Su-25SM3: an attack aircraft that may not exist

166
Su-25SM3: an attack aircraft that may not exist

In general, the material was planned to be completely different from what it turns out to be about. In fact, together with one person from aviation we discussed some possible options for solving the problems of the Black Sea fleet in the light of recent events.

And the latest events, you know, are not encouraging, because they are very reminiscent of the year 1942, when the Black Sea Fleet was huddled in the harbors of Poti and Batumi and practically did not participate in combat operations at sea. However, so much has already been written about this that there is no point in repeating it. But it’s a fact: Stalin took care of the ships because he realized their value in the future.



Putin also absolutely does not want to waste ships just like that, stroking the pride of the Ukrainian military, so even though we no longer have Batumi and Poti as ports, all valuable warships have been relocated to Novorossiysk, out of the reach of Ukrainian Su-24s with Storm Shadow missiles and unmanned kamikaze boats. And it’s the latter that we planned to talk about.


The uncrewed boat (UEC), used as a long-range guided anti-ship weapon, is actually a very effective weapon. A kind of anti-ship torpedo for those who do not have money for a normal torpedo and its carrier.

A plastic body that is practically invisible to radar, a minimal heat footprint because the exhaust is vented into the water, a minimum of metal in the structure, and the structure itself is generally small.

There have already been discussions on the fact that with the help of radar these boats are practically not detected, and those that are detected are the work of observation posts and patrol helicopters. That is, they worked in the optical range. But about optics a little further, but in fact, in an article about the fight against BEC using deck helicopters, one of the readers expressed a rather sensible idea about lidars.

Lidar, that is, laser radar, could successfully detect BEC. And from an aircraft platform this would be effective, because they measure depths with lidars and even look for mines. True, it is cheaper and more reliable to search for mines using sonars, but nevertheless, lidars are possible. The main thing is to choose the wavelength. Red waves are almost completely reflected by the sea surface, while green waves partially penetrate into the water, are scattered in it, and are reflected from the seabed. The measurements, frankly, are not as accurate as using an echo sounder, but against the background of water, a lidar could easily detect a plastic boat with a different reflectivity.

But if this happens, it will be in the near future. There is confidence that laser technology can be useful, since something is needed to look for a plastic trough filled with explosives.

But today we will talk about optics. About such a thing as an optical sighting station or OPS. In our case, about the SOLT-25 product, with the help of which it was possible to bring the Su-25SM3 to a qualitatively new level of combat aircraft.

Now it's time to say a few words about why the Su-25. An old and very unkind attack aircraft for enemies, which made its first flight in 1975 and entered service in 1981. That is, confidently moving towards his fiftieth anniversary in the service of the country.


Why did we consider the Su-25 such a valuable aircraft in terms of fighting BEC? Yes, because in theory he has everything for this. Judge for yourself: what is the difference between the Su-25 and the simply beautiful Su-35 and Su-34, and the slightly less luxurious Su-30? All three aircraft are high altitude. Here you need to understand that all three vehicles are quite capable of flying at low level, firing rockets and firing cannons. But - optional. For normal operation, they need altitude in order to “see” the target, themselves on the map, and so on using the radar.

The Su-25 was originally created as an attack aircraft, that is, the aircraft is not all-weather and is designed to destroy targets in direct visibility. And this was determined by the lack of an onboard radar. Yes, the Spear radar could be used, but in a container version on a sling under the fuselage. Not the most convenient, let’s say, placement, and given the specifics of the aircraft’s use, not the most durable.

That is, we have an aircraft that was originally designed for operations at low altitudes, against targets in direct visibility, without the use of radar. So? So. That is, in essence, we have an ideal hunter for targets that cannot be picked up by radar.

However, so that the pilot does not rub his eyes on the monotonous surface of the water, looking for a BEC there, a small (4-6 meters) boat that does not protrude much above the surface of the water, he needs help. And help should be in the form of OPS, an optical sighting system. A complex that is capable of seeing a target, recognizing it, tracking it and calculating the point where the same NURSs will need to be sent. By the way, the ideal weapon against BEC is that it is cheap and cheerful.

And such a device was planned for the Su-25SM3 modification.

In general, the modification of the Su-25SM3 itself is quite serious. Added GLONASS satellite navigation system. A very useful option. And two attempts were made to equip the car with a new OPS. The old "Klen-PS", excuse me, but this is a Mosin rifle. Of course, you can shoot, but...

Many media outlets circulate information that the modification of the Su-25SM3 comes in series with the SVP-24-25 PNK (a variant of the SVP-24 “Hephaestus” for the Su-25), which makes it possible to increase the accuracy of unguided aircraft weapons to the level of guided weapons. Alas, as a source at the Sukhoi Attack Aircraft Research and Production Company explained to us, it was upgraded from SVP-24-25 ONE a copy of the aircraft, which is currently located at the Lipetsk Aviation Center, where it was supposed to be tested and compared with another complex. But something went wrong and the tests did not take place.

Today, a few copies of the Su-25SM3 (and about one and a half dozen vehicles have been manufactured) are equipped with the SOLT-25 OPK developed and produced by the Krasnogorsk plant named after S.A. Zvereva. This is our former Zenit, if anything.

Let's briefly evaluate what SOLT-25 is (very briefly, because I think we will have the opportunity to make a longer article) and why we see this complex as so necessary and useful.


SOLT-25 is a device for searching and recognizing targets with their further tracking, created within the walls of the Krasnogorsk plant. It was developed for use on Su-25 and Yak-130 aircraft, which made it possible to transform the latter from a “flying desk” into a full-fledged light attack aircraft.

The SOLT-25 surveillance and sighting system provides round-the-clock visibility of the front hemisphere of the aircraft, generates and outputs digital television and (important!) thermal video signals to a separate display in the pilot’s cockpit and measures the range to objects in the vision zone.

SOLT-25 provides the ability to conduct round-the-clock search, detection and recognition of targets. The system can track selected targets, both automatically and manually.

In the Su-25 the system was planned to be integrated into the fuselage, in the Yak-130 it was planned to be used in a container version on a suspension.

The SOLT-25 system consists of eight functional modules and devices, including:
- gyroscopic system for stabilization and line of sight guidance;
- television and thermal imaging channels with the possibility of double magnification;
- laser rangefinder-target designator capable of operating for more than 15 seconds;
- telethermal imaging system for automatic target tracking.

Previously, we have an attack aircraft equipped with an optical security system, which perfectly allows not only to see day and night, but also to recognize targets and accompany them until the decision to attack is made.


Let me remind you that we are talking about targets that are difficult to see using radar.

In general, when outdated equipment like the Klena-PS was completely thrown out of the Su-25, a ton of space was freed up. The blocks, originally from the 70-80s of the last century, differed in size, so everything turned out just fine: both the navigation system was included and the OPS. And there's still room left.

And if we add to our topic the developments of the eighties...


There was such a project as the Su-25UBM. Combining everything from the Su-25T, Su-25TM (aka Su-39), Su-25UTG projects. The two-seater aircraft, with an operator, was designed as an anti-tank aircraft with the I-251 Shkval sighting system and Whirlwind missiles. At the same time, with the suspension of the Kope-25 container radar, the aircraft could attack air targets with RVV-AE/R-77 missiles and ships with Kh-31 and Kh-35 anti-ship missiles. A test batch of 8 aircraft was manufactured, but in the end some developments were used in a simpler version of the Su-25SM

Meanwhile, this is absolutely our option: a two-seater aircraft, where the functions of detecting and classifying targets are taken over by the operator, and the pilot is engaged in his duties in controlling the aircraft. Somehow, an attack aircraft does not have an autopilot, so the operator for the patrol aircraft we are considering is a completely useful unit.


As a result, the pilot guides the aircraft along the route, assisting the operator in visual search if possible, the operator uses the SOLT-25 to search for targets, and having found them through joint efforts, the crew, if necessary, destroys them by all means available.

Is 500 km a small combat radius? Yes, but if you conduct a search, for example, 100 km from Sevastopol, then three planes will completely search the entire water area of ​​​​the area. To search at a distance of 200 km you will need four.

In general, I like the idea. Precisely because the Su-25 with a decent OPS is able to detect, and therefore is guaranteed to destroy, such an unpleasant target as a plastic torpedo.

An anti-ship missile is also an unpleasant enemy, but air defense still takes them. By metal, by thermal and radar traces. In addition, anti-ship missiles can end up randomly in the same superstructure. Yes, there will be damage, but it can be repaired, as practice shows. Although, of course, it can also get under the waterline, and then everything will be much more unpleasant.

But the main problem is that the under-torpedo will fall right under the waterline. And this threatens big trouble, since PTZ today is somehow out of fashion even among warships.

And we have an aircraft that is theoretically capable of doing this better than its more modern counterparts. Why? Yes, because even though all of our modern fighters are equipped with an OPS, where is it located?


Su-35


Su-30


Su-57

That's right, everything is in the same place: on the nose, to the right of the pilot. Why? Yes, because these are fighters, and it is more important for them to “keep” the front upper hemisphere under surveillance. Where is the similar equipment on the Su-25?


Well, yes, the emitter and camera look forward and down, and the laser rangefinder receiver is in the nose. The SALT-25 will look exactly the same way, namely forward and downward, since the main number of targets for the attack aircraft will be located there. And this is convenient in our case, because the targets in the waves will also be below.

Does it seem like a solution has been found? There is an airplane, there is the necessary equipment, it is possible that equipment for the production of two-seater aircraft has been preserved in Ulan-Ude. All that remains is to produce a small batch for testing, literally 5-6 aircraft, and send them to Crimea, to Saki. And so that there they pass tests not only in a close-up environment, but in the most combative one.


After all, they are now working in the SVO Su-25SM3? They work, and so successfully, that the question of whether such a modification of the army is needed is not worth it.

But it turned out that it was too early to rejoice. Not everything is as rosy as we would like.

It turns out that the entire process of modernizing the Su-25 to SM3 is under very big question. So, at least, this is considered in “Sukhoi Attack Troopers”, and the reason is called what is happening at the same Krasnogorsk plant named after Zverev, where the mentioned SOLT-25 was created and apparently went into production.


In Krasnogorsk, a situation that is not yet very clear at first glance is emerging. The next reshuffling of personnel, naturally, under the banner of optimization. Moreover, the optimization is amazing. According to the information we have, the last days of December of last year were the last days of work for the chief designer of that very product SOLT-25, on which our entire theory was generally relied upon.

Of course, any effective manager will tell us that there are no irreplaceable people at all, and the chief designer is not such an important figure in the game, but I asked my interlocutor, how would they look at a similar dismissal of Vladimir Petrovich Babak at home? And everything is simple - they answered me - Babak, who since 1991 has been the chief designer of the Sukhoi Design Bureau in general and since 1992 the head of the Sukhoi Attack Aircraft Research and Production Company, has the entire aircraft in his head. And not just the screws and rivets, but the entire production pyramid, in which anything can happen. Can it be replaced? Of course you can. And sooner or later this will have to be done, age is such a thing... The only question is how effectively this can be done.

Here you can look at history, did it work well to replace Petlyakov, Lavochkin, Myasishchev? There were design bureaus, there were comrades-in-arms, colleagues, students... And after the death of the leaders, was there no one to replace them? But somehow it didn’t work out. And in the best case, design bureaus merged with other structures. Replacing a constructor is not as easy as it seems.

In general, our theoretical research is good. But their price is not very high, given the specific realities in our country. And yes, it turns out that the Su-25SM3, an aircraft that already exists in metal, may turn out to be somewhat different in its essence if there is no optical sighting system.

In general, strange things are happening at the enterprises of the Shvabe concern. The Zagorsk optical-mechanical plant, which rented its premises to a private pyrotechnics shop, is in an incomprehensible state after the explosion; the Krasnogorsk plant is also shaken by feverish changes. We decided to take a close look at this topic to understand the essence of what is happening.

In the meantime, observers with binoculars and crews of naval aviation helicopters will continue to search the waves for Ukrainian unmanned boats. The two-seat Su-25SM3 with new fire protection systems is still very, very far away...
166 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +14
    11 January 2024 04: 53
    I have nothing against V.P. Babak, but just how old is he and what is his health. Another question: will he be able to point to the receiver himself? competent designer. Or maybe the situation is in the takeover of the OKB by effective managers? Or does someone continue to purposefully destroy our defense industry? soldier
    1. +7
      11 January 2024 06: 44
      I read the article, thanks to the author, I learned a lot about the Su-25 as a “naval” attack aircraft.

      The idea - to the masses!
      1. +12
        11 January 2024 07: 39
        Quote: Ilya-spb
        The idea - to the masses!

        The masses should not be allowed even close to such ideas. This must be a well-motivated group of professionals - designers and aviators who will have to fly and shoot with this and with this. And if an effective manager participates, it will only be by maintaining the motivation of a group of professionals. First of all, to motivate financially, and not at all with pennants for “Participant in Socialist Competition”, and to knock out all the equipment and components, without which professionals will be sharply lowered to the level of the last century with Kuhlman, Whatman, and Arithmometer (I worked with them, I remember). And the masses can grab reports about new equipment from the zombie box and rejoice.
        1. +9
          11 January 2024 08: 18
          In general, I don’t understand anything about this, but if none of the experts raises the topic, then the swamp needs to be stirred up with something. As the head of physical training in the army once said about the need for a coach: if there is no coach at all, then at least let the janitor look from the side.
          1. -2
            11 January 2024 12: 33
            The question is not realistic to pose. The simplest solution is to install masts on shore with equipment. Don't forget about the false ones. We have a Tu-214R aircraft, it detects and patrols, although they forgot to make a communication channel for transmitting information in real time (the Ministry of Defense did not accept the ground equipment after testing and it rotted in the hangar) - it writes on media, and for ground reconnaissance it almost useless. But it can detect such drones and report the fact via a communication line indicating the coordinates...
            1. +11
              11 January 2024 16: 56
              In my opinion, large drones with good optics and adjustable ammunition, such as the same “lancet” (they also manage to hit moving equipment), are more suitable for constant duty in the air.
              Yes, even just to search for maritime threats and early warning, it would be worthwhile to start manufacturing such UAVs
        2. 0
          11 January 2024 12: 28
          Resfedor has not deservedly been forgotten! How can you work without old man Resfedor?
        3. +4
          11 January 2024 16: 00
          Quote: Nagan
          The masses should not be allowed even close to such ideas. This must be a well-motivated group of professionals - designers and aviators who will have to fly and shoot with this and with this

          Precisely noticed ... good Otherwise, Kalashnikov has a “mass” of designers - whatever this “mass” comes up with is immediately put into service request, and then sawed... modification of this year and that. am No matter what they come up with, you still get a Kalashmat with blackjack and whistles fool
      2. 0
        12 January 2024 09: 03
        Only, as I read back in the 90s, it is not armored. request
    2. +19
      11 January 2024 08: 31
      Oh, these journalistic projects to release something ancient and obsolete. There is an enterprise that produces a module of a modern optics-electronic station, with laser channels for measuring distances and target designation, with communication channels... Total weight is 100 kg. The module is intended for use in manned aircraft and drones. The Transas 1.000 kg class UAV has such a module and is allegedly already being produced at the plant in Dubna. The drone is equipped with guided and unguided ammunition of 50 and 20 kg caliber. For eyes. No pilots needed. A student in an office behind a monitor is enough. More precisely, several for a change. The drone, unlike the Su-25, flies continuously for 24 hours. If you want a plane, there is a Yak-130.
      1. +15
        11 January 2024 08: 53
        Quote: Nikolai S.
        Oh, these journalistic projects

        I completely agree. Any UAV with a long flight duration, for example the Orion, has a multiple of the cost/effectiveness of patrolling a zone compared to a two-seat attack aircraft. The SU-25 is redundant for the purposes described in the article.
        1. -2
          11 January 2024 10: 25

          I completely agree. Any UAV with a long flight duration, for example the Orion, has a multiple of the cost/effectiveness of patrolling a zone compared to a two-seat attack aircraft. The SU-25 is redundant for the purposes described in the article.


