urmomma158

Congratulation your first source! You're making rpogress with backed up statements.!! Now you need to learn how to post links!

canoe

Cut the guy some slack, I'm sure it was just something he read in a news release.

Russian weapons manufactures frequently exaggerate or push the performance specs they release to the media outlets to the max. Its good advertising for them, their industry needs foreign sales to survive or they die. It doesn't happen so much in the States because your government provides your arms industries with enough cashflow they don't need foreign sales to survive.

Its simply good buisness from their perspective.

Garry

I went to Sukhoi site but found only Su-32.... (in english version I noticed there
one translation error - the translated maximum combat radius as maximum range. So in their table it is combat radius (1,100 km))
http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su32/lth/

Wikipedia is rather optimistic on Su-34 specs and they do exceed that of F-15SG (which should be same as F-15K?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34

If Wikipedia is at least close to their optimistic expectations, Snipe, then you are wrong regarding advantage of F-15SG in terms of range and load.

The maximum ferry range of F-15K (should be same for SG) is 3,900 - slightly less that that of Su-32 (or 34). For maximum bombload which you stated aircraft would have to have much less intenal fuel.... and hence much shorter range.

Look the maximum take off weight of Su-34 is larger by around 9 tons (45.100kg) while its empty weith is not known. If we assume it to be around that of Su-30KMI (24.900kg) meaning it can carry up to 20.2 tons of fuel and combat load.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...5k/f15spec.htm

The same for F-15K (and SG) was 36.700 kg (maximum take off) and 20.411 kg (empty) meaning it can carry 16.3 tons of fuel and combat load. The difference is in favor of S-34 (wikipedia version vs F-15K (boeing site) unless we assume dramatically higher efficiency of engines and drag in Sukhoi.

OK. Having found all that I actually don't trust it..... probably Wikipedia is wrong..... I made some internet search and learned that each further modification has higher empty weitht in both F-15 and Flankers. So sources sometimes mess up different versions..... I guess.

I guess these two must have very close takeoff-empty weights and very close in terms of combat load..... a match. It can not be the 50% difference (12tons vs 8tons) as you stated. Knowing Sukhoi people I know - THEY NEVER RELEASE THEIR BIRDS INFERIOR TO USA ALTERNATIVE IN TERMS OF FLIGHT SPECS

hello

OK, here's a little Su-34 vs F-15E based on specs from GlobalSecurity.

F-15E:

Payload: 24,500lb
Combat Radius: 685nm, 790 miles, 1270km on internal.
Speed: M2.3-2.5, 1,650mph, 2655km/h
Weapons: All AG weapons in US inventory, 20mm cannon w. 512 rounds and upto 8 AMRAAMs & 4 SWs for self-defence and escort.
Price: $55 million per plane

Su-34:

Payoad: 8000kg, roughly 16000lb
Combat Radius: little less than 2000km seeing range is 4000km
Speed: M1.8, 1300mph, 1900km/h
Weapons:

1 GSh-30-1 30mm cannon with 150 rounds
R-27/R-73 AAMs
Kh-29T/Kh-31P/Kh-59M ASMs
bombs, rockets, drop tanks
ECM pods carried on twelve external points Su-37
14 x Air-to-Air missiles: AA-10, AA-11, AA-12

Price: $35 million per plane

F-15E has better speed, payload, weapons and maneuverability. Su-34 has better combat radius, AAMs and costs less. However, with F-22s supporting F-15Es, carrying less AAMs isn't a problem.

canoe

The combat range for the Su-34 is definately closer to 1000km, the stated value I found on the long table was 1,130km. That included external fuel tanks and about a half load of armament.

The Su-34 is roughly compariable to the F-111 I'm not sure why the wing loadout on the Su-34's is so low though, given the size of the aircraft and its engines I'd have expected it to carry more.

The F-15's are compariable. I'd say the F-15's have the edge in A2A whereas the Su-34's probably have more time on station and are a more effective bombing platform.

The saving grace for the F-15's imo is they have better avionics and they have a combination of extremely accurate GPS guided munitions and very accurate targeting pods. Avonics can be upgraded on both aircraft however.

highsea

This seems like a contradiction to me...The F-15 is capable of employing both GPS and laser guided munitions, where the Sukhoi is limited (AFAIK) to LGB's and dumb bombs.

I would argue that this makes the F-15 a more effective bombing platform, since it's not limited by visibility to hit the target, it can hit multiple targets simultaneously, and it can release JDAMs from standoff ranges.

__________________
My baby called me up. She said- Why don't you ever take me out? Pick me up in your brand new car....You shake the short change from the old fruit jar...

urmomma158

Good job! Im not kidding.

canoe

I suppose I'm splitting hairs. But I was considering the aircraft platforms alone (without including avoinics and weapons). Obviously I agree if you include the American avoinics and precision guided munitions any Amercian aircraft will pick up a huge advantage. But in terms of just range, payload time on station and crew the Su-34 has some very positive aspects.

hello

How does the Fullback have a payload advantage? 16000lbs is about the same payload as the JSF A and C variants, which are light fighters. The F-15E has 24,500lbs payload. 3 of these can top a B-52. Oh yeah, and I forgot to say, both the F-15E and Su-34 have a two person crew. The F-15E has the pilot in front and WSO as a "backseater", similar to the F-14, while Su-34 has side-by-side seating configuration, resulting in the wide, flattened nose.

