Prospects for the Development of the Russian Aerospace Forces. Attack Aviation

I would like to start by stating that the development prospects of the assault aviation No. Solely to save time and nerves for those who disagree with this statement. And then we will calmly figure out what an attack aircraft is and why it has no place in the sky in the future.

Let's start with a definition.

An attack aircraft is an aircraft controlled by a pilot, related to attack aviation and intended for direct support of ground and naval armed forces in combat, as well as for the targeted destruction of various ground and sea targets. That is, at a minimum, it is an airplane or (as an option) a helicopter. A manned aircraft. Not a UAV.

This is what an attack aircraft is these days. And in order to properly assess what kind of phenomenon this is in the air, we simply need to go to historical excursion.

In general, the attack aircraft, as a class of aviation, was invented by the Russians. This is a fact, if someone wants to argue with it - no problem, but the "Lebed-XII" with bomb racks of the Shkulnik or Kolpakov-Miroshnichenko systems, capable of taking on board up to 50 kg of small fragmentation bombs and a 7,62-mm "Colt" machine gun to protect the rear hemisphere, was recognized as the world's first attack aircraft.

After the revolution and the Civil War, the theme of aircraft capable of supporting infantry and carrying out strikes on the enemy's close rear continued. The baton was taken up by the attack aircraft, created on the basis of the Polikarpov R-5, the R-5Sh. The R-5Sh differed from the standard fighter by four ShKAS machine guns on the lower wings, and - a novelty - pouring aviation instruments under them.

The fact is that in the 20-30s one of the main types weapons for stormtroopers, chemical was considered. It was envisaged to use VAP against infantry, cavalry, artillery and convoys. Convoys and artillery were considered especially vulnerable because there were few people and many horses. In the event of a surprise attack, the drivers simply did not have time to put gas masks on all the horses. And with the means Defense there was not much in the supply trains and among the artillerymen.

One R-5 carried 160 kg of mustard gas or lewisite. At a flight altitude of about 50 m, it covered a strip of 10-12 meters up to 200 meters long with toxic rain.

By World War II, the concept of the attack aircraft had changed significantly, primarily under the influence of the development of air defense systems. Armor appeared, and then designers in Germany and the Soviet Union came up with the idea of an armored box, which they implemented with varying degrees of success.

That is why the Soviet IL-2, which was essentially a universal attack aircraft, went through the entire war and enjoyed well-deserved respect on the ground, while the Hs-129, which was conceived as an anti-tank aircraft, had, let's say, episodic successes.

In World War II, the vicious practice of assigning obsolete fighters to attack aircraft was also used. The effectiveness of such aircraft was low, and losses were quite significant.

In general, during the war in the Soviet Union and, at the same time, in the USA, more than 20 projects for such aircraft were considered in each country.

After the war, work on armored attack aircraft projects continued in several design bureaus: Ilyushin (Il-20, Il-28Sh, Il-40), Yakovlev (Yak-36 and Yak-38) and Mikoyan (MiG-15bis and SN (MiG-17Sh). Of the entire list of projects from the 50s-70s, only the Yak-38 was accepted into service, which was considered an attack aircraft with a big stretch.

The Yak-38 ended up as an attack aircraft because this aircraft could not conduct air combat at the end of the 20th century due to the lack of a radar, and its set of weapons, mostly unguided, was more typical for an attack aircraft or light bomber, but the lack of armor made the Yak-38 a rather poor attack aircraft, at the level of conversions from obsolete fighters from the Great Patriotic War.

The last page of attack aviation was written in the late 60s of the last century, when the Il-102 and Su-25, which was then still called T-8, met in a competition. As is known, the Su-25 won and for almost 55 years this aircraft has been an attack aircraft in the Russian Air Force.

And today, in 2025, speaking about the prospects for the development of manned attack aircraft in the form of the Su-25, we can say with confidence that there are no prospects. None.

45 years is a very long time. The Su-25 is an established platform that is almost impossible to upgrade further.

What is the main problem with the Su-25? This is an aircraft designed to operate against optically visible targets. That is, in fact, it has not gone very far from the Il-2, of course, it simply has sights, unlike the Ilyushin attack aircraft, and the sights are modern, but there is no onboard radar, which automatically limits this aircraft both in the choice of altitudes for operation and in the choice of types of weapons used.

That is, the same set as 90 years ago: free-fall bombs, rockets, guns. Yes, if you look at the list of Su-25 weapons, you can find a section called "precision weapons". Under this proud signboard are hidden the Kh25 and Kh-29. Missiles, which are older than the Su-25 itself, and which can hardly be called accurate. A laser seeker is something these days, because the pilot is forced to illuminate the target while simultaneously controlling the aircraft, maneuvering and... well, spare us from such a process. Considering that this is at low altitude, when everything that can fire at the attack aircraft... In short, it is a kind of "high-precision weapon".

The Su-25 can still attack with its set, and it can do it decently, but... if we are talking about, let's say, terrorists armed only with small arms. In battles with a normal army, the Su-25 has no chance.

The stormtrooper's protective equipment is completely outdated. Titanium armor, which perfectly withstands bullets from 7,62 mm to 14,5 mm, is good. It can even withstand a 23 mm projectile in some areas. But over these 45 years, rapid-fire guns of 30 mm caliber have become very widespread. And there is nothing to be done about it.

The onboard defense system has become more effective with the advent of the Belarusian Talisman/Vitebsk, but unfortunately not 100%. For any modern fighter, the Su-25 is fodder. The R-60 air-to-air missiles, originally intended for defense against aircraft and helicopters, are simply no longer usable, so they are being replaced with the R-73. This is a very good short-range missile, but the problem is that the Su-25 pilot is unlikely to be able to use it. He simply will not see the target, but the Su-25 will see the target – the fighter – from a decent distance with its radar and will guide its missiles.

