Military Review

Indoor air assault club

168

Photo: Ognyan Stefanov / Bulgarian Air Force


Indeed, an attack aircraft is a very peculiar phenomenon. Today in the world only two countries have been able to create and maintain this class of aircraft. This is Russia, using the Su-25 attack aircraft inherited from the USSR and the United States, which are armed with the A-10.

There are also countries that operate the Su-25, but there, too, the main majority are countries that are former brothers in the USSR and former allies. That is, the planes received at their disposal in terms of socialist assistance. The only exceptions are Congo and Iraq, which bought the planes at a real price. But again, the number of these machines is small.

So, in fact, only two and a half armies in the world can afford attack aircraft. Half is China, which also has the Nanchang Q-5 attack aircraft, which is a deep modernization of the Shenyang J-6, which in turn was a licensed copy of the MiG-19.


But this is not at all interesting, the MiG-19 as a model under 70 years old. So the Q-5 is still very old and therefore does not quite fit into the concept of what we might call a battlefield aircraft today. Moreover, in fact it is just a fighter converted into an attack aircraft.

However, it can also carry out certain combat missions. But the A-10 and Su-25 are still very far away.

Comparisons of our heroes, "Rook" and "Warthog", were given many gigabytes. We will not compare these aircraft, from my point of view, these are machines created for completely different tasks.


The A-10 was created in the 60s and 70s of the last century (first flight - May 1970), when all NATO was really in awe of tank armadas that the Soviet Union had. And who could really skate across Europe. Therefore, everything was created that could withstand such a force.

So the "Warthog", gathered around a powerful GAU-8 / A cannon and with additional weapons in the form of a very sane guided missile AGM-65 "Maverick" could well become one of the means of deterrence if it came to such a confrontation.

Indoor air assault club

By the way, perhaps this is precisely why the United States surprisingly did not rush to sell the A-10 all over the world. "Only for myself".

The idea of ​​an "airplane around a cannon" can be said to have not justified itself, the main majority of targets in the conflicts where the A-10 took part were destroyed by missiles. Therefore, in its further development, the A-10 began to fly higher and "reach" with weapons farther than at the beginning of its career.

But without a doubt, the plane remained an attack aircraft. Albeit inscribed in the new concept of safe long-range combat.


The Su-25, on the contrary, was created as a means of the Apocalypse for the front line. The principle of using this aircraft was identical to its predecessor, the Il-2. Support for ground forces and total annihilation of the enemy at the forefront by all means available for this.


Above the A-10 for the last 20 years, the threat of decommissioning has been hanging like a sword of Damocles. The aircraft somewhat does not fit into the concept of war at long distances and with minimal losses. It is gradually squeezed into the sphere of tasks of conventional fighter-bombers, although from time to time the "Warthog" works on ground targets precisely as an attack aircraft.

But there are many arguments in favor of a complete rejection of the A-10 as a vehicle and an attack aircraft as a class. And, by the way, these views receive support from the US Air Force itself, since they believe that today the A-10 is even more vulnerable to air defense weapons than 50 years ago.

And after all, it is also necessary not only to maintain the machines, but also to train pilots and technical personnel for them. And this is a very, very weighty argument.

The most interesting thing is that the Air Force wants to get rid of the A-10, and the US Congress plays the role of lawyers. And in Congress they openly demonstrate their unwillingness to abandon the A-10 in favor of fighter-bombers.

Argumentation, let's say, is somewhat enticing, but it has rational grains in it. Today, in any conflict with an equal adversary such as Russia or China, aviation The United States may suffer losses from air defenses and fighter jets. But excuse me, this is the essence of war!

In addition, the US Air Force is armed with other aircraft, which by no means can be called new and modern. This is the F-15, and the F-16 and, of course, the B-52. And for all these machines, the statement is quite true that in modern combat they will suffer losses.

And yes, the A-10 can easily be used in conflicts with weaker opponents, as was the case, for example, in Afghanistan or Iraq. The so-called "expeditionary conflicts" against an enemy that does not have advanced air defense systems. Or in isolated conflict zones, in which the enemy's air defense will be suppressed, and resistance on the ground continued.


Well, yes, there is a certain feeling of similarity to the Ju-87 "Stuka" blitzkrieg instrument. The plane is very bad, but in the absence of opposition, the 87th was capable of causing great harm.

Apparently, the US Congress believes that it is too early to abandon an instrument like the Warthog. Apparently, conflicts of this kind, if not planned in the United States, are not disregarded.

Everything is exactly the same with us. No one is going to give up the Su-25, despite their age. Yes, some gestures were identified under the ROC "Shershen" program, we talked about the PAK SHA program, but after the "successes" with PAK FA and PAK DA, the conversations subsided.


And then, having studied the capabilities of the Su-25SM3, our military came to the conclusion that it is possible to use the Rook for some time, bringing all the remaining aircraft in service to the level of SM3. And with the development of a new attack aircraft platform, we can wait until better times.

There were also voiced "ideas" about replacing the Su-25 with the Yak-130, but, to be honest, it just makes you laugh. And those who want to sit at the helm of a "light attack aircraft", practically unprotected in terms of armor, and iron the enemy's front edge or firing points on it, as the Su-25 did in Afghanistan or Chechnya, are likely to be very few.

Rather, it would be wiser to restore, just in case, the production capabilities of the aircraft building enterprise in Ulan-Ude.

On the whole, it turns out to be an amazing situation. Almost the whole world has abandoned the idea of ​​using attack aircraft, gradually replacing them with fighter-bombers.

At one time, Germany, England, Belgium, Japan, South Korea, Australia wanted to acquire the A-10. However, not a single deal was made. Potential buyers decided that it was too expensive, and therefore revised their concepts towards fighter-bombers.

Indeed, an attack aircraft is still a whole complex of costs, in which the acquisition of an aircraft is not the most expensive component.


Yes, developing, testing, flying around, working out errors and starting mass production is just the beginning.

Next, it is necessary to prepare a technical base for maintenance, train engineering and technical personnel, instructors, who will then begin to train pilots. And at the headquarters of the Air Force generals and colonels should sit and develop instructions and manuals for the use of these aircraft. And then on-site crews will have to practice all this both on simulators and in a real and almost combat situation.

In general, it is a really troublesome and energy-intensive business. Therefore, the majority of Su-25 operators have from 2 to 10 such aircraft. Just in case. These are mainly African countries, where local clashes with neighbors are common and not very burdensome.

The countries of the former USSR that inherited the Rooks also have these aircraft in service and are using them. But we can say with confidence that with the practical application in the same Armenia and Ukraine, everything is not very good, mainly, not the best training of pilots affects. The Armenians lost 2020 aircraft in a collision in Azerbaijan in 5, the Ukrainian Air Force lost 6 aircraft during a very limited use in the Donbas. Mainly from MANPADS fire.

A-10 also suffered losses. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, 2 aircraft were lost, one with a MANPADS missile, the other was perforated by an MZA.

For an aircraft operating at the forefront of the war, the losses are justified and justified. This is the front line of the war, everything is shooting here. And therefore the work of an attack aircraft is quite logical and useful.


Nowadays, the military sometimes gets too carried away with fantasies, talking about how robotic systems will fight on the ground, and UAVs in the sky. Of course, the development of technology sooner or later may lead to such a development of events, but this is likely to happen a little later.

Artificial intelligence, which so far sits in parliaments and general staffs, of course, will one day receive a residence permit in the cabins of aircraft and tanks. Already today, robots and remotely controlled complexes are capable of performing certain combat missions. But a full-fledged replacement will take place very far away.

And here the closed assault club represented by the United States and Russia looks very, very meaningful. Yes, unmanned fighter jets with artificial intelligence, yes "network-centric wars" with equipment for the cost of under the clouds ... All this looks beautiful in commercials.

If we are talking about a local conflict, and even more so, with an opponent equal in capabilities, all this is still going into the realm of fantasy. "Network-centric war" can very easily end where the real electronic warfare begins. It will be very difficult for a UAV to portray something in a "blind" zone of complete suppression.

Well, about the use of high-precision ammunition worth tens of thousands of dollars against firing points dug out with shovels ...

In general, writing off such things as a mortar and an attack aircraft is not that early - it is stupid. Therefore, even in the future, the attack aircraft above the leading edge looks very logical.


Apparently understanding this alignment, neither the Congress nor the command of the Russian Air Force, on the one hand, are in no hurry to develop new attack aircraft, but at the same time they are not going to retire the old aircraft.

In fact, the "oldies" A-10 and Su-25, tested by the fire of more than one conflict, may turn out to be a more expedient force than the hypothetically developed aircraft of the next generation. How difficult it is in the world today with new aircraft, we all see. And on the examples of the American F-22 and F-35, and on the example of our Su-57 and Chinese J-20 and J-31.

And the front-line aircraft (well, the A-10 is not quite that kind of aircraft) must be reliable, protected and inexpensive. So that it can be painlessly lost.


So "Rooks" and "Warthogs" still fly and fly. Moreover, they know how to do it quite decently and painfully for the enemy.
Author:
168 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. avia12005
    avia12005 15 October 2021 05: 42
    +31
    Who said that our Ministry of Industry and Trade will be able to revive the production of the Su-25 ??? He even could not even An-2.
    1. Grandfather
      Grandfather 15 October 2021 06: 09
      +7
      total annihilation of the enemy
      oh and beautifully "wrapped" the novel! lol
      1. Proxima
        Proxima 15 October 2021 06: 33
        +27
        In fact, the "oldies" A-10 and Su-25, tested by the fire of more than one conflict, may turn out to be a more expedient force than the hypothetically developed aircraft of the next generation
        These two undoubtedly worthy stormtroopers are somehow oldies and I can't even call my tongue. There is simply nothing to compare them with (perhaps with each other). The attack aircraft is the most conservative combat aircraft in aviation. What can you think of new there? Upgrade titanium hulls? Glider? The speed for an attack aircraft is not particularly relevant, the ceiling - especially about stealth - is generally out of the question. Well, except that the filling can be modernized over time. So (my humble opinion) we will not see new attack aircraft in the near and relatively distant future, either from us or from the Americans.
        1. Grandfather
          Grandfather 15 October 2021 06: 34
          +4
          Quote: Proxima
          So (my humble opinion) we will not see new attack aircraft in the near and relatively distant future, either from us or from the Americans.

          it is so obvious that it is not even discussed.
          1. Proxima
            Proxima 15 October 2021 06: 58
            +4
            Quote: Dead Day
            Quote: Proxima
            So (my humble opinion) we will not see new attack aircraft in the near and relatively distant future, either from us or from the Americans.

            it is so obvious that it is not even discussed.