          Where do you get people like that? "Orion" will not succeed multiple times, but will fail multiple times. Because in terms of one load it is inferior to the Su-25 by 20!!! once. There’s nothing to say about the Orion’s survivability and reaction time, it’s below par.
          1. +9
            11 January 2024 10: 45
            Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
            Orion" will not perform multiple times, but will fail multiple times. Because in terms of one load it is inferior to the Su-25 by 20!!! times.

            Explain why, for a patrol flight, with a much <100% probability of encountering single or few targets, carry x20 combat load? 2-4 light missiles are enough for the eyes. If it’s not enough, colleagues on the left or right will help.
            Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
            There’s nothing to say about the Orion’s survivability and reaction time, it’s below par.

            What survivability does a reconnaissance and attack UAV need when flying over waters where there are no enemy air defense systems? Even the presence of electronic warfare is very unlikely. And his reaction occurs in real time.
            Have you read the article? Or did they just decide to prove to me the advantage of the SU-25 over UAVs?
            1. -2
              11 January 2024 11: 28
              Explain why, for a patrol flight, with a much <100% probability of encountering single or few targets, carry x20 combat load? 2-4 light missiles are enough for the eyes.


              And if the targets are not single but numerous, or light missiles are like pellets to an elephant, what will you do?

              If it’s not enough, colleagues on the left or right will help.


              And how long will they stomp at their snail’s speed?

              What survivability does a reconnaissance and attack UAV need when flying over waters where there are no enemy air defense systems? Even the presence of electronic warfare is very unlikely.


              I have to disappoint you, hoping that there will be a “sphero-horse” in a vacuum is stupid.

              And his reaction occurs in real time.


              The question is not about the scale of the young man, but about the size. lol
              1. +5
                11 January 2024 11: 44
                Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
                And if the targets are not single but numerous, or light missiles are like pellets to an elephant, what will you do?

                What are the goals? "Arleigh Burke" or what? Or AUG? Read the article. We are talking about the use of lidar as a means of detecting BECs, which are used against our fleet. And they do not use them massively. Single copies. But this is also a threat.
                Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
                I have to disappoint you, hoping that there will be a “sphero-horse” in a vacuum is stupid.

                It is stupid to send an armored two-seat attack aircraft (not in the naval version) with a huge ammo capacity and a very short flight duration for solving this specific task to patrol the water area.
                Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
                The question is not about the scale of the young man, but about the size.

                The question of size is precisely typical for a young man. This will pass over the years.
                1. -1
                  11 January 2024 13: 02

                  What are the goals? "Arleigh Burke" or what? Or AUG? Read the article. We are talking about the use of lidar as a means of detecting BECs, which are used against our fleet. And they do not use them massively. Single copies. But this is also a threat.


                  These are isolated now. What will you do when massive use begins?


                  It is stupid to send an armored two-seat attack aircraft (not in the naval version) with a huge ammo capacity and a very short flight duration for solving this specific task to patrol the water area.


                  It is stupid to lose warships due to greed. The speed of the Su-25 is four times higher, and therefore the reaction time is higher. A huge BC ensures guaranteed destruction. Or haven’t you heard that missile launchers don’t always hit the target?

                  The question of size is precisely typical for a young man. This will pass over the years.


                  I'm not even surprised that for you reaction time has an exclusively gender context. As they say, who hurts what. However, you don’t know any other option. lol
                  1. +8
                    11 January 2024 13: 44
                    Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
                    It is stupid to lose warships due to greed.

                    Agree. And it’s also stupid to lose BT, aviation and drugs for the same reason. UAVs are today and tomorrow, and the generals, as always, were preparing for the last war.
                    Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
                    The speed of the Su-25 is four times higher, and therefore the reaction time is higher. A huge BC ensures guaranteed destruction.

                    What is the frequency of use of X-lami BEC? approximately once every 1 weeks. Date, place and time of application are unknown. This means that before a possible contact with a target, all these 2 weeks (and beyond) you need to monitor the area around the clock, and it is advisable to detect and attack targets as they approach. How many aircraft will be required to be in the air at the same time to ensure safety? How long will the SU-2 stay in the air? How much is Orion? What is the cost of a flight hour for the SU-25 and Orion? What is the cost of losing each of them? How long will it take for each of the aircraft under discussion to exhaust its resource? How will we make up for the retired mass-produced Orions or similar ones, and how do you propose to make up for the retirement of the SU-25?
                    You are not a young man, did I understand correctly? Answer these questions and stop trying to put an owl on a globe.
                    SU-25, in the context of this article, must stand at the home airfield in readiness No. 1 with full ammunition and wait for the appearance of multiple or difficult-to-hit targets. And "Orions" fly in large numbers around the clock and provide detection of subtle targets, their destruction (if possible) and target designation for the "cavalry" (if impossible)
                    1. -2
                      11 January 2024 18: 47
                      Agree. And it’s also stupid to lose BT, aviation and drugs for the same reason. UAVs are today and tomorrow, and the generals, as always, were preparing for the last war.


                      UAVs have their niche. But trying to replace strike aircraft with them is stupid and criminal.

                      What is the frequency of use of X-lami BEC? approximately once every 1 weeks. Date, place and time of application are unknown. This means that before a possible contact with a target, all these 2 weeks (and beyond) you need to monitor the area around the clock, and it is advisable to detect and attack targets as they approach.


                      Nothing is permanent in war. It is possible that they are simply testing the defense. You always need a reserve.

                      How many aircraft will be required to be in the air at the same time to ensure safety? How long will the SU-25 stay in the air? How much is Orion?


                      Why do drummers need to be on duty in the air? Due to their speed, they can take off and reach the required square before slow-moving UAVs arrive from the neighboring one.

                      SU-25, in the context of this article, must stand at the home airfield in readiness No. 1 with full ammunition and wait for the appearance of multiple or difficult-to-hit targets. And "Orions" fly in large numbers around the clock and provide detection of subtle targets, their destruction (if possible) and target designation for the "cavalry" (if impossible)


                      Well, we finally realized that everyone has their own job and replacing one with another will not work.
                      1. +4
                        11 January 2024 20: 27
                        Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
                        UAVs have their niche. But trying to replace strike aircraft with them is stupid and criminal.

                        Is someone trying to prove otherwise? The article is about a method for timely detection of stealth surface targets - BECs, which have become a threat to our fleet. The author suggests for a solution
                        For this task, use the SU-25 attack aircraft as a lidar carrier. I don't agree with him. The arguments were presented above. For whatever reasons, you extrapolated my opinion to all attack aircraft. And you are trying to convince me otherwise. You either read the text diagonally or do not try to understand the essence of what is written.
                        Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
                        Why do drummers need to be on duty in the air? Due to their speed, they can take off and reach the required square before slow-moving UAVs arrive from the neighboring one.

                        Brilliant idea. And who will discover it?
                        Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
                        Well, we finally realized that everyone has their own job and replacing one with another will not work.

                        As a detector of BECs on the water surface in a long-term 24-hour duty mode, UAVs will cover any attack aircraft like a bull covers a sheep. And about storming fortified areas and hunting armored vehicles - that’s for another article. Not this one. This one is about the use of lidars over the water surface.
                  2. +4
                    11 January 2024 17: 45
                    Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
                    What will you do when massive use begins?

                    Um, in this case, the Orion pilot should grab the phone and start yelling to get everyone on board the Su-25 and Su-34, including on the ships, to the combat posts to the machine guns
                    Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
                    The speed of the Su-25 is four times higher, and therefore the reaction time is higher.

                    so he will run out of kerosene faster
                    1. 0
                      11 January 2024 18: 49
                      Um, in this case, the Orion pilot should grab the phone and start yelling to get everyone on board the Su-25 and Su-34, including on the ships, to the combat posts to the machine guns

                      Exactly! And not to replace combat aircraft with UAVs, as some hotheads demand.
                      1. +4
                        11 January 2024 19: 06
                        In my opinion, there should be scouts with 2-4 guns to sink a couple of boats, for round-the-clock duty. And in the event of a large-scale attack, raise everyone's ears. But loitering at low altitude with attack aircraft in search of boats is a pointless idea. If I were the enemy, I would attach a couple of MANPADS to the second boat with duct tape.
                        In general, the Americans would simply bombard the water area with sonar buoys, and then a couple of Apaches would sink all these boats a hundred kilometers from the launch site, and not somewhere near their ports. But reconnaissance doesn’t seem to be about us, we have a reconnaissance and strike heavy armored attack aircraft in the article
                      2. 0
                        11 January 2024 19: 42
                        In my opinion, there should be scouts with 2-4 guns to sink a couple of boats, for round-the-clock duty.


                        There is no need to hang non-reconnaissance weapons at the expense of fuel reserves. Enough target designation equipment.
                      3. +1
                        11 January 2024 19: 47
                        You need to look at the numbers, if the KAB-20 can get into a moving boat, and the Pepelats can rewind 12-18 hours at altitude with four of them, then why not. About 4 years ago we actively discussed that we forgot to make some weapons for drones that were simpler, lighter and cheaper, but it seems they decided to ignore the problem. I remember they wanted to make mini-cornets and damask rockets for the “Epoch” module, I think it would be enough for the boat, but by the looks of it it weighs 7-8 kilograms.
                      4. +2
                        11 January 2024 20: 50
                        Quote from alexoff
                        if a KAB-20 can get into a moving boat, and a pepelats can rewind 12-18 hours at altitude with four of them, then why not.

                        There are NO any. Definitely YES.
                        If the enemy decides to attack our ships or port infrastructure with high-speed boats, neglecting detection and relying solely on a high-speed breakthrough to the target, then an unarmed reconnaissance officer will only be able to provide television crews with epic footage of a fucking triumph. because The "cavalry" won't make it in time.
                        P.S. But the reconnaissance aircraft still has fuel left for 3-4 flights.
                      5. +3
                        11 January 2024 20: 40
                        Quote from alexoff
                        In my opinion, there should be scouts with 2-4 guns to sink a couple of boats, for round-the-clock duty.

                        It’s a pity I can’t give you more than one plus.
                        Quote from alexoff
                        But reconnaissance doesn’t seem to be about us, we have a reconnaissance and strike heavy armored attack aircraft in the article

                        And for this judgment I would give a separate plus.
                        It is a pity that not only everyone can understand the essence of what is written. drinks
                  3. +2
                    11 January 2024 18: 29
                    The Su-25 is not produced.
                    And for patrolling and destroying all sorts of boats and other small things, you can use the Il-114 with radar, OLS, and anti-ship missiles.
                    1. 0
                      11 January 2024 18: 55
                      The Su-25 is not produced.
                      And for patrolling and destroying all sorts of boats and other small things, you can use the Il-114 with radar, OLS, and anti-ship missiles.


                      All that remains is to launch the IL-114 into production. Previously, An-72 was used for this, but apparently there are very few of them left.

                      1. The comment was deleted.
                      2. +1
                        11 January 2024 20: 20
                        I think a turboprop with economical engines is still preferable.
                      3. 0
                        17 January 2024 08: 09
                        This wing and propulsion configuration looks convenient to carry something like a large tall EWACS dish, and if it ever made sense to have much smaller assets relative to the mainstays (A50/100), perhaps it could happen. These things do need protection to limit vulnerability from anti-radiation missiles. The T-tail (if higher than the dish) can reflect the radio emissions and presents an especially hot/large target to such passive radar-seeking missiles.

                        This is what I suspect ukrops using, after infiltrating the azov sea with an unmanned boat. Both ewacs and EW aircraft would be vulnerable if what I suspect is true.
              2. +2
                11 January 2024 18: 04
                And if the targets are not single but numerous, or light missiles are like pellets to an elephant, what will you do?

                Raise a duty manned pair or flight from the airport?
        2. 0
          11 January 2024 20: 10
          Whether in the attack aircraft or UAV version, the weather issue has not been resolved.
      2. -7
        11 January 2024 10: 20
        No pilots needed. A student in an office behind a monitor is enough.


        Not my statement, but accurate - UAV brain.
        Not to say more precisely. For it is impossible in one’s right mind to express such judgments without having the slightest idea of ​​either piloting or searching for and destroying targets.
      3. 0
        11 January 2024 21: 44
        So why don’t “Orions” and “Outposts”, which have been advertising for more than one year, use this?
      4. 0
        11 January 2024 21: 44
        So why don’t “Orions” and “Outposts”, which have been advertising for more than one year, use this?
      5. +2
        11 January 2024 22: 41
        oh, wow, the drone flies 24 so far only from the Swiss and Boeing, and in theory, the petrel. and in the first two cases it is very doubtful that it will be able to power something like our electronics
    3. +1
      11 January 2024 11: 12
      This is what the rook specifically lacks: a guidance complex, ala a hanging container. The Grach pilot is looking for a target without a thermal imaging channel and after launching the X-25 or X-29 is forced to keep the vehicle strictly on the target's course. Well, that's nonsense. While NATO pilots, having an outboard one, launch or release adjustable ammunition and immediately turn it away.
    4. 0
      12 January 2024 02: 31
      . point to the receiver?

