Military Review

News about the Su-25 attack aircraft: suggestions and questions

95
News about the Su-25 attack aircraft: suggestions and questions



The renewal of the fleet of equipment of the armed forces is associated not only with the construction and supply of new models, but also with the abandonment of obsolete cars. Such decisions are logical and should not be surprising. However, one of the last News on this account has become an occasion for debate and discussion. As it became known a few days ago, the leadership of the Russian industry intends to abandon the production of one of the main front-line aircraft aviation - attack aircraft Su-25 "Rook".

The most important statement about the future of the Su-25 aircraft was 7 February. Speaking about the prospects of the aviation industry, the Minister of Industry and Trade Denis Manturov touched on the production of attack aircraft. He stated that the Su-25 "will not be produced in serial quantities anymore." Now the industry will be engaged only in the modernization of the “already new version of the Su-25TM”. As a potential replacement for the Rooks, the minister called the Yak-130 combat training aircraft, which, with certain modifications, can serve as a light attack aircraft.

Any news of the cessation of production of well-known weapons and military equipment has always attracted public attention. Recent reports of the fate of the Su-25 were no exception. Specialists and the general public showed interest in the statements of the head of the Ministry of Industry and Trade and, as always, tried to predict what they would entail. Indeed, the current situation is of certain interest and should be carefully studied.


Su-25CM attack aircraft


First of all, it should be noted that the words of the minister are very specifically combined with the famous picture. It is alleged that Su-25 will no longer be produced in large quantities. However, if we are talking about the basic modification of the aircraft, then it is no longer produced for many years. The fact is that airplanes of the first modification were mass-produced at the Tbilisi aircraft plant. In the early nineties, Georgia declared independence, and as a result, the production of aircraft for the Russian Air Force stopped. Thus, the last batch of Grach planes of the first version was transferred to the customer in 1991, after which the Russian armed forces did not receive this type of equipment.

Shortly before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the production of Su-25T attack aircraft, with increased potential in the fight against tanks the enemy. Before the well-known events, the plant managed to build about two dozen aircraft, after which production stopped. Subsequently, these machines worked out their life, after which all the remaining aircraft left for eternal parking.

From 1986, the “Rooks” of the Su-25UB military training modification were built by the Ulan-Ude Aviation Plant (U-UAZ). Soon, the first Su-25UTG aircraft, designed for use as deck attack aircraft, came out of the assembly shop. However, already in 1992, the mass production of this technology was curtailed due to the economic problems of the armed forces and the country as a whole. Later, during the nineties and two thousand years, U-UAZ took part in several new projects for the modernization and renovation of existing aircraft. For example, only a few Su-39 aircraft were built, one Su-28 prototype, etc. All these projects could not be brought to mass production and operation in the army.

Thus, at the moment, the cessation of the mass construction of Su-25 aircraft is simply impossible. The massive assembly of such equipment stopped in the early nineties, and after that our country was not able to launch the production of attack aircraft on the new site. Even with all the prototypes, the total number of “Rooks” of all modifications built in Ulan-Ude does not exceed several dozen. Thus, it is impossible to stop the mass production of the Su-25 because of its absence.

Statements about the continuation of work on upgrading the newer Su-25TM aircraft may also raise some questions. The designation Su-25TM originally wore a plane, now known as the Su-39. This modification of the attack aircraft was developed from the mid-eighties as a deep modernization of the already created Su-25T. The terms of reference for the project implied the use of new airborne equipment capable of ensuring the possibility of combat work at any time of the day. In addition, the Su-25TM was supposed to carry more efficient weapons.


Su-39 prototype


Serial production of Su-25TM aircraft was planned to be launched in Tbilisi, but the collapse of the USSR prevented the implementation of these plans. In the future, attempts were made to create a joint venture, but they were not crowned with success. Because of this, the production of aircraft offered to deploy on the U-UAZ. In Ulan-Ude were built experienced and pre-production aircraft. In addition, it was at this stage that the project received the new name Su-39. Due to the limited financial capabilities of the military department, such a front-line aircraft was not accepted for armament and was not mass-produced.

What exactly is meant by the proposal to continue the modernization of the Su-25TM / Su-39 - is unknown. Moreover, the very possibility of such an upgrade is a reason for doubt. Only a few such aircraft were built, which is why their modernization is unlikely to give noticeable results in the context of the combat capabilities of all front-line aviation.

It can be assumed that in the context of the modernization of existing equipment there was an elementary confusion. At present, a program of deep modernization of aircraft in service is in fact being implemented, which is necessary to extend their service life and increase combat potential. However, upgraded aircraft receive the designation Su-25CM3, not Su-25TM. The names of the two projects are not very similar, but confusion cannot be ruled out.

The project Su-25M3 implies a cardinal processing of a complex of onboard radio-electronic equipment, which allows to significantly improve the characteristics of technology. The satellite system becomes the main means of navigation of the improved aircraft. The standard sight is replaced by a full-fledged indicator on the windshield associated with the aiming and navigation complex. The latter includes the subsystem SVP-24-25, which is necessary for more accurate destruction of targets. Considering the various parameters of both the aircraft and the environment, this subsystem determines the optimal uncoupling moment weapons. As a result, the accuracy of hitting such weapons is significantly increased, which saves on guided weapons using free-fall bombs.

Over the past few years, the domestic aviation industry has been upgrading existing equipment in the Air Force under a new project. According to reports, about half of the ground attack aircraft from combat units have been repaired and upgraded before the Su-25CM / CM3 modification. It is not difficult to understand exactly how the combat potential of the front-line aviation has changed in connection with the implementation of the new project, and for how long similar results will remain.


