Su-34 Fullback

I’ve been interested in this plane for a long time. It’s a modern-day 4th gen ground attacker. It’s got a side-by-side cockpit design — which also large enough to let pilots stand up inside. It’s also pressurized allowing the pilots to not wear their flight headgear. The rear even has a food heater and a toilet tube…thing. Massive payload. Armor on vital locations including the cockpit. Long range. Rear-facing radar so it can have situational awareness and better defend itself. It has a last-gen PESA — which is actually fine. Does it have high-off-bore targeting? How effective is the 30mm gun?

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >How effective is the 30mm gun
    it's literally the same exact gun on every other Flanker and Fulcrum

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    man the lighting on the thumbnail made me think it was an anime OVA screenshot or something

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the lighting on the thumbnail made me think it was an anime OVA screenshot

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        same

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Armor on vital locations including the cockpit. Long range.
    If Russia would make some more goddamn PGMs they wouldn't need the armor, and they could re-invest that lost mass into performance, payload, or range.

    >large enough to let pilots stand up inside. It’s also pressurized allowing the pilots to not wear their flight headgear. The rear even has a food heater and a toilet tube
    These are all really good things and a sign that Russia is finally starting to consider ergonomics and other creature comforts as a real factor.

    /uninformed opinion

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      All modern military aircraft have pressurized interiors. Point-nose pilots keep the helmet and mask on primarily in case of ejection. I would guess that SU-34 crew definitely keep the helmets on when they're in combat since that thing does have ejection seats.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Like all Russian tech, we'll never have an honest answer on its capabilities. It's paper stats are impressive, slightly better than the Strike Eagle by being almost twice as large...

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's probably equivalent to the F-15E by most metrics. Which is pretty good to be honest.
    An unusual amount have been downed in Ukraine, including 1 SU-34M, but part of me wants to chalk that up to pilot incompetence.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >It’s a modern-day 4th gen ground attacker
      lol "modern"
      >It’s got a side-by-side cockpit design — which also large enough to let pilots stand up inside. It’s also pressurized allowing the pilots to not wear their flight headgear. The rear even has a food heater and a toilet tube…thing.
      Congrats, russians finally caught up to the B-29.
      >Massive payload
      it's nothing special
      >Armor on vital locations
      armor it never confirmed to have
      >Rear-facing radar
      vatnik delusions
      >defend itself
      It cannot, it's only ground attack aircraft. It's also not maneuverable
      >last-gen PESA
      it's russian, it's worse than US radars from the 60s

      It's nothing like F-15E, it's more like F-111 copy attempt. It's not a fighter, it's not maneuverable and it cannot defend itself. Its radar is only useful at air to ground and its range, speed and carry capacity are bad or mediocre. Most importantly, its targeting is absolute dogshit, with no targeting pods so even with decent PGMs it doesn't have it wouldn't be able to do shit.

      That's why when they tried to use it they started being swatted like flies and lost 10% of their fleet just from visually confirmed losses, over very few sorties. For comparison, F-111 flew over 4000 combat sorties in vietnam with only 6 combat losses.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Good high effort post.
        Have a (You)

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Dropping truth bombs all over armatard's face.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >armatard
          That dude probably killed himself by now

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            he was still seething about F-35 just 1 or 2 days ago, unfortunately

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          he was still seething about F-35 just 1 or 2 days ago, unfortunately

          >Dropping truth bombs all over armatard's face.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        God I love the vark so fucking much

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Like all Russian tech, we'll never have an honest answer on its capabilities. It's paper stats are impressive, slightly better than the Strike Eagle by being almost twice as large...

      >It's probably equivalent to the F-15E by most metrics
      Yeah, except for the important ones. Radar is shit, so it won't be able to hit any modern airborne threat before it gets shot down. It also lacks any form of optical targeting, so it can't hit what it's trying to with any real precision. Your final strike fighter is a combination of a bomber that can't bomb reliably, and a fighter that can't fight reliably. You NEED a good radar in this day and age or you're a glorified A-10, and you NEED a strong targeting system or your accuracy is minute-of-parking lot. The SU-34 is an impressive aircraft for the 1970s.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm genuinely curious when you would get to use a urinal, a hot plate or a sleeping bag in a fighter jet.

    Like, under what circumstances could you even be in the air for more than an hour or two?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Thats because those are stolen hot plates and urinals.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Long range strike, like hitting Syria from airbases in Russia?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Long range strike can be quite long. I recall a french strike mission over Iraq that lasted 9 hours. The Rafale wing had to air refuel at least 3 times before the strike. Before you ask, yes, the pilots were wearing diapers.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        There are forms of diapers that super absorb and clamp around your dick, and don't actually pool piss in your bumcrack and balls nowadays. Super absorb and neutralise odor too.
        Honestly the need for toilets during flight is over.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >b2 pilots are into abdl

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >clamp around your dick
          hot

          cant wait til we get AI controlled diapers that can jerk you off while you bomb churkas

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            am i the only one waiting for fighter jets that are partly controlled by ur dick

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        There are forms of diapers that super absorb and clamp around your dick, and don't actually pool piss in your bumcrack and balls nowadays. Super absorb and neutralise odor too.
        Honestly the need for toilets during flight is over.

