Military Review

F-15E vs. SU-34. Who is better?

100



As you know, Americans love to make different ratings, including those relating to weapons and technology. Naturally, in these ratings, the first places are occupied by samples and products of American manufacture.

October 24 on the "Military Review" appeared publication: "Su-30CM and F-22: advantages and disadvantages." In which the author, Dave Majumdar, quite seriously asserts that the Russian Su-30CM combat aircraft, which are in many respects direct analogues of the F-15E Strike Eagle and F / A-18F Super Hornet, are doomed to defeat when meeting with American fighters.

Let us leave this very controversial conclusion to the conscience of the author and try to compare the American F-15E Strike Eagle fighter-bomber with a Russian car of a similar purpose - Su-34.

An analogue of the F-15E Strike Eagle fighter-bomber in the Russian Air Force should be the attack Su-34, and not the multipurpose Su-30CM. The determining factor in this case is the presence on the Su-34 of a special aim-navigation system adapted for the use of air-to-ground missile and bomb weapons.

The ability to carry a bomb load, as well as the presence in the crew of the Su-30CM two pilots are not the main features in the classification. After all, the Russian Su-27CM and Su-35 can also use free-fall bombs and NAR, but no one in their right mind will write these heavy fighters into bombers.

Chronology of the creation and adoption

The F-15E and Su-34 airplanes are based on heavy fighters gaining air superiority F-15 and Su-27. They were intended to replace the attack aircraft with variable geometry of the wing - “air defense breakers”: F-111 and Su-24.

Historically, the American F-15E Strike Eagle appeared in combat units much earlier than the Russian Su-34. The first "Shock Eagles" entered service with the 4 th wing at Seymour Johnson, North Carolina in December 1988. In total, up to 2001, 236 aircraft of this type were built for the US Air Force. In the middle of 90, one F-15E cost the US treasury $ 43 million.

“Thirty” was ready to start production in 1994 year, but due to lack of funding and the collapse of industrial cooperation and economic ties between enterprises of the former USSR, the prospects of this machine for a long time remained uncertain.

The Su-34 was remembered at the beginning of the 2000s in connection with the need to replace the Su-24M in front-line bomber aviation regiments aviation. The final stage of state joint trials of the “thirty-four” was completed in September 2011. Only at the beginning of 2014, the Su-34 was officially adopted by the Russian Air Force.

In connection with the acute need for this combat aircraft, even before being put into service in 2008, the first contract for the supply of 32 Su-34 was signed. Mass production began at NAPO them. Chkalov in Novosibirsk, where Su-1993M was building front-line bombers before 24. At the same time, the cost of Su-34 in 2008 was about one billion rubles.

In the 2012 year, according to another contract, the number of aircraft delivered before the 2020 of the year was increased by another 92 units. As the number of built Su-34 increases, their price in absolute terms should decrease.

Design, equipment and weapons

The layout of the F-15E Strike Eagle bomber fighter is based on the F-15D two-seater combat training bomber. In comparison with the F-15D, the glider of a fighter-bomber is somewhat strengthened. Pilots in a double cabin F-15E sit behind each other. In accordance with the impact tasks on the plane, his avionics and armament were changed.



A special feature of the F-15E was the use of conformal fuel tanks on this aircraft, which are special non-dropable tanks for streamlined fuel that are hung on the side surfaces of the fuselage. The resulting gaps are eliminated with special elastic pads.

F-15E vs. SU-34. Who is better?

Installing conformal fuel tanks on the F-15E


Conformal tanks, compared to outboard ones, do not increase the drag of the aircraft in such a way, allowing you to fly at speeds up to 1,8 M. Aviation fuel reserves increase by more than 2 / 3. Suspension units on the surface of conformal tanks allow you to place additional weapons. The total fuel supply in the internal and conformal tanks reaches 10217 kg. 3 PTB suspension available with a total capacity of 5396 kg.



The stock of fuel in the internal tanks on the Su-34 exceeds 12000 kg. The combat radius and distillation range of the Su-34 and F-15E are almost equal, but the Russian bomber can carry a large bomb load at the same range. The combat range of the Su-34 when flying at low altitude is somewhat larger. Both aircraft are equipped with an in-flight refueling system.

The thrust-to-air ratio of the F-15E (thrust ratio of the engines to the weight of the aircraft) with the air-to-air suspension only is 0,93, which is slightly higher than the corresponding figure for the Su-34, whose thrust-to-weight ratio is 0,71. This is because the Su-34 is significantly heavier. So the mass of empty Su-34 is - 22 500 kg, and F-15E - 14 300 kg. But this does not mean that the Su-34 is a lighter enemy in close combat.

American aircraft has a slightly higher maximum speed - up to 2,5M. However, these speed indicators F-15E can be achieved in the absence of external suspensions, when using PTB speed is limited - to 1,4M. Russian bomber accelerates - to 1,8M. Cruising speed in both cars when performing drums is almost the same. The large mass of the Su-34, to some extent is the price for better security and greater comfort for the crew.

The difference between Sukhoi and Strike Needle is a spacious two-seat cockpit, in which the pilot and navigator sit in the K-36DM ejection seats “shoulder to shoulder”. In the cabin of the Su-34 there is a mini-kitchen with a microwave and a bathroom, which greatly facilitates long-distance flights lasting up to 10 hours. The air conditioning system allows the pilots to work without oxygen masks at a height of up to 10000 meters.


Cabin F-15E



Cabin Su-34


The Su-34 cockpit is designed as a durable titanium armored capsule with armor thickness up to 17 mm. Armor also covered some vital aircraft aggregates. This to a certain extent increases the survival rate of the aircraft, and, most importantly, it gives additional chances for the rescue of the crew of a front bomber.



The entrance to the armored cab is made through the front landing gear niche. For the characteristic shape of the front of the Su-34 received the name of the troops - "Duck".

Russian and American combat aircraft are equipped with sighting and navigation systems for the effective use of air-to-surface aviation armament at any time of the day and in difficult weather conditions. As well as by means of REP, built-in and suspended equipment, allowing to make high-speed low-altitude "throws" at extremely low altitude at any time of the day.


Picture in the cockpit of the pilot F-15E, broadcast system LANTIRN


The Su-34 front-bomber avionics avionics include the Khibiny-175В EBC L-10В complex, which has characteristics unique to our front-line aviation. The complex provides individual and group protection against air and aviation weapons.


Su-34 with containers of the REP-L-175В complex on the wing consoles and with the group protection container under the fuselage


Unlike the previous-generation Su-24M bomber, whose jamming equipment was designed to counter American-launched anti-aircraft missile guidance stations: Nike-Hercules, Hawk and Patriot, the REP-Su-34 complex operates in a wider range . It can put effective interference with any radar and air defense missile systems regardless of the country of origin.

The radars of both aircraft are capable of detecting long-range air targets, their characteristics are comparable with similar stations installed on "clean" fighters.

American radar AN / APG-70 can see air targets at a distance of 180 km, it is expected that on the F-15E part this station will be replaced with radar AFAR AN / APG-82.

Radar W-141 and AN / APG-70 can also be used in the mapping mode of the earth's surface and provide detection of ground and surface radio contrast targets, as well as the use of weapons. The detection range of large ground and surface targets of the X-NUMX radar is 141-200 km.



Russian radar complex Ш-141 provides detection of air targets at a distance of 100 km. He can accompany up to 10 air targets and fire at 4 targets.

In addition, during the design stage, the Su-34 provided a radar for the rear hemisphere review to warn the crew about the attack of the missile defense system and enemy fighters. This option on the Su-34 should significantly increase the chances of survival during the performance of a combat mission. But while the rear hemisphere review station has not been brought to a working state.

To replace the reconnaissance Su-24M, the Orenburg OAO PO Strela received an order from the Sukhoi company to design the Sych integrated reconnaissance containers for the Su-34 front-line bomber. It is planned to release reconnaissance containers of three options: radio, radar and optical-electronic.

The built-in 30 mm gun GSH-301 wins the gun mounted on the F-15E for the power of the projectile. On 12 Su-34 suspension units, all types of air-to-surface aviation weapons can be deployed, which are in service with Russian front-line aviation with a total weight of up to 8000 kg.



Taking into account export orders, Damocles suspension containers have been adapted for the Su-34, ensuring the use of guided aerial bombs with laser-guided BGL NATO standards.

