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

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.

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 it has several nuances. The quality of target detection is much inferior to Sniper. There was a lot of relevant evidence in the press, and you can find a video of intelligence and the Sniper and Plane. This, I am sure, will be able to confirm and SW. nickname Ancient, who advised the author of the article. And the LTPS itself is not always needed, and it cannot be replaced with a more modern one. Which, in turn, can be done with the CC container.

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/

Comments

[Bongo]

Thank you Kirill! I read it with great pleasure! Certainly "+".
Now to the point...
Comparing the F-15E with the Su-34, I compared the real strike capabilities of the aircraft. So far, apart from the Su-34, no one can compare with the Orel in terms of combat characteristics, and it doesn’t matter at all how the sighting and navigation system is placed on the aircraft, whether it is built-in or in a hanging container. Whether and when the equipment similar to that used on the F-30E will appear on the multi-purpose Su-15SM is unknown. Let's talk about what we have at the moment. But the reality is that the domestic Su-15SM is not yet able to compete in terms of strike capabilities with the F-30E.
Kirill, there is no such thing as "caliber power", there is the power of a projectile, and a 30 mm GSH-301 projectile weighing 390 grams has a much more destructive effect than a 20 mm M61 Vulcan projectile weighing 100 grams.
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.

[complete zero]

Well, the Indians are attracted to the "Red Flag" and how?

[Bongo]

Quote: complete zero

Well, the Indians are attracted to the "Red Flag" and how?

It seems that you do not quite understand what it is about.

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 no one can compare with the "Eagle", and it does not matter at all how the sighting navigation system is placed on the plane, whether it is built-in or in a suspended container. Whether and when on the multipurpose Su-30SM equipment similar to that used on the F-15E will appear is unknown. Let's talk about what is at the moment. And the reality is that to compete in terms of impact with F-15E domestic Su-30СМ is not yet able.

What does the Indians have to do with it?

[figwam]

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 +

[mvg]

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 ..

[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 ..

..... True, we noticed .... The author (with all due respect) all mixed up in a heap, people, horses ... , but seriously, liters with meters, kg with something else ... In general, there is such a thing as - weight return (the ratio of the maximum take-off weight to an empty aircraft) .... For aircraft (especially highly maneuverable, and these are highly maneuverable) this the value is 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 flight capabilities by this value (I do not touch on avionics and other fillings). ... In general, it will be more correct .... For example, for the 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 ....

[Falcon]

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

[PLO]

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

[goose]

Quote: Falcon

secondly, the points do not place such an amount

Therefore, they result in a maximum realized load of 8 tons.

[Bad_gr]

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.

[cdrt]

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

[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.
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.

[Mera joota]

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?

[Malkor]

A strong point is a figurative target. (Warehouse, headquarters, enemy concentration)

[Ahmed]

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.

[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.

[Ahmed]

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 pilots if you can throw soulless iron on embrasures ...
But! They sold these aircraft for export to the same Saudis, for example, Singapore, Korea, countries without CR (I don’t mention Israel, they reshuffled the plane so that only the glider remained, and they have the KR).

[Malkor]

We really did not have enough iskander in 2008 in Georgia, they suppressed air defense by airplanes. Therefore, iskander is now a priority.

[goose]

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.

[NEXUS]

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.

[Mera joota]

Quote: full zero

Well, the Indians are attracted to the "Red Flag" and how?

They clearly competed with the F-15C. You need to understand that the F-15 is one of the "old" US fighters with "wooden" (by their standards, of course) equipment. They sell for export much stronger cars than they themselves fly. For example, on export versions of the F-15SA / SG or F-16E / F Block 60 radar with AFAR and a glass cockpit is standard equipment, the US Air Force can only envy ...

[Bongo]

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...

[Pimply]

Quote: Mera Joota

They clearly competed with the F-15C. You need to understand that the F-15 is one of the "old" US fighters with "wooden" (by their standards, of course) equipment. They sell for export much stronger cars than they themselves fly. For example, on export versions of the F-15SA / SG or F-16E / F Block 60 radar with AFAR and a glass cockpit is standard equipment, 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

[tomket]

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.

[Forest]

The United States is constantly modernizing both the F-16 and the F-15, so the cars keep up with the times and it is stupid to talk about their "woodiness" now.

[Mera joota]

Quote: Forest

The United States is constantly modernizing both the F-16 and the F-15, so the cars keep up with the times and it is stupid to talk about their "woodiness" now.

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 in cars with radars installed with AFAR (the Americans still doppler), digital REP system DEWS (and not analog TEWS), a cockpit with a color indicator for the entire "torpedo" (and not monochrome MFIs) and more powerful engines ... The Saudis, as not poor people, are used to buying cars in the top configuration ...
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 ...

[complete zero]

Yesterday I specifically studied all of these AFAR and PFAR, except that the smaller AFAR by and large has no obvious advantages either.

[Falcon]

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

See how it changes phase, frequency, side lobes of the bottom, scanning speed, the number of targets followed. You can go on forever

[complete zero]

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

[complete zero]

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

[ancient]

Quote: complete zero

Well, the Indians are attracted to the "Red Flag" and how?

It's not about that at all.

[Andrey Yuryevich]

"Falcon" and "Ancient" - thanks. it's always nice to read "pro" ...

[Locksmith]

Quote: Andrey Yurievich

Falcon "and" Ancient "- thank you. It's always a pleasure to read" pro "...

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

[Falcon]

Quote: Bongo

Thank you Kirill! I read it with great pleasure! Certainly "+".

Quote: Bongo

Kirill, there is no such thing as "caliber power", there is the power of a projectile, and a 30 mm GSH-301 projectile weighing 390 grams has a much more destructive effect than a 20 mm M61 Vulcan projectile weighing 100 grams.

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.

[complete zero]

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

[Taagad]

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

[Petrix]

Quote: Taagad

Aircraft maneuverability value ... low

Maneuverability is the best aerodynamics, the best "volatility". It is easier for such an aircraft to cope with damage to the airframe and hold out to 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.

[mvg]

Maneuverability is achieved just by the "instability" of the glider. So it is very controversial that if the avionics are damaged, Drying 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

[Locksmith]

Quote: mvg

And maneuvering against missiles with overload under 40G is difficult ..

It is also difficult for missiles to aim at a target that suddenly, with an overload of just 1 G, changes the pancake "orientation" 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 - yes at least three times, and even automatically, without the participation of the pilot = see how the SU35 performs a "falling leaf", and it also knows how to do the same, only in a vertical plane - this is generally the removal of the brain of any GOS , and more....

