By: franc
- 17th June 2008 at 03:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Tactical and technical data:
Crew. -- 2
The number of engines - 2
Type engines - 2 hAL-21
Maximum takeoff weight, kg - 39700 Max weight 39700kg
Maximum speed, km / h - 1320 (max speed 1320km \ h)
Service ceiling, m - 11500
Range, km - 2500
The maximum bomb load, kg - 7500
Dimensions: length - 24.5 m, height - 6.2 m, the magnitude of the wing-17.7 m.
Maximum speed km / h - 2320 Max speed 2320 km / h
Maximum speed from land km / h - 1400 Max speed a sea level 1400km / h
Service ceiling, m - 17500
The maximum flight range, km - 1300
Flight range Peregonochnaya km - 4270
Run, m - 900
Mileage, m - 850
By: Schorsch
- 17th June 2008 at 08:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Lockheed official web gave the EW data of Rapator as 19700kg, will you believe it?
Aircraft changed, officer lied always;)
It is funny to see how the internet adapts to reality. While Wikipedia quoted the empty weight with something like 14-15t lately, it was changed to close to 20t recently. I am actually surprised Lockheed Martin gives such detailed weight data on its aircraft. Sure it isn't accurate down to the pound, but it looks as accurate as one would expect.
By: franc
- 17th June 2008 at 10:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
22300kg was adapted by Wiki, the range is clearly wrong, which should be combat radius.
On internet, which one is more logical and reasonable should be judged by self brain.
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 17th June 2008 at 10:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
22300kg was adapted by Wiki, the range is clearly wrong, which should be combat radius.
On internet, which one is more logical and reasonable should be judged by self brain.
I guess wikipedia is a good source but not always a very reliable one.
For Su-24 specifications i would quote first Sukhoi, later the Ukranian air force and Belarussian Air force and only later other russian webpages
Since all of these present different facets of the same aircraft, i would say the Su-24 has a sea level speed of Mach 1.35 and a max speed of mach 1.6.
The Mach 2 speed might be with VG ramps or a speed not recomended by Sukhoi.
The range should be considered a minimal range of 2775km with two fuel tanks and a probable 3050km or 3800km with three fuel tanks and a confirmed ferry range with one air refueling of 5000km.
the weight should be 22tons empty, 26 tons ready to fly, 27tons minimun weight for landing, 39700kgs regular max operational take off weight and a Sukhoi quoted weight of 43 tons.
By: Schorsch
- 17th June 2008 at 11:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
22300kg was adapted by Wiki, the range is clearly wrong, which should be combat radius.
On internet, which one is more logical and reasonable should be judged by self brain.
After the assessments I did I find the ~2800km ferry range with two drop tanks quite realistic. The mission radius for lo-lo-lo seems very realistic, too. Data-wise, the Wikipedia article on the Su-24MK looks as one of the better ones.
The most unreliable information source is normally the operator of an aircraft.
Most reliable are normally "merged" information sources, like Wikipedia and some other web resources (quite OK is vectorsite).
In general, most "sources" copy from each other. Some include wishful thinking. Sometimes people cannot see the difference between a mission radius and a range, and often the values given are "best" values. A real mission includes lots of reserves and allowances. The 330nm for the Suchoi 24MK in a lo-lo-lo mission profile are not a bad figure, by the way.
By: dionis
- 17th June 2008 at 11:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
After the assessments I did I find the ~2800km ferry range with two drop tanks quite realistic. The mission radius for lo-lo-lo seems very realistic, too. Data-wise, the Wikipedia article on the Su-24MK looks as one of the better ones.
The most unreliable information source is normally the operator of an aircraft.
Most reliable are normally "merged" information sources, like Wikipedia and some other web resources (quite OK is vectorsite).
In general, most "sources" copy from each other. Some include wishful thinking. Sometimes people cannot see the difference between a mission radius and a range, and often the values given are "best" values. A real mission includes lots of reserves and allowances. The 330nm for the Suchoi 24MK in a lo-lo-lo mission profile are not a bad figure, by the way.
A 600KM low level intrusion mission seems exactly what it was designed for, parked near the enemy territory flying missions from rough fields. Designed for real use, not being parked on a runway.
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 17th June 2008 at 11:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
After the assessments I did I find the ~2800km ferry range with two drop tanks quite realistic. The mission radius for lo-lo-lo seems very realistic, too. Data-wise, the Wikipedia article on the Su-24MK looks as one of the better ones.
The most unreliable information source is normally the operator of an aircraft.
Most reliable are normally "merged" information sources, like Wikipedia and some other web resources (quite OK is vectorsite).
