Expert: possible replacements of the Su-25 attack aircraft

According to the Internet portal "Polyexpert”, Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Arsenal of Fatherland Magazine Dmitry Drozdenko voiced possible replacements Su-25 attack aircraft new product.

According to him, there is no official information in this plane, but experts are assessing the possibility of developing a fundamentally new aircraft based on the Su-34 or even the Su-57. Various options for creating a light attack aircraft are being considered, in particular, based on the Yak-130.

Su-25M (c) Alexander Medvedev

Difficulties with the replacement of the Su-25 are caused by the unique uniqueness of the aircraft, which has proved itself well in carrying out the tasks of supporting ground units. It is capable of operating at low altitudes and low speeds. Armored cab withstands severe fire damage. weapons the adversary.

According to Drozdenko, the role of attack aircraft, corresponding to modern combat conditions, can be assigned to the front-line bomber Su-34. In contrast, the use of Su-25 in accordance with outdated canons (arising from the specifics of the aircraft) does not fit into the modern tactics of support for ground forces.

Comments

[xetai9977]

They have completely different destinations!

[Tektor]

I agree, only shock drone can be a replacement for the Su-25.

[The leader of the Redskins]

Speak the truth.

[NIKNN]

Quote: Leader of the Redskins

Speak the truth.

While this is a distant prospect, the fact is that only a person who is in the same place, well, as an option, artificial intelligence (the prospect of the distant future) can effectively respond to an instantly changing situation on the battlefield (as a ground attack aircraft, a battlefield plane).

In contrast, the use of the Su-25 in accordance with outdated canons (arising from the specifics of the aircraft) does not fit into the modern tactics of support for the ground forces.

Well, as far as you can understand, the tactics have changed slightly, in the direction of improving the accuracy of the use of weapons and, if possible, eliminating entry into the air defense strike zone. This is fully consistent with the Su-25SM3, and in terms of security-effectiveness-cost categories it has no equal.

however, experts assess the possibilities of developing a fundamentally new aircraft based on the Su-34 or even Su-57

Drive pseudo-eksperdov ... Su-34 (it’s a front-line bomber and even with more advanced functions and tasks radically different) nor how not to attack and lose such a bird over the battlefield the top of idiocy or expertise ... Well, on the Su-57 it is very dull and an advanced version of an inconspicuous aircraft on the battlefield ..., here I don’t have anything to say to the expert at all (I just opened my mouth and can’t close ) According to the Yak-130 variant, this option can be useful only for conflicts of low intensity and weak opposition from the enemy air defense. Well, as you visit him SVP-24-25 (SVP-24 "Hephaestus" version for the Su-25) and additional protection systems (most likely it will turn out in container execution) and try to calculate its effectiveness on the same battlefield as compared to the SU- 25 CM3 ...
And in conclusion, the replacement of the Su-25 can only be the development of the PAK SHA
Well, like that.

[okko077]

We will not have shock drones in the next 10 years, until they do the Combat Information Systems. There will be crafts called "shock drone" and cut the dough .... We even UAVs are simple, trimmed and more like children's toys, but this is a global trend, a tribute to fashion. It is impossible to solve the problem of creating full-fledged shock drones without full-fledged LSI in which UAVs and other reconnaissance equipment and systems are integrated ....

[okko077]

I want to ask a question to all participants in disputes. How can you arm an army without knowing how it will fight? With normal preparation, they first develop questions of modern tactics and strategy, and then order equipment ... Everything is the other way around with us, first they make equipment, and then they figure out how to fight it. That is, we have military and GSh brainless sheep, whom industry, based on its interests, drives it is not clear where ... It is interesting how such an army will fight?

[NEXUS]

Quote: Tektor

I agree, only shock drone can be a replacement for the Su-25.

After 20 years, it’s quite, but to date, work has already been underway on the SSS, (a promising attack aircraft).