As well as the F-15D, the F-15E shock is armed with the M20 Vulcan built-in 61 mm gun, but compared to the “clean” fighters, the ammunition for it is reduced to free up weight and free space for additional equipment.
The F-15E fighter-bomber is capable of carrying a wide range of air-to-surface and air-to-air munitions on 9 suspension units. The total mass of the payload on the external sling can reach 11 000 kg.

However, it should be understood that a large bomb load on the Strike Needle, compared with the thirty-four, is in many ways a fiction. Eleven tons is the total payload, taking into account the PTB and the conformal tanks. In the case of full refueling for bombs and missiles, about 5000 kg remains. By this indicator, the F-15E is slightly inferior to the Su-34.



F-15E's weapons include guided and unguided bombs weighing up to 2270 kg, including JDAM (a GPS-based kit that turns a free-fall bomb into a precision weapon), cluster munitions, AGM-65 Maverick guided missiles, heavy AGM-130 and AGM -158, HARM anti-radar missiles, Harpoon RCC. F-15E is the carrier of tactical nuclear bombs of the B61 family.


Service and combat use

As of 2014, the US Air Force and National Guard had an 213 F-15E. These fighter-bombers are deployed in the United States at the air bases of Seymour Johnson, Eglin, Luke, Nellis, Mountain Home, Elmerdorf, in Great Britain at the US Air Force Base Lakenhis.


Google Earth satellite image: F-15E fighter-bombers at Seymour Johnson, North Carolina


F-15E participated in numerous armed conflicts unleashed by the United States. Their first combat episode was participation in a company against Iraq in 1991. "Shock Eagles" bombed facilities of the Iraqi infrastructure and troops, hunted for mobile missile installations "Scud".

There, the Americans first met with the MiG-29, both sides used guided missiles in air combat, but to no avail. However, the Iraqi Air Force behaved passively, Iraqi air defense weapons posed a much greater threat to American strike machines. From their fire in 1991, two F-15Es were lost, the crew of one of them died.

The next time F-15E appeared over Iraq in 1993, when they provided a no-fly zone in the north of this country. In addition to air patrols, the aircraft struck Iraqi radar stations, air defense systems and military targets.



In the same 1993 year, Strike Needles participated in an operation in the Balkans. NATO forces intervened in the internal conflict in Yugoslavia, appointing the Serbs party guilty of all sins. First of all, F-15E crews were involved in the destruction of air defense positions. After that, they began to bomb Serb ground forces in Bosnia and Croatia with impunity.

In March, 1999, the American fighter-bombers bombed Yugoslavia. Serbian radar and air defense systems again became priority targets for them. F-15E made combat missions from the Italian air base Aviano and British Lakenhis.

Shortly after the September 11 attacks, X-NUMX, the F-2001E, attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan, taking off from Ahmed Al Jaber’s Kuwaiti airbase. In the first phase of the operation, training camps, weapons and ammunition depots, as well as entrances to the caves, in which, according to intelligence, there could be al Qaeda leaders and Taliban movements, were subjected to blows with adjustable bombs GBU-15, GBU-15 and GBU-24. Later, after the destruction of large stationary targets, F-28E acted at the request of the allied ground forces.


F-15E over Afghanistan during Operation Mountain Lion, 2006 year


During the sorties in Afghanistan, American fighter-bombers usually did not descend below 2000 meters above the mountain ranges in order to avoid being hit by missiles of MANPADS.

At the beginning of March 2002, several F-15E took part in the subsequently well-known “Anaconda Operation”. The purpose of the operation was to capture or physically liquidate the al-Qaida leadership in Afghanistan and destroy the militia bases and shelters in the Shahi Kot valley.

From the very beginning, due to mistakes in planning and unreliable intelligence, the operation went wrong. The Americans underestimated the enemy forces in the area several times. As it turned out, the militants were here before the 1000.

During the landing of special forces, two MH-47 Chinook helicopters were shot down, manpower losses were 8 killed and 72 wounded American soldiers.

Only thanks to the air support, including that provided by several F-15E, did the Americans manage to turn the tide of the battle and avoid the complete destruction of the landing force. At the same time, one F-15E fighter-bomber had to fire from the 20 mm cannon at the Taliban advancing on the position of the American special forces before the complete exhaustion of ammunition, which the US Air Force did not have since Vietnam.

In Afghanistan, it was not without “undesirable incidents”. 22 August 2007, the F-15E dropped 500-pound (230 kg) bombs on British troops. In this case, three soldiers were killed. 13 September 2009, the crew of the F-15E was attracted to intercept the drone MQ-9 Reaper, which stopped responding to commands from the ground, after which it was likely that he would invade the airspace of another country. 18 July 2009, the F-15E crashed in central Afghanistan, killing two crew members.

In January, 2003, part of the F-15E 4-th Fighter Bomber fighter aircraft from the Seymour Johnson airbase, was deployed at the Al Udeid Qatar airbase. They operated in southern and western Iraq, attacking radars, airfields, repeaters, communications centers and headquarters, thus paralyzing Iraqi troops.

As the scale of hostilities increased, the number of Strike Needles operating in Iraq increased. In February, 2003 bomber of this type was engaged in the destruction of the Iraqi anti-aircraft systems on the border with Jordan, which subsequently allowed the coalition planes to fly there unhindered. It is believed that during 15, F-2003E destroyed about 60% of the targets of the bombed tactical aviation of the USAF. One plane was shot down by anti-aircraft fire in the Tikrit area, the crew was killed.

In 2011, as part of Operation Dawn Odyssey, F-15E was used to enforce the no-fly zone over Libya. In this case, one aircraft was lost under unexplained circumstances, both pilots successfully catapulted and were rescued.

In September, X-NUMX, F-2014E, bombed IG facilities in Iraq and Syria (Operation “Inalienable Determination”), making up to 15% of combat missions carried out by an aviation group of Western countries. However, according to observers, the effectiveness of these attacks was low. The main goal of the air strikes was not to crush the caliphate, but to squeeze the Islamists from Iraq to Syria.

In total, 15 F-15E fighter-bombers from the US Air Force were lost during the years of operation during combat operations and in catastrophes; a significant part of the lost aircraft crashed during training flights at extremely low altitude.

Su-34 has a not so rich combat biography, as it recently appeared in Russian military aviation units. The first Su-34 arrived at the 929 State Flight Test Center (GLITS) named after V.P. Chkalov, located near the city of Akhtubinsk, in the Astrakhan region and in the 4-th Lipetsk center for combat training.


Satellite image of Google earth: Su-34 front-line bombers at Lipetsk aerodrome


The first naval regiment was the 47-th separate mixed aviation regiment at the Baltimore air base near Voronezh. Currently, this airport is undergoing a large-scale reconstruction of the runway and infrastructure. That will allow in the future to increase the number of front-line bombers based here.

4 June 2015 of the year when landing at the Buturlinovka airfield in the Voronezh region after a scheduled training flight of the Su-34 aircraft did not open the braking parachute. The front bomber rolled out of the runway and turned over.


Satellite image of Google earth: Su-34 front-line bombers at Buturlinovka airfield


It was at the Buturlinovka airfield that Su-34 and Su-24М were temporarily relocated from the Baltimore airbase during the reconstruction of the runway there.

In the Rostov Region, the Su-34 received the 559 BAP, based at the Morozovsk airfield. Here is the 36 thirty-fours.



The first “baptism of fire” of the Su-34 was the Russian-Georgian armed conflict in August 2008. Then these, still not officially accepted for service, front-line bombers covered other Russian combat airplanes with the on-board jamming complex. Attacks on Georgian air defense systems with X-58 missiles under the cover of REP stations Su-34 were delivered by front bombers Su-24М.


Georgian 36D6 radar destroyed by anti-radar missile


An analysis of the Su-34 combat activity in Georgia showed that this front-line bomber needs further improvement in sighting and search equipment. To guarantee the detection of small targets of the radar complex was not enough. This requires perfect thermal imagers and high-resolution television systems. Not so long ago, the media reported on the development of a modernized version - Su-34M.

In September of this year, Su-34 in the number of 6 units were involved in the operation of Russian videoconferencing in the Syrian Arab Republic. It is noted that with these new machines in the course of air strikes on the positions and objects of the IG, guided aircraft weapons are used.

