Foreword:
In the Russian-Ukrainian war, the performance of Su-34 fighters has attracted widespread attention. Whether it was shot down by a Patriot missile or an F-16 fighter, it revealed the unfavorable situation of the Sushi fighter in the face of NATO's air defense system or NATO's air combat system. This article will take a deeper look at the Su-34's performance, fighter design, missile technology, and the strategic background of the Russia-Ukraine war to reveal the technical differences and tactical responses.
1. Design and performance of Su-34:
The Su-34 fighter is designed with titanium alloy armor that is protected outside the cockpit, which provides effective protection for the pilot. This design has shown a bright spot in the Russia-Ukraine war, highlighting how much more valuable pilots are in war than the warplanes themselves. A similar scenario was seen in the Battle of Great Britain in World War II, where both sides invested significant resources in rescue operations.
The Su-34 has a shorter range of gliding guided bombs, but in the face of Patriot missiles, it is not the Su-34 itself that is a problem. The Patriot missile has a range of 160 kilometers, far exceeding the gliding guided bombs of the Su-34, and the Su-34 must drop bombs at a higher altitude, increasing the probability of being detected by enemy radar. In the later stage, the Russian army may choose missiles with a longer range, such as the KH59 series of cruise missiles, or use more stealthy fighters such as the Su-57 to carry out high-risk missions.
2. Technical comparison of Patriot missiles and Su-34:
The range and radar detection range of the Patriot missile are challenges that the Su-34 will find difficult to overcome. The Su-34 has a relatively limited range of gliding bombs, while the Patriot missile can detect targets hundreds of kilometers away. This difference in technology explains why the Su-34 performs less favorably against Patriot missiles. However, this is not a question of the design of the aircraft, but a consideration of the level of technology and tactical choice.
3. Differences in fighter technology and actual combat responses
A technical comparison of the F-16 shows that the J-16 fighter has a natural advantage in radar system, maneuverability and missile performance. The J-16 is equipped with an advanced "active phased array" radar with a wider detection range, greater maneuverability, and a missile with a larger range. This difference in technology makes the J-16 more proactive in a duel with the F-16.
Fourth, the analysis at the strategic level:
The reason for the Russian dispatch of Su-34 fighters on the mission was to solve the problem of Ukrainian landing sites located on the left bank of the Dnieper River. The site is close to Crimea and is strategically important for both Russia and Ukraine. Both Russia and Ukraine are aware that this place could become a key point of strategic victory in the future. In addition, the analysis of the Patriot missile also reveals that in modern warfare, attention to missile range and radar detection range is crucial.
Conclusion: The performance of the Su-34 fighter in the Russian-Ukrainian war has triggered deep thinking about modern military technology and tactics. Technological differences, strategic considerations, and actual combat responses all contribute to the complexity of warfare. Through the analysis of these aspects, this article hopes that readers can have a more comprehensive understanding of the status and challenges of the Su-34 fighter in modern warfare.