      SUCCESSOR.
    5. +2
      12 January 2024 06: 21
      People who are only interested in money are not able to create and build something new. Their interest is profit. And the introduction of new things is a cost, as well as staff salaries, by the way. This is how they have been taught for the last 30 years in domestic and foreign schools. Such managers manage our production at most factories. The result is natural. Piece products with exorbitant prices and huge accounts in foreign banks. This system needs to be scrapped.
      1. +2
        12 January 2024 10: 34
        There is no one to break, the entire population in this system, led by the rulers. All the breakers had their fins wrapped long ago.
  2. +3
    11 January 2024 04: 57
    Why? Yes, because these are fighters, and it is more important for them to “keep” the front upper hemisphere under surveillance.
    For fighters, the lower hemisphere seems to be no more important, at least for intercepting missiles... So Sushki’s optical system looks forward and down normally.
    Another thing is that there are already enough tasks for heavy fighters, and it’s expensive for these machines to patrol over the sea, here the author is right. And here a suspended sighting system can become a noticeably faster solution.
    1. +2
      11 January 2024 08: 12
      On the Yak-130, they’ll learn to fly and, if they’re lucky, they’ll shoot at unmanned boats
      1. +2
        12 January 2024 08: 19
        And UAVs are even cheaper, and UAV operators can learn
  3. +8
    11 January 2024 05: 10
    Let me make a reservation right away: I am not an expert in aircraft construction or in the production of optics.
    I am involved in automation issues. So, by now there should already be development programs for specialists from the Russian Federation that should satisfy the needs of these industries to automate the process of working with drawings.
    Such programs have important functionality for comparing different versions of drawings. The transferred rivet on the fuselage can be found in different versions of the drawings in seconds. And it is necessary to describe the reason and purpose of each change. The main task of the chief designer is to accurately transfer his knowledge into such programs and give access to them to younger specialists.
    Human memory has its own characteristics. In particular, remembering the same event several times, the brain supplements different ones with small details that better correspond to the well-being and mood of the narrator. These are cognitive distortions, they are common to all people to a greater or lesser extent.
    But this does not mean that people need to be used and then thrown away as unnecessary. Chief consultants are the flower of the engineering fraternity. The state must respect and give them the resources to come up with new useful systems within their competencies. But this does not mean that all production should depend only on the health of one person. Now this is a very dangerous approach.
    Let's respect the scientists and intelligently introduce tedious automation and computer-aided design systems into our industry.
    1. +7
      11 January 2024 05: 26
      Why is light aircraft not being considered? after all, it’s several times cheaper. And the speed and height are lower, it’s easier to see “BEC”
      1. +3
        11 January 2024 06: 25
        For some reason the AN-2 came to mind. You can simply place a machine gunner or grenade launcher in the side opening. Cheap and cheerful. hi
        1. 0
          11 January 2024 07: 03
          Why An-2 and not Yak-12?
          1. +1
            11 January 2024 08: 26
            Why An-2 and not Yak-12?
            Because the AN-2 still exists, but the Yak-12 has been gone for a long time.
            1. +2
              12 January 2024 08: 23
              Why not a UAV with a leader and light weapons?
      2. +2
        11 January 2024 06: 42
        Something like IL/2??????????
        1. +2
          11 January 2024 07: 03
          No, it’s the AN-2 biplane. As a patrolman around Navy bases. Low speed and long flight time. Arm with night vision devices and weapons capable of destroying a naval power supply. soldier
          1. +4
            11 January 2024 08: 48
            Quote: V.
            No, it’s the AN-2 biplane. As a patrolman around Navy bases. Low speed and long flight time.

            Then a drone will do. Like Sirius, for example. Today this is a “fashionable” and, admittedly, necessary topic. Low cruising speed, long flight time, decent load (about half a ton). Two operators can change each other at least every hour if you are tired of looking at the monitor.
            1. 0
              11 January 2024 09: 43
              You can try both options to see which one is better to leave. Or, for example, in Sevastopol an AN-2 during the day and a UAV at night. At least tomorrow we can put two observers with binoculars on the sides and check the detection efficiency on a mock-up at sea, or shoot from something. soldier
              1. 0
                11 January 2024 10: 20
                For the sea this is BE2 with a turret from Mi28 and OLS. The An-2 is single-engine, no one will fly it over water.
                1. 0
                  11 January 2024 10: 44
                  You can put it on floats, it flew great with them in Siberia. And then the patrol range is 100-150 km from the base, I think this is enough.
                2. +1
                  11 January 2024 11: 00
                  It’s easier to ask the faces for their An-72P - they have the OEC (old, really), and they already have the weapons. smile
        2. +3
          11 January 2024 11: 29
          Tucano-class, turboprop attack aircraft, already exist
          1. 0
            11 January 2024 15: 16
            Quote: novel xnumx
            Tucano-class, turboprop attack aircraft, already exist

            There is class. But there is no similar domestic base.
            We need something based on domestic cars.
            1. 0
              11 January 2024 15: 53
              For now, at least buy it and do it
              1. +1
                12 January 2024 10: 57
                Quote: novel xnumx
                For now, at least buy it and do it

                Will they sell it? The Tucano has a P&W engine - the Yankees can put pressure on Embraer, threatening to ban the supply of engines.
    2. 0
      11 January 2024 05: 26
      Why is light aircraft not being considered? after all, it’s several times cheaper. And the speed and height are lower, it’s easier to see “BEC”
    3. +1
      11 January 2024 08: 39
      Quote: Sergey_Bely
      But this does not mean that all production should depend only on the health of one person. Now this is a very dangerous approach.

      This is a well thought out approach. This is the trend of today, however.
  4. -3
    11 January 2024 05: 44
    It’s wonderful, Roman, that there are people in the country who are interested in the problems of the army and navy in the light of the SVO - an examination of the RF Armed Forces for the professional suitability of all levels of management and performers:
    In fact, together with one person from aviation we discussed some possible solutions to the problems of the Black Sea Fleet in the light of recent events.

    And then people with big stars gather for get-togethers, some of whom have a very indirect relationship to military service with the status of some officials and pound water in a mortar... And it also happens that they lie and convey unreliable information to listeners (deliberately false, lacking objectivity).
    * * *
    It’s simply wonderful when military practitioners and professionals find the very highlights in Soviet-made technology and offer solutions to problems at the lowest cost. The most important thing for our soldiers is that the weapon is perfect (for us too).
  5. -2
    11 January 2024 06: 55
    Developing the idea, the Yak-130 will be even better, since, I believe, it will be even cheaper with the same effect. And there will be work for stormtroopers.
  6. +3
    11 January 2024 07: 11
    Putin also absolutely does not want to waste ships just like that, stroking the pride of the Ukrainian military

    I wonder what the point is in these ships in general?
    In preserving them, “satisfying the vanity” of whom?
    Their role in something now or later? Against not the country U but NATO - there are Romanian-Bulgarians, when will they be given a lift?
    1. 0
      11 January 2024 17: 58
      It’s like financial reserves - funds have been invested, bonds have been purchased, we don’t really understand what to do with them, and from one jurisdiction to another so that partners don’t deprive
  7. -2
    11 January 2024 08: 19
    There are still at least 300 Yak-52s left in the country. Which have a flight range of 900 km. Two seater plane. An hour of flight costs several times less than that of the SU-25. Installing detection units is not a problem at all - there is plenty of space. Even a machine gun can be placed in one way or another. Fly over the waters - teach young pilots.
  8. -4
    11 January 2024 08: 23
    As if BEC sank at least one ship. And it does not fall “under the waterline”, but precisely in the overhead line, i.e. There is no talk of water hammer. Of course, any hole at the overhead line level is extremely unpleasant. But a heavy torpedo would simply break a 2 thousand ton ship in half.
    It makes me laugh to hear about the loss of supremacy at sea. They can't do anything with submarines. They can't do anything about coastal aviation. They can't do anything with coastal missile systems. The fact that we allow ships to enter Ukrainian ports is a matter of purely political will, and not military capabilities.
  9. +1
    11 January 2024 08: 48
    Of course, I understand that “without fish, cancer is fish,” but it’s easier to see what the Americans are doing with the “Warthog”, and they are preparing it to rest at storage bases, or they are planning to hand it over to “allies” like hokh.lov.
    1. 0
      11 January 2024 08: 57
      They have been handing it over to storage bases for twenty years now. In general, the US Air Force never wanted an attack aircraft. They still can’t get rid of it, no matter how much they want. And there’s nothing special to replace it with, well, it certainly won’t be an F-35. There was an article on this topic by an American A-10 pilot; he looked at the naval Hornet.
      1. +3
        11 January 2024 10: 49
        Quote: Dimax-Nemo
        They have been handing it over to storage bases for twenty years now. In general, the US Air Force never wanted an attack aircraft. They still can’t get rid of it, no matter how much they want. And there’s nothing special to replace it with, well, it certainly won’t be an F-35.

        And for this we must thank 9/11. Because the only thing that keeps the “warthog” in service is the need for cheap air support in the irreconcilable struggle for democracy with the rebellious Zusuls. This, in fact, is the only task of a classic attack aircraft in our time: low-intensity conflicts with an enemy technically inferior to a couple of generations - who has no air defense, and the cost of a typical target is a multiple of the cost of guided ammunition.
        And all plans to replace the A-10 with the F-35 until recently were blocked precisely by the argument "and how will the “penguin” storm - where is it brrrrrt"? At the same time, Afghanistan or late Iraq were taken as a typical situation. Question "and how will an attack aircraft operate in a war with a technically comparable enemy?“was simply not considered due to complete confidence in the absolute dominance of the United States in the world and the impossibility of such conflicts.
        When, after well-known events, this issue was considered, it turned out that the classic attack aircraft was not applicable in a war with such an enemy. In such a war, it is necessary not to carry out dashing assaults with cannons and rocket launchers, tanking bullets and shells with armor, but to throw back with UABs and URs due to the air defense radius of the front line. And it turns out that the place of the A-10 can really be taken by the classic F-35.
        1. -2
          11 January 2024 12: 06
          No plane is applicable there anymore. For the S-400 or Patrick, it doesn’t matter what kind of plane it is. And the stealthiness of the F-35 will change little here. Because it is no longer so “stealthy” for a modern large AFAR. But for the pilot it makes a difference whether he is covered with armor when a missile hits him or not. This is why our pilots fell in love with the Su-34, which “normal experts” never called anything other than a misunderstanding. However, it is really possible to throw drops from even the Yak-130.
          1. +3
            11 January 2024 15: 19
            Quote: Dimax-Nemo
            And the stealthiness of the F-35 will change little here.

            What does stealth have to do with it? If there is air defense, any flight must be accompanied by its suppression.
            The problem is that for the A-10 to fly, it will have to suppress all air defenses, down to short range. And the F-35 will be able to recline from the zone of only an SD or even DD air defense system.
            Quote: Dimax-Nemo
            But for the pilot it makes a difference whether he is covered with armor when a missile hits him or not.

            If the missiles you indicated hit, there is no difference.
            1. +2
              11 January 2024 21: 08
              Quote: Alexey RA
              If the missiles you indicated hit, there is no difference.

              Why not? If the plane is not armored, the pilot will turn into mincemeat. And, if it is armored, it will crash just like a living thing. laughing
            2. 0
              17 January 2024 10: 50
              Such a weapon will be able to “throw back” anything that is modified for it. You don't need to be an F-35 to launch Storm or Scalp. Well, gliding bombs from modern long-range air defense systems are by no means a panacea, even for the F-35.
              1. 0
                17 January 2024 11: 05
                Quote: Dimax-Nemo
                Such a weapon will be able to “throw back” anything that is modified for it.

                Right. But why carry tons of armor and armor from behind the front line to operate a guided missile? Not to mention the warthog’s excellent aerodynamics and speed.
                1. 0
                  19 January 2024 09: 01
                  It has normal aerodynamics for the speeds for which it is designed. The Su-25 is even faster (to which the designers of the Sukhoi Design Bureau at one time categorically objected). Multi-role fighters still rarely fly faster than 900 km/h. So from this point of view - the Yak-130 is foreign. It will quite lift 4 UPAB-250. For now, let’s not ask ourselves whether a pilot is really needed to fly to the drop point and press the cap.

                  It is not yet entirely clear (more precisely, it is not at all clear) how the task of close air support will be solved. Perhaps now these will be UAVs a la Lancet. Last summer showed that helicopters can hit targets with missiles from low altitudes without entering the kill zone of MANPADS and at the same time not being too exposed to longer-range air defense systems. But this is for armor. Aviation does not yet have such weapons for infantry. It seems that S-8L appeared. Well I do not know. In short, no one removed the task, and it is still unclear how to complete it. That’s why I wouldn’t rush to get rid of the A-10 and Su-25 just yet.
                  1. 0
                    19 January 2024 14: 31
                    Quote: Dimax-Nemo
                    It has normal aerodynamics for the speeds for which it is designed.

