Military Review

The best plane failed war

161
Created on the basis of the dogmas of the Cold War, Su-34 is hardly applicable in modern conflicts.


Until the end of this year, the Russian Air Force will be replenished with 14 Su-34 front-line bombers. This was reported by the leadership of the United Aircraft Corporation during a meeting held at an aircraft factory in Komsomolsk-on-Amur, which was attended by the Deputy Minister of Defense for armaments, Yuri Borisov. According to representatives of the KLA, the 2014 state defense order will be completed by the latest bomber, and next year 16 vehicles will be delivered.

Very optimistic plans, because last year the state defense order for the Su-34 was in jeopardy, and the Defense Ministry, through the court, charged a forfeit from the Novosibirsk Aviation Plant bombers for disrupting delivery dates. Remained dissatisfied with the first serial "thirty-four" flight and technical staff of the Air Force. There were a lot of claims, in particular, some of the onboard equipment did not work, there were problems with the Khibiny electronic warfare complexes, etc.

Useless in modern conflict

For the Russian Air Force, the Su-34 is one of the most anticipated vehicles. Able to strike with high precision weaponsequipped with a powerful Sh-141 airborne radar station with a phased array, an effective complex of electronic countermeasures, thermal imaging and television detection and tracking channels, the “thirty-fourth” should become an effective means of combating enemy ground targets, replacing the obsolete Su-24M. The experience of the August 2008 war with Georgia, where the front-line aviation achieved limited results, showed that the Russian Air Force is in dire need of a bomber capable of hitting targets with precision weapons, without entering the enemy’s air defense strike zone. Some experts attribute the participation of the Su-34 from the 4th Aviation Personnel Training Center in Lipetsk to the conflict with Georgia. It is believed that on the account of these machines is the Georgian radar hit by the X-31 missile. At the same time, the representative of the Russian Air Force told the newspaper "VPK" that this is not so.

The best plane failed war

“Su-34 was tested with an anti-radar missile only in 2010 year. All five radars that we knocked out are accounted for by conventional Su-24 front-guns, ”the Russian Air Force officer who participated in the conflict told the publication. According to him, if the Su-34 were able to fight in the conflict, then the machines should not have been used against radars, but to destroy ground targets.

“Even a weak Georgian air defense force“ flunked ”the Glitsevsky Su-24 (Su-24М from 929-th GLITS, shot down on August 9) with two experienced pilots when he attacked an artillery position. The Su-24 was not guided bombs or missiles and normal sighting system. And the crew had to descend under the gun of Georgian rockets and strike, ”the source told the VPC newspaper.

Su-34 with its high-tech radar, television and thermal imaging channels will cope in this situation much more efficiently. But recent experience in the combat use of new bomber proved the opposite. The Hard Ingushetia online blog has a photo of Immarat Kavkaz’s base camp of militants destroyed by an air strike. This is the work of the Su-34 Russian Air Force.

“Su-34 encountered great difficulties in striking in difficult mountainous and wooded areas. The radar could not find the target in such conditions, and the thermal and television channels turned out to be with a limited field of view. They coped with the task, but with great difficulty, ”said a serviceman of the Southern Military District, familiar with the situation.

According to the interlocutor, the basis of the sighting complex "thirty-fourth" - high-tech radar W-141 was in such conditions useless. The crew could not find the desired target in the picture, clogged by the reflection of various objects on the ground, and the front bomber was forced to descend to search for the object. Fortunately, the militants have no air defense. But NPP "Leninets", which created the radar, is not guilty in this situation. W-141 is a unique product capable of detecting targets with low EPR at a distance of 150 – 200 kilometers. Su-34, created as the best strike bomber of the Cold War, capable of breaking through NATO's low-level air defense and destroying both mobile and stationary targets, is useless in a modern war.

From radar to thermal imager and camera

The Vietnam War in many ways changed the face of modern combat aviation. At the beginning of the conflict, the pilots of the aircraft, striking with unguided bombs and rockets, aimed using radar or bomb sights, but already in 1973, the targets detected by television cameras and thermal imagers were hit by bombs and missiles with television and laser targeting heads.


The main objective of the main strike aircraft of the USA 60-s F-105 “Thunderchiff” was striking radio-contrast targets (buildings, bridges, columns of equipment) with nuclear or conventional bombs from medium altitudes and at high speeds. For its time, the sighting complex "Thunderchief", built around the radar, was a work of art. But in Vietnam, the radars were useless, the pilots had to strike, visually using bomb sights. With the emergence of North-Vietnamese air defense systems C-75, the Thunderchips had to descend to low altitudes, where the F-105 created for supersonic flights at medium and high altitudes often reached critical flight conditions, which led to accidents, and the pilots simply did not managed to detect targets on time. Added small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery (MZA) problems, machine guns and Strela MANPADS that appeared at the end of the war, if they were not shot down, then they caused significant damage to fighter-bombers.

The United States Air Force had to pay attention to the development of guided aviation aids and sighting systems with high-resolution optics to detect ground targets.

Against the background of the problems with “Thunderchiefs” and “Phantoms”, fighter-bombers with the variable geometry of the Ad-Fk F-111 wing showed high performance. Equipped with a system of enveloping the terrain of the Advarki area at low altitudes at night and in adverse weather conditions, they struck land objects with already known coordinates.

In 1973, the Americans conducted an operation to destroy the strategic targets in North Vietnam - Lainbacker-2. The United States Air Force massively used bombs with laser and television guidance systems, as well as sighting containers Pave Tek and Pave Penny for target detection and targeting highly accurate TSA. American attack aircraft carried out almost all combat missions at medium and high altitudes, suppressing North Vietnamese air defenses with anti-radar missiles and EW.

At the beginning of the 80-s, F-111 began to be equipped with sighting containers. As conceived by the US military, Adwarki should break through air defense at low altitude using radar for navigation. Having found the target, complete the set, take it to the escort with a suspended sighting container and hit it with a guided bomb or a rocket. So did the European fighter-bombers "Tornado" IDS, equipped with the same sighting equipment.

Without having fought the Soviet army, F-111 and Tornado practiced Iraq in 1991, where they encountered great difficulties. Iraqis shot down MZA with five Tornadoes operating at low altitudes. F-111, working on three - five thousand meters, was without loss.

The F-111 "Advark" was replaced by the F-15E, which also participated, but not entirely successfully, in the war with Iraq. "Strike Eagle" was originally created for the use of high-precision weapons using the latest sighting container LANTIRN. But in Iraq, F-15E, which did not receive containers, struck conventional and cluster bombs from low altitudes, losing several vehicles from MZA and MANPADS. The AN / APG-15 BRLS installed on the F-70 was used for air combat, and the AN / AAQ-13 suspended container included in the LANTIRN was used for orientation and mapping of the terrain.

In 90, in Yugoslavia, Strike Needles already operated at altitudes of five to six thousand meters. Now, the US Air Force has upgraded the Eagle, installing the updated Sniper suspension container with Raytheon radar with synthetic aperture AN / ASQ-236.

The current experience of the US and NATO air forces shows that strikes against ground targets due to the threat of MZA and MANPADS are inflicted from six to seven thousand meters, stationary air defense is destroyed by cruise missiles, and strike machines are accompanied by special fighter-bombers that suppress air defense and EW aircraft. The last time tactical aircraft bombed the enemy using radar in 1993 year in Yugoslavia.

Soviet way

Since the 60-s in the USSR Air Force, the low-altitude air defense breakthrough became the basis of the combat work of strike aircraft. If the Su-7 was hit using visual sights, then the more modern Su-17, MiG-23BN and MiG-27 were equipped with radar aiming complexes.

The Soviet response to the F-111 - a front bomber with variable geometry wing Su-24 struck in adverse weather conditions, as well as at night, performing an enemy air defense breakthrough at a low altitude in the rounding mode of the terrain. To search for targets, the Su-24 used radar, supplemented by a laser rangefinder and a television system.

Su-24 in 1988 year went to Afghanistan. Here the results were not as positive and encouraging. Due to the use of the Mujahideen MZA and Stinger MANPADS, the Su-24М 755 and 143 th bombing regiments operating from Soviet airfields struck from six to seven thousand meters with ordinary free-falling bombs. Even the upgraded PNS-24М “Tiger” radar sighting system turned out to be useless, since it could not distinguish small targets against the background of the earth. Attempt to apply adjustable bombs KAB-500l and KAB-1500l failed. The power of television systems was not enough to distinguish objects on the ground and take them to the accompaniment. Su-17M and Mig-27 fighter-bombers faced the same difficulties. The experience of war and exercises in Europe, as well as the analysis of foreign information sources, forced the USSR Air Force Command to replace the Su-24 with a specialized bomber, an analogue of the American F-15 "Strike Eagle", for the use of high-precision means of aviation destruction.

A new bomber must operate at low altitudes with a climb to hit a target and then descend. Unlike the US military, who believed that the radar is needed for orientation and flying in the rounding mode of the terrain, the command of the USSR Air Force made a bet on the radar sighting system, however, supplemented by more modern television and laser systems. Western military experts in the 80-ies believed that to suppress the MZA and MANPADS, it was enough to equip the strike machines with cluster munitions, but the command of the USSR Air Force demanded that the new bomber should be booked out of the Su-25 attack aircraft. To protect against enemy fighters and NATO air defense systems, a promising front-line bomber was equipped with EW equipment. All these requirements formed the basis of the new aircraft, which later became the Su-34.

At the time of the formation of the requirements in the 1989, the new bomber, which had a number of qualitative advantages over the F-15 and F-111, would have been the best cold war aircraft in its class. NATO experts planned the work of the Advark and Strike Eagles under the cover of fighters, EW planes and the so-called Wilde Wizlow, equipped to suppress the air defense of F-4 fighter-bombers. The Soviet Air Force believed that a promising front-line bomber should act independently, not hoping for help. From fighters and air defense to cover up the EW and the terrain, reach the target with a radar sighting system, hit it, and if you came under fire from the MPA and MANPADS, then return to the airfield. For the realities of 80's and European theaters, the new bomber would be a breakthrough machine.

