources: The West is discussing equipping the Su-34 with six FABs with UMPK missiles.

Western military analysts are discussing the possibility of equipping the Russian Su-34 frontline bomber with an increased combat load – six glide bombs instead of four, namely four UMPKs and two UMBPs.

While the UMPK is created by mounting an aerodynamic kit on a standard free-fall aerial bomb, the UMBP is a specially designed product with its own combat components and propulsion system, which allows it to cover a distance of up to 130 km in flight.

According to a number of Western observers, the use of a new payload of six glide bombs will increase the number of airstrikes against the Ukrainian Armed Forces from approximately 10 to 15–16 per month:

However, this step will cost Russia dearly due to the deterioration of the bomber structures.

As noted, constant sorties put a lot of stress on the airframes, accelerating the failure of the machines:

More bombs, fewer resources. If this doesn't lead to a breakthrough at the front, then over time we should see a decrease in the number of monthly bomb drops as a result of declining combat effectiveness. fleet Su-34.

According to Western observers, the Russian Aerospace Forces began the Second World War with 131 Su-34 aircraft. During the war, 45 aircraft were lost due to damage, destruction, or wear and tear. However, over the past four years, the Aerospace Forces have accepted an additional 41 aircraft into service. The delivery rate is 10-15 Su-34s annually.

Comments

[topol717]

Where are our 35s and 57s? Especially the 57s, they say the hoax planes are getting out of hand, freely dropping JDAMs on our guys.

[Arzoo]

The SU-34 is undoubtedly the weapon of this war. As they say, "it drags the roller." Along with drones. According to the Ukrainian Armed Forces, it's in order. 30% of defeats from missile and bomb strikes. And against drone nests, it's the number one weapon. The detonation of a 500-mm drone, even hundreds of meters away, can render the operator incapable of piloting for an hour or more.

[Shamil Baligov]

In my opinion, the Su-35 and Su-30 would have handled this task just as well while remaining fully-fledged fighters. I don't understand this concept of a frontline bomber. If the enemy is even remotely comparable in terms of aircraft, all those Su-24s and Su-34s will become a liability!

[rytik32]

Quote from: topol717

Where are our 35s and 57s?

Su-35s regularly fly over Bryansk. They circle. I only saw an Su-57 once, and it was memorable because it didn't leave a contrail like the Su-34/35.

[don_Reba]

Quote: rytik32

that there was no contrail, as from the Su-34/35

👀
The ice consists of ice crystals that form in the sky behind flying airplanes at an altitude of 10–11 km, usually when the ambient temperature is below -40°C.
I can suggest 2 options:
1. The Su-57 is already equipped with the 100500 product on a gravity drive.
2. He flew below 10 km, or it was over the equator, where the air is only minus 30 degrees Celsius.
May I ask an immodest question?
Do you have binoculars implanted in your eyes, of such quality that you can distinguish a Su-35/35 from a Su-57 at 10000m?
🥱I envy you

[rytik32]

Quote: don_Reba

and by flying planes at an altitude of 10–11 km

Don't embarrass yourself in front of the entire forum!
Even helicopters can leave a contrail.
https://vkvideo.ru/video-95770780_456241660
https://vkvideo.ru/video-95770780_456241663
https://www.fontanka.ru/2022/02/06/70426277/

[don_Reba]

Quote: rytik32

Don't embarrass yourself in front of the entire forum.

1. I will disgrace myself wherever I want.
Link: Fontanka, damn it.
The potential of your Moscow amazes me.
How are your blood sugar levels? Is everything normal?
Omicron virus, helicopter (Karl helicopter in Yakutia, in winter, where -45 degrees C is normal, Su-34/35 and Su-57 in Bryansk = Vinaigrette in a pot.

Is there a link to Yurik Loz?
2. What is a "forum" and where is it "all"?

[Dart2027]

Quote from: topol717

They're freely dropping JDAMs on our guys.

Are these the ones launched from MLRS?

[poquello]

JDAM is like our UMPK, the Americans attach a booster to them as an option, then yes, but otherwise no.