For certain reasons, it is not possible to report on our pages information about the lost Su-25s of the Russian Aerospace Forces, but I can provide data on the Ukrainian attack aircraft that the Ukrainian Armed Forces have lost since 24.02.2022. This is also a fairly indicative list, and taken from the British, who are more likely to downplay the losses of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

2022 year.

24.02 Su-25 with the call sign "Blue 19", piloted by Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Zhybrov, was shot down in the Chaplinka area by a Russian fighter, Lieutenant Colonel Zhybrov died.

25.02 Su-25 with the call sign "Blue 39", piloted by Gennady Matulyak, was shot down by a Russian fighter near Vyshgorod, Kiev region. The pilot died.

On 26.02, near Nikolaev, a Russian fighter shot down a Su-25 with the call sign "Blue 30". Pilot Alexander Shcherbakov died.

26.02 Su-25M1 with the call sign "Blue 31" was shot down by a SAM missile near Fyodorovka. Captain Andrey Antikhovich died.

27.02 Su-25 with the call sign "Blue 49" was shot down by a SAM missile in the Kherson region, pilot Andrey Maksimov was wounded, but survived and was taken prisoner.

2.03 Su-25, call sign "Blue-29", piloted by Alexander Korpan, was shot down over Starokostiantyniv, Khmelnytskyi region. Korpan died.

3.03 Su-25 with the call sign "Blue 40", piloted by captain Vadim Moroz, was lost over Nikolaev.

22.03 Su-25 call sign "Blue 34" was shot down by a Russian fighter near Melitopol. The pilot
Major Rostislav Lazarenko ejected.

15.04 Su-25 shot down by Russian fighter near Izyum. Pilot, captain Yegor Seredyuk, killed.

14.05 Su-25 was shot down in Gulyaipole, Zaporizhia region by a SAM missile. Pilot captain Sergey Parkhomenko died.

26.06 The Chief of Intelligence of the 299th Tactical Aviation Brigade, Alexander Kukurba, died while carrying out a combat mission in his Su-25 “Blue 16” near the city of Dnepr.

15.08 Colonel Yuri Pokhory's Su-25 was lost during combat operations with Russian troops.

7.09 Su-25 "Blue 28" was shot down by Russian troops during a combat mission. Pilot of the 299th tactical aviation brigade Vadim Blagovistny was killed.

19.09 Su-25 was shot down by an Osa air defense system in the Donetsk region, near the village of Yegorovka, the pilot ejected and was evacuated.

2023

06.01 Su-25 was shot down by a MANPADS over Bakhmut, the pilot ejected and was picked up by his own people.

27.01 Su-25, "Blue 37" was shot down by a Russian fighter in the Kramatorsk area, the pilot of the 299th tactical aviation brigade Danilo Murashko was killed.

10.10 Su-25 was destroyed by strike drone ZALA "Lancet 3" on the runway of the Dolgintsevo airbase near Krivoy Rog.

2024

7.02 Su-25 from the 299th Tactical Aviation Brigade was shot down by a Russian Su-35 during a combat sortie in the Kherson region. Pilot Vladislav Rykov died.

6.06 The Lancet unmanned aerial vehicle damaged a Su-25 at the airbase in Krivoy Rog so much that it could not be repaired.

11.06 Su-25 was destroyed by a Lancet UAV at the airbase in Krivoy Rog.

29.07 Su-25 was destroyed by a Lancet UAV at the airbase in Krivoy Rog.

14.12 Su-25, Blue 27, from the 299th Tactical Aviation Brigade was shot down by a Russian S-400 anti-aircraft missile system near the Kherson region. Pilot Vladislav Igorevich Solop was killed.

This is, of course, an incomplete list of Su-25 losses of the Ukrainian Air Force. I deliberately excluded the aircraft that were destroyed by missile strikes at airfields. But what is there is more than enough to illustrate two things. First, the Su-25 has a lot of enemies. Second, it is almost impossible for an attack aircraft pilot to survive. Of the 22 statistical cases cited, the missiles that shot down the Su-25 took the pilot in 13 cases. If you subtract 22 from 4 losses, when the Su-25s were destroyed at airfields by UAV strikes, then you get very sad statistics. 13 out of 18.

Overall, the picture is quite depressing and the expediency of using an attack aircraft in a modern conflict is questionable. Yes, against terrorists in the Syrian desert is one thing, but against an army that has modern air defense systems and aviation is quite another.

But the saddest thing for the Su-25 attack aircraft in our history is that it has a replacement. And a more effective one than the plane.

Everyone already understood that we will talk about kamikaze UAVs.

Indeed, today these devices cause much more damage than all aviation combined. And indeed, if we compare Drone and an attack aircraft, the drone has many more advantages:
1. Its pilot sits on the ground, at a safe (almost) distance from the target.

2. The UAV is more accurate. Moreover, it is much more accurate than the entire unguided Su-25 nomenclature. It is even more accurate than the "high-precision" Su-25 nomenclature. And 10 kg of explosives in a drone can actually be more effective than 500 kg in a FAB-500, since the bomb will hit where it falls, and the drone will hit where it needs to.

3. UAVs are cheaper. For the amount of money that can fall to the ground in the form of a downed Su-25 that did not have time to make a single launch (taking into account depreciation and old age of at least 10 million dollars), you can simply disfigure the front line of a single enemy unit beyond recognition with drones.

4. Well, I'll repeat myself, but this is the main thing: if a UAV is shot down, its operator will curse, take another drone and fly to the target. A pilot is unlikely to be able to do this for the reasons stated above.

In summary: the Su-25 is an outdated aircraft, both morally and physically, absolutely defenseless against modern weapons and with outdated weapons.

