Military Review

F-15E vs. SU-34. Response article

228



30.10.2015 was an article “F-15E vs. Su-34. Who is better? ”The author is a respected Sergey Linnik (Bongo), who pleases us with lots of interesting material.

Some aspects mentioned in the article literally hit me. We will not deal with the use of equipment in combat operations, consider a technical comparison.

The author writes:

“An analogue of the F-15E Strike Eagle fighter-bomber in the Russian Air Force should be the shock Su-34, and not the multi-purpose Su-30CM. The determining factor in this case is the presence of a special aim-navigation complex adapted for the use of the rocket-bomb at Su-34 air-to-ground weapons. "


Here, perhaps, it was from this paragraph that I had a desire to write an answer! It is Su-30CM that is analogous to F-15E, and Su-34 stands apart in this comparison.

Let's be honest: the F-15E, as well as the Su-30CM, is not set aiming.

On the Eagle put aiming container Sniper.

F-15E vs. SU-34. Response article


At the Su-30CM should have installed the container Sapsan.



But its implementation has become impossible because of the sanctions and the import filling.

The fact that we do not have containers of aiming does not make the Su-30CM a plane of another class. Salvation of drowning people is the work of drowning people themselves.

Our partners have long been installing imported containers for the MC on the Su-30.



Of course, due to the deflected thrust vector and aerodynamic features, the Su-30 is a better melee fighter than the F-15E. But Su-30M is a drummer! The co-pilot must perform the functions of the weapon operator.
In our video conferencing, the specificity of using the Su-30CM is different, but for a completely different reason (this is a topic for another conversation).

Yes, on the Su-34, the PLATAN sighting system is stationary.



But there are several nuances. The quality of target detection is much inferior to Sniper. There was a lot of relevant evidence in print, and you can find intelligence videos and the Sniper and Platan control centers. This, I am sure, will be able to confirm and HC. Ancient nickname, advised the author of the article. And LTPS itself is not always needed, and it cannot be replaced with a more modern one. What, in turn, can be done with the container of the MC.

The author writes:

"The total supply of fuel in the internal and conformal tanks reaches 10217 kg. The 3 PTB suspension is available with a total capacity of 5396 kg."


The total amount of fuel in the internal 7637 tanks in 2304 conformal tanks. Knowing the density of aviation fuel, we can calculate the total weight of the fuel: 9544 kg.

The total weight of the three hanging tanks 6247 kg. It is obtained from their volume and density of kerosene.

Total: the total weight of the fuel with three PTB and conformal tanks 15791 kg.

The total mass of fuel in the internal tanks Su-34 12000kg. Plus he can take one PTB-3000 and two PTB-2000. Total: the total weight of the fuel with three PTB 17460 kg.

The author writes:

"The combat radius and the distilling 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."


And this is not true. The maximum bomb load Su-34 - 8000 kg, F-15E - 13381 kg.

In this case, an empty F-15 weighs 14379 kg, and Su-34 - 22500. The specific fuel consumption of the Al-31 is 0,78 kg kgf / h, and that of the F110-GE-129 0,76 kg kgf / h. It would seem that the difference is small, but one should not forget the weight of empty planes, where armor and a large cabin play their negative role.

Even if we compare airplanes with the same amount of fuel (12000 kg for Su-34 and 11690 kg for F-15E (1 PTB)), then the combat load for Su-34 will be 8000 kg, and for F-15E, 11300 kg.

The author writes:

"In the case of full refueling for bombs and rockets, about 5000 kg remains. By this indicator, the F-15E is slightly inferior to the Su-34."


No, the 6571 kg remains, and on the Su-34 with all the PTBs there will be the 3320 kg. This can be counted by the remaining nodes of the suspension.

The author writes:

"The Su-34 cockpit is made in the form of durable titanium armored capsules with armor thickness up to 17 mm. The armor also covers some vital aircraft units. This, to a certain extent, increases the survival rate of the aircraft, and most importantly, it gives additional chances of saving the crew of a front-line bomber."


What is a controversial point. Su-34 - not attack aircraft. And using it in this capacity is nailing the nails with a microscope.

So why does he need armor? When flying with bending relief, armor will save only from rifle weapons. The armor will not save from MANPADS, will not save from an air defense missile and will not save from an 30-mm gun. And many examples of downed aircraft from small arms?

The author writes:

"The built-in 30-mm gun GSH-301 wins the gun installed on the F-15E for the power of the projectile."


The gun GSH-301 wins only by the power of the caliber (30 mm against 20 mm). Here are just the M61 Vulcan rate of fire - 4000 shells per minute, while in the GSH-30 it is 1500 per minute. I do not think this is an important factor, but nonetheless.

The author points out about the difference in the target detection range between the Su-34 Sh-141 radar complex and the F-15E AN / APG-70 radar. However, he forgets to say about a very important point - such as the review sector.
Sh-141 is a radar with PFAR, but it does not have a turning mechanism. (Which is typical only for AFAR.)



The azimuth and elevation angle of view for W-141 is 60 * 60 degrees. The AN / APG-70 fixed scan zone is slightly smaller. However, due to the presence of a turning mechanism, the viewing area in azimuth and elevation is 120 * 60 degrees. Those. the area of ​​the viewed surface is twice as large.



conclusions

Su-34 is very difficult to compare with the F-15E. It was created with different requirements of the MoD than the Eagle. Many solutions are specific, and in this regard, Su-34 is a unique class that has no direct analogue in the West. And the direct competitor of the F-15E is Su-30CM.

Based on:
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f15_8.html
http://www.f-15e.info
http://www.jet-engine.net/miltfspec.html
http://www.boeing.com/defense/f-15-strike-eagle/
http://bastion-karpenko.ru/radar-system-sh-141/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/
http://www.uk-odk.ru/rus/
http://www.af.mil/
Author:
228 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Bongo
    Bongo 3 November 2015 06: 07 New
    +60
    Thanks Cyril! I read it with great pleasure! Certainly "+".
    Now on business ...
    Comparing the F-15E with the Su-34, I compared the real impact capabilities of aircraft. So far, apart from the Su-34, no one can compare with the “Eagle” in terms of the set of combat characteristics, and it does not matter at all how the sighting navigation system is located on an airplane, whether it is built-in or in a hanging container. Whether and when the multipurpose Su-30СМ equipment will appear and when similar to that used on the F-15E is unknown. Let's talk about what is at the moment. And the reality is that the domestic Su-15СМ is not yet able to compete in shock capabilities with the F-30E.
    Cyril, there is no such thing as the power of a caliber, there is the power of a projectile, and the 30 mm shell ГЩ-301 weighing 390 gr has a much more destructive effect than the 20 mm projectile M61 Vulcan weighing 100 gr.
    If you want, you can compare the weight of a second volley. But the fragmentation and armor-piercing effect of the 30 mm domestic projectile in any case will be many times larger.
    1. complete zero
      complete zero 3 November 2015 07: 58 New
      +2
      Well, the Hindus, after all, are attracted to the Red Flag, and how?
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 3 November 2015 08: 03 New
        +15
        Quote: full zero
        Well, the Hindus, after all, are attracted to the Red Flag, and how?

        It seems that you do not quite understand what it is about. request
        Quote: Bongo
        Comparing F-15E with Su-34 I compared real impact capabilities airplanes. So far, except for Su-34 on a set of combat characteristics nobody can compare with the “Eagle”, and it doesn’t matter how the sighting navigation system is located on the aircraft, whether it is built-in or in a hanging container. Whether and when the multipurpose Su-30СМ equipment will appear and when similar to that used on the F-15E is unknown. Let's talk about what is at the moment. And the reality is that to compete on shock capabilities with F-15E domestic Su-30СМ is not yet able.
        What does the Indians have to do with it?
        1. figwam
          figwam 3 November 2015 09: 50 New
          +14
          I think it’s not correct to compare the SU-34 and F-15E, it’s more correct to wait for the domestic aiming container on the SU-30 and then compare. The Americans do not have a plane similar to the SU-34. Ours is a continuation of the SU-24M, they all stopped at the F-111. Article +
          1. mvg
            mvg 3 November 2015 13: 59 New
            +6
            It seems that the article turned out that the sighting system is better, the bomb load, and the range, and as an Orlik fighter it is more interesting what we get from the sighting system at 30CM? Only equal in fighter capabilities.
            I’m still wondering why there is such a difference in the mass of an empty plane .. 8 tons, well, not from a titanium armored capsule ..
            1. aleks 62 next
              aleks 62 next 3 November 2015 16: 40 New
              +14
              ..... I’m still wondering why such a difference in the mass of an empty plane .. 8 tons, well, not from a titanium armored capsule ..

              ..... True, we noticed .... The author (with all due respect) all mixed up in a heap, people, horses ... laughing , but seriously liters with meters, kg with something else ... In general, there is such a thing as - weight return (ratio of max. take-off weight to an empty plane) .... For airplanes (all the more highly maneuverable, and this is highly maneuverable) this a value at the level of 0,5-0,55 (this is for civil and transport, for fighters about 0,55-0,6) .... And you need to compare this value (I do not touch avionics and other fillings) flight capabilities. ... In general, it will be more correct .... For example, for SU-34: -
              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....Etc. ... If you wish, you can refer to the primary sources - the benefit of them in nete a lot ....
              1. Falcon
                3 November 2015 20: 29 New
                +3
                Quote: aleks 62 next
                The author (with all due respect) all mixed up in a heap, people, horses ... but seriously liters with meters, kg with something else


                Refute then. I accurately laid out Kakra liters and kg - but in most sources (Russian-speaking) they are confused. Hence the pun in comparisons.

                Quote: aleks 62 next
                maximum load with 100% of fuel: 10 400 kg
                normal load with 100% fuel: 4 400 kg
                maximum permissible load: 12 500 kg .... etc. ... If you wish, you can refer to the primary sources - the benefit of them in nete a lot ....


                This does not converge in many ways. Firstly, there is no of the data, and secondly, the points can not be placed so
                1. PLO
                  PLO 5 November 2015 15: 09 New
                  +2
                  In fact, many of the characteristics of the Su-34 that you use for your calculations are not at the office. sites.
                  so it’s not clear why you reject the maximum take-off mass of the Su-34 at 45 tons, and take the amount of fuel and the mass of the empty Su-34 from the ceiling.

                  if desired, the Su-34 can be suspended by 6 FAB-250 on 8 suspension points. plus a couple at the extreme under the wing.
                  not to mention that the configuration of maximum b / n for the F-15E that you led to come up with is much more difficult
                2. goose
                  goose April 13 2016 17: 21 New
                  0
                  Quote: Falcon
                  secondly, the points do not place such an amount

                  Therefore, they result in a maximum realized load of 8 tons.
              2. Bad_gr
                Bad_gr 3 November 2015 22: 31 New
                +15
                Quote: aleks 62 next
                .... I’m still wondering why such a difference in the mass of an empty plane .. 8 tons, well, not from a titanium armored capsule ..

                The Su-27 has 3 tons of electronics, 34 - 7 tons (old data, now it may be somewhat different).
                F-15 - does not even carry batteries with it, on the Su - 34, in addition to batteries, there is also an APU with it, which, if necessary, can do without aerodrome equipment + a chassis, which allows you to take off even from unpaved airfields (which is not an option for F-15 )

                Regarding the Su-34 armored car.
                If we recall the cockpit of a Boeing, shot down over Ukraine, then after the explosion of an air defense missile in the immediate vicinity of the aircraft, it looks like a drushlag. It is against such missiles that the Su-34th cockpit is designed.
          2. cdrt
            cdrt 3 November 2015 14: 28 New
            +1
            Quote: figvam
            I think it’s not correct to compare the SU-34 and F-15E, it’s more correct to wait for the domestic sighting container on the SU-30 and then compare


            compare here and now, and not in some distant future
          3. Malkor
            Malkor 3 November 2015 15: 44 New
            +8
            Correctly compare! Need to destroy the stronghold - what will the Americans use? f-15e. We will use the Su-34. So everything is correct.
            The phrase about the power of the caliber also amused. In those characteristics of the aircraft is not a specialist.
            All the same, an entire new article is more interesting to read than comments on an existing one.
            Fellow authors write more - it is always nice to read the opinion of a competent specialist.
            1. Mera joota
              Mera joota 3 November 2015 21: 30 New
              +1
              Quote: Malkor
              Correctly compare! Need to destroy the stronghold - what will the Americans use? f-15e. We will use the Su-34. So everything is correct.

              What do you think is a strong point? Roadblock on the road from sandbags? Two lines of trenches with passages, dugouts, a pair of field guns and a mortar battery in the rear?
              1. Malkor
                Malkor 3 November 2015 23: 23 New
                +2
                A strong point is a figurative target. (Warehouse, headquarters, enemy concentration)
            2. Ahmed
              Ahmed 3 November 2015 23: 02 New
              +2
              Quote: Malkor
              Correctly compare! Need to destroy the stronghold - what will the Americans use? f-15e ...


              Probably not. F-16 (F-18 if naval aviation works) would be a more suitable solution in terms of the cost of combat sorties.
              F-15E work only where 16th can not, for any reason. And the main task of the F-15E is a breakthrough in air defense.
              1. Malkor
                Malkor 3 November 2015 23: 26 New
                +2
                Americans rarely break through air defense, often bomb ground targets. Those anti-aircraft defense that they suppressed - began to suppress with the launch of cruise missiles, and then used the aircraft.
                1. Ahmed
                  Ahmed 4 November 2015 00: 17 New
                  +3
                  Quote: Malkor
                  Those air defense that they suppressed - began to suppress with the launch of cruise missiles ...


                  Which, I think, is more than reasonable. Why risk the pilots, if you can "throw on the embrasures" soulless iron ...
                  But! They sold these aircraft for export to the same Saudis, for example, Singapore, Korea, countries not having KR (I don’t mention Israel, they reshuffled the plane so that only the glider remained, and they have the KR).
                  1. Malkor
                    Malkor 4 November 2015 10: 18 New
                    +2
                    We really did not have enough iskander in 2008 in Georgia, they suppressed air defense by airplanes. Therefore, iskander is now a priority.
                2. goose
                  goose April 13 2016 17: 24 New
                  0
                  Quote: Malkor
                  Americans rarely break through air defense, often bomb ground targets. Those anti-aircraft defense that they suppressed - began to suppress with the launch of cruise missiles, and then used the aircraft.

                  Well, read the official report. Air defense was most often suppressed by the Apaches. KR only at the beginning.
            3. The comment was deleted.
          4. NEXUS
            NEXUS 3 November 2015 17: 16 New
            +4
            Quote: figvam
            I think it’s not correct to compare the SU-34 and F-15E, it’s more correct to wait for the domestic sighting container on the SU-30 and then compare.

            The article is very informative. But I think the comparison of aircraft of different weights, dimensions and purposes and capabilities is not correct.
            I understand that this will sound wild, but in my opinion the F-15 had to be compared with the MIG-25, because it was from him that the Americans licked the main ideas and ideas for their car. Another question is that today this comparison is not correct, maybe our car is discontinued and, accordingly, there is no deep modernization. But this is my opinion. hi
      2. Mera joota
        Mera joota 3 November 2015 09: 31 New
        +11
        Quote: full zero
        Well, the Hindus, after all, are attracted to the Red Flag, and how?

        They obviously fought with the F-15C. You need to understand that the F-15 is one of the "old" US fighters with "wooden" equipment (by their standards, of course). They export much stronger cars for export than they fly. For example, on export options F-15SA / SG or F-16E / F Block 60 radar with AFAR and a glass cabin is standard, the US Air Force can only envy ...
        1. Bongo
          Bongo 3 November 2015 09: 43 New
          +5
          Quote: Mera Joota
          For example, on export options F-15SA / SG or F-16E / F Block 60 radar with AFAR and a glass cabin is standard, the US Air Force can only envy ...

          Here you are right ... yes
        2. Pimply
          Pimply 3 November 2015 11: 13 New
          +8
          Quote: Mera Joota
          They obviously fought with the F-15C. You need to understand that the F-15 is one of the "old" US fighters with "wooden" equipment (by their standards, of course). They export much stronger cars for export than they fly. For example, on export options F-15SA / SG or F-16E / F Block 60 radar with AFAR and a glass cabin is standard, the US Air Force can only envy ...

          There actually were a lot of factors that influenced. For example, a lot of restrictions were imposed on the Americans (including the ban on the use of Avax), the States were interested in exaggerating the danger from Sushki to update their fleet, and the Indians, on the contrary, should emphasize the best characteristics of their aircraft. In short, all this is a great game
          1. tomket
            tomket 3 November 2015 12: 16 New
            +6
            Quote: Pimply
            For example, a lot of restrictions were imposed on Americans (including a ban on the use of Avax)

            Well, there they got their own Tymoshenko right, which makes American pilots fly by the ground))))) 0 Actually, the Americans blew it clean, and as always explained it with ridiculous arguments. It seems that the Su-30 is worse, since their take-off interval was 60 seconds. not 30 seconds like f-15.
        3. Forest
          Forest 3 November 2015 13: 24 New
          +5
          The USA is constantly upgrading both the F-16 and the F-15, so cars keep up to date and talking about their “woodenness” is silly.
          1. Mera joota
            Mera joota 3 November 2015 20: 56 New
            +3
            Quote: Forest
            The USA is constantly upgrading both the F-16 and the F-15, so cars keep up to date and talking about their “woodenness” is silly.

            Of course, the F-16 and F-15 received much more improvements than the Su-27 and even more so the MiG-29, but the transition to new digital equipment was delayed, as a result, the Saudis fly on machines with installed radar with AFAR (the Americans still Doppler), a digital DEWS REP system (rather than an analog TEWS), a cockpit with a color indicator for the entire torpedo (rather than monochrome MFIs) and more powerful engines ... Saudis, like poor people, are used to buying cars in top-end equipment ...
            And the Americans restrained on the F-22 and F-35 just now began to modernize their cars. But so far only the F-15 ...
            1. complete zero
              complete zero 4 November 2015 08: 59 New
              0
              Yesterday I specifically studied all of these AFAR and PFAR, except that the smaller AFAR by and large has no obvious advantages either.
              1. Falcon
                4 November 2015 10: 48 New
                +5
                Quote: full zero
                Yesterday I specifically studied all of these AFAR and PFAR, except that the smaller AFAR by and large has no obvious advantages either.


