@@lofis07a doesn't it perform pretty good irl as well? Yeah the losses are pretty high but that's to be expected in a highly contested airspace with some of the best AA systems in the world against it
Russias response to the Strike Eagle was the Su-30 not the Su-34 , mentioned even by the Russians Su-34 is like a mini bomber tasked for Ground and Naval targets specifically as it was designed for tactical bombing/attack/interdiction roles, including against small and mobile targets) with a good amount of A2A capabilities if needed as the Fullback is surprisingly pretty maneuverable for its weight and size, not to mention its multifunctional radar thats detect targets up to “250km” if switched to A2A 250 km is the number provided by them which most likely will be lower than its actual A2A range.
tho there really is no equal comparison to the f15 line, the f15 strike eagle is a ground attack platform version of the f15. It's not a fighter like the f15 c. So considering the 34 and strike eagle hit the same role they can be compared in the same catagory. tho the russian plane, as expeced will be found wanting
@@Ashehasawienerdog and as always. They are easier to produce, more cost effective, easy to maintain, easy to train for, and able to operate in some of the harshest weather on planet earth.
I hope he's still alive, if so gimme him a handshake of hug, if sadly he has passed, I will mention him in a prayer. Beautiful aircraft no matter which side built it. I still think my country Canada should buy F 15 strike eagles.
@@timpeterson2738 This is ok, because all aircraft are built to specific requirements, the needs of the country and the capabilities of the manufacturer. It is impossible to get an ideal machine that is equally good in any part of the planet and in any hands. So for Canada, American planes may just be more convenient.
It may be considered an answer to the F-15E, with a bit of a stretch, but it mostly is a successor to the Su-24. Although, as it can be seen as reinterpreting the Flanker formula as an air to ground platform - same as the F-15E compared to F-15A - it dies, indeed, spring from a similar well.
It's a good thing that they put a bathroom in the Su 34, being a side by side cockpit opposed to a front and rear seat configuration would have made pissing in a bottle a bit weird lol
In terms of configuration and era, the Su-30 is more comparable to the F-15E - a tandem-seat strike fighter. The Su-34 was more of an upgrade vs. the Su-24 and comparable to the F-111 - a parallel-seat fighter/bomber.
the canard is not for extra agility. When they rework the cockpit design, the plane become front heavy and the center of mass has shifted forward and now is in front center of lift. Ideally you want COM and COL to be in the same place. Now that the COM is in front of the COL, they need to move that COL forward to the position of the COM. They either must redesign the wings, which basically means designing new aircraft, or they can add another set of wing in front. They choose the latter.
The greatest asset of this plane is the on board WC and small kitchenette. I remember there were times during Kosovo War (1999), where Turkish F-16 planes conducted CAP task of the coalition. Some of those task flights took longer than 8 hours! 8 hours, multiple air refuels in a cramped F-16 cockpit must be a true torture! Su-34, you take a dump, warm your wrap in a microwave Owen... While your co-pilot on the controls before your 12th air refuels and 14th hours flight.
@@InvaderNatDT Considering its role in the Russo- Ukie war, it actually 100% IS a bomber. The Aardvark had missiles, does this make it anything else than a bomber?
@@aquilesca5tr0 15e is a multi role fighter. This is a Bomber that can sometimes do long range missile engagements. That doesn't make it in the same category even if it overlaps some rolls. This is no different then a F111.
The su 34 is a workhorse bomber with sufficient agility and electronics to escape air defences and fire back at enemy aircraft. Its not really meant to fight. Its meant to be a difficult target while carrying an ungodly amount of things that go bang against the enemy. People think a bunch of them going down in Ukraine is a big deal but they forget the absolutely insane number of missions these things are flying droping a maximum ot 12 tons of bombs on target. We are talking tens of thousands of sorties. For comparison an F35 can only carry 2.6 tons in a stealth configuration and said stealth performace would be debatable at those ranges and against an integrated air defence like the one Ukraine has/had.
Pretty much. With a handful (like a dozen or so?) going down after doing probably around 100 sorties a day for 1000 days straight, that seems to be a remarkably low number especially considering that as well as SARH SAMs like the S-300 and older Buks (which are still a threat to frontline aviation today), it's also had to deal with probably hundreds of firings from ACTIVE RADAR SAMs (PAC-3) and com out unharmed This is especially noteworthy for the beginning of the war when they didn't have glide bombs - they were either toss bombing or lying low and avoiding MANPADS (hence the "poor tactics" that people poor fun at were actually the only viable way to provide air support considering the limitations in payload options at the time)
Correction,FAB bombs aren't satellite guided. They are guided by inertial guidance system(or INS for short). That means that they have guidance system independent from anything and can't be jammed as a result.
Regardless of whether that's the case or not, there's benefits and drawbacks to either case Inertial guidance when timed to the aircraft while referencing position relative to a ground station could be a good option if wide area GNSS jamming is present Have coordinates set relative to a ground station, the launch aircraft interprets the vector (so that it knows it's relative position to the ground station and also, by extension, the target) at bomb release point, and then transfers it to the INS guidance unit of the bomb when it's dropped
@@eduardokarlos1419 the reason why JDAM failed in Ukraine is because of the electronic warfare systems jamming the guidance system of the bomb that they get from extrenal sourced. The same can be said for HIMARS too. FAB bombs,on the other hand,are still having a great success rate and decent accuracy, despite Ukraine had been provided with electric warfare systems. The reason why they aren't doing anything is because FAB bombs aren't satellite guided but guided by the system within themselves.
@@mig-29 No, JDAM failed because the air belongs to Russia. They simply cannot use it because the range of use is very small, and Russian aircraft are constantly on duty in the air. Himars is knocked down by air defense. There`s many FAB models, the one wityh UMPK is a satellite guided.
this fighterbomber is primarily dropping fab 500, 1500 and my beloved fab 3000 bomb, maybe soon fab 5000 bombs too! and they are not just ordinary glide bombs with umpk, but they started using new special variants of them too, with upgraded umpk kit and thus even longer range too. and new umpb d30-sn munitions and rocket booster assisted glide bombs too. like the thermobaric odab 500/1500/3000. and the overkill he frag+thermobaric ofzab line of bombs. they combine the best of both worlds and guarantee the best result! plus su-34nvo or su-34m can also launch the khinzhal hypersonic quasi ballistic missiles too. the best multi role fighterbomber aircraft of all time! the workhorse of the smo, the russian hellduck, the beautiful suchoi su-34!
