for all the pics pse click URL below:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Fullback.html
Last Updated: Mon Jan 27 11:18:09 UTC 2014
Sukhoi Su-34 Fullback
Russia's New Heavy Strike Fighter
Technical Report APA-TR-2007-0108
by Dr Carlo Kopp, AFAIAA, SMIEEE, PEng
January, 2007
Updated October, 2008
Updated January, 2011
Updated April, 2012
Text, Line Art © 2004 - 2012 Carlo Kopp
Sukhoi Su-34 Fullback Demonstrator
Video Footage Supplement [Click for more ...]
Background
Resources
The Su-27IB and Early Fullback Development
The Su-32MF/Su-34 Fullback Strike Fighter
The Su-32FN Fullback Maritime Patrol/Strike Fighter
Su-32MF/34 and Su-32FN vs the Region
Production vs Development Fullback Configurations
Background
While the region was seen the deployment and manufacture of hundreds of Flankers since the early 1990s, all of these have been incremental developments of the baseline Su-27S and Su-27UB tandem seat airframes. Since the late 1980s the Sukhoi bureau has been developing a family of derivative airframes, which utilise side by side seating. With the now increasing likelihood of regional buys of these aircraft, this analysis will explore the features, capabilities and growth potential of these Flanker derivatives.
This analysis is an updated and expanded version of the original 2004 analysis.
Resources
NAPO (JSC), 15 Polzunov Street, Novosibirsk, 630051, Russia
KnAAPO (JSC), ul. Sovetskaya, 1, Komsomolsk-on-Amur, 681018, Russia
Sukhoi Company (JSC), 23B, Polikarpov str.,Moscow, 125284, Russia, p/b 604
NAPO - Истребитель-бомбардировщик Су-34
Sergey Denisentsev - February 2008 - Moscow Defense Brief - Thales Group in Russia
Vladimir Karnozov - January 2008 - Flight International - Russian fighters to use Thales Damocles targeting pods
Australian Aviation - November 2004 - Sukhoi's Fullback (Su-32/34)
Australian Aviation - August 2003 -Asia's Advanced Flankers (Su-27/30)
Australian Aviation - September 2003 - Su-30 vs RAAF Alternatives (Su-27/30)
Australian Aviation - July 2004 - Asia's Advanced Precision Guided Munitions
Australian Aviation - August 2004 - The Sleeping Giant Awakens (PLA-AF/PLA-N)
Defence Today - Dec 2003 - Sukhois present new strategic risk for Australia
Defence Today - Sept 2004 - 2010+ Regional Futures
The International Assessment and Strategy Center - May 3rd, 2006 - The Flanker Fleet -The PLA's 'Big Stick'
Defence Today - January/February 2006 - Regional Developments 2005
Defence Today - January/February 2006 - Regional Precision Guided Munitions Survey
Comparison of Su-34 and Su-30MK. The Su-32/34 series is a new design, despite its reuse of a large number of existing Flanker components. The fuselage is largely new sharing only the aft engine nacelles with the Su-27/30 (Author)
The Su-27IB and Early Fullback Development
During the latter years of the Cold War Soviet Frontal Aviation units employed a mixed fleet of battlefield interdiction and theatre strike aircraft. The most potent of these was the Sukhoi Su-24 Fencer, conceptually similar to a smaller F-111, supplemented by the even smaller Su-17 Fitter, a variable geometry derivative of the Su-7 Fitters, and the MiG-23BM and MiG-27, both derivatives of the variable geometry MiG-23 interceptor.
Soviet doctrine during that period was being seriously challenged by large numbers of US and NATO teen series fighters, especially the F-15 and F-16. While Frontal Aviation MiG-29 and Su-27S fighters were to win the air battle, allowing the less agile Su-24, Su-17, MiG-23BM and MiG-27 to survive and attack their targets, it was evident to Soviet planners that replacements for these strike aircraft would need to be capable of surviving close contact with the F-16 and especially the F-15.
The Sukhoi bureau was intimately familiar with the problem to be solved, as designers of the earlier Su-7, and later Su-17/22 and Su-24, they had first hand exposure to the often conflicting design requirements of these roles.
Early Sukhoi thinking concentrated on adaptations of the baseline Su-27UB tandem seat trainer, a model since then implemented in the F-15E-like Su-30MK series exported to China and India. Frontal Aviation thinking was however that the crew station approach used in the Su-24 worked better for the high workload and potentially long endurance strike roles. Conceptual design of the Su-27IB as an Su-24 replacement began in 1983.
Sukhoi Su-24 Fencer A (© 2011, Jeroen Oude Wolbers).