                You don't seem to have studied at all winked

                See how it changes phase, frequency, side lobes of the bottom, scanning speed, the number of targets followed. You can go on forever
                1. complete zero
                  complete zero 4 November 2015 11: 07 New
                  +1
                  the number of targets followed (as I understand it) can be compensated by the presence in the air of not one (LA) but a link, for example? I agree it would be foolish to argue that the AFAR is future but how critical our lagging behind the West is, you haven’t convinced others, and it’s not at all about urapatriotism
          2. complete zero
            complete zero 4 November 2015 08: 55 New
            0
            and no one talks about it, the truth is that there was NO REAL battle between Sukhoi and Oryol (thank God) but this very battle (its result) is influenced by too many factors; this is not a duel from the Second World War where they don’t strike at take off and to converge)))) so let it be even a slight advantage The needle over Drying (I admit) does not say anything, it’s not critical
      3. ancient
        ancient 3 November 2015 10: 21 New
        +8
        Quote: full zero
        Well, the Hindus, after all, are attracted to the Red Flag, and how?


        It's not about that at all. soldier
    2. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 3 November 2015 08: 26 New
      +4
      "Falcon" and "Ancient" -thank you. hi always a pleasure to read "pros" ...
      1. Locksmith
        Locksmith 3 November 2015 19: 11 New
        0
        Quote: Andrew Y.
        Falcon "and" Ancient "-thank you. It is always nice to read" pros "...

        One pulls an owl on the globe, the other says that this is wrong, what do you actually like? Specify, otherwise many here begin to develop dialectical materialism, with an emphasis on religion wink
    3. Falcon
      3 November 2015 08: 36 New
      +8
      Quote: Bongo
      Thanks Cyril! I read it with great pleasure! Absolutely "+".

      hi

      Quote: Bongo
      Cyril, there is no such thing as the power of a caliber, there is the power of a projectile, and the 30 mm shell ГЩ-301 weighing 390 gr has a much more destructive effect than the 20 mm projectile M61 Vulcan weighing 100 gr.


      Yes, I probably didn’t put it right. But the point is that with a higher rate of fire over the same period, Vulcan will release more. And the total energy transmitted in one gulp will be greater.
      1. complete zero
        complete zero 3 November 2015 08: 47 New
        +2
        that’s a contradiction — you yourself claim that in the BB the Sukhoi’s maneuverability will prevail ... on the basis of this, then what is the superfiring rate of this very volcano? —As far as I know, the very concept of aerial combat of Western countries doesn’t exclude maneuverable combat, but not recommends a gun even GSh at least a volcano battle melee maneuverable
        1. Taagad
          Taagad 3 November 2015 10: 24 New
          -14
          The value of maneuverability of an aircraft in close air combat is extremely small in the era of ALL-RACING short-range missiles
          1. Petrix
            Petrix 3 November 2015 11: 11 New
            +8
            Quote: Taagad
            Aircraft maneuverability value ... low

            Maneuverability is the best aerodynamics, the best "volatility". It is easier for such an aircraft to deal with glider damage and to reach its own.
            With the air traffic on the takeoff and landing in combat conditions, maneuverability makes it easier to avoid collisions.
            Maneuverable forgives more piloting errors.
            1. mvg
              mvg 3 November 2015 14: 06 New
              +2
              Maneuverability is achieved just by the "instability" of the airframe. So it is very debatable that with damage to avionics Sushka will reach somewhere. And maneuvering against missiles with overload under 40G is difficult ..
              And on the RedFlag the main missiles of the 15th, such as the AMRAAM-120, with a range of 180 km, were not used
              1. Locksmith
                Locksmith 3 November 2015 19: 21 New
                +4
                Quote: mvg
                And maneuvering against missiles with overload under 40G is difficult ..

                It’s also difficult for missiles to aim at a target that suddenly, with an overload of just 1 G, changes the “orientation” damn in the literal sense, and no force will allow the missile to change course at a distance of 100 meters from the target, and the plane, at least three times, even automatically. without a pilot = see how SU35 performs a “falling sheet”, and also it can do the same thing, only in a vertical plane is generally the removal of the brain of any GOS laughing , and more .... repeat
                1. Mera joota
                  Mera joota 3 November 2015 21: 15 New
                  +5
                  Quote: Locksmith
                  It is also difficult for missiles to aim at a target that suddenly, with an overload of only 1 G, changes the “orientation” damn literally, and no force will allow the missile to change course at a distance of 100 meters from the target

                  You forget that everything has changed since the 70s. BVB used to take place at distances of about a kilometer, and here maneuverability undoubtedly solved a lot of things, especially when using missiles with a TGS with a narrow field of view and a range of 5 km.
                  Now optical-location stations and helmet-mounted target designation systems allow you to work at distances that were previously considered average 10-20 km., And melee missiles have wide detection fields and a range of 40-50 km. At such a distance, your maneuvers with an obvious loss of speed will help little because the rocket’s speed will be an order of magnitude higher.
                  1. complete zero
                    complete zero 4 November 2015 09: 10 New
                    +1
                    The “Helmet” system (as far as I remember) is available only in the Russian Air Force ?, and short-range missiles for the BB P 73 are no match for the “sidewinder”, so that, combined with our super-maneuverability (aircraft), we have the advantage in close maneuverability ... the question WHY "adversary" is this very close fight))) if he has an AIM-120? -but this is a different question
                2. complete zero
                  complete zero 4 November 2015 09: 03 New
                  0
                  But how many pilots are able to fulfill this very “sheet”?))))) Does this, in addition to the complexity of the element, require phenomenal health?
              2. Petrix
                Petrix 4 November 2015 09: 17 New
                0
                Quote: mvg
                Maneuverability is achieved just by the "instability" of the airframe. So it is very controversial

                Look:
                It was "unstable", touched the rocket remained "unstable".
                It was "stable", touched the rocket became "unstable."
                In the first case, more reliable. Damaged tail - traction vector will help. The wing is damaged - the fuselage helps, has a lifting force.
              3. The comment was deleted.
              4. goose
                goose April 13 2016 17: 32 New
                0
                Quote: mvg
                Maneuverability is achieved just by the "instability" of the airframe. So it is very debatable that with damage to avionics Sushka will reach somewhere. And maneuvering against missiles with overload under 40G is difficult ..
                And on the RedFlag the main missiles of the 15th, such as the AMRAAM-120, with a range of 180 km, were not used

                Do you know how many of these 180 km AMRAAM fly with the engine off? About 40 km. What active maneuver in this section with a large overload can be discussed?
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. complete zero
            complete zero 3 November 2015 14: 58 New
            +1
            So, again, from the wide-angle BB missiles the best (recognized) is p 73 and even with a helmet-mounted system? and maneuverability is just the same advantage factor in the same BB
            1. Ahmed
              Ahmed 3 November 2015 23: 24 New
              +3
              Quote: full zero
              So, again, from the wide-angle BB missiles the best (recognized) is p 73 and even with a helmet-mounted system? and maneuverability is just the same advantage factor in the same BB


              I will correct you, today the best is the Israeli Python 5.
              The targeting angle of the R-73M is ± 90 ° (For the sake of example, on Python 4 it is ± 120 °)
              At the 5th angle, the target designation angle is “full sphere” ± 360 °, that is, you can launch a missile at the enemy literally sitting on your tail.

              In addition, the Israelis have an electro-optical GOS, insensitive to heat traps. A more powerful warhead is 11 kg versus 8 in the R-73M and its own overload (rocket maneuvering) up to 70g against 40g in the R-73M.
              The remaining data and functions are generally the same. (Option "capture target after launch", etc., etc.)
              What the P-73M wins is in the maximum launch range of 40 km against ± 25 for Python.

            2. The comment was deleted.
          4. NIKNN
            NIKNN 3 November 2015 19: 12 New
            +10
            Taagad IL Today, 10:24 ↑

            The value of maneuverability of an aircraft in close air combat is extremely small in the era of ALL-RACING short-range missiles

            You are deeply mistaken. Only high maneuverability in the near WB. it’s more likely (than for a maneuverable machine) to go into the capture zone of the GOS of the enemy’s aircraft (regardless of angle), as well as to prevent the enemy from capturing you. As for the all-angle aspect, try to capture a plane at the BVB at intersecting courses when it passes through the scope in 1-2 seconds.
            I didn’t put a minus because you simply have no idea about the subject. request
            1. Mera joota
              Mera joota 3 November 2015 21: 26 New
              +4
              Quote: NIKNN
              As for the all-angle aspect, try to capture a plane at the BVB at intersecting courses when it passes through the scope in 1-2 seconds.

              You live in the past, no one will let you in at such a distance.
              For example, the Su-35 with OLS-35 and missiles RVV-MD.
              OLS-35 detects the target in the teaching staff at a distance of 40 km., The field of view of the OLS in the azimuth of 90 degrees. RVV-MD range of 40 km., Target designation for bearing 180 degrees. The pilot doesn’t even need to turn his head too much while tracking your somersaults at a distance of 20-30 km.
              1. NIKNN
                NIKNN 3 November 2015 22: 55 New
                +6
                You live in the past, no one will let you in at such a distance.
                For example, the Su-35 with OLS-35 and missiles RVV-MD.
                OLS-35 detects the target in the teaching staff at a distance of 40 km., The field of view of the OLS in the azimuth of 90 degrees. RVV-MD range of 40 km., Target designation for bearing 180 degrees. The pilot doesn’t even need to turn his head too much while tracking your somersaults at a distance of 20-30 km.

                If my memory serves me right, it was about the BMW.
                Taagad IL Today, 10:24 ↑

                The value of maneuverability of an aircraft in close air combat is extremely small in the era of ALL-RACING short-range missiles

                hi
                1. Mera joota
                  Mera joota 3 November 2015 23: 36 New
                  +3
                  Quote: NIKNN
                  If my memory serves me right, it was about the BMW.

                  And I mean, that it’s simply not the case. It’s like with a rapier / sword / saber, before the appearance of pistols in close combat, the thing is indispensable and the skill to skillfully use a blade saved a life. The first pistols with their single charge and short aiming range did not exclude edged weapons and after the shot everyone started "a la Jean Mare to jump on tables and topple cabinets". With the advent of a multi-shot rifled short-barreled weapon, all delights such as "fencing beakers" have sunk into oblivion, or rather moved to sports platforms ... All attempts to wave a saber in front of a gun ended in the style of Indiana Jones ... The gun simply will not allow you to go saber to the distance of defeat. With BVB the same thing happened.
                  1. Petrix
                    Petrix 4 November 2015 09: 47 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Mera Joota
                    The gun simply will not allow you to approach the distance of defeat with a saber

                    Not certainly in that way. Check out the classic action movies. First, ammunition is shot at a distance and a brawl begins. War chronicles too. There are machine guns, but they manage to converge in melee.
                    Of course, if there are AWACS and a couple of goals it’s unlikely to reach the BVB. And if the extras? After all, launching missiles is not a guarantee of hitting!
                    Here's a scenario for you: Two groups converge in the frontal. The launch of long-range missiles. It takes time to evaluate hits, to maneuver from defeat. Long-range ended. Goals are not all hit. During this time, the distance was reduced. Melee begins. The same probability of the consumption of near missiles. So they got to the guns.
                    1. iouris
                      iouris 4 November 2015 11: 57 New
                      0
                      Forgot about air ram write.
                      1. Petrix
                        Petrix 4 November 2015 15: 52 New
                        0
                        Quote: iouris
                        Forgot about air ram write.

                        Did not forget. I was waiting for your comment. winked
                        The idea is the place to be. A reusable rocket does not explode, but rams. You really need to get it. But you can spin around the plane until the fuel runs out. Even if it does not hit, it will hinder the pilot to concentrate on the return attack.
                  2. The comment was deleted.
                  3. NIKNN
                    NIKNN 4 November 2015 15: 22 New
                    +4
                    And I mean, that it’s simply not the case. It’s like with a rapier / sword / saber, before the appearance of pistols in close combat, the thing is indispensable and the skill to skillfully use a blade saved a life. The first pistols with their single charge and short aiming range did not exclude edged weapons and after the shot everyone started "a la Jean Mare to jump on tables and topple cabinets". With the advent of a multi-shot rifled short-barreled weapon, all delights such as "fencing beakers" have sunk into oblivion, or rather moved to sports platforms ... All attempts to wave a saber in front of a gun ended in the style of Indiana Jones ... The gun simply will not allow you to go saber to the distance of defeat. With BVB the same thing happened.

                    I repeat once again it was the BMVB. And based on your logic, I hope that he will not reach me at all, you never know what can happen, only God knows request
                2. complete zero
                  complete zero 4 November 2015 09: 21 New
                  0
                  well, and even so (if he doesn’t have time to capture the target) -on “six,” then he (having a lower turn) is quite capable of landing ... that same super-maneuverability))))
            2. Taagad
              Taagad 3 November 2015 21: 59 New
              -4
              you are using the concepts of the 70s and 80s. Apparently, you do not know that modern multi-angle short-range missiles (for example, Python-5) are guided with the help of a helmet-mounted target designator. Moreover, the F-35 implements a vision system through the walls of the aircraft. Therefore, if someone does not have an idea about the subject, then this is you ...
              1. complete zero
                complete zero 4 November 2015 09: 24 New
                +1
                well sleep ..im we have this same python business then)))))
      2. Bongo
        Bongo 3 November 2015 08: 53 New
        +17
        Quote: Falcon
        But the point is that with a higher rate of fire over the same period, Vulcan will release more. And the total energy transmitted in one gulp will be greater.

        Greetings Cyril! Comparing GSh-301 with Vulcan is not entirely correct. In my opinion, our GS-6-23 is the closest to this American air gun. But this system installed on the MiG-31 and Su-24 among pilots, and especially among gunsmiths, has never been popular.

        GS-301 is much simpler and easier, when firing at armored vehicles it is much more preferable, one of its shells is enough to destroy any NATO tactical aircraft.
        1. complete zero
          complete zero 3 November 2015 09: 03 New
          +5
          caliber-perpetual dispute in aviation since the Second World War .... what is better than eight Browning machine guns on the P51 or MG Cannons, Shvak, VYA and etc.?
          1. goose
            goose April 13 2016 17: 38 New
            0
            Quote: full zero
            what better eight browning machine guns on the p51

            On P51 there were 4-6 machine guns. Basically 4. They were suitable against fighters with gasoline and piston engines (especially since Germany began making wooden tails in 1944-45), but there were problems against He-111, because tenacious. Ammunition was enough for a maximum of a couple. Whereas the "unarmed" Yak-9 could fill up 3-4 bombers, because effectiveness depends on the goal.
        2. Locksmith
          Locksmith 3 November 2015 19: 23 New
          +3
          Quote: Bongo
          GS-301 is much simpler and easier, when firing at armored vehicles it is much more preferable, one of its shells is enough to destroy any NATO tactical aircraft.

          This is the salt of life drinks
        3. iouris
          iouris 4 November 2015 12: 02 New
          0
          It is not necessary to compare the individual elements of the complexes, but their combat effectiveness as a whole. I am sure that the Soviet general designers understood much better that under the existing restrictions it was necessary to make the complex as effective as the state of technology allows.
      3. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich 3 November 2015 09: 22 New
        +3
        Quote: Falcon
        But the point is that with a higher rate of fire over the same period, Vulcan will release more.

        and the ammunition of the “eagle” is larger, the “strike” E / F has more than 500, the rest of the modifications have more than 900 shots, ours have 180.
      4. Susul
        Susul 3 November 2015 10: 15 New
        +5
        Will he break through the armor of key elements?
        After all, it’s like in sex, if it didn’t work, then you can stop jerking ...
        And the armor of the SU-34 is exactly 30mm and is designed in key nodes.
        Recently, in Afghanistan, the Taliban once again picked Stinger Stinger. If they started up in pairs, they would surely have failed.
        1. sa-ag
          sa-ag 3 November 2015 10: 42 New
          +1
          Quote: SUSUL
          After all, here it’s like in sex, if it didn’t work, then you can stop jerking further.

          When the plane falls under the cannon salvo, the integrity of key elements will no longer be so important, the plane loses its support and falls into a tailspin
          1. Locksmith
            Locksmith 3 November 2015 19: 28 New
            +5
            Quote: sa-ag
            When the plane falls under the cannon salvo, the integrity of the key elements will not be so important anymore,

            Well, the experience of the Afghan war says just the opposite, a broken plane with whole stringer spars can quite bring a tatter to the base, but a broken spar is a guarantee that the console will form, and then the asshole is full sad
            1. Ahmed
              Ahmed 3 November 2015 23: 40 New
              +7
              Quote: Locksmith
              Broken spar - a guarantee that the console will form, and then the asshole is full ...


              And then there were exceptions to the rules ...
            2. The comment was deleted.
        2. Terrible ensign
          Terrible ensign 3 November 2015 13: 41 New
          +1
          Rather, somehow our MANPADS. Stingers seem to be inaccessible to them now, if only from the poop ...
        3. Mera joota
          Mera joota 3 November 2015 21: 35 New
          0
          Quote: SUSUL
          Will he break through the armor of key elements?

          Cabin light, fuselage (and there are fuel tanks), wings, engines (of which two) are 100%.
      5. ancient
        ancient 3 November 2015 10: 52 New
        +14
        Quote: Falcon
        Yes, I probably didn’t put it right.


        Dear Cyril, the article is definitely "+" drinks Noah with fuel you .. "very cool" got excited wink because at full refueling and PTB, well, no matter how the Orel will not have 6 tons of BC, this is the first and second .... with such an increased drag, it doesn’t "..creat .." fly ".. to .." the Canadian border "(exaggerated excerpt from the immortal work of O. Henry wink ) as the specific fuel consumption increases significantly .. plus PTB impose certain restrictions on overloads wink
        1. Falcon
          3 November 2015 11: 10 New
          +5
          Quote: ancient
          Dear Cyril, the article is definitely "+"


          Alexander, thanks hi Your assessment is worth a lot!