Late car

In 1991, the USSR broke up. In the 1992, the Sukhoi Design Bureau developed the deck fighter-bomber Su-32FN, which after a few years became Su-34. The first cars arrived in the Air Force at the end of 90's, but mass deliveries began only in 2011. All this time, the Su-34 remained the perfect front-line bomber during the Cold War. The integrated aerodynamic scheme with front horizontal tail (GIP) ensures stable flight and excellent maneuverability at low altitude even with suspended armament, which the 4-10 pilots showed very well on the MAKS-2013 demonstration flights. Powerful radar W-141 detects small targets at altitudes of up to four thousand meters, the titanium cockpit makes pilots and avionics electronic equipment invulnerable from anti-aircraft artillery fire and small arms from the ground. The Eib Khibiny complex protects a front bomber not only from aircraft and anti-aircraft missiles, but also from MANPADS. For their tasks, the Su-34 is much better than the F-15. But now the concept of strike aircraft has changed and the merits of the Su-34 have become its flaws.

Modern percussion machines, avoiding fire from the ground, climb to a height of five to six thousand meters. At this altitude, the Su-34 immediately loses its advantage in the operation of the radar complex, which is unable to distinguish subtle targets - single vehicles and armored objects, groups of people and field fortifications, hidden by the terrain. But the reduction to two or three kilometers does not guarantee the detection of such targets, which proved the recent combat use in Ingushetia. Here we need cameras and thermal imagers, which the Su-34 does not have high capabilities, being significantly inferior not only to the modern American Sniper, but also to the outdated LANTIRN and the cheaper French Damoclu. At the same time, in terms of weight and dimensions, as well as energy consumption, the sighting system Su-34 is several times larger than the foreign analogues that fit in the outboard containers.

Even booked Su-25 ground attack aircraft with a simple on-board radio-electronic complex often became a victim of an air defense and MANPADS fire in both Afghanistan and Georgia. The cockpit will save the pilots, but if they are hit by an anti-aircraft missile, small arms fire and small-caliber artillery of important systems, the aircraft will have to leave. Save the Su-34 can only fly at an unattainable height, but the armor only increases the weight of the machine and leads to excessive fuel consumption, reduced flight range and weight of the combat load. The US Air Force and NATO countries have long concluded that it is necessary not to book the plane, but to minimize the possibility of hitting it.

Many aviation experts, without denying the problems, say that for a big war with a high-tech adversary like the US and NATO, the Su-34 will be able to realize all its possibilities for a low-altitude breakthrough. Modern DRLO airplanes such as the American E-3 “Sentry” will easily be detected even by the Su-34 hiding behind the background of the earth. Multispectral MANPADS of the type tested by the now American Stinger and French Mistral models are guaranteed to hit the front bomber, so you will still have to go to great heights. The enemy EW complexes, if they are not “crushed”, will create big problems for Sh-141, so you will have to use weapons only on thermal imaging and television guidance channels. The work of the radar sighting system, taking into account modern means of electronic reconnaissance, will become a unmasking factor for a bomber warning the enemy of its presence. Without suppressing the enemy’s air defenses and destroying his Su-34 fighter aircraft, despite the titanium cockpit, the modern radar and the EW complex, not the tenant. Fortunately, if you can reach the goal.

It is clear that the Russian Air Force today has no alternative. Urgently need to change the fleet of obsolete front-line bombers Su-24M. At the same time, of the entire fleet of the Air Force, despite its shortcomings, the Su-34 sighting system is now the most advanced.

Su-34 is the best aircraft of the Cold War, ending 20 years ago. Therefore, the leadership of the KLA would have to think about how to make it the best strike aircraft of our time, and not to rush around with the ideas of 80's.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/
161 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Rinat 1
    Rinat 1 8 November 2013 08: 02
    +5
    Good aircraft for its time. It’s just now that we need to modernize it for new tasks and a new concept of war
    1. VAF
      VAF 8 November 2013 08: 30
      26
      Quote: Rinat 1
      It’s just now that we need to modernize it for new tasks and a new concept of war


      It is always "beneficial" to upgrade any aircraft.

      As for the Su-34 ... there will be no car "to fit" into the SUV OPES and certainly with an IR-price channel !!!! fellow
      1. 123dv
        123dv 8 November 2013 09: 46
        37
        Not an article, but some kind of libel.
        It was extremely unpleasant to read, if not disgusting.
        This car, almost the best we have, was not even this yesterday. Great efforts are being made to develop this direction. People work, establish production, young animals gain experience, factories establish contacts, and some wise guy took and poured mud over everything. Yes, he went to the forest!
        May our pilots have more NEW wings!
        1. avt
          avt 8 November 2013 10: 04
          36
          Quote: 123dv
          Not an article, but some kind of libel.

          On the campaign, the author had seen enough TV and amerskih talks about al-Qaeda and heard a lot. ============= ,, Those NATO air defenses and destroy both mobile and stationary targets are useless in modern warfare. "==== ======== laughing What kind of "modern war" is this? Do you chase a bomber one by one in the mountains with a bomber? Delirium full of times of "detente". Drying means a relic of the "Cold War" war ", here it is convenient to drown Bennyu Ladan from the side. negative
          1. Andrey Yuryevich
            Andrey Yuryevich 8 November 2013 16: 00
            +6
            comes out and PAK FA when it gets into operation, will it be considered a relic that is behind the times? so Mr. Ramm? negative
          2. Botanologist
            Botanologist 8 November 2013 18: 05
            +7
            Some bad smell from the article. We must remember this surname - Ramm.
            Either another liberoid rat rat, or a logger working out someone else's order.
            But in any case - an attempt to put everything upside down.
            1. Altair
              Altair 8 November 2013 22: 57
              -4
              Modern shock machines, avoiding fire from the ground, climb to heights of five to six thousand meters. At that height The Su-34 immediately loses its advantage in the operation of the radar system, which is unable to distinguish between inconspicuous targets - single vehicles and armored objects

              The F-35 radar is able to distinguish and identify subtle ground targets ...
              (Watch the video 1: 50-2: 09)
              1. Evgenij.
                Evgenij. 10 November 2013 20: 20
                0
                Hollywood wins))
                1. Altair
                  Altair 10 November 2013 20: 50
                  -1
                  Hollywood? This is actually a video presentation from the company Northrop Grumman.
            2. postman
              postman 10 November 2013 02: 47
              +1
              Quote: Botanologist
              We must remember this surname - Ramm.

              It's very interesting here (about the author)
              http://twower.livejournal.com/478122.html
              No.
        2. танк
          танк 8 November 2013 10: 48
          +3
          You read that knowledgeable smart people write above, but do not yell
          "Fit" in the SUV OPES and necessarily with the IR-channel, the price will not be the car !!!!

          And the author, in my opinion, correctly writes about the modern war. And at the moment these are militants in the mountainous and wooded area, whom he does not have much opportunity to get. You can not stop in the 80s, you need to move on.
          1. klimpopov
            klimpopov 8 November 2013 10: 54
            10
            There are other aircraft for the bearded.
            1. VAF
              VAF 8 November 2013 13: 27
              18
              Quote: klimpopov
              There are other aircraft for the bearded.


              Klim, hello! 34 is just right for everyone and .. for the bearded, including .... just what the "doctor .. prescribed" .. quickly, accurately and .. reliably soldier

              1. klimpopov
                klimpopov 8 November 2013 13: 33
                +3
                Meant And other aircraft.
                Hello! The plane is cool!
                1. VAF
                  VAF 8 November 2013 13: 45
                  14
                  Quote: klimpopov
                  Meant And other aircraft.


                  Yes I understand! wink But 34 anyway .. more preferably, and especially at night ... imagine-night, silence. Bearded
                  sitting on a relaxed campfire .. and here bam and ... no .. no bonfire .. no bearded wassat

                  OFAB-250-270 for such "things" uhhh as suitable



                  And you don’t need to send any special forces anywhere in the mountains to any stretch marks and similar crap.
                  1. klimpopov
                    klimpopov 8 November 2013 13: 53
                    +3
                    sitting on a relaxed campfire .. and here bam and ... no .. no bonfire .. no bearded

                    Not the mountains on which they sat wassat +
                    And you don’t need to send any special forces anywhere in the mountains to any stretch marks and similar crap.

                    But this has long been talked about. But our cheaper 100500 man to ditch than to refuel the plane ...
                    1. avt
                      avt 8 November 2013 15: 30
                      +4
                      Quote: klimpopov
                      Not the mountains on which they sat

                      Not, as Afghanistan showed - 1500 and mountains from under the ass are jumping, and the terrain was changed by concrete-piercing tunnels from Marov dalniki. Yes, then the Masudovs returned there and lapis lazuli, well, they collected other stones laughing , you don’t even need to hammer. Then we cleaned up the arsenals of the arsenals of old bombs.
          2. avt
            avt 8 November 2013 11: 16
            12
            Quote: tank
            And at the moment these are militants in a mountainous and wooded area, which he does not have much opportunity to get. You can not stop in the 80s, you need to move on.

            Well, well, and tomorrow the war in the desert will become modern and the mountainous and wooded one will become a relic? On account of "move on" and wishes
            Quote: tank
            You read that knowledgeable smart people write above

            Well, to the point, I recommend that you read the comments to the article more carefully. About the modernization of the F-15, for example. Something they are in no hurry to write them off, well, in a shock version, and do not bother, "a relic of the 80s", they just modernize. do not know about the "modern war." And maybe it’s enough to listen to all sorts of nonsense, such as about the missile defense system near our borders, aimed at "outcasts" and "Alkaida" , world terrorism ", how with a new enemy in modern war?
            1. танк
              танк 8 November 2013 11: 54
              +1
              Well, well, and tomorrow the war in the desert will become modern and the mountainous and wooded one will become a relic? On account of "move on" and wishes

              Well, it’s better for you to talk from the sofa than to militants in the mountains.
              When the mountain-wooded one becomes a relic, we will purchase sand-colored paint and air-conditioned equipment, but we will not see this in our century ...
              1. avt
                avt 8 November 2013 13: 39
                +8
                Quote: tank
                Well, it’s better for you to talk from the sofa than to militants in the mountains.

                Are you responding to the campaign from the armor of a burning tank during a break between a shootout in a mountainous and wooded area during a battle in the context of a modern war? Well, after unsuccessfully processing them from the air with an outdated Su-34 apparatus, from the times of the Cold War.
                1. Botanologist
                  Botanologist 8 November 2013 18: 12
                  +3
                  Quote: avt
                  Are you responding to the campaign from the armor of a burning tank during a break between a shootout in a mountainous and wooded area during a battle in the context of a modern war?


                  + lol Campaign meets after a strike during the school holidays.
          3. VAF
            VAF 8 November 2013 13: 22
            11
            Quote: tank
            .And at the moment it’s militants in the mountainous-wooded area, which he does not have much opportunity to get.


