Su-25: from the past to the future


In March 1981, the newest Su-25 attack aircraft, also known as the Rook, was adopted by the USSR Air Force. By this time, the experimental vehicles managed to show their full potential both at the proving grounds and in real armed conflict. Despite their considerable age, the Rooks remain part of the aerospace forces of Russia and are undergoing modernization. Thanks to this, the airborne forces can retain the necessary strike capabilities, and the Su-25 gets the opportunity to serve for several more decades.


Soviet past


The serial production of Su-25 attack aircraft began to be mastered in the late seventies, and in the early eighties the first samples were handed over to the customer. Already in 1980, the Air Force received the first 10 aircraft, and in 1981 - another 13. However, the pace of production did not suit the customer, and he required more new equipment.

On February 29, 1980, an order appeared to form the first unit equipped with Su-25 aircraft. She became the 80th separate assault air regiment (80th oshap) as part of the Transcaucasian Military District. The place of basing is Sital-Chai airdrome near Sumgait. For a number of reasons, a part received new equipment only a year after its formation.

In 1983, the second part of the Su-25 appeared in the Odessa Military District. The 90th fighter regiment (Chervonoglinskoe airfield) was reorganized into the 90th oshap. For some time, the regiment operated the old Su-15 and the new Su-25. The following year, the formation of the 357th oshap (Pruzhany-Zapadnye) began in the Belorussian military district. In the fall of 1985, the regiment was transferred to the GDR; it became the first unit on the Su-25 as part of the GSVG.


The process of forming new assault regiments continued until the second half of the eighties. First, units appeared in the Air Force, then the Rooks received the naval aviation. The first pilots to master the new technology of the Black Sea fleet, and after them, similar units appeared in the North and the Pacific.

In the period from 1981 to 1991, new attack aircraft replenished the fleet of equipment of 23 units, organizations and divisions, including 15 drill oshap. 13 regiments were listed in the Air Force, three more - in naval aviation. The bulk of the regiments was deployed in the western regions of the country. Three regiments served in the GSVG. The eastern borders were covered only by the 187th oshap.

In addition, the Rooks were owned by the STCI of the Air Force, instructor and instructor-research regiments and squadrons of the Air Force and Navy. As part of the 40th Army, which worked in Afghanistan, since 1981 there was the 200th separate assault squadron. Subsequently, the presence of attack aircraft increased, forming the 378th oshap - he replaced the 200th squadron.

Russian present


The collapse of the USSR hit the entire army, including and the Su-25 attack aircraft. Several attack regiments remained on the territory of independent states; parts of the GSVG left for Russia. A significant part of the created Rooks fleet went to the Air Forces of new countries, but the Russian army remained the largest operator of such equipment. However, the full operation of the aircraft was not possible for economic reasons.

Su-25: from the past to the future

Against the backdrop of these events, the attack aircraft again had to take part in armed conflicts. Su-25s were used during two wars in Chechnya and forcing Georgia to peace. In these operations, 13 aircraft were lost, and another 4 had to be written off due to damage.

Despite all the problems of the nineties, the Air Force was able to maintain the existing equipment and personnel. Naval aviation, in turn, abandoned the Su-25 and handed over the equipment to the air forces. Subsequently, structural transformations were launched, according to the results of which the modern appearance of the Russian Air Force assault aircraft took shape. In parallel, work was carried out to maintain the state and modernize the available equipment.

According to well-known data, now in our VKS there are about 190-200 Su-25 aircraft of several major modifications, including the newest. The four military districts have 5 assault regiments and 3 squadrons at the Rooks.

Unlike the Soviet period, units are evenly distributed in all main directions - from Crimea to the Far East, from Severomorsk to Budennovsk. Almost all of them are based on the territory of Russia, the only exception is the squadron of attack aircraft at the Kant base in Kyrgyzstan.

From the present to the future


Since the nineties, the company "Sukhoi" has completed several modernization projects of the Su-25 with various innovations that ensure the growth of certain characteristics. Some of them entered service and reached serial production. To date, due to this, it has been possible to carry out the most serious update of the fleet.


According to open data, to date, less than 40 Su-25 aircraft of the basic modification remain in the Russian airborne forces. There are also less than 20 training Su-25UB and Su-25UTG. The number of obsolete types of equipment has been able to sharply reduce due to repairs and modernizations on modern projects. Over the past few years, the Rooks have undergone restructuring under the Su-25SM and Su-25SM3 projects. The total number of such aircraft approaches 140-150 units. At the same time, the quantity of equipment of the “SM3” version does not exceed 20-25 units.

Both projects with the letters "SM" provide for a significant restructuring of the on-board complex of electronic equipment with the receipt of fundamentally new functions and capabilities. A new sighting and navigation equipment is being installed: in particular, modern satellite navigation is being introduced, and the old sight is being replaced by a full-fledged indicator on the windshield. The main innovation of the CM3 project is the SVP-24-25 Hephaestus arms control subsystem. With its help, the attack aircraft can use uncontrollable weapon with increased accuracy.

