Russian Plant Launches Production of New Sukhoi Tactical Bomber

The Novosibirsk Chkalov Aviation Production Association (NAPO) is launching production of the Su-34 bomber, the plant’s general director, Aleksandr Bobryshev, has told Itar-Tass.

NAPO has begun implementing a state order for the Russian air force, building the first Su-34 mass-production tactical bomber, Bobryshev explained.

“The Su-34’s radio-electronic equipment can be compared to fifth-generation aircraft,” Bobryshev said. The Su-34’s onboard equipment and weapons allow it to destroy precise protected targets in any weather, day or night. “This multipurpose aircraft can make missile strikes against targets on the ground and is also effective in air combat,” Bobryshev said.

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/03/31/subombers_.shtml

No doubt Sukhoi wouldn't mind generating some international sales of this model as well. Good on the Russian engineers - I guess thirteen years of neo-liberal reform haven't quite finished savaging the country's R&D capability.

India is getting those Russian fighters that can bascially reverse direction in midair. Before the first time I saw footage of one at an airshow, I would have sworn that planes could not do what it does.


After googling, here's a description:
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/Su-30.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/su-30.htm

The maneuverability comes from 'thrust vectoring control', which I guess means they can steer using movable exhaust nozzles.

Since Boeing is showing them how by out-sourcing it's latest generation airliner components. Screw national security>>>> bring on those short term corporate profits!

China harbors no intention of aggression agaisnt the US--it is the US the surrounds China with military bases, not vice versa.

Give em 20 years.

I have a hunch China will be diplomatic and make arrangements to purchase their oil instead of just taking it like the US is apparently doing. But in thirty years or so who could say....

History indicates that conflict is a constant. That's just how it is.
And I hope you are correct in your hopes for peace. However, reality indicates that China's energy based manufacturing economy is booming. How long would Chinese political leaders survive if their nation's job market dried up? Do you think that relations will improve as energy costs increase? Japan sensed that it was being "squeased out" in the late 1930's (it was, BTW). Then look what happened!
Remember that much of chimp's popular support is energy industry related. Is it possible for an ever increasing number of politician-hogs (eager to stay employed) @ the energy troff to be able to get along as supplies continue to decline?

<snip>The aircraft has ten hardpoints for weapon payloads and is able to carry a range of missiles including air-to-air, air-to-surface, anti-ship and anti-radiation missiles, guided and unguided bombs, and rockets. The aircraft is fitted with a target designator.

The R-73 (NATO codename AA-11 Archer) short-range air-to-air missile is supplied by the Vympel State Engineering design Bureau in Moscow. The R-73 is an all-aspect missile capable of engaging targets in tail-chase or head-on mode. The missile has cooled infrared homing. The R-73 attacks the target within target designation angles of +/- 45 degrees and with angular rates up to 60 degrees per second. The missile can intercept targets at altitudes between 0.02 and 20km, target g-load to 12g, and with target speeds to 2,500kph.

The RVV-AE long-range air-to-air missile, also known as the RR-77 or by the NATO designation AA-12, is manufactured by Vympel. The missile can intercept targets at speeds up to 3,600kph and altitudes from 0.02 to 25km. The minimum range in the aft hemisphere is 300m and the maximum vertical separation between the host aircraft and the target is 10km. The RR-77 has inertial guidance with mid-course radio updates and terminal active guidance. A new, longer-range (150km) version of the R-77, with solid fuel ram-jet propulsion, is being tested by Vympel.

The Su-34 carries a range of precision guided and unguided bombs and rockets, including the KAB-500 laser-guided bomb developed by the Region State Research and Production Enterprise based in Moscow.

Who will they bomb? Red states, or all states.

I was thinking no worry, they are only making 5 of them until I seen the payload capacity. They would never need more than 5 of them. Just a couple of them is enough to reduce every major US city into cinders. 5 of them is overkill.

Don

Chechnya and export.

Comparing this to the long-in-the-tooth F-16 the US is trying to peddle to its lesser allies (the stalwarts get the F-15E), I can see why some buyers might be interested.

Chavez would just love to have a couple of these bad boys. And he can afford them now too with the price of oil as high as it is. Iran too.

Don

What would it use them for? These bad boys are bound to be expensive, and Venezuela needs large numbers of air-superiority fighters a lot more than it needs a few powerful bombers - and the same might be said of Iran. These countries are far better off stocking up on Su-27s, Mig-29s and effective air defences/ground control stations to coordinate their fighter fleet; alongside these, a large number of cheap and rugged ground attack craft would be infinitely more useful for defence against a possible invasion than an Su-34, which would be overkill and needlessly vulnerable...

