Military Review

American expert compared the "Warthog" with the upgraded Su-25

65
Created back in the Soviet Union, the Su-25 attack aircraft finally received a modernization package capable of updating the existing fleet of these aircraft to modern standards, writes The National Interest.



This is a version of the Su-25CM3, which, according to the author of the article, made a worthy competition to the American A-10 “Warthog”.

According to the magazine, during the modernization engines, onboard equipment and avionics were replaced. The attack aircraft was able to confront fighters with the P-77 and P-27 air-to-air missiles. The result was almost a new combat vehicle.

The survivability of the attack aircraft is enhanced by the installation of the Vitebsk-25 complexes, which create "phantom targets" for enemy missiles. In addition, the new EW systems will make it more difficult for the aircraft to be hit by missiles induced by radar.

Also, the updated car received a new system SVP-24 "Hephaestus", which allows the use of "smart" bombs.

Compared to the Warthog, the Russian Grach is faster and has another advantage - its guidance system is located in the bow, which, incidentally, somewhat limits its capabilities, the expert writes.

At the same time, A-10 retained its superiority in the use of electro-optical missiles of the “shot-and-forget” type, however, these munitions now have a drawback - modern EW systems have learned how to deal with them effectively.

In turn, Su-25СМ3 received equipment for laser guidance, which allows you to clearly direct the missile at the target in the conditions of radio-electronic interference.

Summing up, the author notes that each of the compared aircraft has its advantages. So, the “Warthog” is focused on the use of its powerful gun and electro-optical missiles, and “Grach”, in turn, - on precise bombing and the use of laser-guided weapons.
Photos used:
http://www.globallookpress.com
65 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. Thrall
    Thrall 31 July 2018 18: 28
    +5
    Interestingly, and in NI, they also regularly publish reviews of articles on military equipment from, for example, our Vestnik Mordovii? Or do they absolutely give a damn about the opinions of others about their weapons? smile
    1. san4es
      san4es 31 July 2018 18: 58
      +11
      Quote: Thrall
      Interestingly, and in NI, they also regularly publish reviews of articles on military equipment from, for example, our Vestnik Mordovii?

      hi ... No, they read TopWar.ru
      1. sabakina
        sabakina 31 July 2018 19: 36
        +2
        Sanya, salute! Not a fact, maybe the WoT forum. And this one like him, World of Warships ... laughing
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. Hole puncher
      Hole puncher 31 July 2018 19: 32
      +3
      Quote: Thrall
      Interestingly, and in NI, they also regularly publish reviews of articles on military equipment from, for example, our Vestnik Mordovii?

      What for? Their task is to pretend to be "analytics from the USA", so that later all Russian resources pass them off for almost the Pentagon’s vote.
      1. SSR
        SSR 31 July 2018 23: 28
        +1
        Quote: Puncher
        What for? Their task is to pretend

        Further empty.
        They are trying to replace F35 warts and justify the replacement.

        This is a version of the Su-25CM3, which, according to the author of the article, made a worthy competition to the American A-10 “Warthog”.

        No and no, fu35 will not replace a pimple, they will create.
    3. Angel_and_Demon
      Angel_and_Demon 31 July 2018 22: 29
      +2
      Quote: Thrall
      publish reviews of articles on military equipment from, for example, our Messenger of Mordovia?

      do not touch the VM - this is sacred, Smirnov will not forgive you
  2. Dog
    Dog 31 July 2018 18: 30
    +3
    All the pros and cons will appear in a real battle ... God forbid of course! But our "Rook" was tested in a specific battle and most importantly pilots!
    1. Gargantua
      Gargantua 31 July 2018 18: 36
      +4
      The warthog also drove through the deserts of Iraqis. In general, it’s high time to write them off for 40 years.
      1. USSR-1
        USSR-1 31 July 2018 23: 11
        0
        Quote: Gargantua
        The warthog also drove through the deserts of Iraqis. In general, it’s high time to write them off for 40 years.

        Are you kidding me? The article clearly proved that improving warts requires an urgent investment of a couple hundred billion in modernization. The Pentagon will support the desire of the masses
    2. Hole puncher
      Hole puncher 31 July 2018 19: 35
      +1
      Quote: Pes
      But our "Rook" passed a specific battle test

      Specifically, they were stuffed, if the A10 had such "efficiency" they would have been scrapped long ago.
      1. Dog
        Dog 31 July 2018 20: 23
        +1
        Quote: Puncher
        Quote: Pes
        But our "Rook" passed a specific battle test

        Specifically, they were stuffed, if the A10 had such "efficiency" they would have been scrapped long ago.

