(Photo) Su-24 Flanker or MiG-23/MiG-27?

[David E. Powell]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2008/08/08/GA2008080802276.html?sid=ST2008080802320

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2008/08/08/
GA2008080802276.html?sid=ST2008080802320>

Looks like the Flanker but I could be wrong, I can't quite tell if
that is a single or double exhaust. Photo #10. I saw reports of Su-24s
in the area before but this is the first photo I've seen from this
fighting that looks like one.

[guy]

On 10 Aug, 17:27, "David E. Powell" > wrote:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2008/08/08/GA200...
>
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2008/08/08/
> GA2008080802276.html?sid=ST2008080802320>
>
> Looks like the Flanker but I could be wrong, I can't quite tell if
> that is a single or double exhaust. Photo #10. I saw reports of Su-24s
> in the area before but this is the first photo I've seen from this
> fighting that looks like one.

Fencer not Flanker:-) It seems to have that slightly upturned nose of
the Su24

Guy

[George Ruch]

"David E. Powell" > wrote:

>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2008/08/08/GA2008080802276.html?sid=ST2008080802320
>
>Looks like the Flanker but I could be wrong, I can't quite tell if
>that is a single or double exhaust. Photo #10. [...]

It looks more like an SU-24 Fencer
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/su-24.htm).
Distinguishing marks are the radome, vertical stab, and the
external fuel tank mounting.
--
George Ruch
"Is there life in Clovis after Clovis Man?"

[Andrew Chaplin]

"George Ruch" > wrote in message
...
> "David E. Powell" > wrote:
>
>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2008/08/08/GA2008080802276.html?sid=ST2008080802320
>>
>>Looks like the Flanker but I could be wrong, I can't quite tell if
>>that is a single or double exhaust. Photo #10. [...]
>
> It looks more like an SU-24 Fencer
> (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/su-24.htm).
> Distinguishing marks are the radome, vertical stab, and the
> external fuel tank mounting.

Definitely FENCER: single vert stab and variable geometry, no deep ventral
strake, the latter ruling out FLOGGER. The thought of regiments of these
flying with ARMs kept us air defenders in West Germany awake at night as we
updated our estimates and recalculated our ammo expenditure rates.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[TJ]

On 10 Aug, 17:27, "David E. Powell" > wrote:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2008/08/08/GA200...
>
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2008/08/08/
> GA2008080802276.html?sid=ST2008080802320>
>
> Looks like the Flanker but I could be wrong, I can't quite tell if
> that is a single or double exhaust. Photo #10. I saw reports of Su-24s
> in the area before but this is the first photo I've seen from this
> fighting that looks like one.

Su-24 Fencer E. It is the dedicated recce variant.

TJ

[TJ]

On 10 Aug, 17:27, "David E. Powell" > wrote:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2008/08/08/GA200...
>
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2008/08/08/
> GA2008080802276.html?sid=ST2008080802320>
>
> Looks like the Flanker but I could be wrong, I can't quite tell if
> that is a single or double exhaust. Photo #10. I saw reports of Su-24s
> in the area before but this is the first photo I've seen from this
> fighting that looks like one.

Sorry, forgot to add Su-24MR.

TJ

[TJ]

On 10 Aug, 17:27, "David E. Powell" > wrote:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2008/08/08/GA200...
>
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2008/08/08/
> GA2008080802276.html?sid=ST2008080802320>
>
> Looks like the Flanker but I could be wrong, I can't quite tell if
> that is a single or double exhaust. Photo #10. I saw reports of Su-24s
> in the area before but this is the first photo I've seen from this
> fighting that looks like one.

The Russians retired the MiG-23/27 Flogger during the 1990s.

TJ

[Peter A. Stoll[_2_]]

TJ > wrote in news:0f878b65-e29f-4579-8e2c-fcc199819d73@
34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

> On 10 Aug, 17:27, "David E. Powell" > wrote:
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2008/08/08/GA200...
>>
>> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2008/08/08/
>> GA2008080802276.html?sid=ST2008080802320>
>>
>> Looks like the Flanker but I could be wrong, I can't quite tell if
>> that is a single or double exhaust. Photo #10. I saw reports of Su-24s
>> in the area before but this is the first photo I've seen from this
>> fighting that looks like one.
>
> Su-24 Fencer E. It is the dedicated recce variant.
>
> TJ

Thank you both, I've looked several times at that picture and failed to
place it.

The nose on this one looks a bit longer than on the data in my book--is
that a difference in this variant from early ones?