Even the much-talked-about and heartily advertised modernization of the Su-25SM3 in the era of effective management of the Russian Defense Ministry cannot meet modern requirements. Well, they added the GLONASS satellite navigation system, which can allow flying in “zero” visibility. Useful. The PNK SVP-24-25 sighting system (a variant of the SVP-24 “Gefest” for the Su-25), which “allows for increasing the accuracy of unguided airborne weapons to the level of guided weapons” — well, that’s not very good at all, but let those who want to believe it believe it.

An attack aircraft without a radar, using unguided weapons - today it is really the day before yesterday. A controlled kamikaze drone is a high-precision weapon, which is several orders of magnitude greater than all the capabilities of an attack aircraft.

In general, it is not for nothing that by order of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief and the President of Russia the Army-2025 forum was cancelled in favor of the Unmanned Systems: Technologies of the Future forum, which will be held in Skolkovo from August 7 to 17, 2025.

Priorities have been set.

However, they have been in place for a long time. Back when developments on the topics of promising fighters and bombers, and even interceptors, appeared. But we did not see the attack direction, PAK SHA.

Simple and logical? Yes, quite so.

And here everything is simple: you need to be able to say goodbye. Nothing lasts forever, and more modern weapons systems sooner or later replace the old, albeit familiar ones. The musket and arquebus replaced the bow and crossbow in their time, the machine gun replaced the three-line rifle, and the jet plane took the place of the piston plane.

So it's time for attack aviation to go down in history. At least after the Su-25 (this is also worth thinking about) no country in the world has developed aircraft of this class. And will not develop them any more. The Su-25 is the last representative.

Of course, there are still many Rooks flying, especially in poorer countries, but the Chinese Q-5 and German Tornado have already been retired, and the US has been deciding for years what to do with its A-10. Although the US, which likes to restore order in third and fourth world countries, may find the flying devil Warthog useful.

In our case, the Su-25 will fly for some time until the remaining aircraft are completely exhausted, after which Russia's attack aviation will finally become history. Aircraft that could iron out the enemy's forward defense line from a line of sight will cease their work, since in the same SVO there is no forward defense line as such. And the dispersal of troops is very high, MLRS and tactical missiles have already trained personnel on both sides.

And why all this, dashing assault attacks, if the operator is able to put the drone where he considers necessary from an absolutely safe distance for himself? Just like at the Krivoy Rog airfield, our operators calmly burned Ukrainian Su-25s. And if it really is necessary to strike with something heavier than the 5-10 kg of explosives in the drone, then the Su-30 will calmly and most importantly - more accurately than the Su-25 will put the missile. And the plane will be at a safe distance, and the operator will guide and adjust the missile, without distracting the pilot. Well, if it is necessary to put something very large, for this there is the Su-34, the operator of which will also bring the high-explosive bomb with the UMPK to its logical end.

This is the prospect for attack aircraft. The end is final and irrevocable, and no matter what anyone says, no matter what projects are built on the Internet, we must be able to admit: the era of blind and deaf aircraft with unguided weapons has passed finally and irrevocably. It is probably a pleasant moment that the last "clean" attack aircraft in the world is our Su-25, which has been through more than a dozen wars and conflicts, but the future belongs to more economical UAVs in all respects and modern fighter-bombers.

Comments

[Uncle lee]

the last "clean" attack aircraft in the world is our Su-25,

"Everything in this world has its time."...

[Civil]

The author gets a plus. Even BEFORE they wrote about replacing attack aircraft with UAVs. There were many articles and studies. The end of human-controlled aviation of the so-called "front line".

[NIKN]

Regarding the Su-25, yes, the plane is outdated, any plane has to retire at some point. But regarding attack aircraft, I would hold off on the funeral (it has been buried more than once). It's just that at the moment there are no breakthrough discoveries applicable to the development of attack aircraft. I do not rule out that at some point both sighting systems and a number of weapons for attack aircraft will again allow the creation of an aircraft with the efficiency of the Su-25 on the battlefield in its time. As for UAVs, it is too early to hang a crown on them, counter-UAV systems are only at the stage of formation and development of tactics and strategy for combating UAVs. The eternal problem of the confrontation of "armor and projectile". If we reason about UAVs as the author does, then everything can be buried and only UAVs can be left.

[Popandos]

But regarding attack aircraft,

There is one more problem that the author of the article did not mention.
In case of a serious conflict, some of the factories will be destroyed and it will be difficult or impossible to replenish the losses of attack aircraft. But you can set up production of UAVs in any garage cooperative.

[highlight]

Quote: NIKNN

Regarding the Su-25, yes, the plane is outdated; any plane has to retire at some point.

In its current form, it became obsolete 20 years ago. And that is why the KAB UMPK drags expensive and even more unique Su-34s to the front line, although hacking the front line is the direct responsibility of attack aircraft. No drone can lift a 250, 500 kg bomb and put it at the aiming point, and such a modernization of the Su-25 does not cost much instead of firing missiles from a pitched position. And how much would the weight of the "bomb salvo" increase if attack aircraft were doing their direct job?

[KCA]

A long time ago, they showed the replacement of the SU-25 - the SU-39, but since then nothing has been heard about them.

[Okko777]

The author has no idea what he is writing about. In our Armed Forces of Russia, conditions for replacing the UAV attack aircraft have not been created, as in many other countries. Why, when talking about the aviation of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, do they assume that everyone participates in the comparison on equal terms? The combat aviation of the Russian Federation operates in a different field than, for example, the US aviation. Their aviation operates in the Information field, using Combat Information Systems, and ours in the "clean" field, by itself, because we do not have such systems, or they are local and are created episodically. How can we talk about some advanced experience of the SVO in such conditions? About miserable, backward, yesterday's experience. More precisely, USELESS. The creation of the Troops of Unmanned Systems is a forced temporary step due to the complete absence of BIS in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. A miserable attempt to replace advanced modern BIS, which we do not have, with temporary fakes with limited capabilities that do not meet the criteria of modern combat. This is obvious to everyone from the example of the situation in the Black Sea and our complete inaction. We see nothing off our shores, our fleet is hiding, so how do your drones with operators prevent this? How? NO WAY!!! Our UAVs without multiple control channels and real-time information transfer cannot replace the same old attack aircraft. Stop making up your own fairy tales and believing in this nonsense with rapture!

