All week on the pages of "VO" they argue about the tactical bombers Su-34 and F-15E. Whose winged ship turned out to be cooler? The battle-hardened “Strike of the Eagle” or our “duckling” who plowed the whole of Syria and showed the whole world what a real air war is. Some aesthetes are convinced that the best are the multipurpose Su-30SM or the carrier-based F / A-18F Super Hornet, but the debaters themselves cannot decide how to properly compare such motley aircraft.
The discussion, as always, quickly degraded to the level of a sandbox. Not knowing the facts, the venerable public began to come up with arguments and set rather strange priorities on the go. Instead of discussing the avionics, they spent half the time evaluating the aircraft guns. Weapons, to put it mildly, secondary to bombers. It's a shame, gentlemen. No less "pleased" the authors themselves, having made a number of mistakes in their articles, while forgetting to pay attention to many important factors. In any case, I express my gratitude to S. Linnik and K. Sokolov for initiating interest in this topic.
An analogue of the F-15E Strike Eagle fighter-bomber in the Russian Air Force should be considered the attack Su-34, and not the multipurpose Su-30SM
And in response:
It is the Su-30SM that is analogous to the F-15E, and the Su-34 stands apart in this comparison
Gentlemen, in the air they are not hitting the passport, they are hitting in the face. All of these aircraft are designed to strike ground targets. All are of outstanding size, performance and value. The best of the best. Elite. First line combat vehicles. "Eagles" and "Sushki" perform the same tasks. And if so, they are objects for comparison.
Which aircraft concept is most adequate to the realities of the modern world?
A Sniper targeting container is placed on the Eagle
His name is LANTIRN. Translated - night sighting system for work at low altitudes. It was she who was the main feature of the Eagle, and it was for her that the F-15E was created back in 1986. It was believed that LANTIRN would take tactical bombers to a whole new level.
A pair of overhead containers with a ground obstacle warning radar, a pair of infrared cameras, a laser rangefinder, target tracking sensors and a line of sight correlator for Mavrik missiles.
Later, LANTIRN containers appeared on other combat aircraft (for example, the F-16, starting with the "Block 40"), but the strike "Eagle" became a pioneer in the field of such systems. The mentioned Sniper is a further development of LANTIRN, while it is focused not on low altitudes, but on high-precision bombing from the stratosphere.
For obvious reasons of a socio-economic nature, there are no sighting and navigation containers in service with the Russian Aerospace Forces. This dramatically reduces the capabilities of existing fighters (Su-27, MiG-29) to combat ground targets. On the other hand, the domestic strike aircraft uses built-in sighting systems - SVN-24 Gefest (Su-24M), Platan (Su-34), Kaira (which has already become history, MiG-27K). How good are they compared to LANTIRN - let's leave this question up for discussion by ISIS fighters.
Many spears were broken around the Su-34 armored capsule.
So why would he need armor? When flying with a bend in the relief, armor will save only from small arms. Armor won't save you from MANPADS, won't save you from air defense missiles, and won't save you from a 30-mm cannon. Are there many examples of downed aircraft from small arms?
117 aircraft and 333 helicopters, most of which were hit by fire from the DShK. The legendary "stinger" remained a cheap bogeyman, 3/4 of all losses were incurred by the 40th Army aviation from the Basmachi machine guns.
December 4, 1982, the combat loss of the Su-17m3, 136 apib (Chirchik), departure from the Kandahar airfield, deputy. com AE Major Gavrikov - Senior Pilot Art. l-nt Khlebnikov. The line from the DShK passed through the cockpit. In all likelihood, the pilots died in the air, so no one ejected.
January 17, 1984, the combat loss of the Su-17m3 aircraft, 156 apib (Mary-2), departure from the Shindant airfield. After dropping the AB, the aircraft collided with a mountain and exploded on the dive exit. When inspecting the crash site, bullet holes were found in the K-36 headrest, it is most likely that the pilot died during shelling at the time of withdrawal.
If those pilots were in the cockpit of the Su-34, they would have survived. 17mm titanium is enough to stop bullets fired from any weapon.
The exorbitant "excesses" on board the Su-34 became the topic of a separate conversation. Too wide two-seater cockpit, dry closet, kitchen, sleeping place (for a tactical bomber, whose combat mission duration does not exceed a couple of hours!). If this had happened on an American bomber, he would have been laughed at - “they cannot fight without diapers and Coca-Cola”.
For some reason equipped with an entrance from the bottom of the fuselage. Finally, the "Duckling" is forced to drag a whole gas turbine generator into the sky! Does this mean that domestic designers have lost their minds?
Everything is done very competently at Sushka. The advantages of a two-seater cockpit have been known since the F-111: better ergonomics and coordination between the pilot and the weapons operator. A tiny microwave oven, sleeping bag and dry closet all fit in place of the entrance hatch in the floor at the rear of the cab. It is possible that Sushka will one day have to act as a “pocket” strategic bomber, as its ideological mastermind F-111 needed.
Entrance through the niche of the front landing gear. At a minimum, such a solution prevents precipitation from entering the cockpit, which causes a lot of inconvenience to conventional fighters with a sliding / hinged canopy.
The story with the gas turbine generator has a simple explanation. The 105 kW generator is located in the tail boom of the Su-34 and, in addition to its main function, is a ballast-counterweight for a 1.5-ton armored cabin. Without him, the “Duckling” would have buried its nose in the ground.