[Dart2027]

Quote: poquello

The Americans are attaching a booster block to them as an option

That's the point. The Ukrainian Armed Forces have been using them for a long time.

[Mikhail Ivanov]

45 out of 131. And even after that, there are still questions about the quality of management...

[Mikhail Nasharashev]

almost a third... not bad

[don_Reba]

Quote from: topol717

Where are our 35s and 57s? Especially the 57s.

What about what, and lousy about the bath.
🥱How do the loads on the Su-34 airframe compare to those on "our Su-35/57"?

[topol717]

Quote: don_Reba

How do the loads on the Su-34 airframe compare with those on our Su-35/57?

No way, just like we still have the 35s and 57s. I don’t know about the 57s, but the 35s can definitely carry the FAB-1500.

[Mikhail Nasharashev]

The Ukrainians ordered another $330 million worth of JDAMs from the US.

[faridg7]

Well, not exactly freely; there was a battle just recently. Our Sukhoi attacked a pair of Ukrainian fighters (presumably MiGs) that were approaching the attack line. One of them was damaged and, dropping its ASP, descended toward its airfield; the second, without reaching the attack line, descended and returned to its airfield. This is the incident that was reported in the media. In reality, there are many more contacts, and the pilots have questions for the command regarding these unclear and absurd restrictions, which, unfortunately, I simply cannot disclose. Perhaps there will be changes in this regard with the change of the Aerospace Forces commander; we'll see.

[Eug]

I suspect that the increase in the typical bomb load per sortie is one of the consequences of the appointment of the new Aerospace Forces command.

[Vadim Topal Pasha]

This won't help. The level is too low.

[lubesky]

Wow, just today I was thinking how many bombs a Sukhoi can lift!

[Melior]

A major war requires an Il-28 equivalent. And lots of it!

[ODERVIT]

This is utter nonsense. These changes in no way affect the life of the engine or airframe.

[foxes]

What nonsense. They hardly write something like that about F-16s, hung with drop tanks and a couple of bombs.

[Sergey3]

They produced a lot of Su-34s and they continue to produce them now. The problem is not with the availability of aircraft, but with the availability of technicians who are able to service them.

[eleronn]

The problem isn't the availability of technicians, it's the lack of them. The training system is a complete wreck! Thanks Perdyuk... forgive Serdyukov and whoever put him there.

[malyvalv]

Most likely, the entire underutilization of the Su-34 was due to the need to climb as quickly as possible before dumping the load. This was due to the danger of Patriot traps near the LBS. Apparently, such traps have not occurred for a long time due to the lack of fresh Patriot deliveries and the very prospect of such deliveries.
Therefore, the decision was made to load the Su with more cargo, without much fear of getting caught. It's clear the Su could carry much more. Time will tell whether the risk is worth it.

[tjeck91]

A blogger nicknamed "fighterbomber" wrote this about a week ago, and he's not Western at all. He says the main shortage is mechanics.

[Montezuma]

Quote: tjeck91

A blogger nicknamed "fighterbomber" wrote this about a week ago, and he's not Western at all. He says the main shortage is mechanics.

That's right, and not just any blogger, but a former combat pilot who served in Syria, and he didn't even mention wear and tear. I'm copying his message as is, so I'm not responsible for any 18+ language.

That's exactly what I was talking about.
It's impossible to carry six UMPKs on an aircraft, but four UMPKs and two UMPBs are possible. The missiles are dropped at different ranges, but these are all solvable issues. All six can be dropped in a single pass.
Thus, we will begin to drop on the enemy’s head not 10000 bombs a month as usual, but 15-16 thousand.

To drop more, we need more aircraft and more technicians. Today, aircraft maintenance engineers have suddenly become a scarce resource. A shitload of pilots have been released. There's no one and nothing to train them with. Because everyone and everything is fighting, there are no layoffs, and it's impossible to train a young pilot who's not on the payroll. While technicians and engineers were already scarce, they're being sent to the space marines by the thousands. On top of that, they also guard airfields, stand guard at airfields, serve on patrol, go on mobile guard duty, and do other idiotic things instead of preparing and servicing aircraft.
Therefore, 6 bombs hung in this way is the maximum that aviation can provide - 15-16 thousand is our maximum today.