The project of a promising attack aircraft. The development of the attack aircraft has been conducted by the Sukhoi Aircraft Company since at least 2013 - in October 2013, the Sukhoi AEC received a loan of 210 million rubles to carry out a state contract for the development of an exclusive design and development project for the Prospective Advanced Attack Aircraft Based on a Su-type Aircraft -25 (code "Hornet-EP"). "

On March 19, 2014, the press service of the Ministry of Defense announced that the project of the promising attack aircraft "Hornet" will be included in the number of pilot projects with full-cycle management of the weapons system.

[Tektor]

We have already adopted the first strike drone "Zenica":
LTH UAV "Zenica":
Length - 7,5 m.
Wingspan - 2 m.
Height - 1,4 m.
The maximum take-off weight is 1080 kg.
Cruising flight speed - 650 km / h
Maximum flight speed - 820 km / h
Maximum flight range - 750 km
Maximum flight altitude - 9100 m
Aircraft engine type - jet

Under it, they are now making the KAB 250, high-precision with a combined homing head and, probably, planning, Obnosov at the MAX spoke about obtaining TK. They will begin to purchase the apple in 2018.

[In100gram]

Quote: Tektor

I agree, only shock drone can be a replacement for the Su-25.

And you do not consider the armored analogue of a drone?

[okko077]

Here are a few points that the author did not touch upon.
Firstly, the SU-25 performs not only its work, but also replaces the SU-17M4 and MIG-27. These aircraft belonged to the IBA class, which was destroyed completely and not by the enemy, but by our leaders ...
Secondly, the SU-34 is a different machine in terms of purpose and properties of a more expensive and high class and attempts to present it as an attack aircraft only state stupidity, including of the aviation command. So to speak, from hopelessness ...
Thirdly, the need for an attack aircraft in modern warfare is not so obvious and this causes reasonable debate, mainly about the need for a strong reservation ...
Conclusion: urgently make an aircraft based on the Yak-130. A simple complex in the context of SU-17M4 based on SVP-24 Hephaestus may not even be completely all-weather, and most importantly the optimal price-quality criterion ... It is not clear why this has not been done so far, with a run-in in Syria .. .
This task stood and remains a priority and TU-160, and MIG-35, and even SU-57 ...

[Bronevick]

The Yak-130 has weak engines, that is, it cannot be booked.

[Kurare]

Quote: Bronevick

The Yak-130 has weak engines, that is, it cannot be booked.

New engines are already under development. So, after 3 years we are waiting for the improved 130th. In addition, the 130th was originally developed as a combat training, but for some reason as a combat it still has not been tested.

The specifics of using the Yak-130 over the battlefield can be similar to that of drones, i.e. without immediate support right above your heads. With SPV-24 and in the future with a hanging container, he will be able to do this quite well. Direct support over the battlefield is taken over by combat helicopters. Something like that.

[Grits]

but at Yak -130 you can throw away the place of the second pilot, a bunch of backup systems for training and all kinds of expensive equipment and other mechanisms that mimic different types of aircraft. That is what you need for training. but no attack aircraft needed. So there will be a place for aiming systems and additional reservations

[Kurare]

Quote: Gritsa

but at Yak -130 you can throw away the place of the second pilot, a bunch of backup systems for training and all kinds of expensive equipment and other mechanisms that mimic different types of aircraft. That is what you need for training. but no attack aircraft needed. So there will be a place for aiming systems and additional reservations

Absolutely right. This was originally planned, if you make the 130th light attack aircraft. It was noted that instead of the second pilot an additional fuel tank will be installed, and part of the saved weight will be spent on booking the cockpit.

[longin]

Imitation (which actually is not) of different types is executed programmatically, not hardware. Without duplication of systems, an attack aircraft is a one-time target. And the Yak-130 itself can be used over the battlefield in only two versions: as a kamikaze, and as a drone (remove the pilot's control and life support equipment = saving space and weight). And only so.