[TJ]

On 10 Aug, 21:53, "Peter A. Stoll" >
wrote:
> TJ > wrote in news:0f878b65-e29f-4579-8e2c-fcc199819d73@
> 34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On 10 Aug, 17:27, "David E. Powell" > wrote:
> >>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2008/08/08/GA200...
>
> >> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2008/08/08/
> >> GA2008080802276.html?sid=ST2008080802320>
>
> >> Looks like the Flanker but I could be wrong, I can't quite tell if
> >> that is a single or double exhaust. Photo #10. I saw reports of Su-24s
> >> in the area before but this is the first photo I've seen from this
> >> fighting that looks like one.
>
> > Su-24 Fencer E. It is the dedicated recce variant.
>
> > TJ
>
> Thank you both, I've looked several times at that picture and failed to
> place it.
>
> The nose on this one looks a bit longer than on the data in my book--is
> that a difference in this variant from early ones?

Apologies. I've just had another look at it by blowing up the image.
It isn't an Su-24MR, but a Su-24M Fencer D. This is the strike
version. I was thinking that the pod under the wing was the pod
carried by the Su-24MR. The 'pod' on the wing pylon is a munition. The
Su-24MR Fencer E has a shortened nose.

TJ

[David E. Powell]

On Aug 10, 1:56*pm, "Andrew Chaplin"
> wrote:
> "George Ruch" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > "David E. Powell" > wrote:
>
> >>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2008/08/08/GA200....
>
> >>Looks like the Flanker but I could be wrong, I can't quite tell if
> >>that is a single or double exhaust. Photo #10. [...]
>
> > It looks more like an SU-24 Fencer
> > (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/su-24.htm).
> > Distinguishing marks are the radome, vertical stab, and the
> > external fuel tank mounting.
>
> Definitely FENCER: single vert stab and variable geometry, no deep ventral
> strake, the latter ruling out FLOGGER. The thought of regiments of these
> flying with ARMs kept us air defenders in West Germany awake at night as we
> updated our estimates and recalculated our ammo expenditure rates.
> --
> Andrew Chaplin
> SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
> (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

Thank you guys. I'm sorry, I got so caught in the moment I confused my
NATO designations :*(

* = Blush

Recon Fencer then? For stuff like the long strikes into certain areas
I could see them being used.

Has a lot of attack missions it can be configured for, everything from
naval attack to Maverick-type missiles to laser guided I am guessing.
Wonder if the Russians have some sort of JDAM type unit tied into
their GLONASS system or even GPS?

[[email protected]]

should be Recon Fencer

Yuri

[David E. Powell]

On Aug 10, 1:56*pm, "Andrew Chaplin"
> wrote:
> "George Ruch" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > "David E. Powell" > wrote:
>
> >>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2008/08/08/GA200....
>
> >>Looks like the Flanker but I could be wrong, I can't quite tell if
> >>that is a single or double exhaust. Photo #10. [...]
>
> > It looks more like anSU-24Fencer
> > (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/su-24.htm).
> > Distinguishing marks are the radome, vertical stab, and the
> > external fuel tank mounting.
>
> Definitely FENCER: single vert stab and variable geometry, no deep ventral
> strake, the latter ruling out FLOGGER. The thought of regiments of these
> flying with ARMs kept us air defenders in West Germany awake at night as we
> updated our estimates and recalculated our ammo expenditure rates.

Thank you.

My main knowledge of the Su-24 came from playing "Harpoon" where I
found it to be a great "go to" plane for just about any kind of attack
mission. Want to go after land targets? Hang iron or guided bombs and
the Fencer is your plane. Want to go after ships? Hang air to ground
or anti ship missiles and the Fencer is your plane. Want to shoot at
just about anything else? Load whatever you want from a pretty large
catalog, and the Fencer is still your plane.

That was all for a game, and you have much more knowledge of the type
than I do.

I got into this, actually, after the fall of the Berlin wall, so I
sort of wondered if the Russians had held on to any of their stocks of
older weapons to use against terrorists, etc. where the new stuff
might not be needed. I guess they have plenty of the newer ones now,
though.

the Su-24 just always struck me as am impressive machine.

> --
> Andrew Chaplin
> SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
> (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[150flivver]

SU-24 = F-111 wannabe :)

[Venik]

150flivver wrote:
> SU-24 = F-111 wannabe :)

That's why F-111 is still in service and Su-24 has been long-retired.
Oh, wait a minute...

--
Venik
-------------------------------
http://venik4.livejournal.com/

[Venik]

Clark wrote:
> Venik > wrote in
> :
>
>> 150flivver wrote:
>>> SU-24 = F-111 wannabe :)
>> That's why F-111 is still in service and Su-24 has been long-retired.
>> Oh, wait a minute...
>>
> You do realize the F-111 is still in service...
>
>

So is MiG-17. That's not the point.