            Unfortunately, not everyone is as SMART as you! crying People who are more stupid are seriously thinking about replacing the "Rook". Not so long ago, the Shershen ROC was opened for a new promising attack aircraft, and then they started talking about the PAK SHA program. There is even a platform for replacement - this is the Su-34, moreover, the design of this aircraft has a reservation, again for replacing the Su-25. It's another matter whether the game is worth the candle, it's the same financial costs. fellow In a word, not everything is as obvious as it is obvious to you dear.
            1. Grandfather
              Grandfather 15 October 2021 07: 12
              +8
              Quote: Proxima
              People who are more stupid are seriously thinking about replacing the "Rook". Not so long ago, the Shershen ROC was opened for a new promising attack aircraft, and then they started talking about the PAK SHA program.

              are you from a parallel universe? I will not even explain and argue ... the authorities of such "projects" are a dime a dozen ... dates: 40s, 50s ... long years to you.
            2. Firelake
              Firelake 15 October 2021 07: 20
              +10
              Make an attack aircraft out of a bomber? Well, yes, we will not stand for the price.
              Compare the price of two planes and the issue of replacement will disappear immediately. And secondly, these are different aircraft for different tasks. The only place where su34 can fit is the MPA.
            3. Aviator_
              Aviator_ 15 October 2021 08: 23
              +11
              Not so long ago, the Shershen ROC was opened for a new promising attack aircraft, and then they started talking about the PAK SHA program.
              This is traditional budgeting
              1. this
                this Today, 11: 37
                0
                The designer must do something constantly or the loss of qualifications, there you just need to look at the amount of funds, but mastering must go on constantly.
            4. ja-ja-vw
              ja-ja-vw 15 October 2021 15: 37
              0
              Quote: Proxima
              There is also a platform for replacement - this is the Su-34

              a completely different type, and the goals are different.
              Su-34 consider the average m / u F-15E Strike Eagle and F-111.
              Su-39 was supposed to be. But it's too late
            5. bayard
              bayard 16 October 2021 18: 34
              +1
              Quote: Proxima

              Unfortunately, not everyone is as SMART as you! People who are more stupid are seriously thinking about replacing the "Rook".

              An attack aircraft is primarily a battlefield aircraft. Therefore, nothing more optimal than "Rook" will not appear either today or in the near future. It is a consumable of war, like a tank. Therefore, price, security and shock capabilities are the main criteria for the value of such a machine.
              Therefore, only stupid people can dream of an attack aircraft based on the Su-34.
              They dream.
              And the really smart ones have long determined that in addition to such attack aircraft as the Su-25 and A-10, it would be nice to have a lighter and cheaper attack aircraft. In the 80s / early 90s, they worked on this both in the USSR and in the USA. They got the Super-Tucano, we didn’t manage to get anything. But in vain. Now such a machine would not really interfere with us in less priority areas. Incl. on the border with Afghanistan. In many ways, they could replace assault helicopters, costing less both in purchase and in operation, being much easier to fly and having a higher speed.
              But the trouble is that we cannot even resume production of the An-2 due to the lack of suitable engines. And in the issue of a light turboprop attack aircraft, the reason is the same.
              1. Osipov9391
                Osipov9391 16 October 2021 18: 52
                +6
                Su-39 could be a new attack / light fighter. The plane turned out to be quite good.
                But they refused it and in Ulan-Ude they even dismantled the line. And there is not a single flight model in Russia, like its predecessor, the Su-25T, that rotted under the sky in Lipetsk.
                Only Ethiopians kept a couple of former Lipetsk cars.
                It has a great constructive similarity with the Su-25UB and Su-25UTG.
                And the last two, too, would not interfere, because there are very few of them left.
                But the Poghosyans-Serdyukovs-Manturovs made sure that they were not there.
                1. bayard
                  bayard 16 October 2021 19: 30
                  +5
                  The Su-39s were going to dilute the Su-25 regiments so that they would cover groups of attack aircraft from enemy aircraft. The "Spear" radar and explosive missiles certainly did not make a fighter out of it, but having good maneuverability and the ability to snap back, they gave some chance for the group to survive in the event of an attack by enemy fighters. But later they decided that it would be better to cover the attack aircraft with conventional fighters. And the developments on the Su-39 formed the basis for the modernization of the SM \ SM3.
                  It would be nice to revive the production of the modernized version of the Su-25, but the production line in Ulan-Ude is no longer there. But its export potential would be quite good, if the price did not go off scale.
                  Quote: Osipov9391
                  But the Poghosyans-Serdyukovs-Manturovs made sure that they were not there.

                  Poghosyan, this is generally the curse of the Sukhoi Design Bureau. The harm caused is even difficult to imagine.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. bayard
                      bayard 17 October 2021 00: 51
                      +1
                      If for so many years they could not / did not want to do it, especially in the last 7+ years of direct confrontation with the West, after the coup and seizure of Ukraine by the United States and England, after we have been balancing on the brink of war several times ... if under such conditions they have not revived what is really needed for the war ... and a lot of things, which means that this is what they want.
                      And they are not at all interested in defenses. Some play is just being played.
                      1. Osipov9391
                        Osipov9391 17 October 2021 01: 44
                        +2
                        Even if nothing new was built in this regard, then about 2 dozen Su-39s could be scrapped for all feeds. In Ulan-Ude, up to 3 cars of varying degrees of readiness, including one fully assembled, in GLITs there are several serial cars, about 3-4 pieces, in Lipetsk there were 4 pieces and somewhere else it could be recruited for repair.
                        Approximately 20 cars would come out. From what has already been done and transferred to TAPO and U-UAZ by the end of the 90s. And these were the youngest and most modern attack aircraft in the country.
                        But part of it was stolen, part went to metal, which became monuments.
                        And yes, the production of the Su-25UBM (it is critically important for the training of the Su-39 and Su-25SM pilots) was not deployed at all at the U-UAZ!
                        And since the doubles have a higher plaque, they had to be made for replacement.
                        And they break on a regular basis - no wonder that the youngest of 1991 was released.
                      2. Osipov9391
                        Osipov9391 17 October 2021 01: 54
                        +4
                        And more information from the late 90s and early 00s that the new Su-39 attack aircraft will be part of the ShAP existing in each military district and this regiment will include 4-6 Su-39, 12-14 Su-25SM and 2-3 Su-25UBM.
                        That is, the technique had to be applied depending on the task. But I think this approach was correct and balanced.
                        When you break a walnut, it is not given to use a sledgehammer. But a rubber hammer may not be enough to crack a walnut either.
                        If, for example, the Su-25SM attacking a ground target risk falling under fire from an air defense system or aviation, then the Su-39 will suppress the air defense (L-150 Pastel revealing the exact location of the air defense system) with X-58 missiles, and repel the attacks of enemy fighters.
                        Well, even if they don't fight back, turning on their small radars can turn the enemy into flight.
                      3. bayard
                        bayard 17 October 2021 02: 33
                        0
                        Yes, I remember, big plans were made then - in the 90s - early 00s on the Su-39. There were also later talks about their construction in Ulan-Ude, but to no avail, they decided to simply modernize the existing park of the 25s.
                        Now it would be very useful to return to this project ... but we already cannot resume production of the An-2.
                        Yes, they do not really strive.
                      4. Osipov9391
                        Osipov9391 17 October 2021 02: 43
                        +4
                        And it is not so easy to modernize the Su-25 in the SM - many machines are over 35 years old and they still fought in Afghanistan.
                        The gliders are worn out, and nothing will come from Tbilisi that is needed for the glider.
                        Here in Kubinka, several cars are converted into one.
                        The equipment has not been made for a long time either. And the autopilot SAU-8 is not there, without it it is already oh how difficult it is to bring the plane to the target and leave. The death of Major Filippov confirms this. And if he were on the Su-39, then the "Dry cargo" would have lit MANPADS.
                        So even the Su-25SM3 cannot perform the required tasks. I'm not even talking about the absence of the Shkval, Dry cargo ship and airborne radar systems.
                        New cars were desperately needed, or at least those that are there to revive.
                        But the commander-in-chief of the Aerospace Forces, who has not served for a day in aviation, says that all modifications of the Su-25 will replace the Su-34. And in this the same generals sing along with him.
                      5. Osipov9391
                        Osipov9391 17 October 2021 02: 54
                        +4

                        The green display in the corner of the Su-39 cockpit is the IT-23M of the Shkval system. Data from the L-150, radar, suspended containers "Hod", "Prichal", "Mercury" and others are also sent there. Everything depends on the task, including on a moonless night / in the light of the moon.
                        In general, everything is quite modern, even by today's standards. And even then, in the 90s, it was generally a miracle. Krasnogorsk plant probably "Shkval" forgot how to do it.
                        And many years have passed since the last deliveries for the Ka-50 were from 2008.
                        The ceiling of 12000 km is very good because of the pressurized cabin. Firstly, the ferry range has increased, and secondly, anti-ship and anti-radar missiles will fly farther than when launched from 5000-6000 meters.
                        In combat with fighters there is a cannon, R-73, R-27 and R-77. Since the plane is small, it will be able to fight back. This is certainly not an interceptor, not a fighter. But he will stand up for himself or for the Su-25SM if necessary.
                        If Bakak was in the OKB, he could have struck. Well, at least for export though.
                        But Poghosyan became and turned around as if on a civilian theme with the well-known all liner being obscenely obscene now.
                    2. The comment was deleted.
        2. Trapp1st
          Trapp1st 15 October 2021 11: 07
          +9
          What can you think of new there? Upgrade titanium hulls? Glider?
          A system against MANPADS of the KAZ type.
        3. smart ass
          smart ass 16 October 2021 11: 54
          -2
          Su 25 must be made unmanned !!! Wunderwaffle
      2. Maki Avellevich
        Maki Avellevich 15 October 2021 08: 33
        +2
        Quote: Dead Day
        oh and beautifully "wrapped" the novel!

        there is also not total annihilation, that is, incomplete complete annihilation.
    2. Filxnumx
      Filxnumx 15 October 2021 07: 18
      +7
      and who said that they are going to revive the production of the An-2?
      1. avia12005
        avia12005 15 October 2021 14: 41
        +3
        They can neither do it, nor can they do it in return.
    3. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 15 October 2021 09: 31
      0
      Moreover, the main production was in Georgia ...
      1. Grits
        Grits 16 October 2021 12: 48
        0
        Quote: Zaurbek
        Moreover, the main production was in Georgia ...

