Hope you all enjoyed the video everyone! What would you like to see next or what topic would you like me to talk about? Please let me know and I will try my very best to get round to talking about it! Please feel free to check out my Patreon to help support me producing more content in the future! :-) www.patreon.com/user?u=3081754
"Thick nose... Massive" Today we learned Matsimus likes his jets girthy. All kidding aside great stuff mat, the some what less well documented frames are so interesting to see. And youtube told me about it itn he same year as posting this time. PS Timm's coffee brewing system was changed when they got bought out be external ownership, that's why it's gone so poor. The systems McDonnalds uses in store now is the same brewing machines TImmy's did away with.
I had the great good fortune to work with such things from 1971 to 1989. I spent much of that time with the B-52 The old D model is the one we need these days 108 bombs at a time lots of booms from our 36 D's where I was based I worked all 3 models of the F-4 the USAF had C,D and E the F102, F-111 and A-7D finished up on te 52H
@@bruhh249 "woman" with a is the singular form. so yes, he could have said "men and woman who love this things" XD .. "hello dear listeners, dear men and woman"
Finished cleaning up, in some comfy punisher themed pajama pants, have a video of some neat soviet fighter-bomber, and a hot cup of orange-pekoe. 'Tis a good night indeed.
@@ricardosoto5770 If he managed to cover the Su-27 family. Then the MIG-21 isn't that impossible. And most variations are just MIG-21s made for different countries.
A full Su-24M module would simultaneously satisfy cold war players who want more older planes, tac bomber pilots (myself) who don't have a proper plane to call our own in DCS (Viggen is close but not enough ordnance), and people who want more redfor It would be a 3-way win
Thank you for mentioning the Su-34 "Fullback." It is one of my favorite aircraft. I've always had a soft spot for strike fighters ever since I saw an F-111 "Aardvark" do a couple of low-altitude passes at an air show when I was younger. I'm sure most of your audience is quite familiar with the Su-27 (on which the 34 is based), but I think that the Fullback deserves more attention. Anywho, I have really enjoyed your channel for a long time, and I appreciate all of the time and effort that you put into all of your videos. Oh, I especially enjoyed the one you made about light attack aircraft. It was very well done.
Seems that every state-of-the-art airforce of that era saw the need for a ground attacker with similar design characteristics: swing wing, 2 crew members, twin engines, improved low-level flight capabilities by means of groundtracking radar. SU-24, F-111, Panavia Tornado (which are still in use in germany).
Unfortunately Mr. Matsimus haven't told anything about Su-24 and Kh-59 relations. This missile was almost designed for this plane. Full system integration. Kh-59 is long range INS-guided missile with jam-protected TV-guidance for accurate targeting on the final part of trajectory. At some point it was almost unique combo, like F-117 + GBUs or A-10 + GAU-8. Closest NATO counterpart is AGM-130 Tac. Rainbow, developed in 1990s (against 1980). Although it's pretty specific weapon for highly protected targets with powerful AA and there was no real targets of this scale and complexity for USSR AF / VKS RF. Missile itself is pretty advanced even for today, because there's a modification (Kh-59MK2) for stealth fighter's internal weapons bay. So now it's a bit closer to AGM-158 JASSM with smaller operational range, warhead and scale itself.
The reason why the su 24 in syria was intercepted by an f 16 was because this russian su 24 jet is a bomber jet and has a long range air to ground radar detecting capability but it's air to air radar detecting capability is also capable of detecting air targets but not long range enough to detect a fighter aircraft and an air to air missile launch and the radar of a bomber jet is different from an attack aircraft.
thanks for making this video always good to learn more about these lesser known planes as not alot of people know about it and some (sadly myself as well ) confuse it with the very similar looking mig 23
So you are telling me this "fighter bomber" can carry up to 8 tons of munition including to air to air missile for "self defense" AND can refuel other aircraft of the same type ?
Same type refueling its called a buddy system in the US. I have seen it in naval airplanes like the A4, A6, F 18, and the French Super Etendard. Its done mostly due to lack of dedicated tanker airplanes or do be done in areas were a large tanker is too vulnerable.
Between May 1986 and November 1988, Pakistan airforce F-16s have shot down at least eight intruders from Afghanistan in Soviet Afghan war. The first three of these (one Su-22, one Su-24, and one An-26) were shot down by two pilots from No. 9 Squadron. Pilots of No. 14 Squadron destroyed the remaining five intruders (two Su-22s, two MiG-23s, and one Su-25). Most of these kills were by the AIM-9 Sidewinder, but at least one (a Su-22) was destroyed by cannon fire. Flight Lieutenant Khalid Mahmood is credited with three of these kills. One F-16 was lost in these battles during an encounter between two F-16s and six Afghan Air Force aircraft under soviet command on 29 April 1987, stated by the PAF to have been an "own-goal" because it was hit by an AIM-9 Sidewinder fired from the other F-16. The pilot, Flight Lieutenant Shahid Sikandar Khan, ejected safely. Most of these air kills were achieved within Pakistani borders. No.9 Sqn was credited with 3 kills, where as No.14 Sqn was credited with 5 kills, GG for all
Side by side is cool from the point of pilot cooperation and psychological support, that its why its seen in most civilian airplanes. In fighters its rare since it means a large frontal cross section and that the visibiity on the opposite side its limited for each pilot. Americans tried it in the F 111 and the A 6, but dropped it from the next designs. The Russians seem to like it. They kept it in the next gen of attack fighterbombers. The SU 34.
Still many of these in service in several countries. In Russia they are gradually being replaced by Su-34 but that may take quite a while to complete due to budgetary limitations.
Great material. I member this airplaine in Kołobrzeg City Russian airbase in 1984 year. This gays use this plane every day every night every weather. Sun, storm, cloudy, rainy dosnt matter. Best regards from Poland. :-)
@@command_unit7792 The Su 34 will have a fully armoured version to replace the Su25. The A10 will be removed from service eventually and replaced by the B35 KamaKhazi 😁
As far as I know from official documentaries it's general parts (mostly aerodynamic solutions) was inspired by F-111. Sukhoi constructors made a lot of footages from Airshows where F-111 was shown for the first time. Since both of them was utilising same concept (low altitude supersonic penetration) they had similar requirements specification. So it's something like Harrier-Yak-F35 story, where plane on one side of ocean inspired people to make something similar, but more advanced, for the same purpose [imho: VTOLs are way to complicated to be developed by one single state, so concepts are "travelling" from state to state, like a different iterations of the same thing]. Something similar was in case of Su-24 too.
The F 111 entered service first-- the SU 24 came later and the Tornado last.. But all were designed with the long range, deep penetration role mission in mind.
