Russia's Ultra Advanced Super Jet Fighter
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- In the thick of 2022, as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine sent shockwaves across the globe, a faint glimmer of hope persisted. Many believed that Putin’s vaunted hypersonic weapons couldn’t be efficiently utilized, given that the MiG-31K, their usual carrier, had become a rare sight in the post-Soviet skies.
But that fragile comfort was shattered in mid-March. The sky roared, not with a MiG but a Sukhoi Su-34 strike/bomber. With terrifying precision, it released the first Kinzhal hypersonic missile in the conflict, showcasing that this post-Soviet warplane was far from obsolete and a formidable force to be feared.
Though the Su-34 had seen minimal action since its official induction into the Russian Air Force in 2014, this brazen act thrust it back into the limelight. Sleek, nimble, and boasting an impressive 4,000-kilometer range and a 14,000-kilogram bomb capacity, the aircraft seemed unstoppable.
But as it tore through the skies over Ukraine, a haunting story began to unravel piece by piece. The battlefield soon bore witness to the charred remains of the Su-34, and theories emerged about its design being its own worst enemy.
---
Join Dark Skies as we explore the world of aviation with cinematic short documentaries featuring the biggest and fastest airplanes ever built, top-secret military projects, and classified missions with hidden untold true stories. Including US, German, and Soviet warplanes, along with aircraft developments that took place during World War I, World War 2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Cold War, the Gulf War, and special operations mission in between.
As images and footage of actual events are not always available, Dark Skies sometimes utilizes similar historical images and footage for dramatic effect and soundtracks for emotional impact. We do our best to keep it as visually accurate as possible.
All content on Dark Skies is researched, produced, and presented in historical context for educational purposes. We are history enthusiasts and are not always experts in some areas, so please don't hesitate to reach out to us with corrections, additional information, or new ideas.
So basically its biggest flaw is that it's built and fielded by Russia.
Good one! I concur.
@@Cognizant-ut9ojexcept the F16 couldn't find it before the F35 was done firing missiles at it. But by all means, delude yourself in thinking cold war era tech is still the best.
thanks . saved me 15mins
Seems to be a common problem across their armed forces😂
@@Cognizant-ut9oj you're full of shit and we all know it. Only one F117 was ever downed, and only because it kept flying the same route over and over again. Telling, that you had to go a quarter century in the past to find even one instance of a stealth jet getting shot down. Meanwhile, just in Ukraine, at least 20 SU-34 have been shot down. Ultimately it's simple : Russia only has cold war tech with a couple upgrades here and there, while the US has pretty much the latest technology in the world. If cold war tech was any good, Russia (and its best client China) would be dominating the world instead of the West. Argue all you want, I just look at the results because those are undeniable. And the results show that Russia can't even invade Ukraine, who's using the same type of plane they use. So if the F-35 even roll in, putin can kiss his ass goodbye.
The duck of death. Russia is still alive in Ukraine- if it was fighting NATO they would be wiped out in 96 hours
I'm not sure they'd last that long.
@@HE-pu3nt That’s what General Petraeus said in a pod cast some months ago when Putin was threatening nukes. I do find it strange that we still see videos about how Putin wants the Soviet empire back… so what? You haven’t taken Avdika (? Spelling) since 2014. They will take Kyiv in what 2090?
-Врёте много, как обычно все люди западной психологии. Не знаю, зачем вас так с детства воспитывают?! У нас принято отвечать за свои слова, а иначе по морде бьют. Ну да ладно...
-В Сирии, мы были по приглашению законного правительства которое признано всем миром!!! А войска США там находятся как захватчики.
-Все наши самолёты: это изящество конструкторской мысли, аэродинамики и функциональности! А большинство ваших((!)замечу не все, есть у вас шедевры технической мысли), выглядят так, как-будто сделаны топором(топорная работа), с аэродинамикой кирпича!!! И так во всём!!! Мы берём умом, а вы деньгами и подлостью(пардон; обманом).🧐😠😎
SU-34's aren't out maneuvering anybody.
Many channels use pictures of themselves making funny faces and click bait titles like "the tiny detail" or "not what you think" for views. I completely avoid them. Your channel has great content. Don't be That Guy.
"... this one simple trick ..." too.
People don't like doing it but it's a necessity, youtube just recommends your videos more if it detects a face in the thumbnail.
Очередной вброс для тех, кто не станет проверять информацию. Даже если верить украинским "экспертам", то всего за время спец операции было сбито шесть СУ 34. То есть берём в пример эту максимально возможную цифру. И напоминаю, что сбитый СУ 34 был сбит СОВЕТСКИМ ПВО. Военные действия, помним*
*Потом мы вбиваем список НЕ боевых потерь военной авиации стран НАТО за последние десять лет. Потом мы применяем свой мозг, и задумываемся : " А что будет с военной авиацией НАТО, если её будут так-же жёстко эксплуатировать как и российскую, буквально 24/7?*
"The Tiny Detail Stopping the Almost Perfect Aircraft" ----> Разве это не приманка?
I don't believe it's an issue with the aircraft itself, but more the setting. In most previous combat settings (for either west or Russia) it's been modern aircraft vs inferior and outdated opponents/defence. In Ukraine, modern faces modern for the first time since the 60's. And in this it's something the west is looking into with interest as it's an indicator of well or badly their own kit will stand up to facing modern adversaries and defences for the first time in over 60 years
a point well made, unfortunately we will see the same with the F16's
Well stated Paulcadden4967, I fully concur.
Ukraine isn't fielding anything modern
You are forgetting among other others Desert Storm there, where western weapons where facing some of the most current soviet equipment available, and flying into the second best defended airspace after Moscow.
