Talk:Sukhoi Su-34

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Aircraft WikiProject

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force

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)

Contents 1 Static instability 2 aircraft type 3 Related development 4 video 5 Unit cost 6 Artificial Intel??? 7 Crew comforts?

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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).

From appearance the unit cost is far too high. -James Rowlands

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. -James Rowlands.

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))

[edit] 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))

[edit] 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)