            Stupid author writes about this ... utterly !!! am
            It gets at times and in any terrain (with any terrain, it’s more correct) and in any conditions soldier

            1. танк
              танк 11 November 2013 11: 41
              0
              So any aircraft can shoot in. The question is different, you need to find it in forests, mountains
          4. Botanologist
            Botanologist 8 November 2013 18: 08
            +6
            Quote: tank
            the author, in my opinion, correctly writes about the modern war. And at the moment these are militants in the mountainous and wooded area, whom he has no special opportunity to get


            So tell us which militants were in Iraq, Yugoslavia, which militants were bombed in Libya, in Georgia? Or do you also think that a modern front-line bomber should become an attack aircraft?
            1. танк
              танк 11 November 2013 11: 46
              -1
              What do we care about foreign fighters, when their undeveloped buses are blown up with people, these are the fighters I’m talking about, which the Su-34 did not notice and did not destroy.
          5. 0255
            0255 8 November 2013 22: 49
            +5
            Quote: tank
            And at the moment these are militants in a mountainous and wooded area, which he does not have much opportunity to get. You can not stop in the 80s, you need to move on.

            Do you really think that the cold war is over? What does NATO fight only with terrorists? What did Russia and the United States make friends after 1991? Assistance to Chechen thugs from the United States, the deployment of missile defense in Europe and much more suggests otherwise. So the Su-34 is needed.
            Quote: article
            Against the background of the problems with “Thunderchiefs” and “Phantoms”, fighter-bombers with the variable geometry of the Ad-Fk F-111 wing showed high performance. Equipped with a system of enveloping the terrain of the Advarki area at low altitudes at night and in adverse weather conditions, they struck land objects with already known coordinates.

            And still, the F-111 didn’t help the Americans win the war. am
            Quote: article
            Without suppressing the enemy’s air defense and destroying its Su-34 fighter aircraft, despite the titanium cabin, a modern radar and an electronic warfare complex, it’s not a tenant.

            It is unlikely that the F-15E will live long if a fighter gets caught with its bomb load wassat In 1991, weak Iraqi air defense shot down 2 F-15Es, the Americans miraculously recognized their loss (how could this happen?). They wrote that the old F-111 were better than the F-15E.
            Quote: article
            The cockpit will save the pilots, but in case of defeat by an anti-aircraft missile, small arms fire and small-caliber artillery of important systems, the aircraft will have to leave.

            and F-15E in case of defeat by anti-aircraft artillery or air defense systems will not have to leave?
            Quote: article
            But now the concept of attack aircraft has changed and the advantages of the Su-34 have become its shortcomings.

            bombing oil-rich countries armed with the latest technology of the 1960-1970s - is this such a new concept from the USA? Vietnam has shown that if the American victims are supplied with modern weapons, then the Americans can be defeated. And if you throw the country without help, like Yugoslavia, then of course NATO will win the war.
            1. Evgenij.
              Evgenij. 10 November 2013 20: 39
              +1
              And if you throw a country without help, like Yugoslavia
              Communicated with the Serbs who fought there. On the ground, ovs would be smeared. they would have good air defense.
              And although I was still quite small during the Yugoslav events, I was ashamed.
              1. танк
                танк 11 November 2013 11: 51
                -2
                they would have good air defense.
                If only my grandmother had ... she would be a grandfather !! Well, you are like children wink
          6. tomket
            tomket 10 November 2013 03: 42
            +1
            Modern war is a war in Libya, you have to think about how to destroy, for example, different "Oceans" and "Typhoons" and, the militants in the mountainous terrain are for frequent citizens of the country that France and England decided to make happy.
        3. bolonenkov
          bolonenkov 8 November 2013 11: 43
          13
          Quote: 123dv
          It was extremely unpleasant to read, if not disgusting.

          The author writes about what he himself does not know, and draws conclusions about the operation of systems on the basis of one operation in Ingushetia. When the PAK FA was in the blueprints, such analysts wrote that he would be a clumsy cow or be completely inferior to the Rapter, sat in a puddle, then got up, dusted themselves off and took up the Su-34, it will take a little more, it turns out that the su -35 will be his "disadvantage", but some Rafal will be much more "advanced"
          1. klimpopov
            klimpopov 8 November 2013 11: 46
            +8
            Duc has long been shouting about the fact that "in modern air combat, the maneuverability of a fighter is not needed")))) This became clear after the Amerovsky lost in the maneuverability of the Su-35. So shi ...)))
            1. bolonenkov
              bolonenkov 8 November 2013 12: 08
              +8
              Quote: klimpopov
              This became clear after Amerovsky lost the Su-35 on maneuverability. So shi ...)))

              We have different schools and approaches, and sometimes Russian decisions turn out to be much more far-sighted than the seemingly obvious decisions of Western designers.
            2. Botanologist
              Botanologist 8 November 2013 18: 14
              +7
              Quote: klimpopov
              shout that "maneuverability is not necessary for a fighter in modern air combat")


              Of course it’s not necessary, but how will they chop it with a checker?
      2. vladimirZ
        vladimirZ 8 November 2013 11: 01
        15
        Unfortunately, the weak electronic equipment of Russian (Soviet) aircraft has always been, unfortunately.
        It is difficult to solve the problem of destroying a small target with a large altitude safe for the aircraft.
        This requires not only an aircraft with high-quality sighting equipment of various functions (laser, thermal imaging, etc.), but also a whole range of forces and means that should work on the result of the aircraft’s crew, from ground-based, radar to satellite reconnaissance.
        The result of an accurate hit of a target by a pilot, in modern conditions, should be the final link in the technological chain of search, recognition, target designation and destruction of a target.
        In modern conditions, one cannot rely solely on the crew of an aircraft to find a target.
      3. aksakal
        aksakal 8 November 2013 12: 07
        +8
        Quote: vaf
        As for the Su-34 ... there will be no car "to fit" into the SUV OPES and certainly with an IR-price channel !!!!
        - and here I unconditionally agree with you smile Your authority in this matter is simply undeniable.
        1. VAF
          VAF 8 November 2013 13: 31
          +7
          Quote: aksakal
          but here I unconditionally agree with you


          I welcome you Aksakal ... read .. even wept wink I'll go quickly .. I'll miss the point. drinks . that would not .. scare fellow

          1. Botanologist
            Botanologist 8 November 2013 18: 15
            +2
            Quote: vaf
            I'll go quickly .. I'll skip the point


            I do not understand request . Where's the toast?
      4. go
        go 8 November 2013 16: 24
        0
        Question: If this aircraft is so necessary, why then the Americans seem to have completely abandoned the front-line bomber and replaced them with "fighter-bombers" F15, F18? In Air Force tactics, they are far from being fools. Is it because an aircraft like the Su-24 or 34 must always be covered by someone?

        A separate unit is engaged in the breakthrough of air defense with electronic warfare. And if you do not take the electronic warfare separately, then they work on the same "fighter-bombers", which, in the event of interception, can stand up for themselves. Before it was F16, now I don't know.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 8 November 2013 16: 33
          +7
          Quote: go
          Question: If this aircraft is so necessary, why then the Americans seem to have completely abandoned the front-line bomber and replaced them with "fighter-bombers" F15, F18?

          And why do they have the majority of combined arms units, light infantry?
          Why are they creating "MLRS-Launchers tactical missiles-launchers anti-aircraft missiles"?

          They simply are not going to fight on their continent, and logistics requires more universalism, sometimes to the detriment of combat effectiveness.
        2. klimpopov
          klimpopov 8 November 2013 16: 48
          +8
          did they use the "fighter-bombers" F15, F18? In tactics

          In the Union in 60, this topic has already been covered and returned.
          Who said that Su - 34 cannot stand up for itself?
          And Lopatov says the matter.
        3. bolonenkov
          bolonenkov 9 November 2013 03: 31
          0
          Quote: go
          the Americans seem to have completely abandoned the front-line bomber and replaced them with "fighter-bombers" F15, F18?

          That’s the trick of the Su-34, that it can, with a great desire, fill up the Su-27, that is, it’s kind of like an attack aircraft, but it can also work as a fighter, but there is more attack aircraft in it)))
          1. Thunderbolt
            Thunderbolt 9 November 2013 03: 42
            +1
            Quote: bolonenkov
            with a great desire to fill up and su-27

            This is a very bold statement, I would say bold. Well, WHAT? ... Hurray! soldier
            1. tomket
              tomket 10 November 2013 12: 44
              0
              in the war, the Stucks and Spitfires fell, rarely but it happened
              1. vtur
                vtur 14 November 2013 07: 54
                0
                Yeah, that is why, by the end of the war, only Rudel remained to fly on the "Stuk" - all the others (who survived after the unpunished attacks of enemy fighters from behind and below) moved to the Fw-190 - a fighter-bomber. The measure, of course, was forced - the Germans did not have a suitable strike aircraft (Hs-129, of course, with our Il-2 "did not lie next to", although at the last aiming was carried out using marks on the hood - the sights were removed, since the pilot was killed on it during an emergency landing)
      5. Skiff-2
        Skiff-2 8 November 2013 19: 48
        +3
        And why did the author get the idea that the Su-34 will fly alone on a mission? It is perfectly imprisoned for a low-altitude air defense breakthrough, and for cover and solving problems with all sorts of AWACS, there is a Su-35, and it has cards in hand.
    2. Su24
      Su24 8 November 2013 14: 21
      +6
      Only a flight at an unattainable altitude can save the Su-34, but armor only increases the weight of the car and leads to excessive fuel consumption, a decrease in the flight range and the weight of the combat load. The US Air Force and NATO countries have long come to the conclusion that it is not necessary to reserve an airplane, but to minimize the possibility of its destruction.


      17 km altitude, 4000 km range, 8 tons of combat load, what may not like the author of the article?
      The position of the NATO leadership says only that they are more planning to fight with the natives, whose air defense they crush with a guarantee of 10000%
    3. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 8 November 2013 16: 30
      +8
      Front-line bomber, with maneuverability of a fighter, with a wide range of weapons, including for the destruction of enemy radar and air defense, is obsolete? the author of the article simply craps on our army without hesitation. negative
      1. klimpopov
        klimpopov 8 November 2013 16: 37
        +5
        Greetings!
        the author of the article simply craps on our army without hesitation.