Combat training aircraft Yak-130


However, over time, even upgraded attack aircraft will have to develop a resource that will force the armed forces to abandon them. Given the lack of mass production of the Su-25 family, other samples of technology with similar or similar characteristics will have to claim the role of the main attack aircraft of the front-line aviation. Thus, in his recent speech, Minister D. Manturov called the new Yak-130 training and combat aircraft a possible successor to the “Rook”.

It should be noted that the possibility of adaptation (at least theoretically) of a training aircraft for use as a shock machine is not news. Almost from the very beginning of work on the Yak-130 project, the organization-developer spoke about the possibility of solving various tasks, including those connected with the attack of enemy ground targets. Subsequently, even a draft of such a light attack aircraft was developed. In 2011, the project with the designation Yak-131 took part in a competition of the Ministry of Defense, the purpose of which was to select a promising attack aircraft. Choosing the winner of the competition, the military specialists found the upgraded version of Rook to be more successful.

In connection with the latest events, statements and plans of the management of the industry, they can again recall the attack aircraft project based on the combat training Yak-130. Such a machine should have noticeable differences from the Su-25 of all modifications, but it may indeed be of interest to the customer, including the Russian military. The main differences of the attack aircraft based on the Yak-130 from the serial "Rooks" in the context of combat use are in size and, as a result, in the combat load. Having a maximum mass of just over 10 t, the Yak-130 can take on board only 3 t weapons. For comparison, the Su-25 base model, these parameters were 17,6 and 4,4 t, respectively.

Yak-130 has eight external points of the suspension, located under the wing and fuselage. Uncontrollable rockets or large unguided rockets suspended directly on pylons can be transported on them. It is also possible to transport and use up to four unguided bombs in caliber up to 500 kg. For self-defense aircraft can carry short-range air-to-air missiles of the P-73 type.

Also, other types of equipment can be considered as a possible alternative for existing Su-25. Last June, Commander-in-Chief of the All-Union Military Space Force Colonel-General Viktor Bondarev, during a visit to the Novosibirsk Aviation Plant, spoke about possible ways for the future development of front-line aviation. According to him, the newest Su-34 front-line bomber will have to replace the existing Su-24 aircraft in the future, when they have developed an established resource. In the future, it is planned to consider the Su-34 as an attack aviation aircraft. This machine has already managed to establish itself well, which is why it can be considered in new roles.


Sukhoi Su-34


For objective reasons, the details of the possible adaptation of a front-line bomber to work as part of attack aircraft are not yet known. Moreover, this issue may not yet have been worked out by specialists of the military department. However, the prospects for such ideas can be assessed right now. Indeed, the Su-34 has the highest technical and combat performance. This technique has shown good results, participating both in combat training activities and in a full-fledged military operation in Syria. Aircraft are able to find and hit a variety of targets with the use of any weapon that is included in the compatible nomenclature of ammunition.

However, the proposal to create a new attack aircraft based on the Su-34 can and criticize. The most obvious reason for criticism is the specific ratio of the cost of equipment and the proposed combat missions. Only the inappropriateness of sending an expensive and complex machine to attack can put an end to such a project. Certain problems with service may also arise: the “Rook” is simpler and more convenient from this point of view, which gives it appreciable advantages in the framework of full-fledged conflicts.

As follows from the words of the Commander-in-Chief of the VKS, the adaptation of the Su-34 for assault work refers to the perspective. Thus, in the foreseeable future, experts will have to determine all the pros and cons of available alternatives to the existing Su-25, after which they will draw the necessary conclusions. If this or that technique of a new type can really become a good competitor to “Rook” or surpass it - it will get chances to get into the troops.

The latest news about the development of front-line attack aircraft and the prospects for the Su-25 attack aircraft left a lot of questions, and also caused disputes. Some statements directly contradicted the famous picture, or could fit into it only with very serious reservations. Nevertheless, the current situation can be viewed from a different point of view. With all its ambiguity and controversy, the words of officials show the interest of the leadership of the military department and industry in the further development of aviation technology. New ways are proposed to increase the combat effectiveness of aerospace forces, including implying the abandonment of some samples in favor of others. This suggests that in the future, front-line aviation in Russia will retain and even increase its strike potential by updating the existing technology and building a completely new one.


On the materials of the sites:
http://rg.ru/
http://tass.ru/
http://vpk.name/
http://sukhoi.org/
http://arms-expo.ru/
http://airwar.ru/
Author:
Photos used:
Airwar.ru, Wikimedia Commons
95 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 17 February 2017 06: 04
    +27
    . For example, Minister D. Manturov in his recent speech called the new Yak-130 combat training aircraft a possible successor to the Grach
    ... what ..... these cars didn’t stand close. even in terms of load and security level ... belay
    1. g1washntwn
      g1washntwn 17 February 2017 06: 45
      +18
      a possible successor to the Rook is a new combat training aircraft Yak-130

      It can not be - this is UBS. Now there is no such thing as a "low-intensity combat zone" where it is impossible to get a MANPADS or a large-caliber projectile / bullet. Attack aircraft operating at low and medium altitudes, at the forefront are constantly in the high-risk zone, such a machine needs increased survivability, and the Yak-130, although a good machine for training, has never not a stormtrooper.
      1. Orel
        Orel 17 February 2017 07: 32
        +19
        Quote: g1washntwn
        Attack aircraft operating at low and medium altitudes, at the forefront are constantly in the high-risk zone, such a machine needs increased survivability, and the Yak-130, although a good training machine, is never a ground attack aircraft.