        But there’s some experience, but you shouldn’t be malicious; it’s not new here .. hi
        1. Hole puncher
          Hole puncher 31 July 2018 21: 35
          +2
          Quote: Pes
          But what experience

          The experience is that in the presence of MANPADS the enemy Grach is better not to take off. Wonderful experience of the Ukrainian Air Force
          1. Pete mitchell
            Pete mitchell 31 July 2018 21: 58
            +4
            Quote: Puncher
            in the presence of MANPADS at the enemy Rook is better not to take off. Wonderful experience of the Ukrainian Air Force

            My dear, at the desk for books, much will become clear.
      2. Pete mitchell
        Pete mitchell 31 July 2018 20: 36
        +2
        Quote: Puncher
        Specifically, they were stuffed, if the A10 had such "efficiency" they would have been scrapped long ago.

        Dear, please remind me where the A-10 was used on saturated air defense of a theater of war? Did he demonstrate some sort of super invulnerability in Afghanistan or Iraq? Good hardy machine, but no more. But the British can say a lot of “words of gratitude” after meetings with the A-10, when they violated the limits of the Air Tasking Order. They never acted in conditions like -25, why - that's a different story.
        1. Hole puncher
          Hole puncher 31 July 2018 21: 37
          +8
          Quote: Pete Mitchell
          They never acted in conditions like -25

          Su 25 never operated under A10 conditions, the regular army of Iraq with the Air Force and Air Defense is not for you bearded natives with the Boers.
          1. Pete mitchell
            Pete mitchell 31 July 2018 21: 56
            +4
            Quote: Puncher
            -25 did not work in the conditions of A10, the regular army of Iraq with the Air Force and Air Defense is for you

            Oooo, read the conflict history, discover a lot of interesting things. From the fundamental reading, I advise you to look at the Amerov’s concept of using the sun, very instructive.
            Quote: Puncher
            .. it's not the bearded natives with the Boers.
            by the way, they shoot very well from childhood, this is noted by everyone. Only instead of the Boers they use DShK and similar systems.
            To avoid trying to scoff, I’ll say right away: I had the opportunity to give the command “Cleared hot” to the pilot -10
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 1 August 2018 12: 57
            0
            .... and with stingers and DShK and PGI in the gorges.
        2. nikoliski
          nikoliski 1 August 2018 09: 48
          +1
          Well, don’t tell me, Iraq’s air defense will be more serious than the Chechen bandits who shot down the Rooks, well, or even the Georgian air defense (which, by the way, shot down 5 Russian planes in 5 days, not counting helicopters)
          1. sivuch
            sivuch 1 August 2018 10: 10
            +1
            u don’t tell, Iraq’s air defense will be more serious
            ------------------------------
            Not so serious. But in general, the First Chechen one is simply the inability to fight on the part of the RF Armed Forces. As for 080808, how many of these aircraft were shot down by the Georgians themselves, and not by friendly fire?
          2. Pete mitchell
            Pete mitchell 1 August 2018 11: 57
            +1
            Quote: nikoliski
            well, don’t tell, Iraq’s air defense will be more serious

            Here we need the history of the Iraq conflict, the organization and planning, see the fighting, it explains a lot.
            Why shot down the "three eights" should be asked the planning department 4 VA, which showed a complete inability to plan and manage. It seems that on the third day the eagles from Moscow arrived and everything began to improve.
          3. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 1 August 2018 12: 58
            0
            Do not confuse the USSR Air Force in Afghanistan and the Russian Air Force in Chechnya and Georgia ..... these are two peaks in the development of our tactical aviation.
      3. not main
        not main 31 July 2018 23: 50
        +1
        Quote: Puncher
        Quote: Pes
        But our "Rook" passed a specific battle test

        Specifically, they were stuffed, if the A10 had such "efficiency" they would have been scrapped long ago.