[Mera joota]

Quote: Locksmith

It is also difficult for missiles to aim at a target that suddenly, with an overload of just 1 G, literally changes its "orientation", and no amount of 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.

[complete zero]

System "Helmet" (as far as I remember) is only in the Russian Air Force?, and short-range missiles for the BB P 73 are not equal to the "sidewinder", so in combination with the super-maneuverability of our (LA) theoretical we have an advantage in close maneuverable combat ... the question WHY is the "foe" this very close combat))) if he has an AIM-120? -but this is another question

[complete zero]

only how many pilots are able to complete this "sheet"?))))) In addition to the complexity of the element, does this require phenomenal health?

[Petrix]

Quote: mvg

Maneuverability is achieved just by the "instability" of the glider. So very controversial

Look:
Was "unstable", the missile touched remained "unstable".
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.

[goose]

Quote: mvg

Maneuverability is achieved just by the "instability" of the glider. So it is very controversial that if the avionics are damaged, Drying 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?

[complete 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

[Ahmed]

Quote: complete 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 °)
On the 5th target designation angle - "full sphere" ± 360 °, that is, you can launch a missile at an 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 rest of the 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.

[NIKNN]

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 is more likely (than that of a less maneuverable vehicle) to enter the capture zone of the GOS of an enemy aircraft (regardless of the angle), as well as prevent the enemy from capturing you. As for the all-angle view, then try to capture an aircraft in BVB on intersecting courses, when it passes through the sight in 1-2 seconds.
I didn’t put a minus because you simply have no idea about the subject.

[Mera joota]

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.

[NIKNN]

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

[Mera joota]

Quote: NIKNN

If my memory serves me right, it was about the BMW.

And I mean, it just won't get to him. It's like with a rapier / sword / saber, before the advent of pistols in close combat, an indispensable thing and the ability to skillfully wield a blade saved lives. The first pistols, with their single charge and short aiming range, did not exclude melee weapons, and after a shot, everyone started "a la Jean Mare, jumping on tables and overturning cabinets." With the advent of multi-charged rifled short-barreled weapons, all the frills such as "fencing beakers" have sunk into oblivion, or rather moved to sports platforms ... All attempts to wave a saber in front of a pistol ended in the style of Indiana Jones ... The pistol simply will not allow you to approach with a saber at a defeat distance. The same thing happened with BVB.

[Petrix]

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.

[iouris]

Forgot about air ram write.

[Petrix]

Quote: iouris

Forgot about air ram write.

Did not forget. I was waiting for your comment.
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.

[NIKNN]

And I mean, it just won't get to him. It's like with a rapier / sword / saber, before the advent of pistols in close combat, an indispensable thing and the ability to skillfully wield a blade saved lives. The first pistols, with their single charge and short aiming range, did not exclude melee weapons, and after a shot, everyone started "a la Jean Mare, jumping on tables and overturning cabinets." With the advent of multi-charged rifled short-barreled weapons, all the frills such as "fencing beakers" have sunk into oblivion, or rather moved to sports platforms ... All attempts to wave a saber in front of a pistol ended in the style of Indiana Jones ... The pistol simply will not allow you to approach with a saber at a defeat distance. The same thing happened with BVB.

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

[complete zero]

Well, yes, if so (does not have time to capture the target) - on "six" then he (having a smaller turn) is quite capable of landing ... that very super-maneuverability))))

[Taagad]

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 ...

[complete zero]

well sleep ..im we have this same python business then)))))

[Bongo]

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, Kirill! It is not entirely correct to compare GSH-301 with Vulcan. In my opinion, our GSh-6-23 is the closest to this American aircraft 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.

[complete zero]

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.?

[goose]

Quote: complete zero

what better eight browning machine guns on the p51

The P51 had 4-6 machine guns. Basically 4. They were good against fighters with gasoline and piston engines (especially since Germany began to make wooden tails in 1944-45), but there were already problems against the He-111, because. tenacious. Ammunition was enough for a maximum of a couple. Whereas the "underarmed" Yak-9 could overwhelm 3-4 bombers, because. efficiency depends on the target.

[Locksmith]

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

[iouris]

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.

[Andrey Yuryevich]

Quote: Falcon

But the point is that with a higher rate of fire over the same period, Vulcan will release more.

and the "eagle" has more ammunition, the "strike" E / F has more than 500, the rest of the modifications have more than 900 rounds, ours has 180.

[Susul]

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.

[sa-ag]

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

[Locksmith]

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

[Ahmed]

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 ...

[Terrible ensign]

Rather, somehow our MANPADS. Stingers seem to be inaccessible to them now, if only from the poop ...

[Mera joota]

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%.

[ancient]

Quote: Falcon

Yes, I probably didn’t put it right.

Dear Kirill, the article is definitely "+" But with fuel you .. "very cool" got excited since with a full refueling and a PTB, well, like the Eagle will not have 6 tons of ammunition, this is the first and second .... with such an increased frontal resistance, he does not "..can .." fly ".. to .." the Canadian border "(exaggerated excerpt from the immortal work of O. Henry ) as the specific fuel consumption increases significantly .. plus PTB impose certain restrictions on overloads

[Falcon]

Quote: ancient

Dear Kirill, the article is definitely "+"

Alexander, thanks Your assessment is worth a lot!

Quote: ancient

But with fuel you .. "very cool" got excited, tk. with a full refueling and PTB, well, like 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 frontal resistance, it does not "..can .." 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

[ancient]

Quote: Falcon

Yes, I probably didn’t put it right.

Cyril and with specific fuel consumption you seem to be for the Su-34 ... "rude"

[Falcon]

Quote: ancient

Quote: Falcon

Yes, I probably didn’t put it right.

Cyril and with specific fuel consumption you seem to be for the Su-34 ... "rude"

Well, if you take the minimum salaries on Su-34 and F-15, then it turns out 0,685 to 0,67

[Assistant]

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.

[Locksmith]

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

[Zaurbek]

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

[NIKNN]

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 assigned equal to 2000 shots, however, with the reservation of firing in bursts of limited length - no more than 35-40 shots. In operation, it turned out that the consumption of the entire tape even in such bursts (called “long” for the GSh-301, in contrast to the recommended “short” ones of 7-15 rounds each) and with the prescribed short intervals between them for cooling is accompanied by excessive loads on the barrel with its thermoplastic wear. The result was the complete exhaustion of the survivability of the barrel, "floating" after shooting one full cannon ammunition on a fighter. One of the ways to overcome overheating was to increase the time intervals between bursts, provided by the logic of the fire control system and allowing the barrel to “dose” for a few seconds before resuming firing (the gun stops firing from time to time, although the combat button remains pressed). To reduce the thermal loads of the gun assemblies and cartridges, the GSh-301 in the 9A4071K version has a well-proven water cooling system in the casing on the barrel (more precisely, a water evaporation system). On modified guns, in addition to it, airflow cooling is provided.

