I understand it has certain advantages wrt a ground attack role. But I I’m not sure they’re so great so as to justify all the funding that went into the Su-34’s development.
Clearly the people dealing with billions of $$ of orders disagree.
-Cockpit armor is not so important to modern fighters that prefer to drop PGMs from high altitude
Sure, if you are fighting a bunch of ill-prepared jihadis. Once the quality SAMs come into play, a pilot’s life is important. (For high-altitude missions).
The whole point of the Su-34 is also low-altitude capability (sort of Su-25-like) . . . and here, again, the armor is important. CAS type missions at low level vs. someone without SAMs can be very helpful to a friendly ground force.
-Side-by-side seating is may provide crew comfort for long missions but comes with limitations in pilot visibility for dogfights
Dogfight and Su-34 should not be used in the same sentence.
The only thing it is going to “dogfight” is enemy ‘kukuruzniks’ (light attack jets) should those be available for an OpFor.
-Not sure about the payload(any sources I see online only show 8000kg) but I should think 8 tonnes of PGMs and cruise missiles would be good enough for most applications
Latest Russian sources = 12T.
-Some of the other advantages of the Su-34 could have been applied more cheaply for the Su-27/30, like better ground attack radar capability and increased internal fuel capacity(via a longer tail spine). Besides the Flanker can have upto 14 pylons(with multiple ejectors), why not spare one or two for a drop tank?
The Su-34 radar was specifically optimized for ground, and its shape is what makes it good at A2G. Try flattening the nose of an Su-27SM/30/35.
Sign In