Prospects

In general, comparing the American F-15E Strike Eagle and the Russian Su-34, it can be noted that these machines are at a different stage of life. Su-34 is just beginning its long service, and F-15E is already preparing for its completion. The resource of many F-15E is already running out, and they will be written off over the next 5 years.

Compared to the Su-34 bomber, which has solid armor protection for the cockpit and parts of the units and is better adapted for operations at low altitudes, the American F-15E has a greater “destructive orientation” - there is almost no armor on it.

The F-15E Strike Eagle fighter-bomber is currently the only tactical aviation combat aircraft in the US Air Force that is capable of participating in long-distance raids and performing long flights at low altitude.

It is not known whether the number of built Su-34 surpasses that of the F-15E delivered to the US Air Force, but it is already clear that the Thirty-Four will become the basis of front-line combat vehicles in the future.

In the near future, Su-34 will have to finally defeat the "children's sores". The aircraft of the first series, as well as the pre-production copies, differed significantly from each other, which made exploitation difficult. They noted the unstable operation of the radar and aim-navigation system.

In terms of improving the reliability of avionics and improving the performance of the Su-34 designers and industry is working hard. At the moment, all front-line combat bombers have been brought to the level of the 3 series of the factory. They installed auxiliary gas turbine plants designed to run the main engines without airfield equipment. This allows in the long run to increase autonomy and expand the list of home based airfields.



There is no doubt that in the Su-34, which in the future will become the main Russian front-line bomber, all the “growing pains” will be successfully overcome and this combat aircraft will have a great future and many years of service.

The author expresses his gratitude to the “Ancient” for the advice.

Based on:
http://www.uhlib.ru/transport_i_aviacija/aviacija_i_kosmonavtika_1997_02/p6.php
http://www.richard-seaman.com
http://science.howstuffworks.com/f-151.htm
Author:
100 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Magic archer
    Magic archer 30 October 2015 06: 25 New
    53
    This article must be translated and discarded by Yksperda Majumar! Let him read and learn how to write and make comparisons!
    1. Bongo
      30 October 2015 06: 35 New
      19
      Quote: Magic Archer
      This article must be translated and discarded by Yksperda Majumar! Let him read and learn how to write and make comparisons!

      I'm afraid it won’t help request. He writes for his audience. hi
      1. Malkor
        Malkor 30 October 2015 07: 27 New
        +4
        Comrade (or rather, not at all comrade) Mujumar constantly confused Su30 with Su35.
        I have information that strikes on Georgia’s air defense radar were also delivered by Tu22m3 with X-28 missiles (can be specified).
        1. ancient
          ancient 30 October 2015 09: 31 New
          18
          Quote: Malkor
          I have information that strikes on Georgia’s air defense radar were also delivered by Tu22m3 with X-28 missiles (can be specified).


          A priori it is IMPOSSIBLE to do this! soldier

          1. At the moment, the Tu-22M3 complex has no PRR missiles.
          2. The X-28 missile was NEVER used from a Tu-22M3 aircraft, because this is NONSES! soldier
          1. Malkor
            Malkor 30 October 2015 15: 16 New
            0
            I’ll write
            1. ancient
              ancient 30 October 2015 19: 19 New
              +6
              Quote: Malkor
              I’ll write


              You can .. "do not specify", but believe .. "at the word" soldier

              Well, as a .. "presentation" drinks

      2. science fiction writer
        science fiction writer 30 October 2015 07: 30 New
        15
        I'm afraid it won’t help. He writes for his audience.

        Well, at least expand my horizons,
        A wonderful article THANKS Sergey Linnik.
        I read with pleasure hi
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. Falcon
        Falcon 30 October 2015 09: 04 New
        +3
        The article has a bunch of inaccuracies. Regarding comparison and digital data. And a number of aspects are not indicated.

        About combat use all the way.
        1. ancient
          ancient 30 October 2015 09: 32 New
          +9
          Quote: Falcon
          . And a number of aspects are not indicated.

          About combat use all the way.


          Actually, the plane is now participating in the database wink
          1. Falcon
            Falcon 30 October 2015 09: 58 New
            +1
            Quote: ancient
            Actually, the plane is now participating in the database


            You do not understand me. I don’t argue.
            I meant I agree with the description of the combat use of the Su-34 and F-15E specified in the article.

            But I do not agree with everything regarding the characteristics of the aircraft specified in the article.
        2. VoldmR
          VoldmR 30 October 2015 14: 42 New
          0
          Quote: Falcon
          The article has a bunch of inaccuracies. Regarding comparison and digital data. And a number of aspects are not indicated.



          Details - in the studio! ))) otherwise - chatter ...)))
          1. Bongo
            30 October 2015 14: 51 New
            +6
            Quote: VoldmR
            Details - in the studio! ))) otherwise - chatter ...)))

            Let's not rush Falcon He promised to write a publication on this topic in VO. I hope it will be interesting, read and discuss everything. hi
            1. VoldmR
              VoldmR 30 October 2015 14: 55 New
              +3
              Welcome, I agree))) wait, sir ... hi
          2. PSih2097
            PSih2097 30 October 2015 21: 01 New
            0
            Quote: VoldmR

            Details - in the studio! ))) otherwise - chatter ...)))

            even the Su-27 at the time of its appearance was superior to the F-15, but there’s even nothing to compare, if only in electronics ...
      5. X Y Z
        X Y Z 30 October 2015 11: 37 New
        +6
        That's it! Do not stop Dave from earning his hard piece of bread. Maybe he has a mortgage or something like that. Anyway, a normal specialist will never read his bullshit. All this is exclusively for housewives and calming nerves.
        1. Bongo
          30 October 2015 11: 47 New
          +8
          Quote: XYZ
          Anyway, a normal specialist will never read his bullshit. All this is exclusively for housewives and calming nerves.

          All right yes I just wish that this did not appear on the "Military Review"!
        2. complete zero
          complete zero 31 October 2015 01: 49 New
          0
          Yes, even if 27 exceeded 15 (which is not a fact, for they never fought against each other), then this advantage is not fatal and is fully compensated by the pilot's experience
      6. Now we are free
        Now we are free 2 November 2015 13: 24 New
        +2
        All the time I was interested in the question of how is it possible, 8 tons of combat load of the SU-34 versus 11 tons of the "Igla", why produce a machine that is so much inferior to an already middle-aged competitor? And the answer turned out to be simple:
        However, it should be understood that a large bomb load on the Strike Eagle compared to the “thirty-four” is largely a fiction. Eleven tons is the total payload taking into account PTB and conformal tanks. In the case of a full refueling for bombs and missiles, about 5000 kg remains. According to this indicator, the F-15E is slightly inferior to the Su-34.
        5000 kg for an American versus 8000 kg for a Russian aircraft?

        If you compare all the pros and cons:
        -BN American has less than 3000 kg DRY.
        -American lack of an armored crew cabin
        -American comfortable conditions during a long flight (see Su-34 cockpit) Sorry it’s banal ... to be in the NEEDLE will be very DIFFICULT; The feeling of an elbow, when the pilot can simply replace a comrade sitting next to him, in the NEEDLE this will not be difficult, but IMPOSSIBLE.
        -American lack of a missile warning system in the rear sphere
        -American (with a full body kit with fuel tanks and bombs), he loses in speed Sushke.

        + For Americans, radar for air targets works better, BUT after all, it is primarily intended to destroy ground targets and not air targets ...
        + Greater practical experience of application, but already in the process of operation (combat) in Syria, the SU-34 may well catch up with it.

        Five fat minuses in favor of the NEEDLE against two stubborn pluses? Thank you, my choice of the SU-34.

        PS
        If anyone can supplement, refute the conclusion made by me, I will only be grateful!
        1. Bongo
          2 November 2015 13: 38 New
          +2
          In general, I agree with you, except for this:
          Quote: Now we are free
          American lack of a warning system for launching missiles in the rear sphere

          On our plane, contrary to the common misconception, there is no rear view radar either.
          1. Now we are free
            Now we are free 2 November 2015 13: 45 New
            0
            hello, Sergey hi
            I agree, BUT this is only for now. So the rear-view radar is provided there by the design (Is it in vain that he has such a "pussy" sticking out from behind?) laughing
            1. Bongo
              2 November 2015 13: 48 New
              +2
              Quote: Now we are free
              So the rear-view radar is provided there by the design (Is it in vain that he has such a "pisyun" sticking out in the back?)