The process of restoration and updating of equipment continues and gives the desired results. The carried out modernization has repeatedly confirmed its potential, including in a real conflict. Since 2015, the Rooks of all major modifications regularly participate in combat work in Syria. Their forces destroyed large quantities of manpower and enemy objects. Only one plane was lost; the pilot catapulted, but died in battle with the enemy on the ground.

Expected future


Considering the events of recent years and the observed trends, one can imagine what the future awaits the Russian attack aircraft. Obviously, in the foreseeable future, the Su-25 will retain its current role. Replacement for the Rooks is not yet available and may not even be planned.


The total number of equipment and parts using it should remain the same. The resumption of production is not planned - only existing aircraft will be repaired, updated and returned to service. In this case, we are talking both about restoring technical readiness and extending the resource, and about gaining new combat capabilities. However, there is a risk of a gradual reduction in the number of equipment. Unfortunately, the learning process and combat work are associated with known risks and possible losses cannot be ruled out.

Thus, the situation in the area of ​​attack aircraft in our airspace forces is optimistic. There are sufficient numbers of specialized aircraft; their service is carried out in a timely manner and full-scale modernization is underway. All this allows you to keep the Su-25 in service and get all the benefits associated with it. The fourth decade of the Rooks service is drawing to a close, and it will clearly not be the last.
Author:
Photos used:
Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation / mil.ru, Bmpd.livejournal.com
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

94 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Alien From 24 February 2020 05: 35 New
    • 15
    • 8
    +7
    Well, yes, yes, and there are still many tanks on the pedestals, why do new things ???
    1. andr327 24 February 2020 06: 09 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Eternal workers' wars. But the eternal still need to look for a replacement.
      1. NEXUS 24 February 2020 10: 23 New
        • 5
        • 7
        -2
        Quote: andr327
        Eternal workers' wars. But the eternal still need to look for a replacement.

        They do the replacement, but the big question is when it will appear in the army. I’m talking about UAV Hunter and not only about him. The grach plane is legendary and very successful, but the realities of today require that a person be removed from this battlefield, since in the light of the fact that many different MANPADS have appeared, there is a high probability of the pilot's death, despite the fabulous survivability of this machine.
        1. Romario_Argo 24 February 2020 16: 27 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          after the loss of 2020 helicopters in Syria in February 2, the Russian Armed Forces transferred Su-25SM3 to Syria
          equipped with a complex of air defense Vitebsk-25 just from any MANPADS
        2. Voltsky 24 February 2020 19: 21 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          But do you have to do it ?! attack is a rather dangerous thing.
          Is it worth it all the same to look towards the UAV in the issue of attack; right now of course technologically this is not an easy task, in connection with the reb and the rest. But IMHO this is a more promising approach.
          The hunter is a bird of a different plan, not suitable for attack
          1. Saxahorse 24 February 2020 20: 49 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Quote: Voletsky
            But do you have to do it ?! attack is a rather dangerous thing.

            Specifically, in the conditions of Syria, there is no sense now against the air force. Idlib calmly shoots with heavy missiles. For example, Tornado has a range of 120 km, and the entire width of this province is 60-70 km.

            And of course you’re right, in the future, the attack aircraft should replace drones.
            1. Voltsky 24 February 2020 21: 04 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              I do not advise confusing the strike against area targets with the help of MLRS, with the direct support of the offensive | defensive operation by attack aircraft :)
              And yes, I know that I'm right :)
              1. Saxahorse 24 February 2020 21: 09 New
                • 0
                • 2
                -2
                Quote: Voletsky
                I don’t advise confusing the strike against area targets with the help of MLRS, with direct support

                I strongly doubt that the impact of a jet bomber can be particularly pointed. Here you are definitely wrong. laughing
                1. Voltsky 24 February 2020 23: 57 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  attack aircraft and bomber - 2 big differences, I didn’t write about this, don’t think out what is not there.
  2. Hagakure 24 February 2020 05: 43 New
    • 8
    • 1
    +7

    The Rooks Have Arrived
  3. riwas 24 February 2020 05: 59 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    The fourth decade of the Rooks service is drawing to a close, and it will clearly not be the last.

