MILAVIA Forum
Military Aviation => Military Aircraft => Topic started by: Gripen on October 14, 2006, 03:03:34 AM
-
About this plane.. it looks cool and can do some stuff...but is it in service with any one other then Russia?
I heard that in 1997, an order for 12 SU-32FN (a maritime strike version of the -34) had been placed by an unmaned country. Can anyone confirm this rumor? If so, who is the unnamed country??
-
If you happen to notice, the name 'platypus' comes as more of an unofficial name than a proper NATO code-name.
For the names of Russian planes, USA designates names beggining with the letter 'F' for fighters and 'B' for bombers. Eg. Fulcrum, Foxhound, Flanker, Backfire, Bear, Blackjack, etc.
The 'Frogfoot' is an exception, due to the fact that it's more of a CAS plane than a fighter.
This should be a rumour. The Su32/34s are carrier based aircraft. So only France, Great Britain, Russia and the USA (and does Japan have any???) would have the imperative to purchase them.
-
my magic red book says that an order for 12 had been placed by an unnamed country!
-
the Platypus name comes from its flattened nose that looks like a bill, so they unoficially named it Platypus
-
Hm, magic red book... 8)
Well, yes, that's mostly why it was named like that. I reminds me more of a duck, though...
-
i do have a magic red book, but its not exactly small :-X
-
The Su32/34s are carrier based aircraft.
Nope, there are not, they are tactical bombers/maritime attack aircraft, replacements for the Su-24 Fencer. However the thing about the designation is still not completely sure, I thought that the RuAF announced it to be Su-32, but now in latest media reports the commander is being quoted talking about the Su-34.
What might have confused you is that they were marketed as naval fighters, but what was meant is a maritime attack platform, not carrier borne, and maybe also the Su-33UB two-seat naval fighter trainer, which also has the side-by-side seating arrangement...it's for better visibility and controllability for the instructors with the carrier takeoff and landings. http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-33/su-33.htm http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-34/su-34.htm.
What's the red book? Jane's?
-
no, its called Modern Military Aircraft
-
Ah the one with the nice profiles?
-
Jane's is cool. I've got that book. I think. Ok. So the Su-32s aren't completely carrier based, but they DO have the capability and potential, right?
-
um nice profiles...yea
it has cool pictures!!
-
Ok. So the Su-32s aren't completely carrier based, but they DO have the capability and potential, right?
Not without major restructuring as was done on the Su-33, tailhook, strengthened landing gear, which was already strengthened to cope with the 1.5x weight increase. I think it is too heavy, its take-off run is almost twice that of a basic Su-27, and landing roll, 300m more. So in order to enable it to take off and land at the carrier, restrictions will be placed on its payload carrying potential and internal fuel maybe, affecting its range, then you might as well use the Su-33/Su-33UB. It's kinda like making the F-15E or F-111 carrier based, potential yes, but smart...? I think it will be as likely as a navalised Typhoon.
Maybe it's better to just stick with the Su-33 and Su-33UB and give them some additional AShM/ASM capability....
-
I heard that in 1997, an order for 12 SU-32FN (a maritime strike version of the -34) had been placed by an unmaned country. Can anyone confirm this rumor? If so, who is the unnamed country??
Low speed series production has just been started for Russia itself. I haven't heard of such an order, and I think that it would be strange if that unnamed country would not have been know by now. Where did you read/hear this?
My research only shows this event in 1997 concerning 12 aircraft...
Aug 1997 Indonesia signs contract for 12 Su-30KI
Late 1997 Indonesia cancels contract for Su-30KI
-
that indonesia thing could be what i heard. it never said if it was cancelled... but the book was made in like... 2000 so why wouldnt it say that the deal was cancelled?
-
Ok. Sorry i haven't posted in a while. been to Indonesia. Hm. I its not the platypus. I was thinking of the Navy Flanker. Sorry... ::)
-
To be honest, that's even stranger. The only option back then would be India I think, which ultimately ordered the MiG-29K. I'll have to investigate. Nowadays the Su-33 is being ordered by China though, but in far greater numbers (up to 100), which is currently overhauling the ex-Russian carrier and plans to develop 2 or 3 of its own carriers. The Flanker section will soon be updated with this and other Flanker news.
-
OK, so more info on the SU-34..
Official Nato name: Fullback
Two were delivered to the Russian Air Force on 4th January 2007, and 6 more will be delivered by the end of the year
Russian Defence minister said that their will be 58 SU-34's by the year 2015.
Price tag: $120 million (im assuming USD??)
-
'Fullback'? What sort of name is THAT?
-
I think that name is not correct. Why? Genneraly, they put names that start with "f" onto fighters. Well, I could say that this is not a fighter because, among other obvious reasons, the name is Su-34, and Russian generally reserve even numbers for Bombers. (There are exeptions like Su-25, and MiG-27)
So maybe hey should change the name to one that starts with "b"...
-
Well it can carry R-27s, R-73s, R-77s and other ordnance aswell as KAB-1500s, RBK-250s etc. so its kinda both ;)
And its designed for both roles I think ??? and its also comparable to our A-10 is what I heard.
-
maybe because it is a variant of the Flanker, so NATO continued the fighter codenames instead of giving it a bomber name..
and i thought it was a fighter/attacker like the f-18?
-
I didn't get part of it, but never mind. NATO codenames the Russian Fighters as all starting with 'F', yes, and bombers with 'B'.