              Hi! hi
              It is provided not by design, but by the technical task at the design stage.
              In this "piyun" there is no more free space, for example there is an auxiliary gas turbine power plant.
          2. The comment was deleted.
        2. vip.alex113
          vip.alex113 9 November 2017 05: 18 New
          0
          According to the article, it turns out our cooler, not much more than Amerikosovsky. But who is really cooler .... can only find out the battle, and God forbid that this never happened (in terms of World War 3), at air shows, such as MAKS, etc. - as much as you like. Amerikosy fly in diapers, as I understand it :)) this is the question of the toilet, the main thing is not to want it :) :)) they will attach a new semi-secret gadget to their old war horse and will be cooler again, the skill of the pilots will decide a lot. Ours would also not be left behind - in the development of technology (and not in the ability to thump and poorly raise their children - the father of one of the flayer, from Khabarovsk - colonel, deputy commander of the squadron)
      7. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. vodolaz
      vodolaz 30 October 2015 09: 24 New
      +6
      A very informative article without distortions from the series: this one is better, and this one is worse.
    5. Sweles
      Sweles 30 October 2015 11: 19 New
      +2
      F15e TTH
      - empty weight -14.5t
      - fuel mass - 6t (internal), 3t (outboard)
      - ammunition load-11t
      -20km ceiling
      -radius-600km
      http://www.dogswar.ru/voennaia-aviaciia/samolety/372-istrebitel-bombardir.html
      SU34
      - empty weight -22 .5t (reservation 1.5t)
      - fuel mass - 12t (internal), 7t (outboard)
      - ammunition load-8t
      -17km ceiling
      -radius-600km
      http://army-news.ru/2011/02/su-34-postupaet-na-sluzhbu/
      http://dokwar.ru/publ/vooruzhenie/aviacija_i_flot/su_34_frontovoj_bombardirovshh
      ik / 15-1-0-1551
      so oil painting
      our su34 is 8t heavier than f15, with the same BATTLE RADIUS -600km (I hope I understood correctly) is when full internal tanks and full ammunition loading, ours takes more fuel and less ammunition, the ceiling is less than f15 by 3km.
      What is it? In general, the picture is not very joyful. F15 will be abruptly. It would be nice if the specialist would comment.
      1. kot11180
        kot11180 30 October 2015 13: 02 New
        0
        It’s interesting why the f-15 has 20000 m. It’s hard to believe, and about the radius and load, it’s so much easier, but the characteristics are higher, why? there are some laws of aerodynamics, etc.
      2. sivuch
        sivuch 30 October 2015 15: 24 New
        +5
        Sorry for the persistence -
        Su-34 - BN - more than 12 tons. The plate in the answer Bongo
        Plus there is the possibility (so far more theoretical) to carry products under 3 tons in weight.
        Although the photo with the PTB-3000 is on the network
        Yes, and I would like to note that the armored capsule is included in the power circuit of the aircraft. So the "extra" weight of the booking is much less - about 400 kg. In my opinion, for such a healthy krazozyabra it is not much
      3. serverny
        serverny 30 October 2015 17: 44 New
        +6
        If you read the article carefully, you would not have asked such a stupid question - this topic has been covered.
        1. viktorrymar
          viktorrymar 31 October 2015 18: 06 New
          0
          Su-34
          TECH SPECS
          Crew: 2 person
          Length: 23,3 m
          Wingspan: 14,7 m
          Height: 6,09 m
          Wing area: 62 m²
          Sweep angle: 42 °
          Wing Extension Ratio: 3,5
          Chassis base: 6,63
          Track Chassis: 4,4 m
          Weight:
          equipped (with loaded gun and crew): 22 500 kg
          normal takeoff: 39 000 kg
          maximum take-off: 45 000 kg
          fuel: 12 100 kg
          maximum load with 100% of fuel: 10 400 kg
          normal load with 100% fuel: 4 400 kg
          maximum permissible load: 12 500 kg
          Engine: 2 × TRDDF AL-31F-М1
          Link:
          maximum afterburner: 2 × 8 250 kgf
          afterburner: 12500 -2% kgf [36]
          Bypass ratio: 0,571
          Engine weight: 2 × 1520 kg
          Maximum operating overload: + 9G
          Su-34 Hardpoint & Armament arrangement.PNG
          Flight performance Edit
          Maximum speed:
          at the ground: 1400 km / h
          at high altitude: 1900 km / h (1,8M)
          Ferry range: 4500 km with three PTBs
          Breakout speed: n / d
          Landing speed: n / d
          Combat radius: 1100 km
          Practical ceiling: 17 000 m [37]
          Thrust:
          normal take-off weight: 0,71
          with maximum take-off weight: 0,6
          Armament Edit
          Cannon armament: 1 × 30 mm gun GSH-30-1
          Arms Suspension Knots: 12
          Combat load: 8 000 [36] kg maximum
          KREP: Khibiny electronic countermeasures complex (product L-175В)
  2. Crook
    Crook 30 October 2015 06: 36 New
    +9
    Is it correct to compare these two cars at all?
    1. Bongo
      30 October 2015 06: 41 New
      +9
      Quote: Crook
      Is it correct to compare these two cars at all?

      Why not? Their tasks are similar. With what other Russian machine do you propose comparing the F-15E on avionics and nomenclature of strike weapons?
      1. science fiction writer
        science fiction writer 30 October 2015 07: 25 New
        +4
        Is it correct to compare these two cars at all?

        You read the article, dear
        An analogue of the F-15E Strike Eagle fighter-bomber in the Russian Air Force should be the attack Su-34, and not the multipurpose Su-30CM.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. Mera joota
        Mera joota 30 October 2015 08: 45 New
        +5
        Quote: Bongo
        What other Russian machine do you propose to compare the F-15E with avionics and nomenclature of strike weapons?

        Su-30MKI, although not quite a domestic machine, is the closest analogue to the F-15E.
        1. Bongo
          30 October 2015 10: 40 New
          +6
          Quote: Mera Joota
          Su-30MKI, although not quite a domestic machine, is the closest analogue to the F-15E.

          The author tried to compare the machines that are in service with the Air Force of the Russian Federation and the United States, without export modifications, of which there are many. F-15E is the only fighter-bomber in the United States capable of long-range raids, which is why it was compared with a specialized Russian aircraft - the Su-34.

          In our country, we took the path of creating more specialized combat aircraft. Compared to the "universal soldier" F-15E, the domestic Su-30SM has the best characteristics in terms of air combat capabilities, but inferior in strike potential. The Su-34 is superior to the F-15E in terms of security, shock performance, and probably electronic warfare capabilities.
          1. Mera joota
            Mera joota 30 October 2015 11: 12 New
            +2
            Quote: Bongo
            Su-30SM has the best characteristics in terms of air combat capabilities, but inferior in shock potential

            It's all about the hardware. "If" the Su-30 were equipped with what the F-15SA has and the corresponding nomenclature of the AAS, it would be the best strike vehicle in the world. The only downside would be the lack of stealth technology.
            1. Bongo
              30 October 2015 11: 29 New
              +4
              Quote: Mera Joota
              It's all about the hardware. "If" the Su-30 were equipped with what the F-15SA has and the corresponding nomenclature of the AAS, it would be the best strike vehicle in the world. The only downside would be the lack of stealth technology.

              Excuse me, how many F-15SA are there in the US Air Force?
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. Mera joota
                Mera joota 30 October 2015 12: 28 New
                +2
                Quote: Bongo
                But how many F-15SA are there in the US Air Force?

                The question is not how much, but what level equipment can make the Sup-Machine a Su-30.
                1. Bongo
                  30 October 2015 12: 48 New
                  +5
                  Quote: Mera Joota
                  The question is not how much, but what level equipment can make the Sup-Machine a Su-30.

                  Best the enemy of the good... request Let's talk about what is real? As for the "alternatives" - this is to Oleg Kaptsov. hi
      5. Falcon
        Falcon 30 October 2015 12: 56 New
        +8
        Quote: Bongo
        Why not? Their tasks are similar. With what other Russian machine do you propose comparing the F-15E on avionics and nomenclature of strike weapons?


        Impressed by your article. Wrote the answer. Maybe tomorrow they will publish
        1. Bongo
          30 October 2015 12: 59 New
          +6
          Quote: Falcon
          Impressed by your article. Wrote the answer. Maybe tomorrow they will publish

          I am pleased to read ... hi
    2. sevtrash
      sevtrash 30 October 2015 14: 57 New
      0
      Quote: Crook
      Is it correct to compare these two cars at all?