Garry

I think that GLONAS is operating already on Estern Hemisphere up to equator.... but there are no munitions created to use GLONAS guidance. At least I did not hear about it. Could you please comment how can SU-34 have HIGHER total payload but have less combat load and less radius? I guess global security org is comparing differents sets of data... While searching around I got impression that people mess up different versions of F-15 and Flankers..... Fron what I understoon F-15K and SG for example has MUCH HIGHER empty weight than first F-15C.... Same for Su-34 vs Su-27UBK. TOTAL PAYLOADS OF SU-34 AND F-15K / SG MUST BE ALMOST SIMILLAR. Meaning that any difference in COMBAT PAYLOAD and RANGE would be explained by tradeoff in either of them (more combat payload = less range and vice versa). F-15K AND SG HAVE SAMLE (slightly smaller) FERRY RANGE WITH SU-34. What do you think of that?

Hei Jgetty, can you give us your comment here?

Agreed on RADIUS (sorry but I feel that some may mess up radius and one way range) but I got impression that it is 1,130km on INTERNAL FUEL. Will get PRESICE reply today on what load it can carry for 1,130km. As for comparison of combat load - 12tons for F-15K and SG would be VERY small combat radius. Both aricrafts are very close to each other in terms of take off weight and empty weight... unless we assume ABNORMALLY high difference in engine efficiency, or drag ration (which is unlikelly) they must have very close TOTAL payload.... However one may redistribute FUEL vs COMBAT LOAD.... So in case when F-15K takes 12tons it must have much less INTERNAL FUEL for that mission... If we add that take off normally consumes up to 15-20% of internal fuel we may expect it to have VERY VERY SMALL range with combat load of 12tons.

Garry

In my view this is all are just wrong comparisons of wrong versions.

F-15E (K and SG) have SAME ferry range as SU-34. The have around SAME total load (maximum take off less empty weight). ANY DIFFERENCE IN COMBAT LOAD AND RANGE IS A RESULT OF TRADEOFF BETWEEN AMOUNT OF FUEL AND BOMBS.

There is alternative but less likelly explanation - F-15K and SG engines are consuming less fuel for ton/km or F-15K and SG have better aerodynamics and less drag.... I consider this UNLIKELLY

PS. I will get back to you regarding issue wheather Su-34 has TVC.... but even without that their maneuvrability is a same as F-15K

canoe

I beleive internal fuel doesn't count against external payload in either aircrafts case. External fuel however does, the more external fuel loaded the less payload can be carried. Its possible the F-15K may have more fuel efficent engines the Amercians have been moving that way for awhile with the F22 and 7E7 on the commercial side. I'd have to look into that though.

*update* (numbers taken from globalsecurity)
Current F-15E

Ferry range with conformal fuel tanks and 3 drop tanks in clean configuration: 5745 km
Range with just drop tanks: 4445 km

Combat radius armed with drop tanks? or CFT?: 1,853 km
Combat radus (fully armed) no external fuel: 1270 km

Looks like the Strike Eagle definately has more range especially on internal fuel. I'm not sure if it stores more fuel interally or the engines are just more fuel efficent.

13,123 lb (5952 kg) internal
21,645 lb (9818 kg) in two CFTs
up to three 610-US gal (2309-liter drop tanks)

Maybe you could check out the Su-34 and see how its fuel capacity compares, should tell you if its just carrying less fuel or if its engines use more gas.

Garry

I got the figures from intenet now.... where such mess is in figures. I will give all the links which I viewed below and you will see some different estimations on all of them. What is sure is something wich Boeign and Sukhoi post on their web sites (though few). And thisi information gives that MAX take off less EMPTY weights are close. (For Sukhoi no data on Su-34 but on Su-32, and empty weight is not stated and estiated using MKI figure)
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...5k/f15spec.htm
http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su32/lth/

As for the influence of internal fueld I guess it still has importance... empty weight assumes no internal fuel. Even without drag, internal fueld takes some of the take off potential.

As for engines, I know that F-15SG engines are infereior in terms of fuel efficiency to AL-31F, from Sukhoi (probably not most objective source )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34
http://www.danshistory.com/su34.html
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su34/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15K
http://www.answers.com/topic/f-15e-strike-eagle-1
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/Frtypen/FRF-15K.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...f-15-specs.htm
http://www.military.cz/usa/air/in_se...f15/f15_en.htm

see.... how many different figures for things like - range,..... weights and etc! So taking any of the sources other than Boeign and Sukhoi would be tricky

Anon

The SG has more powerful and efficient GE engines than the K model, and is also significantly lighter.

Every model of F-15 since the E has had a max theoretical bombload of 24,000lbs and is rated for 9g sustained operations in aaw configuration.

When considering range it must be considered that the F-15(all models) typically mount 3x 600gal external tanks that almost double range vs listed internal fuel specifications, not to mention the massive fuel load that the CFTs can embark.

Anon

The F-15SG has switched(for the first time) to GE engines. The GE F110s are several hundred pounds lighter(each) than the PW F100s of previous eagle models. The F-15SG also has the newer APG-63(V)3 radar vs the APG-70 of the early E model or the APG-63(V)2 of the USAF's "AESA Eagles". The APG-63(V)3 radar antenna is about 250lbs lighter than those of previous models.

Another little known change that saved several hundred pounds vs the original eagle models was the OBOGS system that uses engine bleed air for oxygen generation vs the old system of maintaining several very heavy onboard oxygen tanks.

Also, the 'turkey feather' Panels on the sides of early Eagles were removed(and deleted in production models starting with the K). This was done to reduce maintenance time, but it also saved quite a lot of weight, probably at least 100lbs worth.

Also, the F-15SG most likely uses somewhat more composite materials than earlier models(if for no other reason than to save manufacturing costs vs obsolete 'old school' aluminum.). So whatever 'listed' weights are out there, it's a very safe bet that the SG is in actuality at least 800 or more lbs lighter than an 'original spec' F-15E, or even K, and probably about the same weight as a circa 1980 F-15C when first delivered.