[tchoni]

IBA did not disappear. Su-34 is just that case. There is a radar, the ability to suspend air-to-air missiles, moreover, of the same nomenclature as the other dryers. So if you want it to be a fighter, you want to be a bomber, it’s good that you have a navigator and sights, and, you want, an attack aircraft due to its rather high security (the latter is doubtful from an economic point of view, well, okay)
Secondly, the plane is expensive, because it is crammed with various kinds of systems. If you need a flying tank for direct fire, it’s easier with the Su-34 (which is already well protected, adapted for immediate support and has a loading capacity of 8 tons) to remove unnecessary (such as a locator, deform engines and simplify the board as a whole) or to hang on the Yak-130 (with its three tons of load)?

[Sebastian Pereira]

Why? Change only avionics and improve engines. Great combat unit.

[svp67]

Quote: Sebastian Pereira

Why? Change only avionics and improve engines. Great combat unit.

The glider also has a raid limit. And these planes were produced in Tbilisi. The one that is “free, not free”, but you need to prepare a replacement

[iConst]

Quote: svp67

Quote: Sebastian Pereira

Why? Change only avionics and improve engines. Great combat unit.

The glider also has a raid limit. And these planes were produced in Tbilisi. The one that is “free, not free”, but you need to prepare a replacement

It's not about plaque. Just the concept is out of date. A subsonic aircraft is a good target for modern portable air defense systems. And his task is just to “iron” the position.

So dashing cavalry attacks came to naught even in the 1st World War. True, there was some rehabilitation during the Civil War, but this was due to the specifics of the war itself.
In the Second World War, cavalry units were also formed, but these were more likely auxiliary units, in fact infantry mounted on horses, which gave rather high mobility to this formation.
Introduced into the breakthrough, such units could make a deep raid on the rear and direct a considerable heap. The horse could carry a certain supply of food and ammunition, which provided some autonomy. In any case, during the fighting, the "cavalry" dismounted and fought in the usual way.

Thus, attack aircraft can (and should) be replaced by drones. Attack helicopters, if anything, will fill in the “gaps”. A person should engage in battle only in a critical, even hopeless situation.

[svp67]

Quote: iConst

It's not about plaque. Just the concept is out of date.

This is a moot point. Somehow in Syria they still show themselves not from the worst side. I think that in the same way they will also show themselves in other SIMILAR conflicts.
But the new is really necessary. Since if, God forbid, let us clash with the West, there really needs to be a radically new

[kapitan92]

Quote: svp67

But the new is really necessary. Since if, God forbid, let us clash with the West, there really needs to be a radically new

If we clash, then the most radically new is the skillful use of tactical nuclear weapons.

[iConst]

Quote: svp67

Somehow in Syria they still show themselves not from the worst side.

So in Syria, for them, almost ideal conditions are mostly desert bare as a knee. And barmaley, frankly, carefully supply weapons. MANPADS are somehow afraid to give in their paws - and pendocs and Turks fly there. Here is the result.

Quote: svp67

Since if, God forbid, let us clash with the West, there really needs to be a radically new

So I'm about the same. That the conditions change and a more or less equipped army (and, for example, Poland has at least some weapons) can create significant problems.

A pilot’s life is not worth hundreds of airplanes. Let him control the joystick.
As one Pandoc general said (and he was damn right!), That the goal of a warrior is not to die for his country, but to make his enemy do it.

[YakimovSS]

Quote: iConst

So in Syria, for them, almost ideal conditions are mostly desert bare as a knee. And barmaley, frankly, carefully supply weapons. MANPADS are somehow afraid to give in their paws - and pendocs and Turks fly there. Here is the result.

Only here they work from almost the maximum height for themselves and take off almost vertically. Apparently, kag be "intelligence reported accurately" and there is still something against them, even in addition to ZU-23-2.

The role of attack aircraft is now intercepted by helicopters and therefore it is unlikely that they will be producing the direct heir to the Su-25. It will not pay off in any way: neither financially nor tactically.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: svp67

This is a moot point. Somehow in Syria they still show themselves not from the worst side. I think that in the same way they will also show themselves in other SIMILAR conflicts.

