Recently, an extremely interesting article by the esteemed Evgeny Damantsev, "Red" level of threat for the Russian Aerospace Forces, was published on the pages of "Military Review": the result of the unofficial race of "tacticians" of the Su-34 and F-15E "was clarified." The title was so intriguing that the article was swallowed in an instant. However, as you read it, almost every paragraph raised more and more new questions, answers to which, alas, were not found in the material of the respected author.
Necessary disclaimer: the author of this article does not consider himself an expert in the field of aviation, and everything that will be said below represents his point of view, which, of course, may not be the ultimate truth.
So let's start with the title. It turns out that there is a kind of unspoken race between the American F-15E and our Su-34. It should be remembered here that the first F-15Es were transferred to the US Air Force in December 1988, deliveries were carried out until 2001, and a total of 236 aircraft of this type were built for the US Air Force.
In principle, the Su-34 could have been put into production in 1994, but the collapse of the Union and the chaos that followed prevented the aircraft from taking the wing. But in the 2000s, they still remembered about him - on the eve of the mass write-off of the Su-24.
Of course, a lot of time has passed since Soviet times: it was necessary to organize the production of components previously produced in the countries of the "near abroad", the aircraft equipment also required improvement. Therefore, it is not surprising that the state tests of the Su-34 continued until 2011, and the aircraft entered service with the Russian Air Force only in 2014. In other words, today we have two aircraft, one of which is just starting its service, and the second, as in 2018 it has already served for 18-30 years from the moment it entered the air wing and, in general, is already close to the end of its life cycle.
What kind of race can there be between these two planes? We could talk about the race if we put the Su-34 into operation in the 90s of the last century. But if we adopt an aircraft 26 years after its American counterpart, this is no longer a race, but rather a topic for a sad anecdote.
If it is not clear what kind of race it is, then it is all the more incomprehensible what its result may be: in the article, a respected author compares the capabilities of the F-15E and the Su-34 today. I must say that such a comparison, despite the difference in the age of American and domestic cars, is quite legitimate. The fact is that today the niche of tactical bombers in the US Air Force is represented by the F-15E, so it and the Su-34 have similar tasks, which, in the event of a military conflict, will have to be solved without discounts on the age of the machines or the lack of knowledge of their equipment.
Where does the comparison of the Su-34 and F-15E begin? From the message that the F-15E received a wonderful weapon - a tactical long-range cruise missile AGM-158B JASSM-ER (hereinafter - quotes from an article by the distinguished E. Damantsev):
“First, the acquisition of strategic striking qualities by all, without exception, US Air Force squadrons equipped with Strike Eagle tactical fighters.
This is probably good? From the point of view of E. Damantsev - even excellent, because the US planes get a "long arm", which our planes seem to lack. But the author of this article has vague doubts creeping in, and the reason is this.
A tactical bomber (in our country this class of aircraft was called a front-line bomber) is an aircraft designed to deliver air strikes against enemy ground (surface) targets in the operational and tactical depth under conditions of strong opposition by enemy air defenses. In other words, a tactical bomber has its own, inherent and very specific tasks on the battlefield.
Strategic tasks, which are understood to mean the defeat of targets of strategic importance on the enemy's territory, generally speaking, should be solved by strategic aviation. For this, she has specialized aircraft and the same weapons.
Can the F-15E, having received the AGM-158B JASSM-ER, effectively carry out the tasks of a strategic bomber? Let's see. E. Damantsev writes:
"With a mixed flight profile without refueling, the range of this missile's impact from the F-15E will approach 2500 km (comparable to the strikes of a Tu-22M3 long-range bomber using X-15 aeroballistic missiles)."
Well, let's try to figure it out. Combat radius of the F-15E when flying on a mixed profile with PTB (outboard fuel tanks) is 1,270 km. The flight range of the JASSM-ER modification of the AGM-158B is usually indicated as 1,300 km. The total maximum impact range of the F-15E is 1,270 km + 1,300 km = 2,570 km. It seems that everything is correct, but there is one discrepancy - we do not know with what combat load an American aircraft is capable of flying at a combat radius of 1,270 km. Because quite often for fighter-bombers (and the F-15E is still very close to them), the maximum combat radius is indicated not for the strike, but for the anti-aircraft version of the combat load, which is usually understood as a pair of AMRAAM missiles (the mass of one such missile is about 161 kg) and the same "Sidewinder" (91 kg), that is, a little more than nothing.