...LA, Miami, Portland, DC, Houston, Atlanta, Detroit, and several other cities in one bombing run. And when I say destroyed, I mean flattened. There is not a spider hole deep enough for Chimpy to hide in. We wouldn't even consider attacking another country that had that kind of capability. It would be suicide. Why mess around with toys when they can have the real deal? Wouldn't make sense.

Don

they probably wouldn't get past the air defences. That's not to do down the Su-34, which is a great plane if used appropriately, but its not a stealth plane, and while it is an effective fighter, 1 or 2 of them would be fairly easily overwhelmed in any attack scenario concievable. Furthermore, without nuclear weapons, they couldn't flatten very much - I know, cos I witnessed first hand how many Tomahawks and bombs it takes to flatten even one well built building (the Army HQ) in Belgrade in '99. Sure, it could destroy one high value asset, but it wouldn't be wreacking havock left, right and centre. And if you are going to use them as stand-off platforms, there are far cheaper options on the table. Its a powerful little bird, but not supernatural...

And when I posted I was thinking that they would be used as standoff platforms to deliver cruise missile's with nuclear warheads. There is no defense against that, and it appears to be exactly what the designers had in mind when the the R and D was done on these. As I said the US would never consider attacking another country that possessed that capability. Even for oil.

Don

What would they possibly have to gain from it? Do you think that the UN would allow Russia to violate the anti-proliferation treaty so openly.

sold freely to any country as long as it takes America down a peg or two? If the UN is destroy as a credible forum for world peace, what is left except the rule of the jungle? I am having a hard time envisioning the world you want to live in.

Don't be putting no fucking words in my mouth. I simply laid the facts on the table. I never said I liked them. You did. Go piss up a fucking rope.

Don

Cartoon fantasies of cool airplanes, super power missiles and a first grade understanding of international politics. Matched only by your cool demeanor of course.

"You" do know not to try and put words in my mouth ever again. Every time I have run across someone who is as ignorant as you are, they always assume everyone else is as ignorant as themselves. Never fails.

Don

actually backed up by a cogent and informed world view - next time I will try to keep my replies sufficiently shallow and superficial so as to not trigger your hysterics. You really do believe that Russia would sell nuclear weapons to Venezuela, don't you!

You apparently have looked into Putin's soul and seen a good and trustworthy man like Boosh did? You and Boosh would make a great team. I have learned to expect such comments from anal-retentive folks as yourself. Its comes with the territory. Thanks for the offer though.

Don

Jets like this are gas hogs - why do you think the US has so many tanker aircraft?

An operational mission for the Su-32"FN" begins with a mission planning period that loads into the aircraft's two main computers the coordinates and elevations of every navigation and mission-dependent point from takeoff to landing. At each coordinate-point or time-hack, automatic switching of modes can be accomplished so that the pilots can be hands-off or involved with other parts of the mission. Data link with command aircraft, ground stations, and command ships will be maintained and where line-of-sight limits are reached these communications resort to satellites for expanded coverage. Mission updates can be passed by higher authority anytime during the flight. All types or tactical and strategic ordnance can be utilized with emphasis being placed on long range standoff weapons such as the AS-13/18 Kingbolt cruise missiles, AS-14 Kedge anti-radiation weapon, AS-17 Krypton, Kh-35 Harpoon like anti-ship weapon, and the Kh-41 Moskit long range anti-ship missile.

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/Su-30.htm

The round trip tactical range of aircraft like these is on the order of 400 to 500 miles with a heavy weapons load. All the missiles you mention are short range tactical weapons with operational ranges of 150 miles or less. Without inflight refueling, they could not hit a single US city. They are superb aircraft - better than many US aircraft. But they do not represent a strategic threat to the USA.

The first conventional long-range cruise missile has been added to Russia’s arsenal.

This missile is designed for precision strikes in local conflicts and counterterrorist operations, the Izvestia newspaper reported on Wednesday.

The new missile H-555 is based on the model of the H-55, nuclear missile in the Russian strategic aviation arsenal. The new model has a target seeker and will be carried on the strategic Tu-95MS and Tu-160 bombers. Various modifications of the H-55 can carry out strikes at the distance of 2,000-3,000 kilometers.

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/12/01/missile.shtml

The TU 95 and TU 160 are the Russian equivalents of our B52 and B1 bombers.