      The author positions f15SE as outgoing, and it seems like they are going to leave it in the service until 2025. If the author so insists that the f15SE leaves, then it is already necessary to compare with the next fighter-bomber, the newer one is f35 and which have already been released under two hundred. There, the radar is generally a masterpiece, and the characteristics of range / load / altitude are comparable to Su34.
      1. Bongo
        30 October 2015 15: 12 New
        +3
        Quote: sevtrash
        The author positions f15SE as outgoing, and it seems like they are going to leave it in the service until 2025

        Leave, but how much? The aircraft was produced from the end of the 80's and was very actively operated, participating in numerous conflicts. Most of the fleet of these machines is very worn out.
        Quote: sevtrash
        If the author so insists that f15SE leaves, then it is already necessary to compare with the next fighter-bomber, already newer - f35 and which have already been released under two hundred.

        The author does not insist at all hi Released F-35 have not yet reached the proper stage of combat readiness. And I have big doubts that the F-35A or F-35С will be able to compare with the F-15E in speed, bomb load and combat radius with a similar bomb load.
        If you want, you can always post on this topic.
        1. sevtrash
          sevtrash 30 October 2015 16: 15 New
          +2
          Quote: Bongo
          Leave, but how much? The aircraft was produced from the end of the 80's and was very actively operated, participating in numerous conflicts. Most of the fleet of these machines is very worn out.


          In fact, in September, Boeing introduced the 2040C Eagle upgrade, as you know with a hint of 2040. It is possible that f15se will be extended in service longer.

          Quote: Bongo
          Released F-35 have not yet reached the proper stage of combat readiness. And I have big doubts that the F-35A or F-35С will be able to compare with the F-15E in speed, bomb load and combat radius with a similar bomb load.


          Well, if you yourself wanted to compare the Russian and American fighter-bomber and emphasized that f15 is already leaving, and the Su34 will be for a long time, then it would be logical to imagine the changer - f35, especially since now the number of f35 exceeded Su34.
          It is clear that here the comparison will be between the 5th and 4th generation aircraft with the corresponding result.

          Quote: Bongo
          If you want, you can always post on this topic.


          This is a hint - "... there is nothing to criticize me! ..."? what
          There seems to be nothing perfect, but your analysis seems to me insufficient. You do not indicate comparative effectiveness in attacking air and ground targets. But the plus for the article has already been delivered to you anyway. And other commentators have already informed you that the article is super duper and super-ideal, what else? Is it already possible to criticize after that? hi
  3. Romeohihnic
    Romeohihnic 30 October 2015 07: 07 New
    +6
    Our pride Ducklings as for me a duck is 100 times better
    1. Engineer
      Engineer 30 October 2015 08: 45 New
      +5
      What is it? You can’t just say what is better without facts. Yes, I like ours more, because it is ours, it is beautiful, it has a number of advantages, the same EW containers on the wing consoles, but let's say a competitor takes 3 tons more bomb load. And this means that ours must abandon defensive weapons in order to take the same bomb load as the F-15E with defensive weapons. And this already puts the aircraft in unequal conditions.
      1. Evil Kind
        Evil Kind 30 October 2015 15: 30 New
        +5
        This bomb load of the F-15E includes fuel suspension tanks (fuel) instead of bombs, it theoretically can take such a load, but it will not fly away. Such high performance with limitations. This is an option that he most likely will never be able to use in real combat actions.
    2. remy
      remy 30 October 2015 11: 51 New
      +3
      dug out a photo from the old Soviet film "The Witches' Dungeon"
      just on the topic of the videoconferencing, the time will soon come for space planes!
    3. silver_roman
      silver_roman 30 October 2015 11: 51 New
      +3
      34 is a beautiful car, but it seems to me that it is not entirely correct to compare them. Especially with regard to air combat. Nevertheless, the mass difference is very significant and will certainly affect the phantom in close combat. The same phantom radar is much more advanced and 34 will be detected earlier with long-range combat.
      Interestingly, the titanium cabin greatly shifted the center of mass? still 17mm. not a little. I once saw a video of the training battle of the su-34 and su-27. So the pilot 34 confidently pursued the su-27, but admitted that the 27 is slightly amenable.
      I think if 34-ku is deprived of armor and all kinds of knots that increase comfort, then we can talk about comparison! My subjective opinion is probably erroneous!
  4. zulusuluz
    zulusuluz 30 October 2015 07: 17 New
    +7
    And if you compare Dave Majumar and the capitol, the latter will win with a crushing score ...
  5. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 30 October 2015 07: 48 New
    +5
    It should be added that our Su-24i34 aircraft have a full-fledged bomber all-day sight, which the F-15E does not have, which makes it possible to accurately use conventional bombs with high accuracy day and night. The f-15 has a large imprisonment for guided weapons, which the United States has developed better than ours and this simplifies the design of the aircraft. Dry, in turn, is better for long flights because of the comfortable cabin. These are different approaches to the construction of strike aircraft. The Americans are standardizing the F-15E with the rest of the F-15. We are making a separate aircraft, but also at the Su-27 nodes.
  6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 October 2015 07: 50 New
    +8
    Very interesting, thanks!
    So, the rear-view radars have not been brought to mind ... sorry. But the conclusion of a respected author
    There is no doubt that in the Su-34, which in the future will become the main Russian front-line bomber, all the “growing pains” will be successfully overcome and this combat aircraft will have a great future and many years of service.

    in my opinion is undeniable
  7. inkass_98
    inkass_98 30 October 2015 07: 52 New
    +7
    Sergey, thanks for the review. An almost ideal article on the comparative characteristics of cars, and not the rubbish that often has to be read from individual "xpersons".
  8. rassom
    rassom 30 October 2015 08: 19 New
    +6
    An interesting review. Many thanks! Why does the Su-34 have such a thick and long central tail boom?
    1. WUA 518
      WUA 518 30 October 2015 08: 37 New
      13
      There is a compartment with electronic equipment, and the APU (built-in power plant). In the second photo you can see the device for ejecting IR traps.
      1. Falcon
        Falcon 30 October 2015 15: 17 New
        +4
        Quote: WUA 518
        APU (built-in power plant)


        Auxiliary power plant, not built-in
    2. Engineer
      Engineer 30 October 2015 08: 39 New
      +5
      An interesting review. Many thanks! Why does the Su-34 have such a thick and long central tail boom?

      1. rassom
        rassom 30 October 2015 10: 05 New
        +2
        Thank! The gun was funny called
        1. Rokossovsky
          Rokossovsky 30 October 2015 17: 11 New
          +1
          The gun was funny called

          She had an interesting creation story. hi
      2. Arikkhab
        Arikkhab 31 October 2015 10: 59 New
        0
        commander in the RIGHT seat?
      3. The comment was deleted.
  9. sevtrash
    sevtrash 30 October 2015 08: 27 New
    +2
    The article is incomplete in terms of comparison. If the author compares the Su34 and F15 as fighter-bombers, then it would be possible to present more extensive data on their "fighter" capabilities. And most importantly - which vehicle is superior in detecting, capturing, firing at a target, more or less stealth. That is, the fulfillment of the principle - "the first to see - the first to kill". And just such a comparison is completely absent from the author. A little bit about the radar and that's it. Cannons are good, but before that there will be a missile strike. And if you're talking about cannons, then talk about maneuverability.
  10. Mera joota
    Mera joota 30 October 2015 08: 40 New
    +3
    Is it possible to compare the F-15E and Su-34? Well, why not, the author tried. If we draw parallels, then certainly the Su-30 line repeats the F-15E line, they have the same origin. The Su-34 is not a degeneration of UBS, but an individual project, an attempt by the military to give the Su-24 universality. Given the existing TSA and the concept of application as of the end of the 80s. The fact that this concept became obsolete became clear after 1991, but the perseverance of the Sukhoi Design Bureau and the mess of the 90s played a role in the fate of this machine.
    According to the author, the Su-34 almost surpasses the F-15E ... Well, the F-15E is much older than the Su-34 and the author does not compare with the latest versions of the F-15E, such as the F-15SG or F-15SA, but precisely with those that were still being bombed by Saddam.
    A good approach gives us false hope, especially a statement like:
    It is planned to produce reconnaissance containers of three options: radio engineering, radar and optoelectronic