In general, most "sources" copy from each other. Some include wishful thinking. Sometimes people cannot see the difference between a mission radius and a range, and often the values given are "best" values. A real mission includes lots of reserves and allowances. The 330nm for the Suchoi 24MK in a lo-lo-lo mission profile are not a bad figure, by the way.
I would not consider the Ukranian and Belarrusian air forces as unreliable their webpages only show different aspects of the Su-24 performance, Sukhoi does the same Sukhoi claims a range under some specific conditions even the speed seems to be only the speed for a sea level or low altitude mission,
The max take off weight is the same in the Ukranian and Belarrussian air forces respective webpages. максимальна злітна вага - 39700 кг 39700kg max take off this is the Ukranian air forcehttp://www.mil.gov.ua/index.php?part=armament&lang=ua&sub=vps
The Belarussian air force Максимальная взлётная масса, кг - 39700 /39700kg max take off weighthttp://mod.mil.by/s31su24.html
however Sukhoi cliams a higher take off weight see Takeoff weight:
- normal, kg 38,040
- maximum, kg 43,755
Sukhoi and the Belarrusian agree in the max speed, the ukranian air force agrees too but also posts a higher speed (probably under different coonditions)
sukhoi Maximum flight speed at sea level (without external ordnance and stores), km/h 1,315
Max Mach (without external ordnance and stores) 1.35 http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su24mk/lth/
The Belarrussian air force also claims something similar Максимальная скорость полёта, км/час - 1320http://mod.mil.by/s31su24.html
however th Ukrainian air force claims a higher speed only in its english version Maximum speed - 2240 kmphhttp://www.mil.gov.ua/index.php?lang=en&part=armament&sub=air_force
The Ukranian air force webpage has a range almost equal to the belarrussian air force and also a longer range than the one quoted by Sukhoi.
By: Schorsch
- 17th June 2008 at 12:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A 600KM low level intrusion mission seems exactly what it was designed for, parked near the enemy territory flying missions from rough fields. Designed for real use, not being parked on a runway.
Still, the F-111 achieves better radius for similar mission profile.
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 17th June 2008 at 12:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Still, the F-111 achieves better radius for similar mission profile.
That is not necesarily true, if you consider what Sukhoi says with a Max take off weight of 43tons it has a worst range but if you take what is the operational weight according to the Ukranian air force, Belarrusian air force and many other sources like Yefim gordon or airwar.ru, the Su-24 carries much much less fuel and they are not exactly comparable if you do not have the exact same amount of fuel.
By: Schorsch
- 17th June 2008 at 13:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
blabla
Aircraft are best compared by operating empty weight or by maximum take-off weight. In these terms the Suchoi 24 fails miserably against the older F-111, in terms of
- range
- radius
- war load.
Any claims about smaller fuel volume are academic. One rather has to ask why the similarly heavy (in terms of OEW) has substantially less fuel volume.
I further doubt that a 1991 Suchoi 24M/MF can have the punch the F-111F displayed during GW#1. Or that a Suchoi 24M/MF can fly the mission the 48th TFW flew in 1986.
In short: the Suchoi 24 falls short in technology and capability despite being younger. it still was a major capability improvement for the Soviet forces, as it represented the first all-weather capable fighter bomber with useful payload-range characteristics and useful defensive electronics. It filled a gap between the smallest bomber and the largest fighter-bomber.
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 17th June 2008 at 13:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Aircraft are best compared by operating empty weight or by maximum take-off weight. In these terms the Suchoi 24 fails miserably against the older F-111, in terms of
- range
- radius
- war load.
Any claims about smaller fuel volume are academic. One rather has to ask why the similarly heavy (in terms of OEW) has substantially less fuel volume.
I further doubt that a 1991 Suchoi 24M/MF can have the punch the F-111F displayed during GW#1. Or that a Suchoi 24M/MF can fly the mission the 48th TFW flew in 1986.
In short: the Suchoi 24 falls short in technology and capability despite being younger. it still was a major capability improvement for the Soviet forces, as it represented the first all-weather capable fighter bomber with useful payload-range characteristics and useful defensive electronics. It filled a gap between the smallest bomber and the largest fighter-bomber.
That is not true, you say it fails not true, that is just a cliche exposed by you and sens to claim the Tornado is better disguised as the F-111.
The Su-24 outproduced the F-111, has similar weaponry and the same survability.
I ask you when has the Su-24 been shot down by western fighters? Do you know the pakistani F-16s attacked several times soviet Su-24s and never nailed a single one? are you aware the Iraqi Su-24s escaped without a single lost to Iran when the west had total superiority in fourth generation fighters?