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.

[complete zero]

yes, if the pilot reaches the guns, the Needle will have NO DIFFERENCE its high rate of fire, because in close combat Sukhoi or Instant will simply EAT Needle or Falcon with giblets ... these things have been tested (close maneuverable combat) at all sorts of "friendly events" than argue that in general !!!! ????

[Malkor]

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.

[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?
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)

[Falcon]

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?
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)

There is no need to wait. The parameter "rate of fire" is responsible for this.

[NIKNN]

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 "one" projectile (of course, it is roughly said, but all developers strive for this goal), since all ballistics of lead and correction are worked out by a computer. It is for this reason that the need for the frantic rate of fire that was previously sought was gone.

[Thronekeeper]

Ek projectile GSh-301, salvo mass, etc. about four times higher, which, with a tempo difference of 4000/1500, still gives the Soviet product a 1,2 times superiority in salvo energy. The trajectory is flatter, the range is twice as high. Where to put these characteristics are important both in air combat and against ground targets. The striking effect of a salvo is not 1,2 times higher, but 3 times higher, since the amount of explosives in HE shells is many times higher. Against armored targets, even a sub-caliber 20-mm b / p is 2 times less, the armor action 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.

[goose]

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.

[Terrible ensign]

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

[Semen Semyonitch]

Quote: Scary ensign

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?

[Sweles]

the fact that the American f15 is a good aircraft was already clear from the performance characteristics of this aircraft. The Sukhoi Design Bureau greatly overweighted the aircraft with modest payload capabilities, so this is where there is room for improvement - weight reduction. The difference between an American and ours is -8 tons !!! This is a lot - it's 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

[Falcon]

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

[Sweles]

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.

[Petrix]

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 in use. 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.

[Sweles]

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.

[Petrix]

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.

[vvnab]

http://youtu.be/ZftkzlRLhSg

There are options ....))

[Sweles]

Quote from vvnab

http://youtu.be/ZftkzlRLhSg

empty truck

[Shtyn dwarf]

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"!

[NIKNN]

, 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 ), and the timing. The plane was needed yesterday (Su24 decent resource dashed off and the enemy is on the alert.

[Mera joota]

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 ...

[srelock]

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.

[Falcon]

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.
There is 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:

[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 !!

[Falcon]

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 !!

Get out of the way what an evil!

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

[Sergei1982]

And try to build on them w / n more than 8 tons:

I'm not an expert of course, but let's try:
On nodes 12,1,11 we hang FAB-1500-2600TS, the weight of each is 2584 kg * 3 = 7752 kg, + 4,2,3 each 4 FAB-500M54 = 12 * 528 = 3336 kg + 8,6,5,7, 77 on p-90 (by the way, the old drawing indicates Sorption, not the Khibiny, this drawing has been wandering since the beginning of the 27s with the Su-4IB), okay, let's move on 77R-190 * 760 = 10,9 kg + by 3 by 250 FAB-54M6 \u268d 1608 * 7752 \u3336d 760 so 1608 + 13456 + 4 + 170 \u60d 240 kg, add to this the mass of 13,5 AKU-1500 * 2600 kg \u1500d 1525 kg, add the mass of MBD and BD (the mass, unfortunately, I don’t know how and their type). As you can see, it turned out more than about 3 tons, if the FAB-4575-4575TS does not get old, let's replace them with the KAB-3336, it will turn out 760 * 1608 = 10279 total 11000 + XNUMX + XNUMX + XNUMX = XNUMX kg + again the same mass of AKU and bomb holders of XNUMX kg will be typed.
If something is wrong correct.

[Falcon]

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.

[Sergei1982]

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.

[Falcon]

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
Well, there everything is in tolerances. You can also hang a couple of RVV-AE.

[Sergei1982]

Well, I never saw the PTB-3000 on the modifications of the Su-27

PTB-3000 with a volume of 3050 l, go to the Sukhoi website, where it says about the Su-32, it says about the PTB-3000. As for the Su-27, it generally does not carry the PTB, because Simonov said no need, respectively 27 is not designed for PTB, of the entire Su-27 family, only Su-35S and Su-34 are adapted to carry PTBs, not Su-27, not Su-30M2, nor Su-30SM and their export versions of PTBs do not carry

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 find it on the manufacturer's website everywhere it does not carry PTB), the airframe was strengthened only on the Su-34 and Su-35S (su- 35 by the way 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.

[Falcon]

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!

[Sergei1982]

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.

[Falcon]

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.

[Sergei1982]

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.

In terms of combat weight, a difficult question, on the one hand, everywhere they indicate 8000 kg, on the other hand, there is a statement by Bondarev where he talks about 12000 kg (+ to this respected Ancients, he also says that 12-13 tons were dragged in the GLITS) besides, there is photo where on the su-34 36FAB-250. Yes, and in general, if you seriously apply to this issue, then in fact that on the F-15E-11 tons, that on the Su-34-8-12 tons, you can only load cast iron, and if to take smart ASPs, then everything will be much more modest, that we have only 5000-6000 kg of strength, but in general, although if you equip, as in the photo above, the su-35, only replacing the FAB-500 with the KAB -500 then almost 8000 kg is going to.

[Falcon]

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

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! Full B / N is more for advertising than for real departure

[Sergei1982]

The mass was wrong FAB-500M54 12 * 528 = 6336

[mvg]

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) Doubts were expressed on the 9.5 tonne air tank. Tsesna will not pull such a load.
SU-27 (30), rather a fighter for gaining air superiority. Interceptor rather MiG-31.
And somehow it happened so historically that our planes always took less payload. MiGs never made it up to F-16s, Grippins or Mirages. A SU up to the F-15.

