inkSurprised this isn’t in here already, seems quite significant to me:
MOSCOW, January 9 (RIA Novosti) – Russia has started full-scale production of the Su-34 Fullback fighter bomber at a Siberian aircraft plant, plane maker Sukhoi said on Wednesday.
A company spokesman said up to 20 fighters could now be assembled simultaneously at the Novosibirsk Aviation Production Association (NAPO), but did not specify how many would be built each year.
The $36 million Su-34 fighter-bomber is a two-seat strike aircraft equipped with twin AL-31MF afterburning turbojet engines. It is designed to deliver high-precision strikes on heavily-defended targets under any weather conditions, day or night, and fields weaponry that includes a 30mm GSh-301 cannon, up to 12 Alamo or Archer AAMs, ASMs, and bombs.
Designed by Sukhoi, the Su-34s will replace the Su-24 Fencer frontline bombers. Experts said the new bomber has the potential to become the top plane in its class for years to come.
To date only a handful of pre-production models have been built. In mid-2004 Sukhoi announced that low-rate production was commencing and that initial aircraft would reach squadron service around 2008.
In March 2006, Russia’s then Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov announced that the government had purchased only two Su-34s for delivery in 2006, and planned to have a complete air regiment of 24 Su-34s operational by the end of 2010. A total of 58 aircraft will be purchased by 2015 to replace some of 300 Su-24s, which are undergoing modernization to prolong their service life.
inkThe Russians must be fuming!!
inkSean,
What exactly is it that gives the Su-35 such an advantage in your opinion? I cannot see anything that spectacular in terms of bettering the eurocanards… Not to say that it won’t be capable – just that the difference isn’t necessarily that great.
inkSens,
You gave the primary mission of AD. It has to defend Serbia from air attacks.
The fact is that you insist on remaining as unrealistic as when this thread started to become a thread about Allied Force. Of course Serbia’s air defence network could not “defend” agains air attacks by such a ridiculously overmatched foe. It was never designed to do this – it would be stupid to think otherwise – I don’t care what sort of logic you think you’re using. Once we accept this fact we are able to move to the idea of a new primary mission for the AD netword – personally I think UAZ has it down.
inkSwerve,
Frankly, I don’t think we disagree on very much here… But I still couldn’t resist responding to your earlier comments :diablo:
Schorsch,
OK, a defense that doesn’t defend isn’t really useful. One can argue that by hiding its AD-assets Serbia was able to increase the cost to NATO by forcing it to fly SEAD sorties until the end of the conflict. It also made NATO using medium flight levels to avoid AAA and MANPADS.
But if you put an SA-2 launcher in a barn it will survive, but that doesn’t help you in any way.
You’ve kind of killed your own point there. Obviously if an SA-2 in a barn is able to make NATO fly SEAD throughout the campaign, and fly at higher altitudes it does “help you in some way”. That same SA-2 (as Garry kindly pointed out) is much less useful if its smouldering away in a field somewhere because it did anything more than, to borrow Swerve’s phrase, “survive & snipe”.
Obviously the air defence network of a small nation will not help you “defend” very much if NATO comes knocking. That should go without saying (and yet its what I’ve been saying for years and nobody seems to listen). That same air defence network might be really useful against any regional neighbours though, which is what you would expect.
inkThe debate regarding Allied Force ought not to be about who won or lost (at least in the confines of this thread). Rather it is instructive in the sense that the air defence network (largely based on outdated technology) of a small and impoverished nation was able to operate under 78 days of attacks by the largest, most advanced military alliance in the world (complete with all of the technology and training that entails). When was that F-16 shot down anyway?
Obviously the air defence forces could not stop NATO attacks – surely that would be too much to expect from their size and composition in comparison to that of their enemy. The remarkable thing is that it still functioned throughout the war. The implications of this are not exactly staggering but surely they play on the minds of NATO military planners. How different would things have been had the equipment and training of the AD network been more advanced?
The fact is that Serbia was a soft target* for NATO and the civilian infrastructure (Swerve, the deliberate targeting of this is indisputable) was the softest bit.
Also, Swerve, I can’t help but take issue with this point even though it isn’t strictly related to the topic:
the Serb forces in Kosovo would have been operating among a hostile population, making guerilla tactics untenable.
From quite early on in NATO’s campaign the KLA was only able seriously hinder the VJ’s operations in the vicinity of the Albanian border (and even there they were unable to oppose moves made by the VJ in a serious way). It is only once the withdrawal began at the end of Allied Force that the KLA was able to move into central Kosovo.