Most of what Ukraine initially was fielding, is similar technology, to what Iraq had available in 91. With the dissolution of the USSR giving the US perfect insight into the capabilities of most ex-soviet weapons systems, by simply borrowing/buying/visiting the weapons in places like freshly unified Germany or Poland.
What is of interest though, is how good the new post-1991 developments of the Russian arms industry are holding up. And if and how much the Soviets/Russians actually downgraded their export equipment (there was a persistent but now disprooven rumor, that the Russian T-72s are considerably better than the export T-72s)
@@AntonGudenus Iraq didn't have modern air defence, the best one that they have was SA-2, which is 1960's missile. Ukraine on the other hand had much more modern SA-10. Also the US made sure that most of the Iraqi air defence was destroyed, unless Russia. So this war is truly modern compare to Desert Storm.
Man… the Russians make some beautiful aircraft!!
Very true, it's just a shame that they are such c***s!
They do
Su34 is the primary carrier of UMPK glide bombs, a cheap and ubiquitous munition which helps them not to enter the heavily contested airspace. Most of the losses were at the very beginning of the conflict.
Another reason why Russian jets don't cross into Ukraine is because their own AA defenses are just as likely to shoot at them or shoot them down. The way I understand it they have shitty IFF tech and protocols. And yes they have been shot at and shot down by their own AA defenses.
You are 100% correct.
They still shoot down their own aircraft with shocking frequency....their saving grace is their snti air systems aren't quite as unstoppable as they say, or that number would be much higher.
Koji si ti glupson.@@mtmadigan82
Koji si ti glupson.@@mtmadigan82
Wow this video just keeps on giving.
6:50 "..has an advanced radar that can see through clouds".
Here in Britain we had an advanced radar system that could see through clouds, it had a codeword and everything. We called it "Chainhome". We finished it in 1939.
Guy is a clown
Yep. My boat has a radar that can do the same thing.😂
OP acting like doppler radar is revolutionary new shit for 2023 lmao
i take this channels words with a massive grain of salt for both western and russian equipment alike
I know the channel isn't known for its accuracy, but this script in particular feels like one of the weakest I have watched. Canards for aesthetics, the radar comment, and stunning at the air show with its "aerial refueling prowess." I hear the whole "safe take off and landing" thing really wowed the crowd as well.
I honestly love the look of the SU family.
There is no inherent flaw with the Su34. It's just in a real full scale war you will lose some aircraft. Losses haven't been particularly high in reality. Losses were mainly incurred in the first weeks as Ukraine's air defence systems were being destroyed. The crash into the apartment building was due to an engine failure on take off. Nothing rare in aviation. The same happened to an Italian airforce jet recently. The case of friendly fire has nothing to do with the aircraft.
War is trading lives and equipment for objectives. If you look at the progress towards their objectives, Russia has paid a very high price. Especially their air force.
@@ostrich00 yes, but actually no, looking at what they faced it's still a pretty low price to pay for what they achieved
Everything you said is true, except the firat part about losses being low. With a production rate of 12 a year, well even 20 to 30 lost is kinda irreplaceble in any timely manner. Great plane though.
@@CharlesYuditsky the losses are low, 20 planes have been lost in the entire war (nearly 2 years of war) so they replaced them lately. too much propaganda from both sides makes real information really hard to get.
@@theleo7109 Correct, I have been saying exactly that. But 12 a year production leaves the Russians equal in planes
Wow!
Well done for mentioning the agility of the Su-27 without once using the term "Cobra manoeuvre".
Bro taking the whole thing to be so offensive lol
People really get hung up on that. Like the damn thing itself wasn't actually built for BVR combat and only has that kind of manoeuvrability for if things have gone hilariously wrong with the gameplan.
True, but he did use: "flat-spin, straight into the ground".
The channel has lots of interesting topics, but all their channels have some crazy wild statements on all videos and leave out stuff sometimes too like aforementioned.
@@Aeronaut1975what happens every time I fly it in dcs world
What tiny detail? You made a statement in the title of the video and then never answered the statement. I understand the GPS issue, but in the video you made it seem the issue had something to do with the random crashes of SU-34s, which could be GPS related if planes were randomly crashing into things. Again, this is not the way the information is portrayed in the video. The video seems to claim there is something mechanical, electrical, or hydraulic/pneumatic that is causes the airframes to crash. So, what is it?
Okay, it wasn’t just me! I ended the video thinking, “wait… what was the fatal flaw? This alleged hamartia?”
The Sukhoi doesn’t fly for NATO. That’s it’s tiny defect. Literally. What’s the last time NATO aircraft flew up against modern, multilayered, billion dollar air defense systems? I’ll admit, the RuAF has been less than dominant in Ukraine. But air power has never been their strength
@@jtwilliams8895 I'm not entirely sure what your point was supposed to be. NATO aircraft have been dominant over their Russian counterparts for several reasons. Not the least of which is Russian/Soviet flat out lying about equipment capabilities, while still producing systems that are basically broken. Current examples are the T-14 Armata, Kinzhal hypersonic missile, SU-57, just to name a few. The SU-34's INS, if it worked properly, would not require pilots to use a Garmin for GPS guidance.
@@SgtSeth Russia isn't lying about the Kinzhal's capabilities, the west is lying about the Kinzhal's capabilities.
@@JAnx01 Are you a military expert? Do you have in-depth, real-world knowledge of missile technology and anti-missile systems? I ask because I know someone who is a anti-missile systems expert and they have real-world knowledge and would disagree with you.
I have heard its failure is the need to fly low over a target to assure accuracy because of a shortage of precision munitions and that there is also a shortage of adequately trained pilots. Glide bombs and/or an increased availability of military grade GPS bombs may end many of the planes problems. Of course pilots that know how to avoid or take down arial denial systems such as an S300 or Patriot system would also help. From what I have heard, the latter takes extensive pilot training which the Russians will not have time to complete.