          Quote: ancient
          Noah with fuel you .. "very cool" got excited because at full refueling and PTB, well, no matter how the Eagle will not have 6 tons


          Well, it turns out from the data. He takes three tanks on 2600l

          Quote: ancient
          with such increased drag, it doesn’t "..sozhet .." fly ".. to .." the Canadian border "


          That resistance will increase and specific consumption is unconditional. Assess the degree of this influence just does not work. Nevertheless, in this configuration, the PTB are used.



          Not an e-box, but nonetheless:



          Quote: ancient
          plus PTB impose certain restrictions on congestion

          No doubt, of course
      6. ancient
        ancient 3 November 2015 11: 04 New
        +6
        Quote: Falcon
        Yes, I probably didn’t put it right.


        Cyril and with specific fuel consumption you seem to Su-34 ... "gruff" wink
        1. Falcon
          3 November 2015 11: 57 New
          +1
          Quote: ancient
          Quote: Falcon
          Yes, I probably didn’t put it right.


          Cyril and with specific fuel consumption you seem to Su-34 ... "gruff" wink


          Well, if you take the minimum salaries on Su-34 and F-15, then it turns out 0,685 to 0,67
      7. Assistant
        Assistant 3 November 2015 12: 31 New
        +2
        Yes, I probably didn’t put it right. But the point is that with a higher rate of fire over the same period, Vulcan will release more. And the total energy transmitted in one gulp will be greater.


        It also depends on the duration of the volley. The Volcano has a time to reach the maximum rate of fire - 0,3 s.
        1. Locksmith
          Locksmith 3 November 2015 19: 31 New
          +1
          Quote: Assistant
          It also depends on the duration of the volley.

          it depends on - hit, missed, one 30 mm shell -kirdyk to any aircraft, two or three 20 mm -we still live wink
      8. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 3 November 2015 13: 53 New
        -4
        And a tool’s resource. GSH-301 will end quickly with frequent shooting
        1. NIKNN
          NIKNN 3 November 2015 20: 30 New
          +6
          Zaurbek (1) RU Today, 13:53 PM ↑

          And a tool’s resource. GSH-301 will end quickly with frequent shooting

          The survivability of the gun was set equal to 2000 rounds, but with the reservation of firing bursts of limited length - not more than 35-40 rounds. In operation, it turned out that spending the entire tape even with such bursts (referred to as “long” for the GSh-301, in contrast to the recommended “short” 7-15 rounds) and with the prescribed short intervals between them is accompanied by excessive loads on the barrel with it thermoplastic wear. The result was a complete exhaustion of the survivability of the barrel, "floating" after firing one full gun ammunition on the fighter. One of the ways to overcome overheating was to increase the time-out intervals between the bursts provided by the logic of the fire control system and allowing the barrel to “restrain” for several seconds before resuming shooting (the gun stops firing from time to time, although the battle button remains pressed). To reduce the thermal loads of the gun assemblies and cartridges, the GSh-301 in version 9A4071K has a well-proven water cooling system in the casing on the barrel (more precisely, water-vaporizing). On modified guns, in addition to it, cooling is provided by blowing with a stream of air.

          According to other sources (a modification is possible for the Su34), the gun allows you to use up all the ammunition in one turn.
          Something like this. hi
        2. complete zero
          complete zero 4 November 2015 09: 35 New
          0
          yes, if it comes to the guns, the Igla pilot will WITHOUT a DIFFERENCE its high rate of fire because in a melee Sukhoi or MiG it will simply EATE a Needle or Falcon with offal ... these things were checked (close maneuverable combat) at all kinds of "friendly events" than argue at all !!!! ????
      9. Malkor
        Malkor 3 November 2015 15: 51 New
        +4
        It is not a matter of total energy (by the way, our gun has more of it), but of its quality. where a 20mm shell will not be able to penetrate the armor or give a small amount and quality of fragments, a 30mm shell will be more effective.
      10. Locksmith
        Locksmith 3 November 2015 19: 15 New
        0
        Quote: Falcon
        And the total energy transmitted in one gulp will be greater.

        if it hits, and if it doesn't hit more than once, then how? laughing
        According to the experience of the Vietnamese and Korean wars, the penguin with a bang loses precisely to our guns, and precisely according to the result of one or two hits (this is not a shooting range, here no one will wait until you shoot out with full ammunition) smile
        1. Falcon
          3 November 2015 20: 31 New
          +2
          Quote: Locksmith
          Quote: Falcon
          And the total energy transmitted in one gulp will be greater.

          if it hits, and if it doesn't hit more than once, then how? laughing
          According to the experience of the Vietnamese and Korean wars, the penguin with a bang loses precisely to our guns, and precisely according to the result of one or two hits (this is not a shooting range, here no one will wait until you shoot out with full ammunition) smile


          No need to wait. The "rate of fire" parameter is responsible for this.
        2. NIKNN
          NIKNN 3 November 2015 20: 39 New
          +7
          Locksmith (5) SU Today, 19:15 ↑

          Quote: Falcon
          And the total energy transmitted in one gulp will be greater.

          if it hits, and if it doesn't hit more than once, then how? laughing
          According to the experience of the Vietnamese and Korean wars, the penguin with a bang loses precisely to our guns, and precisely according to the result of one or two hits (this is not a shooting range, here no one will wait until you shoot out with full ammunition) smile

          Modern sighting equipment allows you to hit an air target with a "single" projectile (it’s rude of course, but all developers are striving for this goal), since all the ballistic lead and corrections are worked out by the computer. For this reason, the need for frantic rate of fire to which they had sought before disappeared.
      11. Thronekeeper
        Thronekeeper 4 November 2015 15: 56 New
        +1
        Ek shell GSH-301, mass of salvo, etc. about four times higher, which, with a tempo difference of 4000/1500, still gives the Soviet product an advantage of 1,2 times the salvo energy. The trajectory is more flat, twice the range. Where to put these characteristics are important both in aerial combat and against ground targets. The striking effect of a volley is not 1,2 times higher, but 3 times higher, since the amount of explosives in HE shells is several times higher. Against armored targets, b / p even a 20 mm sub-caliber is 2 times smaller, the armor effect is incomparable.
        The advantage of the American is only in the number of shells, which is blocked by efficiency - a high-explosive fragmentation factor, a greater range, flatness and a smaller CVO. On the contrary, the Germans at Mauser 2,7 against the ground targets used reduced from 1700 to 1100 pace.
      12. goose
        goose April 13 2016 17: 31 New
        0
        Quote: Falcon
        Yes, I probably didn’t put it right. But the point is that with a higher rate of fire over the same period, Vulcan will release more. And the total energy transmitted in one gulp will be greater.

        No, it will not. The total impulse of the Volcano at the maximum rate of fire, which, by the way, it reaches only at the 3rd second, will be approximately 20% greater at the muzzle end.
        Given the approximately comparable initial velocity of both guns, the lighter 20-mm shells lose their speed faster, and at a distance of 600 m, it is possible that they will have a total kinetic energy less than a GS volley, since energy depends on the speed squared. By impulse, perhaps, there will be equality in the goal.
    4. Terrible ensign
      Terrible ensign 3 November 2015 09: 07 New
      +7
      Sergei! Kirill! Thank you so much guys!
      For a very long time there was not so much pleasure in reading materials as from your articles! Regards, Scary Warrant Officer hi
      1. Semen Semyonitch
        Semen Semyonitch 3 November 2015 12: 17 New
        +3
        Quote: Scary Warrant Officer
        Sergei! Kirill! Thank you so much guys!
        For a very long time there was not so much pleasure in reading materials as from your articles!

        I do not believe!!!! Is the VO spirit reborn? drinks
    5. Sweles
      Sweles 3 November 2015 09: 28 New
      +4
      that the American f15 is a good airplane was already clear from the performance characteristics of this airplane. The Sukhoi OKB was a great drag for the plane with modest ammunition loading capabilities, so this is where there is a field for improvement - weight reduction. The difference between the American and our -8 tons !!! This is a lot, this is almost another plane and this plane is not justified.
      The author forgot one more on the performance characteristics of aircraft CEILING f15 -20km, su34-17km, which is precisely the consequence of the large mass of the aircraft. Is this figure significant for a bomber? Yes it is, for the breakthrough of air defense, a larger range of heights seems to matter.
      The fact that the Su34 can only lift 8 tons of ammunition indicates a weak aircraft design, but this is very strange, because the absolutely incomparable dry weight Rafal-10 tons is designed in such a way that it can take 9.5 tons of weapons on board


      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Шаблон:Сравнительные_ТТХ_с
      1. Falcon
        3 November 2015 09: 42 New
        +5
        Quote: Sveles
        The fact that the Su34 can only lift 8 tons of ammunition indicates a weak aircraft design, but this is very strange, because the absolutely incomparable dry weight Rafal-10 tons is designed in such a way that it can take 9.5 tons of weapons on board


        The Su-34 is designed based on the Su-27 - which is an airplane interceptor. He especially does not need a load.
        The peculiarity is that the wing was left without strong changes. And the ventral points take the maximum.

        Su-27


        Su-34
        1. Sweles
          Sweles 3 November 2015 10: 59 New
          +2
          Quote: Falcon
          The Su-34 is designed based on the Su-27 - which is an airplane interceptor. He especially does not need a load.
          The peculiarity is that the wing was left without strong changes. And the ventral points take the maximum.


          This is strange, because the Su34 was developed precisely as a BOMBERS and therefore such basic provisions that distinguish a bomber from other types of combat aircraft as RANGE and LOAD should have come first in the development of the aircraft, but it turns out that the designers followed what they were guided in a different direction by some other considerations that we do not know.
          1. Petrix
            Petrix 3 November 2015 11: 49 New
            +2
            Quote: Sveles
            the designers went in some other direction and were guided by some other considerations that we do not know.

            Security, survivability. And this is armor and maneuverability. There is also versatility. This is when fighters can bomb, and bombers can intercept. Where NATO takes mass and quantity, we focus on quality.
            The answer is seen in military doctrine. The West is attacking and it needs multiple superiority in numbers. Russia, at least for now, does not have the resources to increase its numbers.
            1. Sweles
              Sweles 3 November 2015 12: 32 New
              +4
              Security, survivability. And this is armor and maneuverability


              already wrote a lot of armor on su34-1.5t, but about maneuverability? What can be the maneuverability of a heavily loaded bomber? it’s like a loaded wagon on a road that is trying to loop between standing cars, the result is one truck in a ditch.

              Quote: Petrix
              Where NATO takes mass and quantity, we focus on quality.


              you don’t even read the article, the author wrote that the su34 aiming systems are much worse than the American ones that stand on f15.
              1. Petrix
                Petrix 3 November 2015 12: 48 New
                +3
                Quote: Sveles
                already wrote a lot of armor on su34-1.5t, but about maneuverability?

                This is not a tank, the main thing is to protect the most important. A sense of security pilot does not add vitality to the aircraft? With a missile attack warning, the hand will not reach the catapult as quickly as in the F-15.
                Maneuverability. Why is the Su-34 integrated circuit? Won with the F-35 do not bother. Yes, not a fighter, but among the bombers the most maneuverable.
                Quote: Sveles
                aiming systems su34 much worse than American

                I read the article. Liked. I didn’t mean it. Where NATO is better at attacking, we are better at defending ourselves. In my opinion, if you fire a group of F-15 and Su-34 missiles (ground-to-air or air-to-air), then the survival statistics will be on our side.
              2. The comment was deleted.
              3. vvnab
                vvnab 3 November 2015 13: 03 New
                -1
                http://youtu.be/ZftkzlRLhSg

                There are options ....))
                1. Sweles
                  Sweles 3 November 2015 13: 07 New
                  0
                  Quote: vvnab
                  http://youtu.be/ZftkzlRLhSg


                  empty wagon
                2. The comment was deleted.
              4. Shtyn dwarf
                Shtyn dwarf 4 November 2015 18: 16 New
                +1
                Quote: Sveles
                Security, survivability. And this is armor and maneuverability


                already wrote a lot of armor on su34-1.5t, but about maneuverability? What can be the maneuverability of a heavily loaded bomber? it’s like a loaded wagon on a road that is trying to loop between standing cars, the result is one truck in a ditch.

                Quote: Petrix
                Where NATO takes mass and quantity, we focus on quality.


                you don’t even read the article, the author wrote that the su34 aiming systems are much worse than the American ones that stand on f15.


                what do you know about the maneuverability of "heavy trucks"!
          2. NIKNN
            NIKNN 3 November 2015 20: 53 New
            +5
            , but it turns out that the designers went in some other direction and were guided by some other considerations that we do not know.

            Apparently, the optimal way was found to achieve the specified characteristics and development capabilities, such as the cost of R&D and other factors (what time it was), and financing, as always, was probably not allowed to create from scratch (and they would have stolen more with more funding belay ), and the timing. The plane was needed yesterday (Su24 decent resource dashed off and the enemy is on the alert. request
          3. Mera joota
            Mera joota 3 November 2015 21: 40 New
            +1
            Quote: Sveles
            This is strange, because the Su34 was developed precisely as a BOMBERS and therefore such basic provisions that distinguish a bomber from other types of combat aircraft as RANGE and LOAD should have come first in the development of the aircraft

            Another engine for 34 kgs was supposed to be on the Su-14000, but it couldn’t, as they say ... By the way, the Americans installed a more powerful engine from GE on the export F-15E, there was also a need to see ...
        2. srelock
          srelock 3 November 2015 14: 25 New
          +1
          Quote: Falcon
          Even if we compare airplanes with the same amount of fuel (12000 kg for Su-34 and 11690 kg for F-15E (1 PTB)), then the combat load for Su-34 will be 8000 kg, and for F-15E, 11300 kg.

          Maximum take-off weight of Su-34 45t., Empty 22,5t., Fuel inside 12,1t., Therefore max. 10,4 load.
          1. Falcon
            3 November 2015 14: 46 New
            0
            Quote: srelock
            Maximum take-off weight of Su-34 45t., Empty 22,5t., Fuel inside 12,1t., Therefore max. 10,4 load.


            Where did you get data on the maximum take-off weight? They are not officially anywhere except Wikipedia - in which there is no link to the source.
            No official data.

            There is data on Su-32 (export version of Su-34) There, the manufacturer himself gives 8 tons of b / n
            There is official data on the Su-35 - there are also 8 tons. Fundamentally, the placement of weapons and suspension units in the Su-35 and Su-34 do not differ.

            And try to build on them w / n more than 8 tons:
            1. Locksmith
              Locksmith 3 November 2015 19: 53 New
              +1
              Quote: Falcon
              Where did you get data on the maximum take-off weight? They are not officially anywhere except Wikipedia - in which there is no link to the source.

              Oooh, how everything is started, but forgive WHEREOF THE RIGHT DO YOU Bring your article on such an uncertain source of information ??!
              This is not an article about pandering !! am
              1. Falcon
                3 November 2015 23: 21 New
                +1
                Quote: Locksmith
                Quote: Falcon
                Where did you get data on the maximum take-off weight? They are not officially anywhere except Wikipedia - in which there is no link to the source.

                Oooh, how everything is started, but forgive WHEREOF THE RIGHT DO YOU Bring your article on such an uncertain source of information ??!
                This is not an article about pandering !! am


                What a wicked way!

                What source is that? I did not use any parameters from Wikipedia. And all the data on Su-34 is not confirmed. And where is the maximum take-off 45t there and bn 8t, i.e. if you say, and even you need to ...

                Quote: Locksmith
                It is not based on, but on the IDEA of this aerodynamics, these are different planes, they even differ in size, although they are not laid out on the Internet, but it is clearly visible in the ratio of the size of the pilots to the plane, they go like SUGNUMX pygmies, it is noticeably larger


                I have not heard more delirium. those. they are just alike and so completely different. I wouldn’t disgrace wassat fool
            2. Sergei1982
              Sergei1982 4 November 2015 06: 22 New
              +1
              And try to build on them w / n more than 8 tons:

              I'm not an expert of course, but let's try:
              We hang FAB-12,1,11-1500TS on nodes 2600, each weighing 2584 kg * 3 = 7752 kg, + by 4,2,3 for 4 FAB-500M54 = 12 * 528 = 3336 kg + by 8,6,5,7, 77 on p-90 (by the way, the old figure indicates Sorption, not Khibiny, this figure has been wandering from the beginning of the 27s with the Su-4IB) okay, we go further 77P-190 * 760 = 10,9 kg + by 3 250 FAB-54M6 = 268 * 1608 = 7752 so 3336 + 760 + 1608 + 13456 = 4 kg, we add to this a mass of 170 AKU-60 * 240 kg = 13,5 kg, we add the mass of MDB and database (unfortunately I don’t know how and their type) .As you can see, it turned out more than about 1500 tons, if FAB-2600-1500TS does not become obsolete, let's replace them with KAB-1525 it will turn out 3 * 4575 = 4575 total 3336 + 760 + 1608 + 10279 = 11000 kg + again same mass of AKU and bomb s holders XNUMX kg typed.
              If something is wrong correct.
              1. Falcon
                4 November 2015 11: 24 New
                +2
                Quote: Sergei1982
                We hang FAB-12,1,11-1500TS on 2600 nodes the mass of each 2584 kg * 3 = 7752 kg,

                FAB-1500-2600TS never hung on Su. Underwing points are not designed for this weight. The maximum is cab-1500 3 pcs.

                Quote: Sergei1982
                4,2,3 by 4 FAB-500М54 = 12 * 528 = 3336 kg + by 8,6,5,7 by r-77


                For cab-1500, on the fuselage points, you will not hang anything. Look at its length.

                On 4 and 3 point do not hang 4 cab-500 there error. On a rale, such a point cannot sustain such a weight. Otherwise, they would be allowed to hang cab-1500 there.

                There is no official data on Su-34! There are unconfirmed data on the total weight of 45000kg, but all these same sources give a mass of non-ferrous 8t. Those. saying A say B.

                There is official data on the export modification of the Su-34 - Su-32 there 8t.