I have a huge fascination in those things "fighter jets" !! It just never ceases to blow my mind that human beigns to fly faster than sound itself with those
@@AlexanderTch Do you have a source/link for that? The Tu-22 "Blinder" was not a low-altitude/high-speed tactical fighter-bomber like the F-111 was. Here's what Wikipedia says about the inspiration for and Air Force requirements of the F-111: F-111 Development: --------------------------------- Early Requirements The May 1960 U-2 incident, in which an American CIA U-2 spy plane was shot down over the USSR, stunned the United States government. Besides greatly damaging US-Soviet relations, the incident showed that the Soviet Union had developed a surface-to-air missile that could reach aircraft above 60,000 feet (18,000 meters). The United States Air Force Strategic Air Command (SAC) and the RAF Bomber Command's plans to send subsonic, high-altitude B-47 and V bomber formations into the USSR were now much less viable.[3] By 1960, SAC had begun moving to low-level penetration which greatly reduced radar detection distances. At the time, SAMs were ineffective against low-flying aircraft, and interceptor aircraft had less of a speed advantage at low altitudes.[4] The Air Force's Tactical Air Command (TAC) was largely concerned with the fighter-bomber and deep strike/interdiction roles. TAC was in the process of receiving its latest design, the Republic F-105 Thunderchief, which was designed to deliver nuclear weapons fast and far, but required long runways.[5] A simpler variable geometry wing configuration with the pivot points farther out from the aircraft's centerline was reported by NASA in 1958, which made swing-wings viable.[6] This led Air Force leaders to encourage its use.[7] In June 1960, the USAF issued specification SOR 183 for a long-range interdiction/strike aircraft able to penetrate Soviet air defenses at very low altitudes and high speeds.[8] The specification also called for the aircraft to operate from short, unprepared airstrips.[7] In the 1950s, the United States Navy sought a long-range, high-endurance interceptor aircraft to protect its carrier battle groups against long-range anti-ship missiles launched from Soviet jet bombers and submarines. The Navy needed a fleet air defense (FAD) fighter with a more powerful radar, and longer range missiles than the F-4 Phantom II to intercept both enemy bombers and missiles.[9] Seeking a FAD fighter, the Navy started with the subsonic, straight-winged aircraft, the Douglas F6D Missileer in the late 1950s. The Missileer was designed to carry six long-range missiles and loiter for five hours, but would be defenseless after firing its missiles.[9][10] The program was formally canceled in 1961.[9] The Navy had tried variable geometry wings with the XF10F Jaguar, but abandoned it in the early 1950s. It was NASA's simplification which made the variable geometry wings practical.[6] By 1960, increases in aircraft weights required improved high-lift devices, such as variable geometry wings.[11][12] Variable geometry offered high speeds, and maneuverability with heavier payloads, long range, and the ability to take off and land in shorter distances.[11] Tactical Fighter Experimental (TFX) The U.S. Air Force and Navy were both seeking new aircraft when Robert McNamara was appointed Secretary of Defense in January 1961.[13] The aircraft sought by the two armed services shared the need to carry heavy armament and fuel loads, feature high supersonic speed, twin engines and two seats, and probably use variable geometry wings.[14] On 14 February 1961, McNamara formally directed the services to study the development of a single aircraft that would satisfy both requirements. Early studies indicated that the best option was to base the design on the Air Force requirement, and use a modified version for the Navy.[15] In June 1961, Secretary McNamara ordered the go ahead of Tactical Fighter Experimental (TFX), despite Air Force and Navy efforts to keep their programs separate.[16][17] The side-by-side seating adopted in the F-111 The Air Force and the Navy could agree only on swing-wing, two-seat, twin-engine design features. The Air Force wanted a tandem-seat aircraft for low-level penetration ground-attack, while the Navy wanted a shorter, high altitude interceptor with side-by-side seating to allow the pilot and radar operator to share the radar display.[15] Also, the Air Force wanted the aircraft designed for 7.33 g with Mach 2.5 speed at altitude and Mach 1.2 speed at low level with an approximate length of 70 ft (21.3 m). The Navy had less strenuous requirements of 6 g with Mach 2 speed at altitude and high subsonic speed (approx. Mach 0.9) at low level with a length of 56 ft (17.1 m). The Navy also wanted the aircraft with a nose large enough for a 48 in (1.2 m) diameter radar dish.[15][18] McNamara developed a basic set of requirements for TFX based largely on the Air Force's requirements and, on 1 September 1961, ordered the Air Force to develop it.[15][18] A request for proposals (RFP) for the TFX was provided to industry in October 1961. In December, proposals were received from Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed, McDonnell, North American and Republic. The evaluation group found all the proposals lacking, but Boeing and General Dynamics were selected to submit enhanced designs. Boeing's proposal was recommended by the selection board in January 1962, with the exception of the engine, which was not considered acceptable. Switching to a crew escape capsule, instead of ejection seats and alterations to radar and missile storage were also needed. Both companies provided updated proposals in April 1962. Air Force reviewers favored Boeing's offering, while the Navy found both submissions unacceptable for its operations. Two more rounds of updates to the proposals were conducted, with Boeing being picked by the selection board.[17][19] In November 1962, McNamara selected General Dynamics' proposal due to its greater commonality between Air Force and Navy versions. The Boeing aircraft shared less than half of the major structural components. General Dynamics signed the TFX contract in December 1962. A Congressional investigation followed, but could not change the selection.[17][19][20] Design Phase : The F-111A and B variants used the same airframe structural components and Pratt & Whitney TF30-P-1 turbofan engines. They featured side-by-side crew seating in an escape capsule as required by the Navy. The F-111B's nose was 8.5 feet (2.59 m) shorter so as to fit on existing carrier elevator decks, and had 3.5-foot-longer (1.07 m) wingtips to improve on-station endurance time. The Navy version would carry an AN/AWG-9 Pulse-Doppler radar and AIM-54 Phoenix missiles. The Air Force version would carry the AN/APQ-113 attack radar and the AN/APQ-110 terrain-following radar and air-to-ground armament.[21] A team of engineers at General Dynamics was led by Robert H. Widmer.[22] Lacking experience with carrier-based fighters, General Dynamics teamed with Grumman for the assembly and testing of the F-111B aircraft. In addition, Grumman would also build the F-111A's aft fuselage and the landing gear.[23] The General Dynamics and Grumman team faced ambitious requirements for range, weapons load, and aircraft weight.[24] The F-111 design also included new features on a production military aircraft, such as variable-geometry wings and afterburning turbofan engines.[23] The F-111A mockup was inspected in September 1963. The first test F-111A was rolled out of Plant 4 of General Dynamics' Fort Worth, Texas facility on 15 October 1964. It was powered by YTF30-P-1 turbofans and used a set of ejector seats as the escape capsule was not yet available.[21] The F-111A first flew on 21 December 1964 from Carswell Air Force Base, Texas, U.S.[25] The first F-111B was also equipped with ejector seats and first flew on 18 May 1965.[26][27] Initially there were compressor surge and stall issues in certain parts of the flight regime. NASA, the Air Force, and General Dynamics studies resulted in the engine inlet design being modified in 1965-66, ending with the "Triple Plow I" and "Triple Plow II" designs.[28][29] The F-111A achieved a speed of Mach 1.3 in February 1965 with an interim intake design.[21][28] Cracks in the F-111's wing attach points were first discovered in 1968 during ground fatigue testing - an F-111 crashed the following year due to this issue.[20] The attach structure required redesign and testing to ensure adequate design and workmanship.[30] Flight testing of the F-111A ran through 1973.[31] The F-111B was canceled by the Navy in 1968 due to weight and performance issues, along with the need for additional fighter requirements.[32][33] The F-111C model was developed for Australia. Subsequently, the improved F-111E, F-111D, F-111F models were developed for the U.S. Air Force. The strategic bomber FB-111A and the EF-111 electronic warfare versions were later developed for the USAF.[34] Production ended in 1976[35] after 563 F-111 aircraft were built.[1] Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-111_Aardvark#Development
@@altergreenhorn The Su-24 was just as problematic during development, costing the lives of 14 test pilots and navigators. It only entered service after those problems were corrected, hence the zero (!) losses in Afghanistan. May they rest in peace.