        Apparently we have generals with a "calculator" are not very friendly. Su-34 as an attack aircraft (instead of Su-25) to use a VERY expensive pleasure. Therefore, the United States is still using its A-10s. To attack a nice thing. Much cheaper than using other planes. Although the drone drone here looks promising. Only if we go over to them, but so far we have no strike UAVs.
        1. avdkrd
          avdkrd 17 February 2017 09: 30
          +6
          Quote: Orel
          Only if we go over to them, but so far we have no strike UAVs.

          Maybe everything is logical - MiG and Sukhoi have been developing heavy shock UAVs for a long time, information about the dates of full-scale tests of 17-18 skipped. Their production will certainly require production facilities. Su-25 is enough for current tasks, besides they can be upgraded for a long time at least to the level of Su-39. Given the possible plans to adopt heavy UAVs, the refusal to order the MO for the production of the Su-25 looks very logical.
          I doubt that the MO do not know about the unique capabilities of the Su-25 to carry out assault missions and that it is the best aircraft in its class, but time does not stand still. By and large, military equipment has always lagged behind civilian in terms of innovation. Now a cheap Chinese smartphone has an order of magnitude greater than the “brain” of the F-35, where the processor clock frequency is 25 KILohertz, respectively, there will be weapons (MANPADS including) comparable in price to the not-so-expensive vacuum cleaner, which will greatly complicate the life of traditional attack aircraft.
          1. NIKNN
            NIKNN 12 May 2017 23: 22
            +2
            In the case of a serious mess, when GLONAS and other satellite groups, and a lot of things will cease to exist, when they start flying with a map on their knees, then the battlefield plane will be oh how needed and it’s an attack plane, but it’s not, it’s too late to bite your elbows . hi
        2. Lopatov
          Lopatov 17 February 2017 10: 33
          +5
          Quote: Orel
          Therefore, the United States is still using its A-10s. To attack a nice thing. Much cheaper than using other planes.

          Not much.

          In addition, if they upgrade it instead of writing off as planned before, it will definitely reach the F-16 level at the cost of a flight hour. And bail that old “Bronco”

          In addition, the A-10 is never an analogue of the Su-25.
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 17 February 2017 13: 22
            +1
            and that I am an analogue of the Su-25?
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 17 February 2017 14: 22
              +2
              Quote: Zaurbek
              and that I am an analogue of the Su-25?

              Perhaps they have no such weak ones.
              1. Zaurbek
                Zaurbek 17 February 2017 14: 47
                +2
                They have a weaker one, for example Bronco ... And since the A-10 is larger in tonnage, mainly because of the guns.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 17 February 2017 15: 32
                  +1
                  Quote: Zaurbek
                  They have weaker ones, like Bronco ...

                  Well, this is not an attack aircraft.
                  Officially, he is an OV-10 "Bronco". That is, an observation plane ("O") with a short take-off and landing ("V")
          2. self-propelled
            self-propelled 17 February 2017 18: 35
            +10
            Quote: Spade
            In addition, the A-10 is never an analogue of the Su-25.

            but "yard neighbors"
      2. da Vinci
        da Vinci 17 February 2017 13: 48
        +5
        Yak-130 will go like a stormtrooper only to drive the Papuans! But for this purpose, you can use cheaper lightweight screw machines such as the Yak-152. smile
    2. Alf
      Alf 17 February 2017 16: 01
      +6
      Quote: Andrew Y.
      . For example, Minister D. Manturov in his recent speech called the new Yak-130 combat training aircraft a possible successor to the Grach
      ... what ..... these cars didn’t stand close. even in terms of load and security level ... belay

      Manturov is better seen, he was the Minister of Trade, he knows how to count. Here he would have a little mind ...
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 17 February 2017 22: 06
        +6
        Thus, Minister D. Manturov, in his recent speech, called the new Grave combat trainer Yak-130 a possible successor to the Grach.

        Su-25 - a relatively inexpensive, tenacious, with excellent protection of the pilot, it copes with the tasks for which it was created. And they decided to replace this "flying tank" with a "flying desk" ....
        1. seos
          seos 15 August 2017 22: 39
          0
          It is not comparatively not expensive .... it is the cheapest combat aircraft on the planet ...
          Its value in mass production in the USSR, its value was equal to the cost of BMP-1,
          according to other sources, its cost was $ 3m
          At such prices, even now its export opportunities would be very high ... because the banana republics have to buy corn for 10-15 m
      2. vik669
        vik669 9 March 2017 15: 27
        +1
        Quote: Alf
        Here he would have a little mind ...

