Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Ok here you go

F-15E vs SU-34 if you were top brass for a certain country which one would you pic to fill your inventorys?

I know the F-15E probably has the edge in air to air but what do you think about air to ground?

F-16.net Sponsor

From your screen name, I assume we're already dealing with partisan politics here Wink

however, as to my vote, I'd have to go with the Strike Eagle. Much wider array of armament, higher fuel capacity, retains the Eagle's A2A capability, better rear visability, and has great engines. The Strike Eagle has also proven itself in combat.

For instance, when the 4th TFW received orders to deploy their Strike Eagles to Desert Storm, they had just reached IOC in the jet. These Strike Eagles were brand new, off of the production line, and their performance in the Gulf made the jet look like a seasoned combat veteran.

The F-15E was the perfect follow on to the Phantom, with avionics rivaled only by the Viper and Hornet. The Strike Eagle has one of the most advanced avionics packages ever put into a fighter.

The Su-34, IMHO, looked like a concept that Sukhoi wanted, but wasn't sure how to design. Read that, they wanted a strike fighter that would rival the Strike Eagle, but I'm not sure why they did the side-by-side seating. They should've stuck with the basic design of the Flanker, not do an update on the Su-24's cockpit.

On the other hand, the Strike Eagle was designed without making a major airframe modification. This was one of the reasons the design was selected over the F-16XL.

Sukhoi's Flanker series has a dismal combat record, at least, against Western nations. That's another minus against it.

BTW, didn't Sukhoi halt production on the Su-34? I may be wrong about that, but I believe I read that somewhere.

That's my 2 cents. Let the debate continue...

Beers and MiGs were made to be pounded!

I don't know why Sukhoi went with the side by side either. It definitely deminishes the planes all around visibility and effectivness in a knife fight... The whole design and concept kind of reminds me of the F-111.

Would the SU-30MKI be a better competitor?

It's possible, but the Strike Eagle still has it in fuel capacity, rear-vis, armament, and avionics. The Su-30 is more maneuverable, however, and I wouldn't want to face it in a dogfight if I were flying a Mudhen.

The Strike Eagle has A2A capability, but the As and Cs are sent out to counter the air threat before the Strike Eagles get into the area. With the stike Eagle's size/weight its biggest threats are SAMs and fighters that have yet to be dealt with.

Then again, the Flanker won't be performing its demo flight maneuvers in real combat, especially if its loaded down with armament, fuel, and drop tanks (basically the same situation as the Strike Eagle).

Since it has such a wide array of armament, advanced avionics, and has proven itself in combat, my vote is still for the Strike Eagle.

Beers and MiGs were made to be pounded!

Isn't the SU-30 series a lot cheaper than the Strike Eagle? I even saw a quote as low as 30mil a copy at http://www.military.cz/default.htm

Isn't the cost of a Strike Eagle around 60mil+ per copy?

I'd still go with the Beagle! I'll take a proven system any day, even if it costs more Very Happy

!

Strike Eagles aren't quite that expensive. It's close to that, and they're more expensive than the A through D models, but parrothead is right. Think about it this way: Would you rather have a fleet of Renault hatchbacks, or one 2005 Cadillac DeVille? Availability and strength in numbers works for some, but I'm more trusting of high quality, even if in low numbers. I can't see where you can go wrong with the Strike Eagle in this debate.

Beers and MiGs were made to be pounded!

I can't deny that the Su-27 and up series look sexier than the F-15's. Id love to go for a ride in one!

Justin

The cost of a fighter for exportation depends on what the customer wants for the fighter sometimes.

At the end of 90's, the South Korea made the requirement of F-X plan for 40 NG strike fighters. The candidates for the final competition were: F-15K, Su-35, Rafale, and EF-2000.

The South Korean AF hoped to buy the 40 NG strike fighters and the related weapon / training / logistic systems with the price of 3.2 billion USD, or about 80 million USD per fighter with its weapon / training / logistic equipments at first. However, according to the South Korea's requirement for the F-X plan, no company could offer such a price, and the final prices which the four companies offered were:

Sukhoi (Su-35): about 81 million USD per fighter.

Dassault (Rafale): about 100 million USD per fighter.

Boeing (F-15K, the final winner): about 110 ~ 115 million USD per fighter.

EADS (Eurofighter): about 120 ~ 125 million USD per fighter.

PS: All these prices included the the costs of related weapon / training / logistic systems and equipments.

The Russian fighters are cheaper, but if you want their quality to be good enough to fit the standard of western world, they will not be so cheap as someone mentioned above.

What about the SU-30MKI....wasn't it very succesful against the F-15 in the coup india? How much did India pay for them?

The Indian AF didn't use Su-30MKI to against the F-15C. The fighters it used to play that game included Su-30K, MIRAGE-2000C, MIG-21, MIG-27, and Sepecat Jaguar.

Although it was true that the USAF lost this exercise (an indian pilot declared privately that they had won the game with the exchange ratio of 4:1 over the USAF), however, according to the declaration and explanation from the USAF later, it seems that this exercise was not fair to USAF:

1. During the exercise, Indian AF used 12 fighters to against USAF with only 4 fighters.

2. For unknown reason, USAF agreed not to stimulate the long-range killing capability of AIM-120, and the maximal effective range of AIM-120 is "limited" to 18 to 20 NMs during the exercise.

TC, I don't agree the F-15E can take out the Su-34 or Su-30MKI that easily.
The Sukhoi's can carry the R-77 (AA-12) which has a range of upto 100 KM, the R-27 (AA-10) family with a top range of 130 KM, and for the short range they can use the R-73 family.

i've mentioned before the capabilites of the Flanker series..

but I will add that all flankers can carry the R-30 missile (replacing the AA-9/R-33) which is a long range active guided missile, carried by any Russian aircraft, with a range of 350KM. It was designed for the Mig-31M/BM, but can be fitted on the Flanker, maybe even Fulcrum series.

Secondly, teh Su-34 will have a MASSIVE phased array radar and it will go into full service with the Russian VVS in 2006, carrying an anti-ship array of missiles that the F-15 dreams of, carrying guided missiles, bombs of ALL kinds, and plus the new ramjet version of the R-77/AA-12 which should be 150KM capable and have a flight speed of Mach-5. The aircract is MUCH more crew friendly, having a toilet and microwave in teh cockpit, making long range flighs easier, and the aircraft easily outranges the F-15 in flight distance. It's a tactical bomber with A2A capability, not a multirole fighter, though it can outmanuver any F-16,F-18. (not the F-15)

but that's where the multirole Su-27SM, Su-30, etc comes in..

not a good comparison.. Su-34 vs F-15E...

About the price of Su-30MKI..................

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:W4bq ... t&hl=zh-TW

Su-34 is a bomber that the Russian AF prepares to use it to replace the Tu-22M backfire, and many Russian newest technologies, including AESA radar, maybe used on this advancing NG medium bomber one day.

However, Su-34 is also an extremely expensive equipment, and some experts said that its price may be even close to the class of F/A-22. It seems that Russian AF is unlikely to be able to buy Su-34 with the number that is more than the B-2A in USAF today.

I think F/B-22 is more suitable to be compared with Su-34.

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

F-15E vs SU-34 (which is the better strike aircraft?)