I love that urban legend about Mig-27, when they showed a generals the Mig27 can do the same wruuuuum like the A-10 can. Mig27, made Wruuum and couple tanks dissepeared. Mig27 turned around, made wruuum and a couple of other tanks dissepeared. Made last planned turn around, and last wruuuum and dissepeared. That was quite suprising. For generals, Mig engineers, and especially for the pilot, under which that Mig27 desintegrated midair :D
This brings back memories of when I read about it being stationed in Finsterwalde in (then) German Demokratic Republic. The comparison with the Tornado is somewhat justified. They had similar roles: 1) Low level penetration over land. 2) Antishipping and protection of naval bases. Only - as mentioned - the Tornado achieved that with 2/3 the weight. Tornados range is/was double that of the Fencer. The pictures of the airial refuelling of the Fencer - that figures: They bloody well NEED that. The Fencer produced quite a bit of a flap in Nato, when it was introduced, as it had the range to bomb the American (and British) air stations in East Anglia. It produced the stationing of USAF F-15C in Holland at Soesterberg - the "Wolfhounds" had the distinction (besides having its badge designed by Walt Disney) of being the only USAF squadron under permanent non-US control (controlled by the Dutch). Don't say it wasn't taken seriously! Only problem is the question of survivability - even at low level - in wartime: The air defences of that part of Germany and Holland were massive. The better route was over the southern part of Denmark - a contingency that was very much in the planning here as well. The incident with the US destroyer very much indicate, that the defence of Russian naval bases is still a concern. As time goes by the question comes up: Are naval (even Russian) bases not supposed to have naval ships - in somewhat working order? I recall as a passenger seeing German Tornadoes making mock attacks on a ferry in Danish waters. What you saw was two little glowing dots far away. I assume that is one of the major reasons a Huitfeldt-class has a 35 mm Oerlikon turret - still waiting to see if the Piranha 5 will have something like that? Sea skimming missiles being another. To keep such a massive aircraft operational is certainly not cheap. But then again: Can't complain the enemy bleeding money by every opportunity.
Well yes, but Tornado payload was about 7 tones while Su-24 reached its performance with normal payload 10 tons and maximal payload almost 17 tons, so its not so surprising that Tornado had better range. "The incident with the US destroyer very much indicate, that the defence of Russian naval bases is still a concern"...pff yeah sure...wouldnt they should sent at least Kirov class destroyer? But why they would have coastal defence systems and keep naval aviation with 24/7 readiness airplanes, if not for such cases of pesky US Donald Cook sails around their territorial waters? "I recall as a passenger seeing German Tornadoes making mock attacks on a ferry in Danish waters. What you saw was two little glowing dots far away."...Well this wasnt any mock attack, it was classic cold war era flight over board. Mock attack of Su-24M against enemy ship would consist of low altitude flight on distance of ship radar horizon (30-40 km) and training release of Ch-35 or Ch-58U/UShK with release on distances around 50-100 km. "To keep such a massive aircraft operational is certainly not cheap"..Thats relative. Most of Su-24Ms are on the end of their airframe lifetimes and gonna be replaced with Su-34, so big part of fleet is gradually canibalized. In service probably rest only modification for deep naval sigint/elint/optical recon.
Funny that F-111 helped in designing SU-24.In 1967 Samoilovich personally went on a business trip in Le Bourget an made ~100 photos of F-111 :) Modern version of SU-24 using the same targeting complex as Su-34 and can use non guided weapons with accuracy close to guided weapons.(СВП-24)ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/СВП-24_(прицельно-навигационный_комплекс)
In the mid 80's NATO had no idea how to stop the Su-24 and its Su-27 escorts. In Syria most of the bombs were dropped by these. The GSh-23-6 is probably the only GSh cannon that doesn't work, neither in this nor in the MIG-31. It's not the cannon though, the Soviets/Russians couldn't create a reliable system to feed 130 rounds per second into the gun! 😁 What a video to start the day with! Thanks, Matsimus!
@@QualityPen In test it worked just fine. In service however the number of jams and other failures were found to be too high, so the guns are now there just in case, but normally without amo. The system works, just not reliable.
At 4:08 you mentioned that the su 24 had 9 hard points, this is actually wrong....yes, early versions did have 6 hardpoint (Su-24 sans suffix) but later versions introduce two tandem centerline hard points, and an additional two hard points can be mounted on the inner pylons sides which means it could (but rarely) have 10 hard points
I'm glad to see you review this impressive bomber, it has been one of my favourite jets, it just looks beautiful, a certain type of beauty you can only see amongst cold ward jets including the F-4 Phantom! and you are right 24 Su-24 ran away from Iraq to my country but I think most of them are not really airworthy unless Iran has dome something that I'm not aware of!
Erm... Not really. The Su-24 is a tactical/frontline bomber with a max take off weight of 40+ tons. Tu-22M3 is a strategic bomber weighting 3 times as much with two times the length.
It looked like the F 111 more. But range and payload were closer to the Tornado according to some. The mission was closer to the Tornado, attacks mainly 800km from the frontline.
Great aircraft, and although it might be showing its age look at what Russia did with them in Syria to turn the tide of the war in favor of its ally. Good video and unbiased opinions. Congrats.
@@thomaschadwick1557 The F 111 and the SU 24 are more of less the same size, but the F 111 had more payload and range. F 111. lenght, 22.4m, wingspan with spread wings, 19.2m, range, 3,700km, weapons load, 14,300kg. Su 24 lenght, 22.53, wingspan with spread wings, 17.64m, range 2,775, weapons load, 8,000kg. The reason were the engines.. The SU 24 never really got the engines it need. It got fuel hungry turbojets with 75N of thrust, while the F 111 got fuel efficient turbofans with 79N of thrust. So the F 111 can carry more weapons in the proportion of fuel carried. And the F 111 while being about the same size as the S 24 has a heavier takeoff weight in both fuel and weapons. The SU 24 its lighter plane. So the SU 24 its in a class between the F 111 and the Tornado in the deep interdictor plane field. But I wont complain, all those planes could do their work well. Any airforce who had them was well served.
Growing up in the 80s I would devour any and all military aircraft literature. It was NATO biased of course, but even at the age of 8 I could tell the that something about the SU-22 had this side of the Iron Curtain shook.
Variable Swept wing, tactical ground attack, two seater,.... Tornado GR.4, F-111, Mig-23/27,... and Su-24. I wonder why the Soviets needed two aircrafts that can fill the same role, the Mig 27 and Su-24, at that time.
The SU 24 its a all weather deep interdictor. A very different class than the radarless, single pilot Mig 27. The real question its why the URSS developed the Mig 27 having the SU 17? And also why they put a different engne than the Mig 23 in the Mig 27 making logistics more complex..