The Su-24 was made with less range because for the Russians the Tu-22M filled much better the mission the F-111 failed, yeah the FB-111 failed miserably as a bomber and was replaced by the B-1B and by a shorter range fighter the F-15E
The Su-24 was practical and more easy to produce and left the Tu-22M fill the gap between the Tu-160 and the Su-24.
The F-111 at least has 6000 liters more fuel than the Su-24 and some sources say up to 8000 liters.
The Su-24 was built in very large numbers and was exported to more countries
By: Schorsch
- 17th June 2008 at 15:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Su-24 outproduced the F-111, has similar weaponry and the same survability.
Which once again shows that the Soviets considered higher numbers necessary to fulfill the same mission.
Actually, the last F-111 was nearly delivered when the Suchoi 24 was accepted into service. The first truly capable Su-24 (the M) entered service not before the Tornado.
I ask you when has the Su-24 been shot down by western fighters?
Maybe because it never dropped a bomb in anger in an airspace defended by Western fighters?
The Su-24 was made with less range because for the Russians the Tu-22M filled much better the mission the F-111 failed
Maybe they didn't need it, but still from the technical point view the question how a similarly sized aircraft with roughly similar weights can have such a shortfall in performance.
The answer is on the table: less advanced aerodynamics, less advanced engines, less advanced structures.
The Su-24 was practical and more easy to produce and left the Tu-22M fill the gap between the Tu-160 and the Su-24.
Let say it this way: it was cheaper and more expendable, which lines up favorably with Soviet thinking.
The F-111 at least has 6000 liters more fuel than the Su-24 and some sources say up to 8000 liters.
At roughly similar OEW and size, which let's room for the question, what the Suchoi engineers did with all the volume? Stuffed it with analogue electronics?
The Su-24 was built in very large numbers and was exported to more countries
Countries that had equal access to Western and Eastern hardware like Iraq, Lybia, Syria and Algeria. Erhh ... what a minute ... ;)
By the way, when the first -24s were exported in 1988, the F-111 was long out of production and for countries with access to Western markets the Tornado would have been the much much better alternative.
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 17th June 2008 at 15:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Which once again shows that the Soviets considered higher numbers necessary to fulfill the same mission.
Actually, the last F-111 was nearly delivered when the Suchoi 24 was accepted into service. The first truly capable Su-24 (the M) entered service not before the Tornado.
Maybe because it never dropped a bomb in anger in an airspace defended by Western fighters?
Maybe they didn't need it, but still from the technical point view the question how a similarly sized aircraft with roughly similar weights can have such a shortfall in performance.
The answer is on the table: less advanced aerodynamics, less advanced engines, less advanced structures.
Let say it this way: it was cheaper and more expendable, which lines up favorably with Soviet thinking.
At roughly similar OEW and size, which let's room for the question, what the Suchoi engineers did with all the volume? Stuffed it with analogue electronics?
Countries that had equal access to Western and Eastern hardware like Iraq, Lybia, Syria and Algeria. Erhh ... what a minute ... ;)
By the way, when the first -24s were exported in 1988, the F-111 was long out of production and for countries with access to Western markets the Tornado would have been the much much better alternative.
Schorsch
Do not make claism that are unrealistic:
First the Su-24 was never caught by the Western fighters simply because it has terrain following radar, this made it too difficult to catch flying a low speed and having swing wings no F-15, f-16 or even F-14 was going to be able to chase it at Mach 1.35 speed and low altitude.
true the Tornado lost several examples while the Su-24 none in bombing missions, however saying the tornado did better is not true, the Soviets Su-24 flew very close to Pakistani F-16s and never were destroyed, Iraq never was a first class air force, in 1990 the iraqi air force was a third class air force (since it had no aircraft industry)and destroyed Tornados and F-111s, the West chased MiG-23s and Mirage f1s and destroyed them but the Su-24 were capable enouigh to elude any persuers.
The Russians and western defences were capable of destroying either F-111s and Tornados as well as Su-24s, however the Su-24 was as good as the F-111 flying the low level mission
Second The Soviets always built more aircraft because their aircraft always used a great degree of standarization and simplicity allowing a same factory built different aircraft faster
the Su-7 , Su-17, Su-22, Su-11 and Su-9 were basicaly the same model, the MiG-23, MiG-29 and MiG-21 had similar cockpits and systems.