What you've heard is complete bullshit
Pilots arent trained for sorties where the main focus is on enemy ADA assets, that woul be suicide. Instead, they work with adjacent units to either avoid or supplement their attacks by suppressing the enemy ADA with artillery, or EW systems so that they can go in and then still use stand off weapons.
This is a very elegant looking airplane. Not to mention exremely deadly.
deadly to fly...
@@drcornelius8275 Uhh, No. That would be the F35.
Dude it has nothing on the F35 its not in the same league
You must be joking f35 is one of the worst military planes to ever enter service. The f22 is probably the only jet that would stand a chance, but even then it's doubtful since Russian aircraft have better radar and better missiles with greater range
@@arkady7739his source is he made it the fuck up.
Can't stop Joe Average from comparing apples to oranges... But I love their surprised Pikachu faces when the shit hits the fan and they get a reality check 😂
The F35 is and continues to be a joke. The SU 34 is vastly superior, as the Ukrainian war has proven.
Yet Ukraine can shoot it down with equipment 20 years out date
I'm starting to think whomever designed the SU fighters had ducks 🦆 on the mind
WoW! That's a lotta lipstick you're putting on that pig! Would you like to thank your sponsor for this video.....Sukhoi Shadow Legends......
The SU-34 is a bomber, that's capable of attacking targets and air-to-air combat, a proven combat record. It will be hard to replace such an effective aircraft.
Well, so far they've gotta replace about 30....
@@GhostRyderFPV Great burn lmfao
@@chaostheory6143on your knees 😭
Most aircrafts can do that though.
Hey, uhhh ... Reginald ... don't bother yourself with those Pesky Facts. Gramma doesn't want to double your meds again. Because your feelings got scortched.
Can someone educate me on the significance of the continuous use of the term "Soviet era" when describing Russian weapons that are on par with majority of thier "western" counterparts built around the same time. I stand to be corrected but I get the feeling the use of such terminology implies that these Russian weapons are inferior to western ones. To a very great degree, this narrative is heavily biased otherwise it's just outright propaganda. It reminds me of how John Rambo's one man army defeated an entire Russian army, back in the Soviet-Afgan war. Remember the story about the world's best sniper, in the early days of the war, I keep forgetting his name, the Canadian dude...what became of him?
Wali. Thar was his name (code name may be, could be wrong). He never lasted long, did an interview, and confessed he never made a shot. He said their positions were constantly being shelled by tanks. he says he suffered from hearing loss due to loud bangs. You ca check that on the internet or RUclips.
Russia has basically failed to field in numbers any design that was created after the fall of the Soviet Union. They've also failed to develop their own military designs that aren't heavily derivative of Soviet designs. Any technological imporvement is usually the installation of off the shelf western electronics. That's what's meant by Soviet Era. While NATO continues to use basic designs from the same time - F-15, F-16, F-18, Abrams, etc. Most of those platforms have received numerous upgrades. Further aircraft like the F-22, F-35, and Rafale have enetered service in numbers with meaning and are meeting their operational goals, which is nothing that any new Russian system can boast.
@@ericepperson8409 Why do you assume everything soviet is old or bad. Even US and west are looking for S300 SAMs to replenish Ukrainian depleted stock coz they know they work and are highly effective. If it works, why fix it? Why develop new expensive systems which will only cost more money. It's better you derive a system from a known platform. Simple!
@@piuswanyaga8361 have you seen the museum videos of people talking about how Soviet aircraft were laid out? What kind of condition most of their pieces were when they came to them? The cockpits literally have lots of obstructed visibility and zero sense in layout. Tanks are built with ammo storage at the feet of the crew in the turret. Penetration in the center hull or turret briefly reassigns the crew to Aviation. BMPs and BTRs are so cramped, Infantry cannot effectively dismount. EVERYTHING about Soviet design was built upon producing massive numbers. Quality did not matter. Effectiveness barely mattered. The doctrine was to swamp NATO in numbers, overwhelm, and overrun. If a western jets carries 8 missiles, the USSR planned to throw 9 aircraft at it. Their most ubiquitous arm is the AK-47. It will still shoot off you grabbed it off the Surfline of the beach. That’s the result of sloppy tolerances. It will shoot, but you’ll be lucky to hit anything.
Any platform Russia has fielded post USSR has been in such small numbers as to neglible. Su-57s don’t even make regular air show appearances. There have never been more than 4 T-14s in one place at any time. The Russian Military is large and has modern weapons - but the large part is not modern. The modern part is not large.
Why does Poland want F-16s to replace its Mig-29s? Why do they want Leopards to replace T-72s? Why has not one Patriot battery been destroyed by cruise missiles (despite Russian propaganda)? Why does Crimea not have any S400s today?
@@ericepperson8409The 7.62 round,can be stopped easily by even homemade armor today.
… just another click-bait title by Dark Skies…
*Go to **11:50** to know the "tiny detail" that hurts the Russian Su34 jet.*
GPS isnt the cause of airframes falling out of the skies
@SgtSeth it depends on what you fly into.....
Thanks, I thought that was it, but i skipped so much of the video I wasn't sure if Dark Skies was referring to something else.
It's in the hands of the Russians, that's what's hurting it.
cheers mate
Pilots can even stand behind the seats
civil GPS - is really weaknes, or redundancy in case of some disturbance of Glonas?
the possibility of Radioelectronic warfare is higly likely, so I personally will choose also redundancy.
2:43 😂 hahaha "..and FLAUNTED it air refueling capabilities" in 1992!! 🤣 omg that is SO advanced, NATO must've been shiting itself.
It's not like we haven't been air refueling since the 1920's.