[Locksmith]

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’s not based on, but on the IDEA of this aerodynamics, these are different aircraft, they even differ in size, although they don’t post it on the Internet, but this is clearly visible in relation to the size of the pilots to the aircraft, under the SU34 they walk like pygmies, it is noticeably larger. And this is a full-fledged bomber, practically an attack aircraft, for an igloo this is a "dream in a jump" - this igloo will have enough burst from a 20mm volcano to rest forever, SU34 will just sneeze You will have to "walk" in the needle as the penguins love in their pants (and piss too) - if you need to fly somewhere far, a full-fledged toilet is in the dryer (ay Apollo lovers ), microwave oven, pilots interact shoulder to shoulder - you can always help, he is not equal to ours, not equal! Moreover, the Americans always lie about the full load. There has never been a case that they did not lie, they always have a "perpetual" engine running, and ours are on wood

[NEXUS]

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

[figwam]

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.

[Sweles]

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

[figwam]

armor mass su34 only 1.5 tons

It's not just about the armor, look at the powerful landing gear, the twin bogie, which allows the SU-34 to use the aircraft in the appropriate runways, which cannot be said about amero-aircraft that can only be operated from good coverage. The flight manual for 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.

[Sweles]

22sht-kab250, how did you count?

[figwam]

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 about 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 complex of this bomber is much better. "The Su-24 aircraft provides bombing accuracy 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 with a direct hit," Bondarev said.
According to him, thanks to the equipment installed on the Su-34, the bomb becomes a high-precision weapon. At the same time, the commander-in-chief added, the Su-24M aircraft "have far from used up their resource." "We will still exploit them," he said.

Model 1954

[figwam]

Model 1962

[Sweles]

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?

[Mera joota]

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 an altitude of 7 km. to drop 20 GBU-39 SDB which will fly to the target by themselves and get where you need to compensate for external factors of influence by aerodynamic surfaces controlled by a "smart" mechanism.

[Bad_gr]

Recently there was a broadcast about the MiG-25RB. There was an automatic machine on it, which brought the plane to the target, and the pilot only pressed the button. I won’t say exact figures for accuracy, 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 for 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)

[Mera joota]

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.

[Bad_gr]

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.

[Ahmed]

Quote: Bad_gr

He dropped bombs from a height of 20 km at a speed of 2500 km / h

Yeah, from space in hypersound

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

[iouris]

If we assume that Ex = 400 m, Ez = 200 m, then the probability of hitting a 400x200 m rectangle will be 0,25, and with a probability of "almost 1" you can get into an "elongated square" 1600x800 m.

[Ahmed]

Quote: iouris

If we assume that Ex = 400 m, Ez = 200 m, then the probability of hitting a 400x200 m rectangle will be 0,25, and with a probability of "almost 1" you can get into an "elongated square" 1600x800 m.

For nuclear weapons, accuracy is more than acceptable, especially given the year the system was developed.

[Bad_gr]

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

"• application of a high-precision automatic bombing system against targets with known geographic coordinates at supersonic speed from an altitude of more than 20 m around the clock and in any meteorological conditions ...." http://aviacia-all.ru/mig_25RB.php

"The bombing during high-altitude supersonic bombing was carried out with a significant lead (distance to the target). At an altitude of 20 m and a speed of 000 km / h (M = 2500), the plane had to drop bombs 2,35 km before the target. After separation from the plane the bomb flew this distance along a ballistic trajectory in 38,8 seconds. .... "http://www.airforce.ru/aircraft/mikoyan/mig-25rb/page_04.htm
"..

[figwam]

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 an altitude of 7 km. to drop 20 GBU-39 SDB which will fly to the target by themselves and get where you need to compensate for external factors of influence by 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.

[NIKNN]

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

[Sweles]

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.

[NIKNN]

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.

[ancient]

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 altitude, the more chances of "successfully overcoming air defense" tend to 0!
Reducing the mass already on the designed machine comes down to redesign, because. the centering of the aircraft "flies" right away .. so yes ... they reduce the weight and dimensions of the equipment, but then the weight ballast is "stuck in".
It is then necessary to immediately change the CDS system or "change its settings", if the range allows.

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 ammunition on it, then he can fly with it before .. the 4th turn and immediately drop it there in an emergency .. as it is necessary, on the remaining fuel, "also manage"

"Vika" is not .. "source" for comparison

[Sweles]

Quote: ancient

a very erroneous opinion .. the higher the altitude, 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

Reducing the mass already on the designed machine comes down to redesign, because. the centering of the aircraft "flies" right away .. so yes ... they reduce the weight and dimensions of the equipment, but then the weight ballast is "stuck in".
It is then necessary to immediately change the CDS system or "change its settings", if the range allows.

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 ammunition on it, then he can fly with it before .. the 4th turn and immediately drop it there in an emergency .. as it is necessary, on the remaining fuel, "also manage"

this data is for INDIAN TENDER, if you can provide other data for sports.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Шаблон:Сравнительные_ТТХ_с

[Semen Semyonitch]

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.

Take my word for it..

[Malkor]

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.

[NIKNN]

Sweles SU Yesterday, 11:17 ↑

Quote: ancient
a very erroneous opinion .. the higher the altitude, 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 understand by height characteristics? If the maximum practical ceiling, then this is the possibility of horizontal flight without descending and it is set for an unarmed aircraft and at maximum engine operating conditions. There is also a dynamic ceiling, it is even larger, but only suitable for records.
At the same time, the ability of an aircraft to fly with a combat load at an altitude of 8000m. is a vital necessity for economical flying. Before reaching the target, it will take the altitude necessary for its implementation, this is called "variable flight profile". At low altitude, the combat radius is significantly reduced. Since then.

[Semen Semyonitch]

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

And then, if the first three "green traffic lights" will be.

[saturn.mmm]

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.

[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

[NIKNN]

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

That's right, BUK. If I'm wrong, then I hope the air defense specialists will correct me. The beech is designed taking into account the fact that the missile, when guided, tends to hit the aircraft from the upper hemisphere. Honestly, I do not know other missiles with this guidance logic. All explosive class missiles are aimed at a preemptive point and fly along the chase curve, usually triggering (there are exceptions) from a proximity fuse when entering the target's kill zone. Accordingly, a photo of the IL cabin at the training ground may be just a special case.

[iouris]

All calculations are based on the hypothesis of given typical 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.

[saturn.mmm]

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

[Falcon]

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

[Mera joota]

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.

[Falcon]

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

[Bad_gr]

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.

[Falcon]

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.

[Bad_gr]

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.

[Malkor]

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.

[iouris]

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 was developed:
1) for the use of high-precision weapons (high-precision use) or for carpet bombing over areas?
2) to "overcome the air defense" or to destroy objects of action from outside the air defense coverage area?

[Taagad]

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.