The Kh-55 weights in at 1,700 kilos, and some people (who I think are fairly reliable and knowledgeable about military matters) think that Kh-55 missiles recently sold to Iran could be successfully launched from older Su-24 aircraft.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/x-55.htm

Supposedly the Su-34 has an 8,000 kilo max payload, so that's four older Kh-55s. Even if the newer missiles are heavier, theoretically a Su-34 could carry two of them and some extra fuel to make the distance. With a typical range of the Su-34 being 4,000 kilometers, and the ranges for both missiles being between 3,000 and 5,000 kilometers, I don't think range would be an issue. Caracas and D.C. are only 3,300 kilometers away. Some modifications would undoubtedly be in order, but if Venezuela could manage to get both the planes and the missiles, I think they could get the engineers needed. I'm not suggesting this scenario is realistic, only that it's possible. And that'd the last post you'll get from me. Enjoy your stay at DU. :hi:

Edit: Oh, and I almost forgot. Learn some manners, you'll benefit from it later in life.

and anyone else I might have offended. I was in a particularly foul mood yesterday and took it out on the closest (virtual) person handy. Not my finest moment - next time I promise to step back from the key board and have a beer instead.

Really. I never hold any grudges against everyone. It is not in me. But the offer is what counts. It shows you really are a decent person. Thank you and take car my friend. Think I am going to have a beer my self. :toast:

Don

That would involve require nuclear bombs and some way to actually get the airplanes over the continental US. Do you think the Russians are going to sell nukes to Venezuela? Don't be silly, that would be about as likely as us selling nukes to Burma. Besides, Venezuela obtaining nukes would give Bush a perfect excuse to invade or push for global sanctions, and even Chavez isn't dumb enough to provide that kind of excuse.

Oh, thats right. He isn't. Is he? Wonder why that is? Perhaps you can explain to me why he isn't going after them Einstein?

Don

What does that have to do with anything? Venezuela has never stated a desire to arm itself with nukes. Your odd fantasy of Venezuela obtaining this jet and nukes and laying waste to American cities is simply bizarre.

The Tucanos and the rest would do fine in the ground attack role, but the country needs longer-range defense for its oil routes.

Venezuela recently purchased a number of frigates from Spain. They probably don't want to get into an 80s-style Strait of Hormuz situation without having adequate capability to protect the country's economy.

but yes, I agree that this is not implausible. A few dozen of these things would certainly give any approaching navy a serious problem to deal with.

I doubt the Venezuelan AF would be able to get many planes into the air in case of a determined US attack. But against regional US satellites? Remember what the Argentines did to the Royal Navy with only five Exocets and an arms embargo.

The US military has no match on the conventional battlefield. Its proxies are, however, a different story.

Might even give old Rummy a heart attack. This isn't a few thousand AKs we're talking about here.

Imagine that - an oil-producing nation with a genuine defense and couter-strike capability! I'm not one to support diverting funds from social projects to defense, but Chavez would do well to take a look at some of the current Russian offerings in terms of platform and cruise missile technology if he wants to defend his country's independence (and his own life in the process).

configured for air-to-ground/sea assault. Perfect for taking out oil installations in, say, the Mexican Gulf.

I don't suppose he would attack first in any event. Just a bit of deterrence.

hypersonic cruise missile launched from platforms like the SUkhoi bombers and capable of MIRV.The fact that it is hypersonic and comes under the radar gives us very short reaction time.If that technology gets transferred to India, China and Brazil as part of the BRIC alliance I think the balance of power may very well shift. We got to keep an eye on this.

It may cause new balance to untested powers. But, mach 17 missles are more the threat than mach 2 or 3 planes, which would be target practice on the ground. Ans, still too small for troops deployment.

Although, everytime this thing flies, it could be to begin the end.

Sweet!


Su-34

I know. Silly question. These things are country killers.

Don

US military aircraft are always grey and dull.

Better than the F/A-22 anyway.



For me though, nothing looks better than these.




Jay

Noticed the Glamorous Glennis nose job. I've never seen that pic before, so thanks!

I think the Su-34 is beautiful, really quite stunning and sexy.

On edit: are they giving the F-22 an /A ability now?? I thought it was purely a dogfightin' air superiority thang..?

supposed to be attack planes too now. They even have some on the drawing board that are bigger and can carry more fuel and payload. But from what I understand, it's far from certain that the F/A-22 will be deployed at all.

flying it but it is his ride. It got the F/A designation in 2000. It's barely an A though. It can carry a whole 2 bombs in it's bay. It doesn't have hard points to maintain it's supposed stealthyness. I liked the F-23 much, much better.

I never did get the poop on how well the 22 actually out performed this beauty, any info??

The Su-27 it's up there with the F18 in my list of most beautiful modern airplanes (I still think that the Spitfire is the most beautiful airplane ever :-). The 34 also looks great. I don't know why everybody talks about the MiG's (which are nice) but you rarely see anything on Sukhoi's...