Su-34 “setback”😂 (14:05)
Yes "setback" with russia being the second best Air Force in Ukraine. Ukraine was / is out numbered 10 to 1 by russia.
This BS brings into question the information on this channel. Ukrainian troops do not enjoy having FAB glide bombs dropped on them by these planes. The Ghost of Kiev claimed to have shot down most of the Russian air force but it turned out to be propaganda. The Russians have been very cautious in flying in airspace defended by S-300s or NATO air defense systems. The Ukrainians have shot down relatively few Russian aircraft. They have picked off some by moving launchers dangerously close to the front line which resulted in losing some. That hurt them more than the Russians. Russia is producing planes faster than it is losing them.
24 in 2 years is not that much. However, we dont know how frequently they are used.
Ive seen them fluying very low and droping unglided bombs over a country defended by s300, buks, patriots, stormyshadow (or something similar) …
Now, I really like this Dark Skies program, but I also get frustrated by it's heresy speculative commentary.
Please don't be like the vast majority of Western commentary and bag out everything Russian, because it's Russian pinyarda season.
I think it's safe to say that the Su-34 development has been long and somewhat ardours, because Russia hasn't got the budget that Western commentators and geopolitics cares to denote, just as Russian pilots don't have the flight time Western air forces are afforded. Hence the Su-34 is realistically in service in small numbers......
I also find it somewhat ironic that Russian high-tech equipment/platforms are brandish as being troublesome, unsuccessful or just plainly duds in the West by the West. Does anyone else remember how the vaunted General Dynamics F-111A was in terms of it's publicised strengths and capabilities by both the Pentagon and General Dynamics alike, but when it entered actual combat in the skies of Noth Viet Nam, it's operational debut was a disaster, when numbers of them mysteriously failed to return after their missions....And what of the high accident rate of the acclaimed technological marvel - the General Dynamics F-16 when it entered service?
What about the combat attraction rate of the much vaunted Panavia Tornado IDS in Gulf War 1?
I would also hope that one would seriously appreciate the hardware and expertise that the U.S. and NATO have provided and afforded Ukraine in the Russian/Ukrainian Conflict on such an unprecedented scale - from AWACS, satellite, ELINT, Command, Control, Communications, to say nothing of the weapons they've given Ukraine......is it truely any wonder the principle strike aircraft of Russia - the Su-34 would be susceptible to interception in one form or another?
she's truly a beautiful aircraft, one way or the other
Lol. The first 3/4 of this video is quite the russophile puff-piece.
Firstly, Kinzhal is a big nothing-berger. It's just an air-launched version of the Iskander medium range ballistic missile. Yes, it is hypersonic. EVERY ballistic missile is hypersonic. Even the Nazi V2 rockets, the first ballistic missile, were hypersonic.
Where hypersonic missiles are scary is when they are navigable. That's when they are difficult to shoot down. Ballistic hypersonic glide vehicles, and navigable hypersonmic cruise missiles are what we should be worrying about. Nothing terrifying about the Kinzhal. At least no more so than any other medium range ballistic missile. We know we can shoot those down.
Secondly, of courser the SU-34 was going to be effective at close air support against adversaries in Syria that lack an air force or an integrated air defense. It's nothing special. A run of the mill 4th gen strike aircraft in an increasingly 5th gen, and soon 6th gen world. It would have been quite amazing if it took to the skies in 1986. By 2014 when it was actually deployed, it was an also-ran, focusing on things like maneuverability and speed in a world where increasingly that doesn't matter much.
Air- launched ballistic missiles, are no more hypersonic than any other ballistic missile!!!
@@mitchellcouchman6589 Quite the contrary, there is no single peace of evidence of that so- called" maneuveravility"! The basic missile- Iscander is purely balistic and unable to change trajectory and last but not least Kinzhal lacks the means to maneuver!
A little pop quiz for you all.
Can you guess why russian planes don't fly high altitude missions very often. Not just this piece of junk but all russian planes.
answer. They can't get regular shipments of oxygen.
That tells you everything.
the biggest reason of downed su 34 is because they were designed to fire long range guided munitions where they would be totally out of threat of enemy anti air, but unfortunately, russia lacks the funds to arm those missles in the fullbacks. So the pilots are forced to carry "dumb bombs", resulting in casualities.
You're mostly right, except that it's not lack of funds that's to blame, but low stocks & production ramp up time, plus more effective & numerous air defense systems than encountered in Syria. Any other light bomber would face the same challenges.
Remember that Russia fully expected Ukraine to negotiate & sign a peace agreement, which they very nearly did - it was signed & only needed ratification, before Boris Johnson intervened, and convinced Zelensky the west would help them win.
Now they use UMPK as a cheap and numerous standoff weapon
Russia cares more about cruise missiles than fighter jets.
Exactly the same problem that the UK's (at the time) cutting edge Tornado GR1 faced in the opening weeks of Gulf War 1. Having to drop the unguided runway denial system right over the centre of the airfield! A lethal, effective system but one of which was always going to cause a high attrition rate to the attacking aircraft. Naturally the UK taxpayer were right to ask just how effective had their money been spent on the Tornado airframe? Where as other comparable platforms such as the F1-11, F15E and F18 were generally not getting shot down by ground fire. Of course...once that mission was complete and the GR1 started to drop precision, guided munitions from a higher altitude...the losses stopped.
Whilst the Syrian conflict may have had definite ground threats, it was hardly a stringent test for the aircraft, having no comparable airborne adversaries! It's tRICKy?
At this point, I am convinced that Russia starts up a conflict every 10 to 20 years, purely to test equipment and to allow Putin to relive his days in the KGB where the Soviet Union was a truly powerful force through their shear size
US appears to engage in tests every 4 or 5 years
💊💊💊💊
Most larger countries do, it's nothing new. It used to be even more prevalent in the Cold War, or at least more highly visible.