        But with this, “servants of the people” have big problems BUT “not the 37th,” and places have not been vacated yet.
    3. max702
      max702 13 June 2017 17: 59
      0
      In terms of intelligence, you just need to compare the number of sorties per day with the SU-25 and SU-34 and that’s all ... Questions will disappear about the demand for this or that means of harming the enemy .. The SU-25 blocks everyone with an ample supply .. And to what are these conversations for? What the SU-25 lacks is a normal complex for working on land at night, it’s possible to integrate it, or you can also gash the container so that everyone can immediately .. According to rumors such as modernization, it removes all these shortcomings .. but there are great doubts about this THE MOST WARFARE PLANE of the mighty of this world ... very much that the plane that brought the most benefit and saved tens of thousands of lives to simple infantry Wanyam is in relation to the unloved stepson .... What useful did the SU-27, MIG-29, Mig-31, TU16,22, .95,160 .. What is really useful? NOTHING! But the Su-25 then, with the blood of decades, justifies its creation .. How many soldiers did they save? !! And yet another manturov’s temporary digging his nose in the nose says we don’t need such an airplane. and you need a flying desk that will ruin the pilots from a bunch of shells exploded in a kilometer ... Idoty ...
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 23 June 2017 14: 22
        0
        But Su-27 and Co. saved the lives of millions simply by their existence. Well, the Su-27 all Russian aviation in the 90. You would remember the peacefully sleeping in the mines of ICBMs.
        1. max702
          max702 1 July 2017 22: 40
          0
          This is all wonderful, but all the same, we really need to take more careful care of real life-saving and helping to solve combat missions, because it’s hypothetical lives, but real ones ..
          RS: When (God forbid) you have to lie pressed into the ground in anticipation of support from the air, I think that the SU-25 you will be much more pleased to see than the SU-27 waved its silver wing somewhere in the blue of the sky ..
          1. Basarev
            Basarev 15 August 2017 22: 01
            0
            Su-25 is not needed. We need a new, much stronger attack aircraft, a direct analogue of the A-10. And taking into account the specific requirements for maneuverability - to turn over a patch, without stopping fire for a second - perhaps a screw will fit even better ..
            1. seos
              seos 15 August 2017 22: 43
              +2
              And why is the A-10 better than the su-25? Correct answer: nothing
              A10 is a 30 mm cannon with wings, designed to destroy armored vehicles (tanks do not penetrate); moreover, only equipment not covered by anti-aircraft complexes can attack ...
              Su-25 has the possibility of more flexible use.
              1. Basarev
                Basarev 15 August 2017 22: 50
                0
                The same cannon, by virtue of its rate of fire, is simply miraculous against infantry. Plus more ammunition, higher combat radius, and on-board electronics more convincing.
  2. Evgesh91
    Evgesh91 17 February 2017 06: 15
    +6
    how is it in our opinion, first to liquidate something, and only then start to itch, than to replace it ...
    1. inkass_98
      inkass_98 17 February 2017 07: 08
      +10
      The same bullshit was when they removed the IL-10 from service and eliminated the attack aircraft as a class, and then they began to frantically give birth to something to replace, because the plane was needed yesterday.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 23 June 2017 14: 23
        0
        IL-10 was removed in the 1951 year, then he was already a flying corpse, no need to tell tales. Already MiG-15 with analogs multiplied screw by zero. And then helicopters appeared.
    2. Chtononibrator
      Chtononibrator 17 February 2017 11: 31
      +2
      Quote: Evgesh91
      how to replace it

      Found a problem. NARS let cheaper and more accurately from a helicopter or a drone. You can throw cast-iron from any light fighter, and in the case of strong anti-aircraft fire it is more reasonable to use high-precision weapons from such carriers as the Su-34. That's the question, why did he give up this class of attack aircraft.
      1. Abel
        Abel 17 February 2017 11: 58
        +2
        Apparently therefore, the infantry was a little afraid when they called the aircraft. Either they throw a bomb from 5000, or they hit the enemy’s head.
      2. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 17 February 2017 13: 24
        +1
        Then the counter-question, why not throw a blank or adjustable munition with 5000m from the Yak-130? Bullets will not whistle there, carrying capacity and equipment will be enough ...
        1. Alf
          Alf 17 February 2017 16: 11
          +6
          Quote: Zaurbek
          The bullets don’t whistle there,

          What about Stinger? The Rooks in Afghanistan after hitting Stinger, Red Eye and Arrows came home on parole and on one wing, but the Yak-130 will fall apart immediately.
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 19 February 2017 09: 26
            0
            About 5000m I wrote for whom? there are no more MANPADS.
          2. EvilLion
            EvilLion 23 June 2017 14: 26
            0
            In Afghanistan, in general, the conditions are specific, in the mountains with primitive sights it was necessary to decrease, but the same Su-24 did not suffer any losses from EMNIP, they were already stupidly not available, and gangs in 10-100 people. they did not drive.
        2. EvilLion
          EvilLion 23 June 2017 14: 24
          0
          Because the disc does not fall with 5000 m, it blows off with the wind, and KABa are not always goals, often this is an indistinct accumulation of infantry.
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 23 June 2017 16: 12
            0
            SVP-24 allows you to accurately throw from 5-6000m ...
      3. Alf
        Alf 17 February 2017 16: 09
        +6
        Quote: Chtononibrator
        You can throw iron from any light fighter

        And hit the target, not the Earth?
        The concept of the attack aircraft is that at the time of the attack, the pilot can see the target VISUALLY, and not bomb the square.
        Quote: Chtononibrator
        why did he give up this class of attack aircraft.

        The Americans in Vietnam also thought so, and when they used the 105th and 94th, it turned out that the reaction time was unacceptably long, and the sighting systems, due to their high speeds, guaranteed to get into Vietnam only. That is why the Skyraders and Super Sabers found their application again.
        1. Chtononibrator
          Chtononibrator 17 February 2017 17: 52
          +1
          Quote: Alf
          see the target VISUALLY

          From this bomb, they will not fly more accurately, besides, modern optoelectronic stations see much better than humans.
          Quote: Alf
          due to high speeds

