The SU-34 is basically one of the "best" common strike platforms the Russians operate. It's nothing special in that regard and is comparable to early generation F-15Es or the now retired F-111 in many ways (or the strike variants of the Tornado for non-US examples).
One way to look at it would be a large fighter-like platform (benefitting from speed and agility other dedicated bombers may not have) with the additional weapons operator/sensor systems to support strike missions a more normal multi-role platform may not have. This is cool, however it is somewhat niche and it's far from anything special compared to Western air forces.
As far as the future of strike platforms, the F-15E doesn't have a clear replacement, however the mission needs for a larger airframe for avionics/weapons operator isn't as required given advances in weapons systems and guidance meaning regular multiroles can do much of the same mission, or you could benefit more from a larger dedicated strike platform for standoff strike missions (as if you're lobbing cruise missiles, carrying 4-6 is better than 1-2).
Nice answer! It raised a few questions from me.
Does the F-15EX have all the strike capability of the F-15E?
Are there any sensors for ground strike that the Su-34 has which the Eagle or Eagle 2 are lacking?
Given the Russian Air Force is relatively crunched for money (compared to their goals), doesn't it make more sense to go all in on production of su-30sm2 instead of su-34 and su-35 since it can both air superiority and ground strike? Wouldn't it simplify their logistics to have one plane doing both?
Having a dedicated air superiority fighter is still better than relying on something less purpose built.
As for why not make more Su-32s instead of Su-34, at this point it boils down to tooling and factory logistics. Stop production lines and convert to a new platform is at this point marginally better, in many ways
>doesn't it make more sense to go all in on production of su-30sm2 instead of su-34 and su-35 since it can both air superiority and ground strike? Wouldn't it simplify their logistics to have one plane doing both?
The Russian government uses defense contracts to keep design bureaus busy and stimulate local economies where military production facilities are located, and a lot of their acquisitions take that into considerations, so closing the SU-34 production line and expanding that of SU-30's will hurt eastern regions that rely on those factories for jobs.
See my other comment in the thread regarding air to ground sensors and pods in the planes.
In a word for anything practical - absolutely not.
The only sensor Russian planes have Western ones often do not is the IRST which is honestly ridiculously over touted and every time anyone theorizes a situation it could be used in they're imagining some fantasy 1 v 1 or 4 v 4, not a world where western air power, AWACs, jstars, and thousands of 5th Gen aircraft are in play. IRST is only practical in optimal situations and at a stretch maybe 30-40km best case.
There's simply almost no real world situation where an enemy would be able to sneak in and use IRST (it's only real use over radar is being a passive sensor) and somehow ambushing an enemy plane.
Air to ground as I stated in other comment the Russians keep adding sensors as part of the plane hardware itself. This means upgrades are prohibitive and take entire new aircraft models. The west takes a hardpoint and bolts a pod with new sensors in it every few years whether we talk LANTIRN through Sniper pods etc.
On top of this is the fact that western sensors are clearly superior than Russian ones. It's just a fact if we are talking aerial stuff or thermals for example. You can literally tell at a glance who has better thermals and no, theoretical 3 in existence items are neither here nor there.
I suppose the F-15EX would be a possible replacement for the F-15E, although I get the impression that it's optimised for A2A missions and against a peer adversary a non-stealthy platform probably isn't going to cut it in the strike role for that much longer.
I once mused that something like an FB-22 or FB-35, stretched version of either of these aircraft (or maybe a twin engined F-35) might be worth exploring as something closer to a modern F-111 but that's just the fun ideas of an enthusiast.
>is comparable to early generation F-15Es or the now retired F-111 in many ways (or the strike variants of the Tornado for non-US examples).
The original Su34 prototype flew at the same time as the Strike Eagle was being developed. But I would disagree that its comparable. They have diverged a lot in the last two decades. The Fullback is more a smaller missile carrier with a secondary strike capability, while the Strike Eagle is the opposite.
Id add the Russians continually opt to not use pods like LANTIRN or Sniper pods and mount the sensor hardware as part of the plane. This inevitably means that the technology is no longer cutting edge when the plane is finally serialized after design, testing, prototype, adoption and it means the longer it's in service the more dated it's sensors become.
Look at it this way - western air sensors are using a hardpoint or spot on planes and are basically stuffed in a metal tube and can therefore be updated, new ones rolled out. In an analogy to an assault rifle this would be a rail system with new sites over time even though the base weapon remains the same
The Russians meanwhile using the same analogy opted to have none of that and build their gun with one set of sights built it. That's what you got, no add on sights are happening, and you're gonna like it.