The ambush is that the Su-25 perform well until the enemy has MANPADS in significant quantities. The Aviation and Time magazine had a series of articles on the actions of our air forces in Afghanistan - and it was written directly on the Su-25: with the appearance of MANPADS spirits, attack aircraft actually turned into fighter-bombers: the Su-25 was forbidden to descend below 4500 m. In this situation, the armor of the Su-25 turned into a dead load. But the lack of a second crew member came to the fore:

When using the X-23 radio command, it was difficult for the pilot to find the target himself and control the missile while monitoring its flight. Therefore, the Kh-25 and Kh-29L with laser homing under the light of the target turned out to be the most practical for which, using the Klen-PS airborne target range finder, another attack aircraft could be used, but such a technique was not often used for the same reason - pilots did not always succeed From a height, distinguish and fix with a beam inconspicuous objects. So at the first use of the four launched X-29L, only two hit by smoke hit the target. The best results were given by the help of a ground gunner who knew the terrain. At first, ground-based laser target designators tried to mount on an armored personnel carrier and infantry fighting vehicles improvised, then they were replaced by regular aircraft-guided combat vehicles (BOMAN) based on the BTR-70, on which the system was hidden under armor and pulled out during operation.

[kapitan92]

Quote: svp67

And these planes were produced in Tbilisi.

In 1995, 4 units were collected in Ulan Uda. SU 39 (export. Name SU 25TM). In the absence of funding, things got up. So there is an opportunity without Tbilisi to organize the release of "rooks" in Russia. Who's stopping right now? For example, the assembly line of the "swans" is being restored in Kazan.

[svp67]

Quote: kapitan92

In 1995, 4 units were collected in Ulan Uda. SU 39 (export. Name SU 25TM)

It was twenty years ago, in that century .... Now the situation is different

Quote: kapitan92

For example, they restore the assembly line of "swans" in Kazan

You can’t imagine with WHAT "creak" all this is happening. Designing and manufacturing an aircraft then and now, these are completely different technological processes. And our specialists are making titanic efforts to establish the production of Tu-160M. As one of the specialists said, sometimes it seems that it would be easier to invent a new one.

[kapitan92]

Quote: svp67

It was twenty years ago, in that century .... Now the situation is different

What else? Has the concept of using attack aircraft changed? Waiting for a cock to peck? Need desire, money and specialists!

Quote: svp67

And our specialists are making titanic efforts to establish the production of Tu-160M.

I believe! SU 25TM is not TU 160M. In Russia, as in the USSR, then there is usually no one to answer for erroneous decisions. I will not give examples, but there are enough of them!

[svp67]

Quote: kapitan92

What else? The concept of using attack aircraft has changed

The situation is different at the plant in Ulan-Ude. And not the concept, but the methodology has changed. It is easier and cheaper to storm the enemy with unmanned aerial vehicles. Especially in saturated air defense zones

[kapitan92]

Quote: svp67

It is easier and cheaper to storm the enemy with unmanned aerial vehicles. Especially in saturated air defense zones

I do not argue! You can not storm what is NOT! We have no shock drones.

[svp67]

Quote: kapitan92

We have no shock drones

Here, never say never ... A couple of them are on their way.

[kapitan92]

Quote: svp67

A couple of them are on their way.

I remembered a joke: we will start immediately or one at a time.

[Romanenko]

Quote: "The use of the Su-25 in accordance with the outdated canons (stemming from the specifics of the aircraft) does not fit into the modern tactics of supporting the ground forces."
Not in the first "modern tactics" to the detriment of the use of reliable and proven weapons, as well as new products.
One must be careful with such statements.
Won pin-dos still do not remove the A-10, this is very characteristic.
Of course, you can use the Su-34 and Su-57 as an attack aircraft, but this is not his job.
Here Rook in his place - in an intermediate position between turntables and bombers, and today there really is nothing to replace him with.
And if you replace, then you need to think hard.

[Berkut24]

Won pin-dos still do not remove the A-10, this is very characteristic.