                    That is, for attacking ground targets. Which is not required from the URO carrier. smile
                    1. 0
                      13 February 2024 08: 04
                      And where have you seen the destruction of ground targets in the interests of direct support even for guided missiles at speeds greater than 0,9M? The attack aircraft implements the “see-shoot” principle. Those. literally works like a tank. RUK is, of course, very good. But the more links in the chain, the more problems. It’s easier to be more reliable when “I carry everything I have with me.” I came, I saw, I conquered. But even good optics will not allow you to attack individual tanks and guns at 1,1-1,5 M.
  10. +1
    11 January 2024 08: 59
    I’m not ready to comment on the situation at the plant named after. Zverev, although some information comes from there. But I wouldn’t be surprised if everything is exactly as it is in the article. SVO is YOURS, and grandmothers are on schedule. And it doesn’t matter that someone at the front lacks something.
  11. +1
    11 January 2024 09: 13
    It remains to be seen whether the plant can produce SOLT-25 and whether there are components for it.
    1. +1
      11 January 2024 12: 07
      But this is an interesting question. Our entire defense industry has been “optimized.”
    2. 0
      13 January 2024 16: 43
      SOLT-25 is a good system but with a view almost like Klen-PS - about 20x35 degrees. Squall had much more beats. I saw the Su-25SM3 in reports from Ukraine. There they also launch unmanned aerial vehicles from a pitched position like the Su-25SM and the non-modernized Su-25. Only at the beginning of the war there was a video of two X-25Ml over Donetsk. I think that they can be adapted to the X-38ML with external illumination.
  12. +5
    11 January 2024 10: 00
    Lidar, that is, laser radar, could successfully detect BEC
    How freely we use terminology! Laser radar! What next time? Hydroacoustic radar? What about... laser locator, sonar - no longer according to Feng Shui? Or “drone” (a term introduced to denote unmanned aircraft) began to “parasitize” sea and land drones with might and main! (Thanks to the author that this article is not a “marine drone”, but a BEC!)
    And the use of the term “lidar” is not controversial! The fact is that there is “lidar”, and there is “ladar”.... The difference is that in the abbreviation LiDAR there is a “key” word Light; and in "LaDAR" the word is LASER! Therefore, a laser locator is LADAR! But I have to admit that at the beginning of this century the most popular term was “lidar”! Moreover, this is also correct, because “lidar” is a more general name, and “ladar” is “highly specialized”...! (LIDARs can use not only lasers, but also LEDs, flash lamps! These (lamps) were exactly what were used in the first LIDARs! And there are “lidars” also in motion detectors (security systems) using LEDs!)
  13. 0
    11 January 2024 10: 04
    Let me make one suggestion. Every body moving through water leaves a wake. Hence, a high-resolution technical vision system that will detect a V-shaped trace on the water surface and tell the pilot where to actually look (so as not to erase his eyes).
  14. +9
    11 January 2024 10: 27
    Another enchanting nonsense created according to the author in the company... when the snack was over. True, having generated tons of nonsense, for some reason they were not able to simply calculate how many planes and pilots are needed for this system to operate 24/7, 365 days a year, in compliance with all norms and regulations for both equipment and pilots. And how much will it be. There are 2 naval bases on the Black Sea, give the numbers to the studio.
    And also tell us how Su-25s can search at night and in poor visibility conditions.
    1. +5
      11 January 2024 10: 54
      Quote: JD1979
      And also tell us how Su-25s can search at night and in poor visibility conditions.

      You may also ask - why use an aircraft covered with hundreds of kilograms of armor, with a pilot recessed in an armored tank, to hunt for BEC? And why can’t we use, say, the Yak-130 for the same thing? wink
      1. +4
        11 January 2024 13: 52
        Quote: Alexey RA
        You may also ask - why use an aircraft covered with hundreds of kilograms of armor, with a pilot recessed in an armored tank, to hunt for BEC?

        It’s useless, a genius doesn’t care about such trifles, the main thing is the breadth and flight of thought.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        And why can’t we use, say, the Yak-130 for the same thing?

        In fact, this is... The same ass, front view))) both are reagents, both with 2 engines, both are expensive for such tasks. Both are manned vehicles that impose their own limitations due to the person on board. Both were created for completely different purposes, and the performance characteristics were laid down accordingly. I would allow the short-term use of manned aircraft, well, when it’s completely shut up and you need to deploy a normal control system, but no more.
        One could talk about an acceptable economic justification for using analogues of such cars as AHRLAC, Super Tucano or Pilatus, if we had them, but we don’t. And they don’t plan to create one.
        The only normal option in all senses is a Male class UAV, and it must carry a full range of equipment: OLS, Radar, RTR equipment. Creating something just for the sake of seeing what floats on the surface is a waste of money. We need complete control of the area.
        In addition to bases, you need to properly protect your ships. It is not a person with binoculars who should search the space, but the same OLS installed on masts, or whatever this structure is called now, one per board, in automatic mode. This does not include the fact that the bases must be surrounded by booms. And we already need to think about what to do to protect against UUVs that Ukraine is developing, otherwise, as I have said more than once before, the ships will actually have to be welded to the pier or pulled ashore, because with anti-tank weapons everything is much worse with us.
        1. +2
          11 January 2024 15: 28
          Quote: JD1979
          The only normal option in all senses is a Male class UAV, and it must carry a full range of equipment: OLS, Radar, RTR equipment. Creating something just for the sake of seeing what floats on the surface is a waste of money. We need complete control of the area.

          So we don’t have them yet either. So, if you take from what is available now or in the near future, then the Yak-130 or An-72P will be optimal.
          Quote: JD1979
          This does not include the fact that the bases must be surrounded by booms.

          To do this, you need to spread out bases and trading ports on the ground. Otherwise, the OVR will simply die, opening and closing booms. And his detection service will drown in the marks of civilian ships and boats.
          During the Second World War, even the joint basing of large ships and OVR forces was considered unacceptable - because the constant running around of boats “blurred the eyes.” In Lavenssari’s materials on the sinking of the Red Banner submarine, one of the main reasons for the Finns’ success was precisely the violation of this requirement.
          1. +2
            11 January 2024 16: 41
            Quote: Alexey RA
            So we don’t have them yet either. So, if you take from what is available now or in the near future, then the Yak-130 or An-72P will be optimal.

            So, strictly speaking, they don’t exist either. No free sides. Neither equipped for flights over the sea nor search equipment. Here we are actually talking about creating a system from scratch. And if you create it, then do it normally, and not as usual “from shit and sticks” and then redo it 10 times. But for this, someone specifically needs to squeeze their balls and ask when there will finally be Orions, Altairs, and others, which for 10 years are about to be ready for production right now, but magnetic storms interfere, spots on the sun and Ivleeva’s boobs are distracting.
      2. +1
        11 January 2024 15: 39
        Even using the Yak-130 for these purposes is also not an option. We need a light aircraft + UAV, as already written here!
  15. +4
    11 January 2024 11: 22
    “A kind of anti-ship torpedo for those who do not have money for a normal torpedo and its carrier.”

    What nonsense has money got to do with it? Why did you even think that a torpedo is more expensive than a drone? Well, even if this is so, the main difference is the range of action over which the drone is much superior to a torpedo.
    1. +2
      11 January 2024 15: 29
      Quote from: newtc7
      Well, even if this is so, the main difference is the range of action over which the drone is much superior to a torpedo.

      That's it for now. The Germans have already increased the range of the new torpedoes to 140 km.
      1. 0
        11 January 2024 23: 28
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Quote from: newtc7
        Well, even if this is so, the main difference is the range of action over which the drone is much superior to a torpedo.

        That's it for now. The Germans have already increased the range of the new torpedoes to 140 km.


        This is not yet... The very principle of a drone and the principle of a torpedo imply that the drone will have a greater range of action. It can be programmed to float back and forth somewhere at the entrance to a port or bay and attack only on command.
  16. 2al
    0
    11 January 2024 11: 36
    There is an all-weather Be-200 with an awesome radius on which you can install everything that an air patrol needs and, moreover, which can use sonars and acoustic buoys to search for underwater robots.
    1. +2
      11 January 2024 15: 30
      Quote: 2al
      There is an all-weather Be-200 with an awesome radius

      And the engines are “made in Ukraine”. smile
      Remember how Taganrog regularly missed the deadlines for their production - one of the Moscow Region’s contracts even had to be torn up by the court.
  17. -2
    11 January 2024 12: 28
    Meanwhile, this is absolutely our option: a two-seater aircraft, where the functions of detecting and classifying targets are taken over by the operator, and the pilot is engaged in his duties in controlling the aircraft.

    The Yak-130 would be no worse in this regard. It’s a two-seater, there are suspensions for containers with weapons and sighting systems, and the cost of both the aircraft itself and the flight hour is much less.
    If we have something even with a piston engine, then it’s even better in terms of economy of flight hours.
    Imagine: an AN-2 with speed and range for several hours of patrolling, observers have a place to place them, as well as a machine gunner with a large weapon. Why not a working option?
  18. +11
    11 January 2024 12: 40
    Roman, what kind of stormtroopers, Lord Jesus, are for this task?!
    What's the point of spending the resources of a turbojet engine, the point of having a man-made engine, the point of the fact that such a hefty, heavily armed bandura will burn fuel for such a trivial, tedious and routine task?
    We live in the 21st century - for automatic or semi-automatic patrolling, we need a UAV that slowly circles the area at medium or high altitude and controls it with optical means - recording all moving objects, wakes, thermal changes, etc.
    Stupidly large wings, a pusher propeller, maximum fuel economy, good optics and the ability to stay in the air for 12+ hours. Optionally, yes, you can also arm such devices - but if they control a sufficient water area, this will not be necessary - other means will cope better with the liquidation, and the narrow specification in this case is only “+”.

    The time of attack aircraft ended with the massive saturation of the battlefield with MANPADS, and even more so ended with the saturation of air defense, including anti-drone ones. The plane is not protected, the pilot is not protected - it is a consumable item, it is better to entrust these tasks to FPV drones or drones of the "Hunter" type, which at least have the ability to penetrate to a relative depth due to stealth geometry and coverage.
    “The Preved from the 80s” played his role, stop tormenting him endlessly.
    1. +2
      11 January 2024 23: 32
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      Roman, what kind of stormtroopers, Lord Jesus, are for this task?!
      What's the point of spending the resources of a turbojet engine, the point of having a man-made engine, the point of the fact that such a hefty, heavily armed bandura will burn fuel for such a trivial, tedious and routine task?
      We live in the 21st century - for automatic or semi-automatic patrolling, we need a UAV that slowly circles the area at medium or high altitude and controls it with optical means - recording all moving objects, wakes, thermal changes, etc.
      Stupidly large wings, a pusher propeller, maximum fuel economy, good optics and the ability to stay in the air for 12+ hours. Optionally, yes, you can also arm such devices - but if they control a sufficient water area, this will not be necessary - other means will cope better with the liquidation, and the narrow specification in this case is only “+”.

      The time of attack aircraft ended with the massive saturation of the battlefield with MANPADS, and even more so ended with the saturation of air defense, including anti-drone ones. The plane is not protected, the pilot is not protected - it is a consumable item, it is better to entrust these tasks to FPV drones or drones of the "Hunter" type, which at least have the ability to penetrate to a relative depth due to stealth geometry and coverage.
      “The Preved from the 80s” played his role, stop tormenting him endlessly.


      At least someone understands something, thanks for the comment!

      Not only attack aircraft are becoming a thing of the past, but also ordinary ships... it’s just that it hasn’t become directly obvious since air defense is mainly carried out on the ground. As soon as there is a war of this magnitude at sea, it will immediately become clear that ordinary ships are terribly vulnerable and there is no point in them. For a war in the new century, you need something small, inconspicuous, disposable, unmanned, and preferably very loud.
      It’s a pity that, as practice shows, our designers (who are much older than this SU-25) will understand this someday very late.
  19. The comment was deleted.
  20. +4
    11 January 2024 13: 25
    But if this happens, it will be in the near future. There is confidence that laser technology can be useful, since something is needed to look for a plastic trough filled with explosives.

    The author spends a long time and persistently reinventing an already invented wheel. Since 2015, the Australian company Sentient Vision Systems has been producing ViDAR systems (Visual Detection and Ranging), designed to detect small-sized objects on the sea surface day and night with waves up to force 6, including life rafts. A person in the water is detected at a distance of 1,7 miles , a six-meter plastic boat - 9,1 miles (17 kilometers) Installed on any aircraft - from an airplane to a UAV.
  21. -2
    11 January 2024 13: 25
    Sol-25 developed by the Krasnogorsk plant named after Zverev? Or this technology was stolen in the West!
    1. +2
      11 January 2024 15: 37
      If it was stolen in the West and mastered at a plant in Krasnogorsk, then this is a development of Krasnogorsk.....Copying based on domestic components and technologies is not buying a turnkey license
  22. -1
    11 January 2024 15: 35
    On the MiG35S it was planned and presented OLS - 2 pieces.... up and down.... So for searching there is also an Orion type UAV with a “ball”. Mi24 helicopters can be successfully equipped with a Sharik with OLS.
  23. +2
    11 January 2024 15: 42
    The lack of alternative to the Su-25 in the fight against unmanned boats is far-fetched. There are at least 2 more platforms suitable for such a task - the Yak-130 and Ka-52.
    1. 0
      11 January 2024 16: 51
      The lack of alternative to the Su-25 in the fight against unmanned boats is clearly far-fetched. any anti-submarine aircraft from World War II would have coped with this task no worse, from them the submarine’s periscope was noticed both day and night, and not like a boat, and the range was several times greater, and the patrol time was 2 times greater.
  24. +2
    11 January 2024 17: 22
    Yes, they will not allocate money for the modernization of a 45-year-old aircraft. If only because new ones have not been produced for a long time, and the old ones will all soon stand against the fence, flying off as they should.
    We need a multifunctional aircraft, but the author suggests using it only over the sea, where there is no enemy air defense
  25. +2
    11 January 2024 17: 23
    A high-altitude aircraft can detect BEC much more efficiently than a low-flying aircraft. The fact is that the BEC is aimed at the target with the help of an operator via the space Internet Starlink or OneWeb. Therefore, it always exchanges radio signals with the satellite located directly above it. If an electronic warfare/electronic warfare aircraft flies between the BEC and the satellite, then it can quite easily intercept and even suppress the enemy radio channel. And also localize the location of the boat and destroy it. Therefore, to effectively combat BECs, it is necessary to ensure continuous patrolling of manned or unmanned electronic warfare/electronic warfare aircraft high enough above the protected object, which will be able to locate enemy BECs at a considerable distance from the security object.
  26. +3
    11 January 2024 17: 24
    Using a ground attack aircraft to destroy single BECs, and even with unguided weapons?
    It is obvious that attack UAVs are needed: they are optimal for this type of task.
  27. 0
    11 January 2024 18: 39
    Competently. Yes, it’s time... or rather, there should already be a special vehicle in service that operates “air”, “sea”, not necessarily a reagent, lightly equipped with a theater engine like the “Tucano”, let it guard the surface of the sea..
  28. +1
    11 January 2024 20: 18
    The Su-25 in the conditions of the modern Second World War is already so outdated that moderation will not help, it was in vain that the Il-102 was lost, because of the second crew member it had wider capabilities and had good potential for modernization, we need a new attack aircraft in the concept of a flying delta wing , I think that the Hunter drone can be made into a simplified attack aircraft soldier
  29. 0
    11 January 2024 22: 18
    Things are not fun. It was not possible to protect KOMZ and ZOMZ from “evective” ones. It's not fun if that's the case(((
  30. 0
    11 January 2024 22: 46
    What's all this trouble about: an expensive plane versus a cheap Pepelats? Are there no other methods? What, the undertorpedo has intuition? Are radio channels for navigation, telemetry and control drowned out? No anti-torpedo barriers? Besides, this craft is only dangerous for ships in harbors. If the ship went to sea and developed full speed, then the shell will not overtake it. There is still danger when leaving the harbor, well, the crew and crews must keep an eye on it. Stationary ships in the harbor will be protected by the nets. Otherwise Skomorokhov will come up with something else, soon from space he will offer to extinguish the enemy
    1. 0
      11 January 2024 23: 34
      Quote: futurohunter
      If the ship went to sea and developed full speed, then the shell will not overtake it.