Su-34 made for replace Su-24, Su-24 was Soviet answer for F-111, but really Su-24 lighter than F-111, and Tu-22M more biggest than F/FB-111. Su-30 answer for F-15E. Indian Su-30MKI using tools from NATO planes - AN/AAQ-28 pods
The canards weren't just about added agility. Originally they were to compensate for the weight on the front from the SU-33 Radar. And it turned out to really help agility. I suspect with the SU-34, the weight from the front also plays a major decision in the reason for canards.
@@gnolkenstein5527 nope......not even close. No targeting pod and the the optic it does have doesn't have thermals and is extremely limited in where it can look. It has the ability to lock and launch missiles at vehicles and has the missiles to do it, has seen plenty of combat........has never done this. It's never even hit vehicles with TV guided weapons which should allow it to do so without a targeting pod.
@@brookwhiteman9810it's still unsafe to get close to the frontline and paint targets for laser guided bombs, so that doesn't matter too much all things considered It works as a glide bomb carrier, and for that role it's seen probably the largest deployment of such weapons in the history of aerial warfare as of right now What it really needs is the AESA RADAR of the Su-57 or something similar, and have integrated R-37M missiles to not rely on Su-35S or Su-30SM support
It managed to dodge patriot using it's manuverability - so you have a bomber (though not a heavy one, it's still much more than a fighter) that can stand a chance of dodging missiles like a fighter can. Makes me dream of a "super vulcan".
Fun fact: Stealth's so ass against a competent enemy (F-117 has a smaller radar cig than the B2 for reference) that even early cold war SAMs can knock them out. It's why Sweden and quite a few other European countries are moving towards networked air support and superiority over stealth because a squadron of planes all passively hunting for a stealth aircraft will spot it far sooner than the stealth will them if the stealth's also passive, if it isn't then the squadron will triangulate it down quicker too.
@@JohnKoenig-db8lkyeah bro a squadron of 4th gen aircraft will spot a stealth aircraft sooner by just packing together That's how you lose a lot of fighters. Their range to detect stealth aircraft is physically limited to like 1/4 of the typical effective range of their RADARs The only way that swarming like that would work is if they literally throw themselves at the stealth fighters and wearing down their A2A payload by sheer attrition The literal only ways to deal with stealth are; 1) stealth aircraft of your own 2) massive use of AIRBORNE L-band or longer RADARs (range is halved rather than quartered) 3) otherwise more powerful RADARs (enough to detect the aircraft at standoff distances, exceeding 100km so it would need to work at well in excess of 400km against 4th gen aircraft) 4) massive conventional strikes with medium ranged weapons systems against airfields and aviation support infrastructure China is prioritizing point 1, Russia is prioritizing points 2... and 4
@@AdotLOMyeah but it has levels to it. The swedes have managed to reach a great level of networking just with their Gripens without the help of AWACS that’s it’s honestly admirable. If you compare it to Russia’s air force it’s ehhh…
@@AdotLOM Retardation doesn't suit you. It's not the same sort of networking as datalinks as those don't really do hunter-killer type tasks as well as what the Swedes are cooking in their next upgrade packages and newer models of jets. This isn't 3-4 units sharing sensory input with a control unit that then provides a combined picture based on it, it's 3-4 units combining their sensor input and hunting on their own (the closest analogy that readily comes to mind is the difference between a World War 2 German Division vs a Kampfgruppen, similar sounding, completely different functionality).
Also... The graphics in this vid are GREAT. Thanks for talking the time use decent images, oics that actually match the narration, non-crap CG, A/I, etc- too many channels are just plain lazy about that; The appropriate and quality visuals are so good that they're almost distracting! (I keep pausing/zooming)... Cheers!
It's an excellent fighter But it needs better RADAR options, the early PESAs were superior to western RADARs at the time but they really need to start implementing universal AESA on all the hundreds of Flankers (and MiG-29s) that they have Everything else is solid, though having an R-73 variant with 90 degree off boresight would be nice
The Su-34 can hardly be a response to the F-15E, the Strike Eagle still keeps a sizable proficiency in the air superiority role (it's why the F-15EX is based off the E model and not the original A/C model), whereas the Fullback is a Flanker offshoot specialized for ground attack, which has it giving up on air to air capabilities.
the canards weren't for manoeuvrability they were to create lift as the nose had become so heavy - same thing with the Su-30. Glonass is not "inaccurate" it is focussed on the northern hemisphere where it is actually more accurate. GPS was developed by the US Navy and is focussed on the oceans ....
The Su-34 is not a respond to striking capabilities of the F-15, these aircrafts are too different. The Su-34 is a direct successor of the Su-24, based on a way more advanced fighter's airframe giving it agility and air-to-air capabilities. Next logical step is to design a low-observable bomber - air defence fighter by up-scaling the Su-57's airframe on the same pattern
@@bogdanscripcariu6501 some ukrainian exaggeration aside, there were confirmed combat losses of Su-34s - but compared to the sheer tonnage of ordnance they deliver every day, these losses are minuscule, and with the Sukhoi's production working almost fulltime on expanding the 34 fleet, even those were quickly replenished. We rarely see any reports of Su-34 casualties today, because Ukraine's air force is almost non-existent, and is pre-occupied with flinging SCALP's and StormShadows from the cover of their remaining NASAM's, Irises and Patriots, while Su-34s, respectively, operate inside Russia's own SAM cover bubble. And also some Su-30-ies flying security in case those F-16s finally decide to make an entrance in fighter\interceptor roles.
Many people in the comments are arguing that the Su-34 isn't analogous to the F-15E Strike Eagle. They're completely incorrect. The Su-34 is very analogous to the Strike Eagle. The Strike Eagle is based on the F-15 airframe but modified for air-to-ground missions. Similarly, the Su-34 is based on the Flanker airframe (Russia's response to the F-15A/C Eagle) and has been modified for air-to-ground roles. Some people here also claim that the Su-34 is more akin to the F-111. Yes, it is comparable to the F-111. However, the F-15E Strike Eagle essentially replaced the F-111, so naturally, they are comparable as well. The Su-34 can be seen as analogous to both the F-111 and the F-15E, just as these aircraft are comparable to the Su-24 and Su-34. I'm sure if you want to nitpick, there are differences in the mission sets of the F-111 and the F-15E, but generally speaking, the F-15E took over the F-111's role.