        Back in Ulan-Ude they did something
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 17 October 2021 12: 37
          0
          Ulan-Ude made a UB version, but based on the Georgian backlog
    4. madrobot
      madrobot 15 October 2021 09: 45
      -8
      And we don't know how to make iPhones. Do you even think you are carrying? Or did they serve stale smoothies in the coworking space?
    5. Undecim
      Undecim 15 October 2021 14: 00
      +4
      talked about the PAK SHA program
      ...
      conversations have died down

      The situation is exactly the same in the USA. We talked about the Light Attack / Armed Reconnaissance (LAAR) program, aka OA-X program, aka AT-X program, and the program was closed in 2020.
      1. Firelake
        Firelake 15 October 2021 14: 47
        +3
        So can they do something like Tucano against the barmaley? And cheap and strong. I am simply plagued by doubts about the effectiveness of su25 in today's major conflict (in terms of survival). And for the barmaley, the price of an airplane and flight hour is very high ... Incarnation of IL2, so to speak ... with a new engine, brao and weapons ...
        1. Undecim
          Undecim 15 October 2021 15: 01
          +10
          There were such attempts. We even tried the Yak-52B variant.

          There were Grunin's projects.


          No further projects were made.
          1. Firelake
            Firelake 15 October 2021 15: 24
            +3
            It's a pity that this is so ... the generals are of course very conservative people, but either you change, or they change you ...
            At the same time, everything is there. Take and collect ...
          2. Grits
            Grits 16 October 2021 12: 51
            +4
            Quote: Undecim
            There were such attempts. We even tried the Yak-52B variant.

            There were Grunin's projects.


            No further projects were made.

            And why are they silent that the Pindo-Stanis, in addition to the Warthog, also have a helical Tucano? To drive any "zusul" without air defense and not to hammer nails with a microscope. But we have nothing like this
            1. Terran ghost
              Terran ghost 18 October 2021 11: 20
              +4
              besides the Warthog, is there also a helical Tucano?

              The US Armed Forces do not use the Tucano light attack aircraft (not to mention the fact that these aircraft are designed and manufactured not in the United States, but even in Brazil). Because the first question is "what for are they needed?"
              The raison d'être of light propeller-driven front-line bombers is to use them in the framework of asymmetric (counter-partisan) operations in conditions when the enemy does not have his own aviation, and either no air defense systems at all, or they are extremely weak. But under the same conditions, combat unmanned aerial vehicles perform extremely well. Which do the same, but are devoid of a number of inherent disadvantages of manned vehicles.
              1. Angry Alt-Right
                Angry Alt-Right 19 October 2021 01: 24
                0
                Heavy UAVs are not used as attack aircraft, they are used as reconnaissance and strike vehicles! This is a little different. An attack aircraft is a means of direct fire support, i.e. it primarily works with a cannon and / or NURS, and only secondarily with ATGMs. Otherwise, nothing prevents the creation of 2 types of attack aircraft, or 1 "average", so to speak, since in modern realities the loitering time + low vulnerability in IR play a much greater role for an attack aircraft than its armor. And + from the less hot exhaust in the conditions of the alleged "big conflict" is also not going anywhere.
        2. max702
          max702 15 October 2021 20: 52
          -1
          Su-25 is cheaper than Tucano
    6. Rostislav
      Rostislav 20 October 2021 00: 09
      0
      A dream?
    7. Protos
      Protos 22 October 2021 21: 03
      +1
      Quote: avia12005
      Who said that our Ministry of Industry and Trade will be able to revive the production of the Su-25 ??? He even could not even An-2.

      An-2 Not produced in Russia wink
      The UlanOde plant is developing the production of the Su-25UB for training pilots and taking part in the modernization to the Su-25SM3.
      And this is in addition to the assembly line assembly of the Mil family!
  2. Darkness
    Darkness 15 October 2021 06: 04
    +4
    Very superficial. The novel can do better.
  3. sakuz
    sakuz 15 October 2021 06: 42
    +29
    Yes, it is clear that all are kept by stormtroopers "for a rainy day." They also wanted to send the old tanks in front of Donbass and Syria for processing, and then everything went into business.
  4. Pashhenko Nikolay
    Pashhenko Nikolay 15 October 2021 07: 24
    +7
    "protected and inexpensive. To be painlessly lost." A good turn. The fact that the pilot in it with a high degree of probability will die at the forefront will be modestly silent. The traditional approach to the soldier in our army of generals.
    1. Region-25.rus
      Region-25.rus 15 October 2021 08: 42
      +9
      The traditional approach to the soldier in our army of generals.
      those. in other armies do not send anyone to the cutting edge? Those. let it be better in the attack from the fire of mortars and machine guns an infantry company will die than one or two (and that is not the fact that when shot down, they will certainly die) of the pilot? Or in the Second World War, the pilot of the Il-2 when the plane was shot down -
      most likely to die at the forefront
      Where would so many pilots be found to replace them then?
      1. Redfox3k
        Redfox3k 15 October 2021 08: 50
        -7
        Then the planes were simpler. Training: accelerated take-off and landing courses.
        1. Region-25.rus
          Region-25.rus 15 October 2021 08: 52
          +5
          Training: accelerated takeoff and landing courses
          is this a conclusion from a famous movie? Or a lesser known (but thoroughly cranberry) series?
      2. Pashhenko Nikolay
        Pashhenko Nikolay 15 October 2021 14: 05
        +4
        The Americans poured thousands of bombs and artillery shells on enemy positions before sending a soldier there. And in Iraq, hundreds of tamahawks and other missiles were launched before the ground operation began. And you should have stormed everything like 76 years ago.
        1. Region-25.rus
          Region-25.rus 15 October 2021 16: 57
          +4
          And in Iraq, hundreds of tamahawks and other missiles launched
          what? Is it a desert everywhere, like in Iraq?
          The Americans bombarded thousands of bombs and artillery shells on enemy positions.
          In Vietnam, they also fell asleep and .......? Didn't you use the same "Intruders"? Or now the landscape in the world has changed a lot from
          76 years ago
          EksperD damn it.
        2. I am not a robot
          I am not a robot 15 October 2021 19: 26
          -3
          this is a common practice of any army in the world, not just the American one, the Russian (Soviet) army is no exception
        3. Alf
          Alf 15 October 2021 19: 49
          +3
          Quote: Pashhenko Nikolay
          The Americans poured thousands of bombs and artillery shells on enemy positions before sending a soldier there.

          And before the bombs and shells, Iraqi generals were bought. It turned out to be better and cheaper than fighting.
    2. Redfox3k
      Redfox3k 15 October 2021 08: 48
      +3
      I also thought about the pilot.
    3. I am not a robot
      I am not a robot 15 October 2021 19: 10
      -1
      and here is the approach of the generals, when this is the opinion of the author
      Ukrainians, for example, remotely poured
  5. parusnik
    parusnik 15 October 2021 08: 02
    +7
    At the dawn of the development of aviation, cars quickly "aged", now the "life expectancy" has grown.
    1. Grits
      Grits 16 October 2021 12: 57
      +2
      Mobile phones are aging so quickly now. And a reliable and proven weapon should not only be preserved, but started to be produced again. It's easier than inventing new things.
  6. Konnick
    Konnick 15 October 2021 08: 40
    +4
    On the whole, it turns out to be an amazing situation. Almost the whole world has abandoned the idea of ​​using attack aircraft, gradually replacing them with fighter-bombers.


    For an aircraft operating at the forefront of the war, the losses are justified and justified. This is the front line of the war, everything is shooting here. And therefore the work of an attack aircraft is quite logical and useful.


    And the front-line aircraft (well, the A-10 is not quite that kind of aircraft) must be reliable, protected and inexpensive. So that it can be painlessly lost.

    It is good for Skomorokhov to scatter such words - "painless to lose", "losses are justified and justified." And the words "practically the whole world refused ..."? How are they to be understood? All fools, but we are the smartest and our losses are always justified?
    All this has already taken place in the Second World War, human lives have been paid for it. The most massive Il-2 aircraft and large losses, which became less only due to the fact that the use of the Il-2 was replaced. They stopped using it along the front edge, saturated with anti-aircraft artillery, with troops buried in the ground. And they began to use them in marching order, in columns, in echelons on the way, and not at stations. Such tactics were used during Operation Bagration, preventing the Germans from maneuvering troops, attacking artillery positions in the depths of the defense, supply routes, and then retreat routes, while still ensuring air supremacy. Of course, attack aircraft are relevant against bashibuzuks, such as dushmans and igilovites, but now it is not a war and losing human lives when attacking the "front" edge is a dubious occupation, especially since there are other effective ways to destroy stationary defenses and advancing armored vehicles covered by military air defense.
    1. I am not a robot
      I am not a robot 15 October 2021 19: 15
      +2
      or maybe the situation in the war just changed, and it was no longer necessary to repel the attacks of the enemy on the front line, so we took up the reserves
      don't think that you are smarter than everyone
  7. Proctologist
    Proctologist 15 October 2021 09: 03
    +3
    Apparently, drones are taking on the role of stormtroopers in modern wars. Including reconnaissance, for target designation, according to the concept "one sees - another shoots."

    Well, there are still light turboprop attack aircraft for police operations, the interest in which is not waning, but growing.

    I do not remember conflicts with the enemy's unsuppressed air defense, where attack aircraft would be effectively used. Despite all the bookings, it is difficult for an attack aircraft to fight a fighter or a missile, not a MANPADS, but a full-fledged air defense system.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 15 October 2021 09: 34
      +6
      Attack aircraft were created to work on the front line, in conditions of anti-air defense ... since the appearance of the A-10 and the Apache, the USSR air defense switched from 23mm to 30mm guns and increased the rate of fire, missiles were included in the Tunguzoks and dramatically increased MANPADS as part of the SA. ..... In response, A10 and Apache got a far arm in the form of new missiles .......
      1. Proctologist
        Proctologist 15 October 2021 10: 37
        +4
        So it turns out that an armored attack aircraft, actively working in the zone of enemy fire, is becoming a thing of the past, since an attack aircraft is not needed to strike from outside the enemy's engagement zone - from where the Tunguska cannot reach, shells, etc. We need a carrier of "long arms", at least on the basis of the transport aircraft, which are now being tested. And even on the ground, even, as in Karabakh.
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 15 October 2021 10: 45
          +6
          Yes, it turns out that the bearer of a long arm can be, depending on the money: Tucano, Yak130, F16 or specialized Su24, 34 ....... and somewhere Apache or Mi28. And the "eyes on the ground" for all this - UAVs of different standard sizes from "Orlan" to "Orion" ... correction and increased range is already competing with aviation.
        2. not main
          not main 15 October 2021 23: 07
          +3
          Quote: Proctologist
          So it turns out that an armored attack aircraft, actively working in the zone of enemy fire, is becoming a thing of the past, since an attack aircraft is not needed to strike from outside the enemy's engagement zone - from where the Tunguska cannot reach, shells, etc. We need a carrier of "long arms", at least on the basis of the transport aircraft, which are now being tested. And even on the ground, even, as in Karabakh.