    That's right, the Americans are also in no hurry to part with the A-10.
    1. riwas 24 February 2020 06: 06 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      In addition to the manned one, we also need to develop unmanned attack aircraft.
      An interesting example. In Belarus, successfully tested prototypes of unmanned aerial systems "Barrage pipe" and "Quadro-1400". According to the representative of Display Design Bureau Alexander Vilchikov, the main means of defeating equipment is the RPG 26 anti-tank hand grenade launcher. The devices are available in several versions. One of them has a rotary device that allows you to change the angle of inclination of the ammunition to 90 degrees when aiming.
      https://rg.ru/2020/02/21/belorusskie-letaiushchie-granatomety-pokazali-na-video.html
      1. andr327 24 February 2020 06: 11 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        it does not interfere
  4. Grits 24 February 2020 06: 21 New
    • 12
    • 5
    +7
    Some kind of too optimistic article. Meanwhile, no work is underway to create a new attack aircraft that could replace the Rook in the long run. In any case, I did not see information about this anywhere. But R&D will go on for at least 15 years. Then they will build the same amount of prototias and push them away. Modern experience in our country speaks of precisely such terms - we cannot do it faster. By this time, all the Su-25 will end.
    Many here talk about replacing it with the Su-34. But this is not a pure attack aircraft. In addition, the price of construction and maintenance is simply not comparable with the Su-25
    1. Hermit21 24 February 2020 09: 25 New
      • 6
      • 10
      -4
      R&D, yeah. PAK FA
      1999 - the beginning of development;
      2001 - clarification of TTZ by the customer;
      2007 - assembly of the first flight specimens;
      2010 - the first flight;
      2018 - the first combat use;
      2020 - the arrival of the first serial boards in the VKS.

      So what is it about 15 years at the "NIIKR" and tests? Also put pluses wassat
      1. Stirbjorn 24 February 2020 09: 46 New
        • 3
        • 4
        -1
        Quote: Hermit21
        Some kind of too optimistic article. Meanwhile, no work is underway to create a new attack aircraft that could replace the Rook in the long run.

        In the future, drones should supplant attack aircraft, due to the development of MANPADS ... the probability of losing a qualified pilot is too high. Attack aircraft are good in the absence of serious air defense, and such situations are ever less
        1. Grigory_45 24 February 2020 11: 21 New
          • 4
          • 2
          +2
          Quote: Stirbjorn
          In the future, drones should displace drones

          so far this is a very distant prospect, even for those countries that are far ahead of Russia in the development, production and use of UAVs. Until a full-fledged AI capable of replacing the pilot appears.
          So far, manned vehicles in the performance of such combat missions as air combat, direct support (attack) are beyond competition. Drones are slowly gaining their niche, but so far it is small - conducting reconnaissance, adjusting fire, and delivering precision strikes with precision weapons to known targets.

          At least until the 60s - 70s of our century, manned aircraft will maintain a dominant position.
          1. Voltsky 24 February 2020 19: 37 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            And what about the concept of flying PPU say Il-112, and say 2-4 UAVs under his control.

            I’ve already had a couple of years in my head an idea to model such a bunch and write an article, but each time arguing with you then with others, I revise my concept.
            1. Grigory_45 24 February 2020 21: 23 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Voletsky
              And what about the concept of flying PPU say Il-112, and say 2-4 UAVs under his control.

              For this, a fully realized concept of network-centric warfare is needed - so that each element (command, military equipment, manpower) is included in a single information space. Sources of information (intelligence), governing bodies and means of destruction (suppression) should be combined into a single network. Moreover - in real time. Without a clear idea of ​​the position of their and enemy forces, the tactical situation, the means available and their condition, it is unrealistically effective to command. Including and drones.
              Also, please note that this is only my opinion.
              1. Voltsky 24 February 2020 23: 55 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Well, what you are talking about doesn’t quite apply to what I’m saying :) You understand that I’m talking about the narrow system of the strike complex, part of the network-centric command of the military associations; and you are already talking about reformatting the system as such, which is still worth it.
                Because there are huge problems precisely in organizing the security of data transfer, because having some sort of grouping of satellites in orbit, or a certain amount of blah, we can connect all this into a single network with all the data, who is where and what tasks are worth solving. But with the inability of encrypted data transmission, everything is not so rosy.
                While I only think narrowly in the style of barmaley to drive, and so far they do not have such opportunities.
          2. Saxahorse 24 February 2020 20: 58 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: Gregory_45
            So far, manned vehicles in the performance of such combat missions as air combat, direct support (attack) are beyond competition.

            When was the last time you saw an air battle? To the cinema? An air-to-air missile with a range of 100-150 km, far beyond the horizon, that’s the whole air battle ..

            Also with the attack. A bomb strike on GLONASS (or GPS) coordinates is no different from a strike by cruise missiles or drones. Only a risk to the pilot. For 10 years now, Americans have not used their attack aircraft in hot spots. Traitors and Reapers successfully solve the problem of air strike. To the edge, planning bombs with a range of 30-50 km without entering the zone of potential air defense.
            1. Grigory_45 24 February 2020 21: 14 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: Saxahorse
              An air-to-air missile with a range of 100-150 km, far beyond the horizon, that's the whole air battle

              effective air combat at such a distance is impossible. All known battles were fought at a much shorter distance - up to 50 km.
              Quote: Saxahorse
              When was the last time you saw an air battle?

