Talk:Sukhoi Su-34/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Specs

There is a good website with full specs at http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vvs/su34-01.htm

if anyone wants to flesh out this article--Dave 05:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Static instability

"with canards as per the Su-30/Su-33/Su-35 to increase static instability" is in my opinion a misleading statement. As far as I know, the canards are there to *allow* increased static instability, not because they increase static instability. I may be wrong though. If anyone agrees with me, go ahead and change that part. --81.233.90.182 09:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

All Su-27 based planes are static unstable. It was disigned to be static unstable and controlled by computers. Canards can give some benefits in aerodynamic and reduce bumpy flight on low attitude. The last is important for strike plane but actually they're only temporal decision for fighter. As you can see serial Su-35 doesn't have them because of much improved electronics and thrust control.213.87.139.179 (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, the "static [in]stability" is defined by the airframe design and load distribution. canards and other aerodynamic surfaces may affect the "dynamic [in]stability" only. --jno 11:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Related development

How the Su-34 related to Su-33/35/37??? What's common with the "Eagle" and "Tornado"? Just ground strike capabilities? Again, Su-34 is not a fighter! At all. --jno 11:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It's related because it shares the same airframe as the Flanker family. 132.33.132.19 00:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

What's "the same" here? Common layout? Su-34 has a different airframe - it inherits to both Su-27 and Su-24. --jno 12:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. The Su-34 inherits nothing of the Su-24, this is nonsense, while the airframe is heavily based on Su-27 family. -Shamil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.214.223 (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

video

I think the video on the page is misleading the model flying is a su-35 or something like that, not su-34, the su-34 has diffrent cockpit than the one in the video. nros Dec 2 01:37:51 GMT 2006

Crew comforts?

Has anyone got a reference for the crew comforts mentioned in the article? It seems like it's been pulled neat from the B2 or some other long-range tactical bomber, and kludged in to a tactical strike aircraft. Side by side, sure, but "enough space for a lie down"? A galley? An on-board toilet? I also don't know the range would be 4,000km - is this verified? To me, who isn't an aircraft nut, this plane sounds like it very well could take out the entire USA by itself with its well-rested, abluted pilots! Rolinator (talk) 08:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This is quite a bit after your request for citations, but I was the one who added that, and I have just added inline citations for the statements.--LWF (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, while I don't remember the specific edition off the top of my head, Air Forces Monthly also made note of the crew comforts listed in the article, as well as mentioning that the seats are heated and have built in massagers.SpudHawg948 (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Comparable aircraft fetishes

I find it strange that the same person who removed the Chengdu J-10 and JAS 39 Gripen from the "Comparable" section of the Mikoyan MiG-29M page - with the edit summary "lacks twin engine, lower payload and range" is insisting on adding the F-35 to this page! In addtion, the F-35 is designed as a multi-role aircraft, not a primary air-to-ground one, though it may well be used that way. In the future, it would be a good thing if users would discuss changes that are likey to be reverted more than once, rather than continually revert one another ad nauseum. It might also be good if these users would realize that the comparable section is really a minor part of aircraft articles, and that there are far better things they could work on to help improve the articles. If not, these users might well find that the "Comparable" section will be removed from aircraft articles as too contentious to mess with. - BillCJ (talk) 07:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I helped by reverting the F-35's removal one time. It's my understanding the F-35 is designed as a strike fighter first. The F-35 and Su-34 have similar speed and apparently similar weapons carrying capability. But yea, the air to air capability will not be comparable. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Earlier a user add this: "Flying High" as a reference for the Su-34 being comparable to the F-35. It mentions a surveillance role, but nothing about air-air combat. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Overlinking

According to Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context date links should only be made if relevant to the context. Linking the date a decision was made to every 14th February and all of 2008 seems pointless. Hohum (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Date formatting is so user preferences can work. Look over WP:MOSDATE. For consistency the policy says either all of the full dates should be linked or none. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSDATE "for example, solitary months, solitary days of the week, solitary years, decades, centuries, and month and year combinations. Such links should not be used unless following the link would genuinely help the reader understand the topic more fully". There are several single years linked, and this does nothing to help understanding of the topic, unless you are a fan of numerology. Hohum (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

yes, we're fans of numerolgy. Does that mean you'll move on? - BillCJ (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not see any year only or month-year dates link that were removed here. They were all full day-month-year dates. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was, the clickable elements are either a day+month, or a year, not a particular date. What relevance is it to the subject of the article to link to what happened on many 14 Februaries, or all of 2007 (for instance)? Hohum (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The real problem is that the MOS link you've provided doesn't apply that standard to date autoformatting, which is what you've been removing, and the quite-lengthy section on date links on that page says nothing about it either. These are guidelines, not policies, and they do not have to be followed, nor do we need your approval to not follow them. So again, please just move on. - BillCJ (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't need my approval, and I don't need yours to make changes either. I've never said they were anything more than guidelines, and only cited them in order to show why I thought the current state was pointless overlinking. I'm not sure why you are so defensive about this, I'm trying to reach an understanding. I still don't see the relevance of linking those dates, or how it helps the article. However, it also doesn't do it enough harm for me to continue wasting my time. I'm sure that both of you have put plenty of effort into this and other articles, but there is no reason to become territorial about them. Hohum (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Number of Su-34

Who is it that keeps editing and writing that 170-200 aircrafts will be built by 2015? Where have you found the source for that?? All the info i have read sas that 58-70 Su-34 have been orderd by the russians. 200 fighters in 7 years will never happen.Walle83 (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wishful IP editors. Future orders info is in the Procurement section. They were planning for 200 Su-34s by 2020 a couple years ago. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Never ever ever? Wasn't there car factories pushing more aircraft out a month then this at some point?--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Comparable aircraft