      The cruising speed of these drone boats is 40-60 km/h, the attack speed is 90-110 km/h, do you think there are ships faster? Maybe on a hovercraft. Well, electronic warfare against secure communications is problematic, they can’t jam the Lancet in any way, and the Ukrainian Armed Forces have been trying for the second year.
      1. 0
        12 January 2024 18: 44
        Saxahorse
        You talk as if there was a long-haired guy sitting on board this shell (although, who knows?). They mainly hit stationary and sedentary targets and are guided using GPS. Even if it rushes at 1000 km/h, GPS will not be able to target a ship maneuvering at sea. If there is a communication channel with the operator, it is also jammed. You apparently don't know how electronic warfare works. Noise barrage, when the level of interference is so high that directional antennas cannot help, and magical “secure communication”. When the receiver's input transistors are so overloaded with input noise that no "protected signal" leaks through. And it’s best to do this with a complexly modulated signal, then the adversary’s equipment will go crazy.
        The ship may well surround itself with a “protective dome” of radio interference. And there are enough means on board the ship to defeat enemies. You don't have to hit them. It is enough to cause a near explosion in the water for the shell to turn over, or go astray, and maybe even sink.
        As for the Lancets, I personally don’t know. And finally someone jammed them? I don't have that information.
        YES, BY THE WAY, WHY HAS NO ONE EVER WRITTEN THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DRIVE NAILS WITH A MICROSCOPE?!
        1. 0
          13 January 2024 16: 00
          Quote: futurohunter
          You apparently don't know how electronic warfare works.

          It seems that you are one of the most persistent adherents of faith in the all-powerful electronic warfare. Therefore, I will not waste time trying to convince you. Believe it if you like it so much.
          However, let me remind other readers that secure satellite communications are almost impossible to jam. That our Orlan-10 can easily fly right over Krasukha and give a picture a little worse than in an open field, which was demonstrated a couple of times. In general, electronic warfare has many benefits, but naive arguments about its omnipotence are, to put it mildly, exaggerated.
          1. 0
            13 January 2024 16: 56
            Saxahorse
            It looks like you are one of the most persistent adherents of faith in the almighty electronic warfare

            I have the impression that for you electronic warfare is just like some kind of independently floating thing, and some kind of flying thing (Lancet) - a spherical and absolute horse in a vacuum (magic spell?))).
            For me, this is all just a technical product, and each product has its own strengths and weaknesses, and you can find your own approach to each product. As far as I understand, you have absolutely no idea how it all works.
            Believe me, any radio signal is just an electromagnetic wave that can be drowned out, no matter how “protected” it is. You can also force the receiver of this signal to receive and process it incorrectly. It's just a technical problem that has a solution.
            And you, apparently, do not imagine the capabilities of each of these objects (the ship, and the autonomous floating object - APO, or BEC). The BEC is equipped with fairly compact equipment with a modest low-power power source. Any ship has a powerful propulsion system with equally powerful generators that power a variety of equipment, including onboard radars. Even without the use of electronic warfare, an airborne radar may well create a beam that, if it does not burn out the BEC equipment, will make it unable to receive any radio signals. There is a video where a drone hits the directed beam of the Pantsir-S ZRAK radar and falls to the ground. Ship radars are even more powerful! Is it possible to protect yourself from this? It is possible, but very difficult. And it is unlikely that this problem can be solved (and will be solved) by constructing it in the makeshift conditions of a dilapidated country. And Elon Musk won’t help them... He can’t, and he won’t want to
  31. DO
    0
    12 January 2024 00: 02
    There have already been discussions on the fact that with the help of radar these boats are practically detected, and those that are detected are the work of observation posts and patrol helicopters. That is, they worked in the optical range.
    According to the meaning of the sentence, perhaps the author missed the “not” before the word “discovered”.
    In any case, the possibility of detecting BEC using radar requires clarification. If detecting BEC using radar is still possible, then the Su-2011 announced back in 34 with the Sych radar is required. Because it is not entirely adequate to use the A-50 AWACS aircraft here, since it is visible from afar to enemy electronic reconnaissance equipment, is clumsy and at the same time is a priority target, easily shot down from the Patriot of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

    Above, commentator km-21 writes:
    Quote: km-21
    ... The BEC is aimed at the target with the help of an operator via the space Internet Starlink or OneWeb. Therefore, it always exchanges radio signals with the satellite located directly above it. If an electronic warfare/electronic warfare aircraft flies between the BEC and the satellite, then it can quite easily intercept and even suppress the enemy radio channel. And also localize the location of the boat and destroy it. ...
    An explanation is required here that the BEC uses a highly directional antenna to communicate with the Starlink/OneWeb satellite.
    Let's simplify the problem to just detecting BEC. Therefore, this task requires a medium UAV with a long loitering time, for example Orion, with a simple on-board Starlink/OneWeb radio channel detector.

    Optical/infrared detection of BEC
    For the purpose of specifically detecting BEC, a medium UAV with a long loitering time, for example Orion, with optical/infrared cameras, and other on-board equipment is best suited here.

    Destruction of BEC
    If a BEC is detected outside the enemy's air defense zone, the most reliable method of destruction, of course, is the work of manned strike aircraft.
    Having received the approximate coordinates of the BEC, the pilot of the duty aircraft immediately takes off from the airfield, flies at maximum speed to the indicated square, visually or using on-board equipment finds the BEC, and destroys it.
    The Yak-130 is optimal here. Why:
    Firstly, if the task of a “naval attack aircraft” is only to locate the BEC according to the approximate coordinates received from reconnaissance and destroy it, and the attack aircraft will evade other sea and coastal enemy targets, this aircraft does not need an armored capsule.
    Secondly, the Yak-130 is mass-produced, but the Su-25 has not been around since 2005; the Su-25s remaining in service are highly effective on land.
    Thirdly, other production aircraft (Su-34, Su-30, Su-35, MiG-35) in terms of their performance characteristics are redundant for this task.
    If a BEC is detected in the enemy's air defense zone and it is necessary to destroy it, attack UAVs are required.
    1. DO
      -1
      12 January 2024 00: 28
      PS
      other production aircraft (Su-34, Su-30, Su-35, MiG-35) in terms of their performance characteristics are redundant for this task.
      Although here you need to compare the cost of the Yak-130 and MiG-35. It is possible that the single-seat version of the MiG-35 will be cheaper.
    2. 0
      12 January 2024 11: 34
      Why do we need manned aircraft in the described scheme in principle? If the presence of attack drones is expected.
      1. DO
        0
        12 January 2024 11: 54
        Quote: Ryazanets87
        Why do we need manned aircraft in the described scheme in principle? If the presence of attack drones is expected.
        Even if the option of using attack drones is implemented (to operate in enemy air defense zones), a fighter pilot will complete the task of destroying the BEC with a significantly higher probability than a remote operator through an unreliable radio communication channel, or than today's computer program of an autonomous drone. This is very important, because the Russian targets of the BEC of the Armed Forces of Ukraine are unique, have an exorbitant cost, and if it is a ship, then it has a large crew.
        1. 0
          12 January 2024 16: 02
          “a fighter pilot will complete the task of destroying a BEC with a significantly higher probability than a remote operator through an unreliable radio communication channel” - it is not very clear why the probability of being hit by an operator would be significantly lower. A man sits calmly in front of a good monitor and works. As for the communication channel, do you mean electronic warfare?
          1. DO
            0
            12 January 2024 16: 17
            As for the communication channel, do you mean electronic warfare?

            The radio communication channel can be affected by enemy electronic warfare, radio interference (including natural magnetic storms), and weather conditions. Of course, the above applies to patrol UAVs and radio channel repeaters. Therefore, to be on the safe side, the near zone should be patrolled by manned helicopters, as abc_alex suggests below.
  32. 0
    12 January 2024 12: 49
    Again, the author has another project with strange logic.
    Well, firstly, it has already been written several times - the Su-25 is not being produced. There are no more than 150 vehicles left in the USSR troops. And not to say that they were superfluous there. On the contrary, the tasks they perform are inaccessible to other aircraft. And for conversion according to the “Skomorokhov project”, a fair share of the fleet of these vehicles will have to be taken from the troops.
    Secondly, this vehicle was not designed for patrol purposes. It can stay in the air for a couple of hours. To ensure round-the-clock patrolling, you need at least two aircraft, and preferably three. One is working, the second is getting ready, the third is in the wings. And this is for patrolling ONE route. To ensure normal patrolling, there must still be several routes. That is, the idea of ​​a “naval attack aircraft” is not feasible in principle due to the lack of aircraft. No one will allow 10-30% of the fleet of such vehicles to be withdrawn from the troops.
    Thirdly, a reasonable question was asked to the author. Well, how will you need to increase combat productivity? What if there are not one, but ten boats? And they will not go in a column, but in a “line” with an interval of 5-10 kilometers?
    Fourthly, as far as I know, Su-25s still fly according to reconnoitered coordinates; the single-seat version of the vehicle is not suitable for searching for targets, and for the current role of the vehicle, the two-seat version is not needed. There are generally about 30 versions of UB in the army. And they also do not stand idle. Just see point 2.
    Fifthly, why fire missiles at boats? Not enough guns? There is a 30-mm GSh-30-2. For the boat for the eyes. If it’s not enough, hang up a couple of UPK-23/250 artillery containers. Two are not enough - hang 4. It weighs 300 kg. Now boats are being shot from the sides with 12,7 machine guns, demonstrating senseless courage and naval snobbery.
    At sixth. The author does not understand the difference between target detection and recognition. An OLS can also detect a target, but ONLY a person can recognize (distinguish what is down there, an unmanned fire ship or a sports boat). No magical “signatures” will work. No one has algorithms for reliable target recognition, especially since changing the appearance of a boat is much easier.

    Well, my opinion. The author is planting a vegetable garden not where the radishes are. Helicopters are much better suited for patrolling water areas. For example, Ka-52K. He has everything for this. And radar and advanced OLS. Even the irrational placement of the crew during patrols will not play a special role. The armament is the same cannon and suspended artillery systems. And most importantly, unlike airplanes, which must be based at an airfield, a helicopter can be based at a ship. Convert a river tanker into a helicopter carrier, equip it with military air defense/missile defense systems, Pantsir or Tor, Flexible, install turrets from BMP-3 and T-90 (as the main caliber) as artillery systems for self-defense, and equip a landing pad on the deck for two or three helicopters. Enough for patrolling. Yes, this is “homemade”, but at least it’s not “Trishka’s caftan” taken from there, it was sewn there “with a living thread”. Such a ship does not need to go far from the shore, but if you take river-sea type vessels, then the seaworthiness there will be decent. Such a system, in my opinion, will be able to control the water area from unmanned fire ships. And Rook has more important things to do...
    1. DO
      0
      12 January 2024 15: 50
      Helicopters are much better suited for patrolling water areas.

      Yes, the closest zone is most reliably guarded by helicopters. I saw the target and immediately destroyed it. Because in the near zone there is no longer time to call a fighter.
      But it is still more rational to patrol long-distance routes with reconnaissance UAVs loitering for a long time, and destroy the detected target with a called fighter, the pilot of which will recognize the target, destroy the group target, and perhaps be in time for the second call (although, of course, there should be several fighters on duty). Because for round-the-clock patrolling of long-distance routes by helicopters, there are no helicopters, no crews, no fuel, and there is a high risk of a sudden attack by a “lost” low-speed helicopter by an “awakened” enemy air defense system.
      It is difficult for me personally to say whether a second fighter pilot is necessary for this task.
      1. 0
        13 January 2024 01: 07
        Quote: DO
        But it is still more rational to patrol long-distance routes with long-term patrolling reconnaissance UAVs,


        Connection. A loitering UAV requires a constant communication channel with operators. After all, again, the question of recognition remains open; only a person can distinguish a civilian fast boat from an unmanned fireboat. And determine whether it is necessary to send a fighter to intercept. This requires a high-speed satellite digital communication system. And we have problems with her.

        Quote: DO
        Because for round-the-clock patrolling of long-distance routes by helicopters, there are no helicopters, no crews, no fuel, and there is a high risk of a sudden attack by a “lost” low-speed helicopter by an “awakened” enemy air defense system.


        The same applies to UAVs. Operators on duty 52 hours a day. Refueling a heavy UAV, and the danger of getting an air defense missile. Everything is about the same. In addition, we do not have patrol UAVs. And the Ka-XNUMXK is already available. With radar and advanced OLS. In addition, for the far sea zone, in my opinion, it would be more correct to create a deck-based system of means to combat fire ships. I suggested using river-sea tankers for this purpose. And no one forbids combining reconnaissance with UAVs and helicopters. We are only talking about which aircraft are more effective and realistic to use for this.

        Quote: DO
        It is difficult for me personally to say whether a second fighter pilot is necessary for this task.

        The Kamovites proved this with the failure of the Ka-50 project. The pilot cannot simultaneously search for a target and fly the vehicle. You need either an automatic piloting system or an automatic target search system. OLS will not allow you to “see” an object further than 2-7 km. Radar - 12, maximum 20. At the same time, the “vision” sector is quite narrow. In recognition mode, the sector narrows even more, although the distance may increase. The sight “sees” the world literally through a hole in the wall, and aiming is carried out through a “keyhole”. The observer does not see everything around him, he sees a “movie”: the sight frame and the darkness around. And during identification, the frame becomes very small. If an object appeared from the side at this time, the pilot would not see it. As I say, Su-25 pilots usually fly to reconnoitered targets.
        1. DO
          0
          13 January 2024 13: 07
          Quote: abc_alex
          Connection. A loitering UAV requires a constant communication channel with operators. After all, again, the question of recognition remains open; only a person can distinguish a civilian fast boat from an unmanned fireboat. And determine whether it is necessary to send a fighter to intercept. This requires a high-speed satellite digital communication system. And we have problems with her.

          To organize communication channels, UAV repeaters are needed, suspended or loitering at the required points and in the required quantity. Patrol UAVs on neighboring routes can also be used as repeaters.
          Solving communication problems, and possible false flights of a fighter to civilian boats, in this case is the price to pay for the fact that on long routes, replacing helicopters with patrol UAVs will make it possible not to expose helicopter crews to increased risk, and the cost of a reconnaissance UAV is significantly less than that of a full-fledged combat UAV helicopter.

          Quote: abc_alex
          for the far sea zone, in my opinion, it would be more correct to create a deck-based system of anti-fire-ship means. I suggested using river-sea tankers for this purpose.