                There are official data on the Su-30 and Su-35. There, the manufacturer confirms 8.
                This is official! Attachment points and wing are not name-days. And all the latest modifications are the same.
                This gives a logical conclusion - since only the cockpit and tanks were replaced in the glider.
                1. Sergei1982
                  Sergei1982 4 November 2015 11: 45 New
                  +2
                  FAB-1500-2600TS never hung on Su. Underwing points are not designed for this weight. The maximum is cab-1500 3 pcs.
                  If they hang PTB-3000, and this is about 2600 kg., Why not hang FAB-1500-2600TS.
                  For cab-1500, on the fuselage points, you will not hang anything
                  I think they will see, Su-35S

                  Of course it’s overkill to hang so Su-35, but as you can see, ZAB-1500 + 6FAB + 2P-73 there are still free suspension points.
                  I will not argue, maybe the Elder will say his word.
                  1. Falcon
                    4 November 2015 12: 09 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Sergei1982
                    If they hang PTB-3000, and this is about 2600 kg., Why not hang FAB-1500-2600TS.


                    Well, I have never seen the PTB-3000 on the modifications of the Su-27. On the su-24 were, on the su-27 not. Maximum it is possible under the fuselage.
                    If we consider the density, the PTB-3000 weighs 2400kg.

                    Yes, and why then under the wing brahmos not hung on the Su-30mki? He is 2,5. And they create brahmos under 1,5t.

                    Quote: Sergei1982
                    Of course it’s overkill to hang so Su-35, but as you can see, ZAB-1500 + 6FAB + 2P-73 there are still free suspension points.


                    I also wanted to show you this photo laughing
                    Well, there everything is in tolerances. You can also hang a couple of RVV-AE.
                    1. Sergei1982
                      Sergei1982 4 November 2015 13: 25 New
                      +2
                      Well, I never saw the PTB-3000 on the modifications of the Su-27
                      PTB-3000 volume of 3050 liters, go to the Sukhoi site, where it says about the Su-32, it says about the PTB-3000. As for the Su-27, it generally does not carry PTB, because Simonov said no, so the Su-27 nodes 27 is not designed for PTBs, of the entire Su-35 family, only Su-34S and Su-27 are capable of carrying PTBs, not Su-30, not Su-2M30, nor SuSM and their export versions of PTBs
                      If we consider the density, the PTB-3000 weighs 2400kg.
                      Only 2400 kg of fuel, consider the mass of the PTB itself, if I am not mistaken, the total mass with the PTB-3000 fuel = 2675 kg.
                      And why didn’t the brahmos be hung under the wing of the Su-30mki? he is 2,5t. And they create brahmos under 1,5t
                      See above, because the Su-30MKI does not carry PTB in general (you will not find a single photo with it, you can always see it does not carry PTB on the manufacturer’s website), the glider gain was only on the su-34 and su-35S (su- 35 to the article takes only PTB-2000).
                      Well, there everything is in tolerances. You can also hang a couple of RVV-AE.
                      Who does not allow replacing the FAB-500 with the FAB-250 bundles, under the gondolas of the air intakes and underwing pylons, like this, they will not interfere with the KAB-1500.
                      1. Falcon
                        4 November 2015 15: 34 New
                        0
                        Quote: Sergei1982
                        PTB-3000 volume 3050 l, go to the site of Sukhoi,


                        It does not indicate what is possible under the wings. I said that you can have one PTB-3000 and 2 PTB-2000

                        And there is also indicated mass of non-ferrous 8t!
                      2. Sergei1982
                        Sergei1982 5 November 2015 05: 42 New
                        0
                        It does not indicate that under the wings you can
                        But there it is not indicated that it is impossible.
                        I said that you can have one PTB-3000 and 2 PTB-2000
                        In Paralai they write about the 3 PTB-3000.
                        And there is also indicated mass of non-ferrous 8t!
                        About Su-30 they also write that 8 tons, and if you drip deeper then 10,4 tons, you can hang it, photo Su-34 -36 FAB-250M54 36 * 268 = 9648 kg + weight of the MDB total about 10 tons + free suspension points for R-73 and R-77.
                        And there is also indicated mass of non-ferrous 8t!
                        This info has been hanging there for 12-15 years, no one changed it, when even in fact the su-34 was not there.
                      3. Falcon
                        5 November 2015 08: 33 New
                        0
                        Quote: Sergei1982
                        In Paralai they write about the 3 PTB-3000.


                        Paralay is a source like you and me. It’s far from the official one. It's just that the guy is very passionate about technology. By the way, he does not give links - whence infa.

                        Quote: Sergei1982
                        that info has been hanging there for 12-15 for years, no one has changed it, when even in fact there was no su-34.


                        But this is at least something. Please note that for b / n you can find more / less confirmed info. But the full weight is not.
                        Before writing the article, I looked at a lot of sources, and concluded that just by the p / m all the parameters are overstated. Nowhere is there any official P / M, but there is just a B / N.

                        Quote: Sergei1982
                        About Su-30 they also write that 8 tons, and if you drip deeper then 10,4 t, you can hang, photo su-34 -36


                        It is possible, but apparently with not a full tank. Otherwise, why underestimate the characteristics of your product.
                      4. Sergei1982
                        Sergei1982 5 November 2015 11: 51 New
                        +1
                        Paralay is a source like you and me. It’s far from the official
                        Well, you yourself understand about the PTB and their volume will not always be written by manufacturers, and even an amateur just needs to see and take a picture, but unfortunately so far I've only seen a photo with one PTB-3000 under his belly.
                        But this is at least something. Please note that for b / n you can find more / less confirmed info. But the full weight is not.
                        On the combat weight, a difficult question is indicated on the one hand everywhere by 8000 kg, on the other hand there is a statement by Bondarev where he talks about 12000 kg (+ respected by the Ancients, he also says that they dragged 12-13 tons in the GLIC) photo where on the Su-34 36FAB-250. Yes and in general, seriously give this question, in fact, that on the F-15E-11 tons, that on the Su-34-8-12 tons, you can load only cast iron, and if take smart ASPs, then everything will be much more modest, what we have is that they only have 5000-6000 kg of force to assemble, but in general, although if you equip them, as in the photo above, the su-35, only Having replaced the FAB-500, on the KAB-500, almost 8000 kg are collected.
                      5. Falcon
                        5 November 2015 15: 34 New
                        0
                        Quote: Sergei1982
                        Bondareva where he talks about 12000 kg (+ to this the respected Ancient, also says that they dragged 12-13 tons in the GLIC)


                        They also stated that the T-50 in the 2015 in the series will be. (By the way, I have not heard about B / N, but I believe you). Of these, two more believe Ancient laughing

                        But nevertheless, then the question remains with the maximum take-off, and the mass of fuel.

                        Quote: Sergei1982
                        .Yes and in general, seriously submit this issue to the matter, in fact, that on F-15-11 tons, on Su-34-8-12 tons, you can load only cast iron, and if you take smart ASPs, then everything will be much more modest, that we have that they only have 5000-6000 kg of force going


                        This is the point! drinks Full B / N is more for advertising than for real departure
    6. Sergei1982
      Sergei1982 4 November 2015 07: 01 New
      0
      The mass was wrong FAB-500M54 12 * 528 = 6336
  • mvg
    mvg 3 November 2015 14: 27 New
    +3
    I see only one option for maximum load. And, if you look closely at the real load, for example, Syria, this is an exceptional option when the maximum is taken.
    With Rafal'ik, the French got excited .. (or wiki) There were doubts about the VO at 9.5 tons. Tsesna will not pull such a load.
    SU-27 (30), rather a fighter for gaining air superiority. Interceptor rather MiG-31.
    And something like this has historically turned out to be that our planes always took less payload. MiGs never reached the F-16, Grippen's or Mirage's. A SU to F-15.
  • Locksmith
    Locksmith 3 November 2015 19: 48 New
    +3
    Quote: Falcon
    The Su-34 is designed based on the Su-27 - which is an airplane interceptor. He especially does not need a load.

    It is not based on, but on the IDEA of this aerodynamics, they are different planes, they even differ in size, although they are not laid out on the Internet, but this is clearly seen in the ratio of the size of the pilots to the plane, under the SU34 they go like pygmies, it is noticeably larger. this is a full-fledged bomber, almost an attack aircraft, for a needle this is a “dream in a jump” —this needle is enough in line from a 20mm volcano to calm down forever, SU34 just sneezes wink In the needle you have to “walk” like penguins like in pants (and piss too) - if you need to fly somewhere far away, a full toilet is in the dryer (ay Apollo lovers laughing ), a microwave, pilots interact shoulder to shoulder, you can always help, no match for him, no match! Moreover, the Americans always lie about the full load. There was still no case that they didn’t lie, they always have an “eternal” engine, and ours are on wood laughing
  • NEXUS
    NEXUS 4 November 2015 01: 03 New
    +2
    Quote: Falcon
    Su-34 is designed based on the Su-27 - which is an airplane interceptor

    I’m thinking about this. May God take the PAK FA into service, and on the basis of it they will also create multipurpose bombers, fighters of various variations (like the su-27-su-30,34,35) ... maybe even UAVs, why not? And what kind of family will it be? I understand that the question is premature, since the T-50 didn’t even pass through the GSI, but still ...
    Respectfully to those present hi
  • figwam
    figwam 3 November 2015 10: 31 New
    +4
    Quote: Sveles

    The fact that the Su34 can only lift 8 tons of ammunition indicates a weak aircraft design, but this is very strange, because the absolutely incomparable dry weight Rafal-10 tons is designed in such a way that it can take 9.5 tons of weapons on board

    The SU-34 has a reinforced structure that has armor because of this and this empty mass is 22.5 tons.
    The F-15E has an empty weight of 14.5 tons, but it does not have armor protection.
    The armor was on the F-111, there is an empty mass of 21.4 tons and, accordingly, all characteristics are similar to our SU-34.
    1. Sweles
      Sweles 3 November 2015 10: 45 New
      -1
      Quote: figvam
      Quote: Sveles

      The fact that the Su34 can only lift 8 tons of ammunition indicates a weak aircraft design, but this is very strange, because the absolutely incomparable dry weight Rafal-10 tons is designed in such a way that it can take 9.5 tons of weapons on board

      The SU-34 has a reinforced structure that has armor because of this and this empty mass is 22.5 tons.
      The F-15E has an empty weight of 14.5 tons, but it does not have armor protection.
      The armor was on the F-111, there is an empty mass of 21.4 tons and, accordingly, all characteristics are similar to our SU-34.


      armor mass su34 only 1.5 tons
      1. figwam
        figwam 3 November 2015 12: 25 New
        +8
        armor mass su34 only 1.5 tons

        It’s not just about the armor, look at how powerful the landing gear is, the twin truck, the SU-34 allows you to use the aircraft in the appropriate runways, which can not be said about amero-aircraft that can only be operated with good coverage. The manual for flight operation of the SU-34 allows a load of up to 12.5 tons, but of course there is no need to talk about good maneuverability, speed and range.
        OFAB-250-270 36 pieces are suspended in this photo, this is more than 9 tons.
        1. Sweles
          Sweles 3 November 2015 12: 44 New
          0
          22sht-kab250, how did you count?
          1. figwam
            figwam 3 November 2015 13: 16 New
            +6
            Quote: Sveles
            22sht-kab250, how did you count?

            Well, not KAB-250, but FAB-250, and 22 pieces are most likely the 1962 model bombs, which are longer than the 1954 model bombs, therefore a smaller number.


            I believe more in my experience, photos of a real airplane and the statements of the Air Force Commander-in-Chief.
            That's what the Air Force Chief said
            The Su-34 bombers, replacing the Su-24, far surpass their predecessors in terms of flight performance Novosibirsk, December 26. (ARMS-TASS). The Su-34 front-line bombers, which replace the Su-24 aircraft, far surpass their predecessors in flight performance. About this, as ITAR-TASS betrays, Viktor Bondarev, Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Air Force, told reporters today.
            “The Su-24 has a bomb load of 7,5 tons with a combat radius of approximately 350 km. The Su-34 carries 12 tons of various weapons, and its combat radius is more than a thousand kilometers,” he said during a visit to the holding’s Novosibirsk aircraft plant. Sukhoi "(NAZ), where the Su-34 is produced.
            In addition, according to the commander in chief, the sighting system of this bomber is much better. "The Su-24 aircraft provides accuracy of bombing within 20-30 m from the center of the target. The Su-34 solves similar problems with an accuracy of 5-7 m from the center of the target or direct hit," said Bondarev.
            According to him, thanks to the equipment installed on the Su-34, the bomb becomes a precision weapon. At the same time, the commander-in-chief added, the Su-24M aircraft "far from used up their resources." “We will still exploit them,” he said.

            1954G model
            1. figwam
              figwam 3 November 2015 13: 23 New
              +2
              Model 1962
            2. Sweles
              Sweles 3 November 2015 13: 43 New
              -4
              Quote: figvam
              Well, not KAB-250, but FAB-250, and 22 pieces are most likely the 1962 model bombs, which are longer than the 1954 model bombs, therefore a smaller number.


              on the AB25O scheme, so that it’s a cab or a fab vseravno glan weight -250kg

              Quote: figvam
              I believe more in my experience, photos of a real airplane and the statements of the Air Force Commander-in-Chief.
              That's what the Air Force Chief said


              commander in chief said? is there a link?
            3. Mera joota
              Mera joota 3 November 2015 21: 58 New
              +3
              Quote: figvam
              According to him, thanks to the equipment installed on the Su-34, the bomb becomes a precision weapon.

              These are all fig leaflets with which the commander covers up a colossal lag in managed TSAs. In order for the FAB-250 to become a high-precision weapon, it is necessary to descend to low altitudes and fly up to a target at close range in order to minimize many factors acting on a falling air bomb. So Rudel on the Ju-87 also knew how to put a bomb exactly in a tank ...
              You can of course load 22 FAB-250s and risking the lives of pilots and the integrity of the machine from 22 approaches to hit 22 targets ... theoretically.
              And it’s easier from a distance of 50 km. and altitude 7 km. discard 20 GBU-39 SDBs that they themselves will reach the goal and get to where you need to compensate for external factors influencing the aerodynamic surfaces controlled by a "smart" mechanism.
              1. Bad_gr
                Bad_gr 3 November 2015 22: 53 New
                +2
                Recently there was a program about the MiG-25RB. There was an automatic machine on it, taking the plane to the target, and the pilot only pressed a button. I won’t tell you the exact numbers, but the military praised it. He dropped bombs from a height of 20 km at a speed of 2500 km / h, 42 km from the target. Bombs, at the moment of contact with the ground, had supersonic speed and went underground 30-40 meters.

                I have often met the opinion that our sighting systems for unguided bombs, much more accurate than the American ones (they rely on high-precision)
                1. Mera joota
                  Mera joota 3 November 2015 23: 42 New
                  0
                  Quote: Bad_gr
                  Bombs, at the moment of contact with the ground, had supersonic speed and went underground 30-40 meters.

                  Yes, at least 150 meters. The bullet also flies at supersonic speed, but on the run from a sniper rifle at 500m. It’s impossible to hit the target.
                  What I mean is that external influences (temperature, density of the atmosphere, wind at different heights, aerodynamic imperfection of an aerial bomb, etc.) will not allow to make accurate bombing. Only from low altitudes and with a dive.
                  1. Bad_gr
                    Bad_gr 4 November 2015 11: 36 New
                    0
                    Quote: Mera Joota
                    The bullet also flies at supersonic speed, but on the run from a sniper rifle at 500m. hit the target is impossible.
                    A sniper on the run - will not hit, and the tank on the move, with its stabilized gun, shoots without problems.
                2. Ahmed
                  Ahmed 3 November 2015 23: 56 New
                  +5
                  Quote: Bad_gr
                  He dropped bombs from a height of 20 km at a speed of 2500 km / h


                  Yeah, from space in hypersound lol

                  This "machine" is called "Bearing-D \ DM". Provides KVO at 400m at a maximum discharge range of 30km, was developed for use tactical nuclear weapons.

                  1. iouris
                    iouris 4 November 2015 12: 22 New
                    +1
                    If we assume that Ex = 400 m, Ez = 200 m, then the probability of getting from a rectangle of 400x200 m is 0,25, and with a probability of "almost 1" you can get into an "elongated square" of 1600x800 m. Inspires?
                  2. Ahmed
                    Ahmed 5 November 2015 00: 17 New
                    0
                    Quote: iouris
                    If we assume that Ex = 400 m, Ez = 200 m, then the probability of getting from a rectangle of 400x200 m is 0,25, and with a probability of "almost 1" you can get into an "elongated square" of 1600x800 m. Inspires?


                    For nuclear weapons, accuracy is more than acceptable, especially given the year the system was developed. request
                  3. The comment was deleted.
                3. Bad_gr
                  Bad_gr 5 November 2015 17: 04 New
                  0
                  Quote: Bad_gr
                  He dropped bombs from a height of 20 km at a speed of 2500 km / h
                  Quote: Ahmed
                  Yeah, from space in hypersound


                  "• the use of a high-precision automatic bombing system for targets with known geographical coordinates at supersonic speeds from a flight altitude of more than 20 m around the clock and in any meteorological conditions ...." http://aviacia-all.ru/mig_25RB.php

                  “Bombs were dropped during high-altitude supersonic bombing with a significant lead (distance to the target). At a flight altitude of 20 m and a speed of 000 km / h (M = 2500), the aircraft was supposed to drop bombs 2,35 km from the target. After separation from a plane a bomb flew this distance along a ballistic trajectory in 38,8 seconds. .... "http://www.airforce.ru/aircraft/mikoyan/mig-25rb/page_04.htm
                  "..
              2. The comment was deleted.
            4. figwam
              figwam 4 November 2015 11: 52 New
              +2
              Mera joota

              These are all fig leaflets with which the commander covers up a colossal lag in managed TSAs. In order for the FAB-250 to become a high-precision weapon, it is necessary to descend to low altitudes and fly up to a target at close range in order to minimize many factors acting on a falling air bomb.

              Su-24m, Su-34 successfully use freely falling bombs from 5000 meters on the militants in Syria from one run.
              And it’s easier from a distance of 50 km. and altitude 7 km. discard 20 GBU-39 SDBs that they themselves will reach the goal and get to where you need to compensate for external factors influencing the aerodynamic surfaces controlled by a "smart" mechanism.