@tvercetti1 Actually not. Both bureau are state owned, and they just specialize in different things. Sukhoi often has done heavy ground attack planes since the S 2, 7/17/22/24/ 25 and 34 and heavy long range interceptors and fighters designed to protect Mother Russia, like the SU 9/11/15/27/30/33/35. Mig on the other side, does light, short range fighters and interceptors designed to be near the frontline in a Central European conflict. The Mig 3/15/17/19/21/23/25/29/35 all fit this decription, minus the Mig 27, a ground attack plane derived from the 23, and the 31, a long range interceptor derived from the 25. So Sukhoi used to have the PVO, the Soviet air defense service as the main customer for his fighters, Mig had the Frontal Aviation as their target. This is not a strict rule, Sukhoi ground attack planes were used by Frontal Aviation and the PVO uses special version of mig fighters too. But sometimes the do compete with each other, like the Su 17/22 and the Mig 27. They are both single pilot, single engine, radarless, variable geometry ground attack planes..
Nice video by the way 👍 Very informative as always! I've been watching mostly about those fighter aircrafts in your channel. I just wanna ask though, if you've already made videos on dassault rafale & saab jas 39 gripen? If not, i hope you'll also include those jets in the near future 🙏
Paper Skies RUclips channel's video, "The Ridiculous Design Flaw of the Sukhoi Su-24", mentions that the Su-24 was indeed based on the F-111 as well as the Mirage G designs which the designers saw at the Paris Air Show. Also, a design flaw necessitated the addition of a length of rope with 2 polystyrene balls to parked aircraft to prevent accidental ejection of the Navigator on engine startup.
Love those swing wing variable geometry airplanes of the late 60s and early 70s. The SU 24 was one of the most interesting. A deep interdictor like the F 111 and the Tornado, and halfway between the two in size. A Mikhail Simonov design. Like most full swing wings, a bitch to maintain. That its why no new variable geometry tactical airplane designs has entered service after the Tornado. But the are the coolest looking planes in the world. And bombers like the B1 or the TU 160 are another grade of cool.
The Russians recently installed the latest targeting system on all their aircraft. The system is called "SVP-24 Gefest" (СВП-24 Гефест) It is an automatic navigation and computing system that receives information about all parameters and conditions. The pilot either has coordinates in advance, or chooses the target himself, after which he activates the launch of the ammunition. The system itself calculates the moment of launch, taking into account the parametric data, the type and weight of the ammunition, the direction, speed and height of the aircraft and external conditions, humidity, atmospheric pressure or rain, wind speed and direction, air temperature and the system itself at the right time launches or drops the rocket or bombs. Thus, the Russians turned bombs from World War 2 into precision weapons.
@@jonasprusek4511 You need to ask several hundred thousand dead Ukrainian soldiers. Oh no, they can't say anything. Ask the prisoners of war from Mariupol, of whom 300 out of 14,000 survived.
@@jonasprusek4511 The Americans are already there and asked the civilians. You believe the Americans , don 't you ? ruclips.net/user/PatrickLancasterNewsTodayvideos ruclips.net/video/lPVDH6gGPZM/видео.html&ab_channel=MaineReactor ruclips.net/video/052WnJvmXl8/видео.html&ab_channel=MaineReactor ruclips.net/video/o6S2tQQy9zU/видео.html&ab_channel=AlexChristoforou ruclips.net/user/TheDivewithJacksonHinklevideos ruclips.net/video/GzNOXWjcLVs/видео.html&ab_channel=Redacted ruclips.net/user/USTourofDutyPodcastsvideos ruclips.net/channel/UCDkEYb-TXJVWLvOokshtlswvideos And many others!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hope you all enjoyed the video everyone! What would you like to see next or what topic would you like me to talk about? Please let me know and I will try my very best to get round to talking about it! Please feel free to check out my Patreon to help support me producing more content in the future! :-) www.patreon.com/user?u=3081754
I couldn't find if you'd covered the TU-22. Would you consider doing a video on it at some point? Outstanding video as always!
i personally would like to see you overviewing the other types of tank suspension excluding torsion bars and hydrogas
Yes I enjoy it keep up the good videos.
"Thick nose... Massive" Today we learned Matsimus likes his jets girthy. All kidding aside great stuff mat, the some what less well documented frames are so interesting to see. And youtube told me about it itn he same year as posting this time.
PS Timm's coffee brewing system was changed when they got bought out be external ownership, that's why it's gone so poor. The systems McDonnalds uses in store now is the same brewing machines TImmy's did away with.
Thanks lad 😊
Matsimus: Uniting men across the world through our love of things that make things go boom.
And woman, oh who am I kidding.
I had the great good fortune to work with such things from 1971 to 1989. I spent much of that time with the B-52 The old D model is the one we need these days 108 bombs at a time lots of booms from our 36 D's where I was based I worked all 3 models of the F-4 the USAF had C,D and E the F102, F-111 and A-7D finished up on te 52H
I get wet from the boom.
@@revolverswitch In the end all of them served for defending the people, so it wasn´t like every army of every country has a fully different purpose.
@@bruhh249 "woman" with a is the singular form. so yes, he could have said "men and woman who love this things" XD .. "hello dear listeners, dear men and woman"
Late night, no work in the morning, green tea, and Matsimus. Tis a good night.
Finished cleaning up, in some comfy punisher themed pajama pants, have a video of some neat soviet fighter-bomber, and a hot cup of orange-pekoe. 'Tis a good night indeed.
Half past 8 in the morning, i have homework, a dentist appointment at 9, school in 1 pm. This video is my only good thing.
Nice
8pm back from work watching this video before shower and dinner😂
escaped police custody , applied makeshift bandage to wounds , destroyed evidence , acquired fake passport then this video shows up
I wonder when we'll get a MIG-21 vid. Warthunder got a MIG-21.
The Mig 21 might need two videos. One for the F, PF and PFM and other for the M, MF, SMT, bis.....
@@ricardosoto5770 If he managed to cover the Su-27 family. Then the MIG-21 isn't that impossible. And most variations are just MIG-21s made for different countries.
It has been done, we have 5he mig 21 vid!
Would love this in DCS, but that goes for most of the stuff you cover
A full Su-24M module would simultaneously satisfy cold war players who want more older planes, tac bomber pilots (myself) who don't have a proper plane to call our own in DCS (Viggen is close but not enough ordnance), and people who want more redfor
It would be a 3-way win
Yeah, would be an instant buy, even from ED.
@@hvymtal8566 they have to solve the issue of multicrew in a shared cockpit first,however.
Doubtful. Russia is very secretive about its planes. That's why the only proper and clickable aircraft we have from USSR/Russia are retired.
@@epicbastard1 What about the SU27, the su25, the mig29 and the su33? Those aren't retired, yet they can be found in game.
Thank you for mentioning the Su-34 "Fullback." It is one of my favorite aircraft. I've always had a soft spot for strike fighters ever since I saw an F-111 "Aardvark" do a couple of low-altitude passes at an air show when I was younger. I'm sure most of your audience is quite familiar with the Su-27 (on which the 34 is based), but I think that the Fullback deserves more attention. Anywho, I have really enjoyed your channel for a long time, and I appreciate all of the time and effort that you put into all of your videos. Oh, I especially enjoyed the one you made about light attack aircraft. It was very well done.
Seems that every state-of-the-art airforce of that era saw the need for a ground attacker with similar design characteristics:
swing wing, 2 crew members, twin engines, improved low-level flight capabilities by means of groundtracking radar.
SU-24, F-111, Panavia Tornado (which are still in use in germany).
Always been a massive fan of the SU-24, just looks like a proper plane! Another great video, thanks.
Saw this video and I had never heard of this aircraft before and wasn’t sure if I was interested, but then I saw those SWING WINGS.