The Su-24 was a simple design avoiding over sophistication, in fact the downing of the Tornados showed simply SAMs and cheaper fighters were able to destroy more expensive systems and that was epitomised when a F-117 was destroyed by a simple SA-3 missile.
in General the Su-24 was as good as the F-111 and was simply a design more practical in terms of price and producibility, not less advanced simply more practical
By the way F-111 were even offered to Germany and England and they did not buy it, too expensive for smaller air forces in NATO and over priced for third world countries only one nation bought it and they bought no much more than Algeria Su-24s
NAPO is a state-owned unitary enterprise with personnel of about 10,000. It specializes in the production of Su-24 frontline bombers and is preparing to launch the serial production of fighter-bombers of a new generation Su-27IB (Su-24, export version Su-32FN). The plant has no orders for such aircraft at the moment. Its financial difficulties lasted throughout the 1990s and only in 1999 the $12 mln contract with Algeria for three Su-24 bombers somewhat improved the situation. A new $120 mln contract for 22 such aircraft was signed with Algeria in 2000. Besides, NAPO is preparing to launch the serial production of the An-38 medium range aircraft.
By: franc
- 17th June 2008 at 16:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Aircraft are best compared by operating empty weight or by maximum take-off weight. In these terms the Suchoi 24 fails miserably against the older F-111, in terms of
- range
- radius
- war load.
Any claims about smaller fuel volume are academic. One rather has to ask why the similarly heavy (in terms of OEW) has substantially less fuel volume.
……
You lost "B" in F-111. That has to be FB-111.
Neither range or radius Su-24 gained with 2x3000liter external fuel tanks are almost equal to F-111 without EFT, meanwhile, Su-24 still can load 5 missiles (3 under fuselage, 2 under wing each), how many missile F-111 can load at this time?
By: Schorsch
- 17th June 2008 at 16:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Do not make claism that are unrealistic
I am working my way down towards the validity of your statements.
First the Su-24 was never caught by the Western fighters simply because it has terrain following radar, this made it too difficult to catch flying a low speed and having swing wings no F-15, F-16 or even F-14 was going to be able to chase it at Mach 1.35 speed and low altitude.
The mentioned aircraft all have look-down radars and can easily follow the aircraft in some altitude. Besides, at deck the Suchoi will hardly hit Mach 1. A continued run at Mach 1 on the deck will let it die on fuel exhaustion.
True the Tornado lost several examples while the Su-24 none in bombing missions, however saying the Tornado did better is not true, the Soviets Su-24 flew very close to Pakistani F-16s and never were destroyed, Iraq never was a first class air force, in 1990 the iraqi air force was a third class air force and destroyed Tornados and F-111s, the West chased MiG-23s and Mirage F1s and destroyed them but the Su-24 were capable enough to elude any persuers.
The main reason why no Suchoi 24 was ever lost in combat was that it never saw combat comparable to the F-111 (Lybia, Iraq) or Tornado (Iraq, Serbia).
Second the Soviets always built more aircraft because their aircraft always used a great degree of standarization and simplicity allowing a same factory built different aircraft faster.
With the little disadvantage that their aircraft needed ages to maturity, the Suchoi 24 entered service over 10 years after design was begun.
The Su-7 , Su-17, Su-22, Su-11 and Su-9 were basicaly the same model, the MiG-23, MiG-29 and MiG-21 had similar cockpits and systems.
That the mainstay of the Soviet air force attack aircraft (Su-17/22) ist "basically the same model" as the first generation supersonic Suchoi 7 is surprising.
The Su-24 was a simple design avoiding over sophistication, in fact the downing of the Tornados showed simply SAMs and cheaper fighters were able to destroy more expensive systems and that was epitomised when a F-117 was destroyed by a simple SA-3 missile.
Stuff your F-117 story. It doesn't fit here.
The Suchoi 24 was surely no "simple aircraft". Although I agree that Western aircraft are often over-sophisticated for particular missions, the Suchoi 24 was a complex and expensive bird. Good indicator of its complexity is the long time needed to make it operational. Would be interesting though to compare the avionics capability of a 1975 Fencer "A" versus an F-111F or F-111D.
in General the Su-24 was as good as the F-111 and was simply a design more practical in terms of price and producibility, not less advanced simply more practical.
In general the Suchoi 24 was the F-111 minus advanced engines and about 8 to 10 years later.
By the way F-111 were even offered to Germany and England and they did not buy it, too expensive for smaller air forces in NATO and over priced for third world countries only one nation bought it and they bought no much more than Algeria Su-24s.
The German air force have not procured any American fighter aircraft after the F-4F. Maybe you see a pattern that led from Starfighter over VAK-191 over NKF to Tornado.
Actually, the Australian bought their F-111 in the 1960ies (that is 40 years ago!). And you compare that with the present discount offer to Algeria? Man, you are really twisting reality.