          But I disagree! The Su-25 is still relevant now, but about the Mi-24.35,28,8mt we will add Kamovskys at all. forgotten, But nevertheless it is the support of the SV on the battlefield! And no one can do it better than a stormtrooper!
    2. Firelake
      Firelake 15 October 2021 14: 50
      +1
      I am of the same opinion. But apparently something prevents the creation of such an aircraft. Or no idea or no kit (engine)
  8. hostel
    hostel 15 October 2021 09: 16
    +2
    You can't give up the Rook. And if you also restore production, then this, in general,
  9. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 15 October 2021 09: 56
    +2
    For statistics. Over the entire period of operation, 111 A-10A aircraft were lost from all sorts of factors (including combat).
  10. Grossvater
    Grossvater 15 October 2021 10: 01
    -1
    As always, . First of all, the name is about nothing.
    Then u had to indicate that we were talking about heavily armored aircraft of the battlefield. Because stormtroopers, index A, for the Americans, they won't have enough to bend their fingers.
    And, frankly, I'm tired of the rehash of popular publications.
  11. Decimalegio
    Decimalegio 15 October 2021 11: 11
    +1
    Thanks for the article and for the photo, beautiful. I loved seeing the two planes together. I don't know why, but I've always liked stormtroopers. It is a pity that this is a niche that only the United States and Russia can afford. Why hasn't China achieved something equivalent ???
    1. Konnick
      Konnick 15 October 2021 11: 28
      0
      Why hasn't China achieved something equivalent ???

      Because it is yesterday to have armored attack aircraft for modern combat with an enemy with appropriate air defense.
  12. Konnick
    Konnick 15 October 2021 11: 16
    +4
    During the Karabakh war, 16 Su-25 attack aircraft of the Azerbaijani Air Force made 600 sorties in 44 days, most of the sorties were made after the suppression of the Armenian air defense.

    attack aircraft struck with high-explosive aircraft bombs FAB-250 and FAB-500 from high altitudes. They also used laser-guided ammunition. Their advantage over the Bayaraktars was that attack drones simply cannot lift ammunition of such power, and yet they are necessary to destroy enemy fortifications. The refusal to use aircraft from low altitudes was due to the fact that the Azerbaijani command was afraid of their defeat from portable anti-aircraft missile systems, as well as small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery.


    However, the use of Su-25 attack aircraft from high altitudes did not save the Azerbaijani Air Force from losses. In particular, on October 4, in the Jebrail region, the air defense systems of the NKR army shot down an Azerbaijani plane. Colonel Zaur Nudiraliyev, who was piloting the Su-25, was killed. Most likely, the attack aircraft fell victim to the Osa-AKM anti-aircraft missile system.

    This is from https://anna--news-info.turbopages.org/turbo/anna-news.info/s/shturmoviki-su-25-na-vtoroj-karabahskoj-vojne/

    It was shot down on October 4, i.e. at the very beginning of the war, air defense still remained.
    Azerbaijan used these attack aircraft, modernized by Israel for the use of high-precision bombs from a high altitude, as an attack aircraft, especially the front edge was not used. The Su-25 was used as a bomber in the absence of other bombers from the Azerbaijani Air Force. The Karabakh war in 2020 made us look differently at the nature of hostilities.

    Summing up the results of the use of the Su-25 during the Second Karabakh War, we can conclude that with the advent of attack drones, the role of attack aircraft in modern armed conflicts is decreasing. As mentioned above, in 44 days of the war, they made only about 600 sorties. Aircraft designed to engage targets from low altitudes are vulnerable to an enemy with even outdated air defense systems, as was the case in Nagorno-Karabakh. If the vehicle is damaged, the loss of the pilot is very likely, which often leads to the choice in favor of using an attack drone instead of attack aircraft. Of course, there is no need to say that the time of assault aviation is over yet. Unmanned aerial vehicles are not yet able to completely replace it. In particular, at the moment, they are unable to use aerial bombs with TNT equivalent of 250 and 500 kilograms. However, it is obvious that as the range of UAV ammunition develops, this drawback will be eliminated. This means that in the future, attack drones, if not completely oust attack aircraft from modern armed conflicts, will significantly reduce their role.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 15 October 2021 11: 37
      +2
      And after the suppression of the Armenian air defense ... conditional F16 could do the same?
      1. Konnick
        Konnick 15 October 2021 11: 49
        +4
        And after the suppression of the Armenian air defense ... conditional F16 could do the same?

        Do you doubt it? It's just that it was more expensive and Azerbaijan did not have such aircraft, but there were Su-25s, bought used cheaper and modernized by Israel, like the An-2 maize planes converted into drones, which played a major role in the destruction of the NKR air defense. The role of aviation on the part of Azerbaijan was well thought out.
      2. Sergey Kulikov_3
        Sergey Kulikov_3 15 October 2021 17: 06
        +3
        And what does the Armenian air defense have to do with it !? The war was with Karabakh, a very thin line of course, but the Armenians from their territory did not use weapons.
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 15 October 2021 23: 16
          +1
          Su25 and Mi24 also fell in the LDNR ... ...
    2. Firelake
      Firelake 15 October 2021 14: 56
      0
      In particular, at the moment, they are not able to use aerial bombs with TNT equivalent of 250 and 500 kilograms.


      Reaper lifts almost 5 tons.
      Hunter write that 6 tons.
      So the issue of assault aviation (jet) is already generally almost closed ...
      1. ycuce234-san
        ycuce234-san 15 October 2021 18: 16
        +2
        So the issue of assault aviation (jet) is already generally almost closed ...


        Rather, it opens a new page for piston unmanned fighters - advanced aircraft have an unrivaled low cost of full and flying hour and computers have long been better flyers than any people. Therefore, it is up to them to fight large drones and unmanned attack aircraft.
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 15 October 2021 23: 15
          +2
          Not piston ... .., but turboprop.
          1. ycuce234-san
            ycuce234-san 16 October 2021 14: 19
            +1
            Pistons also did not stand still. The ceramic internal combustion engine was invented after the turboprop. Probably, turboprop would be considered inappropriate for certain areas of application, start doing these studies earlier.
            Ceramics, which can withstand temperatures of the order of 1500 ° C (about 600 ° higher than metal), eliminates the need for a developed cooling system and saves designers from radiator problems. And for a robot that does not need to fly very fast, near the speed of sound, it does not matter that such an engine has a small resource and will even be quite dangerous.
            1. Zaurbek
              Zaurbek 17 October 2021 12: 36
              0
              Elish will make adjustments ... Until a certain power, the internal combustion engine is effective ... Then the internal combustion engine ...
              1. ycuce234-san
                ycuce234-san 17 October 2021 21: 08
                +1
                Of course. But for very, very nimble targets, there are now good rockets. And for very small targets - a laser. And for very high-altitude ones - you can recall another half-forgotten idea - a reusable rocket-plane fighter, now a compact unmanned aircraft, on a propeller carrier.
                It is not a fact that a modern piston fighter robot will even be axisymmetric: it is more profitable to divide its wings into active ones with controls and passive ones with containers and without control devices, and they, naturally, will have different geometries.
  13. Decimalegio
    Decimalegio 15 October 2021 11: 23
    +2
    Speaking of assault planes, could you please give me information on the plane circled in red ???
    1. Alf
      Alf 15 October 2021 20: 00
      +2
      Quote: Decimalegio
      Speaking of assault planes, could you please give me information on the plane circled in red ???



      1. Decimalegio
        Decimalegio 16 October 2021 00: 24
        +1
        Thank you for the information you have provided me, you have been very kind. Do you also have news about the white plane with the pulling propeller ???? thanks
    2. Alf
      Alf 16 October 2021 20: 53
      +2
      Quote: Decimalegio
      Speaking of assault planes, could you please give me information on the plane circled in red ???

      Hold on. Below, sources are more detailed.

      1. Decimalegio
        Decimalegio 16 October 2021 21: 48
        +3
        You are so sweet. Thanks to what you posted, I learned something new. thanks
        1. Alf
          Alf 16 October 2021 21: 51
          +3
          Quote: Decimalegio
          You are so sweet.

          This is not necessary, people may not understand it that way. laughing Thanks a lot.
          P.S. An immodest question - why is the Italian flag?
          1. Decimalegio
            Decimalegio 17 October 2021 10: 42
            +2
            Because I am Italian and I use an automatic translator. In fact, reading the translation seems a little ambiguous. Quiet, I don't belong to the other side, only differences in translation laughing
            1. Alf
              Alf 17 October 2021 21: 31
              +2
              Quote: Decimalegio
              Quiet, I don't belong to the other side, only differences in translation

              The stone was removed from the soul ...
              Quote: Decimalegio
              Because i'm italian

              With what congratulations! After the abolition of the flags, the hell is going on here.
              P.S. How is the Leaning Tower of Pisa? Haven't ... yet? I mean, fell? laughing
              1. Decimalegio
                Decimalegio 17 October 2021 23: 30
                +2
                Don't worry about the Tower, there will be many falls in front of it. laughing In Italy, apart from the problems raised by a non-vax minority, annoying and noisy,
                ok, we're back to life.
  14. Cowbra
    Cowbra 15 October 2021 11: 31
    +5
    By the way, Azerbaijan later recognized more than 700 sorties for the attack of the Rooks. And as it turned out, most of the targets, supposedly destroyed by the Bayraktars, were destroyed very much even by the Rooks. wink Which by the way does not cause the slightest surprise - completely different firepower and protection. Like Kukuruznik and IL-2, approximately
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 15 October 2021 11: 38
      +5
      The main ammunition, which was "hollowed out" by a 250kg corr aerial bomb with a Turkish corr set.
      1. Cowbra
        Cowbra 15 October 2021 12: 23
        +3
        Tripods with their budget already in 2001 switched to carpet bombing "corr bomb" in Afghanistan - very expensive, damn it (c) It is logical to think that a not so rich Turkey would have broken enough "corr bombs" to rivet even for Karabakh wink
    2. Konnick
      Konnick 15 October 2021 11: 56
      +2
      more than 700 sorties to attack the Rooks.