        That is not such a manner of presentation. Here, many really consider it morally obsolete. You see them Death Star immediately serve wassat
    4. Siberian German
      Siberian German 9 November 2013 16: 26
      0
      NOT HIS IS A PROBLEM AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PLANER. GOOD, IT IS ABLE TO MODERNIZE THE BEGINNING OF WHICH AT THE PRESENT TIME ALLOWS TO CLEAR THE DEFECTS. I DO NOT REMEMBER WHERE THAT IN SOUTH AFRICA SEEMS UPGRADING MIGS AND THE RESULTS SAY VERY GOOD
    5. Sandov
      Sandov 2 October 2015 18: 43
      0
      That is now useful in Syria.
  2. VAF
    VAF 8 November 2013 08: 09
    18
    Quoting the article: "
    “The Su-34s faced great difficulties when striking in a difficult mountainous and wooded area. The radar could not find the target in such conditions, and the thermal imaging and television channels were with a limited field of view. We coped with the task, but with great difficulty, "- said a serviceman of the Southern Military District, familiar with the situation."
    belay

    Yeah .. so the old "Kaira" can, but the "Platan" is not ???? Complete nonsense!!!

    According to GLITSevsky Su-24M - what do you want ... "cast iron" is "cast iron" .. there is no "super-stealth2" will not save, and even more so during the day.

    It's like ... with "naked booty, but on a hedgehog!"

    Here, the "planners" of such "operations" need .. to tear off their head .. at least soldier
    1. Apollo
      Apollo 8 November 2013 08: 28
      13
      quote-Until the end of this year, the Russian Air Force will be replenished with 14 front-line bombers Su-34.


      1. VAF
        VAF 8 November 2013 08: 39
        +9
        Quote: Apollon
        front-line bombers Su-34.


        Greetings Apollo! drinks

        In the second film, the "work" is shown very well with the LTPS "Platan" ... all the "chugunks" went 000/000 good

        Perfectly "holds" the stabilization target during maneuvers.

        And the tactics of application have been worked out for 5 points, namely, the approach to the target on the PMA and the use of the APS with the TU, but with a difficult relief. MANPADS and .. will not have time to "beep" .. only they can ... "feel".

        So the "statements" of some who allegedly "were present" (I'm talking about the article) .. to put it mildly .. does not correspond to reality negative

        But this is not a claim to the author ... after all, he covered what is now "walking" in the media.

        I didn't really "like" the X-25T ... it's time for .. calm down, but for training .. it will soldier
    2. Nayhas
      Nayhas 8 November 2013 08: 52
      +3
      Quote: vaf
      Yeah .. so the old "Kaira" can, but the "Platan" is not ???? Complete nonsense!!!

      And what, Kayra could? And how much better is Plane than Kayra?
      1. VAF
        VAF 8 November 2013 09: 04
        +7
        Quote: Nayhas
        And what, Kayra could?


        Easy and laid back! soldier Repeatedly tested "in practice" wink And in conjunction with Orion, and even in the mm range .. actually a song! good

        Platan is a very well-modernized "Kaira", with great opportunities for all criteria, the only drawback is .. not a very good location (larger than we would like, "shading" angles) well, and the "trouble" of all LTPS .. "tie" inertial, without proper redundancy soldier

        But I hope .. this will be fixed (there are already achievements, they promised from the following parties) soldier
        1. klimpopov
          klimpopov 8 November 2013 09: 55
          14
          Ha - ha! The overall conclusion of the article smiled. That is, they did so well that it is very bad and is not necessary in a "modern" war. Delirium bordering on insanity.
          What in the modern war there will be no ground targets? ... Although where am I miserable
          1. VAF
            VAF 8 November 2013 13: 49
            +5
            Quote: klimpopov
            What in the modern war there will be no ground targets? ... Although where am I miserable


            5 minutes .. under the table laughing
            1. klimpopov
              klimpopov 8 November 2013 13: 59
              +4
              Yes, all sorts of analysts are tired of and these terms "modern combat actions" but who knows how it will be? At 41, they also thought differently, but how it turned out. Tk shi ... We must rely on planning and professionals are engaged in this (I really hope so) and not zhurnalyuzhki from animalplanets or Foxnews or whatever.
              Is an aircraft capable of hitting ground targets? Capable! Are you affected by modernization? There is! Well and so on ...
              In the end, on those tasks completed? ...
              1. VAF
                VAF 8 November 2013 14: 23
                +8
                Quote: klimpopov
                In the end, on those tasks completed? ..


                In the third "modification" by 99%! fellow

                And when the "Tarantula" and the X-38 are brought in, there will be a complete ICE good

                1. klimpopov
                  klimpopov 8 November 2013 14: 34
                  +1
                  Photo is super! + Will go to the collection!
                2. klimpopov
                  klimpopov 8 November 2013 14: 39
                  +1
                  In the third "modification" by 99%!

                  That's what was required to prove!
                  Photo class! Will go to the collection! +
    3. cherkas.oe
      cherkas.oe 8 November 2013 23: 06
      +2
      Quote: vaf
      Here, the "planners" of such "operations" need .. to tear off their head .. at least

      And eggs, too, that would not give birth to the same.
  3. Lyapis
    Lyapis 8 November 2013 08: 33
    18
    SU-34 is of little use in modern conflicts, 5th generation fighters are expensive toys that have no advantages over older models, the su-27 / mig-29 / f-15,16,18 is just a hundred times modernized old trash, strategic bombers Cold War relic ...

    God damn it! Can anyone at least tell me the secret of which planes meet the requirements of today?! Maybe it's a corncrafter, a glider of the Wright brothers or an imperial fighter from Star Wars? wassat
    1. lelikas
      lelikas 8 November 2013 08: 51
      15
      The conclusion of the article came from the series - "What is stronger than a tank or a cannon."
      They can bring down - no need to do, but if they could not bring down .......... And the innermost US Air Force and NATO countries have long concluded - Well, they came and made a miscarriage in the form of F-35?
      Well, in the trolling order - those who are afraid that planes will shoot down - let them not fly in tanks.
    2. VAF
      VAF 8 November 2013 08: 51
      11
      Quote: Lyapis
      maybe at least someone will reveal the secret to me


      Just don't pay attention to such .. "fan attacks" and that's it +! drinks

      The aircraft in its concept and capabilities .. very good, as a marine option ... in general ... he will not have a price! drinks
      1. old man54
        old man54 9 November 2013 16: 35
        +1
        Greetings Sergey! drinks
        Quote: vaf
        The aircraft in its concept and capabilities .. very good, as a marine option ... in general ... he will not have a price!

        So, I’m personally capable of my opinion that the Su-34 is not a replacement for the Su-24 class, but rather a replacement for the Tu-22М3 !!! Moreover, the replacement with the growth of tactical capabilities. But the Su-33MKI is just the niche of a front-line bomber like the Su-24, but also the ability to conduct maneuverable air combat!
    3. Toporkoff
      Toporkoff 8 November 2013 09: 40
      +3
      Damn it! Maybe someone will reveal to me at least the secret of which planes meet the requirements of today ?!

      Ask combat pilots, not forum theorists) the Americans are fine with the old B-52, Hornets, 16 mi and other rubbish and do not whine (although they whine at home under the covers so that no one can hear).
      The acquaintance flies as a navigator on the SU-34 ... said that if they had given me a choice between the new SU-34 and the SU-24, I would have chosen the 24th one because it flies better at low altitudes and has more weapons.
      1. just exp
        just exp 8 November 2013 10: 18
        +3
        24th does not seem to be frail emergency.
        1. klimpopov
          klimpopov 8 November 2013 11: 52
          +4
          By the way, yes, I read that in the early stages due to the complex mechanization of the wing, including. But it seems that later they "treated".
          As for accident rate, at least it is customary to consider it.
          A friend flies a navigator at the SU-34 ... said that if they had given me a choice between the new SU-34 and SU-24

          IL-2 great plane.))) I advise a friend)
          1. Toporkoff
            Toporkoff 8 November 2013 15: 03
            +2
            IL-2 great plane.))) I advise a friend)

            If you flew by yourself, then I bow my head ...
            1. klimpopov
              klimpopov 8 November 2013 15: 07
              +3
              Yeah, one time every night wassat
      2. Evgeny_Lev
        Evgeny_Lev 8 November 2013 11: 46
        +9
        How many you divorced, familiar with the pilots ... PPC

        And why didn’t you say that you are a pilot yourself and are ready to transfer from the 34th to the 24th?
        Probably because it’s so much easier to catch you in a lie?

        Comrade, keep in mind that for some time now, referring in your posts to "friends who know those who ..." (further insert the topic of the branch) has become a specific muveton, which, by its very presence, defines "the clerk Ikspert" as UG and a small soft troll.
        1. Toporkoff
          Toporkoff 8 November 2013 14: 58
          +3
          How many you divorced, familiar with the pilots ... PPC

          And why didn’t you say that you are a pilot yourself and are ready to transfer from the 34th to the 24th?
          Probably because it’s so much easier to catch you in a lie?

          Comrade, keep in mind that for some time now, referring in your posts to "friends who know those who ..." (further insert the topic of the branch) has become a specific muveton, which, by its very presence, defines "the clerk Ikspert" as UG and a small soft troll.

          I can’t say that the pilot himself, maybe I’m not him ... I hate anything strange living in Voronezh to have friends among Baltimore’s flight crew ... against 34ki I have nothing, for what I bought - for that I sold ...
          And then how many of you got divorced forum specialists in aviation ... PPC
      3. VAF
        VAF 8 November 2013 14: 05
        +6
        Quote: Toporkoff
        he said that if they had given me a choice between the new SU-34 and SU-24, I would have chosen the 24th one because it flies better at low altitudes and the range of weapons is larger.