Not really tho Su 34 leans more on the bomber side while the strike eagle leans more towards the fighter bomber side. If you noticed Su-34's usually flies with an escort because it’s not really meant to fight air targets. I might be wrong but the f15e never really flies with a fighter escort. F15e is mostly meant for long range strikes while the Su 34 is just mostly used as a high maneuverability small bomber made for bombing targets up close. So they are very different and have different roles
@BreadPittAAAAHHHH Both aircraft have the ability to self-escort, though the F-15E is more adept at this. They can perform any of the air-to-ground roles you described, from close air support to interdiction. So no, they are not "very different." A slight variation in how each one is used does not mean they are no longer comparable or analogous to each other. That would be like saying an above-ground pool and an in-ground pool aren't comparable because they're used slightly differently. Both are used for recreational swimming; they're just implemented differently.
This aircraft isn't one of two Strike Fighters in the world, today, because there's the Super Hornet, the Typhoon, the Lightning-II, and the Rafale, as well.
All of them have to carry targeting containers, Su-34 is the only strike fighter with the targeting system built in and twice the payload over anything but F-15E.
My favorite ground pounder in ac7, those cluster bombs are amazing and it has great maneuverability and psm capabilities so it is also good for dogfights
The primary role of MiG-31 is high-speed, high altitude interception of stratobombers and ballistic missiles. It lacks radar capabilities as it was designed to work with the network of Soviet radars all across its territory. It is a great plane for what it does even nowadays, but not a great fighter. 27th family is better in many aspects.
@EvoXVI its a fighter none the less. Also MiG-31 lacks radar? It was world's first fighter to have PESA radar. It had data link to share target info which even western fighters go only in 90s. Its radar was so powerful that it could operate as AWACS for Su-27.
@@EvoXVIyour right about what it was designed for, but the RADAR part is highly false. It was designed with a massive phased array RADAR at the core of its functionality Militavia made a good video about it recently. This RADAR also makes it ideal at dealing with airspace penetrations, though the Russians would benefit from equipping it with an AESA version of the Zaslon. 400km range is good, but 600-700km range is better
@@hp2084 fighter that can barely turn compared to other aircrafts in the class (the maximum overload is 5G), worse engine performance at low altitude and way bigger profile along with the weight, just what comes in mind first. And yes, I did mixed up info on radar with MiG-25, for which I apologise.
Aside from the Su-47, I'd have to say that the Su-34 is my favorite of the Flanker family of derivatives. As for the American counterparts, the Strike Eagle gets the job done, but a part of me misses the many varied possibilities the plane that lost out to the F-15E could have achieved. Sadly, the F-16XL will just have to flit through my aviation-loving mind.
Can we just all agree, that GPS is not the name if a global navigation system. Rather, GNSS is the term of which GPS is one system. GLONASS, Beidou and Galileo are 3 other such systems with Beidou being the most advanced due to its extra satellites...
Great video! However, I don't know if Su-34 necessarily had a "poor" performance in 2022 as you put it. It was an intensive time in the aerial theater of the Ukraine conflict, and Ukraine's original air force and air defense was still mostly intact, and Su-34 as well as Su-25 and Su-24 were working on the frontlines. That almost inevitably resulted in significant combat losses for those aircraft types, although I'm sure some mistakes were also made.
An impressive breakdown of the Su-34’s history and evolution! It's fascinating how the 'Duckbill' embodies Soviet-era ingenuity but feels like it’s chasing time compared to the F-15E. The 1980s design hurdles and 2023 upgrades are a stark contrast! Do you think these advancements can truly elevate it to a global competitor, or is it destined to remain a relic in a stealth-dominated era?
Finally, that's the su- 34 because want I saw the thumbnail on my TV at home on RUclips and I thought oh that's weird. That's not the su-34. That's an su-30 because it look like a weird version of the su-30 maybe the angle
Sometimes I wonder if stealth planes are as effective as they are made out to be? The F-22 and F-35 are certainly very advanced technically, but their stealth capabilities do not make them absolutely invulnerable against even the old S-300. I think the main advantage now is electronics and infrastructure, but not the notorious "stealth".
The key is not that they are "invisible' per se, but that they have higher chances of getting into strike range before they get targeted and locked on. In certain combat environments this can be crucial to success and\or survival of the striking craft.
Uhhhh, tactical ballistic missiles were around since the 1950s. Do you mean like a rise in accuracy? When it comes to Warsaw pact missiles at least, the Tochka was not the most effective with just conventional warhead. We have seen how poorly Tochka from that era operating solely on INS have faired in Ukraine and it isn’t pretty. If you are talking about tactical ballistic missiles carrying nuclear payloads, as I have said, those go back at least to the 1950s and predate ICMBs for obvious reasons. You could put a lower yield nuclear warhead on the 1980s versions do to accuracy but increases but nothing fundamentally really changed.
He probably meant SRBMs on TEL platforms, which needed to be tracked and struck quickly But I'm not sure if this was the actual reason this type of aircraft role was created
Su-34 is Su-27 + Su-24. Su-24 came to service in 1974, started development in 1961. F-111 came to service in 1967, started development in late 1962. Su-27 came to service in 1985, started development in 1976. And F-111 is more like a A-6 but to be strike capable and act like fighter too. F-111 was a new concept for the USA. Where Su-24 was reform of the existing aircraft purposes.
US put the F-15E into service in 1985 Russia put the Su-34 into service in 2006 (21yrs later!!!) and still has to rely upon US-made civilian Garmin GPS taped to the dash to navigate and uses mostly dumb bombs in actual combat. Russia put into service the Su-30 in 1992, 7yrs after the F-15E, and many have been shot down in Ukraine. F-15E : never shot down in combat Su-34: most of them have been shot down or destroyed on the ground in combat with Ukraine, a nation with almost no air force or air defenses. Su-34 seems an objective failure to me and over 20yrs late in responding to the F-15E. Su-30 was the actual response to the F-15E, and they have performed better in Ukraine with fewer losses, but they have also accomplished little.
I think the Chinese White Emperor was taken from it and based on it, but the Chinese plane is more beautiful and it seems that the ability to evade radar has been increased by angles and edges.