      Without aviation capable of striking the fortifications so diligently built by the Armenians, it would be difficult even to break these fortifications with a 152mm caliber, and a high-precision 500 kg bomb would make it much more confident. The Azerbaijani Air Force simply did not have other carriers of these bombs.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 15 October 2021 12: 31
        +4
        And if Azerbaijan formed aviation today, it would hardly buy attack aircraft. The joke is that the Su25 in Transcaucasia were intended for action against the Turkish army, in case of a war with NATO.
    3. Konnick
      Konnick 15 October 2021 15: 30
      +2
      ... Like Kukuruznik and IL-2, approximately

      A bit off topic, but I note that the I-153 "Chaika" biplane used as an attack aircraft had better combat survivability than the armored Il-2. In addition, it could dive at 70 °, in contrast to the 30 ° IL-2. He had the best aiming use of RS and machine-gun and cannon armament when diving. And he didn't need cover from fighters. At low altitudes, maneuverable, with steep turns, he was not so afraid of the M109 as for a "flying tank". The future twice Hero of Rechkalov on the I-153 already on June 28 of the 41st, with the help of RS-82 rockets, shot down Messerschmit.
  15. Petio
    Petio 15 October 2021 11: 50
    +6
    Su-25 needs to be modernized and used until the end of its resource. We did it in Bulgaria too. By the way, from the Russian SM and SM-3, you can also launch the X-29L and 25L from a high altitude and highlight with Orions and Outposts. But in Belarus, the Yak-130 will be poured like attack aircraft instead of the Su-25. And like light bombers. In the summer, during the exercises, they bombed the SNS from high altitudes too.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 15 October 2021 12: 33
      +5
      Some of the bread of the Su25 lies with the Ka52 and Mi28 ...... like the Apache for the A10.
      1. Cowbra
        Cowbra 24 October 2021 01: 16
        +1
        Helicopter ... In hovering position - a target for a sniper, with drying, I can not do anything
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 24 October 2021 16: 22
          +1
          Piece of bread ........
          The range of the weapons has increased, the armor is not particularly inferior to the Su25 ... Radars, thermal imagers, etc. appear. in Iraq, the main work against air defense was done by the Apaches
          1. Cowbra
            Cowbra 24 October 2021 21: 32
            +1
            Quote: Zaurbek
            the booking is not particularly inferior to the Su25 ...

            You can't book a dviglo tightly, no matter how hard you try
            1. Zaurbek
              Zaurbek 25 October 2021 11: 58
              +1
              There are requirements for fire resistance and that it would not be possible to hit two dvigla with one shot. On Su25, A-10, Apache, Ka52, Mi28 this has been implemented.
              1. Cowbra
                Cowbra 26 October 2021 07: 48
                0
                To hit one dvigun - it will fly back. Yes, and it happened when they slammed into one engine - and that's it, "hello." Well, as the Mi-26 was dropped in Chechnya in 2002, well there from the "Needle", but - moved there two, and one was amazed - but everything is soft-boiled!
                1. Zaurbek
                  Zaurbek 26 October 2021 09: 34
                  0
                  Stormtroopers have requirements:
                  - spaced motors
                  - protection of more important nodes - less important
                  - resistance in time to burning, etc.

                  Progress can be assessed on the line Mi ... Mi-8, MI24, Mi28 ... there is one circuit and a turbojet engine ...
                  1. Cowbra
                    Cowbra 27 October 2021 20: 18
                    0
                    Quote: Zaurbek
                    Stormtroopers have requirements:
                    - spaced motors

                    And look at the A-tenth ... Dviglo. for example, it is spaced more decently than that of the Su-25. Yes, only A-ten, this fucking "damn cross" - sharpened to work on tanks, rushing to the English Channel. And the type of infantry will not work - and not necessarily with a shot from, for example, VSK, but very much even with such a thing as Verba - and everyone, walk, Vasya, chew the sawdust, I am the head of the sawmill, To oppose Verba to this cross is only a swear word
                    The movers are scattered there - but not protected. nothing and never
                    1. Zaurbek
                      Zaurbek 27 October 2021 22: 27
                      0
                      The concept is one .... Each and the A10 and Su25 were made for their infrastructure ... ... and industry.
  16. MauZerR
    MauZerR 15 October 2021 12: 20
    +2
    Quote: Proxima
    In fact, the "oldies" A-10 and Su-25, tested by the fire of more than one conflict, may turn out to be a more expedient force than the hypothetically developed aircraft of the next generation
    These two undoubtedly worthy stormtroopers are somehow oldies and I can't even call my tongue. There is simply nothing to compare them with (perhaps with each other). The attack aircraft is the most conservative combat aircraft in aviation. What can you think of new there? Upgrade titanium hulls? Glider? The speed for an attack aircraft is not particularly relevant, the ceiling - especially about stealth - is generally out of the question. Well, except that the filling can be modernized over time. So (my humble opinion) we will not see new attack aircraft in the near and relatively distant future, either from us or from the Americans.
    the Americans did just that. We upgraded the A-10A to the A-10C, providing it with a modern cockpit, avionics, GPS, communications and linking it to the Lantirn and later Lightning suspension. Next year they will be given money for new wings. So live "Pig" for a long time to cover any "berets" by shouting into the radio "i need air support on my position, danger close fire". The Su-25 must be modernized and remain in the ranks of the Russian Aerospace Forces in any scenario, with the "partners" such an aircraft lives and will live.
  17. iouris
    iouris 15 October 2021 12: 35
    +4
    "An inexpensive aircraft that you don't mind losing" is a cannibalistic slogan: there is a crew inside that will almost certainly be lost. IB and SHA are a relic of the 1970s. The probability of survival is low, the probability of completing the task is low, and the cost of inflicting the specified damage on the object of action is high.
    1. dnestr74
      dnestr74 15 October 2021 21: 06
      +3
      Have you been to the war? Yes, it is always a pity to lose comrades in arms, but there is always an order and a task .... Having taken an oath, you always take the risk of losing your life .... Maybe the officers of the Strategic Missile Forces do not press the button?
      1. iouris
        iouris 16 October 2021 02: 29
        +1
        Lieutenant Colonel A.N. Levchenko deputy. Pärnusskiy iap, the father of two girls, died on the MiG-23ML while performing a combat mission: to destroy the "spirits" firing point, which interfered with the landing. On a dive, he was hit by a bullet fired from a Chinese DShK. Do you think this is effective? Today, there are and should be in service with more effective systems for solving such problems.
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 24 October 2021 16: 27
          +1
          The question is whether it will be the Su25 ..... Or the Assassin Drone or Orion with ammunition or 152mm Red Aol on drone guidance .. .. ...
    2. Terran ghost
      Terran ghost 18 October 2021 11: 23
      0
      "Inexpensive plane, which is not a pity to lose" is a cannibalistic slogan

      Why immediately cannibalistic. A good example of "an inexpensive aircraft that is not a pity to lose" is the Turkish "Bayraktars" TB-2, the same and their counterparts.
  18. MauZerR
    MauZerR 15 October 2021 12: 41
    +1
    Quote: Proctologist
    So it turns out that an armored attack aircraft, actively working in the zone of enemy fire, is becoming a thing of the past, since an attack aircraft is not needed to strike from outside the enemy's engagement zone - from where the Tunguska cannot reach, shells, etc. We need a carrier of "long arms", at least on the basis of the transport aircraft, which are now being tested. And even on the ground, even, as in Karabakh.

    Why is that? It is getting cheaper and easier to drive jihad mobiles from GAU-8 than by Maevrikami. And given the fact that the Americans are extremely zealous for training their special forces and do not want to lose it, then as a lifesaver on call for intelligence or some other special group will be just right.
    1. Firelake
      Firelake 15 October 2021 15: 00
      0
      It's just easier with a hellfire because you don't even have to enter the zone of shelling from ZUshek and any KPVT. Saving on matches can lead to the loss of the aircraft and pilot. And this is already a fiercely horse price tag.
      This is if you measure purely in money without taking into account a person's life
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 15 October 2021 17: 39
        +2
        Quote: FireLake
        It's just easier with a hellfire because you don't even have to enter the zone of shelling from ZUshek and any KPVT. Saving on matches can lead to the loss of the aircraft and pilot. And this is already a fiercely horse price tag.

        The problem is that in low-intensity conflicts, the savings are far from being a match. If for every rusty pickup truck with a Chinese clone of the DShK one spends a rocket worth 120-150 thousand dollars - even the US budget cannot bear this. And if for the purposes of the usual position of the KKP - a circle of stones with the same DShK and a pair of babays - then the difference between the cost of the target and the ammunition is generally cosmic.
        In an attempt to reduce the cost of spent ammunition at least to the cost of the target, some took the path of converting the NAR into the SD. And the US Air Force pulled out A-10 naphthalene from their brrrrrrt.
        1. Alf
          Alf 15 October 2021 20: 04
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          If for each rusty pickup truck with a Chinese clone of the DShK one spends a rocket worth 120-150 thousand dollars - even the US budget cannot bear this.

        2. Pivot
          Pivot 17 October 2021 09: 11
          0
          Well, if you think so, then the hour of flight l. more expensive than a rusty pickup. According to your logic, the pickup should be driven by another pickup, well, so that it is not so expensive.
          1. Alf
            Alf 17 October 2021 21: 32
            +2
            Quote: Pivot
            According to your logic, the pickup should be driven by another pickup, well, so that it is not so expensive.

