Sukhoi-34 Fullback

[Payeng]

@SajeevJino China have its own bomber force and developing newer one.

 

[SajeevJino]

@SajeevJino China have its own bomber force and developing newer one.

We have Su 30MKI, SAM sites and Brahmos Missiles ..If No one Helps Mutual destruction is Guarantee ..Thanks to Agni5

 

[Payeng]

We have Su 30MKI, SAM sites and Brahmos Missiles ..If No one Helps Mutual destruction is Guarantee ..Thanks to Agni5

Even China have equivalents still they need Bombers.

 

[gadeshi]

It is a professional oppinion from russian specs that new Chinese bomber (and 5-gen fighters as well) will walk in a diapers at least 15 years to come
However, China has mass-numbered AD. It is not as far sophisticated like Soviet or Russian but it is enough for India to consider SEAD/DEAD mission forces just in case when you'll need to give little yellow men a good lesson

 

[gadeshi]

Even China have equivalents still they need Bombers.

Of course they need!

Bomber is much more flexible weapon and it has a unique feature which no missile has: It can be Called Back!
It gives to politicians a time to make a proper deal without mutual destruction
Besides of this, you can just take off a loaded bomber force if the situation is dangerous and only this may be enough to show your enemy all your might and curage to act. Most cases it will be enough to bring peace to the place

 

[TrueSpirit]

@gadeshi

In this era dominated by multi-role fighters in all airforces, what is it that Su-34 could do & formation/combination of Su-30MKI, Mirage-2K, upgraded Jaguars, Rafale, etc. cannot do ?

All of SEAD ops can be done equally well by these aircrafts. All armament Su-34 has, can be delivered by MKI as well (after it is just another derivative of Su-27K family, like SU-30MKI). Except for a huge flight deck that provides crew comfort in sustained airborne ops, there are no decisive or game-changing advantages that it brings.

Anyway, Su-30MKI itself, Rafale, the Super Sukhoi upgrades & the PAKFA can do these job & many other tasks in a single sortie (being multi-role), without requiring any escort.

So, what exactly is the compelling need with IAF for a tactical bomber like Su-34; please enlighten me ?

 

[TrueSpirit]

our nuclear retaliation is with Nuclear triad, missile till A3 are already operational, A4 and A5 are in pipeline. Plus Shaurya and K15 are under production, ATV will be operational this year or early next year. Still we need long range bombers and SFC has already asked for 40 plus aircraft. Advantage of having aircraft is that strike can be call of at the very last movement.


Tu-160 BlackJack is good option but it is too big and very very costly, BTW love to have some of black jack.

Yes, & we have the best alternative, Tu-142 (to be augmented by P-8I), & Tu-142 is a naval derivative of Tu-95, which, in turn, is younger cousin of Blackjack. It used to send chiil's down the Aussie spine

 

[gadeshi]

@TrueSpirit

It seems you haven't read my first post about it.

Su-34 can bring 5000kg to 1000km on Low-Low-Low profile on internal fuel only and can twice go supersonic (~1350km/h) in the process.

No other aircraft can do this.
Rafale cannot fly 1000km missions without refuelling at all - it has 650km combat radius on Hi-Low-Hi profile carying 4-6 pitty small bombs for the cost of giand fuel consumption and need to cary 3 LR tanks. It can do it only subsonic. It cannot hope to survive and break through alive sophisticated enemy AD flying this way. It can strike some weak defenseless Lybia or so, but not China, Russia or US.

MKI is high-altitude adapted as all the other fighters, so it cannot fly long LA missions and cannot cary significant load flying LA because of tremor, turbulence and giant fuel consumption.

Mirage and Jag can bomb some weakly protected targets but their combat radius is 500km on LA and payload is rediculously small - only 2 250kg bombs.

If you want to destroy high priority targets while enemy AD is still alive you will need dedicated low-altitude strike craft.

 

[sayareakd]

Yes, & we have the best alternative, Tu-142 (to be augmented by P-8I), & Tu-142 is a naval derivative of Tu-95, which, in turn, is younger cousin of Blackjack. It used to send chiil's down the Aussie spine

We need 12 of Tu-160 BlackJack, that will send massage loud and clear, BTW these SU 34 they are good but if SFC get them, they will be easily spotted in airfields and enemy will know what is coming to them. Same is case with Black jack.

 

[TrueSpirit]

It is a professional oppinion from russian specs that new Chinese bomber (and 5-gen fighters as well) will walk in a diapers at least 15 years to come
However, China has mass-numbered AD. It is not as far sophisticated like Soviet or Russian but it is enough for India to consider SEAD/DEAD mission forces just in case when you'll need to give little yellow men a good lesson

Of course they need!