              I have not seen one. And so, it was - almost exactly a year ago, the Indians and Pakistanis in Kashmir.
              And the military itself does not at all exclude close air combat, regularly conducting training and international exercises.

              Quote: Saxahorse
              GLONASS (or GPS) bomb strike

              a bombing strike at known coordinates can be done by IS or front-line bombers. But to provide direct support on the battlefield, in a rapidly changing tactical environment, they are effectively not able to. The pilot must conduct additional reconnaissance and destroy the target, sometimes small and moving. Here the attack aircraft is beyond competition

              It is not yet able to conduct an effective air battle or attack an UAV. Affects the low situational awareness of the remote operator.

              Reconnaissance, adjustment of artillery fire, individual point strikes against objects not covered by air defense, and transport functions will soon be handled by the drones. But before they replace manned aircraft in the vast majority of applications - it’s still far
              1. Saxahorse 24 February 2020 21: 23 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Quote: Gregory_45
                All known battles were fought at a much shorter distance - up to 50 km.

                If anything, the distance to the horizon is about 18 km. The distance of 50 km can hardly be called small. :)

                Quote: Gregory_45
                The pilot must conduct additional reconnaissance and destroy the target,

                A jet bomber or attack aircraft is definitely not capable of completing something from there at a height of 4-5 km at an appropriate speed. All that you wrote at best relates to helicopters. In fact, the "situational awareness" of the UAV operator will be much higher. He is not limited in the choice of speed and time for additional exploration.
                1. Grigory_45 24 February 2020 21: 32 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  If anything, the distance to the horizon is about 18 km.

                  for a radar this is not a distance

                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  The distance of 50 km can hardly be called small. :)

                  compared to the one you specified - it is really small (at least 2-3 times)
                  Do not be confused by what explosives create and with a longer launch range (180 km or more). These missiles are not for combat with fighters; rather, with AWACS aircraft, transporters, and bombers - i.e. relatively non-maneuverable goals.

                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  the attack aircraft is definitely not capable of completing something from there at a height of 4-5 km at the appropriate speed.

                  attack aircraft, in order to deliver the most effective attacks, will have to operate at altitudes of less than 1,5 km.
                  1. Saxahorse 25 February 2020 22: 31 New
                    • 0
                    • 2
                    -2
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    for a radar this is not a distance

                    It's about what the battle looks like today. It is not necessary to sit in the cockpit to press a button, and then wait patiently until the rocket reaches.

                    In terms of tactics, the remote operator, on the contrary, has an advantage. At a minimum, he may not be alone and analyze the course of the battle as a group. The main problem today is only the width of the communication channel. For this, we need the most advanced AI, such that it will relieve communication from all the commonplace tasks of controlling an airplane, leaving only short tactical level commands in the channel.

                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    attack aircraft, in order to deliver the most effective attacks, will have to operate at altitudes of less than 1,5 km.

                    Alas, this already does not work well with barmaleys. As we know, the Su-25 is easily followed even by one MANPADS. I also recall the sad fate of Ukrainian aviation. To storm from 1.5 km there weaned very quickly. And from 4-5 km, as I say, there is little to be explored.
                2. 5-9
                  5-9 25 February 2020 10: 48 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  There were no casualties at 50 km. The number of shots at a distance of more than 25 km - on the fingers.
                  1. Saxahorse 25 February 2020 22: 49 New
                    • 0
                    • 2
                    -2
                    Quote: 5-9
                    There were no casualties at 50 km. The number of shots at a distance of more than 25 km - on the fingers.

                    This, by the way, also depends on the order from above. For example, even during the tanker war in the Gulf, the Americans were unpleasantly struck by the violent fantasy of the GOS of the then Harpoons. Whom they did not consider only for the target .. And after a couple of incidents, they categorically forbade shooting these anti-ship missiles anywhere except visually (and identically) with targets. That’s the main reason why the anti-ship missiles with a range of 120-280 km, then tried not to shoot beyond 20 km.
                    1. 5-9
                      5-9 26 February 2020 07: 15 New
                      • 1
                      • 2
                      -1
                      What does the RCC have to do with air-to-air missiles and downed planes?
                      1. Saxahorse 26 February 2020 23: 00 New
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        -2
                        Quote: 5-9
                        What does the RCC have to do with air-to-air missiles and downed planes?

                        Actually, this is about the work of the GOS. The history of RCC recalls that there are different reasons for limiting range.

                        And in general, what is the difference between downed planes and sunken corvettes?
            2. Alf
              Alf 24 February 2020 21: 34 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Saxahorse
              An air-to-air missile with a range of 100-150 km, far beyond the horizon, that’s the whole air battle ..