[Akuzenka]

"I recognize brother Kolya." In the sense of Skomorokhov by the categorical judgments and the lack of alternatives to the conclusions. Attack aviation will still have its say. And UAVs, as soon as cheap, for LBS, optical reconnaissance stations that provide targeting for conventional machine guns are invented and implemented, will quickly fade away. And what then, in the author's opinion?

[shocktrooper]

Quote: AKuzenka

cheap optical reconnaissance stations for LBS, providing target designations for conventional machine guns, will quickly disappear. And what then, in the author's opinion?

Well, that's also a utopia, the only more or less guaranteed way to shoot them down from firearms not at pistol ranges is projectiles with programmable detonation, everything else is literally a cannon shot at sparrows, shooting down fast-flying targets even of large size from machine guns is a fantasy that was quickly abandoned at the beginning of the Second World War. If you really want to dream - look towards lasers, or even railguns with gauss if you really want to hit a drone with something hard, at least there are much fewer problems with aiming.

[Akuzenka]

All these lasers and railguns have one, no, two, bad properties. 1. They "eat" a lot of energy. 2. Their shots greatly unmask positions. I will keep quiet about rain and fog for lasers and leave it to your conscience. In 2000, smartphones were "science fiction", which does not prevent you from using them now. And a cheap optical reconnaissance and target designation station is a simple engineering task, which, I am sure, is already being solved. Because such installations are not exotic or science fiction. And it seems like they have been used since the 70s of the 20th century. They need to be reduced in size and combined with a large-caliber machine gun. You are always trying to complicate things.

[shocktrooper]

It's even interesting how railguns and the like give away a position so much compared to the same machine guns, especially when these machine guns are in large quantities? Well, again, a large-caliber machine gun has a very weak damaging factor, and even more so accuracy and rate of fire, and even more so with optical guidance from a cheap and therefore not particularly stabilized and stable platform, there will be generally terrifying accuracy already at distances of more than 100-200 meters (that is, the "umbrella" of cover from them will be generally miserable, and also not particularly reliable). No, of course they will shoot down something and even slightly complicate the work of UAVs, but UAVs will definitely not "come to naught" from something like this, and will definitely be many times more ineffective than electronic warfare. So I wouldn't particularly make a miracle weapon out of them that will appear any minute now and turn everything upside down. Even the same lasers, despite absorption by the environment, and beam dispersion, and energy consumption, look much more promising against unarmored light UAVs, but you can't stop believing, to each his own.

[Akuzenka]

Watch the video of a railgun shot and you'll understand. And optical targeting over kilometers was quite successful even in manual mode. Rangefinders and anticipation devices already existed back then and were quite successful even with high-altitude targets. The direct shot range of the KPVT, for example, is 2,5 kilometers.

[not main]

I understand that I will hardly wait for understanding, but try to think about it at least once! And then it will dawn on you that the latest "passenger" disasters are precisely due to the uncontrolled use of AI! The plane can control the pilot! Insanity! Although some suggest transferring this to cars! Flag in hand and drum around neck and go ahead with a song! Bad deeds are not tricky!

[Same lech]

Everyone already understood that we will talk about kamikaze UAVs

Why not make it a tandem with the SU-25...use the attack aircraft as a means of delivery to the front line...this will increase the range of the UAV significantly.
I was especially amused by the use of NURS on the attack aircraft...they fire them at random at area targets...whether they hit or not...who knows...a waste of ammunition.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: The same LYOKHA

Why not make it a tandem with the SU-25?

Because it’s easier to make a tandem with something like a Yak-18, it will be much cheaper.

Quote: The same LYOKHA

.they fire them at random at area targets...

From a pitching position

Quote: The same LYOKHA

wasted ammunition.

There are simply a sea of them in the warehouses

[alexoff]

Because it’s easier to make a tandem with something like a Yak-18, it will be much cheaper.

drying and will take away more, by an order of magnitude somewhere. Well, that's if there's anything to take away besides nurses. Although, it seems, no one cares

[Luminman]

Quote: The same Lech

Why not make it a tandem with the SU-25...use the attack aircraft as a means of delivery to the front line

Our army will quickly be left without pants from such use. Expensive...

[Serg 122]

Well, that's if you're pulling one UAV on suspension. But what if there's more?

[Alexey Lantukh]

Expensive...

Expensive, it's relative to what. Probably, if you build a new one. And the old Sukhois are already there, and there are pilots. It is best to re-equip the planes to launch gliding bombs or similar special missiles. The ceiling of 7-10 km is sufficient to launch such charges. In practice, the Sukhoi approaches the LBS at an altitude of 20-30 km, launches its bombs and disappears. At the same time, it can even have an air-to-air missile on board for defense. This will be cheaper than using new Sukhois.

[Victor Alien]

Then we need to compare the quantity and cost of the Su-25 and Il-2. All aviation has essentially flown its last flight - drones at any altitude as reconnaissance, at low altitudes as kamikaze attack aircraft, and higher up - satellites. And the number of planes they make each year is the same as the number they took out in one normal battle 50 years or more ago. How many planes did Israel send to Iran at once?! How many planes did Pakistan and India send at one time?! And now everything needs to be recalculated - everything is expensive. Tanks are expensive, planes too. Naval ships get problems from motorboats. No one will let millions of people be put in graves - they'll rather kill everyone in their homeland in revolutions (which is what happens everywhere). They haven't really come up with anything new - they've just raised the prices for everything in space. Motorcycles have been returned to the army. And somewhere they'll harness horses in a new way - if they can find where to get them. The prices for a horse or a steed are now like some new motorcycles... You have to think with your head what and where to use - after all, even a combat laser won't replace the use of a simple stick or knife in combat.