            And the idea is nothing, where have you been before? No offense. laughing
            1. Pivot
              Pivot 17 October 2021 23: 56
              0
              So I'm an economist from God! But in a war, the problem must be solved at any cost, and let this price for us be calculated only in money, and not in human lives and lost equipment.
    2. ycuce234-san
      ycuce234-san 15 October 2021 18: 21
      +2
      then like a lifesaver on call

      It is more logical to take into account the possibilities of progress and teach the skills of a drone pilot - when the drone arrives on call, a fighter on the spot, on the ground, who knows all the nuances of the situation, gains access to its control and gives him specific tasks.
    3. I am not a robot
      I am not a robot 15 October 2021 19: 21
      0
      if you constantly drive jihad mobiles from GAU-8, then you can get an anti-aircraft missile system
    4. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 24 October 2021 16: 28
      +1
      The question is - do you need 30mmx7 barrels with uranium BOPS for this?
  19. p0pulivox
    p0pulivox 15 October 2021 12: 45
    +2
    Both cars are good and necessary, provided that they are modernized in a timely manner. But in the conditions of modern military air defense of the enemy, the possibilities of their use "on the battlefield" and, accordingly, the range of tasks they solve are very limited. Even with proper use, they are more suitable for fighting irregular formations and the enemy with outdated small armed forces.
  20. Two
    Two 15 October 2021 13: 12
    +2
    The cars are good and they will still be in demand in small-burner fights. Pilots are still being trained here.
  21. Fitter65
    Fitter65 15 October 2021 13: 55
    +1
    A-10 is officially called Thunderbolt II ... And so ... another "pearl" from a "specialist" in aviation. By the way, how is it with the winches on the Mi-8?
  22. Eug
    Eug 15 October 2021 13: 59
    0
    As for me, the functions of attack aircraft can be transferred to helicopters, which are able to respond more quickly to requests from troops conducting combat operations.
  23. CastroRuiz
    CastroRuiz 15 October 2021 14: 12
    0
    Both attack aircraft are good only against barmaley and Papuans.
    1. Alf
      Alf 15 October 2021 20: 06
      +1
      Quote: CastroRuiz
      Both attack aircraft are good only against barmaley and Papuans.

      Do you propose to drive Basmachi with Penguins?
      1. CastroRuiz
        CastroRuiz 16 October 2021 15: 31
        0
        Your question is non-confusing. Dronies will do the work of stormtroopers with a bang.
        1. Alf
          Alf 16 October 2021 20: 12
          +2
          Quote: CastroRuiz
          Your question is non-confusing.

          I take it there is no answer?
  24. MauZerR
    MauZerR 15 October 2021 15: 21
    +5
    Quote: FireLake
    It's just easier with a hellfire because you don't even have to enter the zone of shelling from ZUshek and any KPVT. Saving on matches can lead to the loss of the aircraft and pilot. And this is already a fiercely horse price tag.
    This is if you measure purely in money without taking into account a person's life
    "Warthog" Hellfire does not carry, his missile weapon is Maverick. The firing range of GAU-8 (maximum sighting) is 3660m, KPVT is 2km (if with optics), again this is all very polygon-calculated. But it is more convenient to use a cannon in a gentle dive according to the mark on the ILS than a machine gun from a tripod jumping on the sands of Allah-Babakh. Yes, and against the KPVT, even against the DShK A-10, a very strong pepelats. Another important point: PRNS, the A-10 (especially in the C-version) has a very decent one.
  25. MauZerR
    MauZerR 15 October 2021 15: 23
    +4
    Quote: Fitter65
    A-10 is officially called Thunderbolt II ... And so ... another "pearl" from a "specialist" in aviation. By the way, how is it with the winches on the Mi-8?
    Officially the F-16 is called the Fighting Falcon, but the pilots call it Wiper, officially the A-10 Thunderbolt 2, but the pilots call it "Warthog" (boar or warthog). And the name of the Su-25 "Rook" is also unofficial, from the flight and technical teams.
  26. MauZerR
    MauZerR 15 October 2021 15: 34
    +4
    Quote: CastroRuiz
    Both attack aircraft are good only against barmaley and Papuans.

    Why is that? I am amused by pious believers in 100% efficiency WaitCompleteCancel. They say the air defense will always shoot down the airplane, no matter how it turns, as real conflicts show - nonsense, as the pilots say, nonsense. And the survivability of attack aircraft is higher than the same F-35, photo of A-10x with torn off keels, sides, full of holes like aged cheese and with one engine, a lot of people came to the base. Yes, and pictures of the Su-25 from Afgan in the form of a "non-flyer" but reached the base and sat down at three points - enough.
    1. CastroRuiz
      CastroRuiz 16 October 2021 15: 28
      0
      With the enemy, if possible, this will not roll.
  27. AC130 Ganship
    AC130 Ganship 15 October 2021 16: 05
    +1
    Regarding "only two countries that could." The Tucano attack aircraft is in service with several countries, is significantly cheaper than the A10 and Su25 and is not much inferior to them in terms of firepower. By the way, for work on ground targets its speed is more comfortable. There were also Harriers and Jaguars, but they were removed from service a couple of decades ago.
  28. MauZerR
    MauZerR 15 October 2021 16: 19
    +2
    Quote: AC130 Ganship
    Regarding "only two countries that could." The Tucano attack aircraft is in service with several countries, is significantly cheaper than the A10 and Su25 and is not much inferior to them in terms of firepower. By the way, for work on ground targets its speed is more comfortable. There were also Harriers and Jaguars, but they were removed from service a couple of decades ago.

    How much combat load does Tucano have? Comparison with the Su-25 and A-10 is not in his favor. Does he have a gun? How many suspension points? Is it really 10 or 11? So on the ground, it is clearly inferior. Moreover, the Tucano is a single-engine turboprop aircraft that cannot boast of survivability next to twin-engine machines. As a cheap option, it is possible to drive Allah-Babah, but within the framework of even 12,7mm in air defense and manual MANPADS, it will already make passages. The Jaguar is still not an attack aircraft, this is an information security, simple and cheap, by the first war in the Gulf, most of the British cars were finalizing the resource, and the French had already written off their own, they did not release new ones, the modernization danced at the Jaguar small, the Adur engines are old, there was no replacement for them , for some M-88 or F-404/414 the midship is shallow, a new plane would turn out. Harrier, well, is a very thing in itself, extremely strict in piloting (especially in transitional modes from hover to horizontal flight) an aircraft that, in an amicable way, could only be operated normally by the Americans in the ILC from Taraws and Wasps, and the Britons from Invincible, as soon as new Queens appeared Elisabets, giggling happily, rushed to change them to the F-35B. It must be admitted that the Harriers performed gorgeous in the Falklands, but nowhere else did they shine in an amicable way. As a land attack aircraft Harrier is so-so.
  29. Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 15 October 2021 17: 06
    +2
    Attack aircraft of this type are not promising today because their main weapons are cannons and unguided bombs / shells. Five tons of nursa had to be dragged precisely to compensate for the low accuracy.

    Precision weapons have become smaller and cheaper so that it is stupidly cheaper to try on one guided bomb than to drop a couple of dozen unguided ones on the same target. And this very one bomb will calmly be taken away by a small drone or dropped by a fighter passed by from 10 kilometers.

    And it makes no sense to drag ten guided bombs, because using them one at a time, the plane will be critically long in the target area, where it will be shot down.
    1. Viktor Sergeev
      Viktor Sergeev 15 October 2021 21: 45
      +5
      To go nuts fell in price. One American high-precision bomb costs $ 39000 (the smallest, cheapest), the rest are off the charts for $ 200. Are you going to throw them at a mujahideen sitting in a trench with a machine gun or at an ATGM position? The FAB000 price is about $ 500. The new sight allows the Su4000 to place a conventional bomb in a trench. 25 bombs is already the destruction of an entire unit. Light bombs weigh from 10 kg. and a light drone will not pick it up. The Su130 does not need to be constantly in the target area, its task is to quickly fly in, strike and escape, while it hits from ultra-low altitudes, which reduces the time spent in the air defense zone.
      1. Sancho_SP
        Sancho_SP 16 October 2021 20: 46
        0
        All right.

        Let one guided bomb cost as much as 10 unguided (let's close our eyes, that in your example the American guided and our unguided) are compared.

        But you google how much the ATGM costs with the calculation. Your bomb will be cheaper)

        And how much does delivery to the goal cost? The cost of 1-2 flight hours, say, the Su-25 and some drone that can carry 500 kg? As if that did not work out.