          The solution to the problem is the use of a helicopter or a drone.
      4. Vasily Terkin
        Vasily Terkin April 7 2017 00: 25
        0
        Do you put a lot of NARS on the drone? For this, the fighter did not think about throwing blankets on the ground, it costs the same helicopter, only takes less combat load and flies not so far! In Iraq, warthogs became a workhorse that destroyed more armored vehicles than Apaches!
        Of course, drones capable of competing both in price and load with attack aircraft will soon come to replace, but so far they have no full replacement! And better than 25, ours did not come up with
  3. vik669
    vik669 17 February 2017 08: 06
    +2
    So, Minister D. Manturov, in his recent speech, called the new Gray training aircraft Yak-130 a possible successor to the Grach - sometimes it is better to keep silent so ... !!!
    1. Abel
      Abel 17 February 2017 12: 00
      +1
      Do not be afraid of UB. A small difference: either to bomb with U-2, or with IL-2. And there and there 2
  4. tchoni
    tchoni 17 February 2017 08: 13
    +7
    If you read an article about two weeks ago already flickering here that the US Air Force is doing an extension of the operation of the archarch, it becomes clear that the assault component of army aviation is needed. Moreover, a helicopter cannot completely replace a battlefield airplane, at least not yet. In addition, the global trend in the development of attack aircraft is aimed at reducing the cost of aircraft, reducing their demands on the quality of airfields (the same Americans, they say, suffer terribly from the impossibility of using a warthog from an unpaved runway), and increasing efficiency without the use of high-precision ammunition (by increasing the effectiveness of sighting and reconnaissance equipment of aircraft)
    In light of the foregoing, the same U.S. Air Force is considering as an alternative to the warthog light attack toucan. At the price of toucan and yak-130 are quite comparable. In terms of combat load, the yak is superior to the piston engine. So with some refinement, it may well work as a light attack aircraft. However, in this context of use, the aerobatic capabilities of the machine, due to the high wing mechanization, seem completely unnecessary.
    1. g1washntwn
      g1washntwn 17 February 2017 09: 54
      +13
      The Tucano class doesn’t belong to the assault class, it’s the “counterguerilla” class. Americans reanimate the OV-10 Bronco for these tasks. Replacements to the “Warthog” they do not have as well as we have no replacement to the Rook.
      1. tchoni
        tchoni 17 February 2017 11: 07
        +2
        here
        Quote: g1washntwn
        The Tucano class doesn’t belong to the assault class, it’s the “counterguerilla” class.

        actually all over the world this is exactly what is now in demand. Hunting for machine-gun nests and jihad mobiles under the influence of MZA. - Very popular.
        And for the assault operations in conditions of normal zonal air defense, the Americans have the f-35 (200 pieces already for sure). It is a bunch of toucans (bronco, maybe some air attractor) that they plan to replace the warthog dad. But these are the things of the days to come - and for now, they are lingering - they are regularly delivering democracy and not so much around the world ....
        We situevina can be very similar. Equipped with electronic warfare equipment and able to show teeth in the event of the appearance of unnecessary guests, both ground and air Su-34s, can act as attack aircraft of the "big war". And the Yak-130 can take on the routine of fighting the Hunder Partisanen. The only thing that I heard in the press is that it is a rather complex machine. I don’t quite understand how it fits into the concept of a cheap attack aircraft that can fly even from a football field. Although, again, according to the open press, the price of, say, toucan and Yak-130 is the same 12-15 lyam evergreens.
        1. g1washntwn
          g1washntwn 17 February 2017 13: 12
          0
          Here's a spoiler on the TV star "Size Matters: Why the Russian Aerospace Forces need a turboprop attack aircraft"
          http://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201608221910-
          svke.htm
        2. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 17 February 2017 13: 27
          0
          Tucano is like I am an economical middle ground between attack helicopters and attack aircraft. Neither Apache nor A-10 can completely replace Tukano, but it can take part of the functions and has a low cost of operation ...
          1. g1washntwn
            g1washntwn 17 February 2017 13: 59
            0
            Much better for this purpose strike UAVs are suitable, but they must either be protected from small arms and electronic warfare, or be cheap. In the Tukano class, the pilot is sitting anyway, and all the losses of the same Bronco in battles with the enemy using low-tech weapons in the overwhelming mass were due to the large and unarmored cockpit light.
        3. Alf
          Alf 17 February 2017 16: 14
          +1
          Quote: tchoni
          And for the assault actions in the conditions of normal zonal air defense, the Americans have the f-35 (200 pieces already for sure)

          What? It is with what joy that the 35th became an attack aircraft? No, the Americans can, of course, be called patrol from a great mind and the B-52.
          1. LastPS
            LastPS 19 February 2017 21: 17
            0
            He means, apparently, that the 35th can crack the enemy’s air defense, in which it is in a more or less needed form, and not in the form of MANPADS, heavy machine guns and zsu 23-2.
    2. Vasily Terkin
      Vasily Terkin April 7 2017 00: 31
      +2
      at the price of toucan yak 130 and su 25 are equal but su 25 has higher protection and combat load, so what's the point for taking the weaker cars for the same money?
  5. demiurg
    demiurg 17 February 2017 08: 30
    +10
    What, someone still has plans to drive over the battlefield, near the land of an aircraft worth 10-20 million bucks?

    If you fly 6 km and 10-20 km away from the front line, it’s not an attack plane, it’s already a light bomber, however, which needs armor like a dog’s fifth leg. It is necessary to determine the terms.
  6. rubin6286
    rubin6286 17 February 2017 08: 31
    +26
    I had to pilot the Su-25 for a very short time, but I loved this plane. As it improved, it became increasingly difficult, and hitting ground targets from low altitudes was becoming more difficult. The Rook is a nimble and tenacious aircraft and the pilot’s ability to survive in it is slightly higher than on other machines. Has he exhausted himself today as an attack aircraft? Honestly, I’m hard to say. It is believed that if he is given perfect EW tools, an effective and high-precision weapon, a new glider made of high-strength modern materials, and stealth technology, then he will still serve. It seems to me that this will not be a Su-25, but a fundamentally new aircraft. This is a “battlefield” aircraft and it doesn’t matter if it becomes a MiG-49 or Su-57. Another thing is important - the attack aircraft is still needed and will be needed for a long time. In my opinion, if there is no replacement now, the machine needs not only to be modernized, but also to resume its mass production.
    As for the Yak-130, then, as a combat vehicle, it is only suitable to "drive the Papuans." It should be "brought to mind" primarily as a "flying school desk." You can, of course, adapt to storm ground targets just like the Syrians do on L-39, but the results will be the same.
    Our ministers, for the most part, do not understand in those sectors that they are leading and are trying, first of all, to discern the “commercial aspect”. As a result, modern domestic developments, technologies, materials, and ... brains “float” abroad.
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 17 February 2017 09: 40
      +12
      Quote: rubin6286
      As for the Yak-130, then, as a combat vehicle, it is only suitable to "drive the Papuans"