              The cost of one GBU-39 under the contract of 2013, 291 thousand dollars per unit, now multiply by 20 units. we get 5 million .820 thousand dollars, it’s one aircraft’s strike at 20 sheds in the desert, accuracy of 5-8 meters, 17 kg of explosive, which means that when dropped 8 meters from the reinforced-concrete bin 17 kg will not cause any damage.
              Therefore, terrorists are easier to hit with cheap bombs.
              If we talk about a serious opponent for the F-15E, then the S-300, S-400 complex will not give a chance to use such bombs, and this bomb works on the GPS system, which will be covered first in a serious conflict, after which these GBUs will simply be blanks in stock.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • NIKNN
    NIKNN 3 November 2015 21: 08 New
    +12
    Quote: Sveles

    The fact that the Su34 can only lift 8 tons of ammunition indicates a weak aircraft design, but this is very strange, because the absolutely incomparable dry weight Rafal-10 tons is designed in such a way that it can take 9.5 tons of weapons on board

    The combat load should be sufficient to complete the tasks. The maximum load is taken with a certain margin for the possibility of expanding the scope of the aircraft and adapting it to the newly developed ammunition. BN indicated in the performance characteristics of NATO technology, carries mainly an advertising task request
    1. Sweles
      Sweles 3 November 2015 21: 27 New
      +1
      Quote: NIKNN
      The combat load should be sufficient to complete the tasks. The maximum load is taken with a certain margin for the possibility of expanding the scope of the aircraft and adapting it to the newly developed ammunition. BN indicated in the performance characteristics of NATO technology, carries mainly an advertising task


      You said a lot at first, but the quintessence is that something lies? But pin_dos offered their f15 to India on a tender, so whether it would be a lie to give a ride.
      1. NIKNN
        NIKNN 3 November 2015 23: 04 New
        +7
        You said a lot at first, but the quintessence is that something lies? But pin_dos offered their f15 to India on a tender, so whether it would be a lie to give a ride.

        I would say that they indicate load capacity, because with such a combat load, this aircraft is capable of performing tasks maximum on DPRS and then a pancake. hi
  • ancient
    ancient 3 November 2015 11: 00 New
    +18
    Quote: Sveles
    Yes it is, for the breakthrough of air defense, a larger range of heights seems to matter.


    A very erroneous opinion .. the higher the height, the chances of "successfully overcoming air defense" tend to 0! soldier
    Weight reduction already on the designed machine comes down to redesign, because immediately the centering of the aircraft "flies" ... therefore yes ... they reduce the weight and dimensions of the equipment, but then they "stick" the weight ballast.
    It is then necessary to immediately change the system of the CDS or "change its settings", if possible .. range.

    Su-34 can "carry" up to 12 tons ... but do not forget that you still need to fly somewhere.
    According to Rafal .. if you hang 9,5 tons of BC on it, then he will be able to fly with it up to the .4th turn and immediately emergency reset there .. since you need to "manage to" sit on the 2nd fuel residue wink

    "Vika" is not .. "source" for comparison drinks
    1. Sweles
      Sweles 3 November 2015 11: 17 New
      -6
      Quote: ancient
      a very erroneous opinion .. the higher the height, the chances of "successfully overcoming air defense" tend to 0!


      then what's the point in the altitude characteristics of the aircraft? Why push bombers up? I think that the altitude characteristics of the bomber make sense.

      Quote: ancient
      Weight reduction already on the designed machine comes down to redesign, because immediately the centering of the aircraft "flies" ... therefore yes ... they reduce the weight and dimensions of the equipment, but then they "stick" the weight ballast.
      It is then necessary to immediately change the system of the CDS or "change its settings", if possible .. range.


      this is strange, I already said that the latest modifications of the f15 are capable of loading up to 11 tons, and our modification of the su27 is very specialized and sharpened, like a bomber is not able to lift as much as an American fighter.

      Quote: ancient
      Su-34 can "carry" up to 12 tons ... but do not forget that you still need to fly somewhere.


      How do you know that? there are no such numbers anywhere.

      Quote: ancient
      Su-34 can "carry" up to 12 tons ... but do not forget that you still need to fly somewhere.
      According to Rafal .. if you hang 9,5 tons of BC on it, then he will be able to fly with it up to the .4th turn and immediately emergency reset there .. since you need to "manage to" sit on the 2nd fuel residue



      this data is for INDIAN TENDER, if you can provide other data for sports.
      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Шаблон:Сравнительные_ТТХ_с
      1. Semen Semyonitch
        Semen Semyonitch 3 November 2015 12: 25 New
        +6
        Quote: Sveles
        Quote: ancient
        Su-34 can "carry" up to 12 tons ... but do not forget that you still need to fly somewhere.

        How do you know that? there are no such numbers anywhere.

        Believe the word .. yes
      2. Malkor
        Malkor 3 November 2015 23: 46 New
        0
        Bombers have long been taught to fly low just to break through air defense, and not bombing. Altitude is just an opportunity arising thanks to powerful engines; for a bomber, super-altitude is not a first necessity.
      3. NIKNN
        NIKNN 4 November 2015 18: 23 New
        +4
        Sweles SU Yesterday, 11:17 ↑

        Quote: ancient
        a very erroneous opinion .. the higher the height, the chances of "successfully overcoming air defense" tend to 0!


        then what's the point in the altitude characteristics of the aircraft? Why push bombers up? I think that the altitude characteristics of the bomber make sense.

        What do you mean by altitude characteristics? If the maximum practical ceiling, then this is the possibility of horizontal flight without reduction and it is installed for an aircraft without armament and at maximum engine operating conditions. There is also a dynamic ceiling, it is even larger, but suitable only for records.
        At the same time, the ability of the aircraft to fly with a combat load at an altitude of 8000m. is a vital necessity for an economical flight. Before reaching the target, it will take the height necessary for its implementation, this is called a "variable flight profile". At low altitude, the combat radius is significantly reduced. Since then. hi
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Semen Semyonitch
      Semen Semyonitch 3 November 2015 12: 23 New
      +7
      Quote: ancient
      According to Rafal ... if you hang on him 9,5 tons of BC, then he will be able to fly with him until the 4th turn

      good And then, if the first three "green traffic light" will be. lol
    4. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 3 November 2015 14: 45 New
      +5
      Quote: ancient

      Su-34 can "carry" up to 12 tons ... but do not forget that you still need to fly somewhere.

      This applies fully to the F-15E, plus their eternal PTB companions, the author noticed resistance from the Su-34 cockpit but did not notice the F-15E from PTB, and the author forgot that the Su-34 armored capsule protects against fragments and damaging elements.

      It is very good that articles of this subject return to VO, there are inaccuracies, but there is something to discuss.
      1. Falcon
        3 November 2015 15: 34 New
        +2
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        yes plus their eternal companions PTB


        For fuel equality, only one PTB is needed - not such a big difference - I take into account the lower mass and the difference in specific consumption.


        Quote: saturn.mmm
        the Su-34 armored capsule protects well from fragments and damaging elements.


        Well, not a capsule, but a bath more



        And how does it protect against splinters? For example, from beech missiles

        1. NIKNN
          NIKNN 3 November 2015 21: 20 New
          +8
          And how does it protect against splinters? For example, from beech missiles


          That's the "BEECH". If I’m wrong, I hope that specialists from air defense will correct me. The beech is designed taking into account the fact that a missile, upon hovering, seeks to hit an aircraft from the upper hemisphere. Honestly, I do not know other missiles with this guidance logic. All explosives of the explosive class are aimed at the anticipated point and fly along the pursuit curve, usually triggering (there are exceptions) from a non-contact fuse when entering the target's destruction zone. According to this, a photo of the IL cabin at the training ground may be a special case. hi
          1. iouris
            iouris 4 November 2015 12: 34 New
            0
            The basis of all calculations is the hypothesis about the given standard conditions of use. Of course, all “special” cases remain special cases.
            Another thing is that, as a rule, our armed forces in a combat situation collide with an enemy who is armed with our own weapons. So during conflicts with Russian participation, the likelihood of using Russian air defense systems on Russian airplanes is high.
        2. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 3 November 2015 21: 54 New
          +4
          Quote: Falcon
          Well, not a capsule, but a bath more

          Quote: Falcon
          And how does it protect against splinters? For example, from beech missiles

          Buka’s rocket is a serious argument, of course, and yet to survive in the bathroom is much more likely
          1. Falcon
            3 November 2015 23: 38 New
            +2
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            Buka’s rocket is a serious argument, of course, and yet to survive in the bathroom is much more likely


            Well, so you can book almost all drummers. And only attack aircraft had armor.
            No, of course - if it’s not a beech and if it’s lucky and the circumstances coincided, then there may be more chances
        3. Mera joota
          Mera joota 3 November 2015 22: 02 New
          +1
          Quote: Falcon
          For fuel equality, only one PTB is needed - not such a big difference - I take into account the lower mass and the difference in specific consumption.

          The dispute over fuel efficiency and fuel supply is somewhat counterintuitive when both machines have air refueling systems.
          1. Falcon
            3 November 2015 23: 32 New
            0
            Quote: Mera Joota
            The dispute over fuel efficiency and fuel supply is somewhat counterintuitive when both machines have air refueling systems.


            Well, you can’t always refuel. When we had the last il-xnumx done ...

            And otherwise, Uri patriots will be generally upset, as it is in f-15 much less fuel laughing
        4. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 3 November 2015 23: 05 New
          +2
          Quote: Falcon
          And how does it protect against splinters? For example, from beech missiles
          So, the Su-34 has bulletproof glass that holds a 12 mm caliber bullet. A shard is unlikely to have more energy than a 50-gram bullet of this caliber.

          The fragments of the Buk rocket fly apart strictly away from the rocket. On our modern air defense missiles, it is possible to direct the warhead explosion towards the target.
          1. Falcon
            3 November 2015 23: 34 New
            0
            Quote: Bad_gr
            So, the Su-34 has bulletproof glass that holds a bullet of 12 mm caliber. A shard is unlikely to have more energy than a bullet of this caliber.

            The fragments of the Buk rocket fly apart strictly away from the rocket. On our modern air defense missiles, it is possible to direct the warhead explosion towards the target.


            Where does the 12mm data come from? Look at its thickness, even in the photo. Our BTR-82 do not even hold 12mm on the side.

            Here is a purely small arms and only below.
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 4 November 2015 00: 43 New
              +2
              Quote: Falcon
              Where does the 12mm data come from? Look at its thickness, even in the photo. Our BTR-82 do not even hold 12mm on the side.

              An ordinary lantern Su-27 holds a bullet from a Kalashnikov assault rifle at a right angle. The man who shot at this lantern himself told. By the way, the flashlight fell to the ground, after the pilot ejected - the flashlight did not crash. That's when they started shooting at the glass joint, the glass broke (Chechnya).

              According to the Su-34 there is a good film on the history of its creation. Here in it is the shelling of this titanium trough, and the shelling of the lantern.
        5. Malkor
          Malkor 3 November 2015 23: 54 New
          +1
          The armor is mainly from anti-aircraft and small arms, as well as MANPADS - they are a bigger scourge for low-flying aircraft. BEECH it is more high-altitude targets, rather low-flying shell. During the still active air defense, only stupid people will fly high, especially knowing that you are flying into the coverage area of ​​the BUK - I do not advise.
    5. iouris
      iouris 4 November 2015 12: 28 New
      0
      Well, that’s it. Why is the carrier of precision weapons a bomb load of 16 tons?
      "I think" it's time to decide, the Su-34 is developed:
      1) for the use of high-precision weapons (high-precision use) or for carpet bombing over areas?
      2) for "overcoming air defense" or for the destruction of objects of action from outside the air defense zone?
  • Taagad
    Taagad 3 November 2015 10: 22 New
    +3
    The last time in aerial combat was the cannon used in 1982 in the sky of Lebanon. And on ground targets in Afghanistan it was used in a critical situation, when ground forces needed support, and bombs and missiles ended.
    1. Brown
      Brown 3 November 2015 10: 41 New
      +5
      That's it, and if there are no missiles ?? neither short-range nor long-range ?? what to do?? - ram !! ??
      At one time, they already made the mistake of refusing art. weapons in a jet plane in favor of missiles, of which there were from 2 to 4 at the beginning, it turned out that it happens and that missiles miss and there are more targets than missiles, but what could happen on a combat mission, missile or attachment mechanism is out of order damaged .... there have been cases of ramming in history, read if interested, just because of the lack of art. weapons on board.
      A gun is needed, but without fanaticism ...
      And maneuverability is just needed in the short-range cannon, and in some cases using short-range missiles that need to be aimed at a target that maneuvers quickly, especially since now there are a lot of counteraction systems or just jamming systems that complicate by an order of magnitude or even they do not allow a missile to be aimed at targets, and these systems are also developing, and do not stand still.
    2. kaluganew
      kaluganew 3 November 2015 11: 16 New
      +11
      Not certainly in that way. In Syria in 2014 there was an application. + It is not known how many more were, but simply did not make it to the chronicles. (I'm talking about ground targets)


      1. iouris
        iouris 4 November 2015 12: 41 New
        0
        In time, this MiG-29 was within reach of the enemy’s air defenses for about 40 seconds. What prevented the MiG-29, flying straightforward from 550 km / h, from the DShK? Let us compare the price of the DShK cartridge with the price of the pilot’s life: what’s the “dry” balance?
        That’s how the MiG-23ml pilot died in Afghanistan. Hero of the Soviet Union, Lieutenant Colonel Anatoly Nikolayevich Levchenko, a blessed memory to him, which I personally knew.
    3. Petrix
      Petrix 3 November 2015 12: 13 New
      +4
      Quote: Taagad
      The last time in an aerial battle the gun was used in 1982 in the sky of Lebanon

      And let's project the future a little. What is the omnipotence of missiles based on? On their guidance systems. What do we have in defense? EW complexes, heat traps, laser blinding. And then, when the world understands that the probability of a missile defeating a combat aircraft is completely unsatisfactory, the guns will speak. And guns are melee. And close combat is maneuverability. And who has the most maneuverable aircraft in the world? yes
      1. Falcon
        3 November 2015 12: 29 New
        +3
        Quote: Petrix
        Quote: Taagad
        The last time in an aerial battle the gun was used in 1982 in the sky of Lebanon

        And let's project the future a little. What is the omnipotence of missiles based on? On their guidance systems. What do we have in defense? EW complexes, heat traps, laser blinding. And then, when the world understands that the probability of a missile defeating a combat aircraft is completely unsatisfactory, the guns will speak. And guns are melee. And close combat is maneuverability. And who has the most maneuverable aircraft in the world? yes


        Everything is so +!

        But only thermal GOS are not the same as before, and thermal traps are not so popular in steel.

        Pzrk is already difficult to deceive, since several photodetectors use. And what about the rockets of the centuries then.
    4. tomket
      tomket 3 November 2015 12: 22 New
      +1
      Quote: Taagad
      The last time in a dogfight, the gun was used in 1982 in the sky of Lebanon. And on ground targets in Afghanistan, it was used in a critical situation, when ground forces needed support, and bombs and missiles ended

      The same Red Flag exercises showed the vulnerability of AFAR and aim-120 missiles when using electronic warfare equipment.
      1. Mera joota
        Mera joota 3 November 2015 22: 06 New
        +1
        Quote: tomket
        The same Red Flag exercises showed the vulnerability of AFAR and aim-120 missiles when using electronic warfare equipment.

        So far, nothing practical has been invented to suppress TGSN; therefore, at the turn of 20-30 km. everyone will stumble. Therefore, it will not come to maneuver combat.
    5. complete zero
      complete zero 4 November 2015 09: 45 New
      0
      set a plus ... here is the CONCLUSION (which is better than a quick-firing “volcano” or “flintlock GSh”)))) it turns out that in the Cannons the Eagle is already losing
  • ancient
    ancient 3 November 2015 10: 26 New
    +6
    Quote: Bongo
    Thanks Cyril! I read it with great pleasure! Absolutely "+".


    Hello, Sergey drinks The article is good, though I only read the “introduction” and the conclusion .. there isn’t much time yet .. I’m running away, but .... remember what I told and wrote to you? wink

    The only thing I disagree with the author in the conclusion is that .... "there is no direct analogue in the West" ... if you wrote at the moment, then yes .. I agree, and so .... 111- th forgot .. the same thing .. "made" from a fighter a tactical drummer first, and then almost swung at the "strategist" wink
    Well, about the airgun you write everything correctly .. the truth is to use it on the ground, and even on the Su-34 ... wink
  • ancient
    ancient 3 November 2015 10: 27 New
    +4
    Quote: Bongo
    Thanks Cyril! I read it with great pleasure! Absolutely "+".