        Why would you ever wear a diaper when you could just piss in a bottle?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          why does the plane autopilot have that sweet mommy voice?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Maximum cozy, needs hanging dice

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      i've slept (not while flying though), pissed, and eaten in a F-15E. i think my longest sortie was like 8 hours on a pond crossing. 6 hours in combat wasn't unusual.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        is the 15EX a good buy?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          dunno, not sure what the end goal is with it.

          looks fun though.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's too expensive for a 4th gen in 2022, unless you're America and paying yourself to get them. It's better to get the f-35a if you have the option.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            it's primarily bought to pad the numbers because F-35 production cannot keep up but in regards to its price it should probably go down a bit after production progresses, as first batches are always more expensive

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Missile boat go SSSHHHHRRREEEEWWWM. In reality you get a sortie of those with a some stealth bird dogs up ahead feeding it targeting data and there's a boat load of missile hurt splashing everything in sight.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Not quite sure what it can do that 2 F-16 block 70's can't for the same price

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Here is a 16 hours sortie to give some perspective. With only external tanks and flying slow many planes can do 5+ hours without a tanker, with a tanker there is no upper limit.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Black_Buck

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Operation_Black_Buck

        Oh no no no no no no no no no no no blackbros....nothing like this.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The real limits at that point would be duty day for the crew. For crew bombers or transports it can be extended and waived to pretty extreme times, but for single pilot fighters it's usually pretty short, like 12 hours max.

        [...]

        Aircrew aren't recommended to dehydrate themselves during a flight just to avoid having to peepee.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I would never guess flying a military jet could look so much like driving a car.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >which also large enough to let pilots stand up inside
      What? How?

      https://i.imgur.com/RrbXgX4.jpg

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You tell me, friendo

    Also, you can buy a piece of some SU-34s that that got shot down https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/30856-ukrainian-volunteers-offer-pieces-of-su-34-for-donations

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    And has a civilian GPS super glued on the cockpit panel.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's not 4th gen. It's avonics are 3rd gen.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I still can't comprehend how a SU 34 fucking M got shot down by friendly fire after it entered service ONE WEEK PRIOR.
    Duckbill nose is cyoot though.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >got shot down by friendly fire after it entered service ONE WEEK PRIOR.
      That's how it happened. Nobody recognized it, they hadn't seen it around before.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm a bit sad because I really like the Fullback aesthetically, but the Russians have proved it's not in any way a wunderwaffe, just a warmed over Flanker.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why is the cockpit so fucking wide anyhow? Did they just throw that in because the fuselage had to be Xbox heug too?

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's a weird plane. It's massive but doesn't boast significant payload or range advantages over smaller western jets. You often see them being used in ukraine with 2x kh-29t but you could carry that on a mig-27. I guess all their mig-27s are long gone and the su-34 is the only attacker they have in service. Using a huge twin engine jet for that role must be an incredible waste of resources.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it's just a russian attempt to catch up with the west by mindlessly copying whatever attracted the politicians' attention. F-111 made them shit their pants and they had nothing like it so when US developed F-15E they went on to design Su-34. This is coupled with their military command's usual aversion to multirole aircraft and inability to match all the capabilities of the aircraft meant that they would have to build a specialized aircraft just to do a fraction of what the original plane does.

      And they did, Su-34 is a comprehensive upgrade in terms of avionics over their older ground attack aircraft, it's still fairly agile for a ground attacker due to its flanker genetics and it's finally got the range with those huge fuel tanks so that even the shitty fuel guzzling russian engines can take it to about the same range as F-15E.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Imagine an alternate Russia that realized being a US ally against China would better benefit them, and Su-34M got some mostly-modern US engine like the F100.

        Why were we denied this?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Because Putin knows it isn't China he needs to worry about, but Russia.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >crashes and burns the Russian military and economy in an ill-advised military adventure for virtually no gain
            He took care of Russia alright, it won't be a problem anymore.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Isn't that what happened during the trump years?