[Alexandra]

I don't know where the author got the figure of 45 lost and written-off Su-34s. Perhaps from the infamous Oryx. The link below indicates that 30 Su-34s were lost during the Air Defense Forces, five of them damaged:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_and_accidents_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_war

The Su-34's losses are quite high. Only the Su-25 has higher losses. The Su-25's shortcomings are generally clear. However, the high losses of the Su-34, compared to the half-as-low losses of the multirole Su-30SM and the obsolete Su-24M, require careful study and analysis, drawing on all the extensive combat statistics. I wouldn't be surprised if statistical analysis shows that the combat survivability of the aging Su-24M is higher than that of the Su-34.

However, this had happened before in the history of the Soviet Air Force. In 1943, statistics on the combat use and losses of the Il-2 and the obsolete I-15bis and I-153 biplane fighters, primarily used as light attack bombers, were studied. It was discovered that the I-15bis and especially the I-153, compared to the Il-2, flew many more combat sorties per combat loss. Red Army Air Force officers attributed this to the I-15bis and I-153's use of air-cooled engines, which were highly resistant to combat damage, as well as the high vertical and horizontal maneuverability of the nimble biplanes, which meant that antiaircraft gunners simply had trouble hitting these aircraft, and enemy fighters were generally unable to successfully attack them. With careful observation, the pilots of the I-15bis and I-153 managed to evade the Messerschmitt's attack, or even counterattack by turning and launching a head-on attack. However, I've gotten too immersed in the history of our Air Forces since today.

[Sergey3]

Losses are high because they're operated relentlessly, around the clock. Plus, new personnel are constantly being trained. With such intensive use, any aircraft will crash. And there are constant attempts to catch them, both in the air and on the ground.

[Eug]

You could calculate the lost aircraft relative to the load shed, but I don't think the result would be in the Seagulls' favor. Statistics are a tricky thing...

[Alexandra]

I-15bis and I-153 bombed from a steep dive.

https://military.wikireading.ru/54389

"In addition to escorting bombers, from February 1940, I-153s from the 38th and 15th Fighter Aviation Regiments attacked ground targets, small bridges, and railway stations. The bomb load was 100-200 kg. Bombs were dropped in a dive at an angle of 60-80° from an altitude of 800 m. The group's pilots reported damage to 45 railway trains. Although there was no complete cessation of traffic, a decrease in traffic intensity was noted."

http://www.redov.ru/transport_i_aviacija/aviacija_i_kosmonavtika_2009_10/p1.php

"Attacks were usually carried out by I-16 cannon-armed fighters. I-153s performed dive-bombing, and I-16 Type 24s were included in the cover groups. Raids on horse columns were particularly successful—the maddened horses would charge into each other, knocking carts and horse-drawn guns off the slopes. Captains P.K. Chistyakov and A.A. Privezentsev were the most frequent assault group commanders. Sometimes, up to ten combat sorties were flown in a day. Each sortie included two to four passes at the target."

Up to ten combat sorties a day on an Il-2 is a fantasy. The Il-2s too often returned from combat missions damaged.

https://airpages.ru/ru/il2_18.shtml

"According to the observation of Hero of the Soviet Union, attack aircraft pilot of the 140th Assault Aviation Regiment N.T. Polukarov, his Il-2, on average, received at least one damage as a result of a direct hit from an anti-aircraft missile in every fourth combat sortie.