[Dutchman Michel]

Quote: Victor Alien

even a combat laser will not replace the use of a simple stick or knife in combat

Beautifully said! A big plus from me!

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

You have to think with your head about what and where to use - after all, even a combat laser won't replace the use of a simple stick or knife in combat.

I fully support! +++++++
There have already been articles on VO - tanks are outdated, they are being burned; infantry fighting vehicles are also outdated, they are being burned, etc.
What to fight with then?
Or maybe there is something wrong at the conservatory?

[bulatmuhamadeev]

"Grach" wasn't really needed at the time of its appearance, because even the military didn't fully understand whether it was necessary to restore attack aviation. As a result, "Sukhoi" literally wrote the technical specifications for their own aircraft. Afghanistan certainly played into their hands, but even there, due to the appearance of advanced MANPADS, attack aircraft were ordered to use bombs from high altitudes, reducing them to the level of average fighter-bombers.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: bulatmuhamadeev

After all, even the military did not fully understand whether it was necessary to restore attack aviation. As a result, Sukhoi literally wrote the technical specifications for their own aircraft.

They pushed through a substitute that did not meet the requirements, because the military wanted an attack aircraft capable of destroying tanks, i.e. hitting them, not pretending. To which they were promised that the next one would be exactly like that (Su-25T), but as usual they were deceived.

[Pavel57]

To which they were promised that the next one would be exactly like this (Su-25T), but as usual they were deceived.

Su-25T/Su-37 made. It showed itself well in Ethiopia.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Puncher

To which they were promised that the next one would be exactly like this (Su-25T), but as usual they were deceived.

They didn't deceive - the Sukhoi anti-tank attack aircraft was made. And even in metal. And it even flew and was tested, including for combat use.
The problem turned out to be not in the hardware, but in the "leather bag". © Even test pilots were not suitable for work on this attack aircraft - the load on the only crew member during a combat sortie on a conditional ETDVD turned out to be excessive.

[Cympak]

To operate on the ground in an airplane/helicopter, a second crew member is needed who will search for ground targets and aim weapons at them, or a forward air controller with a laser sight.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Cympak

To operate on the ground in an airplane/helicopter, a second crew member is needed who will search for ground targets and aim weapons at them, or a forward air controller with a laser sight.

Absolutely right. The problem of excessive loads on a single crew member ruined two anti-tank aircraft at once - the Su-39 and the Ka-50.
However, the Ka-50 was intended to be a reconnaissance and target designation helicopter. The problem is that it was based on the Ka-60 - the most epic long-term construction project of the Soviet and Russian aviation industry.

[alexoff]

This problem was solved by Mil and Kamov Design Bureaus

[turembo]

Aviation is no exception: Tu-95, B-52, F-15, F-16, Su-27, Su-25 – they are still just as relevant.

You're kidding, there was literally an article published under the title: The main thing is not to know about these generations dedicated to MiG, and a quote from the same article. There are no prospects here. And in the article Don't cry for him while he's alive. buried the TU-95, I just got confused which equipment is good and will still fly, and which is finished. Otherwise, it turns out as the cards fall, today is bad, tomorrow is good, the day after tomorrow is nothing...

[Amateur]

Otherwise, it turns out as the cards fall: today is bad, tomorrow is good, the day after tomorrow is nothing...

But the author's fee is stable!

[Dutchman Michel]

Quote from turembo

they buried the TU-95, I just got confused

I'm confused too. Is there really anything left?

[Mustached Kok]

So different classes.
The article about the MiG is dedicated to the fighter, which with the update of its equipment (primarily the radar) only expanded its capabilities, and the flight characteristics laid down at the very beginning are still sufficient for fast attacks and interceptions. The main thing is to install new equipment and missiles for pilots (for 80% of tasks, 4-5 suspension points will be enough).

And here is a stormtrooper.
An aircraft that must fly as close and low as possible to the LBS, despite the fact that it is not fast (limitation of flight characteristics for work on ground targets) and does not have the ability to use high-precision weapons. And its means of protection and maneuverability are barely enough to protect even from MANPADS. And more serious air defense systems destroy it without problems.
You can, of course, try to use it as a strike fighter - attack from a high altitude and at a decent distance with a quick retreat immediately after the attack.
But it doesn't have a radar for that, and a second operator is also desirable. Because of the aerodynamics and layout, it won't be able to fly fast. Yes, it has a lot of suspension points. But now some heavy aircraft have more of them than Grach.

So it turns out that MiG is beyond a generation, and Grach is already living out his life and has no prospects of staying.

[Bad_gr]

Quote from turembo

Otherwise, it turns out as the cards fall: today is bad, tomorrow is good, the day after tomorrow is nothing...

If the equipment is used for its intended purpose and it copes with its tasks completely - why abandon it. Unless, perhaps, there is a much more effective replacement. But again: the old one already exists and performs its functions, and the new one needs to be manufactured, brought to mind and released in the required quantity.

[Dutchman Michel]

So the attack aviation has been buried. What else is left?

[alexoff]

I'm waiting for the infantry to get there. Otherwise, everyone who can is hunting for them.

[smart ass]

Su 25 has great prospects if it is made unmanned!!!

[ism_ek]

Quote: Clever man

Su 25 has great prospects if it is made unmanned!!!

Firstly, it is not unmanned, but remotely controlled.
Secondly, converting manned vehicles into remotely controlled ones is futile.

[Adrey]

Quote: Clever man

Su 25 has great prospects if it is made unmanned!!!

If only as a Ju 88 in a "Mistel" tandem.

[Soldatov V.]