Unfortunately Mr. Matsimus haven't told anything about Su-24 and Kh-59 relations. This missile was almost designed for this plane. Full system integration. Kh-59 is long range INS-guided missile with jam-protected TV-guidance for accurate targeting on the final part of trajectory. At some point it was almost unique combo, like F-117 + GBUs or A-10 + GAU-8. Closest NATO counterpart is AGM-130 Tac. Rainbow, developed in 1990s (against 1980). Although it's pretty specific weapon for highly protected targets with powerful AA and there was no real targets of this scale and complexity for USSR AF / VKS RF.
Missile itself is pretty advanced even for today, because there's a modification (Kh-59MK2) for stealth fighter's internal weapons bay. So now it's a bit closer to AGM-158 JASSM with smaller operational range, warhead and scale itself.
it was all over the news regarding syrian war, how come you never heard of it? unless you're not aviation fans, or not like watching news in general..
@@pikapikacool Well there's a first for everyone. Why does it matter?
Finally, Maximus :))) Was waiting on some new Russian/Soviet content from you, comrade.
NATO airfields in Europe: *exist*
Su-24: I'm about to end this man's whole career
Russian SU24: exists
Turkish F16: I'm about to end this man's whole career
@@revolverswitch S400 exists:
Standoff weapons beyond the range of S400 : I'm bouta end this whole mans career
TheReal Lifehacks jsow*
@@stomach5000 oof
The reason why the su 24 in syria was intercepted by an f 16 was because this russian su 24 jet is a bomber jet and has a long range air to ground radar detecting capability but it's air to air radar detecting capability is also capable of detecting air targets but not long range enough to detect a fighter aircraft and an air to air missile launch and the radar of a bomber jet is different from an attack aircraft.
Your vehical history videos are the best in the world, please keep these going
thanks for making this video always good to learn more about these lesser known planes as not alot of people know about it and some (sadly myself as well ) confuse it with the very similar looking mig 23
Really cool aircraft :D
Thank you for this great video!
Great content. RUclips be dammed, still one of my favorite channels period
Learned a lot today, thank you for the video. This is the type of content I've subscribed for!
So you are telling me this "fighter bomber" can carry up to 8 tons of munition including to air to air missile for "self defense" AND can refuel other aircraft of the same type ?
In Soviet Russia fighter bombers refuel you.
Same type refueling its called a buddy system in the US. I have seen it in naval airplanes like the A4, A6, F 18, and the French Super Etendard. Its done mostly due to lack of dedicated tanker airplanes or do be done in areas were a large tanker is too vulnerable.
Yes, Ryan, it can "only" do all these things. (The AA missiles are short range, really just for self defence, though.)
@@imrekalman9044 R 73 for self defence.
@@ricardosoto5770 the Rafale can also do it
Hi @Matsimus,
I'm a real big fan of you content. I love geeking out on all the specs of military machines! Keep up the great work.
Now you have to do a video on the F111 aardvark aaaaand a video on the tornado
already a vid on the Tornado.
And on the F-111
Gr8 work Matsimus!!
Between May 1986 and November 1988, Pakistan airforce F-16s have shot down at least eight intruders from Afghanistan in Soviet Afghan war. The first three of these (one Su-22, one Su-24, and one An-26) were shot down by two pilots from No. 9 Squadron. Pilots of No. 14 Squadron destroyed the remaining five intruders (two Su-22s, two MiG-23s, and one Su-25). Most of these kills were by the AIM-9 Sidewinder, but at least one (a Su-22) was destroyed by cannon fire. Flight Lieutenant Khalid Mahmood is credited with three of these kills. One F-16 was lost in these battles during an encounter between two F-16s and six Afghan Air Force aircraft under soviet command on 29 April 1987, stated by the PAF to have been an "own-goal" because it was hit by an AIM-9 Sidewinder fired from the other F-16. The pilot, Flight Lieutenant Shahid Sikandar Khan, ejected safely. Most of these air kills were achieved within Pakistani borders. No.9 Sqn was credited with 3 kills, where as No.14 Sqn was credited with 5 kills, GG for all
Awesome video! You're right, an aircraft I barely thing about but one that is still out there in good numbers.
Awesome vid man! You should do a vid on the MI-28 Havoc.
F-111 Aardvark and A6 Intruder are side by side planes.
@Armadio oh yeah, the SU-34
Such a tank!
Side by side is cool from the point of pilot cooperation and psychological support, that its why its seen in most civilian airplanes. In fighters its rare since it means a large frontal cross section and that the visibiity on the opposite side its limited for each pilot. Americans tried it in the F 111 and the A 6, but dropped it from the next designs. The Russians seem to like it. They kept it in the next gen of attack fighterbombers. The SU 34.
The Fencer is a favourite of mine. Thank you for posting the vid.
You can say that the F-111 is very similar to the Su-24 Fencer
Thank you for this amazing description!
Thx . For this. Now its my time to watch wings of redstar.
Still many of these in service in several countries. In Russia they are gradually being replaced by Su-34 but that may take quite a while to complete due to budgetary limitations.
Great material. I member this airplaine in Kołobrzeg City Russian airbase in 1984 year. This gays use this plane every day every night every weather. Sun, storm, cloudy, rainy dosnt matter. Best regards from Poland. :-)
Matsimus i agree with another Commentator we need a video on the MIG-21. Awesome video as usual keep up the great work Sir.
Seems a lot like the F111 or the F111 looked a lot like the SU-24
Its being Replaced by the SU-34
The difference is for the first 20 years the F111 was mostly grounded due to design faults. Had a short life sort of a warm up for the F35
@@command_unit7792 The Su 34 will have a fully armoured version to replace the Su25. The A10 will be removed from service eventually and replaced by the B35 KamaKhazi 😁
As far as I know from official documentaries it's general parts (mostly aerodynamic solutions) was inspired by F-111. Sukhoi constructors made a lot of footages from Airshows where F-111 was shown for the first time. Since both of them was utilising same concept (low altitude supersonic penetration) they had similar requirements specification. So it's something like Harrier-Yak-F35 story, where plane on one side of ocean inspired people to make something similar, but more advanced, for the same purpose [imho: VTOLs are way to complicated to be developed by one single state, so concepts are "travelling" from state to state, like a different iterations of the same thing]. Something similar was in case of Su-24 too.
The F 111 entered service first-- the SU 24 came later and the Tornado last.. But all were designed with the long range, deep penetration role mission in mind.
The cockpit arrangement is very similar to the A-6.
I have a huge fascination in those things "fighter jets" !! It just never ceases to blow my mind that human beigns to fly faster than sound itself with those
Good job Mats, I enjoyed this.
F111 was side by side seating
@Charles Yuditsky yes I know
Good set up.
Huge bird with steady maneuverability. Looks like an easy target!
I played the F-22 Raptor simulator too. Was a good game and still working in windows 7.
Only one quick mention of the F-111. I would have expected some comparisons to the Aardvark.
Especially since the F-111 came first and is what directly inspired the Su-24.
Yes looked somehow similar but F 111 was problematic child with a lot of problems SU-24 on the other hand work much better.