        Could it be the other way around? chose the 34th and about the range of weapons the same? belay

        If they had written about the Su-24 (a simple T-6), then it would have been possible to "argue" so to speak, due to the fact that the old one had a "wide ass" and it really stood ... like an "iron", that is. dead, but M-ka already ... and even with longitudinal maneuvers ... shakes her own.
        If flights to CF, and even with Relief-24.that generally .. no better.
        On the M-ke for the X-58, you must definitely have Phantosmogoria, the BKO complex ... a little softer to say .. well, there is much to be desired.
        Kaira is, in principle, an ordinary TV channel with a 10-fold increase with an MIS tie.
        If the tezniks-nkashniks "licked all the discrepancies", then yes ... go ahead and with the song, but if there is a small "sneeze", then everything ... came ... only with RPO or already from me with PPV.
        No. 4 due to the chic load on the wing and the PGO "stands" on the PMV as if rooted to the spot, the Platan has a thermal imaging channel, the tactical radius is twice, the BC is twice, the L175M ... no questions asked about this on the Su-24 just dream .. well, and a lot of things.
        Even with Hephaestus, even the Su-24M does not reach the Su-34th.
        This is my opinion, although I have not been a combat pilot for a long time soldier

        About the "failures" of the Su-24, and especially in combat (field conditions), this is a separate topic ... not without reason they said (in my time) - "the plane is raw, the designer is dry, and the equipment is ... wet. , and even in soap wassat )
        It’s a joke, of course, I really loved the same thing and I love the Su-24th, but .... as they say here .. you won’t erase words from the song

        And as an illustration .. to your phrase on the nomenclature of weapons, so to speak clearly ... what on the Su-24s you can only dream of soldier

        1. Toporkoff
          Toporkoff 8 November 2013 15: 02
          +1
          And as an illustration .. to your phrase on the nomenclature of weapons, so to speak clearly ... what on the Su-24s you can only dream of

          Maybe with the nomenclature I was very bent, but I remember that it was about X-series missiles ... but a year and a half has passed, maybe something has changed
          1. VAF
            VAF 8 November 2013 16: 11
            +3
            Quote: Toporkoff
            but it's been a year and a half, maybe something has changed


            Everything can be +! wink because the last almost 2 years is already the 3rd modification of the su-34s.

            Or maybe he says a simple "offense", because not everyone got on the su-34.
            I remember the constant "disputes" among the long-range pilots between the pilots of the Tu-22 and Tu-22M2 ... "who is wider," although Shilo, between us, is such a thing (who knows him), but try to say it out loud. . with fists will climb.
            After all, a "big fighter" ... you know.

            It’s the same here ... and for X..ta missiles to the 59th 24th can only one, the 31st can’t at all (even Hephaestus ... I hope so far), and so X25,29 and X- 58 ... and that’s it.
            But the most important thing .. it's RADIUS .. and here in general .. dull light
            1. Toporkoff
              Toporkoff 8 November 2013 17: 41
              +1
              Well, what insults, they don’t get off with 34x, here for X maybe insult, I couldn’t use my favorite rocket) which one is the most accurate?
              1. VAF
                VAF 9 November 2013 11: 12
                0
                Quote: Toporkoff
                which one is the most accurate?


                Below I will answer this question dear Nayhas'u , please read there, that would not be repeated, +! drinks
      4. Botanologist
        Botanologist 8 November 2013 18: 24
        +1
        Quote: Toporkoff
        24й for at low altitudes it flies better and the range of weapons is larger.


        About the range of weapons 24-go in the presentation of your friend-navigator can be more detailed?
      5. patsantre
        patsantre 8 November 2013 23: 27
        +1
        This trash has been modernized a hundred times and crammed with the latest equipment to the eyeballs, which our planes, unfortunately, cannot boast of.
  4. Nayhas
    Nayhas 8 November 2013 08: 51
    -14 qualifying.
    An article right to the point, you can’t say better. But unfortunately, the domestic military-industrial complex is not capable of creating anything equal to American sighting containers like Sniper or Lightning, and therefore only the Su-34 ...
    1. VAF
      VAF 8 November 2013 09: 08
      +4
      Quote: Nayhas
      But unfortunately, the domestic defense industry is not able to create anything equal


      There is a homely truth in your commentary, but ... they are already refusing the "services" of the UOZM, and "work" with the MNS .... they beat themselves "heel to the chest" which will be at least no worse (there is reason to believe).
      And if Sukhoi himself "leaves" from the firm to others .. means this is something .. means.
      Moreover, there are "problems" not only in the "container2 but also in the OLS-35 (for the Su-35S) bully
      1. Gamdlislyam
        Gamdlislyam 8 November 2013 16: 00
        +2
        Dear colleague Sergey, was the OLS-35 not created for the MiG-35?
        1. Alex 241
          Alex 241 8 November 2013 16: 07
          +3
          OLS-35 is designed for the Su-35 aircraft and provides:
          • An overview of the airspace, land and water in the front hemisphere of an aircraft;
          • search, detection, capture and auto tracking, determination of angular coordinates and range to air, ground and surface targets (CC, SC and SC) in average IR (3 ... 5 microns) and visible wavelength ranges;
          • detection, capture, tracking and determination of the angular position of the spot of the external laser illuminator;
          • laser illumination of SC, NEC.
        2. VAF
          VAF 8 November 2013 16: 27
          +1
          Quote: Gamdlislyam
          But was the OLS-35 not created for the MiG-35?


          No, dear! +! drinks Sanya, as always, promptly answered.
          For the 29th OLS-K (OLS-UEM) and KOLS (13CM)
      2. PLO
        PLO 8 November 2013 18: 57
        +2
        Hello, Sergey.
        Don't take this article seriously.
        author - alexander ramm shit angry

        ps and on
        there was recently information that for the Su-35 its own suspended sighting container produced by SPK NPP is being prepared.
        is this true or not?
        1. VAF
          VAF 9 November 2013 10: 31
          +4
          Quote: olp
          is this true or not?


          Hi Oleg! drinks Yes true!
          1. PLO
            PLO 9 November 2013 11: 39
            +1
            Hi Oleg! drinks Yes ... the truth!

            hmm, is it good or bad?

            Why produce demilitarization in overhead containers? one specifically for the Su-35S, the second for the Su-30SM
            isn’t it easier to take the more successful one and integrate it into the avionics of all new aircraft?
            1. VAF
              VAF 9 November 2013 13: 58
              +1
              Quote: olp
              isn’t it easier to take the more successful one and integrate it into the avionics of all new aircraft?


              It’s simpler, especially since the calculator on them is the same "Solo" bully, but here is a pure "politess" wassat

              I never wondered why for one car the "motors" are only from "Salut", and for the other only from "Saturn".

              That's how it is here, but .. it's .. "suffers" recourse
        2. VAF
          VAF 9 November 2013 10: 38
          +1
          Quote: olp
          Don't take this article seriously.


          Oleg, yes, I understood this immediately as soon as I read the first 2 samples .. I didn’t go further negative

          I myself like to "wave a saber", (though I am more because of the "holiday" slogans and because of the "running .. in front of the locomotive" lol ) but here in the article belay not to the same extent request all the more so that it would be a "checker" .. at least somewhere very close to be yourself. Not to mention that it would not hurt to use this hardware yourself.
          And then ... "and rushed" she over the bumps " wassat

          But I hope on the forum the people figured it out on their own ..... "who is .. HU" fellow
      3. Nayhas
        Nayhas 8 November 2013 19: 14
        +1
        Quote: vaf
        but ... they are already refusing the "services" of the UOZM, and they "work" with the MNS .... they beat themselves "heel to the chest" which will be at least no worse (there is reason to believe).

        Interested in such a question. The military didn’t order an aiming container before the industry, and the industry couldn’t, or was the military not interested in this topic?
        1. VAF
          VAF 9 November 2013 10: 43
          0
          Quote: Nayhas
          The military didn’t order an aiming container before the industry, and the industry couldn’t, or was the military not interested in this topic?


          And they ordered (it was immediately entered into the TTZ) and the industry produced the I-251 "Mercury" (and it hung on the Su-27S already and on the Su-25TM) but .... everything is "politess" here. request , well, the time of "apostle" in the early 90s, you know what it was.
          Even now, "echoes" are felt ... not all ... "grumbled".

          So we will wait
    2. PLO
      PLO 8 November 2013 18: 52
      +5
      An article right to the point, you can’t say better. But unfortunately, the domestic military-industrial complex is not capable of creating anything equal to American sighting containers like Sniper or Lightning, and therefore only the Su-34 ...

      sometimes it’s better to be silent than speak
      the author, Alexander Ramm, is a well-known idle tinker and dreamer, as well as a fake participant in the hostilities for whom he gave himself out, whose fictions debunked to smithereens

      your trust in this scoundrel (as well as many other scoundrels) very clearly characterizes you

      as Sergey said, there is only a grain of truth in your words - UOMZ is far from being a leader in the special economic zones, but here, as they say, you hit the sky with your finger
  5. saag
    saag 8 November 2013 08: 52
    +3
    Quote: Lyapis
    Damn it! Maybe someone will reveal to me at least the secret of which planes meet the requirements of today ?!

    This is a robot with a computer based on neural networks.
  6. Baton
    Baton 8 November 2013 09: 18
    +6
    Quote: "The Su-34 is the best aircraft of the Cold War that ended 20 years ago."
    Something has certain doubts that it ended ...
    So let it be better this way: "Su-34 is the best plane ..."
  7. Revolver
    Revolver 8 November 2013 09: 38
    +3
    Nevertheless, it is good that the war did not take place.
  8. rassom
    rassom 8 November 2013 09: 54
    0
    can someone take pictures of the results of the attack on the base of the militants? I did not find
  9. Letterksi
    Letterksi 8 November 2013 10: 07
    +5
    The article refers to the United States and its concepts. Which, as the practice of waging war, also were not ideal. For example, the United States used to remove cannons from aircraft, hoping only for missiles. US aviation is designed for the tasks of sweeping the countries of the Middle East, and not war with a strong enemy. So what? Now Russia needs to copy their planes? Although Russia has its own tasks, different from the United States, for the most part defending a large territory, rather than attacking countries.