By: Schorsch
- 17th June 2008 at 16:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Neither range or radius Su-24 gained with 2x3000liter external fuel tanks are almost equal to F-111 without EFT, meanwhile, Su-24 still can load 5 missiles (3 under fuselage, 2 under wing each), how many missile F-111 can load at this time?
I am pretty convinced an F-111F can beat the 330nm mission radius with 4 2000lbs bombs. That is actually the payload the F-111F of the 48th TFW carried in 1986.
By: Sens
- 17th June 2008 at 16:56Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Something "unknown" does beat the Su-24MK by a wide margin, when it does not the F-111 in a similar way. What are the technical secrets of that?
Data from JANE'S
~14,1 tons empty equipped
internal fuel (RAF) 5.090 kg
over 9 tons of external load
over 28 tons MTOW and in overload conditions >30 tons
ferry range > 3900 km
radius of action with heavy weapons-load (hi-lo-lo-hi) 750 nm or 1390 km
Mach 1,2-2,2
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 17th June 2008 at 17:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I am working my way down towards the validity of your statements.
The mentioned aircraft all have look-down radars and can easily follow the aircraft in some altitude. Besides, at deck the Suchoi will hardly hit Mach 1. A continued run at Mach 1 on the deck will let it die on fuel exhaustion.
The main reason why no Suchoi 24 was ever lost in combat was that it never saw combat comparable to the F-111 (Lybia, Iraq) or Tornado (Iraq, Serbia).
With the little disadvantage that their aircraft needed ages to maturity, the Suchoi 24 entered service over 10 years after design was begun.
That the mainstay of the Soviet air force attack aircraft (Su-17/22) ist "basically the same model" as the first generation supersonic Suchoi 7 is surprising.
Stuff your F-117 story. It doesn't fit here.
The Suchoi 24 was surely no "simple aircraft". Although I agree that Western aircraft are often over-sophisticated for particular missions, the Suchoi 24 was a complex and expensive bird. Good indicator of its complexity is the long time needed to make it operational. Would be interesting though to compare the avionics capability of a 1975 Fencer "A" versus an F-111F or F-111D.
In general the Suchoi 24 was the F-111 minus advanced engines and about 8 to 10 years later.
The German air force have not procured any American fighter aircraft after the F-4F. Maybe you see a pattern that led from Starfighter over VAK-191 over NKF to Tornado.
Actually, the Australian bought their F-111 in the 1960ies (that is 40 years ago!). And you compare that with the present discount offer to Algeria? Man, you are really twisting reality.
The Su-24 as the F-111 suffered from low maintainability, the Su-24 Fencer A flew six year after the F-111, true but the F-111 was not ready when it was introduced in Vietnam and several were lost due to " design problems" later to be redesigned and put into production much later remember the F-111 flew in 1964 as a fighter, in a role in which it failed miserably . http://www.f-111.net/t_no_A.htm
Iraq bought its Su-24s in the 1980s.
in fact the F-111 became operational in reality only a year after the Su-24 made its first flight, in fact it flew exactly 38 years ago when the T6-2I performed its initial flight on 17 January 1970.http://www.vectorsite.net/avsu24.html
See this specifications sign for a Su-24 the weight is 39700kg and the max speed is 1400km/h and says it became operational only three years after the F-111 really did it in 1974
Posts: 2,814
By: Levsha - 16th June 2008 at 18:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Oh, I'd think you'd be surprised just how many people on this forum board can actually read po-klingonski!!:diablo::diablo:
Posts: 620
By: franc - 17th June 2008 at 03:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Lockheed official web gave the EW data of Rapator as 19700kg, will you believe it?
Aircraft changed, officer lied always;)
Posts: 620
By: franc - 17th June 2008 at 03:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
translated from what MiG took from Russain web
Posts: 3,718
By: Schorsch - 17th June 2008 at 08:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is funny to see how the internet adapts to reality. While Wikipedia quoted the empty weight with something like 14-15t lately, it was changed to close to 20t recently. I am actually surprised Lockheed Martin gives such detailed weight data on its aircraft. Sure it isn't accurate down to the pound, but it looks as accurate as one would expect.
Posts: 620
By: franc - 17th June 2008 at 10:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
22300kg was adapted by Wiki, the range is clearly wrong, which should be combat radius.
On internet, which one is more logical and reasonable should be judged by self brain.
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 17th June 2008 at 10:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I guess wikipedia is a good source but not always a very reliable one.
For Su-24 specifications i would quote first Sukhoi, later the Ukranian air force and Belarussian Air force and only later other russian webpages
Since all of these present different facets of the same aircraft, i would say the Su-24 has a sea level speed of Mach 1.35 and a max speed of mach 1.6.
The Mach 2 speed might be with VG ramps or a speed not recomended by Sukhoi.