      It seems to me now any attack aircraft is a Papuan-driven car. If the enemy organizes a more or less normal air defense over the front line, then Su-25 and Yak-130 will be equally difficult to survive. Helicopters are much more likely to cling to the ground and disguise themselves in the folds of the terrain, where the plane will not have the opportunity to hide because of the danger of catching on trees or buildings.
      Another question is that the Papuans are also different. They can snarl too. Here Su-25 has a little more chances. MANPADS has a weak warhead, so an armored pilot will survive in Sushka rather than in the Yak-130. A UAV can radically solve this problem - it hangs in safety at an altitude of more than 5000 meters, even for a day. If it goes down below, then even if they knock down - there is no pilot, we do not risk our lives. But they cannot fully replace the attack aircraft yet, they can only supplement and remove part of the risk from the attack aircraft. A living person directly at the battlefield will still in some cases better assess the situation than the UAV operator remotely through cameras.
      1. g1washntwn
        g1washntwn 17 February 2017 14: 10
        +2
        It is almost impossible to beat a computer in chess now. To assess the situation, the pilot uses the same instrument readings + visualized analysis + "sixth sense". AI having an advantage in the speed of analysis is quite enough extended readings of various means of control, even optical recognition may not be necessary if AI will take the most diverse information from the entire "reconnaissance and combat network." This person receives 80% through optical recognition, AI will be able to do without them and prioritize goals for the analysis of many other sensors.
    2. serezhasoldatow
      serezhasoldatow 17 February 2017 20: 43
      +1
      I support you. I want to make my five cents. The country, which was the first in the world to create an attack aircraft, attack aircraft may be left without ...
  7. Pacifist
    Pacifist 17 February 2017 09: 17
    +4
    130y does not go through the operating modes of attack aircraft with a low-altitude flight profile. Pilots will become suicide bombers. booking is completely absent. 34th does not pass on price indicators. For assault use too expensive and complicated car. The 25th actually became the IL-2 receiver in terms of the concept of a mass, well-protected and easy-to-operate machine for the direct support of troops. So these alternatives do not fit very well. Unless the Defense Ministry decided to revise the concept of using attack aircraft based on the experience of Georgia / Syria. Although, as can be seen from the available sources, the 25s proved themselves very well there. In general, there is no clear understanding of such replacement plans.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 17 February 2017 10: 45
      +1
      Quote: Pacifist
      130y does not go through the operating modes of attack aircraft with a low-altitude flight profile. Pilots will become suicide bombers. no reservation at all

      If he does not enter the effective fire zone of MANPADS and anti-aircraft artillery, then he does not need a reservation.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. evge-malyshev
        evge-malyshev 17 February 2017 11: 34
        +5
        Quote: Spade
        If he does not enter the effective fire zone of MANPADS and anti-aircraft artillery, then he does not need a reservation.

        If he does not enter the zone of effective fire, then he is not an attack aircraft.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 17 February 2017 12: 54
          0
          Exactly.
          The question is whether we need attack aircraft in general, or whether they can be replaced with more safe aircraft schemes.
          As a platform for guided weapons, working with external target designation of the 130th, of course, is not a particularly successful solution, they need a high combat load with, again, a long time of combat duty in the air.
          But, for example, the 130th as a coordinator of a group of combat and reconnaissance UAVs is a quite adequate solution ... Under the conditions of active use by the enemy of electronic warfare.

          Although, on the other hand, a coordinating aircraft and a carrier aircraft of long-range guided weapons are still better to create on the basis of light and medium vehicles.
      3. KaPToC
        KaPToC 19 February 2017 00: 43
        0
        Quote: Spade
        If he does not enter the effective fire zone of MANPADS and anti-aircraft artillery, then he does not need a reservation.

        But what will he do on the battlefield?
        1. seos
          seos 15 August 2017 22: 57
          0
          Well, theoretically, when using modern equipment, the fighters will themselves have to mark targets and give coordinates for an air strike ... and then the attack aircraft will not need to enter the air defense zone .... But at the moment this is all conditional and theoretical)
    2. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 17 February 2017 13: 29
      0
      Su-34, too, will not pass through survivability for low-altitude actions. Vitality will be weak.
  8. silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 17 February 2017 09: 20
    +1
    An extremely strange approach to attack aircraft ...
    Or maybe this or maybe this ... they run the PAK TA PAK DA PAK FA programs, etc. ... so it could be to launch the PAK SHA (attack aircraft) program and, within the framework of the program, to decide the appearance of the aviation complex ...
    And the fact that you need a specialized “battlefield” aircraft is not even a question ... the nature of recent wars and conflicts shows its relevance and effectiveness ...
    1. g1washntwn
      g1washntwn 17 February 2017 10: 05
      0
      It is likely that ours also succumbed to the concept of "long arms" and the reduction of military non-renewable losses. The attack aircraft of the battlefield was recorded in mastodons due to the high risk of losing a combat unit, which is high enough for the SU-25/39. Impact UAVs have their advantages and disadvantages compared to manned attack aircraft, but their disadvantages over time, as it seems to me, will be less and less crushing over the advantages. IMHO, in the end, with the development of AI and means of counteracting electronic warfare systems will replace manned vehicles over the battlefield, it is impossible to evaluate the life and experience of the pilot.
      Man is more important than iron, let “Robots inject, not man” (c) Adventures of electronics
      1. evge-malyshev
        evge-malyshev 17 February 2017 11: 42
        0
        Quote: g1washntwn