My favorite thing to do evertime a F&E military aviation video drops is to look at the comments and sort by new, I love seeing the little ignorant people saying "The Su-34 is trash" "The F-22 can't do anything besides popping balloons".
Trust me, there are plenty of former military aviators on here who do the exact same thing... Myself included 😂 It's cheap entertainment to watch folks whose extent of knowledge about these aircraft include news clips, an airshow or two, and MAYBE "my friend, whose brother was in the Air Force." One thing I can say for sure is this: the TRUE capabilities of aircraft are known ONLY to those who fly them. Hell, I was at an airshow with a display team (AH-1 F Cobra Attack Helicopter) and we had armament laid out and flight suits on... The whole nine yards... We got a break and went over to see a B-1B Stealth Bomber on display. The crew was gracious but even with our clearances we were not allowed up the ladder to actually look into the cockpit! 😢 And this was in 1991 and the Bomber has already been fielded a few years. Real capabilities are kept "close to the vest" and rightly so... Otherwise you'd be reading how your enemy has "mysteriously" and SUDDENLY invented new countermeasures.😮
terror of war thunder
Performs way better in Warthunder haha
@@lofis07a the ukrainians who died to gliding bombs launched by this would disagree
im glad they made it good its a cool plane
@@lofis07a doesn't it perform pretty good irl as well? Yeah the losses are pretty high but that's to be expected in a highly contested airspace with some of the best AA systems in the world against it
@@bish189sure irl, but it's usually dogshit in other games.
Anyone notice the thumbnail is a remake of the War Thunder loading screen?
I don’t think it’s a remake I think it is straight up just the loading screen
@@WarmBread21 he changed it ;-;
@@MagikWT now the thumbnail look like AI Generated Su-37 without canards.
Edit: it changed into actual Su-34 now.
Also it's the wrong aircraft... It's later version of the flanker not the glorus Duck!
@@MagikWT its still the same for me
“How did you make this aircraft so shiny?”
“Polish.”
“Jak udało Ci się sprawić, że ten samolot tak błyszczy?”
Lulz
Jfc, this had me cackling like an idiot 😂
😄
Russias response to the Strike Eagle was the Su-30 not the Su-34 , mentioned even by the Russians Su-34 is like a mini bomber tasked for Ground and Naval targets specifically as it was designed for tactical bombing/attack/interdiction roles, including against small and mobile targets) with a good amount of A2A capabilities if needed as the Fullback is surprisingly pretty maneuverable for its weight and size, not to mention its multifunctional radar thats detect targets up to “250km” if switched to A2A
250 km is the number provided by them which most likely will be lower than its actual A2A range.
tho there really is no equal comparison to the f15 line, the f15 strike eagle is a ground attack platform version of the f15. It's not a fighter like the f15 c. So considering the 34 and strike eagle hit the same role they can be compared in the same catagory. tho the russian plane, as expeced will be found wanting
@@Ashehasawienerdog and as always. They are easier to produce, more cost effective, easy to maintain, easy to train for, and able to operate in some of the harshest weather on planet earth.
The last USA side by side Tactical Attack Aircraft was the General Dynamics F-111.
@@evobsm2328 And all of that means nothing when a country without an airforce can shoot them down as soon as you try to use them as intended.
@@evobsm2328 And easy to hit
Этот самолет строил мой отец на заводе имени Чкалова. Первый прототип был собран в конце 1989 года.
Your father made a beautiful aircraft. Still one of my favorite Soviet era designs.
You gotta be one hell Proud of him.... It's one of my favorite
I hope he's still alive, if so gimme him a handshake of hug, if sadly he has passed, I will mention him in a prayer. Beautiful aircraft no matter which side built it. I still think my country Canada should buy F 15 strike eagles.
@@timpeterson2738 This is ok, because all aircraft are built to specific requirements, the needs of the country and the capabilities of the manufacturer. It is impossible to get an ideal machine that is equally good in any part of the planet and in any hands. So for Canada, American planes may just be more convenient.
@@timpeterson2738 Здравствуйте. Спасибо вам за уделенное внимание. Папа у сожалению умер прошлым летом.
Su-34 was designed as a bomber. It's not the answer to F-15. That's the Su-30
Striker*, and it can carry Air to air weapons. Plus, the Su-27 Flanker IS the response for the F-15, not the Su-30
@@WTclips001Su-30 answer for F-15E, Su-27 for F-15A/C
Definitely not an answer to F15,as it's a fighter-bomber ,an attack aircraft to replace Su25! Su27-35 were rivals to F15 and Mig29 a rival to F16-18 !
@@WTclips001 Su-34 is a 100% bomber.
It may be considered an answer to the F-15E, with a bit of a stretch, but it mostly is a successor to the Su-24.
Although, as it can be seen as reinterpreting the Flanker formula as an air to ground platform - same as the F-15E compared to F-15A - it dies, indeed, spring from a similar well.
It's a good thing that they put a bathroom in the Su 34, being a side by side cockpit opposed to a front and rear seat configuration would have made pissing in a bottle a bit weird lol
Urinal etiquette. Don't peak :P
@crazeelazee7524 and use large mouth Gatorade bottles lol
In terms of configuration and era, the Su-30 is more comparable to the F-15E - a tandem-seat strike fighter. The Su-34 was more of an upgrade vs. the Su-24 and comparable to the F-111 - a parallel-seat fighter/bomber.
Russian Su-30 still doesn't have a TGP or any targeting system for guided bombs
well it doesnt really have a modern analog in the West for it.
@@somerandomboibackup6086to be fair, the sun 34 didn't get it's guided bombs until recently 😂😂
Your comment is a bit confusing. Are you saying that SU-34 is similar to the Aardvark?
@@somerandomboibackup6086 it has a targeting system kaira 24 or something , it just dosent have an external TGP.
the canard is not for extra agility. When they rework the cockpit design, the plane become front heavy and the center of mass has shifted forward and now is in front center of lift. Ideally you want COM and COL to be in the same place. Now that the COM is in front of the COL, they need to move that COL forward to the position of the COM. They either must redesign the wings, which basically means designing new aircraft, or they can add another set of wing in front. They choose the latter.
One of my favorites. I just wish they made it a little bigger to fit larger/more Missiles with the Soloviev D-30 to power it.
