Thread: Strike Aircraft Comparisons

Originally Posted by Garry

I checked Russian sites and come back with Su-34 specs. First of all Su-34 = Su-32FN = Su-32 = TB10

The spects of Su-34 Fullback is less than what you stated above for latest F-15E versions (though I had seen less figures in various sites). I checked the internal fuel and it turns that Fullback has more of that => latest Eagle must have efficiency of engines beter by at least TWICE (or data is misinterpreted or it has more internal fuel that you stated). The internal fuel of Fullback is 15,000 liters (around 11,800 kg)..... and it is enough for 4,500km.

So empty weight is 22,500 kg
Max take off weight is 45,100 kg
NORMAL take off weight of 39,000kg

Hence max payload is 45100-22500=22,600kg while normal payload is 39000-22500=16,500kg.
The INTERNAL fuel load is up to 11,800 kg – hence weapon load can wary from 4,700kg to 8,000kg. Besides that Su-34 cockpit is ARMORED by titanium plates making it heavier. Moreover it has got a room behind the seats for one pilot to stand up or sleep.

Maximum ferry range WITHOUT refueling is 4,500km, not 4,000km which was stated initially. Maximum ferry range with ONE in-flight refueling is 7,000km. Combat RADIUS without refueling is 1,130km.

Another difference of Su-34 to F-15E is that Fullback has capability to take off and land to bad run ways….. for that it sacrificed its maximum speed and part of the weight. As all Flankers Su-34 has got two radars – additional in the rear with capability to track and target missiles back. This is quite an important difference to all Eagle versions.


I got much of my figures from a friend and web sites. But again we have lots of contradicting data! I guess we will see them soon compared somewhere and it will be interesting to read!!!

On weekends, met my good old friend. We talked a lot about aviation. He was participating on the tender to Singapore. So he clearly stated that SG version of Eagle has LESS payload with SAME internal fuel load than MKI flanker. He also stated that maximum weapons payload which was stated is not really practical for Eagle, range is then reduced dramatically to less than 1000km (less than 500km radius).

As for range he explained that MKI and SG had almost similar ferry range, though MKI had 100km surplus. He also explained that it is not practical to compare loaded aircraft as drag may vary significanly with different types of weapon load. Normal loads do not exist..... For example R-77 gives significant drag and would reduce range if many of this are loaded. He also outright declined idea that F-15SG engines have higher fuel efficiency. In his view, R-33D has problems with fuel consumption but not AL-31F series. We talked about comparison of AL-31F series vs GE F110 series. He admited that AL would require much earlier servicing in its current version (not 117C upgrade). But in terms of thrust AL-31F is much beter in terms of thrust per kg of the engine weight... He did not study any new developments but back in 2004 F-15SG did not have any stated advantage in fuel efficiency. They were at par, but SG would have longer period until first engine repair.

As for the Su-34/32FN he knows less about them, as it was done by different project team. He just learned that fuel efficiency was core in that aircraft in exchange for less thrust much less speed. They made a trade off. Also no TVC as it adds to weight but not that required for bomber. In his personal view additional armor on Su-34 is a waste of weight reserve. He believes that - either aircraft is CAS..... or it is a bomber. It can not be both..... hence there is no need to add armor to the cockpit of a bomber, which would take its missions from high altitude.

So that is basically all.

Did he mention anything about avionics, ie MKI radar etc? Would be interesting to hear.

Originally Posted by Garry

As for range he explained that MKI and SG had almost similar ferry range, though MKI had 100km surplus.

I'd disagree.

Originally Posted by jgetti

I'd disagree.

I know what you mean. I also pointed to this problem. And I got reply that this is mismatch in classification.

When Sukhoi states its ferry range it assumes INTERNAL fuel. When Boieng states ferry range it is with additional tanks. In terms of internal fuel MKI has more of that inside and its engine is on par in terms of fuel efficiency.

Is this correct?

Originally Posted by Archer

Did he mention anything about avionics, ie MKI radar etc? Would be interesting to hear.

Yes but this completelly different story!

In general he loves his bird and probably we are both not that objective to it. Still nobody proven to me with facts that it is crap!

Woah. Has the MKI started to carry external fuel tanks already? Heh, Im kinda outdated in this. Last i recalled, flankers n fulcrums didn carry external fuel tanks. Any information off any site i can read up abt the flanker's external fuel tanks?

Well the strike eagle/ F-15Sg, carries external fuel tanks cos most of the internal space is stuffed with electronics n stuff. Hence, additional fuel has to go into the CFTs and the external fuel tanks.

Originally Posted by Zaphael

Woah. Has the MKI started to carry external fuel tanks already? Heh, Im kinda outdated in this. Last i recalled, flankers n fulcrums didn carry external fuel tanks. Any information off any site i can read up abt the flanker's external fuel tanks?

Well the strike eagle/ F-15Sg, carries external fuel tanks cos most of the internal space is stuffed with electronics n stuff. Hence, additional fuel has to go into the CFTs and the external fuel tanks.

Hi Zahael, both MKI and MiG-29M2 can carry external fuel tank not CFT, but drop tanks.

The twist here in fuel configuration. Canoe was referring to this, but then I did not understood then where is difference.

MKI carries INTERNALLY between 5270kg and 9640kg of fuel, when it reduces fuel it can carry UP TO 8000kg of weapons.

Is the F-15SG a multirole fighter like the F-15E, or does it favor strike or air superiority?