Initially, it was assumed that the A-10 would be replaced by an absolutely universal F-35 and shock drones. Option F-35 did not ride, shock drones, as it turned out, in a collision with a serious enemy is suppressed by electronic warfare. So the preservation of the A-10 is from complete hopelessness.

[Gransasso]

"... Won the pin-dos still do not remove the A-10, this is very characteristic ..."



A-10 will be replaced by f-35. Like everyone else

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Gransasso

A-10 will be replaced by f-35. Like everyone else

It was planned to do so.
But, as it was repeatedly written, including on VO, the Air Force put forward a demand - the A-10 will be replaced with the F-35 only after the F-35 passes the tests in which it will fulfill all the tasks that the warthog now has "
As a result, at the beginning of this year, the term for the withdrawal of the A-10 from the combat forces of the US Air Force was again shifted - now it is planned to do it "not earlier than 2021."

[Gransasso]

Is it fundamentally in 2020 or 2021 ?. Attack aircraft in the current (or rather in the past) understanding in the USA will disappear as a class ...

[Topotun]

In the 60s, they also believed that the cannon on the plane was atavism. That there will be no more close air combat. And then Vietnam came and the MiG-21 had to make a cannon in the form of a hanging container. In the first series. And only then it was again built-in ....

[YakimovSS]

Quote: Romanenko

Won pin-dos still do not remove the A-10, this is very characteristic

And where do they not remove them from? Warthogs are cut out of the chatroom like mosquitoes with a blowtorch. I’m not even sure that there is still something in the ranks outside the USA.

[maxim1987]

Like was the project Su-39 from U-UAZ?

[st25310]

Yes, there was such a project ...

[CentDo]

The cabin of the Su-34 is of course booked better than that of the Su-25, but I didn’t see information about booking the fuel and oil system. Plus, the Su-25 engines are spaced apart, and when one of them is defeated, the car will calmly fly over the remaining one. But the Su-34 has a big question with this. Anyway, it’s strange how to use a front-line bomber, stuffed with expensive systems, as a ground attack aircraft.

[prosto_rgb]

Quote: CentDo

The cabin of the Su-34 is of course booked better than that of the Su-25,

is this a better question?
both of them are welded from titanium, only on the su-25 single version

[lukewarm]

Philosophy teaches us that everything develops in a spiral. Already abandoned the attack aircraft, returned to them. Su-25 is also hard to break the road. What a "new concept". The Hephaestus system, allowing you to bomb from a height of 5 km? And to pick out specific spirits from duvalls and other-other too, the Su-34 will be? Is it cumbersome? Not expensive? IMHO, here it was not without the desire of everyone to earn money out of the blue. The only competitors of the Su 25 are attack helicopters. But they have less speed, more flying time on call infantry.

[Kurare]

Quote: unwillingly

The only competitors of the Su 25 are attack helicopters. But they have less speed, more flying time on call infantry.

But unlike airplanes, they do not require airfields, so they can be based in the immediate vicinity of the contact line.

[okko077]

What is the line of contact in modern warfare? You have porridge in your head ....

[Kurare]

Quote: okko077

What is the line of contact in modern warfare? You have porridge in your head ....

Yes, it is the line of contact, not the front line. In modern conflicts, this term is used. If you have a better option - offer, the meaning of this will not change.

[okko077]

There is no contact line, there is a war zone, a conflict zone, a theater of operations .. Company strongholds were introduced as far back as the 80s and the lines ended, but you still have in the General Staff .... Our military strategy and tactics for ordinary combat action swamp in which we drown .... And if this tactic is not there or it is out of date, then how to put forward requirements for new military developments. here and the forum this booth and recalls, pointless argument, the glory of Gerasimov and Co. ....

[Professor]

Difficulties with the replacement of the Su-25 are caused by the unique uniqueness of the aircraft, which has proven itself in carrying out land support tasks. He is able to act at low altitudes and low speeds. The armored cabin can withstand severe damage from enemy firearms.

Well, then why change it? They are not looking for good.

[Gransasso]

".... In contrast, the use of the Su-25 in accordance with outdated canons (arising from the specifics of the aircraft) does not fit into the modern tactics of supporting the ground forces ...."