              And what is the probability of hitting?
              1. bk0010 24 February 2020 22: 04 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Amerovsky Phoenix (which for F-14) lost the target in 50% of cases without any manipulation from the side of the target, but was worth a million bucks then. It is not clear what will prevent the aircraft detecting the launch over 100 km from going down or turning on electronic warfare. Yes, you can even get away from a long-range missile simply by maneuver: it is healthy and heavy, it can be effective against a strategist, but not a fighter.
                1. Alf
                  Alf 24 February 2020 22: 06 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: bk0010
                  Amerovsky Phoenix (which for F-14) lost the target in 50% of cases without any manipulation by the target,

                  hi
                2. Saxahorse 25 February 2020 22: 35 New
                  • 0
                  • 2
                  -2
                  Quote: bk0010
                  Yes, even just a maneuver from a long-range missile, you can get away:

                  Are you also a specialist in gymnastics and acrobatics? In this case, I already suggested teaching infantry to jump from bullets, a bullet at least flying twice as slow. laughing
                  1. bk0010 25 February 2020 23: 17 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Do you really think that you can’t dodge a bullet? A sniper shot at you from a distance of 1.5 km, a bullet flies to you for 3 seconds, you notice a flash. What, fall in 3 seconds do not have time?
                    1. Saxahorse 25 February 2020 23: 54 New
                      • 0
                      • 2
                      -2
                      Quote: bk0010
                      Do you really think that you can’t dodge a bullet?

                      I strongly advise you not to test this idea on a real battlefield!
              2. Saxahorse 25 February 2020 22: 37 New
                • 0
                • 2
                -2
                Quote: Alf
                And what is the probability of hitting?

                Exactly the same as with 3-5 kilometers. Depends on the quality of the seeker. If your rocket is rubbish, it will miss point blank.
                1. bk0010 25 February 2020 23: 21 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Yeah. That's just a missile with a good seeker will be the size of a medium-range missile: you have to drag an energy source on it for a radar of awesome power for a rocket (the power of the reflected signal decreases in proportion to the 4th power of the distance).
                  1. Saxahorse 25 February 2020 23: 52 New
                    • 0
                    • 2
                    -2
                    Quote: bk0010
                    Here are just a missile with a good seeker will be the size of a medium-range missile:

                    Precisely, they are not small. That's just the inertial guidance system is usually engaged in a distance of 50-100 km, and the GOS, on good, turns on at the same distances as small short-range missiles. Those. no difference.
                    1. bk0010 26 February 2020 00: 10 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      And what then prevents the plane from turning or changing altitude while the rocket flies inertial? The head turns on - nobody is there. The torch is visible from afar, and Birch screams when irradiated. It makes sense to hit a long-range missile with a B-52 or Tu-95 (AWACS), all those who are less or quicker will leave (if this crap does not lose its target).
                      1. Saxahorse 26 February 2020 00: 27 New
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        -2
                        Quote: bk0010
                        Yes, and Birch yells,

                        The birch yells when it has already arrived .. Here only traps will save (or not save). The air-to-air missile launch is not so impressive that it can be seen from the satellite, it can only be noticed when it has already turned on its own seeker and is attached to you. And this is a matter of seconds. And exactly how many seconds - do not guess.
      2. Octopus 25 February 2020 02: 13 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: Hermit21
        2018 - the first combat use;
        2020 - the arrival of the first serial boards in the VKS.

        Really?
    2. Diverter 24 February 2020 11: 37 New
      • 1
      • 5
      -4
      Su 25 is simply not needed in the future due to the fact that on the battlefield most of the enemy’s equipment will be represented by robots.
      1. Alf
        Alf 24 February 2020 17: 49 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: Saboteur
        Su 25 is simply not needed in the future due to the fact that on the battlefield most of the enemy’s equipment will be represented by robots.

        In what millennium?
        1. Diverter 29 February 2020 15: 16 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          In that. Do not even hesitate.
  5. svp67 24 February 2020 06: 28 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    But honestly I don’t see the “future” of such a “stormtrooper” scheme. For us, this is a necessary measure, due to the complete absence of UAV and "kamikaze drones" in the troops. It is with their application that the future of attack aircraft is connected.
    1. bessmertniy 24 February 2020 06: 41 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      Yes, it’s a shame that our unmanned military aircraft is developing very slowly. And the Rooks need to prepare a worthy shift that would surpass them in efficiency. In the meantime, they can’t see a replacement.
      1. svp67 24 February 2020 06: 49 New
        • 4
        • 4
        0
        Quote: bessmertniy
        In the meantime, they can’t see a replacement.

        But why? This "bunch" gives an understanding of how and what can replace the "Rook"

        A promising attack aircraft, this is a flying command post that manages flocks of UAVs and kamikaze drones
        1. bessmertniy 24 February 2020 06: 51 New
          • 11
          • 1
          +10
          Do the flocks also leave the assembly line?
          1. svp67 24 February 2020 06: 53 New
            • 2
            • 4
            -2
            Quote: bessmertniy
            Do the flocks also leave the assembly line?