        Emotions! Can I have statistics? And preferably in comparison!
  3. Buffet
    Buffet 31 July 2018 18: 30
    +3
    When American experts, generals, and journalists write and say that some kind of Russian weaponry is superior to the American one, or "we are defenseless in front of them" means one thing: give denial.
    1. Sandor Clegane
      Sandor Clegane 31 July 2018 18: 53
      0
      Quote: SHVEDsky_stol
      When American experts, generals, and journalists write and say that some kind of Russian weaponry is superior to the American one, or "we are defenseless in front of them" means one thing: give denial.

      and if they write with disdain? then what - are they just dumb ???
    2. Hole puncher
      Hole puncher 31 July 2018 19: 36
      0
      Quote: SHVEDsky_stol
      When American experts, generals, journalists write and speak

      NI has nothing to do with American military analytics.
  4. Proton
    Proton 31 July 2018 18: 34
    +2
    Well, the Americans apparently know what they are talking about, see under the "rook" came to Syria laughing
  5. Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 31 July 2018 18: 37
    +11
    Another nonsense of the stationery woman ... NI - this is the "literature" of the class "to wrinkle before use." They compose a nonsense and publish it, not interested in that there is at least a parsek-another close to the truth. But they are reprinted in BO, as if this is something that has meaning. However, now here and miscarriages Hohlomear and other punks publish as information
    1. Black sniper
      Black sniper 31 July 2018 18: 49
      +2
      I agree, a lot of "left" began to appear on IN !!!
    2. Hole puncher
      Hole puncher 31 July 2018 19: 38
      +2
      Quote: Stroibat stock
      NI is the "literature" of the "mash" class.

      This is a Russian agitprop designed primarily for Russians, because everyone writes nonsense.
      1. Reserve buildbat
        Reserve buildbat 31 July 2018 20: 38
        +2
        Eugene, how are you? Do not overwork punch? What is common between "NI" and Russian agitprop? Your fantasies?
        1. Hole puncher
          Hole puncher 31 July 2018 21: 40
          +3
          Quote: Stroibat stock
          What do NI and Russian agitprop have in common? Your fantasies?

          Who owns NI and under whose tune they "dance" long ago found out and referring to it is considered an outright bad manners and a sign of increased credulity.
  6. Simon
    Simon 31 July 2018 18: 37
    +3
    Quote: Pes
    All the pros and cons will appear in a real battle ... God forbid of course! But our "Rook" was tested in a specific battle and most importantly pilots!

    Yes, our "Rooks" well "pecked" militants in Syria! wink
  7. Simon
    Simon 31 July 2018 18: 43
    0
    Quote: SHVEDsky_stol
    When American experts, generals, and journalists write and say that some kind of Russian weaponry is superior to the American one, or "we are defenseless in front of them" means one thing: give denial.

    The Americans still have the money, it doesn’t mean anything, they dump it into products, but all the same, the cars will be checked in real battle. A real battle will show everything and it may be that the money was invested in vain! request wink
  8. ANCIENT
    ANCIENT 31 July 2018 18: 46
    0
    Maybe not "electro-optical missiles", but guidance systems for these missiles? ?? belay
    1. Hole puncher
      Hole puncher 31 July 2018 19: 39
      +1
      Quote: ANCIENT
      Maybe not "electro-optical missiles", but guidance systems for these missiles? ?? belay

      You are not used to NI level yet
      1. Pete mitchell
        Pete mitchell 31 July 2018 20: 39
        +1
        Quote: Puncher
        not used to NI level yet

        If you believe banal erudition NI, then falling into prostration, not every individual individual is able to ignore the tendencies of non-paradoxical emotions
        1. Hole puncher
          Hole puncher 31 July 2018 21: 49
          +1
          Quote: Pete Mitchell
          If you believe the banal erudition of NI, then falling into prostration, not every individual individual is able to ignore the tendencies of non-paradoxical emotions

          Every year they modify the epic phrase, adding new patterns and sound ...
    2. VIT101
      VIT101 1 August 2018 09: 04
      +1
      Quote: ANCIENT
      Maybe not "electro-optical missiles", but guidance systems for these missiles? ??