The range should be considered a minimal range of 2775km with two fuel tanks and a probable 3050km or 3800km with three fuel tanks and a confirmed ferry range with one air refueling of 5000km.
the weight should be 22tons empty, 26 tons ready to fly, 27tons minimun weight for landing, 39700kgs regular max operational take off weight and a Sukhoi quoted weight of 43 tons.
Posts: 3,718
By: Schorsch - 17th June 2008 at 11:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
After the assessments I did I find the ~2800km ferry range with two drop tanks quite realistic. The mission radius for lo-lo-lo seems very realistic, too. Data-wise, the Wikipedia article on the Su-24MK looks as one of the better ones.
The most unreliable information source is normally the operator of an aircraft.
Most reliable are normally "merged" information sources, like Wikipedia and some other web resources (quite OK is vectorsite).
In general, most "sources" copy from each other. Some include wishful thinking. Sometimes people cannot see the difference between a mission radius and a range, and often the values given are "best" values. A real mission includes lots of reserves and allowances. The 330nm for the Suchoi 24MK in a lo-lo-lo mission profile are not a bad figure, by the way.
Posts: 1,856
By: dionis - 17th June 2008 at 11:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A 600KM low level intrusion mission seems exactly what it was designed for, parked near the enemy territory flying missions from rough fields. Designed for real use, not being parked on a runway.
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 17th June 2008 at 11:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I would not consider the Ukranian and Belarrusian air forces as unreliable their webpages only show different aspects of the Su-24 performance, Sukhoi does the same Sukhoi claims a range under some specific conditions even the speed seems to be only the speed for a sea level or low altitude mission,
The max take off weight is the same in the Ukranian and Belarrussian air forces respective webpages.
максимальна злітна вага - 39700 кг 39700kg max take off this is the Ukranian air forcehttp://www.mil.gov.ua/index.php?part=armament&lang=ua&sub=vps
The Belarussian air force
Максимальная взлётная масса, кг - 39700 /39700kg max take off weighthttp://mod.mil.by/s31su24.html
however Sukhoi cliams a higher take off weight see
Takeoff weight:
- normal, kg 38,040
- maximum, kg 43,755
http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su24mk/lth/
Sukhoi and the Belarrusian agree in the max speed, the ukranian air force agrees too but also posts a higher speed (probably under different coonditions)
sukhoi Maximum flight speed at sea level (without external ordnance and stores), km/h 1,315
Max Mach (without external ordnance and stores) 1.35
http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su24mk/lth/
максимальна швидкість - 1400 км/год the Ukranian air force also quotes 1400km/h http://www.mil.gov.ua/index.php?part=armament&lang=ua&sub=vps
The Belarrussian air force also claims something similar Максимальная скорость полёта, км/час - 1320http://mod.mil.by/s31su24.html
however th Ukrainian air force claims a higher speed only in its english version Maximum speed - 2240 kmphhttp://www.mil.gov.ua/index.php?lang=en&part=armament&sub=air_force
The Ukranian air force webpage has a range almost equal to the belarrussian air force and also a longer range than the one quoted by Sukhoi.
Sukhoi Ferry flight range with 2xPTB-3000 external fuel tanks, km:
- with PTB external fuel tanks dropped 2,775
- with one in-flight refuelling 5,000
http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su24mk/lth/
See how the Ukranian and belarrusian air force more or less concord
Ukranian air force дальність польоту - 2080 км range 2080km
http://www.mil.gov.ua/index.php?part=armament&lang=ua&sub=vps and see is almost the same range for the belarusian air force
Дальность полёта, км - 2500 max range 2500km
http://mod.mil.by/s31su24.html
however the Ukranian air force quotes a very long range for the Su-24
Range - 3800 km
http://www.mil.gov.ua/index.php?lang=en&part=armament&sub=air_force
Posts: 3,718
By: Schorsch - 17th June 2008 at 12:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Still, the F-111 achieves better radius for similar mission profile.
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 17th June 2008 at 12:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That is not necesarily true, if you consider what Sukhoi says with a Max take off weight of 43tons it has a worst range but if you take what is the operational weight according to the Ukranian air force, Belarrusian air force and many other sources like Yefim gordon or airwar.ru, the Su-24 carries much much less fuel and they are not exactly comparable if you do not have the exact same amount of fuel.
The max take off weight is the same in the Ukranian and Belarrussian air forces respective webpages.