That’s probably why.

[Kurare]

Quote: professor

Well, then why change it? They are not looking for good.

Production discontinued. The resource of gliders is also not unlimited.

Replacement is needed anyway. Maybe not right away, but in the near future.

[Pecheneg]

and why change it, it is to this aircraft with respect to the modernization system

[gukoyan]

Fools, damn it, an excellent car that showed, and now it shows, only from the best side, which has a large supply of modernization ... The main question is, what for invent a bicycle ?????
Damn, or so they want to cut money again ???
High flies, just upgrade ...

[PROXOR]

What for change 25ku. Put more economical engines, improve avionics and aiming systems. Equip the aircraft with electronic warfare devices. And 25ka will serve easily for another 50 years, and there, drone drones will do.

[fzr1000]

When the cat has nothing to do, he licks the eggs. And who is this Drozdenko? Divorced "experts", but to no avail.

[bogart047]

why not just continue the project and upgrade what is already there? Good car, upgrade and polish

[Kurare]

Quote: bogart047

why not just continue the project and upgrade what is already there? Good car, upgrade and polish

And so it is, CM3 is on the way. But nothing lasts forever, flying into holes is also not a solution.

[Bronevick]

Could simply resume production of the SU-25 using modern technology.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Bronevick

Could simply resume production of the SU-25 using modern technology.

The problem is that the modern Su-25 must be able to independently use URO, including ATGMs. And for this we need a two-seater car - for on tests of a single Su-39 it turned out that:

When performing a number of combat use modes, the psychophysiological load on the pilot is close to the limit

And this is for a first-class test pilot.
And for the second crew member, new engines and a new glider are needed. For in the case of the Su-25, subject to its modernization for the use of URO, there is no place for the operator - the volumes and mass are eaten by additional equipment for the use of URO.

[Vpk72]

IL-102 with modern avionics.
Here is the solution.
Su-25 because of the large mass of armor has a small combat load, only 1,5 tons. (This is a normal load). Adding detection / guidance means eats either the load or the fuel supply. IL-102 in this regard looks much better. Additional equipment equipment will not affect cardinally its characteristics, and the presence of an operator will allow the use of new equipment with maximum efficiency.
+ + +
Tests of the aircraft were surprisingly wonderful. In total for 1982-1984, the attack aircraft completed more than 250 flights. And by the date of the last flight on December 29, 1987, their total number reached 367. During the flight there was not a single failure of the on-board systems and not a single breakdown, and there were no emergencies. The attack aircraft demonstrated quite high flight characteristics, surpassing the commercially available Su-25. It was noted that the aircraft had good stability on the combat course and maneuverability unique to its class. The minimum turn radius of this aircraft did not exceed 400 meters. The flights of the attack aircraft continued until the engine resource was fully exhausted. In 1984, the aircraft was handed over for conservation, and in 1986 they tried to revive this topic again, but these plans were not destined to come true. Most likely, the car was ruined by considerations of economy in the presence of Su-25 in combat units.
+ + +

[Topotun]

Everything was mixed up - people, horses .... Su-34 and Su-57, but why did they add Yak-130 ... Cars of different purposes and class ... Why carry the bullshit? The media passed info from Sukhoi Design Bureau that work is underway on the Hornet-EP project. This is a new aircraft to replace the SU-25. But what is it and what will it look like ....

[Topotun]

Yes Yes. Where are we ... Are you the only other realist ... Specifically, there is something to object? And you know the concept of modern warfare is very extensible. What is happening in Syria, with a stretch, can be called a modern war. A modern war will be a conflict, for example, the USA and the DPRK if the PRC gets involved there. Now it will be a modern war. Well, or if they dare to shake Russia.

[padded jacket]

The SU-25 is without a doubt an outstanding car, but unfortunately it will not work for the war against the United States and other high-tech NATO countries, but in the countries of the so-called "third world" it will be quite effective against rebels on carts.
SU-25 Syria

[Pavlovsky]

The Su-25 has other tasks, it is a tank with wings, and if necessary, it combes the troops of the USA or Europe, it will not seem enough. If only, as in Georgia, they will not be sent into battle without reconnaissance and cover.