        Man is more important than iron, let “Robots inject, not man” (c) Adventures of electronics

        So on earth it will be robots too. Robots vs robots ???
        1. g1washntwn
          g1washntwn 17 February 2017 14: 14
          +1
          Yes, and the fat mutated people, a la Jabba from Star Wars, will be sitting in bunkers with joysticks :)
          1. KaPToC
            KaPToC 19 February 2017 00: 46
            0
            Quote: g1washntwn
            Yes, and the fat mutated people, a la Jabba from Star Wars, will be sitting in bunkers with joysticks :)

            Joysticks are temporary. if robots cannot independently determine and hit a target, then they are not needed.
            1. seos
              seos 15 August 2017 23: 00
              0
              Then people in FIG will not be needed and the war will stop after that ...
      2. Vasily Terkin
        Vasily Terkin April 7 2017 00: 42
        0
        that's just the UAV can not yet replace the attack aircraft and until they can carry 3 tons of combat load and cost $ 10 million rather than $ 30 million as of now, there’s no need to talk about canceling attack aircraft
  9. Abel
    Abel 17 February 2017 11: 55
    0
    It can not be - this is UBS. Now there is no such thing as a "low-intensity combat zone" where it is impossible to get a MANPADS or a large-caliber projectile / bullet [/ quote]
    Apparently, the "pursuit" of individual militants was implied. In general, to abandon the battlefield attack aircraft is a very dubious idea. In history, bombers with the highest load have already been tried. They were called TB-3
  10. Old
    Old 17 February 2017 12: 38
    0
    Before writing off, it would not be bad to make that thread the same way for replacement.
    However, the aircraft is very technological and it will not be difficult to deploy production, if necessary.
  11. iouris
    iouris 17 February 2017 12: 48
    0
    The attack aircraft, as a class, is doomed: any aircraft can be shot down from the DShK - it has been repeatedly tested in practice. On the front line, the aircraft should be used mainly for reconnaissance and target designation by high-precision weapons.
    1. Gwolf
      Gwolf 17 February 2017 15: 05
      +2
      Quote: iouris
      The attack aircraft, as a class, is doomed: any aircraft can be shot down from the DShK - it has been repeatedly tested in practice. On the front line, the aircraft should be used mainly for reconnaissance and target designation by high-precision weapons.

      It has been repeatedly tested in practice that armored attack aircraft are significantly more resistant to DShK fire than other types of aircraft.
      1. iouris
        iouris 21 February 2017 12: 34
        0
        Quote: GWolf
        more stable

        It is a fact. But we are talking about something else, namely: a strike aircraft should always be outside the affected area by air defense systems or achieve a surprise effect. The most expensive "detail" of the aircraft is the pilot, crew.
        1. Gwolf
          Gwolf 22 February 2017 15: 12
          0
          Quote: iouris
          Quote: GWolf
          more stable

          It is a fact. But we are talking about something else, namely: a strike aircraft should always be outside the affected area by air defense systems or achieve a surprise effect. The most expensive "detail" of the aircraft is the pilot, crew.

          Actually, the goals for the attack aircraft: tanks, cars, infantry, and other things that are on the ground also contain expensive "details". An attack aircraft is the embodiment of a simple principle: if you want to inflict damage, come closer to the enemy. And to get closer - you need to have armor.
  12. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 17 February 2017 13: 32
    +1
    Attack helicopters over the past 20 years have greatly added to the functionality and took away a significant part of the functions of the attack aircraft. They are virtually inaccessible operations associated with speed, altitude. All this can provide the Yak-130.
  13. da Vinci
    da Vinci 17 February 2017 13: 51
    +2
    Using the Su-34 on the battlefield is the same mistake as using the IL-4 as a front-line bomber. No.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 17 February 2017 14: 05
      0
      I agree. Too big, dear. with poor survivability, weak cannon weapons
    2. Chtononibrator
      Chtononibrator 17 February 2017 15: 20
      0
      Quote: da Vinci
      the same error as using the IL-4 as a front-line bomber.