@@metanumia F-111 was directly inspired by Tu-22
@@AlexanderTch Do you have a source/link for that? The Tu-22 "Blinder" was not a low-altitude/high-speed tactical fighter-bomber like the F-111 was. Here's what Wikipedia says about the inspiration for and Air Force requirements of the F-111:
F-111 Development:
---------------------------------
Early Requirements
The May 1960 U-2 incident, in which an American CIA U-2 spy plane was shot down over the USSR, stunned the United States government. Besides greatly damaging US-Soviet relations, the incident showed that the Soviet Union had developed a surface-to-air missile that could reach aircraft above 60,000 feet (18,000 meters). The United States Air Force Strategic Air Command (SAC) and the RAF Bomber Command's plans to send subsonic, high-altitude B-47 and V bomber formations into the USSR were now much less viable.[3]
By 1960, SAC had begun moving to low-level penetration which greatly reduced radar detection distances. At the time, SAMs were ineffective against low-flying aircraft, and interceptor aircraft had less of a speed advantage at low altitudes.[4] The Air Force's Tactical Air Command (TAC) was largely concerned with the fighter-bomber and deep strike/interdiction roles. TAC was in the process of receiving its latest design, the Republic F-105 Thunderchief, which was designed to deliver nuclear weapons fast and far, but required long runways.[5] A simpler variable geometry wing configuration with the pivot points farther out from the aircraft's centerline was reported by NASA in 1958, which made swing-wings viable.[6] This led Air Force leaders to encourage its use.[7] In June 1960, the USAF issued specification SOR 183 for a long-range interdiction/strike aircraft able to penetrate Soviet air defenses at very low altitudes and high speeds.[8] The specification also called for the aircraft to operate from short, unprepared airstrips.[7]
In the 1950s, the United States Navy sought a long-range, high-endurance interceptor aircraft to protect its carrier battle groups against long-range anti-ship missiles launched from Soviet jet bombers and submarines. The Navy needed a fleet air defense (FAD) fighter with a more powerful radar, and longer range missiles than the F-4 Phantom II to intercept both enemy bombers and missiles.[9] Seeking a FAD fighter, the Navy started with the subsonic, straight-winged aircraft, the Douglas F6D Missileer in the late 1950s. The Missileer was designed to carry six long-range missiles and loiter for five hours, but would be defenseless after firing its missiles.[9][10] The program was formally canceled in 1961.[9] The Navy had tried variable geometry wings with the XF10F Jaguar, but abandoned it in the early 1950s. It was NASA's simplification which made the variable geometry wings practical.[6] By 1960, increases in aircraft weights required improved high-lift devices, such as variable geometry wings.[11][12] Variable geometry offered high speeds, and maneuverability with heavier payloads, long range, and the ability to take off and land in shorter distances.[11]
Tactical Fighter Experimental (TFX)
The U.S. Air Force and Navy were both seeking new aircraft when Robert McNamara was appointed Secretary of Defense in January 1961.[13] The aircraft sought by the two armed services shared the need to carry heavy armament and fuel loads, feature high supersonic speed, twin engines and two seats, and probably use variable geometry wings.[14] On 14 February 1961, McNamara formally directed the services to study the development of a single aircraft that would satisfy both requirements. Early studies indicated that the best option was to base the design on the Air Force requirement, and use a modified version for the Navy.[15] In June 1961, Secretary McNamara ordered the go ahead of Tactical Fighter Experimental (TFX), despite Air Force and Navy efforts to keep their programs separate.[16][17]
The side-by-side seating adopted in the F-111
The Air Force and the Navy could agree only on swing-wing, two-seat, twin-engine design features. The Air Force wanted a tandem-seat aircraft for low-level penetration ground-attack, while the Navy wanted a shorter, high altitude interceptor with side-by-side seating to allow the pilot and radar operator to share the radar display.[15] Also, the Air Force wanted the aircraft designed for 7.33 g with Mach 2.5 speed at altitude and Mach 1.2 speed at low level with an approximate length of 70 ft (21.3 m). The Navy had less strenuous requirements of 6 g with Mach 2 speed at altitude and high subsonic speed (approx. Mach 0.9) at low level with a length of 56 ft (17.1 m). The Navy also wanted the aircraft with a nose large enough for a 48 in (1.2 m) diameter radar dish.[15][18]
McNamara developed a basic set of requirements for TFX based largely on the Air Force's requirements and, on 1 September 1961, ordered the Air Force to develop it.[15][18] A request for proposals (RFP) for the TFX was provided to industry in October 1961. In December, proposals were received from Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed, McDonnell, North American and Republic. The evaluation group found all the proposals lacking, but Boeing and General Dynamics were selected to submit enhanced designs. Boeing's proposal was recommended by the selection board in January 1962, with the exception of the engine, which was not considered acceptable. Switching to a crew escape capsule, instead of ejection seats and alterations to radar and missile storage were also needed. Both companies provided updated proposals in April 1962. Air Force reviewers favored Boeing's offering, while the Navy found both submissions unacceptable for its operations. Two more rounds of updates to the proposals were conducted, with Boeing being picked by the selection board.[17][19]
In November 1962, McNamara selected General Dynamics' proposal due to its greater commonality between Air Force and Navy versions. The Boeing aircraft shared less than half of the major structural components. General Dynamics signed the TFX contract in December 1962. A Congressional investigation followed, but could not change the selection.[17][19][20]
Design Phase
:
The F-111A and B variants used the same airframe structural components and Pratt & Whitney TF30-P-1 turbofan engines. They featured side-by-side crew seating in an escape capsule as required by the Navy. The F-111B's nose was 8.5 feet (2.59 m) shorter so as to fit on existing carrier elevator decks, and had 3.5-foot-longer (1.07 m) wingtips to improve on-station endurance time. The Navy version would carry an AN/AWG-9 Pulse-Doppler radar and AIM-54 Phoenix missiles. The Air Force version would carry the AN/APQ-113 attack radar and the AN/APQ-110 terrain-following radar and air-to-ground armament.[21] A team of engineers at General Dynamics was led by Robert H. Widmer.[22]
Lacking experience with carrier-based fighters, General Dynamics teamed with Grumman for the assembly and testing of the F-111B aircraft. In addition, Grumman would also build the F-111A's aft fuselage and the landing gear.[23] The General Dynamics and Grumman team faced ambitious requirements for range, weapons load, and aircraft weight.[24] The F-111 design also included new features on a production military aircraft, such as variable-geometry wings and afterburning turbofan engines.[23]
The F-111A mockup was inspected in September 1963. The first test F-111A was rolled out of Plant 4 of General Dynamics' Fort Worth, Texas facility on 15 October 1964. It was powered by YTF30-P-1 turbofans and used a set of ejector seats as the escape capsule was not yet available.[21] The F-111A first flew on 21 December 1964 from Carswell Air Force Base, Texas, U.S.[25] The first F-111B was also equipped with ejector seats and first flew on 18 May 1965.[26][27]
Initially there were compressor surge and stall issues in certain parts of the flight regime. NASA, the Air Force, and General Dynamics studies resulted in the engine inlet design being modified in 1965-66, ending with the "Triple Plow I" and "Triple Plow II" designs.[28][29]
The F-111A achieved a speed of Mach 1.3 in February 1965 with an interim intake design.[21][28] Cracks in the F-111's wing attach points were first discovered in 1968 during ground fatigue testing - an F-111 crashed the following year due to this issue.[20] The attach structure required redesign and testing to ensure adequate design and workmanship.[30] Flight testing of the F-111A ran through 1973.[31]
The F-111B was canceled by the Navy in 1968 due to weight and performance issues, along with the need for additional fighter requirements.[32][33] The F-111C model was developed for Australia. Subsequently, the improved F-111E, F-111D, F-111F models were developed for the U.S. Air Force. The strategic bomber FB-111A and the EF-111 electronic warfare versions were later developed for the USAF.[34] Production ended in 1976[35] after 563 F-111 aircraft were built.[1]
Source:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-111_Aardvark#Development
@@altergreenhorn The Su-24 was just as problematic during development, costing the lives of 14 test pilots and navigators. It only entered service after those problems were corrected, hence the zero (!) losses in Afghanistan. May they rest in peace.