Bomber is much more flexible weapon and it has a unique feature which no missile has: It can be Called Back!
It gives to politicians a time to make a proper deal without mutual destruction
Besides of this, you can just take off a loaded bomber force if the situation is dangerous and only this may be enough to show your enemy all your might and curage to act. Most cases it will be enough to bring peace to the place

@gadeshi

Today, IAF plans to use a combo of upgraded Jags (meant for DPSA, SEAD/DEAD roles), Rafale & latest multirole fighters to do it (upgraded Su-30MKI & maybe, PAK-FA).

Further, can it fly over the Himalayas with full payload, ordinance & fuel/drop-tanks, etc. ?

Is the T/W ratio (for out-maneuvering & out-running enemy BVRAAM's, AA-fire), ECM etc. enough, to perform its role over that particular theater & return safely from a well-defended airspace as dense as in PRC ?

The fact that it needs escorts, IMHO, makes it a platform for today, not tomorrow. Regarding, delivering nukes over the Himalayas, no one does it better than omnirole Rafale.

Request you to share some comparative explanation as to how Su-34 can be better than the above mentioned platforms, working in tandem ?

 

[surya kiran]

@TrueSpirit

It seems you haven't read my first post about it.

Su-34 can bring 5000kg to 1000km on Low-Low-Low profile on internal fuel only and can twice go supersonic (~1350km/h) in the process.

No other aircraft can do this.
Rafale cannot fly 1000km missions without refuelling at all - it has 650km combat radius on Hi-Low-Hi profile carying 4-6 pitty small bombs for the cost of giand fuel consumption and need to cary 3 LR tanks. It can do it only subsonic. It cannot hope to survive and break through alive sophisticated enemy AD flying this way. It can strike some weak defenseless Lybia or so, but not China, Russia or US.

MKI is high-altitude adapted as all the other fighters, so it cannot fly long LA missions and cannot cary significant load flying LA because of tremor, turbulence and giant fuel consumption.

Mirage and Jag can bomb some weakly protected targets but their combat radius is 500km on LA and payload is rediculously small - only 2 250kg bombs.

If you want to destroy high priority targets while enemy AD is still alive you will need dedicated low-altitude strike craft.

You are answering your own question. There are no targets on the western border which need a penetration of 1000 km radius, unless we are looking at going after Taliban targets, which means its not a requirement on that border. On the eastern border too, the skirmish will be short and hot if it occurs, with the primary weapon being standoff launches to hit strategic targets. The posture will be more defensive than aggressive. So while the Su34 is a great plane, it does not fall within the requirements of the IAF. The plane which we are looking forward to is, the PakFa.

 

[TrueSpirit]

We need 12 of Tu-160 BlackJack, that will send massage loud and clear, BTW these SU 34 they are good but if SFC get them, they will be easily spotted in airfields and enemy will know what is coming to them. Same is case with Black jack.

But, can we really defend our airfields to the desired extent (we have few/none underground hangars & even the latest aircrafts are routinely kept in open under the sun with only canopy covered), so would they be able to survive the massive debilitating waves of Chinese preemptive strikes ?

Quite tricky, I would say. One might not have enough confidence in IAF's decidedly obsolete air-defence & camouflaging/dispersal tactics.

 

[TrueSpirit]

You are answering your own question. There are no targets on the western border which need a penetration of 1000 km radius, unless we are looking at going after Taliban targets, which means its not a requirement on that border. On the eastern border too, the skirmish will be short and hot if it occurs, with the primary weapon being standoff launches to hit strategic targets. The posture will be more defensive than aggressive. So while the Su34 is a great plane, it does not fall within the requirements of the IAF. The plane which we are looking forward to is, the PakFa.

Exactly, that's my point. We do not need it against Pak.

Against China, it it simply not enough; not right enough, actually.

 

[surya kiran]

But, can we really defend our airfields to the desired extent (we have few/none underground hangars & even the latest aircrafts are routinely kept in open under the sun with only canopy covered), so would they be able to survive the massive debilitating waves of Chinese preemptive strikes ?

Quite tricky, I would say. One might not have enough confidence in IAF's decidedly obsolete air-defence & camouflaging/dispersal tactics.

We have underground hangars. Not paraded around that's all.

 

[TrueSpirit]

@TrueSpirit

It seems you haven't read my first post about it.

Su-34 can bring 5000kg to 1000km on Low-Low-Low profile on internal fuel only and can twice go supersonic (~1350km/h) in the process.