    So the F-15E got them another 28! years ago. About the mapping mode is similar.
    About the possibility of conducting an air battle ... The Su-34 never received an aircraft engine with a thrust of more than 14000 kg. as originally planned.
    Well, at the expense of the "titanium cockpit" ... Reservation was introduced to protect against MANPADS, MZA and small arms, because due to the technical backwardness of the means of detecting targets, the Su-34 is forced to work from low altitudes. But the comic nature of the situation is that MANPADS do not hit the aircraft in the cockpit, but in the area of ​​the engines, which have no protection.
    1. Engineer
      Engineer 30 October 2015 08: 50 New
      +3
      Given that MANPADS operate on overtaking courses, how can they hit the cockpit? No way, because the armored capsule was never calculated on the defeat of MANPADS. You are talking nonsense. She was counting on protection against small arms and from the defeat of the elements of missiles by air defense systems with remote detonation.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Mera joota
        Mera joota 30 October 2015 09: 06 New
        0
        Quote: Engineer
        because the armored capsule was never calculated to defeat MANPADS

        Right, absolutely useless construction ...
        Quote: Engineer
        This is you nonsense

        What is currently primary threat to aircraft at low altitudes? Man-portable air defense systems, i.e. MANPADS. Most of the aircraft shot down precisely from MANPADS. If the armored capsule does not save from MANPADS, then why the hell is it needed?
        1. Bongo
          30 October 2015 10: 29 New
          +7
          Quote: Mera Joota
          What is currently the main threat to low-altitude aircraft? Man-portable air defense systems, i.e. MANPADS. Most of the aircraft shot down precisely from MANPADS. If the armored capsule does not save from MANPADS, then why the hell is it needed?

          MANPADS are usually attacked by attack aircraft and, as a rule, make a second combat approach. Those Su-24 from MANPADS were shot down very little when they were used illiterate. There is no need for a plane with a perfect sighting and navigation system to descend and enter the MANPADS affected area.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Mera joota
            Mera joota 30 October 2015 10: 52 New
            +4
            Quote: Bongo
            There is no need for a plane with a perfect sighting and navigation system to descend and enter the MANPADS affected area

            I agree. But this zone coincides with the zone of defeat of the Ministry of Defense and much more than the zone of destruction of small arms. Hence the question, why the hell should you get armor if there is no need to go into this zone?

            PS: the video of militants from Syria shows that Su-34 fly at altitudes less than 1 km., One can only hope that they will not have MANPADS ...
            1. Bongo
              30 October 2015 11: 03 New
              +6
              Quote: Mera Joota
              I agree. But this zone coincides with the zone of defeat of the Ministry of Defense and much more than the zone of destruction of small arms. Hence the question, why the hell should you get armor if there is no need to go into this zone?

              The titanium armored capsule, as was already rightly said here, is primarily intended to save the lives of the crew in the defeat of medium and long-range ZKR. One way or another, but the armor is never superfluous.
              Quote: Mera Joota
              PS: the video of militants from Syria shows that Su-34 fly at altitudes less than 1 km., One can only hope that they will not have MANPADS ...

              Why do you think so? request Su-34 have a very sophisticated aiming and navigation system and strike with guided weapons, but you do not need to go down for this.
              1. Mera joota
                Mera joota 30 October 2015 11: 19 New
                -2
                Quote: Bongo
                The titanium armored capsule, as was already rightly said here, is primarily intended to save the lives of the crew in the defeat of medium and long-range ZKR.

                So yes, that's just the Su-35, Rafal, Eurofighter, Grippen, MiG-29, etc. somehow do without it. The best protection against medium-range and long-range air defense systems are electronic warfare systems, radar traps, and maneuverability.
                Quote: Bongo
                Su-34 have a very sophisticated aiming and navigation system and strike with guided weapons, but you do not need to go down for this.

                I’m not making this up, there are videos from the Su-34 in Syria on the net, and the altitude is not difficult to determine. Here questions "WHY" are not for me.
                1. Bongo
                  30 October 2015 11: 26 New
                  +4
                  Quote: Mera Joota
                  So yes, that's just Su-35, Rafal, Eurofighter, Grippen, MiG-29, etc. somehow do without it.

                  And all these specialized drum machines you listed are comparable to the Su-34 and F-15E?
                  I do not advocate bulk booking of front-line aircraft, but probably the designers in the 80-s creating the Su-34 probably had their own reasons for this? In my opinion, in the future, a situation may well arise when the Su-34 will have to attack targets from low altitudes and if the armor saves the life of at least one crew, then its installation is already fully justified. Or do you disagree?
                  Quote: Mera Joota
                  I’m not making this up, there are online videos from Su-34 in Syria, it’s not difficult to determine the height.

                  Please share a video where it is clearly seen from what height the Su-34 strike.
                  1. Mera joota
                    Mera joota 31 October 2015 19: 25 New
                    0
                    Quote: Bongo
                    And all these specialized drum machines you listed are comparable to the Su-34 and F-15E?

                    Rafal can easily stand in this row.
                    Quote: Bongo
                    but probably the designers in the 80s creating the Su-34 probably had their own reasons for this?

                    Duc few realized that guided weapons will become the main. Then it was believed that the main TSA would be uncontrollable, and for accuracy it was necessary to go into the range of MZA and MANPADS whose effectiveness was low (before Stinger appeared). Well, the air defense breakthrough was carried out at low altitude. Americans after Iraq in 1991 realized that it’s better to create TSAs that allow you not to enter the air defense zone and even more so descend to low altitudes.
                    Quote: Bongo
                    In my opinion, in the future there may well be a situation where the Su-34 will have to attack targets from low altitudes and if the armor saves the life of at least one crew, then its installation is already fully justified. Or do you disagree?

                    It is better to develop detection tools that allow working from safe heights.
                    Quote: Bongo
                    please share a movie where you can clearly see how high the Su-34 is striking.

                    1. zyablik.olga
                      zyablik.olga 1 November 2015 09: 27 New
                      +3
                      Quote: Mera Joota
                      It is better to develop detection tools that allow working from safe heights.

                      On this video you can see that the Su-34 flies at an altitude of several kilometers, and remove it at high magnification.
                2. Zaurbek
                  Zaurbek 31 October 2015 09: 42 New
                  +1
                  You are confusing tasks for apparatus. Su-34 and 24 are needed to attack protected targets. The key word is "protected" and air defense breakthrough at low altitudes. This means that they will be echeloned to cover the object. In the case of the Russian Federation, these are the BUK-type air defense systems, the 2nd echelon of the Tunguska or Pantsir air defense systems, and Igla MANPADS. It will not do without heavy machine guns. Accordingly, the crew must be protected from bullets and shrapnel (Buk SAM). What the Su-34s are doing in Syria is more of an advertising campaign.
                3. Zaurbek
                  Zaurbek 31 October 2015 09: 42 New
                  0
                  You are confusing tasks for apparatus. Su-34 and 24 are needed to attack protected targets. The key word is "protected" and air defense breakthrough at low altitudes. This means that they will be echeloned to cover the object. In the case of the Russian Federation, these are the BUK-type air defense systems, the 2nd echelon of the Tunguska or Pantsir air defense systems, and Igla MANPADS. It will not do without heavy machine guns. Accordingly, the crew must be protected from bullets and shrapnel (Buk SAM). What the Su-34s are doing in Syria is more of an advertising campaign.
              2. Mera joota
                Mera joota 30 October 2015 11: 19 New
                0
                Quote: Bongo
                The titanium armored capsule, as was already rightly said here, is primarily intended to save the lives of the crew in the defeat of medium and long-range ZKR.

                So yes, that's just the Su-35, Rafal, Eurofighter, Grippen, MiG-29, etc. somehow do without it. The best protection against medium-range and long-range air defense systems are electronic warfare systems, radar traps, and maneuverability.
                Quote: Bongo
                Su-34 have a very sophisticated aiming and navigation system and strike with guided weapons, but you do not need to go down for this.