    Conclusions of the article - the aircraft is outdated. So upgrade it, but don’t say that it is out of date. Here you can learn from the states, those planes modernize and update equipment, and do not write off immediately to the scrap. So F15 is still not outdated, although it has been manufactured since the 80s, and the new Su-34 is already outdated. Complete nonsense
    1. klimpopov
      klimpopov 8 November 2013 10: 10
      +4
      But it’s true. If we follow the author’s ideas further, then the plane that has just passed state tests and adopted for service can be considered outdated in principle.
      And explain to me the poor man what is the "modern concept of war"? And what is not modern?
      1. servant.
        servant. 8 November 2013 10: 27
        0
        Of course, this is a new plane, good and joyful, at least they put something ... even with ideas and concepts from the 80s, maybe .... But what equipment is considered the new one by the same amers now? Well, it’s obviously not F-15, and if we put the Su-34 with it in a row, then the conclusions .... Yes, and how much time does it take to upgrade * a new * aircraft to a * modern *? Or maybe it would be better to immediately produce modern aircraft and then 30 years through their modernization to maintain the level of modern?
        1. klimpopov
          klimpopov 8 November 2013 10: 45
          +8
          You know, I have a friend, he’s been building (finishing) for five years now, not because there is no money, it’s just that something is constantly changing, something is being reworked, he wants the house to be the MOST modern, but the technologies are developing inexorably quickly, so he’s keeping up and it didn’t come to a ridiculous thing, the walls were completely uncovered in the repair, the wires and wiring were changed, some new ones appeared, then a new collection of switches made of artificial stone, then they subtracted something from the housing problem, but it could have been five years already live ... A family and with m lives on suitcases in two hruschevke room in which repair with bases Moscow principality was not.
          1. servant.
            servant. 8 November 2013 11: 03
            0
            I beg you, but present the technologies and concepts of 20-30 years ago for new ones? Not to modernize the obsolete, but to produce new and already support it by modernization at the modern level for 20-30 years! And your friend is like a military industrial complex instead of building a new .....
            1. klimpopov
              klimpopov 8 November 2013 11: 13
              +4
              So we have ALL 20 - 30 technologies of a summer ago, that we have what they have, a breakthrough and something fundamentally new so far. Variations on the theme. Although it is natural that Su - 34 lingered on 20 - years. But what if you suddenly take it and from scratch create a fundamentally new one? Vobschem did not understand the promise.
              1. servant.
                servant. 8 November 2013 11: 22
                0
                Well, at least I realized that the plane was delayed for 20 years .... If it had been adopted 20 years ago in the form in which it is being manufactured now, at present, by means of improvements and modernizations, it would be at the level of modern complexes ...
                1. klimpopov
                  klimpopov 8 November 2013 11: 34
                  +2
                  If the USSR did not fall apart, a lot of things would appear in a timely manner. We have what we have and not the worst (modestly speaking);)

                  [quote] it would be at the level of modern complexes ... [/ quote]
                  [quote] But how do you suddenly take on and from scratch to create a fundamentally new? [/ quote]


                  [quote] Well, at least I realized that the plane was delayed for 20 years ... / quote]
                  AND? I repeat how without hurt, like this, suddenly take and do new things for 3-5 years?
                2. The comment was deleted.
                  1. servant.
                    servant. 8 November 2013 11: 49
                    +1
                    Quote: klimpopov

                    AND? I repeat how without hurt, like this, suddenly take and do new things for 3-5 years?


                    I do not know! But I do not really want to try on pink glasses either. We already had * armor and tanks are strong .. * Although at the moment, as I already wrote, it’s good that at least something new is arriving at the troops even with a delay ... for 20 years. Yes, and there should be not 2 squadrons.
                    1. klimpopov
                      klimpopov 8 November 2013 12: 05
                      +2
                      Yes, and it should not be 2 squadrons.

                      However, it is true and difficult to disagree. But I’ll repeat it for the thirtieth time, just like that, new breakthrough technologies and, all the more, a finished airplane do not appear, this is the result of many years of phased work. And we have a gap in 20 years (or even more) and work on the Soviet backlog. Here, in general, in this situation ... And yes, I chew you all well know.
                3. sakmagon
                  sakmagon 8 November 2013 21: 11
                  +1
                  twenty years ago in this form it could not be accepted simply by definition, then it wasn’t produced))) like we would have accepted it in the Second World War if we would have shown the Fritz how to drop a link to the history of the F-15? So far this story is going on
            2. Evgeny_Lev
              Evgeny_Lev 8 November 2013 11: 56
              +2
              Comrade, it is generally accepted that NEW is what is produced / released. You here "on the mountain" give out that if something was conceived 20 years ago, then it is outdated.

              What kind of nonsense?

              It turns out that the Americans who built the ship to send people to the moon made, at that time, an obsolete ship, because in the 19th century, Julne Verne wrote "From Earth to the Moon"
              1. servant.
                servant. 8 November 2013 12: 05
                0
                New is new! Wheel invented BC. But if you make a wooden wheel and put it on the BMW X6, then of course it will be new! 1000 years ago it was modern, and now it will be modern? I repeat for you - .. If the plane was adopted 20 years ago in the form in which it is being manufactured now, at present, by means of improvements and modernizations, it would be at the level of modern complexes ...
                1. Evgeny_Lev
                  Evgeny_Lev 8 November 2013 12: 21
                  +3
                  I see that you do not understand my speech.
                  Let's try it differently.

                  You are the designer who designs the plane. You have your own progressive thinking and you see your brainchild clearly. Draw the drawings, optimize, insert into the concept a radar (for example) with features that should be in the end. But bad luck, such a radar has not yet been produced. Somewhere there are achievements, but there is still no finished device, at least in the drawings, of the device.
                  You, following your current logic, which is sublimated in the phrase "I think it over today, it means I need to release it tomorrow," you take not what you intended, but what is (even if it is even the most modern equipment at that moment), turn it in ... Well and do so with all other nodes.
                  It is in this case, in the end, you get an outdated sample.

                  And when you purposefully go to what you have in mind, without compromise (of course, if the idea is not delusional initially), in the end, you get a COMPLETELY new sample, calling it "outdated" based on what you thought of it 20 years ago, maybe only an outspoken layman or fool.

                  Now the question. What is obsolete in the Su - 34?
                  1. servant.
                    servant. 8 November 2013 14: 45
                    +1
                    Quote: Evgeny_Lev

                    Let's try it differently.



                    Now the question. What is obsolete in the Su - 34?


                    The question is, what is the latest in the SU-34, not a new sample of the 80s, namely, a modern one that has no analogues in the world at the moment?
                    1. klimpopov
                      klimpopov 8 November 2013 14: 58
                      +2
                      You are more accurate with this "no one in the world". We have a POLYGON or I serve Russia, you will look, so everything "has no analogue in the next 30 years" ...
                      Well, that's how I am. In general, the above described in the comments what's new.
                      1. servant.
                        servant. 8 November 2013 15: 06
                        0
                        New - I agree, but the newest was all 20 years ago!
                        Personally, I am glad that at least 2 by the new year will God give us 3 squadrons of these aircraft! And even if it really was a super modern aircraft, then it would be a minuscule for a country like Russia.
                    2. PLO
                      PLO 8 November 2013 19: 56
                      0
                      The question is, what is the latest in the SU-34, not a new sample of the 80s, namely, a modern one that has no analogues in the world at the moment?

                      -Best performance in range and combat load.
                      -Excellent radar
                      good ECO
                      1. servant.
                        servant. 9 November 2013 07: 12
                        0
                        http://bastion-karpenko.narod.ru/Su-32_48.html

                        There are comparative characteristics including those with * outdated * F-15
                      2. PLO
                        PLO 9 November 2013 11: 35
                        0
                        http://bastion-karpenko.narod.ru/Su-32_48.html
                        There are comparative characteristics including those with * outdated * F-15

                        you should understand that tabular characteristics by themselves never mean anything if you are not able to explain under what conditions each of them is achieved

                        so the link you provided only confirms my words, if you read it carefully you will understand why
              2. sakmagon
                sakmagon 8 November 2013 21: 13
                0
                it was not adopted in such a form twenty years ago, read the alphabet of what to litter on the air
                1. servant.
                  servant. 9 November 2013 07: 14
                  0
                  And for you stories http://bastion-karpenko.narod.ru/Su-32_48.html
        2. ed65b
          ed65b 8 November 2013 11: 47
          +1
          Quote: klimpopov
          You know, I have a friend, he’s been building (finishing) for five years now, not because there is no money, it’s just that something is constantly changing, something is being reworked, he wants the house to be the MOST modern, but the technologies are developing inexorably quickly, so he’s keeping up and it didn’t come to a ridiculous thing, the walls were completely uncovered in the repair, the wires and wiring were changed, some new ones appeared, then a new collection of switches made of artificial stone, then they subtracted something from the housing problem, but it could have been five years already live ... A family and with m lives on suitcases in two hruschevke room in which repair with bases Moscow principality was not.

          It’s familiar that my neighbor has not been able to finish building for about 15 years already, he’s joking that he will die without seeing his fruits.
      2. Letterksi
        Letterksi 8 November 2013 13: 22
        -1
        The Americans are already building their most modern F-35, how much time is it? When they finish building according to your logic, will it become obsolete?

        Such an approach is a normal technical approach to the development of any complex device. Constantly improve it; finish it; finish it, as far as its capabilities and emerging new technologies. It is unrealistic to jump over generations, and if this happens, then reliability usually suffers. So I am glad that they did. Su-35, PAK FA and more. It’s great that these planes fly and work. One cannot stop there.

        But the American Raptor is already born disabled, and really outdated without having made a single sortie. because it’s practically not upgradeable. Are Americans killed and blamed for it? No! go on. And it is right
  • just exp
    just exp 8 November 2013 10: 19
    +3
    The 34th is good just for war, for a real war, and not in order to drive abreks in the mountains, for this there are turntables.
  • uhu189
    uhu189 8 November 2013 10: 54
    +5
    Started for health, finished for peace ... It’s not for me to judge the performance characteristics and combat qualities of the SU-34, and even less comparisons with NATO aircraft, but at the moment it is the newest bomber that we have, there are no others I venture to suggest that there will be no 15 years coming for sure. It is true to judge its combat effectiveness based only on unconfirmed information about one single strike on the base of the militants, (without specifying the exact details how it all happened, and whether the equipment really refused or there simply was an inability to use this technique correctly) in my opinion then a little premature and stupid. Namely, on the basis of this single case of combat use, all further critical analysis and a categorical statement about the obsolescence of the aircraft are signed ...
  • servant.
    servant. 8 November 2013 12: 12
    +2
    Quote: klimpopov
    Yes, and it should not be 2 squadrons.

    However, it is true and difficult to disagree. But I’ll repeat it for the thirtieth time, just like that, new breakthrough technologies and, all the more, a finished airplane do not appear, this is the result of many years of phased work. And we have a gap in 20 years (or even more) and work on the Soviet backlog. Here, in general, in this situation ... And yes, I chew you all well know.


    Everything is so .... It's a shame for the lost 20-30 years ... I would like a breakthrough and modern, but there is something that is, we would not cut it even in connection with the upcoming crises ...
    1. klimpopov
      klimpopov 8 November 2013 12: 22
      +2
      Everything is so .... It's a shame for the lost 20-30 years ... I would like a breakthrough and modern, but there is something that is, we would not cut it even in connection with the upcoming crises ...

      Again, it is already good that the factories hold on to these orders.
  • Evgeny_Lev
    Evgeny_Lev 8 November 2013 12: 29
    +3
    The article was written by the correspondent of the Discovery channel wassat
    1. klimpopov
      klimpopov 8 November 2013 12: 33
      +1
      Well, they have their own "trick", it seems, they praised it, but in fact, they got it ... Our "those who have no analogs to the world have the nearest ..."
  • Evgeny_Lev
    Evgeny_Lev 8 November 2013 12: 41
    +3
    The commentators are also very touching, who, at every convenient or not very convenient case, insert phrases of the context "modern military operations", "the concept of modern war ..", etc.