@@aleksandrpulnikov684yeah it always seems to work pretty well
@@Aetherblade-z4o do you mean your colorful exit from Afghanistan, when Taliban took over the country in an hour? i would not be so sure.
Russia don't make remotely "Perfect " anything ! LoL
Perfect disasters perhaps ?
You really sleep on russian jets
@@Peter-ge9ij Ahhhh the fine Art of "Whataboutism".
Putin is killing civilians in Ukraine !
But, but. The West has Police Brutality..... SIGH
Pathetic....
Demonstrate please, any military aircraft (4:34) that will endure the weight penalty of canards, for mere aesthetics? Never mind, though often draped with errors, we do enjoy our "Dark" series various!
Typical BS RUclips video. Starts off with lots of hyperbole, like an ad. The 'tiny detail' is never mentioned. No value added.
The simple difference between the SU-34's survivability in Syria vs Ukraine, is how much air defense they were up against. Ukraine had a lot more air defense systems, such as ex soviet S-200 & S-300, which are capable of taking out the SU-34, or any other comparable category aircraft.
If the SU-34 had navigation issues or inherent design flaws, these would have equally plagued its operations in Syria. In other words, this video is hogwash.
exactly my thoughts
i couldn't watch the whole video as i found it unbearable, but from the video i watch , it forgot to mention that the plane is as heavy as a bus! it is too heavy to be a fighter and too small to be a bomber! we had to rely on the manufacture for the over inflated description of the su34, until the ukraine war we saw the true performance of the russian military and airplanes!
SU-34 has always inquired me. Prob my most favorite Russian aircraft.
what does it inquire of you? I suspect it's a Russian Spy inquiring knowledge of you ;)
I was inquired
If the only criterion is looks, sure.
When you get your electronics from China you have problems…
It's a shame that Russia can't let their pilots fly often enough to utilize the planes they have effectively.
No, that's good for everyone else.
The syrian war was still a very good practice ground for the russian air force.
Garbage!!! F16 would punish that plane. Looks like a mix between an F14 and an F15 but no guts or balls!!!
Pretty plane, pretty paint. Would think it's an A- (attack/light bomber), not an F- (aerial fighter) by size/tandem cockpit.
Descrip sounds like cutting-edge early 90's tech ready for the 2030s. 😊
if a constant argument that maneuverability isnt a factor as a fighter, than SU34 is an A++ fighter, as its able to carry same ordinance as the most advanced fighters. Its primary role is being a ground attacker regardless. 90's tech was an early iteration for everything we have to day, from eurofighter to f22, all was born in the 90's and modified over time, su34 was also born in the 90's but was produced later. Its an incredible tech even today
anyone else think the front end looks like a duck?
Seriously. This video is hideously researched. Just throwing crap at the wall. Capable aircraft for sure and I don’t want it attacking me but it’s a bit funny to say it’s “perfect despite one flaw” when the f35 exists and the next gen stealth bomber is about to be debuted.
@@gravidar it's literally nicknamed duckling in russian....
@@SovietUnion_ Not exactly. Yes, today's technology is built on yesterday's. But the SU-34 is not a clean sheet design, while Western designs with a new designation are.
I don't know why maybe it's on purpose , when westerners talk about this jet they never tell that this is bomber first !
and this bomber/fighter can hang with dedicated western fighters !
also this jet is huge compered to the jets it has to fight and this even has a toilet in it , let that sink in !
BTW it was NATO tropes that shoot down most of the Russian jets and helicopters even ground vehicles , Russia did not think that west is that much r8t5rded to risk a ww3 that is why they lost many as they did at the start , and now they don't because now they know they are fighting NATO not just dumb Ukrainians ( why dumb ? because they are cool being a Proxy for US )
also more than 30,000 NATO personal were already killed in Ukraine ( like Anthony Potts who got wacked in a pizza shop in Ukraine ) and those Germans in the leopard 2a5 with German uniforms !
I think its one of the most beautiful aircraft of all time.
lol answer - its russian :D
This is why the raf typhoon is packed with a countermeasure defence system. One typhoon can defend its self upto 16 missiles.
Though who knows if they work. Afghan villagers don't have many SAMs
3:50 He's reading a MAP. Well he must be the navigator, must be trying find the local donut shop....with a MAP...yep, state of the art.
us pilots always use maps, even myself that is just a private pilot have a kneeboard map always on to watch.
@@TOx1CC yep ! A MAP, basic instruments as compass and speed indicator, plus a bit of DEAD reckoning, and you are still fine after all the electronics of GPS and Co. let you down !
We still use maps. 21 years of flying for the Army and maps / TDH still gets us there. But hey, maps are stupid for kids who play war games in their parent's basements. 😅
@heavenst.murgatroyd3128 I'm a grandmother and have never played War Games. Though I might have seen the film.
...it`s still a fourth generation aircraft...wait for new western developments that already exist...they will fly circles around these sukhois...
It looks amazing, like a metallic duck. That's all the good things I can say about it.
like a Bolshoi dancer... buck in the USSR we could have them, for a pair of jeans... now a a T-shirt will do...
It's being refered among pilots as 'Селезень' which means male duck. They could've called it duck but in russian duck is 'утка' and it's kinda female by default, but if you look at the rear part of plane - it's not a female at all. That's why it has so weird nickname among pilots.
the title speaks FIRST about the ''tiny detail'' and then about the ''almost perfect aircraft''... the video spends 12 out of the 14 min to praise the ''FLYING POTATO'' and at the last min is giving the REAS0N FOR THAI FAILURE... it was build by walking dumpsters...