No other aircraft can do this.
Rafale cannot fly 1000km missions without refuelling at all - it has 650km combat radius on Hi-Low-Hi profile carying 4-6 pitty small bombs for the cost of giand fuel consumption and need to cary 3 LR tanks. It can do it only subsonic. It cannot hope to survive and break through alive sophisticated enemy AD flying this way. It can strike some weak defenseless Lybia or so, but not China, Russia or US.

MKI is high-altitude adapted as all the other fighters, so it cannot fly long LA missions and cannot cary significant load flying LA because of tremor, turbulence and giant fuel consumption.

Mirage and Jag can bomb some weakly protected targets but their combat radius is 500km on LA and payload is rediculously small - only 2 250kg bombs.

If you want to destroy high priority targets while enemy AD is still alive you will need dedicated low-altitude strike craft.

Ok, agree with some of your points regarding limitations of existing platforms. Regarding Rafale, I do not agree. We can discuss that.

However, could you please answer my simple queries :

Can it fly over the Himalayas with enough payload, ordinance & fuel/drop-tanks, etc. ? Mentioning Fuel tanks, because, in the worst-case scenario even the 1000 kms, penetration might not be enough. So, internal fuel alone won't do the job.

Is the T/W ratio (for out-maneuvering & out-running enemy BVRAAM's, AA-fire), ECM etc. enough, to perform its role over that particular theater & return safely from a well-defended airspace as dense as in PRC ?

The fact that it needs escorts, IMHO, makes it a platform for today, not tomorrow. So, FGFA is, apparently, best suited for such missions. Just my 2 cents.

 

[TrueSpirit]

We have underground hangars. Not paraded around that's all.

We have, but a few. I have names of every single one of them. Further, some tenders have been floated around recently regarding the same.

Obsolete air-defence needs an overhaul & deals are being struck, to that effect.

 

[Payeng]

But, can we really defend our airfields to the desired extent (we have few/none underground hangars & even the latest aircrafts are routinely kept in open under the sun with only canopy covered), so would they be able to survive the massive debilitating waves of Chinese preemptive strikes ?

Quite tricky, I would say. One might not have enough confidence in IAF's decidedly obsolete air-defence & camouflaging/dispersal tactics.

Jets usually are not stationed in their pre-assigned hangers or airbase during war-time.

 

[TrueSpirit]

Jets usually are not stationed in their pre-assigned hangers or airbase during war-time.

Preemptive strikes.

Preemptive strikes which itself are the declaration of war, as they commence the hostilities.

 

[sayareakd]

We have underground hangars. Not paraded around that's all.

yeah check wikimapia or google earth.

 

[p2prada]

Rafale? A-a Only 4 pitty 250kg bombs and a lot of fuel tanks. And of course, subsonic only.

Aw, come on. It is 6 250Kg bombs in a triple rack or 4 500Kg bombs instead, on double rack.

So, I wonder why India ignores it.

Simple. We can't afford it nor do we have the need for it

We are already inducting nearly 300 MKIs which can conduct strike roles. We have soft borders which means we don't need as much range as the Su-34 offers. And we plan on using buddy refueling and mid-air refuelers for the same.

Rafale may have lower payload capacity, but it can handle greater sortie rates. 6 in a day when it came to Libya for the French Navy. That's at least 36 targets attacked with 250Kg bombs or 24 with 500Kg bombs. With decreased range, even sortie generation rate can be increased.

MKI can easily carry as much as Su-34 in a low low low profile to greater than 500Km. We will cross Afghan border at that range.

Chinese border is much more complex since atmosphere is rarefied and Su-34's LA performance will not be necessary there, I mean there is no such thing as LA over there. Minimum 3-4 Km mountain height and they are all unbroken chains. There will be turbulence though, but something Rafale and MKI can handle.

Only VVS and USAF have such a long range requirement.

Also, we find it more reasonable to buy air superiority fighters with strike capability rather than dedicated strike capability. That's what we are looking at with all our future acquisitions, even AMCA.

Even if we get Su-34, we will have to pay for further development in order to carry Indian and Israeli avionics and weapons. Something that the MKI already does.

Think about it. Russia is inducting 48 Su-35, 60 Su-30SM, possibly 24 Mig-35 and around ~124 Su-34. That's ~250 modern aircraft. In our case we plan on 270 MKIs, ~200 Rafales and around 130 LCA Mk2s. That's ~600 modern aircraft with at least 80 MKIs initially of the Super Sukhoi standard. We don't need the Su-34. Our funds can be focussed on FGFA instead.