    Comrades do not duplicate that today is modern, tomorrow is outdated.
    MILITARY MATTER IS NOT A FASHION INDUSTRY.

    Tomorrow's conditions for waging wars may not necessarily change in the direction of "what has not been before." They can equally return to what happened before.
    You need to be guided not by what is currently fashionable / relevant, but by a concept (in our case, a defense doctrine) that allows you to ensure the tasks of the inviolability of the state in any situation, including and taking into account the likelihood of a repetition of the Kursk Bulge and Stalingrad.
    1. Yuri Y.
      Yuri Y. 8 November 2013 15: 11
      0
      In fact, the old man PO-2 was relevant even during the Korean one, although the concept of aircraft has long since changed from bi to monoplane. Now, although the concept has also changed to stealth, they still buy 4+, because not everything is clear and expensive. So constantly upgrade as much as possible and release as much as necessary.
  • poccinin
    poccinin 8 November 2013 12: 42
    0
    GIVE YOU INTERSTAR FIGHTER "ELITE" fellow
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 8 November 2013 13: 20
    +2
    the author just wanted to say that the technique was not conceived for those tasks that she would have to solve. this is true, we (like NATO) all the time created equipment for the global war, and for decades we have been fighting in local wars and say that our equipment is not intended for this. It happened this time, too, a magnificent aircraft, designed to hit radio-contrast targets with excellent resolution, does not have good heat and television cameras and good modern hanging containers to fight in small and sluggish conflicts. It was never a secret to anyone like the fact that the capabilities of a modern aircraft are the capabilities of its electronics and weapons with which it is equipped, and we are behind in this. It is necessary to acknowledge the fact of lag and give money not for another bullshit nano miracle of Chubais, but specifically to create a research institute of electronics (or call it whatever you like), to existing developers, etc.
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 8 November 2013 16: 03
      +3
      Quote: barbiturate
      the author just wanted to say that the technique was not conceived for those tasks that she would have to solve. this is true, we (like NATO) all the time created equipment for the global war, and for decades we have been fighting in local wars and say that our equipment is not intended for this.

      Maybe due to the fact that we have created weapons that can reflect the blow in a global conflict, this global conflict does not occur?
      As for the research institute, I completely agree with you, in addition, by hook or by crook to purchase the most modern production lines in Japan, for example.
  • Odysseus
    Odysseus 8 November 2013 13: 56
    +3
    The main problem of the Su-34 is the lack of modern high-precision weapons in combat units. This problem needs to be solved. Plane, of course, needs to be modernized.
    As for the fact that the plane was originally from the 80s, there is nothing to be done about it. All our planes (except for the experimental T-50) are from the same place. It’s impossible to turn back the farsch, we have to work with what we have.
    PS I remember this author: he is a supporter of the Su-30SM and considers the Su-34 to be an unnecessary aircraft. Now this is no longer a subject for discussion - stopping the production of the Su-34 would be crazy.
  • sashka
    sashka 8 November 2013 14: 06
    +4
    as if we have planes apparently invisibly. So they are "circling" before our eyes, funny, chess word .. They begin to fly when the "president" is going on another voyage. Apparently, the resource is being protected. There is no one else to do.
  • Muadipus
    Muadipus 8 November 2013 14: 09
    +1
    the numbers 34 have special karma in our country;)
  • nightingale
    nightingale 8 November 2013 14: 37
    -4
    The fact that su34 is morally obsolete is clear to the hedgehog, but we have no other. that we have now su30 su 34 su 35 and everything seems to be. this is clearly not enough for defense and the ears of these models stick out from the 80s. VPK employees should be thanked that at least these models have been kept and brought to readiness and wish them to switch to modern technology faster.
    1. klimpopov
      klimpopov 8 November 2013 14: 59
      +2
      The fact that sou34 is outdated

      In which place? wassat
      we have sechas su xnumx su xnumx su xnumx


      MiG-29SMT
      MiG-29UBT
      MiG-31BM
      Su-27СМ / СМ3
      Su-35С
      Sioux 30M2
      Sioux 30SM

      Sioux 25SM
      Su-25MX2
      Su-xnumx
      Sioux 24M2
      Su-34
      Yak-130

      for memory.
      By the way, check out the list of aircraft armed with likely friends. Everything is the same there, in a similar sense, though they are better PR
      1. klimpopov
        klimpopov 8 November 2013 15: 16
        +1
        F-15 Eagle
        F-15E Strike Eagle
        F-16 Fighting Falcon
        F-22 Raptor
        F-35 Lightning II

        A-10A / C Thunderbolt II
      2. nightingale
        nightingale 8 November 2013 16: 08
        -3
        almost all models are 30 years old. Well, and which of them are now being produced besides those I have named. oh yes yak130 but it is the development of 90 years and where are the modern 2000 years of development.
        1. klimpopov
          klimpopov 8 November 2013 16: 24
          +2
          Well, and which of them are now being produced except those named by me.

          MiG-31BM
          MiG-29
          Mig - 35 the question is suspended (well, okay, let's not get ahead of ourselves)
          Sioux 25SM
          Su-25MX2
          Sioux 30M2
          Sioux 30SM
          From the list and on this topic.
          F-15 Eagle
          F-15E Strike Eagle
          F-16 Fighting Falcon

          What years? And for the thunder bolt I generally keep quiet))))))
          and where are the modern 2000 development years.

          On the tests. Fifth already.

          There are 20 years of a break, but you want to say that for example Su - 35 C is not relevant?)))) Well, at least you don’t lie to yourself))))

          1. klimpopov
            klimpopov 8 November 2013 16: 42
            +2
            Sworn friends live like that
            http://www.aviaport.ru/news/2012/08/31/239747.html
            boot 90 years and where we lie

            By the way, why 90x? You share all the developments for decades wassat
            Su - 30 CM development of 2000x by the way. In the letters after the number you take?

            Here is their answer.
            1. nightingale
              nightingale 8 November 2013 19: 12
              -3
              Su 30cm another modification of su27ub
              1. sakmagon
                sakmagon 8 November 2013 21: 17
                +4
                Dadad for sure, and I also read that the T-72 is another modification of the T-34, well, the truth is a little different)))
          2. nightingale
            nightingale 8 November 2013 18: 55
            -1
            Indeed, the fifth generation aircraft is relevant in the prince today.
            1. klimpopov
              klimpopov 8 November 2013 19: 18
              +3
              With the same success we can say that now the sixth generation aircraft is relevant and the fifth is outdated and it is time for him to landfill. The relevance of the aircraft is not exactly the ratings of the Western media. Can the 4 ++ generation aircraft effectively fight the fifth? Definitely! Is it relevant, well, following simple logic? Actual ...
              Su 30cm another modification of su27ub

              Is the plane new? Anyway?
              Indeed, the fifth generation aircraft is relevant in the prince today.

              What do you think is relevant?
              Even the United States with its huge budget cannot yet put the fifth generation on a fully sane wing, what can we say about others. Russia has begun to say the final stage of the fifth generation tests. China, with its huge defense industry, is again only at the beginning of the test. What to say about others. Yes, perhaps without the collapse of past years, there would be parity with the States, but alas ... And this is only for the fighter. And not only in Russia, now, but when will it be PAK YES for example? Earth is possible and will not live to see this bright future. Tipun to my tongue ...
              And apparently they didn’t go to the link ....
    2. andrey-ivanov
      andrey-ivanov 12 November 2013 08: 09
      0
      In fact, the "ears" of all planes stick out from the Wright brothers' airplane. But that doesn't bother you, does it? About the hearing organs F-15,16 and F / A-18 from the late 70s, I will not say anything. And nothing, they upgrade over and over again, and fly on them, and even not bad.
  • Governor
    Governor 8 November 2013 15: 41
    +6
    The article is shameful, the car is great!
  • vadson
    vadson 8 November 2013 16: 23
    +1
    I wish I could reduce this scribbler to the designer and hard workers from the plant for assembling this bird, so to speak, tete and tete. I can imagine how his ribs will count ...
    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 8 November 2013 18: 13
      12
      About the sufferer for the idea

      twower
      March 24, 2012
      In January 2011, I had a few blog entries regarding the exposure of one fake war veteran. Details sequentially at the links: one, two, three, four.
      For those who began to read me after those events, I will explain the essence of the matter.
      In 2010, articles by a certain Aleksey Gaidai appeared in some of the opposition, near-war publications and blogs, who reported on the terrible details of the reform of the RF Armed Forces: everything is bad, nothing works, the soldiers are starving. As it turned out later, this author is present under various nicknames at one of the respected military-historical forums and in LiveJournal. And in each of these places, relying on imaginary anonymity, he told various details from his biography, which did not fit together in any way. If we summarize everything, it turned out that the author had served both urgent and contractual service, both in the internal troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and in the troops of the Ministry of Defense, studied to be a military psychologist and at the same time fought for more than three years in Chechnya, was fired from the army, but somehow continued military service. The real name of this "hero" was also revealed - Captain Alexey Ramm, psychologist of the 74th motorized rifle brigade.
      Most of all I was outraged that this officer lied about his participation in the hostilities, which is considered a great shame among veterans. After the relevant entries in my journal, Ramm said in his blog that the biography was invented for the literary project "Aleksey Gaidai", but he could not explain why he, personally on his own behalf, and not on behalf of the literary hero, assigned himself a veteran status. Instead, he accused me of being involved with the bloody gebney and wanting to squeeze him out of the light for his creative work.
      Here is a screenshot of this post. You will no longer find it on Ramm's blog, as for some reason, he first erased part of the comments, then completely everything, and then the record itself. It is available at those links at the beginning of the entry. Http://twower.livejournal.com/757743.html
      1. klimpopov
        klimpopov 8 November 2013 18: 53
        +4
        Ahah) How much is not surprised))
  • K9_SWAT
    K9_SWAT 8 November 2013 19: 41
    +2
    In what modern conflicts? Iraq, Afghanistan, 08.08.08/XNUMX/XNUMX or a possible conflict with NATO or China?
    Each type of combat requires its own weapon. But they don’t want to send Tu-160 to Chechnya, and then they will say that he failed there, so we’ll remove weapons. So soon it will reach the Strategic Missile Forces ...
    In general, the army should prepare for a confrontation with another army, and not chase the Basmachi in the mountains. To do this, there is the Ministry of Internal Affairs with internal troops and the FSB. Fighting terrorists, the army is degrading and losing its potential. Although, on the other hand, she must be able to fight in conflicts of low intensity ...
  • NKVD
    NKVD 8 November 2013 21: 41
    +1
    A dumb article, like the author himself. Obviously someone executes an order. The Su-34 is a cut above the same A-10 Thunderbolt II.
    1. sef-77
      sef-77 13 November 2013 18: 15
      0
      Are you serious??? I wonder what? (question without sarcasm)
  • scientist
    scientist 8 November 2013 21: 46
    +3
    No matter how much you improve the pulse-Doppler radar with a headlamp or a mirror, the problems of detecting ground targets will be in any case, because it is very difficult to achieve high coherence of the SDS system even on ground radars, and even more so on-board equipment.
    There is only one way out, this is the use of a synthetic aperture radar. These types of radars make it possible to compensate for shortcomings due to over-resolution, they practically allow you to draw a detailed terrain, if you can still lay a television portrait on it, then such equipment can identify and classify any target. However, for some reason, our science stubbornly avoids creating airborne radars with a synthesized aperture, and apparently it is very beneficial for them to move along cheap tracks.
    1. VAF
      VAF 9 November 2013 11: 21
      0
      Quote: scientist
      There is only one way out, this is the use of a synthetic aperture radar. These types of radars make it possible to compensate for shortcomings due to over-resolution, they practically allow you to draw a detailed terrain, if you can still lay a television portrait on it, then such equipment can identify and classify any target.