[Brown]

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. armament on a jet aircraft in favor of missiles, of which there were from 2 to 4 at the beginning, it turned out that it happens that missiles miss and there are more targets than missiles, but is it nice that something can happen on a combat flight, the missile or the attachment mechanism is out of order or damaged .... there were cases of ramming in history, read if you are interested, just because of the lack of art. weapons on board.
A gun is needed, but without fanaticism ...
And maneuverability is exactly what is needed in a close-range cannon, and in some cases with the use of short-range missiles that need to be aimed at a target that quickly maneuvers, especially since now there are a lot of countermeasure systems or just jamming systems that complicate things by an order of magnitude or even they do not allow you to aim a missile at targets, and these systems are also developing and not standing still.

[kaluganew]

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)

[iouris]

In time, this MiG-29 was in the reach of the enemy's military air defense for 40 seconds. What prevented the fire of the MiG-29, flying in a straight line at a speed of 550 km / h, from the DShK? Let's compare the price of a DShK cartridge with the cost of a pilot's life: what's in the "bottom line"?
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.

[Petrix]

Quote: Taagad

The last time in an aerial battle the gun was used in 1982 in the sky of Lebanon

Let's design the future a little. What is the basis of the omnipotence of rockets? On their guidance systems. What do we have on the defensive? Electronic warfare systems, heat traps, laser blinding. And just then, when the world will understand that the probability of hitting a combat aircraft by a missile is completely unsatisfactory, the guns will start talking. Guns are melee. And close combat is maneuverability. And who has the most maneuverable aircraft in the world?

[Falcon]

Quote: Petrix

Quote: Taagad

The last time in an aerial battle the gun was used in 1982 in the sky of Lebanon

Let's design the future a little. What is the basis of the omnipotence of rockets? On their guidance systems. What do we have on the defensive? Electronic warfare systems, heat traps, laser blinding. And just then, when the world will understand that the probability of hitting a combat aircraft by a missile is completely unsatisfactory, the guns will start talking. Guns are melee. And close combat is maneuverability. And who has the most maneuverable aircraft in the world?

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.

[tomket]

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 exercise showed the vulnerability of AFAR and aim-120 missiles when using electronic warfare systems.

[Mera joota]

Quote: tomket

The same Red Flag exercise showed the vulnerability of AFAR and aim-120 missiles when using electronic warfare systems.

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.

[complete zero]

put a plus ... here is the CONCLUSION (which is better than a rapid-fire "volcano" or "flint GSh")))) it turns out that in the Cannons Eagle is already losing

[ancient]

Quote: Bongo

Thank you Kirill! I read it with great pleasure! Certainly "+".

Hello, Sergey The article is good, though I only read the "introduction" and the conclusion .. there is no time for more .. "I'm running away", but .... do you remember what I told you and wrote?

The only thing with which I disagree with the author in the conclusion is that .... "there is no direct analogue in the West" ... if they wrote at the moment, then yes .. I agree, and so .... 111- they forgot .. there the same .. "made" of the fighter first a tactical striker, and then almost at the "strategist" swung
Well, about the airgun you write everything correctly .. the truth is to use it on the ground, and even on the Su-34 ...

[ancient]

Quote: Bongo

Thank you Kirill! I read it with great pleasure! Certainly "+".

Hello, Sergey The article is good, though I only read the "introduction" and the conclusion .. there is no time for more .. "I'm running away", but .... do you remember what I told you and wrote?

The only thing with which I disagree with the author in the conclusion is that .... "there is no direct analogue in the West" ... if they wrote at the moment, then yes .. I agree, and so .... 111- they forgot .. there the same .. "made" of the fighter first a tactical striker, and then almost at the "strategist" swung
Well, about the airgun you write everything correctly .. the truth is to use it on the ground, and even on the Su-34 ...

[andrei.yandex]

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 don't you sell us new fighters?" Mikhail Azarovich did not lead the policy of the party and the government, but something had to be answered, and he, with his characteristic charisma, said: “If you don’t 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 this is either calculated mathematically, or an ace pilot can perform it. And what is indicated in your documentation is capable of being performed by an average pilot.” Time has shown the correctness of this point of view. The characteristics that have now become advertising data for export products of Soviet-designed equipment, after the removal of the Iron Curtain, crept up, and when studying American samples in the second approximation, it turns out that there are a lot of conditions in which restrictions on the specified parameters “creep out” ...

[NIKNN]

With regards to cannon armament, I would like to note that their use on these types of aircraft seems to me nothing more than a kind of "emergency" option. After all, no one will set the task of an artillery attack on the NC, exposing a rather high probability of hitting such expensive equipment. The tasks and tactics of using this type are somewhat different, and NTs attacks from a cannon are characteristic of the Su-25 and A10, where the corresponding cannon weapons GSh 2-30 and GAU-8 (caliber 30 mm) were 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]

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]

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]

curious and informative, thanks to the authors ...

[vladimir_krm]

If the author also double-checked the data ... He writes:
"Specific fuel consumption Al-31 - 0,78 kg kgf / h".
So this is at maximum, and not at cruising.
We look at the primary source, the developer's site - "Saluta": The minimum specific fuel consumption, kg / kgf * h 0,685. This is for the version of the AL-31F series 42 (M1) - the one on the Su-34. Maybe the old AL-31 had such a flow rate? 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 :(

[Falcon]

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

[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/kgf.h 0,78
Minimum specific fuel consumption, kg/kgf.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? :)

[Falcon]

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/kgf.h 0,78
Minimum specific fuel consumption, kg/kgf.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.

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

[vladimir_krm]

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 is 8000 kg"
and further:
"Even if we compare aircraft with the same amount of fuel (12000 kg for the Su-34 and 11690 kg for 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.

[Falcon]

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's 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

[saturn.mmm]

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)

[Falcon]

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?

[saturn.mmm]

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.

[Falcon]

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]

The author has conducted serious research on the subject, is technically savvy and competent.
Thanks for the article! The only question is who to compare with whom ... and only in terms of performance characteristics it is somehow trite. I would suggest calling the article "F-15E vs. Su-34. Supplemental article."
To the author, an unconditional "+"

[zyablik.olga]

With great interest, read the comments, though not all understood about some of the technical nuances . 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]

It was nice to read. A rare article on VO today.

[Semen Semyonitch]

Quote: Aaron Zawi

It was nice to read. A rare article on VO today.

And what comments ??? The site remembered its name?

[Rurikovich]

A plus! It is interesting, reasoned, without unnecessary epithets (which some of our authors like to play)
But it is interesting, when men are measured against who is more, they take into account other important factors (containment time, volume of "ammunition", for what "purposes" is used) ???