As others have said, this aircraft resembles the F-111 more than the Tornado, please do a video on the Aardvark! ;-)
MIG-23: Am I a jOkE tO yOu?
It's Mig-27
Its both
@@fadlya.rahman4113 Mig23 and 27 are same plane, made in two modifications for different roles.
I love that urban legend about Mig-27, when they showed a generals the Mig27 can do the same wruuuuum like the A-10 can.
Mig27, made Wruuum and couple tanks dissepeared. Mig27 turned around, made wruuum and a couple of other tanks dissepeared. Made last planned turn around, and last wruuuum and dissepeared.
That was quite suprising. For generals, Mig engineers, and especially for the pilot, under which that Mig27 desintegrated midair :D
No, you're not a joke glorious MIG-23. You're both awesome in any way!
A nice airplane!Why don't we have it! Greetings from Bulgaria!😊
Good job Matsimus!
This brings back memories of when I read about it being stationed in Finsterwalde in (then) German Demokratic Republic.
The comparison with the Tornado is somewhat justified. They had similar roles:
1) Low level penetration over land.
2) Antishipping and protection of naval bases.
Only - as mentioned - the Tornado achieved that with 2/3 the weight. Tornados range is/was double that of the Fencer. The pictures of the airial refuelling of the Fencer - that figures: They bloody well NEED that.
The Fencer produced quite a bit of a flap in Nato, when it was introduced, as it had the range to bomb the American (and British) air stations in East Anglia. It produced the stationing of USAF F-15C in Holland at Soesterberg - the "Wolfhounds" had the distinction (besides having its badge designed by Walt Disney) of being the only USAF squadron under permanent non-US control (controlled by the Dutch).
Don't say it wasn't taken seriously! Only problem is the question of survivability - even at low level - in wartime: The air defences of that part of Germany and Holland were massive. The better route was over the southern part of Denmark - a contingency that was very much in the planning here as well.
The incident with the US destroyer very much indicate, that the defence of Russian naval bases is still a concern. As time goes by the question comes up: Are naval (even Russian) bases not supposed to have naval ships - in somewhat working order?
I recall as a passenger seeing German Tornadoes making mock attacks on a ferry in Danish waters. What you saw was two little glowing dots far away.
I assume that is one of the major reasons a Huitfeldt-class has a 35 mm Oerlikon turret - still waiting to see if the Piranha 5 will have something like that? Sea skimming missiles being another.
To keep such a massive aircraft operational is certainly not cheap. But then again: Can't complain the enemy bleeding money by every opportunity.
Well yes, but Tornado payload was about 7 tones while Su-24 reached its performance with normal payload 10 tons and maximal payload almost 17 tons, so its not so surprising that Tornado had better range.
"The incident with the US destroyer very much indicate, that the defence of Russian naval bases is still a concern"...pff yeah sure...wouldnt they should sent at least Kirov class destroyer? But why they would have coastal defence systems and keep naval aviation with 24/7 readiness airplanes, if not for such cases of pesky US Donald Cook sails around their territorial waters?
"I recall as a passenger seeing German Tornadoes making mock attacks on a ferry in Danish waters. What you saw was two little glowing dots far away."...Well this wasnt any mock attack, it was classic cold war era flight over board. Mock attack of Su-24M against enemy ship would consist of low altitude flight on distance of ship radar horizon (30-40 km) and training release of Ch-35 or Ch-58U/UShK with release on distances around 50-100 km.
"To keep such a massive aircraft operational is certainly not cheap"..Thats relative. Most of Su-24Ms are on the end of their airframe lifetimes and gonna be replaced with Su-34, so big part of fleet is gradually canibalized. In service probably rest only modification for deep naval sigint/elint/optical recon.
The Russians do make really beautiful aircraft. One of my first Revell 1:72 scale aircraft models, right after the 1:72 scale Hasegawa F-111E.
Thanks for the vid sir.👍🏼👍🏼
Very, very fast aircraft that can reach astonishing altitudes fast.
Su-24 was a direct analog of the FB-111.
Funny that F-111 helped in designing SU-24.In 1967 Samoilovich personally went on a business trip in Le Bourget an made ~100 photos of F-111 :)
Modern version of SU-24 using the same targeting complex as Su-34 and can use non guided weapons with accuracy close to guided weapons.(СВП-24)ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/СВП-24_(прицельно-навигационный_комплекс)
Cool intro, more of that pls. Can you make vid about G.91 family? Those are underrated
As always a great video.
In the mid 80's NATO had no idea how to stop the Su-24 and its Su-27 escorts.
In Syria most of the bombs were dropped by these.
The GSh-23-6 is probably the only GSh cannon that doesn't work, neither in this nor in the MIG-31. It's not the cannon though, the Soviets/Russians couldn't create a reliable system to feed 130 rounds per second into the gun! 😁
What a video to start the day with! Thanks, Matsimus!
@@QualityPen In test it worked just fine. In service however the number of jams and other failures were found to be too high, so the guns are now there just in case, but normally without amo. The system works, just not reliable.
The first 30 seconds of this video I was like epic wholllyyy shiiiiitt
Another gear video...YES!
At 4:08 you mentioned that the su 24 had 9 hard points, this is actually wrong....yes, early versions did have 6 hardpoint (Su-24 sans suffix) but later versions introduce two tandem centerline hard points, and an additional two hard points can be mounted on the inner pylons sides which means it could (but rarely) have 10 hard points
I'm glad to see you review this impressive bomber, it has been one of my favourite jets, it just looks beautiful, a certain type of beauty you can only see amongst cold ward jets including the F-4 Phantom! and you are right 24 Su-24 ran away from Iraq to my country but I think most of them are not really airworthy unless Iran has dome something that I'm not aware of!
Its funny how it seems that the same aircrafy was built for the same purpose around the same time when tupelov made the tu-22m3
Erm... Not really. The Su-24 is a tactical/frontline bomber with a max take off weight of 40+ tons. Tu-22M3 is a strategic bomber weighting 3 times as much with two times the length.
That thing looks alot like the avro arrow
waiting for matsimus to talk about the flying tank; su-34
Buzzing a ships Super Structure is just a friendly "Hey Buddy How's It Going?" maneuver.
Thanks for the bedtime story mat
I never looked at it as a Tornado but more of a General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark.
It looked like the F 111 more. But range and payload were closer to the Tornado according to some. The mission was closer to the Tornado, attacks mainly 800km from the frontline.
Great aircraft, and although it might be showing its age look at what Russia did with them in Syria to turn the tide of the war in favor of its ally. Good video and unbiased opinions. Congrats.
Nice one Matsimus
Excellent video 👌
one of the most beautifull russian planes ever
Looks a heck of a lot like an F-111 doesn't it? Right down to the side by side seating.