          Orange dude was friendly with Putin and Kim Jung un, and focused all his energy on bitch slapping Xi

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Trump was threatening sanctions over NS2 and demanding more NATO spending.
            When Trump was president German policy were more pro-Putin than US administration

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Being a US ally would benefit Russia
          It wouldn’t lmao

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Why were we denied this?
          It is your nature

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >And they did, Su-34 is a comprehensive upgrade in terms of avionics over their older ground attack aircraft, it's still fairly agile for a ground attacker due to its flanker genetics and it's finally got the range with those huge fuel tanks so that even the shitty fuel guzzling russian engines can take it to about the same range as F-15E.
        How much worse are russian engines for fuel use? A quick look at the basic specs says al-31 has a lower bypass ratio and pressure ratio than most western engines. Brief research suggested maybe about 30% to 50% higher fuel consumption at mil power but not much difference if afterburners were used.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't know anything about it's actual performance, altought it's deployment in Ukraine has been quite anticlimactic
    However, I think it looks really, really cool. The smooth surface underneath, the paint job, the large canopy and the thing between the engines. I think it's a really esthetic aircraft.
    Probably full of shit electronics and materials. But very good looking nonetheless

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Genuine question. How does one identify the differences between the several different SU jets? I can tell most US jets easy enough now, but the SUs kinda blend together.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      they tend to have different color schemes, and if it has canards then it's su-30, if the nose is flat and the canopy is wide and bulged then it's su-34, if it's black and russians shill for it more than usual then it's su-35

      if it's light blue and has no canards then it's usually old su-27, they are often in the worst condition as well, dirty, banged up and faded

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If it has no Canards it's likely an SU-27 or a 35. The most surefire way to tell them apart is to look at their IRST pods, on the 27 it's centred on the nose, on the 35 it's offset to the side. This picture shows some of the more obscure points of interest.
      If it has Canards it's either going to be an SU-30, an SU-34 or an SU-33. 34's are easy. They have a massive cockpit relative to the other flankers due to their side-by-side seating. Many have "Wing Fences" near the wingtips, but the one in the OPs pic doesn't.
      30s mostly look like SU-27s with canards, but are tandem twin seaters, they can have either Central or Offset IRST pods. Long story short if it has canards and is a tandem twin-seater it's likely a 30.
      33s aren't really relevant to this conflict, they're carrier versions exclusively used by the Russian Navy aboard the Kuznetsov. But if you want to identify them they have visible hinges on the top side of the wings, as well as a pronounced tailhook.
      This is a rough and dirty identification guide, and doesn't take experimentals or exports into account but should be good enough(tm) for things we're going to see in this war.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This is an SU-30, the tandem cockpit raises the hump quite significantly

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          and here's a 34, with pointers for the Wing fences I mentioned. Not sure why some have it while others don't though, but the distinctive cockpit should make them fairly recognisable anyway.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            also 34 has that massive stick up its ass, it's bigger relatively than even the cockpit

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How can Russians design something so sexy and yet so shit?

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    all in all its a good plane
    engines probably suck and lack of pgm and good sensors hamper it

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >all in all its a good plane

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Su-34 would be a prime plane for interdiction etc. if the Su-34 was made by a western company with western technology using modern weaponry.
    Russians have been using it with dumb freefall bombs from the 60s wich is just moronic.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Russians tried to claim that a bomb computer was just as good as PGMs all throughout their time in Syria - while posting videos of their munitions landing 50m away from targets their cameras were pointed at

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's as good as PGMs. The russian ones, that is.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        But it’s not just about the accuracy, PGMs allow the pilots to stay out of range of SHORAD/AAA when dropping bombs. You have to get in a lot closer to achieve similar results with dumb bombs.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          KAB-500 have max altitude at under 5000m and speed <1 Mach, in case you didn't know.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        To be fair, from the Russian point of view it almost is. They really don't care much about collateral damage. Its definitely less efficient and less accurate but it usually achieves the same outcome.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    a poor mans less capable F-111

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >It's pressurized
    Can you name any fighter jet that is unpressurized? We don't wear helmets due to unpressurized cockpits, its so that we don't die if we hit our heads on ejection.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Can you name any fighter jet that is unpressurized?
      not a fighter jet but Su-25 is not pressurized, which is the main reason its altitude limit is this low

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What radar does it have? Ibris-E?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      its own dedicated ground attack radar.

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Too big, you don't need a massive plane with a huge payload with PGMs like SDB.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it actually only carries the bomb load of an f-16

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The armor is 17mm, which is maybe effective against the occasional lucky HMG shot. Modern AA guns and missiles would still make short work of it.
        The 30mm gun isn’t anything special, and honestly not even the A-10 gun is that effective.
        The “killer features” of the Su-34 are the (disputed) ability to carry a very large amount of ordnance (which atypical of Russian aircraft) and the addition of a second crewman, who acts as a navigator and weapons operator.

        Some sources claim this (that it carries 8 tons, like the F-16), others claim that it can carry up to 12 or even 14 tons of munitions.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I'd trust the manufacturer's website more than anything. In any case even 12 or 14 tons is not really unusual or special.

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm an American jet enjoyer, bit I respect the hell out of Russia's jets. SU-34 is a sexy plane and I feel like being side by side with your WSO lighting shit up on the ground in that thing would be top shelf comfy. A level of comfy only surpassed by the B2 and maybe the B1B.

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Side by side is best as you can hold hands. This is irrefutable

Your email address will not be published.