[Mera joota]

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]

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 amount of fuel in the internal and conformal TB in the F-15 is 9941 liters. The author gives his weight of 9544 kg. What gives us the density of jet fuel 0,96. What kind of fuel is super heavy? The density of ordinary kerosene is 0,82 (on average), heavy fuel for long-term supersonic flights is 0,86. And here we get water diluted with kerosene. And the Americans fly on it? Until now, the experience of my service has proved the existence of only one aircraft capable of flying on such a burda - the Tu-95 (and even then only in the area of ​​\u12b\uXNUMXbthe airfield at above zero temperatures, which was shown by the recent crash of the aircraft from Seryshevo). It can fly, but not start at all: the NK-XNUMX engines are unpretentious, but they do not allow such mockery.

[Falcon]

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]

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]

Give the hanging containers to the Red Army!

[Kir1984]

+ F15E
- combat load
- AFAR
- very fast firing gun

+ Su34
- aerodynamics and maneuverability inherited from the fighter
- armor (not superfluous, anyway)
- a large-caliber gun with a good rate of fire

[Lapkonium]

Oh no, the F-15E also has PFAR, but it’s just a rotary.

[Kir1984]

but I got it. inattentively read

[Mera joota]

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 (Literally the other day) The US Air Force signed a contract with Boeing to install radar with AFAR on the F-15. 17 (V)3 packages and 29 RMP packages 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]

Thanks for the interesting article by Cyril! More such materials and less empty mediocre reviews of Mr. Dude. Guys, publish it once a week! More is too much! Regards!

[Andrey Yuryevich]

Quote: Rokossovsky

smaller empty mediocre reviews of Mr. Dude.

Well, show me how to ...

[Rokossovsky]

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

plus from me
Maybe this conversation will be my incentive!

[Andrey Yuryevich]

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]

well, even if the "Needle" is a bit and the "Drying" will be better - although it is doubtful because in real situations they (thank God) did not collide ... but on the exercises against the Indians "Needles" frankly argued ... ?) and even in the seventies "Orlov" drove and quite successfully the Mig 23 MLD ... what can we say about the "outdated" Su 30?

[Bongo]

Quote: complete zero

well, even if the "Needle" is a bit and the "Drying" will be better - although it is doubtful because in real situations they (thank God) did not collide ... but on the exercises against the Indians "Needles" frankly argued ... ?) and even in the seventies "Orlov" drove and quite successfully the Mig 23 MLD ... what can we say about the "outdated" Su 30?

Dear, do you understand the difference between F-15C и F-15E ?

[complete zero]

Do you understand the difference between 23 MLD and Su-27,30,35?

[Bongo]

Quote: complete 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?

[Petrix]

Quote: Bongo

What does the MiG-23, Su-27,30,35 have to do with it?

A person is trying to understand why the Americans need to change only "C" to "E" in order to make a superplane, by the appearance of which only specialists can distinguish, and the Russians, in order to catch up with them, need to make five practically different designs, which any boy can distinguish?
It's interesting to me too. Is the F-15's aerodynamic design so perfect that we have to constantly refine our "imperfect" ones?

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Petrix

Is the F-15's aerodynamic design so perfect that we have to constantly refine our "imperfect" ones?

".... A huge contribution was made by specialists in aerodynamics - real geniuses in their field. As a result, despite the similar value of the wing load (≈300 kg / sq. M), the lift coefficient of the Drying is one and a half times higher than that of American "Eagle", and the maximum aerodynamic quality (ratio of lift to drag) reached 12 units (such values ​​​​are found only in passenger airliners). ..."
http://army-news.ru/2014/04/pochemu-su-27-prevosxodit-f-15-saga-o-pokoleniyax/

[Petrix]

Quote: Bongo

What does the MiG-23, Su-27,30,35 have to do with it?

A person is trying to understand why the Americans need to change only "C" to "E" in order to make a superplane, by the appearance of which only specialists can distinguish, and the Russians, in order to catch up with them, need to make five practically different designs, which any boy can distinguish?
It's interesting to me too. Is the F-15's aerodynamic design so perfect that we have to constantly refine our "imperfect" ones?

[cdrt]

Quote: complete zero

and in the seventies "Orlov" drove and quite successfully the 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?

[Odysseus]

Quote: complete 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]

The article is a plus, but one "but". Well, where is the comparative effectiveness of actions against air and ground targets? From what distance is detection and shelling, the probability of hitting a target, the effectiveness of its electronic warfare and its own noise immunity, network-centricity, cost of service, etc. Where is it in the next article f15E against Su34 / Su30? Again, a comparison in kilograms and tons, but where is the main thing - efficiency?

[Sweles]

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.

[Susul]

Probably just this information is not located in the public domain

[kartalovkolya]

Nothing is permanent under the sun! Like it or not, it’s up to you to decide in a real battle which aircraft will be better for the class and skill of the pilots, and this is another plane of posing the question! I remember that during the years of the Second World War, our pilots on outdated I-16s successfully fought the most advanced Messers! And another important point is the MOTIVATION of the pilots and their readiness to go to the end for the sake of victory! Something, but our pilots have enough of this!

[complete zero]

well, with the most advanced Messers, you are too much .. (maximum "Emil") and even then if the BF 109 E allows itself to be reached by 16 .. Safonov does not count - this is a piece pilot

[mvg]

You look at the statistics of the battles .. Starting from Spain.

[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.

[kartalovkolya]

Here, and I also have the same opinion, if they have such an "advanced" aviation, then why for a year of its use against ISIS the result = 0? And our, according to the authors of the article, the backward Su-34, Su-24 and Su-30 SM made hundreds of times more in a month? Admiring the West, "... but they eat Russian bacon ..."! Critics ...

[Mera joota]

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 massive series of attacks on positions by the Syrian army west of the city of Tadmor (Palmyra) in the east of Homs province.
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?

[voyaka uh]

"Did IS have noticed these high-precision airstrikes?" ////

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!

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.

[dvg79]

Thank you for sharing your experience, I hope ours took this into account.

[Mera joota]

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]

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.

[Falcon]

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?

[Bad_gr]

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

[glavnykarapuz]

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 also surprised me. Especially the conclusions when the American "hung" with external tanks still "makes" our plane.
It smells like "Hollywood", where, according to a stereotyped scenario, the American glav hero first gets a lot "in the face" from the "bad guy" (with a strong Hollywood Russian accent), and then seems to come to life (remember the joke about the psycho? ) and still epically wins!

