On a recent Friday in Omdurman, a city just across the Nile River from Sudan’s capital, Khartoum, the Rapid Support Forces [RSF], a paramilitary group locked in a brutal civil war, claimed a significant strike against the Sudanese Armed Forces [SAF].
According to multiple reports circulating on social media platforms like X, the RSF used a drone—potentially a Chinese-made Feihong FH-95 unmanned combat aerial vehicle [UCAV]—to destroy a supersonic tactical bomber belonging to the Sudanese Air Force.
The aircraft, identified by the RSF and several analysts as a Sukhoi Su-24, was reportedly obliterated in the attack, marking a notable escalation in the use of drone technology in Sudan’s ongoing conflict.
The strike, which occurred in a city that has seen intense fighting since the war began in April 2023, underscores the increasing role of foreign-supplied drones in a war that has already claimed tens of thousands of lives and displaced millions.
The incident took place in Omdurman, a strategically important city in the greater Khartoum metropolitan area, which includes Khartoum, Omdurman, and Bahri.
These three cities, often referred to as the “triangular capital,” have been at the heart of the conflict between the SAF, led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and the RSF, commanded by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, widely known as Hemedti.
The war erupted nearly two years ago over disagreements about integrating the RSF into the national military as part of a transition to civilian rule—a process that has been stalled by power struggles and violence.
The RSF’s claim of destroying a Sudanese Air Force bomber with a drone highlights not only the group’s growing military capabilities but also the involvement of foreign powers in Sudan’s civil war, as the Feihong FH-95 drone is a product of Chinese manufacturing, and the RSF is known to have acquired several such drones.
However, the exact identity of the aircraft has sparked debate among military analysts and observers. While the RSF and some sources assert that the destroyed plane was a Sukhoi Su-24, a Soviet-era supersonic tactical bomber designed for low-level strike missions, others have suggested it might be a MiG-23, another Soviet-designed aircraft known for its variable-geometry wings and use as a fighter-bomber.
The confusion stems in part from the low-quality imagery of the incident, which appears to have been captured from a drone’s targeting system and shared widely on social media. The grainy footage shows an aircraft on the ground, viewed from above, moments before an explosion engulfs it. The lack of clear markings or detailed features in the video has fueled speculation about the plane’s model.
To better understand the aircraft’s identity, a closer examination of its visible characteristics is necessary. The Sukhoi Su-24, often referred to as the “Fencer” in NATO terminology, is a two-engine, two-seat bomber with a distinctive design.
It features variable-geometry wings, commonly known as “swing wings,” which can adjust their angle during flight to optimize performance at different speeds. The Su-24 has a wider fuselage to accommodate its crew and equipment, giving it a bulkier appearance compared to other Soviet-era jets.
Its wings, even when folded back, tend to have a larger surface area, and the aircraft’s overall profile is more robust, reflecting its role as a tactical bomber meant to deliver heavy payloads over long distances.
The Su-24 also has a characteristic “hump” on its back due to the placement of its cockpit and avionics, and it typically features two vertical stabilizers that are slightly angled outward.
In contrast, the MiG-23, known as the “Flogger” in NATO parlance, is a single-engine, single-seat fighter-bomber, also equipped with variable-geometry wings. However, its design is more slender and aerodynamic, reflecting its primary role as an interceptor and air superiority fighter, though later variants were adapted for ground attack.
The MiG-23’s wings are narrower and more elongated, and its fuselage is slimmer, giving it a sharper, more pointed nose compared to the Su-24’s broader, more rounded front. Additionally, the MiG-23 has a single vertical stabilizer, a key distinguishing feature from the Su-24’s twin stabilizers.
The MiG-23’s overall design is more compact, with a length of about 16.7 meters and a wingspan that varies from 7.8 meters when swept back to 14 meters when fully extended, compared to the Su-24’s larger dimensions of 22.5 meters in length and a wingspan ranging from 10.4 to 17.6 meters.
In the available footage, the aircraft appears to have a relatively wide body and wings that suggest a larger surface area, even in a folded-back position. These traits align more closely with the Sukhoi Su-24’s design.
The plane’s massiveness and the shape of its wings, which seem broader than those of a typical MiG-23, support the RSF’s claim that it was a Su-24. The footage does not clearly show the vertical stabilizers, but the overall proportions of the aircraft—particularly the width of the fuselage and the apparent size of the wings—lean toward the Su-24.
Furthermore, the Su-24’s role as a tactical bomber makes it a more likely target for the RSF, as its destruction would represent a significant blow to the SAF’s ability to conduct airstrikes, a capability the SAF has relied on heavily throughout the conflict.
Historical records provide additional context for the aircraft’s potential identity. The Sudanese Air Force has operated a variety of Soviet-era aircraft since the 1970s, a legacy of Sudan’s close military ties with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
The MiG-23 has a well-documented history in Sudan, with the country receiving several of these aircraft in the 1980s. They were used in various conflicts, including the Second Sudanese Civil War, and some remained in service into the 2000s.
However, the MiG-23’s operational status in recent years is uncertain, as many of Sudan’s aging Soviet-era aircraft have suffered from maintenance issues and a lack of spare parts—a problem that has plagued the Sudanese Air Force for decades, according to a 2015 report by the Small Arms Survey, which noted that much of Sudan’s air fleet was grounded due to logistical challenges.
The Sukhoi Su-24, on the other hand, is a more modern addition to Sudan’s arsenal. While a 2011 report from the United Nations Panel of Experts on Sudan did not specifically list Su-24s in the Sudanese inventory at the time, later reports from military analysts suggest that Sudan acquired a small number of Su-24s in the 2010s, likely through dealings with Russia or other former Soviet states.
The Su-24’s advanced capabilities, including its ability to conduct low-level penetration missions and deliver precision-guided munitions, would make it a valuable asset for the SAF in the current conflict. However, its maintenance requirements are also significant, and like the MiG-23, it may have been affected by the SAF’s broader logistical challenges.
Given these factors, the Su-24 seems the more likely candidate for the aircraft in question, though the possibility of it being a MiG-23 cannot be entirely dismissed without clearer imagery or additional evidence, such as tail numbers or wreckage analysis.
The use of a drone in this attack adds another layer of complexity to the incident. The RSF’s reported use of a Feihong FH-95 UCAV, a Chinese-made drone, points to the growing influence of foreign technology in Sudan’s civil war.
The Feihong FH-95, developed by China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation, is a multi-role drone capable of reconnaissance, electronic warfare, and precision strikes. It has a reported range of up to 2,500 kilometers and can carry a variety of munitions, including guided bombs and missiles.
Yale University’s Humanitarian Research Lab documented the presence of FH-95 drones at an RSF-controlled airport in Nyala, South Darfur, between December 2024 and January 2025, confirming that the RSF has access to this technology.
The group’s acquisition of such drones is believed to be linked to support from the United Arab Emirates, which has been accused of providing military assistance to the RSF, though the UAE has denied these claims, stating its focus in Sudan is on humanitarian aid.
Source: Bulgarian Military