            Alas, we have so far only been in experimental military operation, but our "foreign partners" have already left the assembly line. The same Israel, with their help, destroys the Syrian Shell
            1. bessmertniy 24 February 2020 07: 29 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              It turns out that it is necessary to quickly expand the finalization of their UAVs of this profile and release.
              1. svp67 24 February 2020 07: 56 New
                • 0
                • 2
                -2
                Quote: bessmertniy
                It turns out that it is necessary to quickly expand the finalization of their UAVs of this profile and release.

                The problem is certainly wider, but the right way ...
            2. EvilLion 24 February 2020 15: 04 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              F-16 became unmanned?
            3. 5-9
              5-9 25 February 2020 10: 52 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              UAVs are actually remotely piloted, and secondarily unmanned ones. Against the Papuans - it’s the very thing, against the enemy with electronic warfare - already not very much. With air defense - generally seams. And the price of this Miracle from the picture is like that of the Su-25.
              Helhaavir is not needed for any UAVs, taking into account those ranges, distances - UAPP can be launched directly over its airfield, or over Lebanon. There is no sense at all in the situation from the UAV.
        2. Nikolaevich I 24 February 2020 08: 24 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: svp67
          A promising attack aircraft, this is a flying command post that manages flocks and kamikaze drones

          I like this idea! yes
        3. Stirbjorn 24 February 2020 09: 48 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          Quote: svp67
          A promising attack aircraft, this is a flying command post that manages flocks and kamikaze drones

          This will no longer be an attack aircraft .. The command post should fly beyond the limits of destruction, at least, the MANPADS of the enemy.
          1. bondrostov 24 February 2020 10: 05 New
            • 4
            • 2
            +2
            Well, explain to me how a kamikaze drone differs from a cruise missile?
            1. Grigory_45 24 February 2020 11: 26 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              Quote: bondrostov
              Well, explain to me how a kamikaze drone differs from a cruise missile?

              kamikaze drone can:
              1. to barrage in the area of ​​the intended target for a long time
              2. Quickly change the object of attack depending on the situation
              3. Cancel the attack and return to the base for re-use.
              Missiles cannot do anything of this (except for the limited ones according to items 1 and 2 - and only in the most modern models). Launched it - that's all, she will not return back.
              1. bondrostov 24 February 2020 11: 32 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Personally, I don’t understand what is stopping me from hanging a warhead on an enlarged eagle, and here’s the Kamikaze drone
                1. Grigory_45 24 February 2020 11: 39 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  Quote: bondrostov
                  hang the warhead on an enlarged eagle and here is the kamikaze drone

                  in fact, it is. Ordinary mini-UAV with warhead. One of the Russian projects and provided as a base Orlan-10
              2. EvilLion 24 February 2020 15: 05 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Due to this, the rocket is much cheaper.
              3. 5-9
                5-9 25 February 2020 10: 54 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Patrol? Those. No air defense? Why then a drone at all? Let the Su-25 with 2 PTB and 8 OFAB-250-270 barrage ... it will be cheaper.
                1. Grigory_45 25 February 2020 11: 04 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: 5-9
                  Patrol?

                  Yes.
                  Firstly, a small drone still needs to be discovered. It is already half a kilometer away and can not be heard.
                  secondly, the use of the CTO (suppose intelligence came in - the field commander would travel in such and such a road on such and such a road. They launch the drone and wait, and it will barrage in the intended area of ​​the target’s appearance. As soon as the target identified - the command to destroy, if the intelligence was inaccurate or the trip was canceled - the drone is returned to the base)
                  1. 5-9
                    5-9 25 February 2020 13: 57 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    Are you going to drop 4 pieces of RGD-5 on the heads of the adversaries from the "small drone"? Count the rider with the Predator with the Su-25 size.
                    For counter-war wars, an impact drone (of normal dimension) is certainly better than the Su-25, no one argues with this.
                    1. Grigory_45 25 February 2020 15: 00 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: 5-9
                      Are you going to drop 4 pieces of RGD-5 on the heads of the adversaries from the "small drone"? Count the rider with the Predator with the Su-25 size.

                      kamikaze drone doesn't drop anything. He himself is a bomb (rocket), in size much smaller than a full-fledged drone. It’s comparable in size to an anti-tank missile. For the above example - for the eyes.
                      If you are going to destroy a bunker, it is more logical to use rockets.
          2. Nikolaevich I 24 February 2020 11: 29 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Stirbjorn
            A promising attack aircraft, this is a flying command post that manages flocks and kamikaze drones

            This is not going to be an attack aircraft ..