[Bayonet]

Quote: glavnykarapuz

Especially the conclusions when the American is "hung" with external tanks

The Strike Eagle F-15E differed from the conventional combat trainer F-15B in the use of conformal fuel tanks (KTB) - non-resettable containers hung on the side surfaces of the fuselage. They closely adjoined the skin of the aircraft, and the gaps between the airframe and the tank were closed with special elastic cuffs. Such tanks slightly worsened the aerodynamics of the aircraft compared to traditional PTBs, allowing them to fly at a speed corresponding to M=1,8, but at the same time they almost doubled the fuel supply. On the surface of the conformal tanks, the suspension units of missile and bomb weapons could be placed.

[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.

22.4 tons remain for fuel, crew, payload and other expenses. This is impressive, but the author writes about 15.8 tons of fuel and 13.4 tons of combat load. This works out to 29.2 total weight. Exceeding 6.8 tons. The crew of 2 snouts, another 200 kg, the tanks themselves have some weight. That is, 7 tons from the 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.

[Falcon]

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.

22.4 tons remain for fuel, crew, payload and other expenses. This is impressive, but the author writes about 15.8 tons of fuel and 13.4 tons of combat load. This works out to 29.2 total weight. Exceeding 6.8 tons. The crew of 2 snouts, another 200 kg, the tanks themselves have some weight. That is, 7 tons from the 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
And the official manufacturer data and press releases
Do you want me to write the maximum take-off weight for Su-34 70000kg in VIKI within two minutes?

[EvilLion]

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.

[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 plane (Su-32FN seems to have been forgotten). And this is Sukhoi's official website. This is the price of the infe from the manufacturer. And the data on the motor is incorrect, the M1 version has a ton more thrust.

[Falcon]

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 plane (Su-32FN seems to have been forgotten). And this is Sukhoi's official website. This is the price of the infe from the manufacturer. And the data on the motor is incorrect, the M1 version has a ton more thrust.

What is the truth? But I didn’t know!
http://www.salut.ru/Section.php?SectionId=4

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 ...

Beat yourself better.

[Lt. Air Force stock]

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

[morph]

when I looked about the SU-34 on YouTube, I also noticed the low weight of the load, but then the phrase "to break through the air defense system" cut my ears, and then I also met somewhere about a bunch of electronic warfare equipment, which is located in the "hump" behind the cockpit , in general, not a "clear sky" flyer, but another war worker

[Lt. Air Force stock]

Quote: Morf

a bunch of electronic warfare equipment,

On the Su-34, which are located in Syria in the wingtips installed EW containers.

[this]

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.

[Falcon]

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

[Mera joota]

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.

[Bayonet]

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]

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.

[Petrix]

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.

[Mera joota]

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

[Bayonet]

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.

[EvilLion]

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.

[mvg]

Americans usually fly with specially "trained" electronic warfare aircraft, such as Groler's. And Avaks are able to do it. And in more or less serious conflicts .. Iraq, Yugi .. without Avaks, they did not "go out" anywhere. And without destroying air defense and aviation.
They will "take out" all airfields with axes, then the electronic warfare systems are not particularly needed. And against the Papuans, and so "come down"

[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))))

[Sweles]

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 is another one from the ministry of "truth", did not read anything, but su34- "handsome" while "article is good."

[samoletil18]

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]

Did I understand correctly that the Fe-15 is better?

[Mera joota]

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]

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]

How to compare fighter and front-line bomber?

[iouris]

Su-34, maybe, in general, a strategic bomber.

[Odysseus]

One can certainly agree with the thesis that the F-15E should be compared with the Su-30SM, and not with the Su-34. Both are multi-role fighters created on the basis of air supremacy fighters. in the USSR fighter-bomber aviation and was originally intended to replace the Su-34 and MiG-27 (then the T-17S was supposed to replace the Su-27) hence, let's say, some specificity of the decisions made on it. Its closest, albeit also quite distant, analogue of the aircraft currently in production is the Chinese JH-24B.
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.

[Sweles]

Quote: Odyssey

Already somewhere in 2012, UOMZ and other enterprises have been developing other containers.

what is developing that?

[Odysseus]

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.

[Sweles]

Quote: Odyssey

Already somewhere in 2012, UOMZ and other enterprises have been developing other containers.

what is developing that?

[marinier]

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]

Quote: Falcon

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

Thanks. The nearly hundred-page document is titled "Development ... A Case Study on Risk Assessment and Management". Nevertheless, just in case, I looked through the whole. 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]

there was infa that our aircraft (including the Su-34, of course) will receive the French Damocles hanging container, there are pictures with this container. Is it correct to say that our Su-34 or Su-30 does not carry an aiming container? Here is an example quote: “Comparative tests of systems, including Damocles and hanging containers of the Ural Optical and Mechanical Plant (UOMZ) Sapsan and Solux, ended in favor of the French design.

UOMZ received a trial production 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 the Sapsan in order to offer in the future for domestic use and increase 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.

Armor is also a plus. Let's say an airplane flies to a target at low altitude, they can work on it from MZA and riflemen, is the armor superfluous? Modern MANPADS direct the missile not at the engine, but closer to the cockpit, in addition, modern TGSN MANPADS allow firing on a collision course, just at the cockpit. Undermining a 1kg explosive warhead missile with MANPADS is guaranteed to destroy the F-15E pilots, but the Su-34 pilots can get off with a fright and a damaged, but still quite "flying" aircraft.

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.

[Zuborez]

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, this is why they increase 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 an aircraft it will be lower with a machine gun, despite the shorter aiming range.

[barbiturate]

All the same, you can focus on real battles with a cannon, and the Americans have always gravitated towards machine guns and still reached 20mm cannons, but we, the Germans, the French fought at least no less airfights and everyone came to the 30mm caliber, as the optimal caliber for striking action and rate of fire for combat in the air, but on the ground, the advantages of 30ki are even more significant.

[NIKNN]

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, this is why they increase 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 an aircraft it will be lower with a machine gun, despite the shorter aiming range.

Not so simple. For ground targets. the rate of fire is enough (the power of the ammunition plays a role), but the ammunition should be saved (it was not for nothing that a cut-off was introduced on the GSh-6-23, because all the ammunition fit into 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 preemptive point and the target was led to the central point. At modern speeds (at a low rate of fire), the target could slip between the shells, which led to an increase in the rate of fire. The modern set of sighting equipment allows you to attack more efficiently. As for the A10, it seems that they from the current that he was supposed to destroy highly protected targets, and I don’t remember (although I don’t claim) that at that time they had another highly effective air gun that met the requirements.