Easier just to use the SU-27 platform with SU-27 engines, for the SU-34 combat range is more important than speed and raw power.
The greatest asset of this plane is the on board WC and small kitchenette.
I remember there were times during Kosovo War (1999), where Turkish F-16 planes conducted CAP task of the coalition. Some of those task flights took longer than 8 hours!
8 hours, multiple air refuels in a cramped F-16 cockpit must be a true torture! Su-34, you take a dump, warm your wrap in a microwave Owen... While your co-pilot on the controls before your 12th air refuels and 14th hours flight.
Su-34 is a 100% bomber. It`s not an answer for F-15E.
This is a completely different type of aircraft. And he performs his tasks perfectly
It's not "100%" a bomber, as it does have some legit A2A capability too.
@@InvaderNatDT It`s a capability. Never used btw.
It´s a strike aircraft designed for interdiction that is supposed to be able to defend itself, like the F15E
@@InvaderNatDT Considering its role in the Russo- Ukie war, it actually 100% IS a bomber. The Aardvark had missiles, does this make it anything else than a bomber?
@@aquilesca5tr0 15e is a multi role fighter. This is a Bomber that can sometimes do long range missile engagements. That doesn't make it in the same category even if it overlaps some rolls. This is no different then a F111.
The su 34 is a workhorse bomber with sufficient agility and electronics to escape air defences and fire back at enemy aircraft. Its not really meant to fight. Its meant to be a difficult target while carrying an ungodly amount of things that go bang against the enemy. People think a bunch of them going down in Ukraine is a big deal but they forget the absolutely insane number of missions these things are flying droping a maximum ot 12 tons of bombs on target. We are talking tens of thousands of sorties. For comparison an F35 can only carry 2.6 tons in a stealth configuration and said stealth performace would be debatable at those ranges and against an integrated air defence like the one Ukraine has/had.
Pretty much. With a handful (like a dozen or so?) going down after doing probably around 100 sorties a day for 1000 days straight, that seems to be a remarkably low number especially considering that as well as SARH SAMs like the S-300 and older Buks (which are still a threat to frontline aviation today), it's also had to deal with probably hundreds of firings from ACTIVE RADAR SAMs (PAC-3) and com out unharmed
This is especially noteworthy for the beginning of the war when they didn't have glide bombs - they were either toss bombing or lying low and avoiding MANPADS (hence the "poor tactics" that people poor fun at were actually the only viable way to provide air support considering the limitations in payload options at the time)
@@AdotLOMI don’t think they do 100 of sorties a day but its probably a high number of sorties, Just not that high
Please cover the gunship variant of the F16 that was basically shoving the GAU-8 avenger cannon into the F16 frame
Just looked it up and holy cow it looks like something directly out of an old sci-fi show.
Cool, but only lasted a single day.
@@Plapradwhy? did it blow its frame all to hell with the concussion from the 30mm ripping 3000+ rpm?
@@jasonlauritsen5587 probably, yes
Seeing how it looks like a render of a horrible napkin drawing.... My guess is this was a bar bet that had finally seen the light of day
Correction,FAB bombs aren't satellite guided. They are guided by inertial guidance system(or INS for short). That means that they have guidance system independent from anything and can't be jammed as a result.
FAB with UMPK (gliding module) is a satellite guided. There are also satellite-controlled KAB.
Regardless of whether that's the case or not, there's benefits and drawbacks to either case
Inertial guidance when timed to the aircraft while referencing position relative to a ground station could be a good option if wide area GNSS jamming is present
Have coordinates set relative to a ground station, the launch aircraft interprets the vector (so that it knows it's relative position to the ground station and also, by extension, the target) at bomb release point, and then transfers it to the INS guidance unit of the bomb when it's dropped
I think you meant KAB bombs, FABs are just plain old dumb bombs
@@eduardokarlos1419 the reason why JDAM failed in Ukraine is because of the electronic warfare systems jamming the guidance system of the bomb that they get from extrenal sourced. The same can be said for HIMARS too. FAB bombs,on the other hand,are still having a great success rate and decent accuracy, despite Ukraine had been provided with electric warfare systems. The reason why they aren't doing anything is because FAB bombs aren't satellite guided but guided by the system within themselves.
@@mig-29 No, JDAM failed because the air belongs to Russia.
They simply cannot use it because the range of use is very small, and Russian aircraft are constantly on duty in the air.
Himars is knocked down by air defense.
There`s many FAB models, the one wityh UMPK is a satellite guided.
didnt this thing swerve 7 patriot missiles
5 were destroyed by Patriot
@@maxpopkov1432listen to the cockpit audio of the Russian su34 dodging a patriot site launching at it.
The FAB-500 dropper!
FAB-3000*
this fighterbomber is primarily dropping
fab 500, 1500 and my beloved fab 3000 bomb, maybe soon fab 5000 bombs too!
and they are not just ordinary glide bombs with umpk, but they started using new special variants of them too, with upgraded umpk kit and thus even longer range too.
and new umpb d30-sn munitions and rocket booster assisted glide bombs too.
like the thermobaric odab 500/1500/3000.
and the overkill he frag+thermobaric ofzab line of bombs.
they combine the best of both worlds and guarantee the best result!
plus su-34nvo or su-34m can also launch the khinzhal hypersonic quasi ballistic missiles too.
the best multi role fighterbomber aircraft of all time!
the workhorse of the smo, the russian hellduck, the beautiful suchoi su-34!
They using this to give ukraine some FAB-3000UMPK tho
Which plane will drop FAB 9000?
@@felipe-vibor that would be the Tu-160 White Swan. Should be able to carry multiples of them as well, if the Su-34 can handle Fab5k.
0:11 “THE NUMBERS MASON !!!”
The Su-34 was my second favorite attacker in Ace Combat Infinity right behind the F-2.
Su-34 made for replace Su-24, Su-24 was Soviet answer for F-111, but really Su-24 lighter than F-111, and Tu-22M more biggest than F/FB-111.
Su-30 answer for F-15E.
Indian Su-30MKI using tools from NATO planes - AN/AAQ-28 pods
The canards weren't just about added agility. Originally they were to compensate for the weight on the front from the SU-33 Radar. And it turned out to really help agility. I suspect with the SU-34, the weight from the front also plays a major decision in the reason for canards.
SU-34: "TACTICAL HANDHOLDING"
That "Almost" does a LOT of lifting.