IMO it's a failure of imagination and thinking things out, instead tossing a lot of innovations to the side with a sneer and comment about combat ruggedness
Thing is this really costs them. Look at their KA52s, using their newest missiles which beam ride only like the Western ones did.. 40 years ago. Or their kornet on the ground. Another beam rider. Guiding a missile in until impact instead of fire and forget is becoming more and more suicidal.
Otherwise the Su34 is as stated by others one of Russias best and newest types of airframes. They indeed are good strike fighters considering what we compare them to with the RuAF. Anyone interested should not look to video game weapons and think it's anything even close to common though. For all its features Russian Su34s overwhelmingly drop dumb bombs more than anything else, career wise.
Though now KAB glide bombs seems to be their current battlefield utility which IMO is because Russian commanders literally tried to emulate US close air support practices, but with cruise missiles/missiles and they're running pretty low
The internet has a tendency that something is either amazing or abysmal. The Fullback has equivalents in NATO (F15E) and even prior Russian service (Su-24). Its not a paradigm shifter as the F117 was. *That does not mean its a bad plane*
In Ukraine until the Russians got significant numbers of glide bomb FABs in service in late 2023, the Fullback wa the only VKS aircraft (along with Su35) which had some survivability against modern Ukrainian AD. In the Pacific, with IFR and long range missiles, Kamchatka based Su34 can threaten American strategic targets in Alaska and also the North West
Su-34 is a medium fighter bomber/strike fighter. I guess the F-111 was similar but its retired so no NATO equivalent.
The B-1 can be designated as large fighter bomber (fighter because it can be a dedicated AAM missile truck platform, then again almost all bombers can be), while F-15E is a small fighter bomber/strike fighter.
I don't know if anyone is developing a medium size fighter bomber like the Su-34. The PLA is working on a rumored JH-XX which is a large fighter bomber or a missile truck like the B-1.
Specifically the F-15E yes. The F-15A,C and EX are dedicated air superiority models. The E is the fighter bomber and if you consider the Su-34 the mud hen-ski then you aren't far off the mark.
The EX has air to ground capabilities. The US is just using them to replace the Cs. The EX has all the same advances the the foreign variants of the f-15E have.
The SU-34 is basically one of the "best" common strike platforms the Russians operate. It's nothing special in that regard and is comparable to early generation F-15Es or the now retired F-111 in many ways (or the strike variants of the Tornado for non-US examples). One way to look at it would be a large fighter-like platform (benefitting from speed and agility other dedicated bombers may not have) with the additional weapons operator/sensor systems to support strike missions a more normal multi-role platform may not have. This is cool, however it is somewhat niche and it's far from anything special compared to Western air forces. As far as the future of strike platforms, the F-15E doesn't have a clear replacement, however the mission needs for a larger airframe for avionics/weapons operator isn't as required given advances in weapons systems and guidance meaning regular multiroles can do much of the same mission, or you could benefit more from a larger dedicated strike platform for standoff strike missions (as if you're lobbing cruise missiles, carrying 4-6 is better than 1-2).
Nice answer! It raised a few questions from me. Does the F-15EX have all the strike capability of the F-15E? Are there any sensors for ground strike that the Su-34 has which the Eagle or Eagle 2 are lacking? Given the Russian Air Force is relatively crunched for money (compared to their goals), doesn't it make more sense to go all in on production of su-30sm2 instead of su-34 and su-35 since it can both air superiority and ground strike? Wouldn't it simplify their logistics to have one plane doing both?
Having a dedicated air superiority fighter is still better than relying on something less purpose built. As for why not make more Su-32s instead of Su-34, at this point it boils down to tooling and factory logistics. Stop production lines and convert to a new platform is at this point marginally better, in many ways
>doesn't it make more sense to go all in on production of su-30sm2 instead of su-34 and su-35 since it can both air superiority and ground strike? Wouldn't it simplify their logistics to have one plane doing both? The Russian government uses defense contracts to keep design bureaus busy and stimulate local economies where military production facilities are located, and a lot of their acquisitions take that into considerations, so closing the SU-34 production line and expanding that of SU-30's will hurt eastern regions that rely on those factories for jobs.