      What was left to do? IL-2 and Pe-2 as a front were also not very.
      1. serezhasoldatow
        serezhasoldatow 17 February 2017 20: 46
        +1
        Have you flown them?
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 23 June 2017 16: 13
          0
          Have you already arrived?
          1. serezhasoldatow
            serezhasoldatow 3 September 2017 17: 21
            0
            You so "qualified" appreciated that I thought ...? Or maybe you shouldn’t think!
  14. Bronevick
    Bronevick 17 February 2017 15: 54
    0
    In order for the Yak-130 to be like a su-25, it must be booked so that it will not drag it away from the AL-31.
  15. Herman 4223
    Herman 4223 17 February 2017 16: 20
    +3
    The combat radius of the helicopter is less than that of the attack aircraft, less speed and combat load, replacing it with an attack aircraft that arrives quickly will strike and quickly disappear, will not work. A light fighter bomber will cost more, one radar as the attack aircraft Yes, they can shoot down, but the tank can burn, no one has stopped making tanks and does not say that they are unnecessary. From MANPADS, there are also active defense means, they are put on new helicopters, in Syria, attempts to score with me 28, for example, were unsuccessful because of this .Machine is needed, what question? Su 25 they don’t let him out 25 years, as if 130 if you put armor on it, it will be with a small combat load, so it can be better to make a new machine on the basis of a light fighter or from scratch using experience on su25.
  16. sgrabik
    sgrabik 17 February 2017 17: 22
    +6
    Sometimes one sometimes has to be very surprised at how short-sighted and stupid officials on whom such important, fateful decisions depend, it is correctly noted that the Su-25 in the modification of the SM-3 is the best attack aircraft today, an order of magnitude ahead of the main characteristics of the American A-10 not to discontinue its production but to undergo deep modernization and deploy serial production in the same Ulan-Ude, it will be much cheaper and more economical than to invent something from scratch and organize a new production, regarding the Yak - 130 in the role of attack aircraft, it must be said that this is stated not out of a big mind, each specific type of aircraft is created for certain tasks and putting these tasks on a plane that is completely unsuitable and originally created for completely different purposes, this is a lot of stupidity which as a result will result in a significant reduction, and maybe even a complete loss of combat potential our assault aviation, and this is not to be allowed In the end, such errors ultimately cost too much for Russia, and it is high time we learned how to learn a lesson from them.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 17 February 2017 17: 31
      +2
      Quote: sgrabik
      an order of magnitude ahead of the main characteristics of the American A-10

      Let me ask you what?
      He is rather behind than ahead.
      1. seos
        seos 15 August 2017 23: 07
        0
        Now ahead of
        1) cost
        2) missile and bomb weapons
        The main weapon of the A-10 is a cannon, but in order to use it you need to fly closer ... and there is enough ZU-23.
  17. Dimka off
    Dimka off 17 February 2017 17: 48
    0
    So it seems that there was information that a new Su-25 attack aircraft, the Hornet, was being developed. He will be a continuation of the Rook.
    https://topwar.ru/64656-rossiyskiy-shershen-stane
    t-golovnoy-bolyu-nato.html
  18. Old26
    Old26 17 February 2017 20: 45
    0
    Quote: sgrabik
    Su-25 in the modification of SM-3 is the best attack aircraft to date, an order of magnitude ahead of the main characteristics of the American A-10,

    What is he ahead of, let me ask

    By the way, a few years ago I came across material about Evgeny Petrovich Grunin. He worked for a long time at the Sukhoi Design Bureau in the unit where attack aircraft were developed. But not for the series in the army, but for the post-war situation. When there will not be much. In principle, the cars are quite interesting and could be machines that far exceed in their performance characteristics the same Yak-130
  19. commbatant
    commbatant 17 February 2017 21: 26
    0
    The article is harmful. Replacing the Su-25 and A-10 in the world yet.
    Combat training aircraft can only perform the functions of a light attack aircraft, but not a full-fledged attack aircraft.
  20. gaudin
    gaudin 18 February 2017 00: 31
    +1
    Quote: avdkrd
    accordingly, weapons of destruction (including MANPADS) comparable in price to the not-so-expensive vacuum cleaner will appear

    Where have you seen such a vacuum cleaner for 45 thousand evergreens?
  21. Old26
    Old26 18 February 2017 18: 49
    0
    Quote: commbatant
    The article is harmful. Replacing the Su-25 and A-10 in the world yet.
    Combat training aircraft can only perform the functions of a light attack aircraft, but not a full-fledged attack aircraft.

    So immediately and wrecking? The author is simply considering options. And one of them is UBS. The question is, will they be needed, for example, in 10 years, heavy attack aircraft or not. And there is a replacement for the SU-25 and A-10. It would be a solution
  22. vik669
    vik669 9 March 2017 15: 32
    0
    Quote: Bad_gr
    And they decided to replace this "flying tank" with a "flying desk" ....

    Who would explain this to high-ranking morons.
  23. Chukcha
    Chukcha 10 March 2017 12: 28
    0
    As far as I understand, our military departments do not know what to do with attack aircraft in the current realities. There seems to be no concept. In the USA, the same story - how much A10 already serves, but there is no replacement.
  24. nnz226
    nnz226 10 March 2017 13: 11
    0
    There is a question: since the days of Comrade Stalin in the Air Force (now the VKS), the planes were numbered — fighters — an odd number, bombers and attack aircraft — even. Example: Yak-3, La-7, Mig-15,17, 19, 21, etc. Su-15, 27, etc.
    Tu-2, Pe-2,8, IL-2, 10 IL-28, Tu-22, 160 And ​​why now everyone indulged in fantasies ??? Why did the classic attack aircraft become the Su-25 ???? (And not Su-24 or 26 ???) Or a Su-30 fighter ??? (And why not Su-31 ???) In the USA, there are airplanes that differ in letter in the name (F - fighter, B - bomber, etc.) What are we doing with distortions in the numbering? And one more thing: an attack aircraft - a battlefield plane. Su-25 is well armored, and is the Yak-130 armored ??? In order not to suffer big losses in the pilots later (oh now, how long to cook them!) From the ground fire of the adversaries?
  25. behemot
    behemot April 10 2017 10: 39
    0
    excellent, replace the flying tank with a bicycle. Mr. Manturov put in Yak-130 and sent for attack, And do not bomb from 5000 meters when there is no air defense except MANPADS, but for real.
  26. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 23 October 2017 08: 06
    +1
    Uncles! Let steer IL-102!