Now here's the catch. Explain Su-25 "Frogfoot"
-
maybe the guy who names them was drunk and he called it after a bomber instead of a fighter?
-
It's a fighter-bomber, just like the Su-7, Su-17 Fitter, Su-24 Fencer. So F is correct. It's of course strange, but the B is reserved for the real strategic bombers, not frontline tactical (fighter)bombers. It's like calling a Tornado GR.4 a bomber, it is, but would you call it that? Don't forget the Su-34 still carries AAMs, including R-77 AMRAAMski, which gives it better AA capability than most western fighter-bombers/strikers. Let's see, in a conflict, I would call Backfire over the radio, you know it's a bomber of good size, which has no defensive weapons, but probably fighter escorts, and it's on its way to attack your carrier. But when two Su-34s are coming in, it means they have A-A weapons as well, are agile and fast, it's likely they are on a bombing mission, but it would make more sense to call them out as fighters than bombers, right?
Anyway, designation systems never make total sense! It's impossible to classify so many designs. Especially when it's either F or B.
-
I agree with webmaster.
-
Any orders on Su-34 or on its export variant Su-32FN from foreign customers never acted. To tell the truth, I do not know that foreigners in this case are afraid. Probably, meanwhile the Russian military-industrial complex will not pull.
And one more: as is known, several weeks ago in the Center of fighting application of aircraft to Lipetsk the first has arrived (!!!) (yes, only the first; though the first is better, than last) Su-34. In it{this} to year are going to put 5 more planes to the Lipetsk center. All 6 Su-34 will be used for preparation of pilots. Besides till 2008 (on the basis of учебно-training flights) will be written the engineering specifications and textbooks of methodics on Su-34. 8)
In 2008 will be put 8 more, and in 2009 - 10 Su-34. And, thus, by 2010 it will be completely completed bombing aviation shelfs (he will be a part 16 Air Armies). :)
-
Sergei, what do you WORK as???
Well, obiously the 'B's are reserved for the real strategic bombers. Have you heard of a F/B-18 Hornet???
-
I like the Su-34 its a pretty sweet plane.
-
It's pretty cute, actually. ;D
Sweet little cuddly thing that loves to have it's buttons pushed. "Mamma, what does this button do?" KA-BOOM.
-
I like the cockpit layout, including the toilet and stove
-
It has a toilet and stove? lol
-
Yeah, for the long range missions, to make the pilots more compfie, its in a little spot behind the pilots chairs.
Gotta admit, the Sovs sucked at alot of things, but they do know how to make their pilots comfortable
-
I thought only those big massive planes had toilets. The stove i'm a LEETLE BEET queasy about. I mean, i really don't know what would happen if the gas cylinder burst... Or come to think of that... The faeces might just fall out...
-
Its like a metal thing with a hole under it i guess.
-
Features, I cannot lay out a photo with MAKS-2007 because there is a restriction in 300 kilobyte. Webmaster, whether it is possible to remove this restriction somehow?
-
Sergei, what do you WORK as???
Well, obiously the 'B's are reserved for the real strategic bombers. Have you heard of a F/B-18 Hornet???
I'm a student. I love aviation, because my father was a pilot.
About F/B-18... No, I have never heard about it.
-
It should just be a hole in the bottom of the aircraft for low-level bombing >:D
Fly over the enemy and bombs away! ;D
-
Lol. Well, i suppose most of us here are students in one way or another too, huh?
And, um, the F/B-18 was meant as a joke. Sarcasm, actually...
-
It should just be a hole in the bottom of the aircraft for low-level bombing >:D
Fly over the enemy and bombs away! ;D
Oh lol, yeah thatd be a surprise
"Sir, we're outta bombs!"
"Well, what do we attack them with?"
"..Oh i know"
10 minutes later at an enemy location
"Sir, we're being attack by a Su-34, its dropping some kind of sludge bomb"
*Boss guy walks out and has a look*
"Thats not sludge, its sh*t"
"Oh, dirty rotten ba*tards"
-
Hahaha sludge bomb lol thats funny. ;D
But we would be surprised what crap falling from 15,000 feet would do >:D
And it would tumble like a napalm bomb lol
-
Well, you could just get them to eat curry or something before they drop the bomb... Bombs away over mainland china. I tell you,the farmers will be happier than if it was fireworks.
-
Jokes jokes, but plane excellent. I think, that when Su-34 will start to dump KAB-500S or UPAB-1500, the same about what you spoke, will happen to the opponent. Ha-ha! ;) :)
-
Hahaha
I really like the Su-34..anyone know when it enters service?
-
It is already entering service, combat and conversion training started last year. But if you mean Full operational capability of the first Su-34 regiment, then 2010.
-
Oh...not too far off. Thanks Webmaster.
-
another long 3 years. Yeah, it's pretty cool...
-
Handsome man Su-34 bombs the purposes under Akhtubinsk. A remarkable photo.
http://www.airforce.ru/photogallery/gallery10/su-34/index.htm
-
oh thats hot :)
-
The Su-34 is some aircraft it really looks like it can do it all I'll bet you it does very well in air to air too. As striker I can see squadrons of (one of my favorites) Su-24 retired across the board. I really hope Russia gets and keeps the funding for this aircraft because it seems like a perfect fit of balance. Smaller countries could be there air forces around this aircraft. smile face