            Lord! Duc, in the "allegorical" sense, it was called the "attack-command post"!
  6. The leader of the Redskins 24 February 2020 07: 19 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    Personally, my opinion is that the "rook" is already at an end ... Yes, the car is good, which has shown itself in battles, but ... Nothing lasts forever. This applies to him. What will be the new generation, I don’t know. Pilot or unmanned, hung with clusters of ammunition or with those hidden in the womb ... Time will tell.
  7. Zaurbek 24 February 2020 07: 50 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Why not use Su25 ATGM? There are already well-developed complexes of the 2nd generation with riche range, target tracking machines. Or 1 person can not cope?
    1. svp67 24 February 2020 07: 57 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -3
      Quote: Zaurbek
      Why not use Su25 ATGM?

      Well, now the helicopters are equipped with new ATGMs, it is possible for the Su-25 there is an opportunity to allocate them
      1. Nikolaevich I 24 February 2020 08: 22 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: svp67
        now the helicopters are equipped with new ATGMs, and it is possible for the Su-25 to find them

        It is possible ... We tried the "laser beam" "vortex", but it didn’t turn out very well! You can try 3rd generation PT rockets ...
    2. Nikolaevich I 24 February 2020 08: 19 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: Zaurbek
      Why not use Su25 ATGM

      So, already tried .... tried! (Su-25T, Su-25TM, Su-39 ...) with Whirlwind anti-aircraft missiles! But it turned out, as it often happens .... "home calculations do not agree with the bazaar price!"
      1. Zaurbek 24 February 2020 08: 57 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        There, the device itself was expensive and it would be necessary to resume production ..... And with the use of anti-tank systems, the question of the 2nd operator hangs ...
    3. Grigory_45 24 February 2020 11: 34 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Zaurbek
      Why not use Su25 ATGM? There are already well-developed complexes of the 2nd generation with riche range, target tracking machines. Or 1 person can not cope?

      probably the whole thing is the existing domestic anti-tank systems. We need either a missile with a shot-and-forget principle, or a missile with a TV head and long range, so that during the flight of the missile to the target the plane does not enter at least into the MANPADS coverage area. The Americans on their Thunderbolt quite successfully use Maverick and Hellfire, and the pilot on the A-10, as you know, is one.
      Or you need external target designation (with an UAV, for example, or another attack aircraft) for ATGMs with laser-guided guidance
      1. Zaurbek 24 February 2020 13: 03 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        But the laser rangefinder stands and shoots missiles with such guidance.
        1. Grigory_45 24 February 2020 15: 44 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          all the same, it’s better to “shine” from the side. After launch, the aircraft has the ability to maneuver, exit the air defense zone. If the Su-25 itself illuminates the target, then, given the speed of the aircraft itself and the speed of the rocket, it will inevitably be above the enemy’s positions and will be fired (after capturing the target and launching the rocket, the pilot must highlight the target before it is hit).
      2. EvilLion 24 February 2020 15: 08 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        On the Su-25, even in Afghanistan they used the X-25, because it can “Maple” them to highlight, but they came to the conclusion that it is better to shine from the ground.
    4. 5-9
      5-9 25 February 2020 10: 55 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      The adversary has no tank hordes. And Mi-28 / Ka-52, if they suddenly appear, will cope much better.
      Actually, about how to deal with the hordes, the adversary has a similar opinion ...
    5. Alexey RA 26 February 2020 13: 33 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Zaurbek
      Why not use Su25 ATGM? There are already well-developed complexes of the 2nd generation with riche range, target tracking machines. Or 1 person can not cope?

      One of the remarks in List No. 1 of the GI Su-25T Act is written like this (I don’t remember the exact wording, more than twenty years have passed): "When performing some combat modes, the psychophysiological load on the pilot is close to the limit". The remark was given by specialists of the Research Institute of Aviation and Space Medicine of the Moscow Region. That is, the combination of the aiming and piloting process in a number of modes caused problems. And it was not about combat pilots, but about first-class military test pilots.