Now we take Tu-22M3M. Its combat radius is usually indicated as 2,410 km at subsonic speed and along a mixed profile - i.e. in conditions similar to those reported for the F-15E, but … with a load of 12 tons. Taking into account that the range of the Kh-15 aeroballistic missile is about 285-300 km, the maximum strike range of the Tu-22M3M is really 2 695 - 2 710 km. True, the Tu-22M3M will “deliver” much more missiles to this distance than the F-15E, or, with a decrease in ammunition, it will be able to take additional fuel and increase its combat radius.
But another thing is strange: why does E. Damantsev take the X-15 for comparison, and not the X-32 with its flight range of 800-1,000 km?
In this case, the strike range of the Tu-22M3M rises to 3210-3410 km, which is 1.25-1.33 longer than that of the F-15E. And how many AGM-158B JASSM-ER missiles can take on the maximum combat radius of the F-15E, and how many X-32 - Tu-22M3M?
There is also one more incomprehensible moment. A respected author writes:
“Without refueling in the air, launches can be carried out on objects in the Belgorod, Kaluga, Pskov and Leningrad regions (subject to takeoff from the Avb Leykenhes). In the event of a single refueling of the F-15E over the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany or Eastern Europe, the most important objects of the Kuban, the Volga region and the Western Urals will be within reach."
No, the question is not at all how to convince Angela Merkel to split Germany in two again so that the F-15E can refuel over its western territory. God be with him, and with the Western Urals, but here, for example, from the Russian-Latvian border to Perm in a straight line - 1685 km. And in order to launch a JASSM-ER with its maximum flight range of 1,300 km through this city, it is necessary to invade our airspace for almost 400 km. Is it really at this time our air defense and videoconferencing will peacefully doze in the sun?
Again, one can argue here that the US Air Force in terms of its combat power roughly corresponds to the Air Forces of all other NATO countries plus the Russian Aerospace Forces combined, and that if they are given time to accumulate in Europe and they need it badly, they will invade, and we will not stop them. This, of course, is true, but the article compares the fighting qualities of two aircraft. Without a doubt, the consideration “our plane is better because we have ten of them for one of yours” is extremely significant in a real conflict, but when comparing performance characteristics it is hardly appropriate.
But back to our missile carriers. Tu-22M3, unlike an American aircraft, can operate at cruising supersonic speeds were not optimized.
Thus, the F-15E does not have the slightest advantage over the Tu-22M3M in terms of the range of strikes by the most modern cruise missiles, or the speed of delivering these strikes, or the number of missiles “under the wings”. But the Tu-22M3M is a non-strategic bomber, it is a cross between a full-fledged "strategist" and a tactical bomber. Comparing the capabilities of the F-15E with a real strategic missile carrier, like the Tu-160, is even somehow ridiculous. Tu-160, having risen into the air above the airfield in the air and without flying anywhere, will fire its cruise missiles twice (according to other sources - almost four times) further than the F-15E can at the maximum combat radius. In other words, the F-15E can of course be used as a strategic bomber … but it will be a very, very bad strategic bomber. And even the F-15E squadron loses to smithereens one specialized aircraft of this class.
Does this mean that equipping the F-15E with long-range AGM-158B JASSM-ER missiles is a mistake? Of course not. The ability to hang the new JASSM-ER under the wing of an American aircraft means that in addition to its main tasks, the F-15E can now engage targets located 1,300 km from the launch point. This can be extremely useful in some circumstances.
However, the key in this phrase is "in addition to their main tasks."
We have already said above that the task of a tactical bomber is to destroy enemy targets to the operational and tactical depth. And the ability of the F-15E to carry the AGM-158B does not add anything to the ability to solve this problem - for this, the long-range JASSM-ER is simply redundant. Again, a simple example - for example, someone in our Ministry of Defense took to heart the equipping of the F-15E with long-range missiles, issued the necessary TK, and the designers hung the Kh-101 or Kh-102 cruise missile on the Su-34, with either 4,500 or 5,500 km of range, or even more. The technical capability for this exists, the missile weighs less than 2.5 tons, which is more than available for the Su-34. And yes, in this case, our plane … eghkm … the arm becomes obviously longer, but does this increase the capabilities of the Su-34 as a tactical bomber? In general, no, because the X-101 is intended for completely different tasks.
In order to strike targets deep in the enemy's battle formations (or behind them), a tactical bomber should be as less visible to the enemy as possible. He is not the "king of the air" and must avoid meeting enemy fighters. It should be "invisible" to ground-based air defense components, but it needs to be able to suppress and destroy these components. In this case, the aircraft must be able to "work" in a difficult jamming environment, if necessary - to use jamming, protecting itself from unnecessary "attention". Therefore, the key technologies for a tactical bomber are:
1. Technologies for reducing radar signature - "stealth".
2). Equipment that provides maximum opportunities for detecting and classifying enemy targets by passive, non-radiating means, such as, for example, an optoelectronic surveillance and targeting system.