    Hello, Sergey drinks The article is good, though I only read the “introduction” and the conclusion .. there isn’t much time yet .. I’m running away, but .... remember what I told and wrote to you? wink

    The only thing I disagree with the author in the conclusion is that .... "there is no direct analogue in the West" ... if you wrote at the moment, then yes .. I agree, and so .... 111- th forgot .. the same thing .. "made" from a fighter a tactical drummer first, and then almost swung at the "strategist" wink
    Well, about the airgun you write everything correctly .. the truth is to use it on the ground, and even on the Su-34 ... wink
  • andrei.yandex
    andrei.yandex 3 November 2015 10: 32 New
    +8
    From the Article about the MiG-31 http://www.nauka-tehnika.com.ua/nt/article/perekhvatchik-mig-31-chast-2/page/5
    I recommend everyone to read it.
    ... The Arab asked: "Why aren’t you selling new fighters to us?" Mikhail Azarovich did not direct the party and government policies, but something had to be answered, and he, with his inherent charisma, said: “Do not want to buy ours, buy from the Americans!” To which I heard: “No, the Americans have overestimated performance figures. If any parameter is given, then it is either mathematically calculated, or the ace pilot can execute it. And what is indicated in your documentation is capable of fulfilling a pilot of average qualification. ” Time has shown the correctness of this point of view. The characteristics, which have now become advertising data on export products of Soviet-made equipment, crawled up after removing the iron curtain, and when studying American samples in the second approximation, it turns out that there are a lot of conditions in which the restrictions on these parameters "creep out" ...
  • NIKNN
    NIKNN 3 November 2015 20: 00 New
    +7
    Regarding cannon weapons, I would like to note that their use on these types of aircraft seems to me no more than a kind of "emergency" option. After all, no one will set the task of an artillery attack by the NC exposing a rather high probability of defeating such expensive equipment. The tasks and tactics of using this type are somewhat different, and the attacks of the NTs from the cannon are characteristic of the Su-25 and A10, where the corresponding cannon weapons GSh 2-30 and GAU-8 (caliber 30 mm) are used.
    The use of guns in the WB. can happen only when a large number of factors come together, but rather by chance. I would like to believe that due to good maneuverability in favor of the Su34, although again we must take into account that this is not the Su30,35 or even 27.
    Therefore, I consider the cannon weapons to be of practical weight in comparing these aircraft.
  • SAXA.SHURA
    SAXA.SHURA 4 November 2015 17: 19 New
    0
    He didn’t like the gun, let him see what Shipunov said about this gun, and shut up. What did Shipunov and Gryazev do not excel.
  • goose
    goose April 13 2016 17: 19 New
    0
    The author of this article cited the F15E's maximum bomb load of 13 tons. This is not true. This figure is the total capacity of the pylons, and has nothing to do with the bomb load. It’s time to remember what Americans mean in their characteristics. The real bomb load of the F-15E, which it can tear off about the runway in about 8,5 tons.
  • Wolka
    Wolka 3 November 2015 06: 21 New
    +2
    curious and informative, thanks to the authors ...
    1. vladimir_krm
      vladimir_krm 3 November 2015 09: 35 New
      +15
      If the author also double-checked the data ... He writes:
      "The specific fuel consumption of Al-31 is 0,78 kg kgf / h."
      So this is at maximum, and not at cruising.
      We look at the source, the developer's site - "Salute": Minimum specific fuel consumption, kg / kgf * h 0,685. This is for the version of AL-31F series 42 (M1) - the one that stands on the Su-34. Maybe the old AL-31 had such an expense? No, and he has 0,685.
      We look at the manufacturer's website - UMPO: the minimum specific fuel consumption, kg / kg.h - 0,67.
      General Electricians have 0,69.
      The same thing with the combat load of the Su-34 and F-15, etc. As a result, the value of the article is reduced to zero :(
      1. Falcon
        3 November 2015 09: 51 New
        +1
        Quote: vladimir_krm
        So this is at maximum, and not at cruising.


        The maximum was compared there and there. All sources are indicated.

        Quote: vladimir_krm
        The same thing - with the combat load of the Su-34 and F-15


        Sources indicated
        1. vladimir_krm
          vladimir_krm 3 November 2015 10: 55 New
          +5
          Indicated. The engines of AL-31 indicate the main site of the UEC. Well, we are not proud people, we are looking for AL-31:

          Specific fuel consumption at maximum mode, kg / kg.h. 0,78
          Minimum specific fuel consumption, kg / kgs.h 0,67

          As for the source for F110-GE-129, it is very doubtful: http://www.jet-engine.net/miltfspec.html

          In addition, in which cases the engines are displayed at maximum, do not tell? :)
          And where is the source from which the load of the Su-34 was taken? :)
          1. Falcon
            3 November 2015 11: 45 New
            0
            Quote: vladimir_krm
            Indicated. The engines of AL-31 indicate the main site of the UEC. Well, we are not proud people, we are looking for AL-31:

            Specific fuel consumption at maximum mode, kg / kg.h. 0,78
            Minimum specific fuel consumption, kg / kgs.h 0,67

            As for the source for F110-GE-129, it is very doubtful:


            AL-31F M1

            specific minimum 0,685

            FI10

            specific minimum 0,67

            East http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/

            Well, compared to the minimum, what has changed? The essence remains. wink

            Quote: vladimir_krm
            And where is the source from which the load of the Su-34 was taken? :)

            Well look at its suspension nodes. There you can count on the fingers, nothing new.
            Yes, and sources at every step
            1. vladimir_krm
              vladimir_krm 3 November 2015 12: 11 New
              +7
              Quote: Falcon
              East http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/

              Do you basically give direct links, but to the main one? Say, look for yourself. Ugly :)

              Quote: Falcon
              Well look at its suspension nodes. There you can count on the fingers, nothing new.
              Yes, and sources at every step

              Well yes. That's just you write:
              "The maximum bomb load of the Su-34 - 8000 kg"
              and further:
              “Even if we compare aircraft with the same amount of fuel (12000 kg for the Su-34 and 11690 kg to the F-15E (1 PTB)), the combat load of the Su-34 will be 8000 kg”

              That is, even with a full refueling, even empty - is it still 8 tons? Although just the suspension units allow you to hang up to 12,5 tons. And with a full refueling - 10,4 tons. While the F-15E - up to 11 tons.
              1. Falcon
                3 November 2015 12: 46 New
                0
                Quote: vladimir_krm
                Do you basically give direct links, but to the main one? Say, look for yourself. Ugly :)


                Why give me money? You have already determined everything:

                Quote: vladimir_krm
                If the author also double-checked the data


                Quote: vladimir_krm
                As a result, the value of the article is reduced to zero :(


                Quote: vladimir_krm
                as for the source on F110-GE-129, then it is very doubtful


                Those. as if everything is doubtful - but give direct links?
                it is somehow:

                Quote: vladimir_krm
                Ugly :)


                Here is a direct link to GE specific consumption:
                http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a282467.pdf

                Quote: vladimir_krm
                That is, even with a full refueling, even empty - is it still 8 tons? Although just the suspension units allow you to hang up to 12,5 tons.


                No, they don’t allow it. This is the whole snag. Count yourself:



                Moreover, judging by the other modifications of Su - this scheme is overpriced.
                And to the left of the Cab-1500 do not already hang the X-31.
                But even if you exclude all these assumptions and contrary to geometry, you can hang 8850kg
              2. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 3 November 2015 15: 11 New
                +4
                Quote: vladimir_krm
                That is, even with a full refueling, even empty - is it still 8 tons?

                I noticed the same thing, where are three tons to the maximum take-off of the Su-34, if you take the supermaximum take-off Ф-15Е 14,5 + 11,69 + 11,3 = 37,49 (strange comparison)
                1. Falcon
                  3 November 2015 15: 25 New
                  0
                  Quote: saturn.mmm
                  I noticed the same thing, where are three tons to the maximum take-off of the Su-34, if you take the supermaximum take-off Ф-15Е 14,5 + 11,69 + 11,3 = 37,49 (strange comparison)


                  You need to look at the nodes of the suspension and not the maximum take-off. If he has nowhere to hang, then he will not take it anymore.

                  And where do you get the official maximum take-off Su-34?
                  1. saturn.mmm
                    saturn.mmm 3 November 2015 18: 17 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Falcon
                    And where do you get the official maximum take-off Su-34?

                    On the official website of the plant, this information is classified and 44360-45000 kg is supplied to public sources.
                    Quote: Falcon
                    You need to look at the nodes of the suspension and not the maximum take-off. If he has nowhere to hang, then he will not take it anymore.

                    You yourself posted a photo of where garland of missiles hung on the F-15E suspension unit, someone posted a photo of the Su-34 with 36 250 kg bombs, so it’s difficult to determine the nodes.
                    1. Falcon
                      4 November 2015 00: 37 New
                      +2
                      Quote: saturn.mmm
                      On the official website of the plant, this information is classified and 44360-45000 kg is supplied to public sources.


                      All these sources give a load of 8 tons.
                      Officially, the factory for Su-30 su-35 gives 8 tons. This is official! Attachment points and wing are not name-days. And all the latest modifications are the same.
                      This gives a logical conclusion - since only the cockpit and tanks were replaced in the glider.

                      Quote: saturn.mmm
                      You yourself posted the photo where on the F-15E suspension unit the garlands of rockets hung


                      They give official info about the load. Like ours for everything except su-34
  • NIKNN
    NIKNN 3 November 2015 06: 49 New
    +8
    The author has conducted serious research on the subject, is technically savvy and competent.
    Thank you for the article! Only a question of whom to compare with whom ... and only on TTX is somehow corny. I would suggest to name the article "F-15E vs Su-34. Article-supplement".
    Unconditional "+" to the author
    1. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 4 November 2015 03: 38 New
      +5
      With great interest, read the comments, though not all understood about some of the technical nuances what. But this is not about this, as they say, the practice is the criterion of truth. As I am told, it is Su-34 that is used for strikes on the ground in Syria, and not Su-30CM available there. That's actually the answer, what kind of car our military considers an analogue of the F-15 in terms of percussion tasks.
  • Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 3 November 2015 06: 49 New
    +17
    It was nice to read. A rare article on VO today.
    1. Semen Semyonitch
      Semen Semyonitch 3 November 2015 12: 39 New
      +9
      Quote: Aaron Zawi
      It was nice to read. A rare article on VO today.

      And what comments ??? The site remembered its name?
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 3 November 2015 06: 57 New
    +10
    A plus! It is interesting, reasoned, without unnecessary epithets (which some of our authors like to play)
    But it’s interesting when men are measured by someone more, they take into account other important factors (containment time, the amount of “ammunition” for which “goals” are used) ??? what laughing wink
    hi
  • Mera joota
    Mera joota 3 November 2015 07: 24 New
    +8
    Bravo. And I would still add a comparison not with the F-15E in service with the US Air Force, but with the Saudi F-15SA, which is currently the best option for the F-15E. By the way, in the photo with the F-15SA or F-15SG Sniper container, not the F-15E.
  • Filxnumx
    Filxnumx 3 November 2015 07: 27 New
    +5
    I also do not think that the Su-34 can be compared with the F-15: these are aircraft of different classes and capabilities. Due to the lack of specialized knowledge, it is difficult for me to make judgments on the bulk of the article, but some points are annoying.
    As follows from a simple calculation, the total fuel volume in internal and conformal TB in the F-15 is 9941 liters. The author gives at the same time its weight of 9544 kg. What gives us a density of jet fuel of 0,96. What kind of fuel is so heavy? The density of ordinary kerosene is 0,82 (on average), and heavy fuel for long supersonic flights is 0,86. And here we get water spaced with kerosene. And do Americans fly on this? Until now, the experience of my service has proved the presence of only one aircraft capable of flying on such a Tu-95 bourd (and even then only in the vicinity of the airfield at freezing temperatures, as the recent crash on board from Seryshevo showed). It can fly, but by no means start: the NK-12 engines are unpretentious, but they do not allow such mockery.
    1. Falcon
      3 November 2015 09: 19 New
      +3
      Quote: Fil743
      in internal and conformal TB in F-15 is 9941 l. The author gives at the same time his weight 9544 kg. What gives us the density of jet fuel 0,96. What kind of fuel is so heavy?


      No, you misunderstood. There are two conformal tanks of 2304l. those. total stock 12245l. Therefore, the density is not 0,96 - but less
  • By001261
    By001261 3 November 2015 07: 35 New
    +3
    Quote: Aaron Zawi
    It was nice to read. A rare article on VO today.



    Well, at the very point !!! I agree plus !! And you too!
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 3 November 2015 07: 45 New
    +4
    Give the hanging containers to the Red Army!
  • Kir1984
    Kir1984 3 November 2015 07: 51 New
    +2
    + F15E
    - combat load
    - AFAR
    - very fast gun

    + Su34
    - aerodynamics and maneuverability inherited from the fighter
    - armor (not superfluous, anyway)
    - a large-caliber gun with a good rate of fire
    1. Lapkonium
      Lapkonium 3 November 2015 07: 59 New
      +3
      Oh no, the F-15E also has PFAR, but it’s just a rotary.
      1. Kir1984
        Kir1984 3 November 2015 08: 12 New
        +1
        but I got it. inattentively read
      2. Mera joota
        Mera joota 3 November 2015 09: 59 New
        +3
        Quote: Lapkonium
        the F-15E also has a PFAR, but just a swivel.

        Not on the F-15E PFAR, imp-Doppler radar APG-70. The process of replacing radar on the F-15E of course launched, but has not yet been completed in full.
        October 30, 2015 (the other day literally) the US Air Force signed a contract with a Boeing for the installation of radar from AFAR on the F-15. 17 kits for program (V) 3 and 29 kits for RMP for $ 281,74 million.
        Those. 17 F-15C will receive APG-63 (V) 3, and 29 F-15E will receive APG-82 (V) 1
  • Rokossovsky
    Rokossovsky 3 November 2015 07: 52 New
    +1
    Thanks for the interesting article by Cyril! good More such materials and less empty mediocre reviews of Mr. Dude. Guys, publish it once a week! More is too much! Regards! hi
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 3 November 2015 08: 30 New
      +3
      Quote: Rokossovsky
      smaller empty mediocre reviews of Mr. Dude.

      Well, show me how to ...
      1. Rokossovsky
        Rokossovsky 3 November 2015 09: 32 New
        +3
        You minus me only because I expressed my opinion?
        Take the trouble to explain what caused this reaction?
        Bongo, Falcon, Banshees, but the same Kaptsov write much more interesting! The list goes on ...
        PS
        show me how to

        From you plus me
        Maybe this conversation will be my incentive! drinks
        1. Andrey Yuryevich
          Andrey Yuryevich 3 November 2015 10: 17 New
          +1
          Quote: Rokossovsky
          Maybe this conversation will be my incentive!

          I read it with pleasure. And on the style of the authors, as to taste and color, there are no comrades.
  • complete zero
    complete zero 3 November 2015 08: 04 New
    0
    Well, even if “Eagles” is a bit better and “Drying” is better, although it is doubtful because in real situations they (thank God) did not come across ... but on the exercises against the Hindus, “Needles” openly justified ... smiling (this is a fact ?) Yes, and in the seventies, “Orlov” drove and quite successfully MiG 23 MLD ... what can we say about the “outdated” Su 30?
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 3 November 2015 08: 06 New
      +8
      Quote: full zero
      Well, even if “Eagles” is a bit better and “Drying” is better, although it is doubtful because in real situations they (thank God) did not come across ... but on the exercises against the Hindus, “Needles” openly justified ... smiling (this is a fact ?) Yes, and in the seventies, “Orlov” drove and quite successfully MiG 23 MLD ... what can we say about the “outdated” Su 30?

      Dear, do you understand the difference between F-15C и F-15E ?
      1. complete zero
        complete zero 3 November 2015 08: 50 New
        0
        Do you understand the difference between 23 MLD and Su-27,30,35?
        1. Bongo
          Bongo 3 November 2015 08: 59 New
          +6
          Quote: full zero
          Do you understand the difference between 23 MLD and Su-27,30,35?

          Pavel, this publication discusses two specific type of combat aircraft. What does the MiG-23, Su-27,30,35 have to do with it? what
          1. Petrix
            Petrix 3 November 2015 12: 35 New
            +6
            Quote: Bongo
            What does the MiG-23, Su-27,30,35 have to do with it?

            A man is trying to understand why, in order to make a super-plane, the Americans need to change only “C” to “E”, whose appearance can be distinguished only by specialists, and in order to catch up with them, the Russians need to make five practically different designs that any boy can distinguish?
            This is interesting to me too. Is the aerodynamic design of the F-15 so perfect that we are constantly forced to bring our "imperfect"?
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 4 November 2015 02: 11 New
              0
              Quote: Petrix
              Is the aerodynamic design of the F-15 so perfect that we are constantly forced to bring our "imperfect"?

              ".... Aerodynamics experts made a huge contribution - these are geniuses in their field. As a result, despite the similar load on the wing (≈300 kg / sq. M), the Sushka's lifting force is one and a half times higher than that of American "Eagle", and the maximum aerodynamic quality (the ratio of lift to drag) reached 12 units (such values ​​are found only on passenger airliners). ... "
              http://army-news.ru/2014/04/pochemu-su-27-prevosxodit-f-15-saga-o-pokoleniyax/
          2. Petrix
            Petrix 3 November 2015 12: 35 New
            0
            Quote: Bongo
            What does the MiG-23, Su-27,30,35 have to do with it?

            A man is trying to understand why, in order to make a super-plane, the Americans need to change only “C” to “E”, whose appearance can be distinguished only by specialists, and in order to catch up with them, the Russians need to make five practically different designs that any boy can distinguish?
            This is interesting to me too. Is the aerodynamic design of the F-15 so perfect that we are constantly forced to bring our "imperfect"?
    2. cdrt
      cdrt 3 November 2015 14: 42 New
      +2
      Quote: full zero
      Yes, and in the seventies, “Orlov” drove and quite successfully MiG 23 MLD ... what can we say about the “outdated” Su 30?


      Hmm ... do you know the statistics of collisions Mig-23 and F-15?
    3. Odysseus
      Odysseus 4 November 2015 00: 46 New
      +3
      Quote: full zero
      and in the seventies, “Orlov” drove and quite successfully MiG 23 MLD.

      Let’s say once you remembered Mig-23 we will be precise in details. Mig-23MLD could not chase anyone in the 70s, it appeared in the 80s.
      In the second half of the 70s, the Mig-23M was in combat units. It was difficult to drive Needles on it.
  • sevtrash
    sevtrash 3 November 2015 09: 07 New
    +5
    Article plus, but one "but." But where is the comparative effectiveness of actions on air and ground targets? From what distance is detection and firing, the probability of hitting a target, the effectiveness of its electronic warfare and its noise immunity, network-centricity, cost of service, etc. Where is it in the next article f15E vs Su34 / Su30? Again, a comparison in kilograms and tons, but where is the main thing - efficiency?
    1. Sweles
      Sweles 3 November 2015 09: 36 New
      +1
      Quote: sevtrash
      Again, a comparison in kilograms and tons, but where is the main thing - efficiency?


      the author wrote that even the aiming system on the su34 is inferior to f15.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Susul
      Susul 3 November 2015 10: 19 New
      0
      Probably just this information is not located in the public domain
  • kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 3 November 2015 09: 08 New
    -1
    Nothing is invariably under the moon! Like it or not, but in a real battle it will be better to decide which plane the class and skill of the pilots will be better, and this is another plane for raising the question! I remember that during the Second World War, our pilots on the obsolete I-16s successfully fought with the most advanced Messers! And another important point is the MOTIVATION of the pilots and their willingness to go all the way for the sake of victory! Why, what, and this is enough for our pilots!
    1. complete zero
      complete zero 3 November 2015 09: 25 New
      +2
      Well, with the most advanced Messers, you are too crazy .. (maximum "Emil") and even then if the BF 109 E allows you to get yourself 16 too .. Safonov doesn’t count, this is a piece pilot
    2. mvg
      mvg 3 November 2015 15: 04 New
      +1
      You look at the statistics of the battles .. Starting from Spain.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 3 November 2015 09: 09 New
    +6
    And this is not true. The maximum bomb load Su-34 - 8000 kg, F-15E - 13381 kg.