          This tanker-helicopter carrier, moved into the far zone, will be a priority target for the enemy. After all, it was not because of a good life that the Black Sea Fleet command moved its ships far away.

          Quote: abc_alex
          Su-25 pilots usually fly to reconnoitered targets

          So this is exactly the case. The target is detected and accompanied by a reconnaissance UAV.
          1. 0
            15 January 2024 16: 51
            Quote: DO
            So this is exactly the case. The target is detected and accompanied by a reconnaissance UAV.


            So this reconnaissance UAV will be a priority target. Along with a repeater. The latter will even glow like a Christmas tree due to the constant operation of the transmitters. For some reason, everyone forgets that a UAV is an easy target for modern air defense, especially if it does not fly over the ground from point A to point B, but patrols the area with the transmitter turned on at a high altitude. Now the whole country is supplying these damn surveillance drones to the front. Precisely because they are consumables of war, they do not live long.

            And to “clear the sky” for an hour or two from a helicopter along the attack route is simply a classic of the genre. They will knock down the scouts and drive the fire ships through the gap. The UAVs are not armed; they are not the Ka-52 with its radar and Strela on the pylons. And the gun, despite all its problems, is pinned there for a reason.

            Quote: DO
            This tanker-helicopter carrier, moved into the far zone, will be a priority target for the enemy. After all, it was not because of a good life that the Black Sea Fleet command moved its ships far away.


            Certainly. But ANY long-range control system when using unmanned fire ships will be a priority target. Like a tanker-platform for helicopters, like a network of loitering reconnaissance UAVs and repeaters. Only a tanker can at least be armed. But it’s unlikely that it will be possible to arm a reconnaissance UAV; it doesn’t even have enough energy for reconnaissance. So the question immediately arises of protecting this network from enemy aircraft. How? planes and helicopters? Well, then, what’s the point of unmanned reconnaissance aircraft? SAM? Then the radar systems of the complexes will become targets; anti-radar missiles have not yet been canceled.

            And I repeat the question again, what to do if the enemy launches not just one fire-ship and not in a column, but in a line 3-5 kilometers apart? About 10 pieces. Circle around the area looking for it? And, well, how can the enemy not send a couple of fighters as cover? The Su-25 in the air is not like a fighter... And it doesn’t have a radar.

            Questions, questions, questions... And I'm afraid there is no simple answer here. The ship's self-defense system needs to be changed, I'm afraid completely. But simply no one will do this, since no one is interested in the fleet as a customer.
            1. DO
              +1
              15 January 2024 18: 35
              Quote: abc_alex
              So this reconnaissance UAV will be a priority target. Along with a repeater. The latter will even glow like a Christmas tree due to the constant operation of the transmitters. For some reason, everyone forgets that a UAV is an easy target for modern air defense, especially if it does not fly over the ground from point A to point B, but patrols the area with the transmitter turned on at a high altitude. Now the whole country is supplying these damn surveillance drones to the front. Precisely because they are consumables of war, they do not live long.
              Yes, UAVs are consumables of war. But you must admit that on long routes it is better to use drones as consumables than helicopter crews and combat helicopters themselves, which are much more expensive than reconnaissance UAVs.
              By the way, a reconnaissance UAV can be designed to turn on its transmitter when it autonomously detects an object similar to a target, or at the command of an operator, and periodically send a short message “I’m alive.”
              Quote: abc_alex
              And to “clear the sky” for an hour or two from a helicopter along the attack route is simply a classic of the genre. They will knock down the scouts and drive the fire ships through the gap.
              Firstly, after the destruction of the first reconnaissance UAV, the operator’s communication with it will be lost, which will become the reason, for example, to immediately send fighters to this place.
              Secondly, enemy helicopters destroying our UAVs will be detected on air defense and fighter radars, and will not escape our missiles.
              The situation, of course, will become somewhat different if the enemy has numerous fighters in the future. But the Ukrainian Armed Forces do not yet have them, and a direct conflict with NATO has not yet occurred.
              Quote: abc_alex
              The UAVs are not armed; they are not the Ka-52 with its radar and Strela on the pylons. And the gun, for all its problematic nature, was pinned there for a reason.

              The helicopter cannot escape or dodge an enemy missile, and its weapons will not help here.
              Quote: abc_alex
              ANY long-range control system when using unmanned fire ships will be a priority target. Like a tanker-platform for helicopters, like a network of loitering reconnaissance UAVs and repeaters. Only a tanker can at least be armed.
              How will a tanker’s armament save it from anti-ship missiles? Install a full-fledged air defense system on a tanker? But then immediately use not a tanker, but a full-fledged combat ship. However, what to do with the fact that the leadership of the Black Sea Fleet moved these same warships away (in my opinion, absolutely correctly)?
              Quote: abc_alex
              But it’s unlikely that it will be possible to arm a reconnaissance UAV; it doesn’t even have enough energy for reconnaissance. So the question immediately arises of protecting this network from enemy aircraft. How? planes and helicopters? Well, then, what’s the point of unmanned reconnaissance aircraft?

              The point of unmanned reconnaissance aircraft is that attacks by the Armed Forces of the Ukrainian Armed Forces occur approximately a couple of times a month. Therefore, the daily replacement of patrol aircraft and helicopters with UAVs on long routes will prevent the statistically probable loss of crews and very expensive combat aircraft; fuel and maintenance for round-the-clock UAV flights are cheaper than combat aircraft and helicopters.
              Quote: abc_alex
              SAM? Then the radar systems of the complexes will become targets; anti-radar missiles have not yet been canceled.
              Yes, after today’s unconfirmed information in the media that the Ukrainian Armed Forces shot down an A-50 and damaged an Il-22, this issue has become increasingly relevant.
              For more than a year now, information has periodically appeared in the media that the Ministry of Defense has ordered dozens of Su-34s with the Sych overhead radar. It seems that on topwar back in 2022 they wrote about the use of these products in the Northern Military District. But probably, in reality, they did a couple of them, reported and calmed down. And after the thrashing about the sunken landing craft, the generals used A-50 and Il-22 AWACS aircraft, which ended predictably. The Su-34 at least has a chance to escape from a long-range enemy missile, but in the event of a hopeless situation, the crew can eject (note: I’m not saying that it would be advisable to hang Sych under the old Su-27, upgrading the Su-27 into a drone, and in the bright future, integrate Sych into the unmanned Su-75, using modern AFAR).
              Quote: abc_alex
              And I repeat the question again, what to do if the enemy launches not just one fire-ship and not in a column, but in a line 3-5 kilometers apart? About 10 pieces. Circle around the area looking for it? And, well, how can the enemy not send a couple of fighters as cover? The Su-25 in the air is not like a fighter... And it doesn’t have a radar.
              The Su-25 is still more needed on land for attack, where it is highly effective. And it is advisable for the Black Sea Fleet command to achieve normal fighters for the designated purposes. For example, the MiG-35, which aviation generals for some reason look at “through their lips,” or at least the Yak-130.
              Quote: abc_alex
              The ship's self-defense system needs to be changed, I'm afraid completely. But simply no one will do this, since no one is interested in the fleet as a customer.

              Until thunder strikes, a man will not cross himself. But then it will blaze in the Far East, and it will turn out even worse than with the Su-35+Sych, which are needed like air, but for some reason this only became clear when the roast rooster pecked in the ass.
              1. 0
                19 January 2024 00: 20
                Yes, after today's unconfirmed information in the media that the Ukrainian Armed Forces shot down an A-50 and damaged an Il-22, this issue has become increasingly relevant.


                I don't think the problem is the use of the EWACS or the communications re-transmitter but the risky location chosen for their patrol. Given the record over the past two or so years of the long distance air and sea drones group in Odessa and their targets in Crimea and the Black sea in general, and the more recent trend for them to infiltrate past the Kerch strait into the Azov sea , it would be a poor assumption that the Azov sea was a low risk area to operate in, and predictable that something like a surface launched AGM 88 anti radiation missile might be used. The range of such a threat on an RF emitting aircraft at high altitude can be estimated, any decision to put such assets in this range would be very lousy. (The same muniton is clearly also a candidate for use by Ukrop on air drone such as Bayraktar.)

                Quote: abc_alex
                So this reconnaissance UAV will be a priority target. Along with a repeater. The latter will even glow like a Christmas tree due to the constant operation of the transmitters. For some reason, everyone forgets that a UAV is an easy target for modern air defense, especially if it does not fly over the ground from point A to point B, but patrols the area with the transmitter turned on at a high altitude. Now the whole country is supplying these damn surveillance drones to the front. Precisely because they are consumables of war, they do not live long.


                Well said, I, and probably most people, think that the clear trend is to partition integrated units such as radars and their crew into expendable 'consumable' (RF emitters) and expensive crewed assets; that is emitter (flashlight) and eyes fly or walk in different places. From all sizes and whether these are ground or air units, afaik, we already see such an arrangement in examples such as the Su-57 and its drone companion S-70, or in the F-22 and its equivalent drone wingman. This template will be repeated maybe even in large radar units such as EWACS, unless a solution can be found to detect and deal with the threat of a passive seeking anti-radiation missile. And in SAMs, placing the more expendable emitter at high altitude, auch as hill tops or hydrogen blimp would maybe have advantages for detection range or ability to locate ground launched threats.
                1. DO
                  0
                  19 January 2024 10: 26
                  [quote=ussuri][quote]Yes, after today's unconfirmed information in the media that the Ukrainian Armed Forces shot down an A-50 and damaged an Il-22, this issue has become increasingly relevant.
                  Yes, after today’s unconfirmed information in the media that the Ukrainian Armed Forces shot down an A-50 and damaged an Il-22, this issue has become increasingly relevant.[/quote]
                  I don't think the problem is the use of the EWACS or the communications re-transmitter but the risky location chosen for their patrol. Given the record over the past two or so years of the long distance air and sea drones group in Odessa and their targets in Crimea and the Black sea in general, and the more recent trend for them to infiltrate past the Kerch strait into the Azov sea , it would be a poor assumption that the Azov sea was a low risk area to operate in, and predictable that something like a surface launched AGM 88 anti radiation missile might be used. The range of such a threat on an RF emitting aircraft at high altitude can be estimated, any decision to put such assets in this range would be very lousy. (The same muniton is clearly also a candidate for use by Ukrop on air drone such as Bayraktar.)
                  A shortened translation of the essence of the comment:
                  I don't think the problem is the actual use of the AWACS aircraft or the airborne command post. The problem is in the risky location chosen for patrolling by the A-50 and Il-22. Given the record use of long-range aerial drones over the past two years, it would be wrong to assume that the Sea of ​​Azov is a low-risk area for patrols by the above-mentioned aircraft. Of course, it is possible to estimate the range of such a threat for an aircraft emitting radio frequencies at high altitude, but placing such weapons in the Sea of ​​​​Azov seems to be a bad decision.[/quote]
                  Yes, based on combat experience and intelligence data, it is possible to estimate the safe loitering range of the A-50 from the LBS. However, for the A-50, daily patrolling using this assessment is extremely dangerous, because the enemy will not warn the Russian side about the appearance of new missiles with an increased range in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. And the very first use of such a missile against a Russian A-50 aircraft will mean its loss.
                  Conclusions
                  1) The assessment of the safe range of the A-50 aircraft from the LBS should be made and adjusted by leading experts of the military-industrial complex, taking into account the current and projected achievements of enemy air defense systems and explosive missiles.
                  2) Only the following aircraft with a simplified AWACS function should fly in dangerous proximity to the LBS, where the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ air defense system may be ambushed:
                  - manned Su-34 with suspended container radar Sych; the Su-34 has a chance to evade an enemy missile; in a hopeless situation, the crew ejects;
                  - in the near future, old Su-27s will be modernized into drones, with an overhead container radar called Sych;
                  - in the longer term, new unmanned Su-75s with suspended or integrated radar with a future modern side-view AFAR.
                  [quote=ussuri]Quote: abc_alex
                  So this reconnaissance UAV will be a priority target. Along with a repeater. The latter will even glow like a Christmas tree due to the constant operation of the transmitters. For some reason, everyone forgets that a UAV is an easy target for modern air defense, especially if it does not fly over the ground from point A to point B, but patrols the area with the transmitter turned on at a high altitude. Now the whole country is supplying these damn surveillance drones to the front. Precisely because they are consumables of war, they do not live long.
                  Quote: abc_alex
                  So this reconnaissance UAV will be a priority target. Along with a repeater. The latter will even glow like a Christmas tree due to the constant operation of the transmitters. For some reason, everyone forgets that a UAV is an easy target for modern air defense, especially if it does not fly over the ground from point A to point B, but patrols the area with the transmitter turned on at a high altitude. Now the whole country is supplying these damn surveillance drones to the front. Precisely because they are consumables of war, they do not live long.[/quote]Well said, I, and probably most people, think that the clear trend is to partition integrated units such as radars and their crew into expendable 'consumable' ( RF emitters) and expensive crewed assets; that is emitter (flashlight) and eyes fly or walk in different places. From all sizes and whether these are ground or air units, afaik, we already see such an arrangement in examples such as the Su-57 and its drone companion S-70, or in the F-22 and its equivalent drone wingman. This template will be repeated maybe even in large radar units such as EWACS, unless a solution can be found to detect and deal with the threat of a passive seeking anti-radiation missile. And in SAMs, placing the more expendable emitter at high altitude, auch as hill tops or hydrogen blimp would maybe have advantages for detection range or ability to locate ground launched threats.
                  A shortened translation of the gist of this comment:
                  I propose to consider the separation in space of radio frequency emitters (consumables) and receivers of reflected radiation.[/quote]
                  Target illumination for missiles with homing on a radio signal reflected from the target has long been used in air defense systems and combat aviation.
                  However, let us separate the task of illuminating the target from the task of radar reconnaissance of the enemy’s rear to the maximum depth.
                  For simplicity, let's consider a classic radar with a rotating, highly directional antenna in azimuth.
                  The power of the transmitted radio pulse is concentrated in accordance with the antenna radiation pattern. Reception of the reflected signal is carried out in a highly directional manner from the same direction as the transmitted radio pulse, by the same antenna, directed almost in the same direction. At the same time, the antenna's radiation pattern suppresses noise from other directions, increasing the reception range.
                  If the transmitting and receiving antennas are located on different aircraft, therefore, it is impossible to synchronize their directions, the receiver must be omnidirectional. This will significantly worsen its noise immunity and, as a consequence, its reconnaissance range, which is a critical parameter for long-range radar reconnaissance.
                  In addition, with spaced transmitting and receiving antennas, to determine the range (and not just the azimuth), precision synchronization of the transmitter and receiver clocks is necessary, which will introduce an additional error in determining the range to the target.
                2. DO
                  +1
                  19 January 2024 10: 34
                  Quote: ussuri
                  Yes, after today's unconfirmed information in the media that the Ukrainian Armed Forces shot down an A-50 and damaged an Il-22, this issue has become increasingly relevant.
                  Yes, after today’s unconfirmed information in the media that the Ukrainian Armed Forces shot down an A-50 and damaged an Il-22, this issue has become increasingly relevant.