This fighter was way ahead of its time
The fullback is good at what it’s built for.
the best in fact
doesnt even have a infrared targeting optic and doesnt have a targeting pod.......2 things that are key to any bomber.
@@gnolkenstein5527 nope......not even close. No targeting pod and the the optic it does have doesn't have thermals and is extremely limited in where it can look. It has the ability to lock and launch missiles at vehicles and has the missiles to do it, has seen plenty of combat........has never done this. It's never even hit vehicles with TV guided weapons which should allow it to do so without a targeting pod.
@@brookwhiteman9810 you have a seemingly english name but types in very broken english, very sus!
@@brookwhiteman9810it's still unsafe to get close to the frontline and paint targets for laser guided bombs, so that doesn't matter too much all things considered
It works as a glide bomb carrier, and for that role it's seen probably the largest deployment of such weapons in the history of aerial warfare as of right now
What it really needs is the AESA RADAR of the Su-57 or something similar, and have integrated R-37M missiles to not rely on Su-35S or Su-30SM support
I have use this aircraft in ace combat when I can and it has almost never let me down. Great speed and fire power I love it.
WHY DOES THE SU-34 LOOK SO JACKED IN THE THUMBNAIL
It managed to dodge patriot using it's manuverability - so you have a bomber (though not a heavy one, it's still much more than a fighter) that can stand a chance of dodging missiles like a fighter can. Makes me dream of a "super vulcan".
It didn´t "dodge" a patriot, it avoided a missile by going out of range
I don't know if it's just the blue color but the suitcase version fighters are so beautiful
I don’t understand why an SU 30 couldn’t do everything this thing can do
Notice the canards are missing on the thumbnail, it looked weird
They are there, but the look angle is making them difficult to see.
@ now they are they changed thumbnails
@BronutDonut ah. I missed the old image. My apologies. 👍
Love everything about this fighter!
Fighter?
Weird that they keep on using AI generated images of real aircrafts when there's accessible and free images of it on the internet.
Fun fact: Stealth's so ass against a competent enemy (F-117 has a smaller radar cig than the B2 for reference) that even early cold war SAMs can knock them out. It's why Sweden and quite a few other European countries are moving towards networked air support and superiority over stealth because a squadron of planes all passively hunting for a stealth aircraft will spot it far sooner than the stealth will them if the stealth's also passive, if it isn't then the squadron will triangulate it down quicker too.
Fanboys are so annoying.
@@JohnKoenig-db8lkyeah bro a squadron of 4th gen aircraft will spot a stealth aircraft sooner by just packing together
That's how you lose a lot of fighters. Their range to detect stealth aircraft is physically limited to like 1/4 of the typical effective range of their RADARs
The only way that swarming like that would work is if they literally throw themselves at the stealth fighters and wearing down their A2A payload by sheer attrition
The literal only ways to deal with stealth are;
1) stealth aircraft of your own
2) massive use of AIRBORNE L-band or longer RADARs (range is halved rather than quartered)
3) otherwise more powerful RADARs (enough to detect the aircraft at standoff distances, exceeding 100km so it would need to work at well in excess of 400km against 4th gen aircraft)
4) massive conventional strikes with medium ranged weapons systems against airfields and aviation support infrastructure
China is prioritizing point 1, Russia is prioritizing points 2... and 4
Also, ALL modern air support is networked. Datalink has been around for fucking decades dude
@@AdotLOMyeah but it has levels to it. The swedes have managed to reach a great level of networking just with their Gripens without the help of AWACS that’s it’s honestly admirable. If you compare it to Russia’s air force it’s ehhh…
@@AdotLOM
Retardation doesn't suit you. It's not the same sort of networking as datalinks as those don't really do hunter-killer type tasks as well as what the Swedes are cooking in their next upgrade packages and newer models of jets. This isn't 3-4 units sharing sensory input with a control unit that then provides a combined picture based on it, it's 3-4 units combining their sensor input and hunting on their own (the closest analogy that readily comes to mind is the difference between a World War 2 German Division vs a Kampfgruppen, similar sounding, completely different functionality).
16:26 *bill-looking nose
The bane of my Leopard 2A7V.
Also... The graphics in this vid are GREAT. Thanks for talking the time use decent images, oics that actually match the narration, non-crap CG, A/I, etc- too many channels are just plain lazy about that; The appropriate and quality visuals are so good that they're almost distracting! (I keep pausing/zooming)... Cheers!
I've always wondered about this odd looking fighter.
Why Su-27 is infamous? I thought it's a good fighter.
It is a good fighter
It's an excellent fighter
But it needs better RADAR options, the early PESAs were superior to western RADARs at the time but they really need to start implementing universal AESA on all the hundreds of Flankers (and MiG-29s) that they have
Everything else is solid, though having an R-73 variant with 90 degree off boresight would be nice
It is a great fighter, better than f15
The Su-34 can hardly be a response to the F-15E, the Strike Eagle still keeps a sizable proficiency in the air superiority role (it's why the F-15EX is based off the E model and not the original A/C model), whereas the Fullback is a Flanker offshoot specialized for ground attack, which has it giving up on air to air capabilities.
Is it just me or at 1:22 he says "Tactical Ballistical Missiles"
11:36 compromise, I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Wait till he says weapondry or f-111
@DrFluffy I know
"Tactical ballistical missiles"? (1:23)
That's a weird way of saying ballistic.
Maybe another way of saying short range ballistic missiles.
2:23 “F-117 Nightawk” 😂
the canards weren't for manoeuvrability they were to create lift as the nose had become so heavy - same thing with the Su-30.
Glonass is not "inaccurate" it is focussed on the northern hemisphere where it is actually more accurate. GPS was developed by the US Navy and is focussed on the oceans ....
The Su-34 is not a respond to striking capabilities of the F-15, these aircrafts are too different. The Su-34 is a direct successor of the Su-24, based on a way more advanced fighter's airframe giving it agility and air-to-air capabilities. Next logical step is to design a low-observable bomber - air defence fighter by up-scaling the Su-57's airframe on the same pattern
Debris of these is scattered all over Ukraine, so maybe that's the "ALMOST perfect" part.
