MILAVIA Forum - Military Aviation Discussion Forum

Author Topic: SU-34/32FN Fullback Long range fighter-bomber  (Read 34143 times)

Offline tigershark

  • News Editor
  • General of Flight
  • *******
  • Posts: 2025
SU-34/32FN Fullback Long range fighter-bomber
« on: February 12, 2009, 01:16:17 AM »
SU-34/32FN Fullback Long range fighter-bomber
http://warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=257&linkid=1615&linkname=SU-34/32FN-Fullback-Long-range-fighter-bomber

I was wondering how does the Su-34 compare to a F-111 and to a F-15E in weapons load and range.  This poster mentioned that it weights 45 tons compared to a F-15E 36, now I'm not sure that's right but that's what caught my attention the weights. 

12 pylons I thought Su-30s have 14?  Another question I have is why not standardized production and go with a duel role Su-35 to carry out both mission types.  I don't see the payload differences between the two like between a F-111 and F-15E, to produce both models in such tough times. 

Just going by this web page it's late 90s tech 2000/2001 that's it, I didn't see any upgrades to the program maybe I miss something.  So tech wise the few Su-35 built are most likely more advance in some areas I assume computer power wise at least right? 
« Last Edit: February 12, 2009, 01:20:19 AM by tigershark »

Offline F-111 C/C

  • Hero of Flight
  • ******
  • Posts: 634
  • Country: us
Re: SU-34/32FN Fullback Long range fighter-bomber
« Reply #1 on: February 12, 2009, 05:25:31 AM »
According to what I've read about these (and details are sketchy) is that the program has still yet to really get off the ground and that only a few planes exist of which have shown up at different venues over the years as different model variants (Navy version, MF multi-role version, etc.). Like all these jets, the statistics on paper seem pretty impressive including TERCOM, their version of TFR. The weapons load numbers that I can find are close to 18,000 lbs of weapons (compared to just over 24,000 lbs for the F-15E, and over 40,000 lbs for the F-111). The ferry range is equal in the Sukhoi and Strike Eagle at about 2400 miles (4200 in the -111).
As cool of a jet it is (including the galley and toilet behind the cockpit) it just doesn't come close to the speed and weapons delivery of the Strike Eagle in my opinion.
Wars are won by carrying the 'heavy iron' downtown!

Offline shawn a

  • Hero of Flight
  • ******
  • Posts: 898
  • Country: us
Re: SU-34/32FN Fullback Long range fighter-bomber
« Reply #2 on: February 12, 2009, 08:33:39 PM »
I think it's a lot prettier than either a -15 or a 'Vark.
In an absolutely ancient copy of Jane's, the max takeoff weight is listed as 97,800 lbs = 48.9 tons.
It looks as if there is a lot of room in the plane, perhaps too much devoted to a toilet, cooking area and a bunk!
The photo in Jane's shows a boarding ladder going into the nose wheel well.
I should have film and photos by Sept.

Offline F-111 C/C

  • Hero of Flight
  • ******
  • Posts: 634
  • Country: us
Re: SU-34/32FN Fullback Long range fighter-bomber
« Reply #3 on: February 13, 2009, 12:17:49 AM »
How was your trip Shawn? I agree, all of the Su-27 variants are beautiful. Nothing looks as mean as an F-15E fully loaded with 24,000 lbs of Mk-82s or Mk-20s with TFR and FLIR pods hanging below the intakes though IMO.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2009, 12:24:37 AM by F-111 C/C »
Wars are won by carrying the 'heavy iron' downtown!

Offline shawn a

  • Hero of Flight
  • ******
  • Posts: 898
  • Country: us
Re: SU-34/32FN Fullback Long range fighter-bomber
« Reply #4 on: February 14, 2009, 07:02:53 AM »
I'll be going to the MAKS show in Aug.--If there's any questions you want me to ask about the 34/32 or whatever they call it today, (assuming I have an interpreter) let me know. It looks mean, too, with the huge airshow loadout under it, but it's display was rather sedate in '07. I don't know much about weight and balance, center of gravity, center of lift and so on, but why all that room devoted to bunk, toilet and stove? Seems like it would be better suited to fuel, avionics, and a cooler full of sandwiches and vodka.
The wine tasting was great- the headache should be gone in a week or so.