                  I don't think the problem is the use of the EWACS or the communications re-transmitter but the risky location chosen for their patrol. Given the record over the past two or so years of the long distance air and sea drones group in Odessa and their targets in Crimea and the Black sea in general, and the more recent trend for them to infiltrate past the Kerch strait into the Azov sea , it would be a poor assumption that the Azov sea was a low risk area to operate in, and predictable that something like a surface launched AGM 88 anti radiation missile might be used. The range of such a threat on an RF emitting aircraft at high altitude can be estimated, any decision to put such assets in this range would be very lousy. (The same muniton is clearly also a candidate for use by Ukrop on air drone such as Bayraktar.)
                  A shortened translation of the essence of the comment:
                  I don't think the problem is the actual use of the AWACS aircraft or the airborne command post. The problem is in the risky location chosen for patrolling by the A-50 and Il-22. Given the record use of long-range aerial drones over the past two years, it would be wrong to assume that the Sea of ​​Azov is a low-risk area for patrols by the above-mentioned aircraft. Of course, one can estimate the range of such a threat for an aircraft emitting radio frequencies at high altitude, but placing such weapons in the Sea of ​​​​Azov seems to be a bad decision.

                  Yes, based on combat experience and intelligence data, it is possible to estimate the safe loitering range of the A-50 from the LBS. However, for the A-50, daily patrolling using this assessment is extremely dangerous, because the enemy will not warn the Russian side about the appearance of new missiles with an increased range in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. And the very first use of such a missile against a Russian A-50 aircraft will mean its loss.
                  Conclusions
                  1) The assessment of the safe range of the A-50 aircraft from the LBS should be made and adjusted by leading experts of the military-industrial complex, taking into account the current and projected achievements of enemy air defense systems and explosive missiles.
                  2) Only the following aircraft with a simplified AWACS function should fly in dangerous proximity to the LBS, where the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ air defense system may be ambushed:
                  - manned Su-34 with suspended container radar Sych; the Su-34 has a chance to evade an enemy missile; in a hopeless situation, the crew ejects;
                  - in the near future, old Su-27s will be modernized into drones, with an overhead container radar called Sych;
                  - in the longer term, new unmanned Su-75s with suspended or integrated radar with a future modern side-view AFAR.

                  Quote: ussuri
                  abc_alex:
                  So this reconnaissance UAV will be a priority target. Along with a repeater. The latter will even glow like a Christmas tree due to the constant operation of the transmitters. For some reason, everyone forgets that a UAV is an easy target for modern air defense, especially if it does not fly over the ground from point A to point B, but patrols the area with the transmitter turned on at a high altitude. Now the whole country is supplying these damn surveillance drones to the front. Precisely because they are consumables of war, they do not live long.
                  Quote: abc_alex
                  So this reconnaissance UAV will be a priority target. Along with a repeater. The latter will even glow like a Christmas tree due to the constant operation of the transmitters. For some reason, everyone forgets that a UAV is an easy target for modern air defense, especially if it does not fly over the ground from point A to point B, but patrols the area with the transmitter turned on at a high altitude. Now the whole country is supplying these damn surveillance drones to the front. Precisely because they are consumables of war, they do not live long.

                  Well said, I, and probably most people, think that the clear trend is to partition integrated units such as radars and their crew into expendable 'consumable' (RF emitters) and expensive crewed assets; that is emitter (flashlight) and eyes fly or walk in different places. From all sizes and whether these are ground or air units, afaik, we already see such an arrangement in examples such as the Su-57 and its drone companion S-70, or in the F-22 and its equivalent drone wingman. This template will be repeated maybe even in large radar units such as EWACS, unless a solution can be found to detect and deal with the threat of a passive seeking anti-radiation missile. And in SAMs, placing the more expendable emitter at high altitude, auch as hill tops or hydrogen blimp would maybe have advantages for detection range or ability to locate ground launched threats.
                  A shortened translation of the gist of this comment:
                  I propose to consider the separation in space of radio frequency emitters (consumables) and receivers of reflected radiation.

                  Target illumination for missiles with homing on a radio signal reflected from the target has long been used in air defense systems and combat aviation.
                  However, let us separate the task of illuminating the target from the task of radar reconnaissance of the enemy’s rear to the maximum depth.
                  For simplicity, let's consider a classic radar with a rotating, highly directional antenna in azimuth.
                  The power of the transmitted radio pulse is concentrated in accordance with the antenna radiation pattern. Reception of the reflected signal is carried out in a highly directional manner from the same direction as the transmitted radio pulse, by the same antenna, directed almost in the same direction. At the same time, the antenna's radiation pattern suppresses noise from other directions, increasing the reception range.
                  If the transmitting and receiving antennas are located on different aircraft, therefore, it is impossible to synchronize their directions, the receiver must be omnidirectional. This will significantly worsen its noise immunity and, as a consequence, its reconnaissance range, which is a critical parameter for long-range radar reconnaissance.
                  In addition, with spaced transmitting and receiving antennas, to determine the range (and not just the azimuth), precision synchronization of the transmitter and receiver clocks is necessary, which will introduce an additional error in determining the range to the target.
                  1. 0
                    20 January 2024 08: 05
                    Thank you Dmitriy for the excellent explanation of why this setup is unlikely to go away for long range detection aircraft. Such a passive mode gathering information from other emitter chirps would have poor noise immunity and could not be used as main mode of operation.

                    consider a classic radar with a rotating, highly directional antenna in azimuth. The power of the transmitted radio pulse is concentrated in accordance with the antenna radiation pattern. Reception of the reflected signal is carried out in a highly directional manner from the same direction as the transmitted radio pulse, by the same antenna, directed almost in the same direction. At the same time, the antenna's radiation pattern suppresses noise from other directions, increasing the reception range.
                    If the transmitting and receiving antennas are located on different aircraft, therefore, it is impossible to synchronize their directions, the receiver must be omnidirectional. This will significantly worsen its noise immunity and, as a consequence, its reconnaissance range, which is a critical parameter for long-range radar reconnaissance.


                    Since the classical setup is there to stay, then almost the only thing that could be done would be improvements in sensors to detect an incoming missile threat, so that the crew could shut the radar off as emergency response (and deploy decoy emitters and other countermeasures ).

                    Possibly the only other improvement would be to move most or all of the crew minus one or two pilots onto a second aircraft (which flies maybe a few kilometers higher and receives the processed data from the radar aircraft (maybe by optical data link or some other means that's very directional).

                    Well, if we get into far fetched ideas, one can get into fabled hi-tech devices which supposedly protect presidential aircraft from missile threats. "Lasers" that blind guidance components, or smaller rocket powered analogues of FPV drones (very roughly speaking), which are released by an aircraft under imminent missile threat. These rocket drones fly at first alongside the aircraft, but cruise slightly slower and gradually fall behind, where their task is to place themselves between the incoming missile and the aircraft and act as suicide drones. In FPV drone fashion, they are made as cheaply as possible, with basic thrust from a solid propellant rocket whose combustion is supplemented by liquid propellant injection in an inefficient afterburner style only for short bursts of high thrust needed to complete the interception.

                    It sounds a little crazy but I don't rule something along these lines out after seeing what seem like also pretty crazy ideas, like the top attack mines which neutralized dozens of AFU tanks during their past so-called summer offensive.

                    ~

                    And back to the original story topic, I liked you comment about the Yak-130 being very well suited for the role of patrolling the sea for unmanned boats. Like you say, it has a second set of eyes to search the seas, and does not need a ton of armor to protect the crew for that role.

                    The best patrols are probably going to be done by a variety of aircraft, from drones, to Yak-130 and Su-35's to naval helicopters. Those boats may not show up well with look down radar such as on the sukhoi, but all of these craft can be equipped with infra red optics.

                    I think an armored ground support version of the Yak-130 is well suited to take over some of the roles of the Su-25, and since the 130 is already in production for trainer, it seems it would be economical add a variant in a mass production. The decision makers did not go for this; I wish I knew why. (imho this would spare some hours put on the Su-25 fleet and be a stopgap until an optimal replacement is designed.)

                    There is one Sukhoi trainer that looked absolutely gorgeous, the S-54. It was single engine, and maybe therefore was cancelled. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Sukhoi+S-54&pn=1&ia=images&iax=images
                    1. DO
                      +1
                      20 January 2024 20: 00
                      Quote: ussuri
                      Since the classical setup is there to stay, then almost the only thing that could be done would be improvements in sensors to detect an incoming missile threat, so that the crew could shut the radar off as emergency response (and deploy decoy emitters and other countermeasures ).
                      Possibly the only other improvement would be to move most or all of the crew minus one or two pilots onto a second aircraft (which flies maybe a few kilometers higher and receives the processed data from the radar aircraft (maybe by optical data link or some other means that's very directional).
                      Well, if we get into far fetched ideas, one can get into fabled hi-tech devices which supposedly protect presidential aircraft from missile threats. "Lasers" that blind guidance components, or smaller rocket powered analogues of FPV drones (very roughly speaking), which are released by an aircraft under imminent missile threat. These rocket drones fly at first alongside the aircraft, but cruise slightly slower and gradually fall behind, where their task is to place themselves between the incoming missile and the aircraft and act as suicide drones. In FPV drone fashion, they are made as cheaply as possible, with basic thrust from a solid propellant rocket whose combustion is supplemented by liquid propellant injection in an inefficient afterburner style only for short bursts of high thrust needed to complete the interception.

                      A shortened translation of the essence of the quote:
                      When using classic radar, about the only thing that can be done is to improve the sensors to detect an incoming missile threat so that the crew can disable the radar as an emergency response (and deploy decoys and other countermeasures).
                      Perhaps another solution would be to move most of the crew, excluding the pilots, onto a second aircraft (which flies perhaps a few kilometers higher and receives processed data from the radar aircraft (perhaps via an optical data link or narrow beam radio).
                      We can mention the high-tech devices that protect presidential aircraft from missile threats. "Lasers", blinding guidance components, or rocket-powered drones that are released by aircraft when there is an immediate missile threat. These rocket-powered drones initially fly close to the aircraft, but gradually fall behind. Their job is to get between the incoming missile and the plane and act like kamikaze drones. This drone's base thrust is from a solid-liquid thruster, where solid fuel combustion is supplemented by liquid fuel injection only for the short bursts of high thrust required to complete the interception.

                      For the conditions of the Northern Military District and the current situation in the Russian military-industrial complex, the only quickly implemented solution for radar reconnaissance of the rear of the Armed Forces of Ukraine is the integration of a container side-view radar into the Su-34. Perhaps another carrier of a container radar could be an old Su-27, upgraded into a drone. It is clear that these solutions are meaningless without the appropriate ground infrastructure, and, if necessary, air repeaters. By the way, here is your proposed “eviction” of operators from the radar aircraft to the ground or to another remote aircraft.
                      False emitters, lasers, anti-missiles - suitable for deep rear AWACS aircraft (A-50) as anti-sabotage weapons.
                      Quote: ussuri
                      I think an armored ground support version of the Yak-130 is well suited to take over some of the roles of the Su-25, and since the 130 is already in production for trainer, it seems it would be economical add a variant in a mass production. The decision makers did not go for this; I wish I knew why. (imho this would spare some hours put on the Su-25 fleet and be a stopgap until an optimal replacement is designed.)

                      A shortened translation of the essence of the quote:
                      I think that the armored version of the Yak-130 is well suited to take over some of the functions of the Su-25. And since the Yak-130 is already in production as a trainer aircraft, it might make sense to add an armored variant into production.

                      The introduction of an armored pilot capsule into the Yak-130 and the armoring of its important components would require a complete redesign of this aircraft, including replacing the engines with more powerful ones. Therefore, to replenish the fleet of manned attack aircraft of the VKS, it is easier to resume production of the modernized Su-25. Because an attack aircraft is still unlikely to be better than the Su-25.
                      The reincarnation of the Yak-130 could be its modernization into an unmanned attack aircraft. Especially considering that in the Northern Military District the greatest losses of aircraft, and, accordingly, pilots, occur precisely on the Su-25 attack aircraft.
                      1. +1
                        29 January 2024 02: 22
                        Thank you again for the insight. A light armored version with modern armor materials might still be feasible, though perhaps it might be inferior in too many apects to the Su-25. Engine power can be augmented by adding afterburner, or even by using a pair of pulsejets on the inner wing pylons (as well as loading the Yak-131 with less regulation so that the aircraft flies adequately).

                        Restarting Su-25 production is also a very good option. With advances in materials and technology, perhaps one last modern variant of it entering production would be a very optimal solution.
                      2. DO
                        +1
                        29 January 2024 22: 02
                        Thank you again for the insight. A light armored version with modern armor materials might still be feasible, though perhaps it might be inferior in too many apects to the Su-25. Engine power can be augmented by adding afterburner, or even by using a pair of pulsejets on the inner wing pylons (as well as loading the Yak-131 with less regulation so that the aircraft flies adequately).
                        Restarting Su-25 production is also a very good option. With advances in materials and technology, perhaps one last modern variant of it entering production would be a very optimal solution.
                        Translation:
                        Thanks again for your understanding. A lightly armored version with modern armor materials is possible, although it may be inferior to the Su-25 in many aspects. Engine power can be increased by adding an afterburner or even installing a pair of pulse jet engines on the inner wing pylons (as well as loading the Yak-131 with less ammunition to keep the aircraft flying adequately).
                        Resuming production of the Su-25 is also a very good option. With the development of materials and technologies, perhaps the latest modern version put into production would be a very optimal solution

                        Such deeply specialized issues can only be resolved by UAC engineers.
  33. 0
    12 January 2024 13: 38
    Isn’t it easier to make a patrol aircraft unmanned?
    And already put an OPS on it (hang it under it)?
    The UAV can even maintain a speed comparable to the BEC...
    And fly closer to Nikolaev (Odessa).
    Less fuel, easier to train a pilot.