Source? You mean ukraine and western propaganda, like isw?! 😂🤣🤣
@@bogdanscripcariu6501 some ukrainian exaggeration aside, there were confirmed combat losses of Su-34s - but compared to the sheer tonnage of ordnance they deliver every day, these losses are minuscule, and with the Sukhoi's production working almost fulltime on expanding the 34 fleet, even those were quickly replenished. We rarely see any reports of Su-34 casualties today, because Ukraine's air force is almost non-existent, and is pre-occupied with flinging SCALP's and StormShadows from the cover of their remaining NASAM's, Irises and Patriots, while Su-34s, respectively, operate inside Russia's own SAM cover bubble. And also some Su-30-ies flying security in case those F-16s finally decide to make an entrance in fighter\interceptor roles.
Many people in the comments are arguing that the Su-34 isn't analogous to the F-15E Strike Eagle. They're completely incorrect. The Su-34 is very analogous to the Strike Eagle. The Strike Eagle is based on the F-15 airframe but modified for air-to-ground missions. Similarly, the Su-34 is based on the Flanker airframe (Russia's response to the F-15A/C Eagle) and has been modified for air-to-ground roles. Some people here also claim that the Su-34 is more akin to the F-111. Yes, it is comparable to the F-111. However, the F-15E Strike Eagle essentially replaced the F-111, so naturally, they are comparable as well. The Su-34 can be seen as analogous to both the F-111 and the F-15E, just as these aircraft are comparable to the Su-24 and Su-34. I'm sure if you want to nitpick, there are differences in the mission sets of the F-111 and the F-15E, but generally speaking, the F-15E took over the F-111's role.
Not really tho Su 34 leans more on the bomber side while the strike eagle leans more towards the fighter bomber side. If you noticed Su-34's usually flies with an escort because it’s not really meant to fight air targets. I might be wrong but the f15e never really flies with a fighter escort. F15e is mostly meant for long range strikes while the Su 34 is just mostly used as a high maneuverability small bomber made for bombing targets up close. So they are very different and have different roles
@BreadPittAAAAHHHH Both aircraft have the ability to self-escort, though the F-15E is more adept at this. They can perform any of the air-to-ground roles you described, from close air support to interdiction. So no, they are not "very different." A slight variation in how each one is used does not mean they are no longer comparable or analogous to each other. That would be like saying an above-ground pool and an in-ground pool aren't comparable because they're used slightly differently. Both are used for recreational swimming; they're just implemented differently.
This aircraft isn't one of two Strike Fighters in the world, today, because there's the Super Hornet, the Typhoon, the Lightning-II, and the Rafale, as well.
All of them have to carry targeting containers, Su-34 is the only strike fighter with the targeting system built in and twice the payload over anything but F-15E.
Star of Ace Combat series.
35 years of Su-34 "Fullback" and 30 years of Ace Combat series in 2025.
My favorite ground pounder in ac7, those cluster bombs are amazing and it has great maneuverability and psm capabilities so it is also good for dogfights
Most advance fighter in USSR at that time was MiG-31. Su-27 does not have anything even near comparable to it.
The primary role of MiG-31 is high-speed, high altitude interception of stratobombers and ballistic missiles. It lacks radar capabilities as it was designed to work with the network of Soviet radars all across its territory. It is a great plane for what it does even nowadays, but not a great fighter. 27th family is better in many aspects.
@EvoXVI its a fighter none the less. Also MiG-31 lacks radar? It was world's first fighter to have PESA radar. It had data link to share target info which even western fighters go only in 90s. Its radar was so powerful that it could operate as AWACS for Su-27.
@@EvoXVIyour right about what it was designed for, but the RADAR part is highly false. It was designed with a massive phased array RADAR at the core of its functionality
Militavia made a good video about it recently. This RADAR also makes it ideal at dealing with airspace penetrations, though the Russians would benefit from equipping it with an AESA version of the Zaslon. 400km range is good, but 600-700km range is better
@@hp2084 fighter that can barely turn compared to other aircrafts in the class (the maximum overload is 5G), worse engine performance at low altitude and way bigger profile along with the weight, just what comes in mind first. And yes, I did mixed up info on radar with MiG-25, for which I apologise.
@@AdotLOM yeah, I mixed it up with MiG-25. You wrote a reply exactly when I was writing mine, lol
Aside from the Su-47, I'd have to say that the Su-34 is my favorite of the Flanker family of derivatives. As for the American counterparts, the Strike Eagle gets the job done, but a part of me misses the many varied possibilities the plane that lost out to the F-15E could have achieved. Sadly, the F-16XL will just have to flit through my aviation-loving mind.
16:00 that is the *_GOOFIEST_* bomb I think I've ever seen xD
You wouldn't be yapping about goofy when it send your ass in low orbit
There's videos you might want to watch before saying that.
@@Vkat696 who said goofy wasnt effective? I mean Christ the F117 is a Dorito with engines and it was extremely effective.
It's a chonker but it works
@@AdotLOM I think chonker is an understatement, maybe a Bulbus Lad however
30 seconds in and there's already two big doozies.
Can we just all agree, that GPS is not the name if a global navigation system. Rather, GNSS is the term of which GPS is one system. GLONASS, Beidou and Galileo are 3 other such systems with Beidou being the most advanced due to its extra satellites...
Great video! However, I don't know if Su-34 necessarily had a "poor" performance in 2022 as you put it. It was an intensive time in the aerial theater of the Ukraine conflict, and Ukraine's original air force and air defense was still mostly intact, and Su-34 as well as Su-25 and Su-24 were working on the frontlines. That almost inevitably resulted in significant combat losses for those aircraft types, although I'm sure some mistakes were also made.
4:11 one of my favorite military planes it looks so cool
An impressive breakdown of the Su-34’s history and evolution! It's fascinating how the 'Duckbill' embodies Soviet-era ingenuity but feels like it’s chasing time compared to the F-15E. The 1980s design hurdles and 2023 upgrades are a stark contrast! Do you think these advancements can truly elevate it to a global competitor, or is it destined to remain a relic in a stealth-dominated era?
Isn't the US restarting F-15 production? That would indicate this type of aircraft is no relic.
@@hyhhy the whole reason to keep making f15s is to carry weapons for f35s
Hellduck definitely sounds better than Fullback. Damn the NATO designation format.
I just call it a Strike Flanker.