      © from discussions of the Ka-50 at VO
  8. Warrior MorePhoto 24 February 2020 08: 04 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Yes, the fate of the Rooks also cares ...
    I’ll tell you my thoughts, I don’t pretend to be “correct” - I thought that a replacement would come out, an engine, a slightly modified and improved glider scheme, composites, etc., etc., BUT so far, silence ... but these improvements need to be tested, run in, and this time!
    Therefore, the following follows - there will probably not be a direct replacement, or we conditionally consider the Su 34, a series of which is ongoing and, moreover, serious modernization is planned.
    The reconnaissance and strike functions will be given to the Orlanes, Orions, Altiuses, and Hunters with the support of Su 34 both the base and other planes, including Su 30, Su 57, and even the other day there was an article that Su 35 also worked on the ground .. .
    In general, of course it is a pity, but the risk to give to drones, there is joy and preservation of life for pilots
    1. Zaurbek 24 February 2020 08: 58 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The Americans also did not start the A-10 program further. They even tested UAVs based on it
    2. Aviator_ 24 February 2020 10: 48 New
      • 2
      • 3
      -1
      Composites on an attack aircraft - this is unrealistic in principle. There is a problem with its delamination even with a simple blow, the complexity of the diagnosis is that the delamination is internal, it is not visible from the outside. A battlefield plane will never be composite.
    3. bk0010 24 February 2020 13: 59 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Su-34 cannot be a replacement for Su-25. The attack aircraft must be:
      1) tenacious.
      2) Cheap.
      I don’t know how on the first point (an armored car is a good application for survivability, but only an application, and fortunately there haven’t been any real checks so far), and the Su-34 has exactly the seams with the second point. And it’s easier to recruit pilots under the Su-25 (stupidly for health reasons, screening can be done less, because subsonic and flight time are less).
      The fact that the attack aircraft can be replaced by UAVs is also not a fact: in the case of a big mess, all sources of radio emission will be extinguished not so much by electronic warfare as by artillery and missiles, satellite control is also not a panacea: there are few channels, and the repeater should be removed from standing in geostationary orbit far from impossible.
      The Su-25 must be supplied with new engines, a self-defense complex such as the president, optics (like the Mig-29) and the use of guided weapons is finished.
      1. Alf
        Alf 24 February 2020 17: 52 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: bk0010
        The fact that the attack aircraft can be replaced by UAVs is also not a fact: in the case of a big mess, all sources of radio emission will be extinguished not so much by electronic warfare as by artillery and missiles, satellite control is also not a panacea: there are few channels, and the repeater should be removed from standing in geostationary orbit far from impossible.

        Glory to the gods, at least one sane comment!
  9. Radikal 24 February 2020 10: 56 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    Considering the events of recent years and the observed trends, one can imagine what the future awaits the Russian attack aircraft.
    Judging by those who manage the aviation industry - nothing. sad
    1. Lontus 24 February 2020 12: 28 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      Quote: Radikal
      Considering the events of recent years and the observed trends, one can imagine what the future awaits the Russian attack aircraft.
      Judging by those who manage the aviation industry - nothing. sad

      Think narrowly.
      More correctly - "Judging by those who lead the Russian Federation."
  10. paul3390 24 February 2020 12: 41 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Quote: Stirbjorn
    In the future, drones should supplant attack aircraft due to the development of MANPADS.

    So far, it’s just a counter-poip weapon. A serious adversary - crush the electronic communications channels at once. And then something worse will do. No - UAVs are undoubtedly needed, but to place bets on them instead of attack aircraft is a bust.
  11. EvilLion 24 February 2020 15: 12 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    For local war planes for 20-30 years is enough. In general, their tasks are divided between helicopters and aircraft with high performance characteristics. Attracting the Su-34 in a short operation will be cheaper than making a new aircraft to replace the Su-25. The question of the effectiveness of the Su-25 is open, it seems, it was already raised at the level of the Air Force command. Type is not effective enough.
  12. garri-lin 24 February 2020 17: 35 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Inexpensive UAV plus high-speed helicopter. Replacing the attack aircraft. In principle, there is or not electronic warfare. Turning over the battlefield at altitudes below 5 km is dangerous. Armor won't help.
  13. Ros 56 24 February 2020 18: 49 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Guys, how many years a person has been using a shovel and it never occurred to anyone to invent something new. This is an interesting question.
  14. Radikal 24 February 2020 19: 37 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Quote: Lontus
    Quote: Radikal
    Considering the events of recent years and the observed trends, one can imagine what the future awaits the Russian attack aircraft.
    Judging by those who manage the aviation industry - nothing. sad

    Think narrowly.
    More correctly - "Judging by those who lead the Russian Federation."

    I agree. bully
    1. EvilLion 24 February 2020 21: 56 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      And Stalin, Stalin on the profile picture!
  15. iouris 25 February 2020 00: 07 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Improvement and modernization should not be an airplane, but a combat aviation complex ("at large"). I hope that explaining what a "combat aviation complex" is yet to be explained. If anything - Rogozin led the release of an entire encyclopedia.
  16. Sarkazm 25 February 2020 00: 47 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    It was once said about the operation of the Su-25 until 2027. More advanced helicopters are coming into service, capable of providing direct support to the troops. And the Yak-130 will most likely be used as a light jet aircraft that partially performs the functions of an attack aircraft. It can not be compared in terms of capabilities with the Su-25, but apparently in the future there will be enough of them and all the more economically advantageous. This approach is typical for European countries, perhaps it is applicable to us as well - wait and see.
  17. monster 25 February 2020 10: 43 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Who in the know, at the svidosvine them. Bandera-the number and composition of military aircraft?
  18. Eug
    Eug 3 May 2020 08: 06 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    As for me, the functions of attack aircraft will most likely be transferred to helicopters. They respond more quickly to requests from SV.