Key Points and Summary – The Sukhoi Su-34 “Fullback,” one of Russia’s most modern fighter-bombers, has had a disastrous performance in the war against Ukraine.
-Nicknamed the “platypus” for its flat nose, the aircraft is slower than its Western rivals and lacks stealth, making it highly vulnerable.
-Despite a decent showing in the permissive skies over Syria, it has failed to achieve air superiority in Ukraine.
-With as many as 36 jets shot down or destroyed on the ground, Russia has been forced to pull the Su-34 back from the front lines, relegating it to a standoff missile launcher.
How Fast Is Russia’s Su-34 Fullback?
Russia’s Su-34 fighter jet has a top speed of MACH 1.8 or 1,367 miles per hour. This is slower than Soviet-origin warplanes, such as the Su-27 Flanker, which has a top speed of Mach 2.35, making the Flanker one of the fastest fighters in the world.
The Su-34 Fullback was meant to challenge the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon, but it is slower than both. The Russians believed that the Fullback would serve as a fighter-bomber, and its ground strike capabilities would compensate for its slower speed.
Diminutive Nicknames Portend Trouble
The Su-34 features two engines and a two-seat configuration. The airplane has a flat nose and some Russians refer to it as the “platypus” or “duckling.” The Su-34 entered service in 2014 and is one of the most modern fighter-bombers in the Russian fleet. It can be considered a fourth-generation “++” airplane.
The Su-34 Has a Long History
The Su-34 dates back to the Cold War, when the Soviets sought to replace the Su-24 Fencer and the MiG-27 Flogger, as well as the Su-25 Frogfoot. These were aging and near-obsolete platforms.
The Su-34 was supposed to be versatile enough to outfly enemy interceptors in air superiority mode and survive in a multi-threat environment. The Russians also wanted ground strike capability that could destroy surface targets like a medium bomber.
Designers and engineers even envisioned the Su-34 to sink ships.
The Fullback Emulates the Flanker
The Su-27 Flanker served as the inspiration for the Su-34 Fullback. The Su-27 was seen as a supermaneuverable warbird that performed many daredevil moves, keeping pilots salivating. Perhaps the Fullback could emulate the Flanker and be a more survivable beast.
End of the Cold War Was Almost the End for the Program
A prototype for the Fullback, known as the T-10V-1, first flew in 1990. However, the program’s development was subsequently overshadowed by events. The Soviet Union disintegrated the following year, and the air force and its defense contractors were thrown into a tizzy.
What airplanes would survive and be produced during this time of upheaval? There were fewer rubles to go around, and the new Russia did not even know who its enemy would be. This was a perilous time for the Fullback as its future was uncertain.
Hence, the Su-34 was placed on hold for ten years. It finally entered service in 2014. One positive aspect of this delay was that the airplane became more modernized than envisioned, as aerospace technology had progressed dramatically since the end of the Cold War.
However, the Su-34’s original platform design would hinder its advancement to compete fully with the United States and NATO. Engineers initially concentrated on the Su-34’s ability to evade air defenses in the 1990s.
However, these systems had progressed further by 2014, with the American Patriot interceptor batteries advancing to greater efficacy, while the Su-34 was in a pause mode during the 1990s and early 2000s.
This resulted in a mixed bag of capabilities for the Su-34. In Syria, the Fullback pulled its weight and dominated ground targets without having to deal with modern air defenses. But when flying over Ukraine in the present-day war, performance was limited. It was facing Ukraine’s multi-layered defenses and never attained air superiority.
Cockpit, Radar, and Targeting Mechanisms
One defining characteristic of the Su-34 is its cockpit. This is pilot-friendly with all the modern features you would expect on a fourth-generation “++” warbird. The forward armor is heavy and effective, ensuring the pilot and weapons systems officer are safe during in-air engagements or bombing runs.
The Su-34 is supposed to be highly survivable with excellent forward and rearward radar situated in the airplane’s nose. The Platan electro-optical targeting system is top-notch and made for battle. This has a television camera and laser designator for better precision-guided munition strikes. The Electronic Warfare suite is superb, as it can jam and spoof enemy radar, while also foiling incoming missiles.
The airplane is powered by the MMPP Salyut AL-31F-M2/3 or NPO Saturn 117 engines.
However, the lack of stealth has been a problem. Since the Su-34 is more of a bomber than a fighter, it has not achieved the level of efficacy in Ukraine that the Russians had hoped for. The extra armor has made it heavier and less fast and maneuverable. The pilot and weapons systems officer try their best, but the Fullback has still endured trouble over Ukraine.
Ukrainian drone strikes and missiles from ATACMS have destroyed and damaged Su-34s on the ground. Perhaps as many as 36 Su-34s have been removed from battle by enemy forces. An American-provided F-16 shot down a Fullback last autumn.
The Russians have responded by keeping the Fullback from flying over Ukrainian airspace and ordered it to lag back to launch cruise missiles and glide bombs. The airplanes are now stored deeper from the frontlines to protect them from enemy drone attacks.
Defense contractors are producing more Fullback Systems, but the Ukrainians appear to have the upper hand with better and more maneuverable fighters, such as the F-16, and long-range ground strikes.
Slower speed and a lack of stealth have been problems. The Fullback has now been mostly relegated to ground strike roles rather than air superiority, and it hasn’t enjoyed a great war over Ukraine. This must be disappointing to Vladimir Putin’s air force since the airplane has not achieved air dominance.
About the Author: Dr. Brent M. Eastwood
Brent M. Eastwood, PhD is the author of Don’t Turn Your Back On the World: a Conservative Foreign Policy and Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare plus two other books. Brent was the founder and CEO of a tech firm that predicted world events using artificial intelligence. He served as a legislative fellow for U.S. Senator Tim Scott and advised the senator on defense and foreign policy issues. He has taught at American University, George Washington University, and George Mason University. Brent is a former U.S. Army Infantry officer. He can be followed on X @BMEastwood.
Hypersonic Weapons In-Depth
Russia’s Hypersonic Missiles Summed Up in 4 Words