        Scopes advertisements are good, but they are advertisements. 10 unguided bombs will not hit the target, especially each of its own. And if you throw them one at a time, see the price of a flight hour.
        1. Viktor Sergeev
          Viktor Sergeev 18 October 2021 17: 24
          +2
          ATGM Tou of the latest modification costs an average of about $ 60, bombs cost up to $ 000. Add to the cost of the bomb the cost of aircraft departure, add the probability of a miss or not destroying the ATMD, we get a loss. And if we consider even cheaper ATGMs.
          The flight hour of the Su25 is much less than the flight hour of a fighter-bomber. Most drones carry up to 50 kg, about 500 kg. this is a rarity, more likely the future, and the price of such a machine is just in the vicinity of a fighter. Can you tell me how much it costs to train a UAV operator, pay him a salary, prepare a UAV, but do not take into account the interference? The drone has a low speed, a long reaction time, they are only an addition, rather a scout with the ability to blast reconnoitered targets with a not very powerful weapon.
          A precision weapon is a weapon whose area of ​​impact is greater than the probable deviation. FAB500 has an area of ​​destruction of 11 meters (100% destruction) and 30 meters of destruction of infrastructure facilities. Even in the Second World War, planes laid the bomb quite accurately, with the modern development of sights, the accuracy of the defeat is not advertising, but reality.
          You can argue until you blue in the face, but there is one truth: each weapon is good in a certain situation and useless in another. That is why the troops are saturated with UAVs and planes and gliding bombs and missiles and simple bombs.
      2. Flanker692
        Flanker692 18 October 2021 01: 04
        +1
        There are no miracles. If you are talking about Hephaestus, then for now and most likely never its principle of operation can be compared with a bomb using a laser beam or GPS positioning. I met information (I may be wrong) that its use approximately ~ 5 times increases the accuracy of free-fall bombs and this is the same as before China in comparison with high-precision weapons. MoD footage on the first days of the air operation in Syria showed Hephaestus in action, and it was often difficult to get there, not just into the trench, but into the building.
        Ultra-low heights are what people thought of in the 60s, 70s. A prime example of the failure of this concept, the Panavia Tornado is a fighter-bomber equipped with pouchy avionics for ultra-low flights and armed with special cluster munitions for dropping at ultra-low altitude. Britain used them in the Gulf War and got in fact on their ears from anti-aircraft artillery (the relative losses were 10 times higher than that of the Americans using high-precision strikes and the classic F-16 dive attacks, which also soon faded away) reached to the point that urgently delivered to the Middle East the new sighting systems for strikes from great heights that were undergoing tests at that time. This is where the bright, but short history of shaving assault attacks in modern warfare ended. Taking into account the fact that now, in addition to small-caliber artillery, you can also catch MANPADS, there are fewer and fewer prospects for assault aviation. There is a tendency for military aircraft to become more complex, more expensive, while their number naturally decreases, and there is a shortage of military pilots in all countries of the world. Hence, the value of the loss of each individual vehicle and crew increases. And the generals, instead of the phrases "war machine", "consumables" should think 10 times what they will do with this approach in a real war.
  30. Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 15 October 2021 21: 32
    +3
    Is it painless to lose a Su25 worth 4 million and hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of training spent on training? Author, what's in your head? Su25 is no longer produced, every plane counts, the loss of every tragedy.
    1. Sancho_SP
      Sancho_SP 16 October 2021 20: 47
      +1
      Presumably, they are not produced, not because they cannot. It's just a pity to write off.
  31. Diverter
    Diverter 15 October 2021 22: 37
    +1
    All existing Su 25s need to be upgraded with simultaneous overhaul. To withdraw the Su 25 from the Russian Navy MA. Leave training for ship flyers only. Then from them to form three-squadron regiments and place in each district as a reserve of the commander. A sort of quick lifesaver wand.
  32. TatarinSSSR
    TatarinSSSR 16 October 2021 10: 27
    -1
    I didn't quite understand what the meaning of the article was ... As if someone officially banned stormtroopers for the whole world as obsolete and useless, and the author is trying to explain to them that stormtroopers will still be ready ... Article for the sake of the article. In addition, the very war between Azerbaijan and Armenia recently showed how much the artificial intelligence of UAVs and kamikaze drones is better than conventional aviation and artillery, and destroys enemy targets like kurapatki by shooting them.
    1. Sancho_SP
      Sancho_SP 16 October 2021 20: 49
      0
      Not better, but cheaper. If the Azeris had a hundred Su-25s, the effect would be similar.
      1. TatarinSSSR
        TatarinSSSR 18 October 2021 07: 52
        +1
        He would not be alike. The planes are clearly visible even on the outdated radars of the Armenian military air defense. The attack aircraft base airfield can be destroyed. And it's easier to shoot down an attack aircraft with old air defense weapons. Don't argue, but look at how the drones hit a bunch of people, flew into dugouts, and so on. And the victims sometimes did not even hear the approach of death. Stealth and accuracy are other advantages of drones among many others. The attack aircraft does not have this.
        1. Sancho_SP
          Sancho_SP 18 October 2021 08: 31
          +1
          It was not drones that hit, but guided bombs / missiles. The drone is just a platform.
          1. TatarinSSSR
            TatarinSSSR 18 October 2021 17: 52
            0
            There is a kamikaze drone. They have been applied and very effective.
  33. Intruder
    Intruder 16 October 2021 11: 25
    +2
    Thanks a lot to the author!
    But there are several "BUT":
    1.
    Support for ground forces and total annihilation of the enemy at the forefront by all means available for this.
    Where in the next 20 years we are openly fighting ground armies, with a "clearly defined" front line, plus, where there are local conflicts now, you can easily run into modern versions of MANPADS and not only them ... that very "harmful" for an attack aircraft of any level!
    2.
    some gestures under the ROC "Shershen" program, talked about the PAK SHA program, but after the "successes" with PAK FA and PAK DA, the conversations subsided.
    Duc, the budget is now over, you can see a lot spent or requested at the OCD stage !?
    3.
    In general, it is really troublesome and energy-intensive business.
    But why!? It all depends on "appetites", the conversion of aircraft from private civil aviation into light attack aircraft and anti-guerrilla aircraft - as an economy for the "poor" operators of this type of weapons carriers, there are even side armor and birds are not badly used on different continents, as an economy option!
    4.

    If we are talking about a local conflict, and even more so, with an opponent equal in capabilities, all this is still going into the realm of fantasy
    Well, about the use of high-precision ammunition worth tens of thousands of dollars against firing points dug out with shovels ...
    Then, look at item 3 !?
    5.

    must be reliable, secure and inexpensive. So that it can be painlessly lost.
    We look, item 4 and item 3 !!!
  34. SSA
    SSA 16 October 2021 18: 38
    +1
    Stormtroopers are an extinct class. Nobody will produce the Su-25 anymore, and rightly so. A stormtrooper is by definition a cheap, protected aircraft that had to iron the cutting edge. It was developed when nothing was heard about MANPADS yet.

    So let's try to modernize it:
    1. The first weak point, thrust-to-weight ratio. The attack aircraft cannot quickly gain a safe altitude. And in general, high altitude is a problem for him. We put powerful engines, and preferably two!
    2. We put a powerful on-board radar (now the pilot is looking for a target with his EYES!).
    3. It is difficult for one pilot to operate weapons and control the aircraft. We add the second person.
    4. More weapons! Powerful bombs, long-range (and therefore large and heavy) missiles, so that from one or two raids, but from a distance of 10-15 km. all to dust!
    5. The weight has increased, the combat load has increased, therefore ... we increase the glider.

    What did you get? Su-34
    1. Osipov9391
      Osipov9391 16 October 2021 19: 02
      +1
      Su-39 was supposed to arrive. The engines are two R-195s with increased thrust, in the future they wanted to install the R-295. Suspended radar "Spear" under the fuselage or various sighting containers, depending on the task. FMS-39P based on a digital computer, a defense complex digital computer, an SAU-8 autopilot, and a Shkval complex also a digital computer. Going to the target and its search are automated. One pilot coped with Chechnya.
      10 points of suspension is enough, any weapon including PRR and anti-ship missiles.
      And the glider from the Su-25UB. Only instead of the second pilot there is a fuel tank + an electronics compartment.
      Everyone just forgot about this car.
      1. SSA
        SSA 16 October 2021 19: 31
        +1
        The Su-39 with all the bells and whistles and the best available engines, at a price already much closer to the Su-34 than to the simple and cheap Su-25.
        The amount of incoming information, the availability and control of modern weapons, greatly increases the workload on the pilot, in contrast to the Su-34, where a separate specialist is engaged in this, and this is the quality and time of the combat mission.
        What's the bottom line? The Su-39 is an aircraft in all respects that is much inferior to the Su-34 in terms of combat and flight characteristics, winning only by having one pilot and conditionally cheaper. Why conditionally? Because the Su-34 is already a new, mass-produced aircraft. Su-39 is either the modernization of the old fleet, the Su-25, or the launch of a NEW production! What for? What to do is not a cheap attack aircraft, but at the same time a non-bomber.
        To the museum. Together with battleships, armored trains, horse attacks of pikemen, etc.
  35. Osipov9391
    Osipov9391 16 October 2021 18: 57
    +3
    Everyone forgot about the Su-39. He was earlier the Su-25T, aka T-8M. Could be done in Ulan-Ude.
    And its characteristics are a cut higher than even the Su-25SM3.
    There could be an overhead radar suspended, or instead of it, various aiming containers for a specific task. The sealed cockpit moved the ceiling 12 km.
    Well, the range of weapons is almost the same as that of the Su-34, including anti-ship missiles.
  36. SSA
    SSA 16 October 2021 19: 10
    +1
    But what about the use of the Su-25 against small targets and enemy groups where there are no MZA, MANPADS, or are they already suppressed? Let's see:

    Search and destruction of single targets - tanks, combat vehicles, armored personnel carriers, small groups, both in the daytime and at night, using the folds of the terrain as a cover, abrupt departure from the combat course without entering the affected area, turning practically on the spot, monitoring terrain.
    Get Ka-52, Mi-28, Mi-24 Apache and other similar helicopters. The Su-25 cannot do any of this. Therefore, as a counter-partisan aircraft, it also loses everything to a helicopter.
  37. Ilgizl
    Ilgizl 16 October 2021 20: 38
    0
    Why not replace the materials, the thrust-to-weight ratio will increase, and accordingly, the quality and quantity of ammunition can be changed, and the filling can be completely changed for greater efficiency.
    1. SSA
      SSA 16 October 2021 21: 33
      +2
      The cost of the aircraft is formed from 1. engines 2. radar - avionics and 3. the glider itself.

      Put on the Su-25 powerful new engines, a new powerful radar with all the equipment for selection, target tracking, electronic warfare systems, use other materials in the airframe and get a very expensive machine to manufacture. And if you consider that all this needs to be adjusted from scratch! The costs will be prohibitive, and you will get an aircraft closer to the bomber than to the attack aircraft. But it is essential and inferior to the first in everything. What for? Who needs it?
      The Su-25 in its original form is almost an Il-2, only with jet engines. Cheap, easy to learn. You can become a pilot on the Su-25 in 3-5 months of accelerated training, as in the great Patriotic war. There was not even an ILS! Do you understand what an attack aircraft is ?!

      In Syria, for aircraft, the minimum permissible altitude for the use of airborne weapons has long been established, 3500 meters.

      Imagine the work of the Su-34 ... reaching the target (detecting a target such as a tank at a distance of up to 75 km.) The navigator and the pilot work together, lowering, using weapons, imagine that these are some kind of nourses or bombs, and the plane dropped to 3500, afterburner and a quick set of safe 4000-5000 meters.