    The author is so big, but he believes in fairy tales that you can carry more cargo on a small plane. Thanks, neighing.
    1. kartalovkolya
      kartalovkolya 3 November 2015 09: 39 New
      -2
      Now, and I, too, have the same opinion, if they have such “advanced” aviation, then why is the result = 0 for the year of its use against ISIS? And ours, according to the authors of the article, the backward Su-34, Su-24 and Su-30 SMs made hundreds of times more in a month? Bowing to the West, "... and they eat Russian fat ..."! The critics ...
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Mera joota
        Mera joota 3 November 2015 10: 54 New
        +4
        Quote: kartalovkolya
        Su-34, Su-24 and Su-30 SM in a month made hundreds of times more?

        And what did they do?
        For example:
        On November 1-2, 2015, the Islamic State (IS) terrorist group launched a large-scale series of attacks on positions by the Syrian army west of the city of Tadmor (Palmyra) in the eastern province of Homs.
        As a result, by the evening of November 1, government troops were forced to retreat from the outskirts of Tadmor to the village of Al-Mukassam on the road to Homs. Syrian and Russian aircraft inflicted a series of attacks on attacking terrorists and their rear targets.
        In total, the army retreated 6-8 kilometers west

        I believe the VKS reported the destruction of 100500 headquarters, command posts, warehouses, etc. Have these high-precision airstrikes been noticed in the IS?
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 3 November 2015 11: 49 New
          +11
          "Did these high-precision airstrikes notice in the IS?" ////

          I'm sure I noticed. But they took action.
          In our experience: when Hamasniks or Hezbollatniki
          notice that a reconnaissance drone is spinning over them,
          then they are well aware of what will happen next.
          And they leave the building (warehouse, or camp, for example), unloading it and
          leaving around, like bait, a couple of old empty pickups. Our aviation
          delivers an accurate blow to the building ... cheers! request

          Therefore, our drones are now flying at a wild height (outside
          visibility) and on them ultra-sensitive cameras (standing mad
          money). So as not to frighten the militants.
          1. dvg79
            dvg79 3 November 2015 15: 06 New
            +2
            Thank you for sharing your experience, I hope ours took this into account.
            1. Mera joota
              Mera joota 3 November 2015 20: 01 New
              +2
              Quote: dvg79
              Thank you for sharing your experience, I hope ours took this into account.

              And our type is not in the know. In Afghanistan, it did not seem to be the same.
              In the fight against semi-partisan mobile units, direct support for aviation on the battlefield is required, while high accuracy of striking (so as not to hurt ones) and the help of PANs are needed, without this, kilotons of ammunition will be wasted.
  • this
    this 3 November 2015 09: 48 New
    +4
    Density aviation kerosene TS-1 - 0.78 (not less), already as if refutes the data on fuel.
    On the sighting system PLATAN, do not give a photo of the work, otherwise the bad data is only from the old versions, when all the drying was still raw.
    The cannon, or rather the shells of 30mm BB-70g (grenade f-1), and 20mm-10g, here the power is not comparable, although like the f-15 only fired once in Afghanistan.
    And if the f-15 design will not be protected from too much load, it was still being developed as a fighter, then it was brought to the bomber, and the su-34 is seriously different from other su.
    1. Falcon
      3 November 2015 10: 18 New
      +4
      Quote: tohoto
      Density aviation kerosene TS-1 - 0.78 (not less), already as if refutes the data on fuel.


      There is indicated the displacement of one cft tank and there are two of them. those. 2 * 2304. And it coincides with the density. Read carefully

      Quote: tohoto
      According to the cannon, or rather the shells of the 30mm BB-70g (grenade f-1), and 20mm-10g, here the power is not comparable


      Count the full energy - it’s not just one projectile that transmits.

      Quote: tohoto
      Do not give a photo of the sighting system PLATAN


      The network is full of photos and videos. Even from Syria.

      Quote: tohoto
      bad data only of old versions, when all the drying was still raw.


      We began to make French matrices?
    2. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 4 November 2015 11: 25 New
      0
      The Su-34 comes across data on the volume of tanks and the weight of the fuel:
      tank volume 15000 liters,
      fuel weight 12000 kg
  • The comment was deleted.
  • glavnykarapuz
    glavnykarapuz 3 November 2015 11: 24 New
    +3
    Quote: EvilLion
    And this is not true. The maximum bomb load Su-34 - 8000 kg, F-15E - 13381 kg.


    The author is so big, but he believes in fairy tales that you can carry more cargo on a small plane. Thanks, neighing.

    It surprised me too. Especially the conclusions when the American "hung" with external tanks all the same "makes" our plane.
    It smells like a “Hollywood”, where, according to a template scenario, the American chief hero gets a lot of “bad face” from a “bad guy” (with a strong Hollywood Russian accent), and then it seems to come to life (remember the anecdote about a psycho? wink ) and still epically wins! laughing
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 3 November 2015 14: 54 New
      +1
      Quote: glavnykarapuz
      Especially the conclusions when the American is "hung" with external tanks

      The Strike Eagles F-15E differed from the conventional F-15B combat training using conformal fuel tanks (KTBs) - non-resettable tanks mounted on the side of the fuselage. They were adjacent to the skin of the aircraft, and the cracks between the glider and the tank were closed with special elastic cuffs. Such tanks insignificantly, compared with traditional PTBs, worsened the aerodynamics of the aircraft, allowing them to fly at a speed corresponding to M = 1,8, but almost doubled the fuel supply. On the surface of the conformal tanks, suspension units for missile and bomb weapons could be placed.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 3 November 2015 11: 35 New
    0
    Actually about the weight. We go to the same wiki and see a trace. data:
    Empty weight: 14.3 tons
    Max. take-off: 36.7 tons.

    For fuel, crew, payload and other consumption, 22.4 tons remain. This is impressive, but the author writes about 15.8 tons of fuel and 13.4 tons of combat load. It turns out 29.2 total weight. Exceed by 6.8 tons. The crew in the 2 was digging, another 200 kg, the tanks themselves have some weight. That is, 7 tons of combat load at max. refueling can be safely written off. Wiki, by the way, gives max. load up to 11 tons, which looks more believable.

    For Su-34, the wiki, by the way, provides fairly detailed data:

    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

    That is, 12 tons of Su-34 can drag, but this is at the cost of reducing the fuel supply.
    1. Falcon
      3 November 2015 11: 52 New
      +1
      Quote: EvilLion
      Actually about the weight. We go to the same wiki and see a trace. data:
      Empty weight: 14.3 tons
      Max. take-off: 36.7 tons.

      For fuel, crew, payload and other consumption, 22.4 tons remain. This is impressive, but the author writes about 15.8 tons of fuel and 13.4 tons of combat load. It turns out 29.2 total weight. Exceed by 6.8 tons. The crew in the 2 was digging, another 200 kg, the tanks themselves have some weight. That is, 7 tons of combat load at max. refueling can be safely written off. Wiki, by the way, gives max. load up to 11 tons, which looks more believable.

      For Su-34, the wiki, by the way, provides fairly detailed data:

      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

      That is, 12 tons of Su-34 can drag, but this is at the cost of reducing the fuel supply.


      One problem is that the wiki was not used wink
      And the official manufacturer data and press releases wink
      Do you want me to write the maximum take-off weight for Su-34 70000kg in VIKI within two minutes?
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 3 November 2015 14: 58 New
        0
        I'm not interested in what you write there, articles are regularly monitored and information is taken just from the producers. Show inconsistencies, there will be something to talk about, but for now this is air shaking.
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 3 November 2015 15: 06 New
        0
        However, I'll probably finish you off. Have a look at the https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/С-34 engines section. The draft is written by 12500 and the link goes here: http://www.sukhoi.org/planes/military/su32/lth/

        On a non-existent aircraft (Su-32FN as if given forgotten). And this is the official site of Sukhoi. This is the price of infe from the manufacturer. And the motor data is incorrect, the M1 version has a ton more traction.
        1. Falcon
          3 November 2015 15: 15 New
          -2
          Quote: EvilLion
          However, I'll probably finish you off. Have a look at the https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/С-34 engines section. The draft is written by 12500 and the link goes here: http://www.sukhoi.org/planes/military/su32/lth/

          On a non-existent aircraft (Su-32FN as if given forgotten). And this is the official site of Sukhoi. This is the price of infe from the manufacturer. And the motor data is incorrect, the M1 version has a ton more traction.


          What is the truth? But I didn’t know!
          http://www.salut.ru/Section.php?SectionId=4
          fool
          Tie links with Wikipedia to search. You already wrote about the Su-27 RLE in the previous thread. Sometimes it’s better to figure it out first, and then write ...

          Finish yourself better.
  • Lt. Air Force stock
    Lt. Air Force stock 3 November 2015 11: 42 New
    +3
    You need to compare as follows:
    Su-34 - F-15 Strike Eagle
    Su-30SM - F / A-18 Super Hornet
    Su-35 - F-15 Silent Eagle, F-15SA
    F-22/35 - T-50 PAKFA
    MiG-35 - F-16V
    Su-27M - F-15 Eagle
  • Morf
    Morf 3 November 2015 11: 57 New
    +2
    when I looked about the SU-34 on YouTube, I also noticed a light load, but then the phrase “to break through the air defense system” resounded, it was also later found somewhere about a bunch of electronic warfare equipment, which is located in the “hump” behind the cab , in general, not a flyer of "clear skies", but another war worker
    1. Lt. Air Force stock
      Lt. Air Force stock 3 November 2015 12: 01 New
      +1
      Quote: Morf
      a bunch of electronic warfare equipment,

      On the Su-34, which are located in Syria in the wingtips installed EW containers.
  • this
    this 3 November 2015 12: 05 New
    +1
    http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/en/weapons/loadout-configurations/126-allied-force
    Here is something not noticeably high bomb load with 2 hanging tanks and tight, maximum 4 tons.
    Psss. And someone give a link to the pictures and videos from the sighting system su-34.
    1. Falcon
      3 November 2015 12: 15 New
      +2
      Quote: tohoto
      http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/en/weapons/loadout-configurations/126-allied-force
      Here is something not noticeably high bomb load with 2 hanging tanks and tight, maximum 4 tons.
      Psss. And someone give a link to the pictures and videos from the sighting system su-34.


      You can compose in different ways.





      There they are all underloaded - pay attention
      1. Mera joota
        Mera joota 3 November 2015 13: 04 New
        +1
        Quote: Falcon
        There they are all underloaded - pay attention

        Well, then on the photo of weapons for 5 tons hung, this is very much more.
        2 Kharma, 2 Amraham, 2 Sidewinder, 2 Slam-er, 6 Zhidam and 8 SDB, a total of 4,9 tons.
        This does not include the container Lantirn -200kg., Sniper-200kg. and IRST21 Tiger Aiz -50kg.
        In my opinion, if you take the PTB, then abandon the RCC.
        1. Bayonet
          Bayonet 3 November 2015 14: 59 New
          +3
          WEAPONS F-15E - one 20-mm M61A1 six-barrel gun with 512 rounds.
          Combat load - 11110 kg. hosted on 9 external suspensions.
          Installation possible: 4-8 UR class air-to-air AIM-120 AMRAAM, 4 AIM-7F / M Sparrow, AIM-9L / M Sidewinder,
          6 air-to-surface air defense class AGM-65 Maverick
          Up to 2 nuclear bombs V-57 or V-61
          Bombs:
          7 GBU-10 Paveway II, 15 GBU-12,2 GBU-15, 5 GBU-24 Paveway III, 20 cluster bombs Mk.20 Rockeye,
          2 GBU-28, 26 bombs Mk.82, 7 bombs Mk.84, as well as
          12 CBU-87 napalm bombs BLU, PU NUR LAU-3 19 70 mm NUR.
          Suspension is also possible: 3 containers with 30 mm guns, UAB AGM-130, PRLUR AGM-88 HARM.
  • andrei.yandex
    andrei.yandex 3 November 2015 12: 09 New
    +4
    By the way, no one paid attention, but if on the F-15E, what kind of electronic warfare system to protect the aircraft.
    In general, less need to rely on Wikipedia, especially knowing in whose hands it is. And the fact that Americans like to overstate some data on the performance characteristics is not a fortune-teller.
    1. Petrix
      Petrix 3 November 2015 13: 15 New
      +2
      Quote: andrei.yandex
      And the fact that Americans like to overstate some data on the performance characteristics

      Even if the F-15 really can do something better than drying, it is only to ensure that drying exceeds it in something else. And I think that this is something much more important for us than for them.
      The main weapon on the battlefield is advertising. This weapon is the most powerful in the F-15.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Mera joota
      Mera joota 3 November 2015 13: 31 New
      0
      Quote: andrei.yandex
      By the way, no one paid attention, but if on the F-15E, what kind of electronic warfare system to protect the aircraft.

      The main means of electronic warfare is the electronic countermeasure system AN / ALQ-135D, the electronic warfare container AN / ALQ-131 can also be suspended
    5. Bayonet
      Bayonet 3 November 2015 14: 50 New
      +2
      Quote: andrei.yandex
      By the way, no one paid attention, but if on the F-15E, what kind of electronic warfare system to protect the aircraft.

      The electronic warfare equipment (EW) of the F-15E aircraft includes the advanced Northrop AN / ALQ-135 active jamming station, the Loral AN / ALR-56C radar warning receiver, the Trekor AN / ALE-45 dipole and infrared trap automatic receiver. Active jamming station can create noise and simulation noise in the 360 ​​degree sector.
    6. EvilLion
      EvilLion 3 November 2015 15: 00 New
      +3
      It’s very funny, given that the author has now overestimated, or does not understand, that max refueling and max bomb load cannot simply add up.
    7. mvg
      mvg 3 November 2015 15: 20 New
      +1
      Americans usually fly with specially "trained" EW aircraft, such as Growler's. And Avaxs can do this. And in more or less serious conflicts .. Iraq, Yugi .. without Avax, they didn’t "go out" anywhere. And without destroying air defense and aviation.
      With axes, they will "carry out" all airfields, and then REBs are not particularly needed. And against the Papuans, and so "get off"
  • The comment was deleted.
  • YaMZ-238
    YaMZ-238 3 November 2015 13: 36 New
    0
    Good article! Our Su-34 is handsome .... even in appearance it is better, and in terms of characteristics - there’s nothing to say))))
    1. Sweles
      Sweles 3 November 2015 13: 48 New
      +5
      Quote: YaMZ-238
      Good article! Our Su-34 is handsome .... even in appearance it is better, and in terms of characteristics - there’s nothing to say))))


      Here’s another one from the Ministry of “Truth”, I haven’t read anything, but su34- “handsome” at the same time “article is good”.
  • samoletil18
    samoletil18 3 November 2015 13: 50 New
    +2
    I’m not an aviator and I certainly wouldn’t be able to compare the F-15 and Su-34, and it would never have crossed my mind. But, damn it, it turned out to be very interesting (article with comments together). THANKS to the author and commentators.
  • Resistance
    Resistance 3 November 2015 14: 18 New
    0
    Did I understand correctly that the Fe-15 is better?
    1. Mera joota
      Mera joota 3 November 2015 20: 34 New
      +1
      Quote: Persistence
      Did I understand correctly that the Fe-15 is better?

      It depends on what you mean by the abbreviation Fe-15.
      If the F-15E is in service with the US Air Force, then there is some advantage that can be leveled under certain conditions. This refers to the nomenclature of TSA and pendant detection tools, do not be sanctioned and with greater French loyalty.
      Also, the F-15E is more suitable for conducting air combat, but again it is doubtful that someone will use it without cover with the same F-22 or at worst the F-15C.
      If you compare with the Saudi F-15SA, then it just has a huge gap in the quality of equipment.
  • Bayonet
    Bayonet 3 November 2015 14: 36 New
    +4
    http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/f15ef.html
    A very good article about the F-15E. There is also about the Su-30, Su-34.
  • soldatt22
    soldatt22 3 November 2015 14: 46 New
    0
    How to compare fighter and front-line bomber?
    1. iouris
      iouris 4 November 2015 12: 46 New
      0
      Su-34, maybe, in general, a strategic bomber.
  • Odysseus
    Odysseus 3 November 2015 15: 10 New
    +4
    The thesis that the F-15E should be compared with the Su-30SM, and not with the Su-34 can certainly be agreed. Both multipurpose fighters created on the basis of fighters gaining dominance in the air. The Su-34 (in the name of the Su-27IB) was created back in time in the USSR, fighter-bomber aviation was originally intended to replace the Su-17 and Mig-27 (the T-24S was then supposed to replace the Su-60), hence, and, let's say, some specificity of the decisions made on it. Its closest, albeit also quite distant, counterpart to current aircraft is the Chinese JH-7B.
    But Sapsan did not become a victim of sanctions at all. The saga ended with a fiasco even before any sanctions. Rather, the reason for the failure was a combination of technological lag in this matter with the lack of proper state control and corruption. Already around 2012 UOMZ and other enterprises develop other containers.
    1. Sweles
      Sweles 3 November 2015 15: 33 New
      0
      Quote: Odyssey
      Already somewhere in 2012, UOMZ and other enterprises have been developing other containers.


      what is developing that?
      1. Odysseus
        Odysseus 3 November 2015 19: 16 New
        +3
        Quote: Sveles
        what is developing that?

        For example, here is something: http: //bmpd.livejournal.com/1143336.html
        And an idiotic story happened with the container for the Su-30 - they could not figure it out, either wait for the Sapsan (with which UOMZ had brains all over), or organize the assembly of Damocles (which was already prevented by sanctions). As a result, they were left without a container at all.
    2. Sweles
      Sweles 3 November 2015 15: 33 New
      0
      Quote: Odyssey
      Already somewhere in 2012, UOMZ and other enterprises have been developing other containers.


      what is developing that?
  • marinier
    marinier 3 November 2015 16: 50 New
    +2
    Dobroi vremia sutok RUSSLAND. Moe mnenij takoi, 4to Russishe avia, (v tom 4isle vishe upomianut na moi vzgliad uda4nij su-34) na dele, a ne na slovax dokazat svoi preimushestva.Na moi subektiv gliad nuzen dobavit sredsthen ranij opij
    A tak so4etani prijs qvalitijd uda4en, Vam bi eshe praktijk i budet heel goed.No ja dumat za etim delo ne stoiat.
  • vladimir_krm
    vladimir_krm 3 November 2015 17: 32 New
    +1
    Quote: Falcon
    Here is a direct link to GE specific consumption:
    http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a282467.pdf

    Thank. A document on nearly a hundred pages is called "Development ... Case Study on Risk Assessment and Management". Nevertheless, just in case, I looked through it all. Alas, not that.