Cheers (From a pacifist that loves nice airplanes.. :-)

It's one of my favorite american planes from WWII. Most people rave about the P-51, but I like the P-38.. :-)

The Museum of Flight here in Seattle has one, although I don't think it was out when I went to visit. I'll have to ask for it the next time I'll go.

Cheers..

My Dad was a fighter pilot while I grew up, now he's a disk jockey of some importance apparently. lol... we go round and round when we get together, but he knows that I still love aircraft.

I loved the old p-38s as well... I really really loved the British Lightning jet fighter as well. Yes it looked like a fly, but its design was just sooo damn interesting side launched fuselage missles, the front end of a Mig-21 and jets set on top of eachother... not too mention those fly wings...

Don't even get me started on Vulcans!!

I have this big discussions with my wife, who is also a pacifist, but doesn't appreciate airplanes very much.. :-)

I got the bug because my father was an avid model builder. He did WWII almost exclusively, so I got to like those planes first. Then I started to get into the jets...

The Electric Lightning is one strange bird. I'm not very keen on nose air intakes (although I really like the Vought A7 design.. :-).

The Vulcans look fantastic, when I was a kid and I wanted to draw an airplane, that was what I went for. And speaking of bombers, what do you think of the Mosquito? That is another of my WWII favorites..

Cheers..

and also many of my hippie friends but they're just jealous becuase I have longer hair!! hehehe

Hooo boy, have I gots some wicked model stories I could share.... and I almost just did, but then the thread almost break due to the strain of sheer boredom I was imposing upon it. lol.

Not much of a conical nose intake guy myself, but because of the Lightning being from the west it was bit of an oddity. I was actually at the last air show performance of any active Lightnings, the pilot was impressive enough that my dad and his buds raved pretty good about the jet and his skills. Then again they weren't too long out of UPT so WTF did they know?!? :evilgrin:

In England I got to see the Vulcan at one of its last shows as well... or maybe it was just after it retired, hmmm can't remember except getting to see it fly was was way super cool after oggling the one at Castle AFBs' air museum even before my dad went in to the AF. They also had a 1/8th or 1/16th scale flying jet model of it there (bunch of other ones as well, a modelers nocturnal emmision). Such a net canopy and paint job, and what a wing!!

Sadly enough I was watching an air show with a Mosquito and Meteor flying as a historic air team and the Meteor went down... again my memory may be faulty it might've been a different craft than the 'Squito. Again another odd canopy shape, therefore I like it! Something very cool about it being made of wood as well. Cute in a lovable frog kinda way. Operationally it sounds like it was one hell of a workhorse and those are the ones that win wars, thus bringing an end to mass killing which as a pacifist is sometimes the best we can hope for, I'm sure you've told your wife something similar?

I was at an air show here a good few years back and the historic jet
pair collided. Think it was a Venom or Vampire (one of the twin boom
series from Vickers anyway).

One of them lost a good chunk of the control surface, the other had a
damaged wing I think (long time ago) but could still fly.
Remember seeing one (co-pilot?) eject but the pilot was still trying
to get control when he went in. Very sad to realise that had just
witnessed the death of a man who had been pleasing thousands just a
few minutes earlier: a muffled "crump" followed by a slowly rising
pall of oily smoke and that was the end of a pilot.

(Another fan of EE Lightnings, Vulcans but favourite was the H-P Victor
with it's futuristic nose - straight out of 1950s Science Fiction mags!)

Nihil

Sad to say, but I have never had the opportunity of seeing one. Here in the State I've never been to a place where they have them, and back in my home country they were kind of unheard of..

I have been able to see the Blue Angels a couple of times, they come to Seattle every year and they train right above my lab. I can stick my head out a window and you can see 4 F-18's roaring past at a couple of hundred meters from the ground. :-) I was also able to see a B-24 and a B-29 flying over Pittsburgh one.

That's pretty much my experience with airshows...

Anyway, just to give you an idea of my wife and I, and airplanes: I usually make up stuff to see how long I can keep it up before she catches on or I start laughing.. So, there we were, crossing the US while moving from Pittsburgh to Seattle, we are in the middle of South Dakota, my wife is driving and I'm looking around when I see this little dot in the sky. After a couple of minutes I see the silhouette and I tell my wife: That's a B1-B bomber. I mean, at that point you could barely tell it was an airplane, but that was the only thing with that shape that I could think would be flying there. Anyway, my wife thought I was making fun of her and I was trying to tell her that I was serious. She would reply that how the hell could I tell it was such and such from that distance (I'm shortsighted to boot :-) The thing is that we drive 5-10 more miles and we get to this sign that says, really big: Ellsworth Air Force Base Home of the B1B Lancer.. My wife was quite impressed.. :-)