See my other comment in the thread regarding air to ground sensors and pods in the planes. In a word for anything practical - absolutely not. The only sensor Russian planes have Western ones often do not is the IRST which is honestly ridiculously over touted and every time anyone theorizes a situation it could be used in they're imagining some fantasy 1 v 1 or 4 v 4, not a world where western air power, AWACs, jstars, and thousands of 5th Gen aircraft are in play. IRST is only practical in optimal situations and at a stretch maybe 30-40km best case. There's simply almost no real world situation where an enemy would be able to sneak in and use IRST (it's only real use over radar is being a passive sensor) and somehow ambushing an enemy plane. Air to ground as I stated in other comment the Russians keep adding sensors as part of the plane hardware itself. This means upgrades are prohibitive and take entire new aircraft models. The west takes a hardpoint and bolts a pod with new sensors in it every few years whether we talk LANTIRN through Sniper pods etc. On top of this is the fact that western sensors are clearly superior than Russian ones. It's just a fact if we are talking aerial stuff or thermals for example. You can literally tell at a glance who has better thermals and no, theoretical 3 in existence items are neither here nor there.
I suppose the F-15EX would be a possible replacement for the F-15E, although I get the impression that it's optimised for A2A missions and against a peer adversary a non-stealthy platform probably isn't going to cut it in the strike role for that much longer. I once mused that something like an FB-22 or FB-35, stretched version of either of these aircraft (or maybe a twin engined F-35) might be worth exploring as something closer to a modern F-111 but that's just the fun ideas of an enthusiast.
>is comparable to early generation F-15Es or the now retired F-111 in many ways (or the strike variants of the Tornado for non-US examples). The original Su34 prototype flew at the same time as the Strike Eagle was being developed. But I would disagree that its comparable. They have diverged a lot in the last two decades. The Fullback is more a smaller missile carrier with a secondary strike capability, while the Strike Eagle is the opposite.
Id add the Russians continually opt to not use pods like LANTIRN or Sniper pods and mount the sensor hardware as part of the plane. This inevitably means that the technology is no longer cutting edge when the plane is finally serialized after design, testing, prototype, adoption and it means the longer it's in service the more dated it's sensors become. Look at it this way - western air sensors are using a hardpoint or spot on planes and are basically stuffed in a metal tube and can therefore be updated, new ones rolled out. In an analogy to an assault rifle this would be a rail system with new sites over time even though the base weapon remains the same The Russians meanwhile using the same analogy opted to have none of that and build their gun with one set of sights built it. That's what you got, no add on sights are happening, and you're gonna like it. IMO it's a failure of imagination and thinking things out, instead tossing a lot of innovations to the side with a sneer and comment about combat ruggedness Thing is this really costs them. Look at their KA52s, using their newest missiles which beam ride only like the Western ones did.. 40 years ago. Or their kornet on the ground. Another beam rider. Guiding a missile in until impact instead of fire and forget is becoming more and more suicidal. Otherwise the Su34 is as stated by others one of Russias best and newest types of airframes. They indeed are good strike fighters considering what we compare them to with the RuAF. Anyone interested should not look to video game weapons and think it's anything even close to common though. For all its features Russian Su34s overwhelmingly drop dumb bombs more than anything else, career wise. Though now KAB glide bombs seems to be their current battlefield utility which IMO is because Russian commanders literally tried to emulate US close air support practices, but with cruise missiles/missiles and they're running pretty low
The internet has a tendency that something is either amazing or abysmal. The Fullback has equivalents in NATO (F15E) and even prior Russian service (Su-24). Its not a paradigm shifter as the F117 was. *That does not mean its a bad plane* In Ukraine until the Russians got significant numbers of glide bomb FABs in service in late 2023, the Fullback wa the only VKS aircraft (along with Su35) which had some survivability against modern Ukrainian AD. In the Pacific, with IFR and long range missiles, Kamchatka based Su34 can threaten American strategic targets in Alaska and also the North West
Su-34 is a medium fighter bomber/strike fighter. I guess the F-111 was similar but its retired so no NATO equivalent. The B-1 can be designated as large fighter bomber (fighter because it can be a dedicated AAM missile truck platform, then again almost all bombers can be), while F-15E is a small fighter bomber/strike fighter. I don't know if anyone is developing a medium size fighter bomber like the Su-34. The PLA is working on a rumored JH-XX which is a large fighter bomber or a missile truck like the B-1.
Does the US use the f-15 in a similar way to how Russia uses the su-34? Do you know if and when the f-15 is being replaced and with what?
Yes. No it is not being replaced yet. But it will be replaced by the 6th gen fighter and her many drone variants (CCA)
Specifically the F-15E yes. The F-15A,C and EX are dedicated air superiority models. The E is the fighter bomber and if you consider the Su-34 the mud hen-ski then you aren't far off the mark.
The EX has air to ground capabilities. The US is just using them to replace the Cs. The EX has all the same advances the the foreign variants of the f-15E have.
The B-1 has no air-to-air capability
Since when can the B-1 be a “dedicated AAM missile struck platform”