      There are many blunders in the article. At least this one:

      "Also, the updated machine received a new system of SVP-24" Hephaestus ", which allows the use of" smart "bombs."
      Rather, it will allow the use of "stupid" air bombs.
  9. Jan
    Jan 31 July 2018 18: 47
    +2
    Straight in Stanislavsky: I DO NOT BELIEVE! How do you not upgrade junk it is junk !! There was the receiver of the Rook, but it’s evident that it is too expensive for our Air Force ... and it was made about twenty years ago and already needs modernization. In general, the next patching of holes and spectacles ... sad !!!
    1. Reserve buildbat
      Reserve buildbat 31 July 2018 18: 58
      +2
      And you can call a product that was supposed to replace the "Rook"? And by the way, as you rightly said, "How do you modernize old junk, it is old junk !!" Accordingly, no matter how modernized A-10 ("Warthog"), it will remain an awkward piece of iron wrapped around a gun. And never compares with the Su-25, even the first series. A-10 has a greater combat load, but less likely to bring it to the point of release / launch. Yes, and there is accuracy below the plinth. "Rook" is still a more thoughtful machine, and therefore more efficient. Do not throw thousands of bombs where you can put one rocket right on target.
      1. spektr9
        spektr9 31 July 2018 19: 19
        +2
        And you can name the product, which was supposed to replace "Rook

        Su-39


        You don’t have to drop thousands of bombs where you can put one rocket right on target.

        Therefore, the A-10 and SU-25 in modern combat operations are already rudiments
        1. Hole puncher
          Hole puncher 31 July 2018 19: 58
          0
          Quote: spektr9
          Su-39

          More precisely, the Su-25T
          Quote: spektr9
          Therefore, the A-10 and SU-25 in modern combat operations are already rudiments

          Unfortunately, there is no alternative to Grach in the Air Force of the Russian Federation or as it is now accepted by the Air Force Forces, although the machine certainly has exhausted itself
        2. Pete mitchell
          Pete mitchell 31 July 2018 20: 41
          +3
          Quote: spektr9
          -10 and SU-25 in modern military operations are already rudiments

          For objectivity, I propose to take an interest in the opinion of those who are feet on the ground ...
          1. NN52
            NN52 31 July 2018 20: 49
            +3
            Pete mitchell

            They feet and hands on the clave ... But not earthly ... They will not understand ...
          2. Hole puncher
            Hole puncher 31 July 2018 21: 57
            +1
            Quote: Pete Mitchell
            For objectivity, I propose to take an interest in the opinion of those who are feet on the ground ...

            If the Su25 was half as good as it was painted, then most likely I would not write it now. In 2000 he fell (a typical friendlifer) under the blow of two Su25, dropped two cluster bombs, fell so far that even explosions could not be heard, although our group was not hiding and was on a mountainside in a clean place near noticeable ruins. This "gift" (the fruit of moronity, inconsistency and gagging of certain comrades with not very big stars) was intended for us and I am sure that the pilots reported on the destruction of the Wahhabi gang with the leader ...
            1. NN52
              NN52 31 July 2018 22: 37
              +2
              Hole puncher

              And are you so sure that the pilots reported on the destruction of the gang?
              If you’re not sure, don’t speak with such confidence for the guys ...
            2. Pete mitchell
              Pete mitchell 1 August 2018 01: 12
              +2
              Quote: Puncher
              . This "gift" (the fruit of moronism, inconsistency and gagging of certain comrades

              You yourself answered your own question, there is nothing to add, here the troop control system is being put in order. If you feel better, friendly fire suffers in all conflicts. Specifically, the A-10 “flew” to the British during the first Iraqi: armored personnel carriers went beyond the line of the daily expected advance of the troops — it seems 8 or 9 corpses. The most unpleasant thing is that history repeated during the second Iraqi one, but the Britons learned the lessons and got off with the wounded, they lost the equipment.
              Friendly fire, this is a control issue, but not an airplane. The fact that they missed is another question, I think the topic of another discussion
            3. The comment was deleted.
    2. Hole puncher
      Hole puncher 31 July 2018 19: 59
      +1
      Quote: jann
      sadly

      There are no other options...
  10. Vadim851
    Vadim851 31 July 2018 18: 52
    +2
    Good both, excellent aircraft that have proven themselves in many conflicts, are particularly striking survivability. It is a pity that there is no development and replacement so far for such a class as an attack aircraft.
    1. Thrall
      Thrall 31 July 2018 18: 56
      0
      Quote: Vadim851
      It is a pity that there is no development and replacement so far for such a class as an attack aircraft.