The official statistics are more severe - according to the experience of the assault aviation units of the 3rd Air Army (Vitebsk, Polotsk, Dvina, Belorussian and Shauliai operations), for every Il damaged by anti-aircraft artillery there were 2-3 combat sorties, with the overall survivability of the Il-2 during this period being about 36 sorties (41 flight hours) for every combat loss."

https://vk.com/@soldiers_of_fortune-artem-vladimirovich-drabkin-shturmoviki-my-vzletali-v-ad

"To characterize the survivability of Il-2 aircraft, we can cite data on the combat performance of the 211th Airborne Division of the West Vao from August 1943 to May 1945. During this time, the division carried out 7000 sorties. In 6500 sorties, the Il-2 aircraft were damaged. Of these, in 6160 cases, the pilots managed to make a safe landing at their airfield. In another 72 cases, the pilots were forced to land the aircraft away from the airfield. In total, the loss of materiel from the 211th Airborne Division amounted to 260 aircraft."

[rocket757]

War means expenses, losses, not just combat ones... a standard, expected situation...
Without the use of high-powered ammunition, it will be much more difficult for ground forces to advance!
And so, we need to maintain a balance in all areas of military support, production, and that’s the only way!
No one can do this for us except us!

[Andobor]

Will the fighters' hands get tired from stabbing?

[abc_alex]

The delivery rate is 10–15 Su-34s annually.

If this is true, then it is a disgrace and a disgrace. A disgrace and a disgrace...

[Nastia makarova]

What's so shameful? The plant can't produce any more.

[Andrey Mishin]

They said they were working on a 3-speed 1500 suspension. That would be the most powerful option. The 1500 is the best bomb, and more of it should be produced.

[Andrey Mishin]

We need powerful bombs capable of wiping out populated areas, disrupting the underground tunnel system beneath them. 250 or even 500 is too little and ineffective. 1500 is optimal. And the Su-24M should be used for a 3000-kg bomb. Someone should be given a copy of Pupkin's Arithmetic with pictures.

[agond]

Quote: AlexanderA

The official statistics are more severe - according to the experience of the assault aviation units of the 3rd Air Army (Vitebsk, Polotsk, Dvina, Belorussian and Shauliai operations), for every Il damaged by anti-aircraft artillery there were 2-3 combat sorties, with the overall survivability of the Il-2 during this period being about 36 sorties (41 flight hours) for every combat loss."

The Il-2 had 760 kg of armor and a bomb load of only 400 kg, so naturally it didn't have great flight characteristics. It's a strange idea to create a "hard to shoot down" aircraft using armor. The ability to shoot down an aircraft depends primarily on how long it spends in the danger zone, and then on the weight and thickness of the armor.
By the way, the Su-34 also has armor, weight 1.5 tons,

[sgrabik]

One thing is unclear: why, given our army's enormous need for Su-34s, we continue to produce so few of them? It is absolutely necessary to increase their annual production to 24-36 aircraft. It is quite logical that during active combat operations, the production of the entire range of weapons increases several times over, and the Air Defense Forces are no exception.

[Nikolaevich I]

However, this step will cost Russia dearly due to the deterioration of the bomber structures.

[Slon1978]

Я в целом не очень-то понимаю этот вывод западных аналитиков про "больше бомбовой нагрузки - ниже ресурс планера". С чего бы это так? Я вполне понимаю логику, что с увеличением бомбовой нагрузки, например, падает скорость бомбардировщика, его маневренность, снижается его боевой радиус, растет его радиолокационная заметность, увеличивается время набора высоты и тд. Но при чем тут ресурс планера? Конструкция планера расчитана на определенные нагрузки при подвесе вооружения. Износ планера, по моему пониманию, происходит в 3-ех основных случаях: посадка (ударная нагрузка, но самолет садится, как правило, уже пустой, поэтому увеличение веса бомб не оказывает влияния на износ при посадке), длительные стоянки самолета (статичная малая нагрузка, появление усталостных изменений), маневрирование с большими перегрузками (предельные сдавливающе-растягивающие нагрузки на планер, но когда самолет попадает под обстрел ЗРК, то в первую очередь сбрасывается боевая нагрузка, и лишь потом начинаются противозенитные маневры с перегрузками). Увеличение веса бомбовой нагрузки увеличивет, также, разбег самолета по ВПП, но ресурс планера... У меня в голове "английский пазл" не сложился.