    The downside is that UAVs need to be made, but the Su-25 already exists.
    But even here the question is - how complex a modernization does the vehicle offer?
    Are these OPS available?
    How many flying Su-25s are there? Maybe they will first need to be modernized with the replacement of engines, wiring, and rubber products?
    Will the airframe need repair?
    1. 0
      13 January 2024 01: 12
      Unmanned does not mean without human intervention. Only a human operator can identify the target. So we need a connection. But she’s not there.

      Quote: andrey682006
      It’s easier to prepare a pilot.


      Why does a UAV pilot? The UAV flies along a programmed route, guided by GLONASS signals and data from gyroscopes and rangefinders.


      Quote: andrey682006
      How many flying Su-25s are there?

      150 was before SVO. And not a single extra one...
  34. 0
    12 January 2024 16: 54
    Vladimir Petrovich is 86. Probably, it is possible to release a person to his long-deserved time, but his opinion should be listened to. Big designers are a rarity, but we need to prepare a replacement.
  35. 0
    12 January 2024 18: 45
    BY THE WAY, WHY HAS NO ONE EVER WRITTEN THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DRIVE NAILS WITH A MICROSCOPE?!
  36. 0
    12 January 2024 18: 51
    Both the author and most commentators demonstrate straightforwardness, stereotyped and fruitless thinking. No one set the task, no one considered the sea drone as a physical object with physical fields and weak, vulnerable spots. This is just a technical problem with a solution that I believe is quite simple. Until this is done, there is no need to fence a garden.
    If you follow the logic of the author and most commentators, it is necessary to jam every Ukrainian Armed Forces soldier in a trench with a vigorous warhead
    1. 0
      13 January 2024 01: 33
      Quote: futurohunter
      No one set the task, no one considered the sea drone as a physical object with physical fields and weak, vulnerable spots.


      Fire ships are now being destroyed from the sides of ships using machine guns using WWII era sights. Do you really think that it is necessary to look for vulnerable spots and study their physical fields?
      1. +1
        13 January 2024 15: 02
        abc_alex
        Do you really think that it is necessary to look for vulnerable spots and study their physical fields?

        Exactly. The article began with the message “oh, what a terrible and unsolvable problem!” So let's turn the problem into a task. And if we pose the problem normally, then we will understand that there are already all the means to solve it instead of inventing a miracle weapon (which Roman Skoromokhov loves so much).
        As for means of destruction, the ships have:
        1.Machine guns
        2.Grenade launchers for protection against underwater saboteurs
        3.Automatic guns and multi-barrel gatling guns
        4. I don’t know, but I assume that what remained was what was previously called “bomb launchers” - multi-barrel mortars for firing depth charges.
        5. In the end, the team also has machine guns))
        This arsenal is more than enough for fragile, forelocked shells
        1. 0
          15 January 2024 16: 30
          Quote: futurohunter
          And if we pose the problem normally, we will understand that we already have all the means to solve it instead of inventing a miracle weapon


          Ah, that's what you're talking about. I agree with you. The only problem here is, in my opinion, that fire ships need to be detected as early as possible and destroyed at the longest possible distance. Moreover, now they are not armed. Installing an automatic grenade launcher or machine gun on a fireship is not that difficult. Therefore, my opinion is that there should be no people on deck. Anti-landing systems must be remote controlled. For which weapon modules of light armored vehicles, for example from the BMP-3, are excellent. This is a ready-made option, mass-produced, and capable of providing ship protection for many years to come. Well, I just don’t know what needs to be fitted to the side so that the BMP-3 weapons system cannot cope with it.

          But there are questions with early detection.
          1. 0
            16 January 2024 11: 36
            abc_alex
            Well, generally speaking, from the point of view of common sense, it is irrational to install shooters on a fireship. The grenade launcher, firstly, will shoot at relatively short distances, and given the sea motion (the sea is rarely calm), it will miss hopelessly. The machine gun is more of a minor dirty trick - it is practically incapable of causing damage to a ship (small boats don’t count), and it is difficult to conduct targeted shooting at people (again due to the pitching). Again, any shooter increases weight (you will have to reduce the fuel supply or explosive charge) and unmasks the pepelats. There is a problem with aiming - there must be a good and fast radio channel for aiming and guidance, which can be problematic. Another question is that “there” are stubborn people, and they can imagine such things for themselves. But in my opinion, any shooter on this unit is more of a “make some noise” category. The shooting game could make at least some sense using hydrofoils or an air cushion (HC) - then the platform turns out to be very stable, but acquires a bunch of disadvantages. Firstly, the design becomes significantly more complicated, and there is a need for additional testing and debugging in order for it to “fly” normally. Secondly, fuel consumption increases sharply, especially for airborne vehicles, and the main advantage is lost - low visibility - a flying pepelats will be visible from afar. As for the deck - during a combat campaign there are practically no people there - everyone is at combat posts. There are now a bunch of gun modules for ground armored vehicles, for example, they are used to rearm the BMP-1/2, so it’s a good idea. As far as I understand, many of these modules are remote controlled, and they can easily be connected to the ship's fire control system. As for the detection range, it’s more important to have time to react. After all, the ship will not only shoot, but also maneuver
            1. 0
              16 January 2024 19: 59
              Quote: futurohunter
              Well, generally speaking, from the point of view of common sense, it is irrational to install shooters on a fireship. The grenade launcher, firstly, will shoot at relatively short distances, and given the sea motion (the sea is rarely calm), it will miss hopelessly. The machine gun is more of a minor dirty trick - it is practically incapable of causing damage to a ship (small boats don’t count), and it is difficult to conduct targeted shooting at people (again due to the pitching).


              And this is not about the ship. Look how they are fighting fire ships in our fleet now. A sailor stands on the deck at full height and shoots from a machine gun through a WW2 era sight from an open stand. It’s him, the sick one, who will be shot at with a grenade launcher. How many machine guns are there on board? Two? Three? Aim with your hull and fire a burst of several grenades so that you are discouraged from climbing onto the deck.
              It's the same with a machine gun. It is clear that this will not cause any damage to the ship, but it will not be pleasant for an openly standing shooter. At least the grenade launcher will be more effective.

              Quote: futurohunter
              . As far as I understand, many of these modules are remote controlled, and they can easily be connected to the ship's fire control system.


              Bakhcha-U definitely has.

              Quote: futurohunter

              I fantasized from the point of view of the attacking side - an ekranoplan rocket (with a jet engine).


              It will be a bit difficult for a UAV to hold the screen, since the height of the screen depends on the parameters of the wing, but yes. Unmanned fireships are only at the beginning of their development, and I think there will be a variety of options, including hydrofoils and screen-mounted ones. And instead of making simple decisions to protect ships, we have, b..., sailors with machine guns on deck. But there is a cannon on the nose, which, allegedly, can even attack air targets. BUT for some reason they don’t use it on fire ships...
          2. 0
            16 January 2024 11: 39
            abc_alex
            Now I remember the idea of ​​one American during the Second World War (I don’t remember who, but the idea was very famous) - to drive torpedoes away from the ship with strong jets of water from fire hoses. By the way, why not, as a last line of defense? Pepelats is dangerous only if it hits a ship directly. If it explodes at some distance, the power of the explosion will not be enough to penetrate the casing. There is another problem - the crew “holding the hoses” may suffer from shrapnel and be concussed from the blast wave
          3. +1
            16 January 2024 11: 42
            abc_alex
            I fantasized from the point of view of the attacking side - an ekranoplan rocket (with a jet engine). The danger from it can be very great - the flight altitude is lower than that of conventional anti-ship missiles, and therefore it is detected at a shorter range, and the reaction time of the ship’s defense system is shorter
  37. 0
    12 January 2024 18: 58
    Take the Yak-130 and do it, what problems?
    1. 0
      13 January 2024 01: 29
      Who will do it? Yakovlev Design Bureau? Has Pogosyanovism finished him off yet? Some information about the support and modernization of the Yak-130 has completely disappeared from the design bureau’s website. Now there is only the SuperJet project, which was dropped from the Sukhoi Design Bureau and the MS-21, which was also “considered” at Sukhoi. In fact, it turns out that the design bureau has become “in the wings” of Sukhoi...
      The armed version of the aircraft was made back in the 90s and has not gone anywhere since then. I doubt that anyone in Russia is now capable of making a high-speed firefighter fighter based on it.
      1. 0
        16 January 2024 21: 59
        Those who make them today will make them. Let me remind you that in December the last batch was handed over to the troops within the framework of State Defense Order-23. And a certain amount has been contracted for Iran.
        So, without any problems, you can quickly make a certain number of loitering devices; I don’t see any particular problems. There is no need for armor, pilots of the latest releases are quite familiar with the vehicle, it has a double cockpit; in terms of armament, work on a few things for a specific task and - go ahead!
  38. 0
    12 January 2024 20: 49
    My deep couch opinion.
    Two options.
    1. All Su-25s must be reshuffled into regiments with one located in each military district (there are two in the Eastern Military District) with the assignment of coastal patrol functions to them - the destruction of landing enemy forces.
    2. Send all Su 25s abroad to military bases (including Syria, Africa)
    Until the end of the resource.
    The attack aircraft missions must be removed from this aircraft. A UAV should take its place.
    Including on the topic of destruction of BEC
  39. 0
    13 January 2024 12: 28
    What did you want? We live under capitalism.
    What kind of salt is it -25? It’s easier and cheaper to buy something like this from the Chinese. What about the factories? What about factories? Moscow region, land at a premium.
    Sell ​​them to hell and be done with it!
  40. 0
    13 January 2024 15: 07
    I repeat the question.
    WHY DO ALMOST EVERYONE HERE, FOLLOWING THE AUTHOR, OFFER MICROSCOPES AS SLEDGEHAMMERS?! How are things going with IQ? What about common sense? I’m writing at the risk of getting hit by a can of tomatoes, but this is just a cry from the heart
  41. 0
    13 January 2024 18: 12
    ships were relocated to Novorossiysk, out of range

    Come on... :)
    And who then is shurakhit...
  42. +1
    13 January 2024 18: 19
    calculate the point where the same NURSs will need to be sent. By the way, the ideal weapon against BEC is that it is cheap and cheerful.

    You need to watch the video of how nurses tried to work “cheap and cheerful” from a turntable...
    Two passes into the “milk”, i.e. sea ​​foam...
  43. 0
    13 January 2024 18: 31
    Yak-130, which made it possible to transform the latter from a “flying desk” into a full-fledged light attack aircraft.

    This is the right idea...
    It should have been released long ago as a “small attack aircraft”...
    It carries up to 3 tons of cast iron, which means it is quite combat-ready...
    Considering that even bombers don’t carry us more than one Fab-1500...
    And its speed “at the ground” is less than that of the Su-25, which is important for working as nurses...
  44. 0
    13 January 2024 22: 10
    And yet the range... I think an armed patrol aircraft would be more effective in this capacity. In the spirit of Catalina.
  45. 0
    14 January 2024 02: 43
    With such a modernization rate of 4 attack aircraft per year, Russia will soon be left without attack aircraft, which will be laid up due to the end of their service life....

    Instead of modernizing the remaining one and a half hundred attack aircraft and getting 12 combat squadrons consisting of four attack air regiments, the Ministry of Defense still does not have a clear concept for the use of attack aircraft.
  46. +1
    14 January 2024 02: 44
    With such a modernization rate of 4 attack aircraft per year, Russia will soon be left without attack aircraft, which will be laid up due to the end of their service life....

    Instead of modernizing the remaining one and a half hundred attack aircraft and getting 12 combat squadrons consisting of four attack air regiments, the Ministry of Defense still does not have a clear concept for the use of attack aircraft.
  47. +1
    15 January 2024 15: 37
    "The Ministry of Defense still does not have a clear concept for the use of attack aircraft." Uv. colleague, I dare to suggest that in your phrase, instead of “attack aircraft,” you can safely insert almost all types of weapons and tactics of their use, starting with the Terminator and up to ... AB. Sincerely.
  48. 0
    15 January 2024 18: 22
    How is this supposed to work? Keep the plane in the air all the time? A water drone requires a water anti-drone and a system of some kind of radio beacons with some kind of detection system so that the desired area of ​​the water surface can be covered. Of course, it is also necessary to have an aircraft that can detect and destroy such a target, but it will not become a panacea, especially since there will be questions about working at night.
  49. +1
    16 January 2024 21: 28
    The idea with the SOLT-25 has the right to life, but not in tandem with the SU-25, this is nonsense. For patrolling and detection, you need an equipment carrier with a time in the air of 10-24 hours. And to send a flight of Su-25 every 2-4 hours to refuel + make border guard pilots..... Well, that’s such an idea! Yes, at least place airships, or some kind of rheostats, balloons with equipment in the water area, and even let them hang for years
  50. 0
    17 January 2024 05: 50
    In general, strange things are happening at the enterprises of the Shvabe concern.

    Oh yeah! The concern itself is a very strange thing. I really “like” its name: “Shvabe”. A kind of Russian "Carl Zeiss". To name a concern after a person who has nothing to do with it is strong. It turns out that Theodor Schwabe, who created a small company selling German glasses, gave the name to a huge enterprise. And the fact that Schwabe himself has nothing to do with the further history of the company and the production of optics does not mean anything. Just as the names of Soviet engineers and scientists who created what is now the Shvabe Concern mean nothing.
    Of course, it’s not about the name (Kalashnikov Concern - which is better?). It’s painful to watch how “managers” talk about the legacy of the USSR, justifying it with “history from the end of the 19th century.”
  51. -1
    17 January 2024 05: 50
    In general, strange things are happening at the enterprises of the Shvabe concern.

    Oh yeah! The concern itself is a very strange thing. I really “like” its name: “Shvabe”. A kind of Russian "Carl Zeiss". To name a concern after a person who has nothing to do with it is strong. It turns out that Theodor Schwabe, who created a small company selling German glasses, gave the name to a huge enterprise. And the fact that Schwabe himself has nothing to do with the further history of the company and the production of optics does not mean anything. Just as the names of Soviet engineers and scientists who created what is now the Shvabe Concern mean nothing.
    Of course, it’s not about the name (Kalashnikov Concern - which is better?). It’s painful to watch how “managers” talk about the legacy of the USSR, justifying it with “history from the end of the 19th century.”
  52. 0
    12 March 2024 13: 59
    So sad... And who is watching all this (disorder) and is responsible?
  53. 0
    April 5 2024 10: 04
    From a gun on sparrows.

    Maybe observers should be equipped with such devices and mounted with manipulators with guns and nurses? And hang a couple of airships with the same observers and shells? Put people on the beach with cell phones and let them signal the launch of plastic torpedoes?