--
Venik
-------------------------------
http://venik4.livejournal.com/

[Tex Houston[_2_]]

"Clark" > wrote in message
...
> Venik > wrote in
> :
>
>> 150flivver wrote:
>>> SU-24 = F-111 wannabe :)
>>
>> That's why F-111 is still in service and Su-24 has been long-retired.
>> Oh, wait a minute...
>>
> You do realize the F-111 is still in service...

Where...I think you're wrong.

Tex Houston

[Peter A. Stoll[_2_]]

"Tex Houston" > wrote in news:4
:

> "Clark" > wrote in message
> ...
>> You do realize the F-111 is still in service...
>
> Where...I think you're wrong.
>
> Tex Houston
>
Was Australia until very recently--and, I think, has started to retire
ships in 2007 with all currently scheduled out in 2010.

Standing by for correction.

[[email protected]]

>SU-24 = F-111
sure, it has exactly the same role

still in use, being (very) slowly replaced by Su-34

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34

Yuri

[[email protected]]

it could be still in (limited) service within RAAF

Aussies are you there ? reply, please

Yuri

[TJ]

On 13 Aug, 12:13, Clark > wrote:
> Venik > wrote in news:-
> :
>
> > Clark wrote:
> >> Venik > wrote in
> :
>
> >>> 150flivver wrote:
> >>>> SU-24 = F-111 wannabe :)
> >>> That's why F-111 is still in service and Su-24 has been long-retired.
> >>> Oh, wait a minute...
>
> >> You do realize the F-111 is still in service...
>
> > So is MiG-17. That's not the point.
>
> Let's see here now, you tried to imply that the F-111 isn't in service and
> then say the fact that it's still in service isn't the point. Perhaps you
> should attempt to clarify your argument. I'd suggest that you try to make a
> rational point rather than a self-conflicted point.
>
> --
> ---
> there should be a "sig" here

Venik hasn't a clue about military aircraft. He freely admitted that
back in 1999 with his rants on NATO losses.

Check out his mindset when trying to justify to himself and convince
others about huge NATO losses.

Really worth a read if you want a laugh.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/natodownfaq.htm

TJ

[David E. Powell]

On Aug 13, 4:07*am, wrote:
> >SU-24 = F-111
>
> sure, it has exactly the same role
>
> still in use, being (very) slowly replaced by Su-34
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34
>
> Yuri

Su-34 is pretty cool, Wikipedia mentions it and the Su-25 as the only
armored atack aircraft in production, I guess they applied some of the
Su-25 and A-10 lessons to it (As well as the IL-2 Sturmovik
background.) It's a bit like a F-15E mission-wise, but different too.
(Especially with the maritime stuff.)

I wouldn't be suprised if the Su-24 stayed in service in some numbers
even after the Su-34 starts getting out in deployment, it is quite
capable. I wonder if surplus Su-24s would have any buyers? It's still
quite a capable plane.

I'm guessing Russia won't be exporting the Su-34 anytime soon?

The F-111 is still in use with the Australians, they're probably
replacing it with F/A-18, though it certainly is a useful and unique
aircraft.

[[email protected]]

The Su-34 is in 'slow production mode', never heard that anybody looks
to buy/order it, it looks almost like pre-canceled project, Sukhoi is
now fully occupied with 5G, the right move, cos' F-22 is already in
the air ! :)

Yuri

[frank]

On Aug 12, 8:49*pm, Clark > wrote:
> Venik > wrote om:
>
> > 150flivver wrote:
> >> SU-24 = F-111 wannabe :)
>
> > That's why F-111 is still in service and Su-24 has been long-retired.
> > Oh, wait a minute...
>
> You do realize the F-111 is still in service...
>
> --
> ---
> there should be a "sig" here

Nope. F-111 and all the variants were retired thanks to Dick Cheney
after Desert Storm.

Aussies may have some, but they would be the only nation still flying
them.

I worked on the DFCS program, Digital Flight Control System was to
upgrade the F-111 to digital system. Did a ton of flights, AF didn't
buy it, RAAF wasn't interested. System worked, but no buyers.

F-111 was retired soon after that.

There were no replacements for a medium range strategic bomber, which
is what it was.

And so it goes...

[Venik]

Clark wrote:

> I'm not an Aussie but the F-111 is still in service. More to the point is
> fact that the F-111 was replaced in US service by something better while the
> Russians cannot seem to replace the Su-24 even though much better aircraft
> are available.
>

According to a Jane's report I read almost a year ago, the Aussie
F-111s, while officially in service until 2010, are no longer in
operation. They even held an official "retirement" party. They might
have started flying them again - I don't know.

The Su-27IB is, no doubt, a more capable aircraft than the Su-24.
However, the difference in capabilities is not that striking, in my
opinion. With a few upgrades, the Su-24 can still match the best Western
types in the same class.

--
Venik
-------------------------------
http://venik4.livejournal.com/
http://www.aeronautics.ru/