максимальна злітна вага - 39700 кг 39700kg max take off this is the Ukranian air force http://www.mil.gov.ua/index.php?part...ang=ua&sub=vps http://www.mil.gov.ua/index.php?part...ang=ua&sub=vps
The Belarussian air force
Максимальная взлётная масса, кг - 39700 /39700kg max take off weight http://mod.mil.by/s31su24.html http://mod.mil.by/s31su24.html
however Sukhoi claims a higher take off weight see
Takeoff weight:
- normal, kg 38,040
- maximum, kg 43,755
http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su24mk/lth/
by SFC the AL-21 is not super fuel thirsty. The range might be better but not substantially better only marginally depending in the data you use
Posts: 3,718
By: Schorsch - 17th June 2008 at 13:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Aircraft are best compared by operating empty weight or by maximum take-off weight. In these terms the Suchoi 24 fails miserably against the older F-111, in terms of
- range
- radius
- war load.
Any claims about smaller fuel volume are academic. One rather has to ask why the similarly heavy (in terms of OEW) has substantially less fuel volume.
I further doubt that a 1991 Suchoi 24M/MF can have the punch the F-111F displayed during GW#1. Or that a Suchoi 24M/MF can fly the mission the 48th TFW flew in 1986.
In short: the Suchoi 24 falls short in technology and capability despite being younger. it still was a major capability improvement for the Soviet forces, as it represented the first all-weather capable fighter bomber with useful payload-range characteristics and useful defensive electronics. It filled a gap between the smallest bomber and the largest fighter-bomber.
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 17th June 2008 at 13:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That is not true, you say it fails not true, that is just a cliche exposed by you and sens to claim the Tornado is better disguised as the F-111.
The Su-24 outproduced the F-111, has similar weaponry and the same survability.
I ask you when has the Su-24 been shot down by western fighters? Do you know the pakistani F-16s attacked several times soviet Su-24s and never nailed a single one? are you aware the Iraqi Su-24s escaped without a single lost to Iran when the west had total superiority in fourth generation fighters?
The Su-24 was made with less range because for the Russians the Tu-22M filled much better the mission the F-111 failed, yeah the FB-111 failed miserably as a bomber and was replaced by the B-1B and by a shorter range fighter the F-15E
The Su-24 was practical and more easy to produce and left the Tu-22M fill the gap between the Tu-160 and the Su-24.
The F-111 at least has 6000 liters more fuel than the Su-24 and some sources say up to 8000 liters.
The Su-24 was built in very large numbers and was exported to more countries
Posts: 3,718
By: Schorsch - 17th June 2008 at 15:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Which once again shows that the Soviets considered higher numbers necessary to fulfill the same mission.
Actually, the last F-111 was nearly delivered when the Suchoi 24 was accepted into service. The first truly capable Su-24 (the M) entered service not before the Tornado.
Maybe because it never dropped a bomb in anger in an airspace defended by Western fighters?
Maybe they didn't need it, but still from the technical point view the question how a similarly sized aircraft with roughly similar weights can have such a shortfall in performance.
The answer is on the table: less advanced aerodynamics, less advanced engines, less advanced structures.
Let say it this way: it was cheaper and more expendable, which lines up favorably with Soviet thinking.
At roughly similar OEW and size, which let's room for the question, what the Suchoi engineers did with all the volume? Stuffed it with analogue electronics?
Countries that had equal access to Western and Eastern hardware like Iraq, Lybia, Syria and Algeria. Erhh ... what a minute ... ;)
By the way, when the first -24s were exported in 1988, the F-111 was long out of production and for countries with access to Western markets the Tornado would have been the much much better alternative.
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 17th June 2008 at 15:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Schorsch
Do not make claism that are unrealistic:
First the Su-24 was never caught by the Western fighters simply because it has terrain following radar, this made it too difficult to catch flying a low speed and having swing wings no F-15, f-16 or even F-14 was going to be able to chase it at Mach 1.35 speed and low altitude.
true the Tornado lost several examples while the Su-24 none in bombing missions, however saying the tornado did better is not true, the Soviets Su-24 flew very close to Pakistani F-16s and never were destroyed, Iraq never was a first class air force, in 1990 the iraqi air force was a third class air force (since it had no aircraft industry)and destroyed Tornados and F-111s, the West chased MiG-23s and Mirage f1s and destroyed them but the Su-24 were capable enouigh to elude any persuers.
The Russians and western defences were capable of destroying either F-111s and Tornados as well as Su-24s, however the Su-24 was as good as the F-111 flying the low level mission
Second The Soviets always built more aircraft because their aircraft always used a great degree of standarization and simplicity allowing a same factory built different aircraft faster
the Su-7 , Su-17, Su-22, Su-11 and Su-9 were basicaly the same model, the MiG-23, MiG-29 and MiG-21 had similar cockpits and systems.