The Su-27IB (Istrebityel Bombardirovshchik - Fighter Bomber) concept solidified during this period, with a much enlarged side-by-side cockpit area more akin to a flight deck in a larger bomber, in a substantially enlarged and reshaped forward fuselage. Specific aims of the new design were to provide better ergonomics for long range / long endurance / high workload profiles, better sanitary conditions for the crew, facilities for the crew to eat meals on long duration profiles, and saving the cost of duplicated cockpit displays and instrumentation. The flight deck was to be fully pressurised, obviating the need for the crew to wear masks through the whole flight. The whole flight deck was surrounded by a welded titanium tub to protect the crew from ground fire.
Crew access was via a ladder in the nosewheel well, the dual nosewheel being relocated forward and retracting aft, opposite to production Su-27s. The crew sat on K-36DM zero-zero seats. The much enlarged chined and blended forward fuselage was attached to what was essentially a modified Su-27UB dual trainer airframe, with the production main undercarriage, wing and aft fuselage sting. The ventral stabiliser surfaces were removed.
Designed as a deep strike fighter the T-10V-1 prototype included Su-35 canards for low altitude ride improvement and load alleviation, the Su-35 wing and revised fixed inlets devoid of the FOD suppression hardware used on the Su-27S and UB, and limiting supersonic dash speed to around Mach 1.6. The Su-27 stabilators and tails were retained. Internally the centre-section was strengthened to accommodate a 45 tonne maximum gross weight, increased over the baseline 28 tonne Su-27S. Internal volume was increased by about 30% over the Su-27.
Other design features were to include a phased array multimode attack radar, internal forward looking IRST/TV/laser targeting system, external podded FLIR/laser targeting system, aft fire control and tail warning radar, and internal defensive jammers. Development was authorised in 1986 with the baseline configuration set in 1987. Leninetz, designers of the Backfire's Down Beat and Bear's Clam Pipe attack radars, and the Foxhound's Zaslon phased array, were contracted to develop the radar, with Ural and Geofyzika contracted to develop the electro-optical systems.
The Su-27IB was to be fitted with a heavily integrated digital weapon system, using glass cockpit components, thus emulating the first seen in the US with the digital F-111D two decades earlier.
Weapons planned included the Kh-29 and S-25LD Maverick analogues, the KAB-500Kr electro-optically precision guided bomb, the KAB-500L laser guided bomb, and the electro-optical/datalink guided KAB-1500TK GBU-15 analogue. Three of the Kh-59 stand-off weapons, analogous to the AGM-142, were to be carried, or up to six Kh-31 and Kh-35 Kharpunski anti-shipping missiles. For defence suppression, up to six Kh-31R anti-radiation missiles were to be carried. Defensive weapons were to include the GSh-301 30 mm gun, up to eight R-73 Archer WVR AAMs and up to six R-27 BVR AAMs. A total payload of up to 8 tonnes of dumb bombs were to be lifted, including payload of 36 x FAB-250 500 lb bombs. Six B-8M1 rocket pods for up to 120 S-8 rockets, or six B-13L pods for up to 30 S-13 rockets could be carried for close air support tasks.
The first prototype T-10V-1 flew in April, 1990, and within months flew aerial refuelling trials and simulated carrier landing approaches on the Tbilisi, in the Black Sea. The aircraft was first publicly exhibited in 1992.
The second prototype, the T-10V-2 was built in 1993, adopting the Su-35 wing with additional stations, enlarged internal fuel tanks, enlarged spine and lengthened tail stinger, the production reinforced centre section design, and the representative production configuration of the tandem dual wheel main undercarriage. The first Low Rate Initial Production airframe, the T-10V5 was flown in early 1994 and renamed the Su-34, clearly a play on the aircraft's Frontal Aviation predecessor, the Su-24 Fencer.
This prototype was painted in an unusual blue/green camouflage, labelled the 'Su-32FN' and presented at the 1995 Paris airshow as a maritime patrol and strike fighter. Two more SU-34s were built in 1996 and 1997, and presented at the Paris airshow in 1997, again as the 'Su-32FN'. Russian sources claim this nomenclature was further changed with a new designation of 'Su-32MF', presumably standing for Mnogofunktsioniy Frontoviy (Multirole Tactical).
While the Su-32FN and Su-32MF/34 are essentially identical T-10V-5 derivative airframes, there are important differences in their intended roles and avionics, and both will be discussed separately.
In comparing the basic Su-32/34 airframe against Western types, the design with 12.1 tonnes (26.7 klb) of internal fuel sits in between the Boeing F-15E and F-111 in combat radius and weapon payload capabilities. It will provide at lower gross weights lower agility than the F-15E, but higher agility than the F-111. Its top end supersonic performance is inferior to both US types. Like both US types, the aircraft is intended to perform low altitude penetration using terrain following radar (TFR) functions. Unlike the F-15E with a podded LANTIRN TFR and the F-111 with a dedicated redundant APQ-171 TFR, the Su-32/34 uses a phased array which interleaves TFR and other modes, a concept used previously only the in B-1B's APQ-164 phased array.