Offline Webmaster

  • MILAVIA Webmaster
  • Administrator
  • General of Flight
  • *******
  • Posts: 2843
  • Country: nl
Re: SU-34/32FN Fullback Long range fighter-bomber
« Reply #5 on: May 04, 2009, 04:04:22 AM »
Unfortunately, I don't know the latest status either, but it's a bit further along than F-111C/C said. This is what I know:

1) Red 01 and Red 02 were the first two production-standard aircraft handed over to the RuAF for state trials in late 2006, delivery in 2007. Red 01 is said to be the final prototype, code 49, upped to standard. Red 02 seems would then be 48. According to my info there was a 8 month delay between hand-over and actual first delivery to the test unit. Six more were to follow the same year, but deliveries didn't materialize afaik.

2) Red 03 was delivered, not sure when exactly, still working that out before I update my Su-34 section. First real new one it seems, so production should be underway now on the other 5.

3) March 28, 2009, (March 27 according to NAPO  :-\) Medvedev flew the aircraft Red 03. Stating, an order would be placed for 24 aircraft, with 32 to be in service by 2015. I think this confirms the initial order of 8 (3 delivered so far).

4) NAPO (Sukhoi owned) / RuAF refers to it as Su-34, while the Sukhoi site still lists it as Su-32 (possibly maintained for export customers, as the earlier Su-32FN/MF demonstrators, or just out-of-date).

5) 32 by 2015 is less than 50% of the previously envisaged 70. Don't think they couldn't produce more, but I think allocation of the defence funding package has possible changed (more money towards nuclear and long-range, pak-fa maybe) and shrinking as a result of the economic crises and drop of energy prices. Just speculating.


Regarding the other questions:

Quote
I'm not sure that's right but that's what caught my attention the weights. 
Weight: I know! I am not sure they can trusted either, although compared to the other Flankers, it's not inconceivable.

Weapons load:  8000 kg (17,637 lb)
This number is the same as reported for the Su-35/30, I am suspicious of this number, as I know it hasn't been changed since the first publication on the Su-34. But looking at more recent empty / normal / max weights figures, it seems it has gained about 4000 kg in weight and 2000-2500 kg in fuel, so if you then look at the others, then indeed you end up with a 8000 kg max load. But maybe that just is because the figures have been extrapolated/calculated on the basis of limited data available. The 8kg max on the Su-27 was achieved by structural reinforcements. I am thinking the Su-34 might be capable of more at the expense of fuel, whereas on the Su-27SMK/Su-30MK2 it's the hard limit. I'm no aerospace engineer though.

Quote
12 pylons I thought Su-30s have 14?
12

Quote
Another question I have is why not standardized production and go with a duel role Su-35 to carry out both mission types.  I don't see the payload differences between the two like between a F-111 and F-15E, to produce both models in such tough times. 
Because it needs the range that the Su-35 can only offer with external fuel, limiting its load carrying. Then there's the second cockpit, better attack radar / TFR and EW equipment that would make the Su-35 too heavy and expensive for export of the air dominance role. I would have suggested fitting that 117S engine to the Su-34 though, not sure where they stand on that. May be impossible now without further changes (needs bigger intakes).

Quote
Just going by this web page it's late 90s tech 2000/2001 that's it, I didn't see any upgrades to the program maybe I miss something.  So tech wise the few Su-35 built are most likely more advance in some areas I assume computer power wise at least right? 
Uhm, I think you have to consider that most webpages are written on the basis of 2000/2001 publications, reporting on 1990s projects in their early 'proof of concept' stages, which have been on hold since, resumed with know-how and experience gained with other projects. What I am trying to say is that in the 90s, they didn't have a lot yet. Those prototypes didn't have full mission suites.