The Su-24 was a simple design avoiding over sophistication, in fact the downing of the Tornados showed simply SAMs and cheaper fighters were able to destroy more expensive systems and that was epitomised when a F-117 was destroyed by a simple SA-3 missile.
in General the Su-24 was as good as the F-111 and was simply a design more practical in terms of price and producibility, not less advanced simply more practical
By the way F-111 were even offered to Germany and England and they did not buy it, too expensive for smaller air forces in NATO and over priced for third world countries only one nation bought it and they bought no much more than Algeria Su-24s
NAPO is a state-owned unitary enterprise with personnel of about 10,000. It specializes in the production of Su-24 frontline bombers and is preparing to launch the serial production of fighter-bombers of a new generation Su-27IB (Su-24, export version Su-32FN). The plant has no orders for such aircraft at the moment. Its financial difficulties lasted throughout the 1990s and only in 1999 the $12 mln contract with Algeria for three Su-24 bombers somewhat improved the situation. A new $120 mln contract for 22 such aircraft was signed with Algeria in 2000. Besides, NAPO is preparing to launch the serial production of the An-38 medium range aircraft.
http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/3-2001/di/sgpst/
Posts: 620
By: franc - 17th June 2008 at 16:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You lost "B" in F-111. That has to be FB-111.
Neither range or radius Su-24 gained with 2x3000liter external fuel tanks are almost equal to F-111 without EFT, meanwhile, Su-24 still can load 5 missiles (3 under fuselage, 2 under wing each), how many missile F-111 can load at this time?
Posts: 3,718
By: Schorsch - 17th June 2008 at 16:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I am working my way down towards the validity of your statements.
The mentioned aircraft all have look-down radars and can easily follow the aircraft in some altitude. Besides, at deck the Suchoi will hardly hit Mach 1. A continued run at Mach 1 on the deck will let it die on fuel exhaustion.
The main reason why no Suchoi 24 was ever lost in combat was that it never saw combat comparable to the F-111 (Lybia, Iraq) or Tornado (Iraq, Serbia).
With the little disadvantage that their aircraft needed ages to maturity, the Suchoi 24 entered service over 10 years after design was begun.
That the mainstay of the Soviet air force attack aircraft (Su-17/22) ist "basically the same model" as the first generation supersonic Suchoi 7 is surprising.
Stuff your F-117 story. It doesn't fit here.
The Suchoi 24 was surely no "simple aircraft". Although I agree that Western aircraft are often over-sophisticated for particular missions, the Suchoi 24 was a complex and expensive bird. Good indicator of its complexity is the long time needed to make it operational. Would be interesting though to compare the avionics capability of a 1975 Fencer "A" versus an F-111F or F-111D.
In general the Suchoi 24 was the F-111 minus advanced engines and about 8 to 10 years later.
The German air force have not procured any American fighter aircraft after the F-4F. Maybe you see a pattern that led from Starfighter over VAK-191 over NKF to Tornado.
Actually, the Australian bought their F-111 in the 1960ies (that is 40 years ago!). And you compare that with the present discount offer to Algeria? Man, you are really twisting reality.
Posts: 3,718
By: Schorsch - 17th June 2008 at 16:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I am pretty convinced an F-111F can beat the 330nm mission radius with 4 2000lbs bombs. That is actually the payload the F-111F of the 48th TFW carried in 1986.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 17th June 2008 at 16:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Something "unknown" does beat the Su-24MK by a wide margin, when it does not the F-111 in a similar way. What are the technical secrets of that?
Data from JANE'S
~14,1 tons empty equipped
internal fuel (RAF) 5.090 kg
over 9 tons of external load
over 28 tons MTOW and in overload conditions >30 tons
ferry range > 3900 km
radius of action with heavy weapons-load (hi-lo-lo-hi) 750 nm or 1390 km
Mach 1,2-2,2
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 17th June 2008 at 17:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Su-24 as the F-111 suffered from low maintainability, the Su-24 Fencer A flew six year after the F-111, true but the F-111 was not ready when it was introduced in Vietnam and several were lost due to " design problems" later to be redesigned and put into production much later remember the F-111 flew in 1964 as a fighter, in a role in which it failed miserably .
http://www.f-111.net/t_no_A.htm
Iraq bought its Su-24s in the 1980s.
in fact the F-111 became operational in reality only a year after the Su-24 made its first flight, in fact it flew exactly 38 years ago when the T6-2I performed its initial flight on 17 January 1970.http://www.vectorsite.net/avsu24.html
See this specifications sign for a Su-24 the weight is 39700kg and the max speed is 1400km/h and says it became operational only three years after the F-111 really did it in 1974