SU-34 Flanker (Platypus>>THATS AN AUSSIE THING)

[Gripen]

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??

[Raptor]

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.

[Gripen]

my magic red book says that an order for 12 had been placed by an unnamed country!

[Gripen]

the Platypus name comes from its flattened nose that looks like a bill, so they unoficially named it Platypus

[Raptor]

Hm, magic red book... 

Well, yes, that's mostly why it was named like that. I reminds me more of a duck, though...

[Gripen]

i do have a magic red book, but its not exactly small

[Webmaster]

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?

[Gripen]

no, its called Modern Military Aircraft

[Webmaster]

Ah the one with the nice profiles?

[Raptor]

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?

[Gripen]

um nice profiles...yea

it has cool pictures!!

[Webmaster]

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....