* Several years of arms embargoes and economic sanctions had served to soften it quite thoroughly.
inkit will be 3-4 times less may be about 60-70% cost of F-35.
Yet even at this price, and with the relaxed (political) strings attached to military exports by the Russians, it promises to be competitive on the market. Certainly in the time-frame we’re looking at a number of countries that are currently buying FLANKERs (or which haven’t bought Russian for a while) might be tempted to upgrade. Not to mention that India alone represents a significant ‘export’ potential.
inkThanks for the pics and info guys!
Still curious about how many airframes are being upgraded though.
inkSo, the Russians have been pretty quiet about FENCER upgrades for a while now (or I’m out of touch even more than I suspected) and then this:
MOSCOW, November 21 (RIA Novosti) – Russia’s Air Force is to get six upgraded Su-24 Fencer frontline bombers with another six set for upgrade, an Air Force spokesman said on Wednesday.
“In the near future military pilots will fly the six upgraded Su-24 bombers from the Novosibirsk [Siberia] air plant to the base airfield,” said Alexander Drobyshevsky.
He also said a second batch of six Sukhoi Su-24M bombers would soon reach the plant for modernization.
I thought I’d take this opportunity to inquire with those less out of touch than myself:
What does the upgrade entail? Not new engines surely but maybe a new radar? A new avionics suite? What else?
How many aircraft are being upgraded?
Whats the new designation for this upgrade?
Anything I might have missed in the mini-question list above?
inkA tool that does not work is useless and a waste of money.
Just to clarify: The point of backing into a bunker is so that the radar doesn’t have to drive a couple of hundred metres to the next ‘position’ to be safe – it can go into the bunker until the ARM has eliminated itself by crashing into the ground and then emerge to start emitting again more quickly. The concept, incidentally, isn’t mine, I heard about it from a Yugoslav PVO veteran of Allied Force. Though it is worth mentioning that I don’t have any info more detailed than that.
inkWhich is a damn good description of a mission kill!. The radars not much use if, for the duration of an attack ingress/egress, its having to bury itself in a bunker to dodge ARMs!
Well, true, but you’re assuming I only have one radar… :dev2: And that its going to be in the bunker for very long… Neither of which have to be very true.
And of course its better to think in the long term – i.e. better to keep as many radars safe for as long as possible.
But in reality I think that the best defense would be a comprehensive combination of the methods suggested by other posters (i.e. jamming, short-range SAMs, mobility, decoys, chaff… All of it).
inkMaybe possible with a electronically scanned array radar. If the radar detects a missile it basically needs to move something like 50 meters to prevent destruction. Also thinkable would be a decoy moving while emitting from the radar and the original radar being shut down. Quite theoretical ideas, however.
Even better if it drives 50m into a prepared bunker… Then it can just crawl out again when things are safe and start emitting.
inkThere is a reason why “big Western air forces” have opted almost solely for “multi-role” fighters: there is no longer a pressing need for a solely defensive, short range, single role fighter.
Yes, thats true – “big Western air forces” do not require short-ranged, single role fighter… But some other countries might. There are a lot of countries out there that are the size od Macedonia, Slovenia, Slovakia etc etc that require cheap short-legged fighters.
The problem comes when we get to the “single role” bit – almost no airforce (including African, Latin American, Eastern European and S.East Asian airforces) can afford to buy airframes that will perfom in only one role. Say your hypothetical small country buys stealthy interceptors (as described above) but gets attacked by/has trouble with insurgents/seperatists/geurillas… or is attacked by a neighbouring small country whose airforce it destroys (using the interceptors) but whose army is marching for the capital… Any airframe said small country buys must be able to perform a spectrum of roles.
The GCI concept has been entirely discredited.
Has it? I believe it has no uses for “big Western air forces” as they tend to do their fighting over other people’s countries but for small countries who do not intend to project power – it might still have some uses.
At one time, the Soviets were more than willing to give away dozens GCI radar sets, along with hundred of small, limited capability fighter planes, not to mention a nearly limitless supply of surface-to-air missiles.
The Soviets givin stuff away has nothing to do with the stuff in question being obsolete. The US ‘gives’ Israel a fair bit of kit – is everything Israel gets totally pants as well?
inkFrom what I recall proposals for the new Russian strategic bomber were swing-wing… So the idea may not be entirely dead just yet.
inkAnyone care to talk about Blackjacks?
Sign In