Who would have thought before that hunting shotguns would be useful in war against small micro flying vehicles (UAVs)? And the SU-25 will be useful, if we also modernize it in the right way and develop our own tactics for use. With electronic warfare and a precise sight and at any time of day. There are helicopters with limited speed, there are fighter-bombers, there are fighters and each occupies its own niche on the battlefield in terms of speed and range. For now, the Su-25 is fighting in its niche. It is up to the troops fighting the war to decide whether it is needed at the front or not.

[ism_ek]

With the current development of communications equipment, as well as air defense systems, the prospects for manned aircraft are very vague.
Yes, if the enemy does not have sufficient air defense, then the planes will still serve, otherwise the future belongs to remotely controlled aircraft.
Modern noise-like wireless communication protocols are virtually impossible to jam.
Modern aircraft are not capable of detecting the location of modern radars (manufactured since the 80s of the last century). With the current development of air defense, any aircraft is a kamikaze, no matter whether there is a pilot in it or not.

[parma]

Only if both sides are a little incapable of air superiority, because at one time they "gave up" on it and did not really develop the Air Force... if the Air Force has squadrons of "radar hunters", there are good "flying radars" in the required quantities, there are specialized electronic warfare aircraft, there are high-quality high-precision missiles and bombs, then no air defense will save... it is not enough to just make one good fighter or air defense system (which, by the way, have not really proven themselves, because a system is needed for the result, and are good only on paper) and polish one place in front of the mirror, a system is needed... Could Iran do something? It was beaten like a child for almost 2 weeks, and before that everyone wrote in the spirit of "Bush, you should not joke with war" (who remembered, remembered). Drones are a great addition to other means of destruction, but nothing more. In a maneuverable war, they are hampered by logistics and speed - high consumption, low speed and range.
As for attack aircraft, they were ruined by the development of multi-purpose aircraft... it is better to have two multi-purpose aircraft that can drop "bang" like a Jeydam/UMPK and launch an air-to-air missile, than to destroy one and one attack aircraft. In fact, only two countries in the world after WWII could afford to develop attack aircraft as a class, and only they had them, and if we exclude the USA, then today attack aircraft were inherited by everyone in the world from the Union, either during the collapse or at a low price on a "flea market", precisely as cheap cars... no one in their right mind ordered all the new aircraft

[DO]

Quote: parma

Drones are a great addition to other weapons, but nothing more. In a maneuver war, they are hampered by logistics and speed - high consumption, low speed and range.

It's right.
But what can be done to compensate for the shortcomings of kamikaze drones? To use an optionally controlled aircraft carrier for a swarm of small autonomous (with AI) kamikaze drones, flying along a predetermined route.
The problem here is the price of this aircraft carrier, because the carrier does not have much chance of delivering the swarm to the required point in the enemy rear and returning home. Therefore, there can be three possible solutions:
1) Use MLRS missiles to deliver kamikaze drones. There have also been reports of drones being developed that are fired from a cannon.
2) Use a large kamikaze drone, such as a modified Geranium, to deliver a swarm of "little things". If it is hit en route, automatically drop the swarm, which will then search for a spare, secondary target.
3) Modification of old fighters and attack aircraft, which are already dangerous for pilots to fly, into the aforementioned unmanned aircraft carrier. The advantage here is both the relatively high payload capacity of the carrier and the acceptable chances of breaking through enemy air defenses due to fast flight at extremely low altitude with anti-aircraft maneuver.

[parma]

Cost is not such an important parameter; it is better to pay 10 times more for a solution to a problem “here and now” and finish it tomorrow than to save today and get “everything goes according to plan” for years.
And no AI will help, because no one will trust a machine to select a target and authorize a strike, the maximum that a machine can do (in my opinion) is to strike after a person has made a decision or just inform that something has been found

[Evil eye]

No one will trust a machine to choose a target

Why "nobody"? It depends on the situation, whether collateral casualties among the civilian population are allowed or not.

[parma]

Simply because combat operations are always a mess, there is no precise information about where friends and enemies are. And if the destruction of civilians can still be accepted from a military point of view, then there is no strike against friends. Imagine that an error has crept into the AI (or, even more so, it was deliberately put there) and instead of/in addition to destroying the enemy, the AI strikes its own? This can lead to a prolongation of the conflict and a loss of speed of advance. What an error, at the initial pairs of the SVO, both sides used virtually the same equipment! How should the AI distinguish between equipment of the same model on different sides of the barricades? Or visually similar equipment? I would not count on various "friend or foe" transmitters either, since there is always interference/electronic warfare, etc. In general, it is all too complicated, and complex things are not liked in the army, because at the most inopportune moment they stop working ...

[DO]

Quote: parma

And no AI will help, because no one will trust a machine to select a target and authorize a strike, the maximum that a machine can do (in my opinion) is to strike after a person has made a decision or just inform that something has been found

Naturally, if there is such a possibility, it is advisable to control or authorize the operator when he sees the target. But if we are talking about throwing a swarm deep into the enemy's rear, the possibility of organizing operator control is unlikely.
Regarding “no one will trust a machine to select a target and authorize a strike,” let’s compare two situations.
First - our reconnaissance (optical/infrared UAV reconnaissance, airborne radar, agents) detected a column of reinforcements or supplies in the enemy's rear and reported (coordinates, length, direction and speed of movement) where it was supposed to. After which the MLRS or artillery battery receives guidance data from the command and an order to fire a certain number of shells. The artillerymen do not see the target, but carry out the order.
Now let's assume that instead of artillerymen, the same order and target parameters were received by drone operators of the "mother", equipped with "small things with AI". They enter the coordinates and the area of destruction, target images into the memory of the "small things", and the drop point into the "mother". Thus, artillerymen and drone operators have the same chances of "friendly fire", in which case the intelligence and the commander who gave the order are to blame, but not the drone operators/artillerymen.
By the way, small drones with AI, in case of erroneous targeting of civilian transport, can be configured to burn through the engine of a vehicle with a cumulative jet without touching the driver.