      And now the Su-25 ... a descent, one person controls the aircraft and the weapons, and the target is watching, that's 3500, used weapons, afterburner and ... not at all quickly the Su-25 is gaining the lost 4000-5000 meters. It is at this moment that attack aircraft catch MANPADS, short-range air defense systems, and so on.
  38. Capt cook
    Capt cook 17 October 2021 02: 11
    0
    Today in the world only two countries have been able to create and maintain this class of aircraft.
    After that, you can not read
  39. Flanker692
    Flanker692 18 October 2021 01: 17
    +1
    1. The F-15E has long been involved in direct air support in the US Air Force. He, like the A-10, goes on duty and fulfills "requests from the ground". The same concept will be followed by the F-35A. Therefore, I do not see the reasons why the Su-34 cannot replace the Su-25, if they succeed, it will work for us.
    2. When they say that the original concept of the A-10 was different, not the same as that of the Su-25, i.e. simply, he is dead, in comparison with the "tank" Su-25, so he needs mavericks, etc., then I have been trying for a long time to understand on the basis of what such conclusions were made. The Americans were going to send the A-10 to the Soviet tank columns, but did not take into account the Shilki coming with them? so it turns out?
    Su-25:
    Armor mass: 595 kg
    lantern: 48,5 kg frontal (bulletproof glass)
    cockpit: 424,9 kg (titanium armor plates from 10 to 24 mm)
    fuel and oil system: 121,6 kg
    Tread weight: 160 kg
    The total mass of the means of supporting the BZ: 1050 kg (7,2% of the normal take-off weight)
    A-10:
    Armor protection weight:
    lantern: 25 kg frontal (bulletproof glass)
    cockpit: 615 kg (titanium armor plates from 13 to 38 mm)
    fuel and oil system: 490 kg
    Ammunition box protection: 127 kg
    The total mass of the means of supporting the BZ: 1310 kg (9,6% of the normal take-off weight)
    1. Eroma
      Eroma 20 October 2021 19: 46
      +1
      The difference is in the initial idea of ​​hitting targets! The A10 was built around the Megapushka, which was supposed to crush Soviet tanks and finish off everything with bombs. And the su25 was originally supposed to hit targets with unguided rockets and finish off with bombs, the guns of the Rook are like a secondary weapon, for point targets. Therefore, they are different, in my opinion the concept of the SU25 is more correct, because the A10, in the end, also mainly hits the target with a gun.
  40. MauZerR
    MauZerR 18 October 2021 09: 35
    +1
    Quote: SSA
    Stormtroopers are an extinct class. Nobody will produce the Su-25 anymore, and rightly so. A stormtrooper is by definition a cheap, protected aircraft that had to iron the cutting edge. It was developed when nothing was heard about MANPADS yet.

    So let's try to modernize it:
    1. The first weak point, thrust-to-weight ratio. The attack aircraft cannot quickly gain a safe altitude. And in general, high altitude is a problem for him. We put powerful engines, and preferably two!
    2. We put a powerful on-board radar (now the pilot is looking for a target with his EYES!).
    3. It is difficult for one pilot to operate weapons and control the aircraft. We add the second person.
    4. More weapons! Powerful bombs, long-range (and therefore large and heavy) missiles, so that from one or two raids, but from a distance of 10-15 km. all to dust!
    5. The weight has increased, the combat load has increased, therefore ... we increase the glider.

    What did you get? Su-34

    1. Aircraft are not united by thrust-to-weight ratio. The Su-25 and A-10 have a straight wing, large aspect ratio and area, these are subsonic aircraft with aerodynamics at the level of WW2 pistons, they do not need two engines of 15 tons of thrust at the afterburner.
    2. The pilot is now looking for targets through the NRNS, in the case of the A-10 - through the Lightning container.
    3. We tried a 2-seater A-10 in the 80s. Refused, stands in the museum. Upgrade avionics more efficiently. Any pilot would prefer to take "extra" 300 liters of fuel or another boNbu instead of the operator (WSO). With a modern "board", the pilot does not need to be torn between work on targets and aerobatics.
    4. Max combat load of A-10 - 7200kg. How many boNbs can you hang? Somewhere half a wagon, where else? So that "the whole world in dust" How much combat su-34go? 8t max? As if not far, especially if we talk about a normal combat, it is in both cars in the region of 4t.
    5. Have you seen the sizes A-10? He's just a huge barn.
    1. SSA
      SSA 18 October 2021 21: 01
      0
      The thrust-to-weight ratio of the Su-34 allows it to pick up speed as quickly as possible and leave a dangerous height when attacking. Together with heat traps, this is a high probability of avoiding MANPADS and SAM missiles. And the Su-25 can only rely on traps. The Su-34 is much more maneuverable and can quickly gain supersonic speed, disrupting the capture of the tracking radar, while the Su-25 is already being destroyed by 700 km / h.
      In Syria, the downed su-25 did not have enough speed and height to get away from the MANPADS missile.
      No suspended container or PRNS can compete with the Su-34 radar detecting ground targets at a distance of up to 75 km.
  41. Vitaly Solovyov
    Vitaly Solovyov 18 October 2021 10: 25
    +2
    Interesting article, plus funny phrases, thanks))
  42. MauZerR
    MauZerR 18 October 2021 10: 43
    +1
    Quote: Flanker692
    1. The F-15E has long been involved in direct air support in the US Air Force. He, like the A-10, goes on duty and fulfills "requests from the ground". The same concept will be followed by the F-35A. Therefore, I do not see the reasons why the Su-34 cannot replace the Su-25, if they succeed, it will work for us.
    2. When they say that the original concept of the A-10 was different, not the same as that of the Su-25, i.e. simply, he is dead, in comparison with the "tank" Su-25, so he needs mavericks, etc., then I have been trying for a long time to understand on the basis of what such conclusions were made. The Americans were going to send the A-10 to the Soviet tank columns, but did not take into account the Shilki coming with them? so it turns out?
    Su-25:
    Armor mass: 595 kg
    lantern: 48,5 kg frontal (bulletproof glass)
    cockpit: 424,9 kg (titanium armor plates from 10 to 24 mm)
    fuel and oil system: 121,6 kg
    Tread weight: 160 kg
    The total mass of the means of supporting the BZ: 1050 kg (7,2% of the normal take-off weight)
    A-10:
    Armor protection weight:
    lantern: 25 kg frontal (bulletproof glass)
    cockpit: 615 kg (titanium armor plates from 13 to 38 mm)
    fuel and oil system: 490 kg
    Ammunition box protection: 127 kg
    The total mass of the means of supporting the BZ: 1310 kg (9,6% of the normal take-off weight)

    Yankees very often work with a cannon at Allah-Babakhs, the M61Vulcan in this regard is much weaker than the GAU-8F, and as the US Air Force pilots say, the use of cannon weapons on the ground with the A-10 is easier, it is easier to keep it at a low altitude so that a mouthful of earth swell.
    Moreover, as I understood from Bobing's presentation, the cannon was removed from the new F-15EX, it is now an option, like heated seats in an assault vehicle.
  43. shinobi
    shinobi 18 October 2021 12: 52
    +1
    The only wish for the Su-25 is to make it a little more capacious in terms of payload.
  44. MauZerR
    MauZerR 18 October 2021 14: 09
    +1
    Quote: Janerobot
    if you constantly drive jihad mobiles from GAU-8, then you can get an anti-aircraft missile system
    And you can drive the anti-aircraft gunners themselves, you can shoot the LTZ and other dipoles, of which there are dofiga on the attack aircraft. Ours in Afghanistan solved the Stingers problem simply - they added additional firing blocks to all aircraft, which turned on automatically when entering the attack and turned off when leaving.
  45. MauZerR
    MauZerR 19 October 2021 09: 08
    +1
    Quote: SSA
    The thrust-to-weight ratio of the Su-34 allows it to pick up speed as quickly as possible and leave a dangerous height when attacking. Together with heat traps, this is a high probability of avoiding MANPADS and SAM missiles. And the Su-25 can only rely on traps. The Su-34 is much more maneuverable and can quickly gain supersonic speed, disrupting the capture of the tracking radar, while the Su-25 is already being destroyed by 700 km / h.
    In Syria, the downed su-25 did not have enough speed and height to get away from the MANPADS missile.
    No suspended container or PRNS can compete with the Su-34 radar detecting ground targets at a distance of up to 75 km.

    The use of heavy information security for the purpose of attack is a separate nonsense and a circus with horses. This machine is a competitor to the F-15E, its task is not to iron the front end in the zones of MANPADS action, its task is to accurately throw cast iron or controlled cast iron, or (which is preferable) UR on the enemy's heads. The advantages of radar at high resolution in BO mode and mapping over any optics / IR / Thermal imager are indisputable, but it is expensive, very expensive, which again brings us back to the question of the adequacy of the use of IS for ground attack. If the Aerospace Forces do not plan to revive the Su-25 and modernize the existing aircraft, then maybe it is worth reconsidering the tactics of using information security and stop driving them to work with NURS in the trenches of jihadists? Returning to the use of aviation in "low-intensity conflicts" (or more simply: chasing the Papuans), the attack aircraft is preferable, because it is better protected from small-caliber rifle fire, maneuverable, easily works from low altitudes (subsonic aerodynamics), and if the enemy has any kind of aviation, we'll see who will twist whom at low altitude.
  46. Glagol1
    Glagol1 20 October 2021 15: 38
    +1
    It is not realistic to revive the SU-25. The real thing is to do this: buy up, where they give away cheaply, collect everything that is in storage - and overhaul with modernization. I am sure that 200 - 300 million overboard will fit. Well at 350. The plane is very necessary, there is no replacement for it. Yes, drones change the battlefield, but not 100%. And IS is a different type of weapon, a long arm. Helicopters are part of the rescue. The Americans also keep the A-10, despite the fact that they hate close combat. They understand something after all. Everyone else, such as France, England, and so on, can only dream of such machines as the SU-25 and A-10.
  47. The comment was deleted.
    1. MauZerR
      MauZerR 21 October 2021 12: 24
      +1
      I'm waiting, if the declared four Su-57 is delivered before NG, then Skomorokhov will write that he was wrong, or shyly keep silent.
      Let's take a look. While these are stories, especially regarding the engines. So far, I only read the cry: "are being tested" "just about already." Let me remind you: F-119 is already 20 years old.
      As for the Su-25, information has already slipped through that, according to the Syrian experience, the Ministry of Defense was already thinking of abandoning it as an ineffective aircraft.
      But the "partners" do not plan, especially after the transformation of the A-10A into the A-10C.
  48. MauZerR
    MauZerR 25 October 2021 10: 24
    +1
    Quote: Alf
    Quote: Alexey RA
    If for each rusty pickup truck with a Chinese clone of the DShK one spends a rocket worth 120-150 thousand dollars - even the US budget cannot bear this.


    What is on your collage is incompatible. AGM-130 / GBU-15 will not fit into the F-35 compartment. Only the F-15E carries it.
  49. DimonDV
    DimonDV 30 November 2021 12: 49
    0
    Sorry gentlemen, comrades, I read this resource, it is stable, but I express my opinion for the second time in 6 years. The author, you at least know which side of the cap is worn on the head. Get off the couch. Oh, and please correct the errors in the article and typos, grammatical errors. Previously, I respected this resource, but I feel it is rolling down.
  50. Baloo
    Baloo 3 December 2021 23: 19
    0
    If these machines did not perform the tasks assigned to them, they would have been written off and cut down long ago, but they fly and fly quite well and do what is required of them.

    Neither Congress nor the command of the Russian Air Force, on the one hand, are in a hurry to develop new attack aircraft, but at the same time they are not going to retire old aircraft.

    Of course, no one wants to spend money on the development of a completely new aircraft when there are workhorses that can still be upgraded to a level.