1:41 War Thunder Can Add These
Course they won’t? Why would they do that when Russia has free reign in the sky and ground
Finally, that's the su- 34 because want I saw the thumbnail on my TV at home on RUclips and I thought oh that's weird. That's not the su-34. That's an su-30 because it look like a weird version of the su-30 maybe the angle
The amount of people in the comments that doesn't even seem to know the difference between the Eagle and Strike Eagle is giving me an aneurysm.
Sometimes I wonder if stealth planes are as effective as they are made out to be? The F-22 and F-35 are certainly very advanced technically, but their stealth capabilities do not make them absolutely invulnerable against even the old S-300. I think the main advantage now is electronics and infrastructure, but not the notorious "stealth".
The key is not that they are "invisible' per se, but that they have higher chances of getting into strike range before they get targeted and locked on. In certain combat environments this can be crucial to success and\or survival of the striking craft.
y'all think I would lose
Uhhhh, tactical ballistic missiles were around since the 1950s. Do you mean like a rise in accuracy? When it comes to Warsaw pact missiles at least, the Tochka was not the most effective with just conventional warhead. We have seen how poorly Tochka from that era operating solely on INS have faired in Ukraine and it isn’t pretty.
If you are talking about tactical ballistic missiles carrying nuclear payloads, as I have said, those go back at least to the 1950s and predate ICMBs for obvious reasons. You could put a lower yield nuclear warhead on the 1980s versions do to accuracy but increases but nothing fundamentally really changed.
He probably meant SRBMs on TEL platforms, which needed to be tracked and struck quickly
But I'm not sure if this was the actual reason this type of aircraft role was created
@ gotcha. That makes some sense.
Well, F 15E is also not stealthy. Plus Russia invest a lot in air defense, so the level are pretty balanced.
Platan as "equivalent of EOTS on F-35" 🤣🤣🤣
in its spare time it strolls the edges of lakes with its ducklings! big Sukhoi family! 😘
Yo i saw war thunder clip of su 34 drinking
@@Grow_tf_up crazy
MiG-23/27 when?
My understanding is they added 10 more hamster wheels to the engines. They really want to go fast
They also chewed out entire sections out of the defenses at Avdiivka, the strongest fortification built by Ukraine about 10 years ago.
The first time I ever saw a picture of this plane I thought it was a 5th gen fighter because of the nose
I love the Su-34. It's like if a Sukhoi 27 and an F-111 had a baby.
Su-34 is Su-27 + Su-24.
Su-24 came to service in 1974, started development in 1961.
F-111 came to service in 1967, started development in late 1962.
Su-27 came to service in 1985, started development in 1976.
And F-111 is more like a A-6 but to be strike capable and act like fighter too. F-111 was a new concept for the USA. Where Su-24 was reform of the existing aircraft purposes.
The SU-34 can also carry the precision laser guided bomb KB-500KR
Say what you want but the aiming computer in the SU 34 is pretty good, and the plane is beautiful.
Pretty good 20 years ago
US put the F-15E into service in 1985
Russia put the Su-34 into service in 2006 (21yrs later!!!) and still has to rely upon US-made civilian Garmin GPS taped to the dash to navigate and uses mostly dumb bombs in actual combat.
Russia put into service the Su-30 in 1992, 7yrs after the F-15E, and many have been shot down in Ukraine.
F-15E : never shot down in combat
Su-34: most of them have been shot down or destroyed on the ground in combat with Ukraine, a nation with almost no air force or air defenses.
Su-34 seems an objective failure to me and over 20yrs late in responding to the F-15E.
Su-30 was the actual response to the F-15E, and they have performed better in Ukraine with fewer losses, but they have also accomplished little.
my favourite plen, yay
Is that Italeri boxart as thumbnail?
6:30 2 Russian words broke this man :)))))
smart to coinicide the video with warthunder updates
How about insane engineering of the wright flyer
il96 vid plz
Too heavy
Too thirsty engines
20iq comment
You do realize the Su-34 is a bomber right? But the mig-29 and Su-30 did just what they were supposed to do to compete with the F-15
Finally the changed the Thumbnail
MOM!! MOM !!!
Found and explained has released another banger video!!!
when will there be a release for the SU 30 cm
The thumbnail is not a Su-34
F15E AESA radar was pre 2010.
Hence, the development of F-15QA/SA and F-15 Eagle II.
@@paulsteaven No. These are much later. AESA was first installed in F15SG which predates 2010
Has Strike Eagle armored cabin and pilots hand in hand?
Lol, the pause before "SEAD missions". Dude wasnt sure how to read it and the script didnt specify.
Equipped with toilets and galley…???
No with vodka.
No with Infantry -fertilizer converters.
@@lancerevo9747aka FABs😂
I think the Chinese White Emperor was taken from it and based on it, but the Chinese plane is more beautiful and it seems that the ability to evade radar has been increased by angles and edges.
1 of 2 Strike Fighters in the world? The F/A-18 Legacy and Super Hornets are Strike Fighters too
well the hellduck clearly worked as it dodged (survived) 3 atacms missiles. so the manoveability clearly worked
there is audio evidence of this
The answer was better than the question
wait till su 30
One of the most dangerous and deadly weapons the Ukrainian army is facing. We often laugh at the Russian army overall, but Su-34 is the one to fear.
The sexiest fighter/bomber
My favorite thing to do evertime a F&E military aviation video drops is to look at the comments and sort by new, I love seeing the little ignorant people saying "The Su-34 is trash" "The F-22 can't do anything besides popping balloons".
Trust me, there are plenty of former military aviators on here who do the exact same thing... Myself included 😂
It's cheap entertainment to watch folks whose extent of knowledge about these aircraft include news clips, an airshow or two, and MAYBE "my friend, whose brother was in the Air Force."
One thing I can say for sure is this: the TRUE capabilities of aircraft are known ONLY to those who fly them.
Hell, I was at an airshow with a display team (AH-1 F Cobra Attack Helicopter) and we had armament laid out and flight suits on... The whole nine yards... We got a break and went over to see a B-1B Stealth Bomber on display.
The crew was gracious but even with our clearances we were not allowed up the ladder to actually look into the cockpit! 😢 And this was in 1991 and the Bomber has already been fielded a few years.
Real capabilities are kept "close to the vest" and rightly so... Otherwise you'd be reading how your enemy has "mysteriously" and SUDDENLY invented new countermeasures.😮
It is no "answer" to the F-15E, the F-15E is based off the F-15, an actually good fighter!