                I’m not making this up, there are videos from the Su-34 in Syria on the net, and the altitude is not difficult to determine. Here questions "WHY" are not for me.
        2. sivuch
          sivuch 30 October 2015 11: 07 New
          +8
          And who told you that it saves only from MANPADS or riflemen?
          In the same way, it can also help from fragments or GGE missiles or VV missiles. Do you think that all VV missiles are hit almost by a direct hit?
          then we’re watching Afghanistan, Mig-23, captain Pivovarov. I’m too lazy, I inform you, the packs released 2 sidewinders on the plane. One missed, the second exploded over the MLD, damaging the car, incl. the cabin
          Thank God, they didn’t get into the pilot himself.
          And by the way, the full BN in Su-34 -12 tons
          1. Bongo
            30 October 2015 11: 18 New
            +4
            Quote: sivuch
            And by the way, the full BN in Su-34 -12 tons

            Igor, if you mean that you can hang one ton for each suspension point, then probably yes. smile But I have not seen such data on Su-34. request
            1. sivuch
              sivuch 30 October 2015 15: 18 New
              +2
              Well, now meet wink
              http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=20459&page=488
              4876 post
              1. Bongo
                30 October 2015 15: 22 New
                +4
                Quote: sivuch
                Well, now meet

                Igor, I certainly wouldn’t like to write such a thing, but what Bondarev says is far from always true. You should better talk with the Ancients on this topic.
                1. sivuch
                  sivuch 30 October 2015 19: 03 New
                  +1
                  Quite possible
                  But, firstly, Bondarev doesn’t always lie
                  Secondly, it was not he who made the tablet
                  Thirdly, there was a photo on the network where the Su-34 was hung with 24 half-tones, like a Christmas tree
                  Fourthly, people wrote about the same thing at Abaza. Which, in my opinion, can be trusted.
                  In short, I do not impose on others, but for me this figure is undeniable
            2. Arikkhab
              Arikkhab 31 October 2015 11: 05 New
              0
              BN (probably) varies depending on the amount of fuel and the intended task?
            3. Arikkhab
              Arikkhab 31 October 2015 11: 05 New
              0
              BN (probably) varies depending on the amount of fuel and the intended task?
        3. iouris
          iouris 30 October 2015 13: 22 New
          +2
          For a front-line aircraft, an armored capsule is required. Protection against MANPADS is achieved by other means.
  11. tchoni
    tchoni 30 October 2015 08: 57 New
    +2
    Drying, frankly sorry. I didn’t manage to get born on time. Hence the problems ...
    But, in general, the article is not entirely correctly written. The author, as it were, is blocking the domestic mozhel. And, I am afraid, if these comparisons are meticulous, the drying will look pale next to the eagle like a fighter, having approximately equal opportunities as carriers of high-precision weapons and having advantages in the field of the use of conventional ammunition (by the way, su24 has very good accuracy indicators with conventional bombs (of the order 20-30 meters of deviation is bullshit if 24 of them fall) and equipping the eagle with a reserve as an attack aircraft (but, this is nonsense, put an expensive plane under the bullets and shells of the enemy, and for this to happen, something must happen So the armored car can be written in ballast and weights on the leg in the form of a bad review)
  12. Almatinets
    Almatinets 30 October 2015 09: 03 New
    +3
    such comparisons from the evil one, from the pilot as if nothing depends
    1. tchoni
      tchoni 30 October 2015 10: 38 New
      +3
      And from the pilot, and, especially, from the command, which is developing the application strategy. And from the provision of intelligence, and from the fighter cover and from the radar coverage of the area, and from the radio system in the area ....
  13. 0255
    0255 30 October 2015 10: 16 New
    0
    Let's compare Tu-95 vs B-52 laughing
    I liked the article. good
  14. NEXUS
    NEXUS 30 October 2015 10: 23 New
    +5
    Comparison of the F-15 with the Su-34 is not quite, let's say so honest. The American is a bomber with a large bias towards the fighter side, and our SU-34 is sharpened more for larger tasks, performing the functions of both a bomber and an attack aircraft, well, if necessary, then a fighter. I think that the functionality and capabilities and tasks for which they were designed are slightly different. Moreover, as the author of the article correctly noted, the F-15 will be removed from service in the near future, and our 34th service just starting.
  15. Support
    Support 30 October 2015 10: 32 New
    +2
    People, let them write all kinds of crap about our equipment. Then, in the fields and the skies, contact in combat did not complain that the shitty Russian equipment was staring at the skeleton. The worst thing to underestimate the enemy.
  16. By001261
    By001261 30 October 2015 10: 35 New
    +4
    Great article thanks a lot! ! definitely a plus! !!
  17. Forest
    Forest 30 October 2015 11: 19 New
    +6
    Well, at least someone wrote that the PTB are included in the load on the Strike Needles.
  18. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 30 October 2015 12: 09 New
    +3
    Well, the comparison is not entirely correct. In general, the effectiveness of an aircraft is determined by its combat operation, and not by tabular characteristics. As for the uselessness of an armored capsule, it’s complete nonsense, a missile’s destruction of a plane is usually non-contact, with the release of a huge number of damaging elements, from which the armored capsule is intended to save, also forget about the presence of rapid-fire small-caliber artillery.
  19. Kir1984
    Kir1984 30 October 2015 12: 22 New
    +8
    In general, dryers are famous for their maneuverability. A 30mm cannon can give heat, the Vulcan is also not bad (and there are pronounced supporters of exactly 20mm here), but the reduced ammunition load of the F-15 can do a disservice. Plus the F15 is a more powerful engine, it can be assumed that it has good throttle response. He also has a wide range of missiles on his side. Both are reborn fighters, so in theory they are roughly equal. This is offhand, without any pretensions. The question is, what is the probability of a meeting in an air battle of machines designed primarily for work on the ground. I would not want to. In general, the Eagle is a legendary machine, the underestimation of which has made many people fly in, and the Americans do not all fly in diapers and can stand up for themselves, plus the confidence that they fly the best fighters in the world, and this also gives a lot. Again, ours are defending their only base and friends of the Syrians, we practically supported someone for the first time. It is important. I think there should be something like mutual respect in the air, but here we must remember that we only formally have the same goals, and our "colleagues" may turn out to be simulators, and at the wrong moment. Something like this.
    1. iouris
      iouris 30 October 2015 13: 13 New
      0
      I would very much like to receive confirmation that the gun on board the S-34 is not a useless load.
  20. zyablik.olga
    zyablik.olga 30 October 2015 12: 54 New
    +5
    The author compared Russian and American vehicles of the same purpose, which are in service in our country and in the United States, and operated on data "from open sources." As far as I know, during the preparation of the article, Sergei was asked not to disclose in detail the capabilities of the Su-34's armament. I would like to draw the attention of "critics" that everyone who does not agree with what is stated in the publication can write an article on this topic himself.
  21. iouris
    iouris 30 October 2015 13: 11 New
    0
    It turns out that the Russians could not catch up with the Americans even after 30 years. Su-34 is a long-range attack aircraft, F-15E is rather a tactical fighter with advanced capabilities for the use of high-precision weapons. Of course, it is possible to compare, but the correctness of such comparisons is doubtful. In fact, it is necessary to assess the compliance of customer requirements with the actual conditions of combat use - one, the Su-34 project's compliance with the customer's requirements - two, the design bureau and the manufacturer to implement design bureau - three, the work of developers of the sighting and navigation system of suppliers and the most important components - four, armament - five. After reading the material, there is a feeling that the Su-24 in terms of its idea and level of development remains an unrivaled domestic attack aircraft. To use the Su-24 and Su-34 to use unguided weapons is too much luxury. Tu-16, Il-28, Su-7, MiG-21 -23 are enough for the use of unguided UAAS.
  22. Zavr
    Zavr 30 October 2015 16: 00 New
    0
    Comparison of aircraft data is completely inadequate

    Weight F-15S, kg
    empty 12800 aircraft
    normal takeoff 20240
    Weight Su-34, kg
    empty 22100 aircraft
    maximum 44360

    Su-34 is 10 tons more empty and 12 tons at maximum load
    1. Bongo
      31 October 2015 02: 40 New
      +3
      Quote: Zavr
      Weight F-15С, k

      Actually, the publication was about shock F-15E, catch the difference?
      It seems that some only look at the pictures. The weight parameters of the Russian and American cars in the publication are given.
      1. Zavr
        Zavr 31 October 2015 21: 16 New
        0
        Wow Karl, what's the big difference?
        F-15E
        empty 14300 aircraft
        maximum 36700