To be fair to the Su-34, the War in Ukraine is unlike any the world has seen since WW2 (maybe Korea). Not least of which in terms of casualties (albeit, actual figures for both sides are unknown). The scale is insane. The U.S. has had the ability to avoid peer v. peer wars. But Russia has found itself essentially in a peer v. peer war due to western aid. Heck, calling it aid is a huge understatement. We're talking hundred of billions in aid (modern equipment). All Ukraine needs to supply is the manpower.
It's a proxy war. It was the threats of NATO encroaching too close.
Awesome video on an amazing plane. I liked the part where the Su was shown to Suck. You get all the lulz Russia. Better luck next time.
Hubris of the Russian military is a good way to put it. If anyone here doesn't know, the Russian Air Force has no standard SEAD practices or tactics. They don't do SEAD missions. They have terrible capability of neutralizing anti-air threats from the air. It's better to think of the Russian Air Force as an extension of the Russian Army. They rarely operate beyond their own front lines, which differentiates them from western tactics.
Go back to sleep, fool.
All SAMS the US ever conducted SEAD missions against were static.
Not to mention most still rely on ground based help to find targets
Are you being serious or trolling?
russias won
Soviet era military technology... that proved itself less than impressive in modern Russia's hands... I feel like I've heard that story before... Many times...
flying turrets LOL
Yeah hear it endlessly. Yet they seem to win...as they are in Ukraine
@@stephen4121 Sure you are. 😊 Your two week victory has been going on for almost three years. You won half the way to Kyiv. Then you won all the way back again. Latest number is 70 000 victory points and 250 000 bonus points I believe. 👏👏👏
No matter where you are from, The Russians make beautiful ships, submarines, tanks and aircraft.
Beautiful only from the outside though.
They say both China and Russia are trying to develop stealth technology. China has what is considered to be a stealth fighter but as per another video on it the Chinese government insisted on external hard points which drops the plane’s stealth capabilities and the other thing is the heat trail from half the afterburner section still hanging out the back of the plane….
Forget about that, Canard config is greatly compromising stealth, that is why Gripen has the option of dropping the forewings. Size also affects Stealth.
The F-35 and F-22 has external hard points as well for ground attack missions.
there is difference in doctrine. US have doctrine to atack - sneak in to enemy space and destroy radars etc… China and Russia have defence doctrine, so stealth is not so important and if than only from frontal wiew (that is why SU57 have naked engines - performance over stealth.
@@lubomirdoukov6975 " Gripen has the option of dropping the forewings"
No, it does not, as that would not just move the centre of lift to the last third off the fuselage, but also seriously compromise the airflow and thereby the lift of the main wings.
The fact that the J20 dragon and material the control surfaces are made of including the hard points for weapons makes them look like a small house on radar or a flying mobile home aleast and all Chinese jets engines really puff that dark black smoke which says the fuel mix isn't consistent and they don't burn all there fuel in after burner which explains why there much weaker then there western counterparts China always struggled with their engines though
Odd that many of the clips of pilots ejecting only show one parachute. when its a crewed by two. Likely footage of SU27
Its actually from a video of a su25 that you can find on youtube
I'm shocked that Russia would lie about it's military equipment capabilities. Shocked I tell you! 😂
Ive heard some even had toilets, thats handy!
Ya know they are having to downplay when they compare your ordinance to ground units instead of the F-15 that still beats every aspect of this Jet, even in age.
Far from every aspect, both aircraft have there strengths and weaknesses over the other
Russia ISR, intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance is predicated on A2AD. Anti access aerial denial is close in and defensive. Their weapons are integrated and designed for their way of war. The US and atlantacist countries are sea power and offensively oriented, especially using stealth to penetrate their airspace.
So what, exactly, is the 'tiny detail'?
Loss numbers due to an enemy's competance has nothing to do with the jet's capabilities. If it was downed due to it's own shortcomibgs, that would be different, but you didn't give any evidence for that. The only point you made against it was that some of them were made with a civilian GPS
Civ gps is just a redundant feature in case the Glonass will fail or be jammed.
Get a new narrator that knows how to talk normal
The Soviets and now Russian make beautiful jet's but the quality is always crap. Western analysts always give them more credit than due. Remember the Mig-25 Foxbat? I was a crew chief on USAF fighters and while with the 527th Aggressor Sq became somewhat knowledgeable on Soviet aircraft. Their system doesn't reward innovation or hard work so everything they make is crap. I'd say it's safe to always dial back at least 25% of what the 'experts' say.
that's just envy... cause you can't build such a beautiful piece of crap... lol
@@user-McGiver - respectfully, I can think of at least 5 or a lot of US Aircraft that are more beautiful. The F14 being the most exquisite machine ever created by man
The su27 su30 su35 disagreess with you
@@ElenarMT the F 14 is the biggest pile of crap to ever exist. It loses one engine, and then frisbees out of the sky.
What does rewarding initiative and Hardwork have to do with making an aircraft? When in fact, many of the western planes only got built because of knee jerk reactions or greasing of palms. Look at the F-104 sales to Europe. It barely lasted four years in American service but stayed in service with many NATO countries up into the 1990s but that’s not because the aircraft is good because Lockheed-Martin signed lucrative contracts.
This is a great plane if you want to sit next to your best friend 🎉
The plane itself isnt much. It's pretty equivalent to a Swedish JAS but a two engine plane so can lift a bigger load. No what is scary is that they put their missiles on it and attack their neighbouring countries despite peace treaties. Swedes try to avoid this! :D
I'd equate the MiG 29 with the Gripen. Both are lighter fighters.