      So on the 34-ke, on the Mig-31, Su-30SM, Su-35S and as planned on the Mig-29M (Mig-35), these are exactly the ones wink
      But ... even the old N-019C (on the MiG-29C) already had a mapping mode soldier
      1. scientist
        scientist 10 November 2013 20: 27
        0
        Pulse-Doppler and synthesized aperture radars have different information processing principles. But both can be implemented on the basis of the phased array, but a radar with a synthesis aperture is only on the basis of the afar, while it is quite difficult to implement and requires very powerful computing tools. On the types of aircraft you have indicated, they are definitely not. They write that the A-100 was installed on the radar planes with a synthesized aperture of the antenna, and it would be interesting to know reviews about working in the mountains.
  • Prapor-527
    Prapor-527 8 November 2013 21: 56
    +4
    My parents collected Su-24 at the Chkalovsky plant ... When I retire, I want to build Su-34 ...
  • cherkas.oe
    cherkas.oe 8 November 2013 22: 41
    +2
    Yeah! Pisun is still the one, this Lyokha, so he wanted to massage his Adam's apple, look into the protruding, corrupt eyes, and ask: - "And for whom are you on the site so long and ornate crap c? "
  • cherkas.oe
    cherkas.oe 8 November 2013 22: 54
    +1
    And, what else I wanted to say, what for and who permits to publish such an excret on the site? Is it specially that the people would dragon? Turn the site into a haven for crooks and crooks, gentlemen admins and moderators.
  • nightingale
    nightingale 8 November 2013 23: 16
    -3
    Klimpopov

    Relevance is the need for a product now and not tomorrow or yesterday, so the fifth generation aircraft is needed now, and the su35 was needed yesterday. I’m forced to buy it in view of the T50’s lack of readiness, and it plans no more than a hundred units. so the relevance is not great and so the su 35 planned to fight with the fifth generation for sale with equal power, the third generation can be more powerful, but for this it’s not enough to establish super modern avionics it is necessary to have high skill pilot command and technicians. it’s necessary to tangle well and the losses will be unjustifiably large.
    your link opens with a text page with other links.
    1. klimpopov
      klimpopov 8 November 2013 23: 45
      0
      Pour water well.))) By reference, everything opens well! Today I’m not busy much) I invited my future wife, and tomorrow I’m expecting you right there for further communication on the issue. I am writing in order that they would not think that there is nothing to say, there is a lot of things, but I have no opportunity to write today either.
      By the way, the "relevance" in the atomic bomb was also in the 44th year, but there was no bomb ... Well, it comes from your thoughts ...
  • Nepoymikto.
    Nepoymikto. 8 November 2013 23: 50
    +1
    Need to take! And as much as possible! Super plane! There are no analogues in the world, as always, however. And this is known to everyone who distinguishes between planes at least outwardly. :)
  • And Us Rat
    And Us Rat 9 November 2013 04: 25
    +3
    The author of the article froze stupidity, the car is very good, and any flaws in avionics and sighting equipment are not so difficult to finalize and upgrade, and the literacy of using the machine can also always be improved, the militant camp is not a tank column, here you need to aim not with a radar but a thermal imager, if anyone here has climbed up, it’s not the pilots, nor the designers of the car, but rather the staff boobies that forced the pilots to use weapons that were inappropriate for the purpose. To expel the cabinet general from command of this air wing and put in his place a pilot with combat experience - and immediately everything will fall into place.
    1. VAF
      VAF 9 November 2013 10: 57
      +3
      Quote: And Us Rat
      To expel the cabinet general from command of this air wing and put in his place a pilot with combat experience - and immediately everything will fall into place.


      You +! And what I will say .. so it was .. when it was necessary somewhere to "show off2" or "jubilee", and if also. "Over the hill" .. then there was a queue from the General Staff of the Air Force, so that instead of the navigator, climb onto the right cup or on the UB-ke in the back cab wassat

      But when the "mess" ... so the combat-ready pilots and navigators ... were "collected" as best they could (in one flight during the day they restored at once a bomb and a rocket and an NAR and a gun, and even under a curtain and in all types PSUs, including complex ones), and something waiting from Pirogovka ... well, it was not observed wassat ... after all there ... "they shoot, sir" wassat

      I apologize for the "explosion" .. but until now .. such "idiots" are in front of my eyes! soldier
      1. Botanologist
        Botanologist 9 November 2013 11: 04
        +1
        Quote: vaf
        But when the "mess"


        Greetings! drinks
        Something a lot on the site recently shkoloty with high self-conceit, do not you think? Yesterday, one on one finger argued that defense spending in Russia is very high, and as an argument, for some reason, brought the population purchasing power parity table (in percent wassat ) I was even confused. Perhaps it was such a tricky move - to fart during the discussion.
        1. VAF
          VAF 9 November 2013 11: 33
          +1
          Quote: Botanologist
          Greetings!


          Mutually drinks ! you asked above .. and where is the toast request , but I didn’t read all the comments ... but I wrote ... "I’ll run quickly .. so that .. not to scare me" wink

          And on the topic .. you are right .. the best way to "jump" from the "inconvenient" (due to various circumstances for yourself the question) is the easiest way to "blurt out something .. supposedly a lot of significant", and also the way .... " "

          and then you go and .. "you scratch your turnips" recourse

          I have so constantly with Avenger'om711 "going on" he certainly interferes with all my comments with "knowledge of the matter" (Vika and toyu like that) so ... "get used to it" wassat although I myself still ... I can not "get used to".

          And so .. "I'll throw everything and go .. to Uryupinsk" (well, like "I start everyone and .. I'll go" drive " Kars'a on tanksLopatova in artilleryAscetic missilesPostman by REO,Sailors (I will not list all) by phdot, etc.
          What tongue ..... but time will fly ... like a bullet and the peasants will get blood ... wassat

          This is of course a joke !!! laughing drinks
          1. Botanologist
            Botanologist 10 November 2013 16: 37
            0
            Quote: vaf
            . "I'll drop everything and go ... to Uryupinsk"


            Well, that's right, and then relaxed drinks . Let’s write that Leopard is garbage, because there is no real American quality, and Abrams is also garbage, because there is no real German quality - and let the turnips scratch. drinks
            And about the 711th - these are such natures, they read a lot of newspapers, and are talking nonsense. And what, among people like them is very cool - "specialists" wassat !
  • sasharos
    sasharos 10 November 2013 10: 23
    0
    When I served in the naval aviation, I could only dream of the Su-34: the "sea serpent" complex, anti-ship missiles, the ability to stand up for oneself-Il-38 + Tu-22m3 + Su-27 escort in one person!
  • sivuch
    sivuch 10 November 2013 17: 45
    0
    VAF
    You mentioned Kayra on the Su-24. Did it seem to work in low light?
    1. sasharos
      sasharos 11 November 2013 09: 21
      0
      the enemy does not sleep!
      1. sivuch
        sivuch 12 November 2013 12: 44
        +1
        Are you talking about me? Then thanks for the kind word
  • andrey-ivanov
    andrey-ivanov 12 November 2013 07: 57
    0
    The author has something with imagination - the Su-34 was never developed as a deck. Yes, and to argue that the plane is bad only because it has problems with the detection and identification of targets in mountain conditions is rather silly
    Almost EVERYONE has similar problems! Such is the mountainous relief. And the plane has just begun to be tested in combat units by ordinary pilots, not testers. In the USA, the 22nd and 35th have not been brought to mind for many years. Remember how long the British ADV Tornado "sawed and planed", they flew in the first modifications even without a radar and these are air defense machines!
  • vtur
    vtur 14 November 2013 08: 43
    0
    There is no need to hammer in nails - for this there must be a hammer. Americans successfully use drones to destroy unprotected point targets. At the same time, it is somehow inaudible that anyone in the United States would especially advocate for curtailing the insanely expensive strike aircraft programs.
    And the use of the F-105 Thunderchief in Vietnam is just an example of how the Americans used, for lack of anything suitable, the BIGGEST Fighter-BOMBER OF THIS TIME, HAVING A PLACE OF THE BOMB AND THE ABILITY TO APPLY THIS TACTICAL CONDITIONS not created ...
  • Mushroom
    Mushroom 26 December 2013 16: 30
    0
    Su-34 - the next supersuffered and pushed shit Poghosyan. The plane as a front-line bomber is no better than even the old Su-24, and they fly it on every corner like Viagra and means for losing weight.
    And already what arguments in advertising, laugh - "the gun is increased to 30 mm" "... (this is for a bomber)," the bomb supply is increased "(the same as in the Su-24)!
    At the same time, all the shortcomings are "modestly" hushed up, even in comparison with the Su-24.
  • Deformator
    Deformator 10 November 2014 20: 30
    0
    If the Su-7 hit using visual sights, then the more modern Su-17, Mig-23BN and Mig-27 were equipped with radar sighting systems.


    Aftaru materiel time to learn ...