Military Aviation > Military Aircraft

SU-34/32FN Fullback Long range fighter-bomber

(1/11) > >>

tigershark:
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? 

F-111 C/C:
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.

shawn a:
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.

F-111 C/C:
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.

shawn a:
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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page