[padded jacket]

Quote: Pavlovsky

The Su-25 has other tasks, it is a tank with wings and the US or European military will comb if necessary, it will not seem enough

It is highly doubtful that in today's conditions, when troops are saturated with air defense systems, he will "comb" something

[Pavlovsky]

Practice says the opposite

[padded jacket]

Quote: Pavlovsky

Practice says the opposite

Was there a war in Europe yet? Somehow I missed it apparently was in the country.

[Pavlovsky]

In Europe, the war didn’t end; you don’t know? The occupying forces are still in a number of countries, probably did not know? finished school?

[padded jacket]

Quote: Pavlovsky

In Europe, the war didn’t end; you don’t know? The occupying forces are still in a number of countries, probably did not know?

Well then tell me how the SU-25 participated in the battles against NATO forces

Quote: Pavlovsky

finished school?

Unlike you, I graduated from it long ago, you are our warrior

[Pavlovsky]

It's time to go back to school. The Su-25 did not fight against NATO countries, but twice in Europe took part in armed conflicts. It's time for you to change the cotton wool in your head, for a more recent one

[padded jacket]

Quote: Pavlovsky

It's time to go back to school.

You yourself would finish it first before advising others

Quote: Pavlovsky

It's time for you to change the cotton wool in your head, for a more recent one

Go eat matzah and look into the synagogue before advising me anything.

[Pavlovsky]

And where did we graze pigs together, talkative you are not ours? Rope broke? Go fix it, otherwise brains don't work without shaking.

[Grach-25sm]

It’s suitable, it’s suitable, the Americans are not in a hurry to write off their “Warthogs”! And the French bite their elbows that they abandoned the light and reliable "Jaguars". What is the point - on a call ye took off ... dealt a point but powerful blow and left! .

[Pavlovsky]

"The use of the Su-25 in accordance with outdated canons (arising from the specifics of the aircraft) does not fit into the modern tactics of support for the ground forces." This is a citizen of "Drozdenko" let the infantry tell. Su-34 will not go over the heads, it is more a fighter than a bomber, and even less an attack aircraft. "Rook" on the battlefield is the only thing, only to update the on-board equipment so that it could work without illumination at night.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Pavlovsky

Su-34 will not go over the heads, it is more a fighter than a bomber, and even less an attack aircraft.

And how long in modern conditions will the attack aircraft be able to walk on their heads? Especially considering the massive spread of MANPADS?
According to the experience of Afghanistan, one goal could make 1-2 calls. On the third there was already a chance to catch missiles. However, the same picture was in the Second World War - by the end of the war, even despite the allocation of up to 60-70% of the planes to the anti-aircraft defense group, it was recommended to hit the target in one go.

Quote: Pavlovsky

"Rook" on the battlefield is the only thing, only to update the on-board equipment so that it could work without illumination at night.

A second crew member is needed. For at night to pilot, search for targets, choose targets, direct and antiaircraft alone will not work.

[Grach-25sm]

Yes, there are two in the carriage, the new engines are more powerful and the new powerful electronic warfare system. A double-barreled built-in gun, eight to ten nodes of the external suspension, and a pair of short-range air-to-air missiles, otherwise you never know ...

[Pavlovsky]

It’s funny. Another third crew member to think for three.

[MMX]

Su-25 plane of its time. It is outdated morally and physically. Any action to improve it is a waste of energy and resources.

[brr1]

Quote: NIKNN

Quote: Leader of the Redskins

Speak the truth.

While this is a distant prospect, the fact is that only a person who is in the same place, well, as an option, artificial intelligence (the prospect of the distant future) can effectively respond to an instantly changing situation on the battlefield (as a ground attack aircraft, a battlefield plane).

In contrast, the use of the Su-25 in accordance with outdated canons (arising from the specifics of the aircraft) does not fit into the modern tactics of support for the ground forces.