    The scheme with the suspension options for the Su-34 is fine, because from the abstract load we turn to specific weapons. But it would have value only in conjunction with the same scheme for the F-15, and not in the comments, but in the article itself.

    With this approach to the article, millions of readers would be grateful to you ... I wish you creative success in the future.
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 3 November 2015 17: 46 New
    +6
    there was infa that our planes (including the Su-34, of course) will receive the French hanging container Damocles, there are pictures with this container. Is it right to say that our Su-34 or Su-30 does not carry an aiming container? Here's an example quote: "Comparative testing of systems, including Damocles and hanging containers of the Ural Optical-Mechanical Plant (UOMZ)" Sapsan "and" Solux ", completed in favor of the French design.

    UOMZ received a trial industrial batch from Thales at the end of 2007 and is now preparing a reconfigured version of the system for domestic use. However, the plant will also continue to improve Sapsan to offer in the future for domestic use and increasing export potential. "Http://www.militaryparitet.com/teletype/data/ic_teletype/1623

    I also have doubts about the combat load, the F-15E, like the Su-34, was redone from a fighter (so to speak), but with a smaller wing area and less engine thrust, they supposedly carry such loads ... it reminds me of almost 10 tons declared for Rafal combat load - records that have nothing to do with real combat work.

    The presence of armor is also a plus. Let's say the plane flies to the target at a low altitude, it can work from the MZA and arrows, is it extra armor? Modern MANPADS do not direct a missile into the engine, but closer to the cockpit; in addition, modern TGSN MANPADS allow firing at oncoming courses, just in the cockpit. Undermining a 1kg BB warhead missile with MANPADS will surely destroy the F-15E pilots, but the Su-34 pilots can get away with fright and a damaged, but still "flying" plane.

    I also didn’t understand the idea of ​​the author of the article on the cannon: 30 is better than 20 when working on the ground (and this is the main work for the aircraft in question) and when working through the air, the rate of fire of 1500 will suffice for anyone, but again one thing will be enough - two shells.
    1. Zuborez
      Zuborez 3 November 2015 18: 41 New
      +1
      Quote: barbiturate

      I also didn’t understand the idea of ​​the author of the article on the cannon: 30 is better than 20 when working on the ground (and this is the main work for the aircraft in question) and when working through the air, the rate of fire of 1500 will suffice for anyone, but again one thing will be enough - two shells.

      With a cannon on litak, it’s a dark matter. Nobody has canceled the law of conservation of momentum. The same Su24 almost hung up during firing (according to the stories of senior comrades).
      Yes, and with the A10 it seems more advertising than hits.
      Practice from Rudel's tales is very different.
      And in terms of rate of fire, they increase it in order to increase the probability of hitting. If for air defense the probability is less than 40% (for missile defense in the absence of electronic warfare -> 100%), then for aircraft it will be lower automatically, despite the shorter range of aimed fire.
      1. barbiturate
        barbiturate 3 November 2015 19: 12 New
        +1
        All the same, the cannon can be guided by real battles and the Americans always gravitated to machine guns and still reached 20mm cannons, but we Germans, the French fought at least as many fights in the air and all came to a 30mm caliber, as an optimal caliber for the striking action and rate of fire for fighting in the air, but on the ground the advantages of 30ki are even more significant.
      2. NIKNN
        NIKNN 4 November 2015 15: 12 New
        +4
        With a cannon on litak, it’s a dark matter. Nobody has canceled the law of conservation of momentum. The same Su24 almost hung up during firing (according to the stories of senior comrades).
        Yes, and with the A10 it seems more advertising than hits.
        Practice from Rudel's tales is very different.
        And in terms of rate of fire, they increase it in order to increase the probability of hitting. If for air defense the probability is less than 40% (for missile defense in the absence of electronic warfare -> 100%), then for aircraft it will be lower automatically, despite the shorter range of aimed fire.

        Not so simple. On ground targets. there is enough rate of fire (the power of the ammunition plays a role), but the ammunition is worth saving (not for nothing was the cut-off introduced on the GSH-6-23 because the entire ammunition fit in one click. But for air combat, the rate of fire was increased based on the conditions and methods of aiming. The mark was superimposed at a pre-determined point and the target was led to the central point. At modern speeds (at a low rate of fire), the target could slip between shells and this led to an increase in rate of fire. The modern complex of aiming equipment allows It’s more likely to launch an attack.As for the A10, it was likely that it was supposed to destroy highly protected targets, and I don’t remember (although I don’t say) that at that time they would have another highly efficient air gun meeting the set requirements.
  • Zuborez
    Zuborez 3 November 2015 18: 11 New
    0
    The F15 with external fuel tanks doesn’t seem to be as smooth as the developers would like. There, these conformal tanks appeared when the Needle was pulled on the requirements of the Air Force. And the performance characteristics with or without tanks are different.
    Although the question is debatable.
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 3 November 2015 19: 01 New
    +2
    In terms of loads and ranges, in general, there is a complete scatter of opinions and figures, some sources give 11 tons of combat load for the F-15E, the author gives more than 13 tons of info, someone talks about the mass with the PTB, some without ... For the Su-34 as well, then 12500 the maximum load, then 8 tons, sometimes with a PTB, then without, then 10400 ...)) The author gives an empty mass of S-34 at 22500 kg, there are links right there that say that it is curb weight (with a loaded gun and crew ) and then there is infa that the F-15E has a curb weight of 28 kg))
    Moreover, all specialists, experts, etc. It is unclear who to believe)
    1. flay
      flay 3 November 2015 20: 43 New
      +1
      Quote: barbiturate
      On loads and ranges in general, a complete scatter of opinions and numbers
      Moreover, all specialists, experts, etc. It is unclear who to believe)


      If there is interest, then it is best to study the issue yourself.
      As the saying goes, you want it to be good, do it yourself! hi
      1. barbiturate
        barbiturate 4 November 2015 06: 51 New
        +2
        Quote: flay
        If there is interest, then it is best to study the issue yourself.
        As the saying goes, you want it to be good, do it yourself!


        here I’m trying, I looked at different sites, read the aviation forums and am inclined to this “truth” smile , which has already been voiced by the respected forum member tohoto:

        Quote: tohoto
        http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/en/weapons/loadout-configurations/129-desert-storm
        According to this site, the F-15e with 2 PTBs and 2 fitted tanks (13,8 tons of fuel) can carry bombs between 5-6 tons, while it can not take more fuel because 3 PTBs will not be full and half. And where is 11 tons of bombs here is not clear.


        But if you just speculate at all, then it is clear that the distances and loads of both aircraft are “sufficient” to solve the tasks assigned to them and no one will load 8-10 tons of bombs on the plane during real combat operations with any capable enemy.
        This is a question of an aiming container, a “glass cabin” for convenient operation of equipment, bringing to mind the radar installation in the rear part of the aircraft to prevent and automatically counter missiles attacking the Su-34, electronic warfare systems, the reliability and integration of the aircraft into a network-centric warfare system, this seems to me important. Well, questions like just a lot or dofiga how much smile carries a plane of bombs, the caliber of the gun there, the lack of armor - all this is a matter of taste for the developers and military technical specifications, they know better.
  • this
    this 3 November 2015 20: 35 New
    +3
    http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/en/weapons/loadout-configurations/129-desert-storm
    According to this site, the F-15e with 2 PTBs and 2 fitted tanks (13,8 tons of fuel) can carry bombs between 5-6 tons, while it can not take more fuel because 3 PTBs will not be full and half. And where is 11 tons of bombs here is not clear.
  • The legacy of ancestors
    The legacy of ancestors 3 November 2015 23: 43 New
    0
    Quote: Falcon
    Quote: saturn.mmm
    yes plus their eternal companions PTB


    For fuel equality, only one PTB is needed - not such a big difference - I take into account the lower mass and the difference in specific consumption.


    Quote: saturn.mmm
    the Su-34 armored capsule protects well from fragments and damaging elements.


    Well, not a capsule, but a bath more



    And how does it protect against splinters? For example, from beech missiles



    It turns out that this titanium bath was vainly fenced, which only protects from the fire of the rifleman from the ground. And the Su-34 is just trying to lower than 5 km and not fly, but this bath is forced to drag to the detriment of everything else
  • lazma3
    lazma3 4 November 2015 00: 29 New
    +1
    Judging by the article, it turns out that huge money was invested in vain for the development of the aircraft, which was already at the design stage, inferior to the F-15. It somehow does not fit. Yes, and the details about the SU-34 described by the author of the article are more like a rewritten article not unknown Mr. Majubah (I’m sorry if I didn’t accurately write the name). Now it has become fashionable to rewrite articles of past issues and then pass off as ours. And it seems to me that the author of the article was not standing next to aviation. It’s just the most ordinary copyist of other people's articles.
  • Leks69Rus
    Leks69Rus 4 November 2015 01: 13 New
    0
    This is a heated discussion, a lot of controversy. But that’s why the argument is not clear. We have the basic models of 4th generation aircraft: f-15 and su-27 are heavy two-seater fighters. f-16 and mig-29 light single-seat fighters. On the basis of the f-15, the Americans were the first to make the shock version precisely in sharpening under the bomber and the f-15e turned out. In our country, due to the collapse of the USSR, it happened later and was born on the basis of the su-27 su-34. What is the dispute and troubles is not clear. The trick is that the most used strike aircraft in the United States is f-16) it’s completely incomprehensible to me how it turned out that a light and cheap fighter can effectively bomb the surface, enlighten who knows what.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 4 November 2015 11: 53 New
      +1
      Pictured is an Israeli F-16 in a “full body kit”.
      How does he even fly into the air with all these suitcases?
      But his engine is powerful, the glider is strong, and he is light.

      When General Dynamics (today Lockheed Martin) released it,
      they had no idea that it would turn out popular
      fighter bomber belay .
      1. Sergei1982
        Sergei1982 4 November 2015 12: 06 New
        0
        Pictured is an Israeli F-16 in a “full body kit”.
        How does he even fly into the air with all these suitcases?
        But his engine is powerful, the glider is strong, and he is light.
        Yes, it’s not a bad plane, but as you know with this configuration, maneuverability and speed will be limited, and yes, if I’m not mistaken, the F-16 Suf from 1814 kg load has a mixed radius of 1500 km, and at an altitude of 2 Pythons +2 Derby is 2100 km, although it is necessary to fill in all comfortable and 3 PTBs, but it is impressive nonetheless.
      2. NIKNN
        NIKNN 4 November 2015 14: 12 New
        +3
        voyaka uh IL Today, 11:53 ↑

        Pictured is an Israeli F-16 in a “full body kit”.
        How does he even fly into the air with all these suitcases?
        But his engine is powerful, the glider is strong, and he is light.

        When General Dynamics (today Lockheed Martin) released it,
        they had no idea that it would turn out popular
        belay fighter bomber.

        Impressive. Against whom or for what (maybe to demonstrate the "flag") he takes off?
        1. NIKNN
          NIKNN 4 November 2015 14: 31 New
          +3
          Although I considered it. There they create the impression of the PB, and so I didn’t see anything beyond.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. NIKNN
      NIKNN 4 November 2015 14: 47 New
      +3
      The trick is that the most used strike aircraft in the United States is f-16) I just don’t understand how it turned out that the light and cheap fighter can effectively bomb the surface, enlighten who knows what.

      Below in the photo, voyaka uh has containers with additional equipment under the air intake. Plus, the aircraft is successful in terms of performance and operation, cheap (relatively), + the high-precision weapons they have are uncontrollable, modified by a set of guidance on the target in JP&E (again, the price does not bite), which is acceptable for local conflicts. Since then.
  • Garris199
    Garris199 4 November 2015 04: 19 New
    +1
    SU-34 aircraft of the Soviet era, when there was no question of any hanging sighting containers. What was then put on him. The armor was also given not from a good life, but based on the proportions of controlled and uncontrolled TSAs at that time. Today it is already out of date. However, instead of throwing all our efforts into developing a container for the SU-30SM / SU-35S (and getting an excellent MFI), we continue to rivet a separate bomber aircraft. Unification in the army, as it was not during the USSR, is not much better now.
    1. Leks69Rus
      Leks69Rus 4 November 2015 11: 51 New
      +1
      Well, partly agree. In the course of the Americans, almost all aircraft can strike on the ground.
      1. iouris
        iouris 4 November 2015 12: 54 New
        +1
        It’s well known that if my grandmother had ...
        We are not "Americans", so much can not afford.
        The general designer must construct what is called "reasonable sufficiency." If this works in Syria, then the goal is achieved.
        It’s not a “plane” that strikes the ground, but a reconnaissance-strike complex. I hope that this is the meaning of renaming the Air Force to the Air Force, and not just changing the sign.
        Striking a ground target should be carried out with a minimum delay from the moment the target was opened by reconnaissance equipment with precision weapons.
      2. NIKNN
        NIKNN 4 November 2015 14: 04 New
        +3
        Well, partly agree. In the course of the Americans, almost all planes can strike on the ground.

        I tried to remember and could not remember in any way a plane that they would not try to adapt to this, up to AN2 and Yak 18. Well, by the way, but seriously, almost all of our military aircraft are designed for bomb load. hi
  • evgenymap
    evgenymap 4 November 2015 12: 06 New
    0
    The most important thing in such articles is analysis - it is very valuable. But authors, think - you simplify the work of analysts from the "partner countries".
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 4 November 2015 12: 16 New
      +5
      Quote: evgenymap
      The most important thing in such articles is analysis - it is very valuable. But authors, think - you simplify the work of analysts from the "partner countries".

      I am touched by such comments, do you sincerely think that everything that was written in the publication and in the comments is news for our "partners". lol Most likely you just didn’t see what is sometimes written on the PWC forums, sometimes there really the hair stands on end. wassat
      1. kamil_tt
        kamil_tt 4 November 2015 18: 08 New
        +1
        so after all, most commentators are sincerely sure that they understand the problems of the military-industrial complex and aviation in particular, better than all foreign aircraft building companies combined, especially those who regularly say that he wrote here long ago that for example F22,35, and dumb Americans just right now, they thought of this and that "... no one except us knows how to make normal planes .." and they will kill the one who claims the opposite, because he is an enemy, a pederast, a Jew, the fifth column, etc.) And what foreign analysts monitor their comments daily, fetching secret information from them
    2. NIKNN
      NIKNN 4 November 2015 13: 57 New
      +6
      The most important thing in such articles is analysis - it is very valuable. But authors, think - you simplify the work of analysts from the "partner countries"

      wink smile smile Absolutely "+". Based on some comments, we have already defeated them. Let the adversaries be afraid. hi
      1. kamil_tt
        kamil_tt 4 November 2015 18: 12 New
        +1
        so they are sure that a war is going on and that they are making a significant contribution to the victory over world evil
  • Yuriwhite
    Yuriwhite 4 November 2015 15: 35 New
    -1
    When the experts compare the nominal 8 tons and the maximum 13 with the tail, I want to woot the gun and shoot the expert so that it does not carry nonsense.
  • Skifotavr
    Skifotavr 4 November 2015 16: 04 New
    +3
    Article +, and thanks to the author (sorry not often such sensible articles are found). I will add on my own that by the time of launching the Su-34 series, there was already a modernized AL-31FM1 engine, and the more advanced AL-31FM2 was at the final stage of testing. They were created specifically for the remotorization of the entire Su-27 family of aircraft, they are characterized by significantly greater efficiency, greater thrust on afterburners and other improvements and can be installed on all members of the family without significant modifications. AL-31FM1 are on the modernized Su-27SM and Su-27SM2. And the Su-34 continues to be produced with old engines. There was information that they plan to remotorize them only in some future - and this, to be honest, I can’t understand. Why not right away?
  • L10n77
    L10n77 4 November 2015 16: 12 New
    +1
    Quote: Bayonet
    Quote: glavnykarapuz
    Especially the conclusions when the American is "hung" with external tanks

    The Strike Eagles F-15E differed from the conventional F-15B combat training using conformal fuel tanks (KTBs) - non-resettable tanks mounted on the side of the fuselage. They were adjacent to the skin of the aircraft, and the cracks between the glider and the tank were closed with special elastic cuffs. Such tanks insignificantly, compared with traditional PTBs, worsened the aerodynamics of the aircraft, allowing them to fly at a speed corresponding to M = 1,8, but almost doubled the fuel supply. On the surface of the conformal tanks, suspension units for missile and bomb weapons could be placed.
    only on these suspension units, you can suspend a maximum load of 300 kg, like that. Eagle, with a maximum load of 13000 kg, will reach the 3rd and that's it.
  • galakt
    galakt 4 November 2015 16: 51 New
    0
    From what I read, I realized that everything is good in moderation and there is nothing to grab freedom of speech.
  • ALEXXX1983
    ALEXXX1983 5 November 2015 00: 29 New
    +1
    The GSh-301 gun wins only in terms of caliber power (30 mm versus 20 mm). That's just the rate of fire of the M61 Vulcan - 4000 shells per minute, and for the GSh-30 it is 1500 per minute
    Quote: Falcon

    Quote: Bongo
    Cyril, there is no such thing as the power of a caliber, there is the power of a projectile, and the 30 mm shell ГЩ-301 weighing 390 gr has a much more destructive effect than the 20 mm projectile M61 Vulcan weighing 100 gr.

    Yes, I probably didn’t put it right. But the point is that with a higher rate of fire over the same period, Vulcan will release more. And the total energy transmitted in one gulp will be greater.

    How can 585000 be less than 400000? belay
  • Kir1984
    Kir1984 6 November 2015 11: 17 New
    0
    1500 is also a very serious firing rate. 25 shells per second, it’s very difficult to fly through such a line and stay intact