        Weight Su-34, kg
        empty 22100 aircraft
        maximum 45000

        Karl the difference between
        empty 22100 - 14300 = 7,8 t
        with a maximum load of 45000 - 36700 = 8,3 t
  23. Yak28
    Yak28 30 October 2015 20: 35 New
    +3
    Hundreds of F-15s are better than a handful of Su-34s, airplanes of different classes, it's silly to compare them
    1. Thunderbolt
      Thunderbolt 30 October 2015 20: 53 New
      +3
      Excuse me, your thesis consists of two points. On a limited theater of operations, hundreds of these can not be used to attack the enemy, but to concentrate a detachment of shock ducklings for clear work on the ground --- we almost see it.
      Quote: Yak28
      airplanes of different classes, they are stupid to compare
      Sorry, Bongo, I’m going in for you (...) but Su will storm the ground and the 15th storm the infantry, and the taste of the whole article is that who does this more effectively.
    2. iouris
      iouris 1 November 2015 13: 10 New
      0
      You need to change your thinking. Defense sufficiency is the recognition of the fact that the main purpose of conventional forces is to "extinguish" paramilitary forces in the course of network-centric wars under the guise of revolutions organized by the United States and some emirates. Both the organizers and their mercenaries from such formations must understand and see through various examples the inevitability of their destruction with the help of high-precision weapons, which are used by reconnaissance and strike complexes. Only the United States needs to have a large air fleet for lightning-fast destruction of the infrastructure of states standing in the way. Other states do not set such tasks. Of course, the nuclear deterrent must always be ready to strike at the United States.
  24. NIKNN
    NIKNN 30 October 2015 21: 06 New
    12
    Sergey, thanks for the article! Liked it! hi

    Let me make my three pennies in defense of the Su34.
    1. Immediately pay attention to the main task of the compared aircraft:
    Aircraft F-15E and Su-34 are based on heavy fighters gaining superiority in air F-15 and Su-27. They were intended to replace attack aircraft with variable wing geometry - “air defense breakers”: F-111 and Su-24

    An air defense breakthrough is a very important and specific task that the Su34 more sharpened by it is better to cope with than the more versatile fifteenth (I do not say that it copes with it poorly). The combat load should be sufficient to complete the task. We have the difficult task of breaking through air defense, in addition to armament, you must have on board the best possible REP system and sighting and navigation complex, and others will bring the necessary bomb load along the broken corridor to the air defense. Again, I do not claim that this is the only task, drying has a lot of them, and they depend on the region of application, the intensity of the database. the presence in the mission area of ​​tactical nuclear and other weapons. However, I repeat that the task of breaking through the air defense is better accomplished by a sharpened aircraft more than it. Somewhere here it was mentioned that the F15 is imprisoned for the use of guided weapons with GPS guidance. I agree in the effectiveness of this weapon in local conflicts, but if God forbid, then it will be possible to use them only in the first day (if not hours) of the database, because during this time, the opponents will just demolish each other's space groups, and then even the Su24 night will be more effective in terms of the effectiveness of combat use of the SC in difficult weather conditions.
    2. At the expense of the armored capsule. Lord! For why you don’t appreciate the life of our pilots. what Getting SD directly into the engine nozzle is a special case. Any SD with any GOS flies to an anticipated point along the pursuit curve and is triggered by a non-contact fuse when entering the target’s affected area, and usually in the cockpit area.
    3. Many people have a very strange idea of ​​modern aerial combat what , something like 1 on 1 with the use of free hunting tactics where the one who will definitely win survey(I emphasize) the range of the radar is greater. The target is detected by a ground-based radar station or AWACS aircraft, after which it directs its planes at the enemy, so that the relevance of early warning is slightly exaggerated, and given the lack of information on which side and which outfit of forces and means it will be attacked ..., in in general, in the World Bank it is necessary to take into account much more factors, and the tactics and availability of electronic warfare and air defense systems. Well this is a retreat. Armament Su34, although it includes almost the entire range of weapons of fighters, it is nevertheless intended for defense. Although in range of application it is not inferior to the F15 armament and drying is enough for its use. As for the melee, the Su34 is inferior only in terms of thrust-weight ratio and not in terms of maneuverability, all the same the layout is from its predecessor.

    Thanks again to Sergey for the article, thanks to controversial issues, I managed to stretch my mind and something to remember and analyze, and this is always useful. wink
    1. Dimon19661
      Dimon19661 31 October 2015 02: 50 New
      +3
      Absolutely right).
  25. Bosk
    Bosk 30 October 2015 21: 12 New
    +1
    It is not correct to compare the heavy fighter modified "to the ground" and the originally invented apparatus "for the ground" (with the possibility of "pushing back") ... if I am not mistaken, then the counterweight to the 15th was on the 27th ... wakes up to compare with the last 24-we ..., not again somewhere I "drove" again ... Friday ...
    1. NIKNN
      NIKNN 30 October 2015 21: 54 New
      +5
      wink
      not again somewhere I "drove in" again ... Friday ..
      A little yes, but still a plus. wink
  26. Above_name
    Above_name 30 October 2015 23: 22 New
    -2
    Quote: Falcon
    The article has a bunch of inaccuracies. Regarding comparison and digital data. And a number of aspects are not indicated ...


    ... Built-in 30 mm gun GSH-301 wins the gun mounted on the F-15E by the power of the projectile.
    1. iouris
      iouris 1 November 2015 13: 14 New
      +1
      For a month, not a single case of using a gun by Su-34 aircraft was reported. And this is good, because in the process of using guns the danger of hitting an attacking aircraft from the ground is very high.
  27. complete zero
    complete zero 31 October 2015 01: 38 New
    +1
    not quite a correct comparison, Drying is younger and more significant ... for Eagle, one can say its rich use in dozens of conflicts .. well, plus (as if we didn’t want to) but the number of flight hours of Yankee pilots is more than ours ... so god who knows there and how much cooler
  28. Bosk
    Bosk 31 October 2015 02: 12 New
    +1
    Friday, so I'm sorry if I'm wrong, but the 15th was originally thought to achieve air superiority, but Drying is a continuation of the 24th with a corresponding improvement both on the "ground" and "air" ... But otherwise a normal article , but at the expense of the pros and cons ..., tired, well, how much can you compare the same "Tiger" with the T-34 or I-16 with the Messer, and so on and so forth, it's not even funny. it is sad.
    1. iouris
      iouris 1 November 2015 13: 16 New
      0
      A long time ago, as an "expert", I was asked the question: which plane is better: F-4 Phantom or MiG-25? I had to give a whole lecture.
  29. Yarik
    Yarik 31 October 2015 18: 09 New
    -2
    Primitive review for students. But the fact that the Su-34 for so many years, could not be made of the same type, so that the contents of the aircraft corresponded to the factory documents, the author did not say anything.
  30. rusamas
    rusamas 1 November 2015 03: 40 New
    0
    By the way, there was a curious comment under article 2 on the SU-24 they wrote that BN for Amer aircraft is considered stupidly the sum of the maximum allowable load capacities of all suspension nodes. So these 11 tons needle filkin diploma. I assume that with 5 tons of BN, the needle with hanging and comfortable tanks does not smell close.
    shl
    Yes, and a bomber should be heavier than a converted fighter, it’s like a draft horse, it has to drag a lot and often does not die from the load.
    IMHO
  31. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 1 November 2015 11: 35 New
    0
    F-15 was conceived as a fighter for conquest
    dominance in the air. And it turned out quite well.
    But some countries that bought it (like Israel)
    started to complain that the planes were "idle"
    (there is no enemy, but there is work on the ground). So it appeared
    modification "Strike".
    1. Bongo
      1 November 2015 12: 23 New
      +3
      Quote: voyaka uh
      This is how the Strike modification appeared.

      Alexey, the Strike modification would inevitably appear without Israel's complaints request What was needed was an impact machine capable of replacing the outgoing F-111.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 1 November 2015 18: 32 New
        0
        Maybe ... but we only have F-15 "strikes" started working
        in full. And then they were already remade into scouts,
        then to flying command posts - to direct the F-16.
    2. iouris
      iouris 1 November 2015 13: 21 New
      +1
      Yes sir. In the USSR (RF) and the USA, the classification of aircraft is different. We do not understand what a "tactical fighter" is. The difficulty is that different pilots are required to conduct air combat and land strikes.
  32. bad
    bad 3 November 2015 14: 34 New
    0
    our plane is better, more beautiful ..
    1. iouris
      iouris 12 November 2015 21: 09 New
      0
      Only an efficient aircraft is beautiful.