3. Perfect aiming systems to ensure that the target is hit by the ammunition used.
4. Complexes of electronic countermeasures and other means of aircraft protection.
So, oddly enough, but E. Damantsev's article does not contain the specified analysis. He examines how well the F-15E and Su-34 can perform the functions of a strategic bomber, he examines the capabilities of these aircraft in air combat, comparing their radars, but he does not at all compare the capabilities of these machines when performing tasks inherent in their class, i.e. destruction of enemy ground targets in a difficult situation.
Instead, we read:
“If the US vehicle has a JASSM-ER with a range of 1200 km, then our Su-34's main long-range caliber is the Kh-59MK2 Ovod-M with a range of 285 km … As a result, the maximum The "depth" of the Su-34 strike with the use of the Gadfly-M is only 1415 km versus 2500 km for the F-15E Strke Eagle.
Of course, measuring the length of … arms is an interesting and exciting activity, but this does not determine the capabilities of a tactical bomber. And then, if we really undertake to compare something, it would be nice to do it correctly. E. Damantsev considers the "depth" of the strike as follows: 1,270 km of the F-15E combat radius + 1,200 km of the JASSM-ER range = 2,470 km. The combat radius of the Su-34 is 1,130 km, the flight range of the Gadfly is 285 km, 1,130 km + 285 km = 1,415 km.
Everything would be fine, but only for the Su-34 its combat radius is taken during low-altitude flight with a PTB, and for the F-15E - with a mixed flight profile. But if we take comparable figures (for the low-altitude profile for both aircraft), then the combat radius will be 800 km for the American "Eagle" and 1,130 km = for the Su-34. Accordingly, it turns out that the impact depth of the F-15E is 2,100 km (taking into account the fact that the JASSM-ER still flies not 1,200, but 1,300 km), and for the Su-34 - 1,415 km. Well, when flying along a mixed profile (assuming that such a Su-34 is 1, 41 times larger, that is, as much as its combat radius "near the ground"), then we get a depth of impact 2 078 km versus 2,570 m for the "American".
But that's not all. The fact is that the Kh-59MK2 Ovod-M flight range of 290 km was declared at MAKS-2015, and it cannot be ruled out that we are talking about an export version limited in a flight range of 300 km, and for domestic aerospace systems it is maybe more. Although - it may not be. The point is that tactical bomber aviation is focused on "working" at operational depth, i.e. 200, maximum 300 km from the front line, and "Ovod-M" shoots right through it. How much more?
Further E. Damantsev talks about the advantages of the American AN / APG-82 (V) 1 radar, and this, of course, is so - the American AFAR is more perfect. By the way, how much?
“Target detection range with RCS 1 sq. m is APG-82 about 145 km, which is 60% better than the Sh-141 (B004), installed on the Su-34!"
Generally speaking, Raytheon is extremely reluctant to share information about its radars: for AN / APG-82 (V) 1, the author of this article came across such data - target detection with RCS of 3 sq. m at a distance of 170 km. For the Su-34 - 120 km, which generally speaking gives an advantage of 41, 7%, and not 60%. But the question is different - the Sh-141E is integrated with television, thermal imaging and laser navigation and sighting systems, a complex of electronic reconnaissance, electronic countermeasures and active jamming, and what about AN / APG-82 (V) 1? Previously, the same terrain enveloping mode for the F-15E was only possible when using the LANTIRN overhead containers, but now? By the way, for Sh-141 this is one of the standard operating modes. Speaking about AN / APG-82 (V) 1 E. Damantsev writes:
"… separate groups of transmitting and receiving modules can be used to set directional interference in the direction of enemy radio equipment."
This is an excellent skill. As far as the author of this article knows, our radars are able to do the same, but perhaps the author is mistaken. But there can be no mistake in the fact that the combat capability of an aircraft is determined not only by the radar, but by all of its systems. The newest REP complexes (the same "Khibiny"), according to a number of reviews, put the capabilities of electronic countermeasures of the Su-34 on a par with such monsters of electronic warfare as the specialized American aircraft E / A-18G "Growler", which obviously surpasses the similar capabilities of the F-15E …
E. Damantsev frightens us with the implementation of the LPI mode (“Low Probability of Intercept”). The fact is that today the entire airspace of the planet is permeated with radio waves of one purpose or another - a huge number of radars, radio stations, repeaters, cellular communications and other sources of radio emission have long filled the reality around us, and form a kind of "background radio noise". Roughly speaking, the LPI mode consists in the fact that the airborne radar of the aircraft generates a signal of very complex and constantly changing modulation and of such strength as to disguise it as "background noise" in terms of power at the receiving station of the aircraft being irradiated. The idea is that separate and dissimilar signals that do not stand out in power from the "white noise" will not be perceived as irradiation of an enemy airborne radar.