Initially, it was planned to install a radar for viewing the rear hemisphere at this place, but, due to its dubious combat value and high price, the designers opted for an auxiliary gas-tube installation. The presence of an autonomous generator allows pilots to be on duty at unequipped airfields, being warm in the cockpit and with powered on-board equipment, in readiness for quick engine start and accelerated takeoff.
However, to operate such a powerful, complex and expensive aircraft from unequipped airfields can only occur to a nerd. In reality, they are stationed at the best airbase in Syria, where they are cherished from all sides, as befits a super-aircraft for a hundred million dollars.
The news from Syria gained considerable popularity that the latest Russian developments allow the use of free-fall bombs with an accuracy corresponding to the best examples of the WTO.
This news at lunch is a hundred years old. Sights with an analog computer have been widely used since the Second World War. By the end of the 50s, they had reached their perfection. The AN / ASG-19 computerized bombsight mounted on the F-105 fighter-bomber, connected to a navigation machine, provided automatic blind bombing from level flight, pitching and over the shoulder.
The main difficulty was not so much the calculation of the trajectory of the bomb as obtaining data on the exact location of the object. It is to this question that modern researchers are trying to answer, inventing more and more complex LANTIRN'y, "Hephaestus" and "Platans" for work at night and in adverse weather conditions. With infrared and TV cameras, synthetic aperture radar and a set of sensors to monitor the target.
A few words about cannon armament.
The Su-34 has a 30 mm cannon with 150 rounds of ammunition.
Eagle has 20 mm Vulcan, 510 rounds.
The main question is not which one is better. Does a bomber really need it?
And if the lighter and more maneuverable Eagle still has a chance of using cannon weapons against ground targets and in the air (the only time he had to shoot at the advancing al-Qaeda fighters was in 2002), then the 45-ton Su-34 does not have such an opportunity in principle. …
Disputes about the capacity of the fuel tanks also make no sense if there are air refueling systems. The air tanker will guide you to the target and will carefully meet you on the way back.
Moreover, the fuel system of Orlov and Sushki has approximately similar performance. The F-15E's only advantage is the US Air Force's rigid boom refueling system. This doubles the pressure in the system and shortens the refueling time. Secondly, it simplifies the process itself - the pilot only has to follow the tanker, the boom operator will do the rest.
The author points out the difference in target detection range between the Su-34 Sh-141 radar complex and the F-15E AN / APG-70 radar
The APG-70 is the last century. Since 2007, the Eagles have been equipping the APG-82 radar with AFAR
In general, comparing the American F-15E Strike Eagle and the Russian Su-34, it can be noted that these machines are at different stages of their life. The Su-34 is just beginning its long-term service, and the F-15E is already preparing for its completion
By the time of the Su-34's combat debut, the Eagle's fiery path was 30 years. Five countries in solid ruins.
In general, the alignment is as follows.
Su-34
Empty - about 20 tons, max. Takeoff weight - 45 tons. A specialized attack aircraft, like its ancestor F-111, belonging to the unofficial class of "pocket" strategic bombers. The only modern combat aircraft with armored cockpit protection.
Su-30SM
Empty 18 t, max. takeoff ~ 29 tons. Ideologically close to the Eagle. Due to the lack of sighting equipment for work "on the ground", in the domestic VKS performs the functions of a fighter.
F-15E
Empty 14 t, max. takeoff - 36 tons. A proven killer, with excellent sighting systems and a wide range of weapons. From 113 kg gliding SDBs to a monstrous 2268 kg laser-guided “bunker busters”.
F / A-18F
It is lighter and smaller than the Eagle. They will retain all of its properties, with the exception of a lower combat load. Extremely maneuverable. According to the chief designer of the Su-35, the Super Hornet is not inferior to the Sushka in close combat. It has the lowest visibility among all 4+ generation fighters (RCS = 1, 2 m). According to the US Navy, the duration of combat missions "Super Hornets" reached 13 hours. Fighter-bombers took off from an aircraft carrier in the Arabian Sea, refueled and hung for hours over the mountains of Afghanistan.
Who will win this correspondence battle? Who is the most advanced tactical bomber?
The answer is that everyone will be torn apart by the Raptor and the F-35.
There is a common flaw in the design of the Orlov, Sushki and Hornets. These attack aircraft are based on air superiority fighters. Low wing loading. The main mode is subsonic flight and maneuverable air combat.
A wing of medium aspect ratio does not have the required rigidity. When performing supersonic throws, shaking begins, exhausting the crew and leading to damage to the structure.
For bombers, a rigid wing with a high load is needed, which neutralizes the negative effects of turbulence at supersonic flight conditions. Along the way, helping to reduce drag and fuel consumption.
The F-111 solved the problem by folding its wings behind its back. An effective, but not the most effective way.
Having built the Raptor, the Yankees have created a universal aviation complex for hitting air and ground targets. The rigid trapezoidal wing of low aspect ratio is excellent for breakthroughs to targets at supersonic speeds. And after the deadly cargo is dropped, the F-22s turn into a full-fledged fighter capable of standing up for themselves in close combat.
The perfect air fighter! Due to its reduced visibility, such an aircraft has a great chance of completing a combat mission. Additional advantages are provided by radar with active phased array, which has better sensitivity for detecting ground targets. The creators of the F-35 went farthest: its APG-81 radar has a max. resolution 30 x 30 cm. With the help of such a device, it is possible to distinguish a tank from an infantry fighting vehicle from the stratosphere.