Taking a bit of a risk here, and adding some found pictures:

Regarding the cockpit pics, they are from the pre-production/later prototypes. It may have changed.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2009, 04:17:33 AM by Webmaster »
  • Interests: Su-15, Su-27, Tu-22, Tornado, RNLAF
Niels Hillebrand
MILAVIA Webmaster

Offline iluveagles

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
  • Country: us
Re: SU-34/32FN Fullback Long range fighter-bomber
« Reply #6 on: May 05, 2009, 03:14:15 AM »
I have the max take off at 97,795lb and the max ordnance load at 17,636lb. Max ceiling is 55,755lb. It's AL-31FM engines are rated at 29,320lb st a piece. Other than that, the performance is very close the the Su-27 Flanker-B.

Which gives it a speed that is not quite as fast as the F-15 or the F-111. It's max take off is bigger than the -15 and -111, but I think the aircraft itself weighs significantly more or at least that would logically make sense since the engines are so much bigger, but the aircraft flies slower than the -15 and -111.

I'd say that it's not even a close match for the F-15E and it is probably a match for the F-111, depending on the avionics that the -34 has in it and the updated avionics that that -111 has(for the Aussies) and had when it was still in service here in the US. The clincher is whether the Su-34 is actually a decently designed aircraft, the F-111 is not the exactly the aviation design marvel of the 20th century.

Eagles

Offline Webmaster

  • MILAVIA Webmaster
  • Administrator
  • General of Flight
  • *******
  • Posts: 2843
  • Country: nl
Re: SU-34/32FN Fullback Long range fighter-bomber
« Reply #7 on: May 05, 2009, 12:37:58 PM »
It's AL-31FM engines are rated at 29,320lb st a piece.

AL-31FM? May be planned. They're still flying with the basic AL-31F 27,560 lb for now.

They aren't much bigger or heavier than the F100/F110...
« Last Edit: May 06, 2009, 01:46:05 AM by Webmaster »
  • Interests: Su-15, Su-27, Tu-22, Tornado, RNLAF
Niels Hillebrand
MILAVIA Webmaster

Offline iluveagles

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
  • Country: us
Re: SU-34/32FN Fullback Long range fighter-bomber
« Reply #8 on: May 06, 2009, 01:15:58 AM »
Says who?

I was refering to the whole aircraft...

Offline Webmaster

  • MILAVIA Webmaster
  • Administrator
  • General of Flight
  • *******
  • Posts: 2843
  • Country: nl
Re: SU-34/32FN Fullback Long range fighter-bomber
« Reply #9 on: May 06, 2009, 02:23:15 AM »
Says who?

Yefim Gordon, 2009, Russian Air Power, Midland Publishing.
  • Interests: Su-15, Su-27, Tu-22, Tornado, RNLAF
Niels Hillebrand
MILAVIA Webmaster

Offline iluveagles

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
  • Country: us
Re: SU-34/32FN Fullback Long range fighter-bomber
« Reply #10 on: May 06, 2009, 04:55:56 AM »
ok, I was just looking for that source.

Offline lucciano85m

  • Pilot
  • **
  • Posts: 25
Re: SU-34/32FN Fullback Long range fighter-bomber
« Reply #11 on: December 27, 2011, 10:34:00 PM »
Novosibirsk aircraft plant of Sukhoi delivered Su-34 frontline bombers to the Russian Air Force



Today four serial Su-34 frontline bombers went up in the sky from the runway airport of the Novosibirsk Aircraft Production Association (NAPO) and off to the place of their deployment at the air base in Voronezh. Two more aircraft will arrive there in the next few days. The aircraft delivery is carried out in the framework of the five-year state contract signed in 2008 to supply 32 Su-34 frontline bombers to the Russian Defense Ministry.

http://www.xairforces.net/newsd.asp?newsid=718&newst=8

 



AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com click to vote for MILAVIA