Of those aircraf, only the F-15E and the Tornado are truely comparable. The F-111 is almost 50 years old and the other two are precisely the aircraft it's replacing... BrickBreak (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess it depends on what you mean by comparable. Is there an official wiki guideline on it?--Senor Freebie (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I started a discussion on it here, but I never got a lot of traction on it. Read my thoughts in the thread, and if you're interested bring it back up again (not on that archive page), I'll back you up. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

aircraft type

Folks, why the aircraft replacing Su-24 has got type "strike fighter" or "fighter/bomber"? It's a mere tactical bomber. --jno 12:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Jno, I'm not sure why you think this aircraft is not a fighter ... it has a powerful air to air radar, can carry many types of air to air missiles, has a 30mm gun and can maneouvre as well as most modern fighter aircraft. It is by definition a strike fighter and that is what it is being bought as. The Russians have even suggested replacing the Mig-31 with them. -James Rowlands.

While I could agree with the designation of a strike fighter -- it stretches things quite a bit, but there's still much of a fighter heritage remains, but the last part is a complete rubbish. Mig-31 is a high-speed high-altitude interceptor, whose main mission is a 2.5-3M dashes for incoming strategic bombers. Su-34 doesn't have anything that even comes near to 31's top speed and altitude. --Khathi 12:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is interesting question. By clasification of Sukhoi company Su-34 is a fighter-bomber (official site of Sukhoi company - [1] (in this site Su-34 names "Su-32" ("Su-32" is an export name of Su-34) ) ).

But quite often it clasificate like "strike fighter" (once it was named even "bomber" in news on TV).

Vladimir Putin during his dialog with people 18.10.2007 has named Su-34 close air support aircraft.

So we got 4 variants of its clasification (that is no wonder: Su-34 is a multi-role aircraft). But I prefer to clasificate it like "fighter-bomber" because "fighter-bomber" is its type by clasification of manufacturer company. --Sith marauder —Preceding comment was added at 01:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This is tactical bomber. "Figher-bomber" term means nothing. Planes like MiG-27 or F-15E are not intended to air combat. And good fighter usually is mediocre or bad bombers. For many reasons from absense of 2nd pilot to bad performance on low altitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.173.18.179 (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course "fighter-bomber" means something, this term has been around in military terms for decades. And by the way, your opinion means nothing and the Talk Pages are not an idle forum WP:NOTAFORUM - please bring a Reliable Source to the table for the betterment of the article, and restrict your personal views to your local coffeeshop. HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Unit cost

What currency is the unit cost expressed in? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JanCeuleers (talk • contribs) 20:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, but what currency? Is that $36 Million USD? Bobbo9000

What makes you think that it might be in NZ or HK dollars? ') --Khathi 12:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh kiss my... ;-p I was havnig a blonde moment! (Bobbo9000 (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC))

It's a perfectly valid question. Nobody has actually answered. It's just stated as Dollars, which is not definitive. Standards of precise information could be improved. "Pij" (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

From appearance the unit cost is far too high.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Just checked http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/su-34.htm and they say $36 million. This is FAR more in line with the costs of other comparable Sukhoi's and I would think that it is therefore more realistic. --Senor Freebie (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)-

Artificial Intel???

Under the Design/Performance subheading we have his line:

"The Su-34, due to enter service with bomber squadrons soon, has an active-safety system with artificial-intelligence elements."

On what is this based? There's no verification listed with it and the statement seems very misleading since intuitive programming and AI are two distinct concepts. That'd be like saying terrain following radar has artificial-intelligence elements. I say we confirm this line or have it removed. (Bobbo9000 (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC))

Could be a mis-translation? Concepts and words used to describe them differ with languages, especially in technical environments and often translaters aren't aware of these nuances.--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Su-34 over South Ossetia

I removed the claim that they flew there, since a recent book The Tanks of August (free download) makes no mention of them in its extensive discussions of Russian Air Force operations in that war.

At that time there were 2 or 3 Su-34 that could be considered combat capable (to some unknown extent as the plane was new) so of course it is possible that some of these flew over to the conflict zone and participated somehow, but we would need solid sources to confirm. Sourcelat0r (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Air Forces Monthly, a British aerospace magazine, had an article some time after June 2010 outlining Russia's involvement in the way, citing an example of the use of a pair of Su-34s. and the performance of their EW systems. I don't believe their use was in an offensive role but limited to that of EW support. I should have a copy of the article still, I'll find it so it can be referenced. (203.27.52.241 (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC))

Russia's Su-34 fleet found to have serious defects

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/12/russias-su-34-fleet-found-to-h.html

Not really a secondary ref, but at least a well respected commentator in the field. Hcobb (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

At least it's in English. A grounding would certainly make it notable. As for now, I'm honestly not sure if it makes the cut. Close though. If you can dig up a few more sources, then we can probably add it in. - BilCat (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It was disproved dy Russian MoD already. The article itself is completely stupid and incompetent.217.173.18.179 (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Confusion regarding designations

I've got a book titled Superfighters: The Next Generation of Combat Aircraft, in which there are heaps of designations about the Su-34. There are the Su-27IB, Su-27KU, Su-27UB, plus a few of these T-10V-2 known within Sukhoi. Can someone please sort this out!? Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 04:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm also confused, by the wording in the first paragraph of Origins and Testing. It's unclear until re-re-re-read. "Pij" (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)