🦆Quack 🦆
This comment section is owned by Russian bots 😂
Amazing plane. It is HUGE. Side by side pilot and Wizo? There ya go. As an aviation fan I love the design it is very "sexy". I wonder how much this SU spurred us into NEW F-15's. Okay Russia. I see your gigantic Sukhoi and raise you with our new F-15EX. I am still waiting for our new F-35's to prove them selves. I still think the F-15's , which are a massive over reaction to the MIG-29, will take down near anything short of our own F-22's.
I doubt that. The F35 will be feated by the SU 57. If you remove stealth the SU 57 beats the F35 in every other category, speed, range, ceiling height, maneuverability which is insane with the 3D vectoring. The SU 57 can literally move laterally.
The Americans have publically admitted that the S 400 can both see and target lock stealth planes. That means the SU 57 can do this as well as they share networks and also the same radar suite is spotted on the SU 57 that detects stealth. It will be a turkey shoot. I say this as a Canadian.
Collect your rubles on the top floor of the GRU near the hallway window@@Boris-do5rs
The fact that the F-15 was actually built to face the MiG-25 is even more of an overreaction. Thought it was a super-manoeuvrable fighter with large wing area, turns out the specs are the same for giant flying bricks.
The F-15 was a response to the Mig-25, not the Mig-29. I agree, the F-15 was an over reaction, however, no plane is invincible. The F-15 won most dogfights because it was usually pinned against weaker/outdated aircraft or against air forces with weak AWACS/radar coverage and lack of capable missiles (such as the Iraqi Air Force).
When the F-15 and F-16 actually fought a fair dog-fight against Eastern NATO countries in training activities against planes such as the Mig-29, Russian aircrafts proved to be a formidable fighters which were able to easily level up to the playing field. I am pretty sure we will see similar results when Ukraine gets F-16s too.
@@Boris-do5rs Su 57 is the new MiG-25... It suffers from the same defect that all Russian equipment has, it's built and maintained by Russians, the reason you don't see any Su-57s in Ukraine is because Russia doesn't want to advertise what a pathetic failure it is! It's overhyped underperforming garbage! The 3D thrust vector in is more of a Liability than an asset, provided it works as advertised and the plane doesn't just fall out of the sky like a lot of other Russian jets lately, you get one crazy thrust vectoring move then you cash in all your speed and energy and become target practice for an AM9x or an AMRAAM! America did extensive testing on 3D thrust factory with the F-15 STOL/MTD And the X-62 Vista but weren't stupid enough to put it in to mass production! And the S-400 might be able to see a stealth plane at a pretty decent distance, but it won't get a weapons grade lock before it catches a HAARM, or an AARGM-ER straight to the face. Not only that but the F-35 and the F-22 have RCS orders of magnitude smaller than the drones that Ukraine has been using to erase S-400 systems in Crimea So I have a feeling that the S-400 is just as overhyped as every other Russian piece of junk, like the Kinzhal, LMFAO, want me to breakdown what a POS that is and why?
A little less hyperbole, please.
Perhaps it is the lack of pilot skill on a very complex plane and lack of experience that is the problem. I think the aircraft and its systems are certainly up to the task.
Regards from South Africa
Is that why they have been found with cheap civilian GPS units inside of them? No it's just the usual Russian corruption. Most of the advanced equipment they build, their forces have no ability to maintain or the money they are given to do so is stolen. Look at their Navy. Half the systems are some of their ships aren't in working order.
I doubt their air force would have handed such a plane to a pilot without extensive training.
No doubt she's a mean machine🇺🇲🗽⚖️
a flying potato...
Lol russia using Garmins and TomToms for GPS 😂
Meanwhile murica uses motorola and whats you point
@@kwestionariusz1What planes do we use that in?
such copium
To be fair if you use your equipment in wars eventually some of it will be lose in battle or by accident, f35 confirm losses are 6-10 unit just by accident..
But 22 losses of all kinds (accidents, shoot-downs, friendly fire) is still a large number. Resource: Oryx
@@notedigominombre947 oryx is a shit source
It's pretty simple - Russia failed to achieve air dominance. They DO have superiority closer to their borders, but the reason USA, NATO and Israel bombers look magic is because they can operate safe in high altitudes.
They're used against weak countries that's why we have air superiority, Russia is facing a near peer to peer enemy. Neither side can gain air superiority because of the tight air defense coverage and Russia lacks SEAD capabilities because their doctrine is made for defense not invasion.
no nato jet can operate higher than mig interceptor,the only reason nato,israel and us fighters survive is because all they do is fight militias who are mostly armed with short range home made air defence systems
literally bros sucking the taint of putin@@briant5685 One search tells you that is objectively wrong
America is more advanced
I think you meant far away from the combat lines with standoff weapons. Russia sees the value in this approach too.
1:18 this is Su-33 aka Su-27K - корабельный - ship-based. U may be mistaken here, misidentifying Su-27KUB as early Su-34, but they have nothing in common but crew positioning. Su-34 is made from Su-27IB, but footage is about Su-27K / Su-33.
Wow, you've certainly become quite the simp for Ukraine despite the continued success of Russia and their combat systems on the ground and in the air. There's been no evidence at all to indicate there's any significant design flaw in the aircrafts design and even less evidence of the claim of 20 of them shot down in combat. For instance, the instance of the 'flat spin' incident was vigorously debunked and exposed as video game footage. Aircraft and equipment losses through accidents, pilot error and battle damage are bound to happen in any prolonged combat yet Russia has asserted complete air dominance, if not yet superiority, depleting Ukrainian air defenses practically to the point of being able to fly with impunity over Ukrainian airspace. Their recent BVR Mig-31 campaign eliminated dozens of Ukrainian jets and has effectively grounded their air forces, unable even to continue launching storm shadow and similar cruise missiles.