Well, as far as you can understand, the tactics have changed slightly, in the direction of improving the accuracy of the use of weapons and, if possible, eliminating entry into the air defense strike zone. This is fully consistent with the Su-25SM3, and in terms of security-effectiveness-cost categories it has no equal.

however, experts assess the possibilities of developing a fundamentally new aircraft based on the Su-34 or even Su-57

Drive pseudo-eksperdov ... Su-34 (it’s a front-line bomber and even with more advanced functions and tasks radically different) nor how not to attack and lose such a bird over the battlefield the top of idiocy or expertise ... Well, on the Su-57 it is very dull and an advanced version of an inconspicuous aircraft on the battlefield ..., here I don’t have anything to say to the expert at all (I just opened my mouth and can’t close ) According to the Yak-130 variant, this option can be useful only for conflicts of low intensity and weak opposition from the enemy air defense. Well, as you visit him SVP-24-25 (SVP-24 "Hephaestus" version for the Su-25) and additional protection systems (most likely it will turn out in container execution) and try to calculate its effectiveness on the same battlefield as compared to the SU- 25 CM3 ...
And in conclusion, the replacement of the Su-25 can only be the development of the PAK SHA
Well, like that.

Why PACK SHA? Let Shpak be and call him "starling"

[Grach-25sm]

The best attack aircraft in the world - in battles since 1979 Operation "Rhomb" under the personal control of Andropov! And away we go! ..

[APASUS]

For me, the old Su-25 is still not a replacement soon. In terms of security, the ability to carry weapons and participate in land battles there is still no car and will it be? Perhaps this niche will eventually be occupied by two types of UAVs, shock and kamikaze

[Music]

For the new Night Witches, the CP-10 is suitable. Light bomber jacket. With a new engine, however.

[Eflintuk]

Quote: okko077

I want to ask a question to all participants in disputes. How can you arm an army without knowing how it will fight? With normal preparation, they first develop questions of modern tactics and strategy, and then order equipment ... Everything is the other way around with us, first they make equipment, and then they figure out how to fight it. That is, we have military and GSh brainless sheep, whom industry, based on its interests, drives it is not clear where ... It is interesting how such an army will fight?

+ 100500. There are no intelligible doctrines for either the army or the navy. All BMPTs, aircraft carriers, ekranoplanes are constantly being exaggerated, the imagination is endless, especially among developers and equipment manufacturers who need to eat, and simply justify their existence. Well, the military does not assimilate the Chebs, especially those who are not with the money.

[Radical]

Quote: Tektor

I agree, only shock drone can be a replacement for the Su-25.

Only the Su-25 can be a replacement for the SU-26,

[Vpk72]

IL-102 with modern avionics.
Here is the solution.
Su-25 because of the large mass of armor has a small combat load, only 1,5 tons. (This is a normal load). Adding detection / guidance means eats either the load or the fuel supply. IL-102 in this regard looks much better. Additional equipment equipment will not affect cardinally its characteristics, and the presence of an operator will allow the use of new equipment with maximum efficiency.
+ + +
Tests of the aircraft were surprisingly wonderful. In total for 1982-1984, the attack aircraft completed more than 250 flights. And by the date of the last flight on December 29, 1987, their total number reached 367. During the flight there was not a single failure of the on-board systems and not a single breakdown, and there were no emergencies. The attack aircraft demonstrated quite high flight characteristics, surpassing the commercially available Su-25. It was noted that the aircraft had good stability on the combat course and maneuverability unique to its class. The minimum turn radius of this aircraft did not exceed 400 meters. The flights of the attack aircraft continued until the engine resource was fully exhausted. In 1984, the aircraft was handed over for conservation, and in 1986 they tried to revive this topic again, but these plans were not destined to come true. Most likely, the car was ruined by considerations of economy in the presence of Su-25 in combat units.
+ + +

[Mikhail Zubkov]

IL-102 will be more powerful and cheaper by 20-30%.