[parma]

You have a very mediocre and distant understanding of how to strike... the artilleryman may not care where to shoot and what's on the other end, but the commander giving the order does not. According to the regulations, the target is reconnoitered, adjustments are made, etc., etc. The ideas about the "UAV mother" sound too cinematic. Once again - UAVs of all types are good as an addition to the main means of destruction, but in general they are inferior to aviation. FPV is actually an attempt to cheaply replace aviation on a frozen front, including combat helicopters and attack aircraft. The means of combat in general exist, it remains to come up with their automation (although it also exists, it just needs to be improved).
Large drones, due to their autonomy and the ability to change the operator at any time, are good when you need to hang in an area for a long time. But nothing better than a bomber with high-precision weapons has been invented and will not be invented any time soon. If one of the parties controls the sky, victory is in its pocket, if no one controls it - a question of the balance of forces and the number of personnel.

[DO]

Quote: parma

You have a very mediocre and distant understanding of how to strike... the artilleryman may not care where to shoot and what is on the other end, but the commander giving the order does not. According to the regulations, the target is reconnoitered, adjustments are made, etc.

Dear Sir, but here you essentially repeated in other words my "very mediocre and distant idea of delivering a blow" :)))

Quote: parma

The idea of a "UAV mother" sounds too cinematic.

Is this good or bad? :)))
As a sinner, I don’t care how the technical idea that developers are working on today, both here and abroad, sounds.

Quote: parma

Once again - UAVs of all types are good as an addition to the main means of destruction, but in general they are inferior to aviation. FPV is actually an attempt to cheaply replace aviation on a frozen front, including combat helicopters and attack aircraft. The means of struggle in general exist, it remains to come up with their automation (although it also exists, it just needs to be improved).

However, let's return to everyday earthly reality. According to war correspondents, today in the SVO drones cause about 80% of losses of personnel and equipment for both sides of the conflict. And there are no real means of counteracting them at the front except for shotguns and "barbecues".

Quote: parma

If one side controls the sky, victory is in its pocket.

This is when Americans fight with third countries.
But in the fourth year of the West's proxy war with Russia in Ukraine, neither side controls the enemy's skies. And this is the reality given to us in our senses.

[Evil eye]

the enemy's sky is not controlled by either side. And this is the reality given to us in sensations.

This means that both sides have something wrong with their aviation, but they are doing well with their air defense.
Will it continue like this? Some generals who fought in the First World War also believed that the Second World War would be a trench war, but it turned out differently.

[DO]

Quote: Evil Eye

This means that both sides have something wrong with their aviation, but they are doing well with their air defense.

Since the Ukrainian Armed Forces have good air defense, the Russian aviation, which should reach the Polish border, should be unmanned and an order of magnitude cheaper than manned ones,

[Evil eye]

Only plywood drones without ammunition can be an order of magnitude or two or three cheaper.

[DO]

Evil Eye, if we are talking about a jet UAV like Valkyrie, then yes, it can be made an order of magnitude cheaper than a manned fighter only in large series.
But Geranium is also an unmanned aircraft.

[parma]

The charter and other official papers were not invented for fun and the fact that they are not followed is not because life is good. Therefore, the target for an artillery strike must be reconnoitered, and the strike itself must be observed and controlled for maximum effectiveness.
By "too cinematic" I meant too unrealistic and ineffective, but beautiful. You can't send robots somewhere and expect the problem to solve itself, not in the next many years.
Yes, the share of losses from UAVs is large, but once again - both sides do not control even THEIR own skies, therefore air weapons are replaced by FPV and other home-made stuff. It is not possible to suppress air defense not because it is impossible, but because no one has prepared the Air Force for this. The Ukrainian aviation has not prepared for war at all, we have been shouting for many years that the Su-30/35 will take over the skies with their presence alone, and for strikes on the ground, the "cast iron" will be enough, and the bangs in Syria were enough. We do not have much high-precision, and what we have is quite old, because "Hephaestus is the head of everything" ... it was, until 24.02 ... there are means of counteracting the same FPV, they are being improved. Not today, 12-gauge guns showed excellent results and confirmed the idea of a KAZ like the Israeli "Trophy", all that remains is to refine and install it, I think NATO countries will do this within 5-7 years or faster (it was already planned for the new Abrams modernization).
Regarding the fact that "this is how Americans fight the natives" - Americans fight this way because THEY CAN, and not only Americans, but NATO as a whole, but if you look at China - they are trying to do exactly the same. I would say that the Chinese Air Force is generally trying to copy the American ones - they have both light and heavy aircraft, and an ambitious program of flying radars, and at least 2 modules of 5th generation fighters have been created at once. The Chinese do not discuss how useless "stealth" is and how great it is to bomb "iron", they copy a really working scheme. Which is what we would need too...

[DO]

Quote: parma

The charter and other official papers were not invented for fun and the fact that they are not followed is not because life is good. Therefore, the target for an artillery strike must be reconnoitered, and the strike itself must be observed and controlled for maximum effectiveness.

You misunderstood me, not at all. I did not intend and do not intend to discuss, much less deny, the guidelines on reconnaissance processes and decision-making by the commander. My thought is different - if drones do not have a video channel to the operator and work according to coordinates, in this case the work of drone operators is very similar to the work of artillerymen who carry out an order to strike at such and such coordinates with such and such ammunition.
An everyday example is the old Geraniums, which work only according to coordinates.

Quote: parma

By "too cinematic" I meant too unrealistic and ineffective, but beautiful. You can't send robots somewhere and expect the problem to solve itself, not in the next many years.

If by the problem you mean victory in the SVO, then "robots", which are, for example, Gerani and tactical missiles, significantly bring this victory closer.