True. people are not interested in what actually happens on the ground but rather in unsubstantiated claims. The media generally and rightfully claims Russia has air superiority but doesn't explain how.
Fact that Russia failed to gain air dominance means Russia need it most is squadron with plane capability of "wild weasel".
One thing I've noticed after seeing a few different Russian fighters is that they all leave a dark thick smoke trail behind them in flight except for when they use afterburners.
oil burning in the engines.
It (the smoke trail) is from a combination of engine design and the fuel used by the Russian military.
Black smoke from metal filings - their engines only last 50 hours 😄
And this video did not age well; in the last week they lost 4 or 5 of these - apparently Western missiles don't care how agile it is.
Russia hasn't figured out how to build jet engines with smokeless combustors too!!!
What a terrific clickbait! The jet is crap on present times even the modernized versions, only had success where there were no air defenses or interceptors, in Syria. In Ukraine they fall like flies. More they send, more go down. Even accidents deep in Russia happened - not sure if because of the plane of the untrained pilot (it's well known russia is starting to lack their former "ace" pilots, as most have 1 being downed or 2 training newbies - small numbers of experienced fighters). Awful video/Title relation. Much more than just the typical clickbait... Guess if I watch a couple of more stunts like this and I'll ask YT to not recommend the channel.
The SU-30s that India has can carry 2 pilots and has multi role capabilities that can even be used as a mini AWACS/fuel tanker for other fighters.
Without considered the stealth su-27 design is the best design human ever build one of two plane in the world that can perform 11g with the rafale. To be honesy i dont like france but they build good plane too i have to give 'em credit
The only drawback of this jet is that it is too large and can't fly low. Making it an easy target for SAMs. Su-25 and Su-24 are more suitable for missions where there are too many SAMs.
By "only", you must mean "mqjor"
Please check how much PROWESS is in here. And kids, stop dreaming of F35 stealth. The concept of this western masterpiece is based on BVR fights and “superior” connectivity and data fusion. Dog fighting is not a priority, look at airframe and single engine configuration. Range also. But when you have a big array of air defense on the ground with powerful scanning, the power of invisibility is diminishing progressively. Check your facts. In a war things are complex, and every weapon is a tool in strategy, and every plan is changing when counter by the enemy. On data fusion, F35 is the leader, on BVR not so much. When deployed SU is not alone in the sky, there are specialized other aircraft which help in the process of detection, and after this you have R37M (Mach 6 and striking targets up to 400 km) and others air-to-air wonders made from shovels and stolen washing machine chips.
The russians poor attempt at matching the strike eagle. And the strike eagle is getting phased out for the EX.
Lmao
They worked with what they had.
It's bor a poor attempt if it's actually effective😂
Of all the versions of the F 15 Eagle the strike eagle is the one that’s most likely to be shot down the most in an actual war.
the same strike eagle that was crated from a copying mig interceptor
Если бы это были американские самолёты то они были бы самые лучшие за всю историю человечества потому что они понесли незначительные потери при такой интенсивности боевых действий.
Но так как эти самолёты русские то они плохие потому что они вообще были сбиты...
To be honest, no modern combat aircraft up until the Ukraine conflict has had to operate in such heavily contested airspace, who knows how the F15E, Tornado and A10 will handle it. So 20 something aircraft still underdevelopment in almost a 2 years of conflict, its not great but could be worse.
The A10 can still rip you to absolute shreds.She may be old but damn she will put you down if you mess up.....I've seen it in action in person and it was a symphony of absolute destruction.
@@SPEEDFREAK6988Yes any plane can do that but the A10 would last in Ukraine as long as it takes to get in range of the first air defense system
I just dislike the very sensational language of this channel.
The Su-34 is a slightly more modern equivalent of the F-111 - or maybe something between the F-111 and the Strike Eagle. The Russians just looked (like most of the time) into the West and thought, they could mod the Su-27 to become a fighter bomber.
There is literally no “revolutionary” technology in play. Nothing outstanding. And off course it will be shot down, because it is really that conventional. It is crazy, that this seems to be a surprise to anybody.
Furthermore: the fact that it is shot down, has little to do with its overall (conventional) performance. A F-15E Strike Eagle would possibly also get shot down, if the US would not have any air supremacy in a combat environment. That doesn’t make the Strike Eagle worse.
Obviously the “Garmin navigation” devices and cheap electronic components, which the Ukrainians found in shot down airframes, is telling a whole different story.
In spite of all Russia ‘s failure they have and continue to succeed against NATO in Ukraine .
You have an odd definition of success....
Well, when you and China take over the world, go easy on us….😂😂😂😂🖕
You don’t read much reliable worldwide news?
Lol you're funny
Russian bot detected!
So Su34 aircraft experiencing negligible air defense threats in Syria made them look good?? Is this your analysis? 😂😂😂
American airplanes experienced similar scenario during the war with Iraq/Afganistan/Syria/Lybia(no credible air defenses)...So as per your logic these fighter jets are also crap aren't they?
Glad India AF never got it , never ... Although all Indians wanted to see it in service ... Now we know why 😅
Don't know what this guys triing to prove, the SU-34 is some more Russian crap. And the narrator just pumps out propaganda, touting Russian equipment as if the stuff works . Their pilots suck, their procedures suck, and their downfall in 2024 will be unbelieveably historic !
If the Soviet Union had thrived instead of collapsing, can you imagine what kind of jets they would be building? And despite the overall brilliance of the Su-34 design it failed to grasp the reality that In order to win in 21st Century warfare an air force must have LO attack jets AND cutting edge EW.
They wouldn't be building much because of massive corruption in the country.
The Su-34 has one of the hardest battlefield roles for the RUAF besides the Su-25 and Ka-52. I'd expect high casualties in high intensity warfare environments. Ukraine isn't Afghanistan..