Without going into details, let's pay attention to other words of E. Damantsev:
“… Such a source of radiation can only be detected by specialized means of electronic intelligence, for example, the new SPO L-150 Pastel.
But the fact is that the Su-34s are also armed with the L-150 Pastel SPO. And what then is the advantage of the LPI mode on the F-15E?
The speculations about the capabilities of the US and Russian tactical bombers onboard radars are certainly interesting, but there is one important nuance. The fact is that a tactical bomber is usually used to destroy targets whose location was previously established by means of space, air, or other reconnaissance. Therefore, the task of a tactical bomber is to reach the target as inconspicuously as possible, carry out additional reconnaissance using onboard sighting systems and destroy the target. Ideally, when performing a combat mission, a tactical bomber should not include its own radar at all - because the best way is to tell the enemy: "I'm here, right now, I'm going to get it!" in modern war, probably does not exist.
The radar of a combat aircraft does not provide a circular view; it searches in a certain sector in the direction of its movement. At the same time, enemy electronic reconnaissance stations (and ours, of course) are able to detect the radiation of enemy radars at much greater distances than an onboard radar - to detect a target. On the other hand, a number of radars can operate not only in active but also in passive mode, being a good means of electronic reconnaissance, which would be very useful for a tactical bomber. Do AN / APG-82 (V) 1 and Sh-141E have such capabilities? Alas, we will not learn any of this from the article.
Completing the analysis of the radar E. Damantsev makes an excellent conclusion
“Considering the higher resolution of the former, the possible LPI mode, the ability to create directional jamming, as well as the ability to form“dips”in the radiation pattern in the area of the REB source, the total potential of the F-15E in the tasks of gaining air superiority at ranges of more than 50 km is many times ahead of the capabilities of the Su -34.
It remains only to say that the task of "conquering air superiority" has never been set before a tactical bomber by anyone. The main tasks of the domestic bomber aviation are:
· Destruction of missile and nuclear weapons;
· Destruction of aircraft (helicopters) and other objects at airfields (sites);
· Defeat of command posts and ground elements of the RUK;
· Defeat of manpower and military equipment (tanks, artillery, air defense) of the enemy in the operational depth;
· Destruction of railway stations, bridges, crossings and other objects;
· The defeat of air and sea landings in the areas of embarkation and disembarkation.
Bombers can also be used for aerial reconnaissance.
If we are to compare the F-15E with the Su-34, it would be nice to start with analytics on weapon guidance systems for ground targets. The Su-34 and F-15E appear here as the spokesmen for different concepts, because the American aircraft is focused on container placement of such systems, while the Su-34 has an integrated one. Each method has its own advantages and disadvantages. So, for example, a container complex worsens the aerodynamics of an aircraft and increases its RCS, but on the other hand, if clusters of bombs and missiles are already hanging under its wings, then a couple of containers do not really solve anything. On the other hand, the container can be easily removed and replaced, but the integrated guidance system is much more difficult, if not impossible, to replace. The American F-15E at one time demonstrated high efficiency with the LANTIRN container system, and today, as far as the author knows, it is being replaced by an even more modern Sniper-XR system, which, according to some parameters, is many times superior to the old system. At the same time, relatively recently, it was customary to express exclusively obscene words about the Su-34 Platan. The phrase of an unnamed "experienced aircraft engineer" is wandering in the internet:
“It is generally impossible to compare the Platan sighting system installed on the Su-34 with the American Sniper-XR. It's like comparing a "humpbacked" Zaporozhets with a brand new Mercedes. But the "humpback", unlike the "Platan", sometimes works."
Maybe it is, of course, but only the Su-34 still demonstrated excellent performance in Syria, which is completely incompatible with non-working sights. Does it mean that Platan still works sometimes? Or some other complex was installed on the Su-34? Is it weatherproof, can it be used at night?