Not at all. It bigger, carry more, and engines are monstrous against that one on F111.
@@thomaschadwick1557 The F 111 and the SU 24 are more of less the same size, but the F 111 had more payload and range.
F 111. lenght, 22.4m, wingspan with spread wings, 19.2m, range, 3,700km, weapons load, 14,300kg.
Su 24 lenght, 22.53, wingspan with spread wings, 17.64m, range 2,775, weapons load, 8,000kg.
The reason were the engines.. The SU 24 never really got the engines it need. It got fuel hungry turbojets with 75N of thrust, while the F 111 got fuel efficient turbofans with 79N of thrust. So the F 111 can carry more weapons in the proportion of fuel carried. And the F 111 while being about the same size as the S 24 has a heavier takeoff weight in both fuel and weapons. The SU 24 its lighter plane. So the SU 24 its in a class between the F 111 and the Tornado in the deep interdictor plane field. But I wont complain, all those planes could do their work well. Any airforce who had them was well served.
i've heard the lastest modification lets it transform into a big robot!
The air to air refuelling probe was retrofitted? That can't be an easy mod! Do you know of any other aircraft that has been done to?
thanks m8. good video.
When is there going to be a video of the newer aircraft such as SU-35s or SU-34 bombers?
the Su-24 and Tornado look like cousins while the Tu-22 and the Su-24 looks like big brother little brother.
Do a video on the YF-23, a true marvel of engineering.
Matsimus: 2019 Discovery Channel Wings replacement!
Growing up in the 80s I would devour any and all military aircraft literature. It was NATO biased of course, but even at the age of 8 I could tell the that something about the SU-22 had this side of the Iron Curtain shook.
Side-by-side is as with the F-111, actually. Sacrificing, perhaps, cross-sectional area with better crew dynamics.
@bob bobo - EXCELLENT POINT, just make sure the O2 is off.
3:30 isn't the F-111 Aardvark have side-by-side pilot seating config?
Variable Swept wing, tactical ground attack, two seater,.... Tornado GR.4, F-111, Mig-23/27,... and Su-24. I wonder why the Soviets needed two aircrafts that can fill the same role, the Mig 27 and Su-24, at that time.
MiG27 is fighter size plane, as it came out from MiG23... Su24 is double the size
The SU 24 its a all weather deep interdictor. A very different class than the radarless, single pilot Mig 27. The real question its why the URSS developed the Mig 27 having the SU 17? And also why they put a different engne than the Mig 23 in the Mig 27 making logistics more complex..
@tvercetti1 Actually not. Both bureau are state owned, and they just specialize in different things. Sukhoi often has done heavy ground attack planes since the S 2, 7/17/22/24/ 25 and 34 and heavy long range interceptors and fighters designed to protect Mother Russia, like the SU 9/11/15/27/30/33/35. Mig on the other side, does light, short range fighters and interceptors designed to be near the frontline in a Central European conflict. The Mig 3/15/17/19/21/23/25/29/35 all fit this decription, minus the Mig 27, a ground attack plane derived from the 23, and the 31, a long range interceptor derived from the 25. So Sukhoi used to have the PVO, the Soviet air defense service as the main customer for his fighters, Mig had the Frontal Aviation as their target. This is not a strict rule, Sukhoi ground attack planes were used by Frontal Aviation and the PVO uses special version of mig fighters too. But sometimes the do compete with each other, like the Su 17/22 and the Mig 27. They are both single pilot, single engine, radarless, variable geometry ground attack planes..
Matsimus
! You again!
I can't believe how much it's just like an F111
From your American grunt brother, I always look forward to seeing these type videos so keep it up.
My 10 year watched this video with me. He says he wants to be a jet piolet now.
Nice video by the way 👍 Very informative as always! I've been watching mostly about those fighter aircrafts in your channel. I just wanna ask though, if you've already made videos on dassault rafale & saab jas 39 gripen? If not, i hope you'll also include those jets in the near future 🙏
Hi Matsimus, is it possible for u to do a review on e A-14a Wild Wolf & A-14b Night Wolf?..
I love the Su-24 because they can be multirole fighters basically a bigger F-15e and Tornado
That was an amazing vid!
Su-24 US-Fleet Troller
Should be the desinated NATO naming. It's more fitting
LOL Su-24 "Troller"
the lower-lateral ventral finlets possibly curb turbulence like in fish! :D
Please do a video on the Su-34!!!!!!!
awesome footage
Yak 28 is a bad ass looking airframe
Paper Skies RUclips channel's video, "The Ridiculous Design Flaw of the Sukhoi Su-24", mentions that the Su-24 was indeed based on the F-111 as well as the Mirage G designs which the designers saw at the Paris Air Show. Also, a design flaw necessitated the addition of a length of rope with 2 polystyrene balls to parked aircraft to prevent accidental ejection of the Navigator on engine startup.
Love those swing wing variable geometry airplanes of the late 60s and early 70s. The SU 24 was one of the most interesting. A deep interdictor like the F 111 and the Tornado, and halfway between the two in size. A Mikhail Simonov design. Like most full swing wings, a bitch to maintain. That its why no new variable geometry tactical airplane designs has entered service after the Tornado. But the are the coolest looking planes in the world. And bombers like the B1 or the TU 160 are another grade of cool.
Excellent video sir. By any chance what is the name of that song that plays at the intro of your videos?
Pls do Su-34 next
Yes we got a couple of those monsters here in IRIAF
The Russians recently installed the latest targeting system on all their aircraft. The system is called "SVP-24 Gefest" (СВП-24 Гефест) It is an automatic navigation and computing system that receives information about all parameters and conditions. The pilot either has coordinates in advance, or chooses the target himself, after which he activates the launch of the ammunition. The system itself calculates the moment of launch, taking into account the parametric data, the type and weight of the ammunition, the direction, speed and height of the aircraft and external conditions, humidity, atmospheric pressure or rain, wind speed and direction, air temperature and the system itself at the right time launches or drops the rocket or bombs. Thus, the Russians turned bombs from World War 2 into precision weapons.
Ah yes, and how did that precision turned in Ukraine? xD
@@jonasprusek4511 You need to ask several hundred thousand dead Ukrainian soldiers. Oh no, they can't say anything. Ask the prisoners of war from Mariupol, of whom 300 out of 14,000 survived.
@@RUSS-wk4ll I'll ask the civilians
@@jonasprusek4511 The Americans are already there and asked the civilians. You believe the Americans , don 't you ?
ruclips.net/user/PatrickLancasterNewsTodayvideos
ruclips.net/video/lPVDH6gGPZM/видео.html&ab_channel=MaineReactor
ruclips.net/video/052WnJvmXl8/видео.html&ab_channel=MaineReactor
ruclips.net/video/o6S2tQQy9zU/видео.html&ab_channel=AlexChristoforou
ruclips.net/user/TheDivewithJacksonHinklevideos
ruclips.net/video/GzNOXWjcLVs/видео.html&ab_channel=Redacted
ruclips.net/user/USTourofDutyPodcastsvideos
ruclips.net/channel/UCDkEYb-TXJVWLvOokshtlswvideos
And many others!!!!!!!!!!!!
Beautiful aircraft.
Great insight thank you. Outve curiosity how many SU-24's sported the brown camouflage?
Do you have a video where you go over the Russian t-90ms?
Next up, the BIG BOI Flanker, the Su-34?