[Zuborez]

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]

In terms of loads and ranges, there is generally a complete spread of opinions and figures, some sources give 11 tons of combat load for the F-15E, the author gives more than 13 tons of information, someone talks about the mass with PTB, someone without ... According to the Su-34, then 12500 maximum load, then 8 tons, then with PTB, then without, then 10400 ...)) The author gives an empty S-34 mass of 22500 kg, there are links right there that say that this is the 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)

[flay]

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!

[barbiturate]

Quote from: fly

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!

so I'm trying, looked at various sites, read aviation forums and lean towards this "truth" , 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 ranges 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 an aircraft during real combat operations with any capable enemy.
Here is the question of an aiming container, a "glass cockpit" for convenient work with equipment, bringing to mind the radar installation in the tail section of the aircraft to prevent and automatically counter missiles attacking the Su-34, electronic warfare systems, issues of reliability and embedding the aircraft in a network-centric system of warfare, This is what seems important to me. Well, questions like just a lot or dofiga how much 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]

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]

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]

Judging by the article, it turns out that huge money was invested in vain in the development of the aircraft, which was already at the design stage, inferior to the F-15. Somehow it doesn’t fit. Yes, and the details about the SU-34 described by the author of the article look more like a rewritten article of the not unknown Mr. Madzhubakh (I apologize if I didn’t write my last name accurately). Now it has become fashionable to rewrite articles from past issues and then pass them off as our own. And it also seems to me that the author of the article did not stand next to aviation. Just the most ordinary copyist of other people's articles.

[Lex69Rus]

This is a heated discussion, a lot of controversy. But here's why the dispute is not clear. We have basic models of 4th generation aircraft: f-15 and su-27 are heavy two-seat fighters. f-16 and mig-29 light single-seat fighters. Based on the f-15, the Americans were the first to make a shock version precisely in sharpening for a bomber and it turned out to be the f-15e. Due to the collapse of the USSR, it happened later in our country and was born on the basis of the Su-27 Su-34. What is the dispute and troubles is not clear. The joke is that the most used strike aircraft in the United States is the f-16) it’s completely incomprehensible to me how it turned out that a light and cheap fighter can effectively bomb a surface, enlighten who knows.

[voyaka uh]

The photo shows an Israeli F-16 in "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 .

[Sergei1982]

The photo shows an Israeli F-16 in "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.

[NIKNN]

voyaka uh IL Today, 11:53 ↑

The photo shows an Israeli F-16 in "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 purpose (maybe to demonstrate the "flag") he takes off?

[NIKNN]

Although I considered it. There they create the impression of the PB, and so I didn’t see anything beyond.

[NIKNN]

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]

SU-34 aircraft of the Soviet era, when there was no talk of any hanging sighting containers. What was it and put on it. The armor was also given not from a good life, but based on the proportions of controlled and uncontrolled ASPs at that time. Today it is outdated. However, instead of putting all our efforts into the development of a container for the SU-30SM / SU-35S (and getting an excellent MFI), we continue to rivet a separate bomber aircraft. Just as there was no unification in the army under the USSR, it is not much better now.

[Lex69Rus]

Well, partly agree. In the course of the Americans, almost all aircraft can strike on the ground.

[iouris]

It’s well known that if my grandmother had ...
We are not "Americans", so we cannot afford much.
The general designer must design what is called "reasonable sufficiency". If it works in Syria, then the goal has been achieved.
On the ground, the strike is struck not by the "plane", but by the reconnaissance and strike complex. I hope this is the point of renaming the Air Force into the Aerospace Forces, 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.

[NIKNN]

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.

[evgenymap]

The most important thing in such articles is analysis - it is very valuable. But the authors, think - you make it easier for analysts from "partner countries".

[Bongo]

Quote from evgenymap

The most important thing in such articles is analysis - it is very valuable. But the authors, think - you make it easier for analysts from "partner countries".

Such comments touch me, do you really think that everything that was written in the publication and comments is news for our "partners". Most likely you just didn’t see what is sometimes written on the PWC forums, sometimes there really the hair stands on end.

[kamil_tt]

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 manufacturing companies put together, those who regularly declare that he wrote here for a long time that, for example, F22,35, and stupid Americans only right now, yes, they thought of it and that "... no one except us can make normal planes ..", and the one who claims the opposite will be minus to death, because he is an enemy, a pederast, a Jew, a fifth column, etc.) And what foreign analysts daily monitor their comments, extracting secret information from them

[NIKNN]

The most important thing in such articles is analysis - it is very valuable. But the authors, think - you make it easier for analysts from "partner countries"

Certainly "+". Based on some comments, we have already defeated them. Let the adversaries be afraid.

[kamil_tt]

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]

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]

Article +, and thanks to the author (it's a pity that such sensible articles are not often found). I will add on my own that by the time the Su-34 series was launched, the upgraded AL-31FM1 engine already existed, and the even more advanced AL-31FM2 was at the final stage of testing. They were created specifically for the remotorization of the entire family of Su-27 aircraft, they are distinguished by significantly greater efficiency, greater afterburner thrust 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-34s continue to be produced with old engines. There was information that they are planning to remotorize them only in some future - and this, to be honest, I can’t understand. Why not right away?

[L10n77]

Quote: Bayonet

Quote: glavnykarapuz

Especially the conclusions when the American is "hung" with external tanks

The Strike Eagle F-15E differed from the conventional combat trainer F-15B in the use of conformal fuel tanks (KTB) - non-resettable containers hung on the side surfaces of the fuselage. They closely adjoined the skin of the aircraft, and the gaps between the airframe and the tank were closed with special elastic cuffs. Such tanks slightly worsened the aerodynamics of the aircraft compared to traditional PTBs, allowing them to fly at a speed corresponding to M=1,8, but at the same time they almost doubled the fuel supply. On the surface of the conformal tanks, the suspension units of 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.

[galact]

From what I read, I realized that everything is good in moderation and there is nothing to grab freedom of speech.

[ALEXXX1983]

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
Kirill, there is no such thing as "caliber power", there is the power of a projectile, and a 30 mm GSH-301 projectile weighing 390 grams has a much more destructive effect than a 20 mm M61 Vulcan projectile weighing 100 grams.

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?

[Kir1984]

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

[3danimal]

When flying with a bend in the relief, armor will save only from small arms.

17mm titanium will definitely protect against DShK and KPVT.
It is rather in memory of the episodes of bombing in the mountains of Afghanistan, when the mujahideen ambushed the tops of the mountains. And in a number of cases, the pilot was killed with a burst from the DShK.