Wanting to get a relatively cheap high-precision weapon, the Americans took an old free-fall aerial bomb and screwed a JPS navigator to it, receiving a controlled JDAM. We went the other way, having come up with a sight that allows you to multiply the accuracy of the bombing of conventional, free-fall ammunition. Our way is cheaper, and perhaps more correct. Of course, SVP-24 "Hephaestus" will not replace corrected bombs, because although it significantly increases the accuracy of bombing, free-fall ammunition will never be as accurate as guided. But now our attack aircraft can use high-precision ammunition, or hit the foe with conventional bombs with very high accuracy, but the F-15E lacks the second option. At the same time, the use of high-precision ammunition (even relatively cheap, like JDAM) is far from always justified. But there is another point of view that the increased consumption of bombs with a lower chance of hitting a point target makes the use of the SVP-24 "Hephaestus" comparable in cost to JDAM. Who is right?
This is what you want to know when you read an article that compares the capabilities of the Su-34 and F-15E. But when instead you see the reasoning about who of the aforementioned planes is "cooler" in air combat, you feel a little deceived. Because declaring a "red threat" because the F-15E has surpassed the Su-34 in terms of air supremacy is about the same as talking about the collapse of Samsung smartphone manufacturers, because Apple is not an example of similar products. it is more convenient to open beer bottles.
But back to the article by the distinguished E. Damantsev:
"As for the use of the Su-34 in interception operations, unlike the Strike Needle, the maximum speed with a suspension of 1.7M does not quite correspond to these tasks."
If we nevertheless undertake to talk about who flies better - a whale or a hedgehog, then let's pay attention to some nuances.
Without a doubt, the American aircraft is capable of developing Mach 2.5, and this is noticeably more than 1.8M Su-34. But … it is known that although the maximum take-off weight of the Su-34 and F-15E is different, it is by no means several times - 45,100 kg for the Su-34 and 36,741 kg for the Eagle. The Su-34 is 22.8% heavier than the F-15E. But the capacity of the internal fuel tanks, the difference between these aircraft is radical - 5,942 kg for the F-15E versus 12,000 kg for the Su-34. According to this parameter, the Su-34 surpasses the American aircraft by 2, 02 times! How does an American plane manage to have a combat radius more or less comparable to the Su-34?
The answer is very simple: the F-15E is equipped with conformal tanks. Unlike PTBs, they do not hang under the wings, but adjoin directly to the aircraft and cannot be dropped in the air. So - the capacity of these tanks in the F-15E is 4,275 kg, bringing the total fuel supply to 10,217 kg, which, in fact, equalizes the combat radii of the Su-34 and F-15E. Of course, both aircraft can increase fuel reserves by using conventional PTBs, but this is not about that now.
The fact is that the conformal tanks, with all their advantages, are far from the best effect on the aerodynamics of the aircraft. And the F-15E, "dressed" in them, sharply loses in speed - with conformal tanks, it can develop … 1, 8M, ie. exactly as much as the Russian Su-34. Thus, the F-15E, of course, can "work" as an interceptor, but only at the expense of a sharp drop in the combat radius. You can, of course, abandoning conformal tanks, use conventional PTBs (they hold 5,396 kg of fuel), but, firstly, the radius will still be much inferior to the Su-34 with PTBs, and secondly, the speed of the F-15E with PTBs is limited 1, 4M. So the only way for this aircraft to fight as a fighter at some great distance from its home airfield is to take off and patrol from the PTB, and if something happens, drop outboard fuel tanks with all the fuel that is left in them and join the battle …
And finally, the last (in order, but not in importance) aspect. It is known that in the initial period of World War II, German tank forces were extremely successful, despite the fact that German tanks, in terms of their main performance characteristics (speed, gun caliber, armor thickness), were at best "average" - in the troops of the anti-Hitler coalition were much more powerful and / or heavily armored vehicles. Of course, there were many components in the success of the Panzerwaffe, but among them the fact that German combat vehicles were extremely (for their time) convenient for their crews played an important role. In this regard, the Su-34 is a big step forward for the domestic aviation - here and the landing of pilots shoulder to shoulder, which facilitates interaction, and a toilet with a mini-kitchen for long-distance flights, and "air conditioning" of the cabin, in which up to an altitude of 10 thousand meters. there is no need to wear oxygen masks … Ergonomics, whatever one may say, means a lot, but, unfortunately, we will not see a comparison of the Su-34 and F-15E in this parameter with E. Damantsev. It's a pity.
What is the conclusion from all of the above? It's very simple. The quality of military equipment is determined by its ability to perform the tasks for which this equipment was created. Therefore, a comparison of the technical characteristics of military equipment should be carried out not "in general", but in relation to its specific tasks, and not all, but characteristic of a given class of military equipment. The two-handed sword gives its wielder an overwhelming advantage against an enemy armed with a conventional knife … unless we are talking about a battle of combat swimmers at a depth of twenty meters.
Thank you for the attention!