      Maybe there are objective reasons for this?
      Cavalry has not developed at all for several decades. smile
      1. Vadim851
        Vadim851 31 July 2018 19: 29
        0
        Difficult to answer. After all, the motorized rifle has not disappeared and they need air support. A helicopter is good, but the approach time is 3 times less. An UAV is not yet a replacement for an attack aircraft. Fighter-bomber - yes, but it is much more expensive.
        The main weakness of the attack aircraft is MANPADS and other near-air defense systems, and perhaps for this reason this class is also gradually being phased out.
  11. san4es
    san4es 31 July 2018 19: 04
    +4
    Test pilot, Hero of Russia Magomed Tolboev compared the capabilities of the Russian attack aircraft Su-25 and the American A-10 Thunderbolt.
  12. colonel manuch
    colonel manuch 31 July 2018 19: 35
    0
    Ours is better, and in the war proved to be a defender of a soldier!
  13. maykl8
    maykl8 31 July 2018 19: 37
    +3
  14. Sergei75
    Sergei75 31 July 2018 20: 08
    0
    Here we would learn from the American experts the presentation of information.
    They say so that they would open the financing of a new topic, in other words, give more bobs, and our ears will weigh and be proud!
    As one of the great ones used to say - if the enemy praises us, then we are doing something wrong.
  15. garri-lin
    garri-lin 31 July 2018 21: 33
    0
    It is enough for Rook to give an inexpensive missile with a shot / forget guidance and a projectile with a force of 122-152 mm and a range of 15-25 kilometers. This will give him new opportunities. EW and is protected from MANPADS on the latest modification is almost at the current level. The old man will still fight. As they say, old but not useless
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 1 August 2018 13: 00
      0
      At least an ATGM with an automatic target tracking (as on the latest Cornets.) .... with a range of 10-15 km.
  16. KCA
    KCA 31 July 2018 21: 38
    +1
    "Hephaestus" allows the use of "dumb" free-falling bombs with efficiency comparable to GBU at a price thousands of times cheaper
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 1 August 2018 13: 04
      0
      These are different systems ... there is no need to throw caps ... Hephaestus is a modern sight (system) for striking with conventional ammunition .... F-16, at the time of its creation, won a competition in Europe on the accuracy of bombing with conventional bombs. And F-111 and Tornado and other attack aircraft of that time participated there. And Hephaestus does not replace adjustable ammunition.
  17. Lieutenant Tarasov
    Lieutenant Tarasov 31 July 2018 21: 46
    +1
    "The Rook is faster and has another advantage - its guidance system is located in the bow, which, however, somewhat limits its capabilities,"
    As they say: them .. I did not understand, but very interesting.
  18. iouris
    iouris 31 July 2018 22: 21
    0
    These two planes have a different ideology, it is incorrect to compare them. Over forty years, some material has accumulated. You can finally understand whether the requirements for the aircraft were stated correctly by the customer.
    1. Prisoner
      Prisoner 31 July 2018 23: 04
      0
      Both that and another attack aircraft. What is the difference in ideology? winked By ideology, this is to the political department. laughing
  19. Prisoner
    Prisoner 31 July 2018 22: 58
    0
    Judging by the fact of using the "warthog" crap against arrows and spears. Su-25 is a thing! Although I do not pretend to be the ultimate truth. I am grateful to hear the opinion of the aviators.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 1 August 2018 13: 08
      0
      The A-10 has one miss - it was created around a 30mm gun (it’s perfect and perfect), but in modern conditions it would be dangerous to go the distance of firing from it for the A-10 ... Sukhoi has no such confinement to the cannon, 80mm NURSs push this a distance of up to 2 km, but still make this action dangerous for the Su25 ... But the fight against armored objects (moving) is still difficult and requires low flight altitudes.
  20. Bshkaus
    Bshkaus 2 August 2018 08: 52
    -2
    I read the comments and just marvel at some “regulars” that are clearly far from the topic under discussion: firstly, any country tries to find out the characteristics of the enemy’s military models as much as possible regardless of their sources. Secondly, any country is trying to get enemy reports on the analysis of its own products and, based on them, makes another serious analysis of how reliable the enemy’s data is, since the strategy of both parties is built on their basis.