Quote: parma

Yes, the share of losses from UAVs is large, but once again - both sides do not have adequate control over even THEIR own skies, therefore, aviation weapons are replaced by FPV and other practically amateurish things.

It seems that in order for drones to stop being "home-made" for you, they need to be included in the governing documents. And then you will finally recognize them as a formidable weapon :)))

Quote: parma

It is not possible to suppress air defense not because it is impossible, but because no one has prepared the Air Force for this.

It would be interesting to see your specific proposals for zeroing out the Ukrainian Air Defense Forces. It is clear that any proposals for improving the organization of combat operations in the SVO should begin with the destruction of bridges across the Dnieper, tunnels, depots, interchanges, and other key elements of logistics routes. However, I personally have doubts that these actions will radically and finally solve the problem of dominance in the sky. Because the Ukrainian Armed Forces will in any case find a way to saturate the front of the MANPADS, and deliver the SAMs with ammunition in parts.

[parma]

Apparently yes, I don't understand. Because for me a UAV with AI is autonomous. Geraniums, artillery, and various missiles are adjusted and directed by the operator remotely.
In order for FPV to stop being a makeshift project, a project must be developed according to the technical specifications, accepted into service and have STANDARD weapons, but for now, FPV is a product assembled practically in a garage, not officially accepted as a product by anyone for balance, and the warhead looks like “now we’ll tie a PG-7 with electrical tape and it’ll go, or we’ll cut it up with a grinder.”
Regarding the destruction of Ukrainian air defense - we only need to materialize out of thin air about 20 "flying radars" with the characteristics of at least our A-50, 5-6 squadrons of radar hunters with something like "harm" missiles in the G version. And of course something like the EA-18 aircraft... guess which of these we have?

[DO]

Quote: parma

Geraniums, artillery, and various missiles are adjusted and directed by the operator remotely.

Old Geranis are not remotely adjusted. Not all of our tactical missiles are remotely adjusted.

Quote: parma

In order for FPV to stop being a makeshift project, a project must be developed according to the technical specifications and accepted into service.

R&D requirements, R&D requirements, R&D requirements, draft, technical project, development of R&D documentation, production of prototypes, state testing, approval of R&D documentation, organization of serial production... From experience, this is five years or more. And so for each of the dozens of types of today's drones that were created during the SVO. If drones were created as they were in peacetime (that is, practically not at all), it is unknown whether NATO's proxy would have penetrated Russia to the Urals or further.

Quote: parma

Regarding the destruction of Ukrainian air defense - we only need to materialize out of thin air about 20 "flying radars" with the characteristics of at least our A-50, 5-6 squadrons of radar hunters with something like "harm" missiles in the G version. And of course something like the EA-18 aircraft...

According to media reports, two A-50s have already been shot down by the Ukrainian Armed Forces (the Ministry of Defense is silent about this). By offering radar reconnaissance of the Ukrainian Armed Forces' rear areas within the range of their long-range air defense missile systems, do you want all 20 of them to be shot down? But there are two dozen specialists in each one. And the export price of one such thing is half a billion dollars. Therefore, if you are going to reconnoiter the work of enemy radars, then use the "Sych" UKR-RT container suspended under the Su-34. Or even better, upgrade the old Su-27 into a drone. Plus the Su-35 for Doppler detection of launched anti-aircraft missiles.
However, it is unlikely that all enemy SAMs can be detected this way. Because they leave their shelters and turn on their radars only on command from NATO technical intelligence, radar and space.
And the stockpile of MANPADS cannot be detected at all.

[parma]

Well, maybe our system doesn't work correctly and it needs to be redesigned so that it doesn't take years to be adopted? It seems to have worked out with small arms, there's a new AK-12 every year. And Kyiv is doing well with military startups, so it's generally possible.
Regarding the campaign of some “proxy-NATO” forces, it’s also funny, considering who is liberating whose territory.
As for the A-50 and so on - the small fleet of these machines does not allow us to keep them in the air not only 24/7, but even for a couple of hours a day... We don't seem to have any squadrons of "radar hunters" either, and we don't have any separate specialized EW machines based on fighters either. In other words, as I wrote above, we don't control the sky, even our own, and we don't have the resources for that, which is why the Ukrainian Armed Forces use the holes to strike.
But all this talk in the spirit of “it’s good to be strong, healthy and rich”, unfortunately we are not like that, even against the backdrop of the Armed Forces of Ukraine…

[solar]

Modern aircraft are not capable of detecting the location of modern radars (produced since the 80s of the last century).

Sorry to ask, but why?

[alexoff]

Well, since we didn't put out the enemy's air defense, it means it's technically impossible. And not because no one was doing it.

[urik62]

It seems like there was an article like this before, decided to repeat it?

[IVZ]

I would like to start with the statement that there are no prospects for the development of attack aviation. Solely in order to save time and nerves for those who disagree with this statement.

Anti-aircraft artillery, fighter aircraft, SAM, SAM-PKK, MANPADS (separately). And each time another funeral of attack aviation - battlefield aviation ... Until the next war. Without any disputes and stress, despite the categorical statements of advanced specialists and their "iron" argumentation. Let's see how it all ends this time. I have a premonition that the development, and in an emergency manner, of another attack aircraft of the current project and necessarily in two versions of which only the manned one will remain. And no need for stress, this is just a premonition.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: IVZ

And each time another funeral of attack aviation - battlefield aviation

MANPADS have long since put a big cross on the use of attack aircraft. Those who had the opportunity have long ago come to the concept of "fly higher and further" by inventing means of detecting ground targets that allow this to be done and the corresponding ASP.

[IVZ]

long ago came to the concept of "fly higher and further"

Do you mean hitting large stationary targets? And what does battlefield aviation have to do with it? That's the first thing. And secondly, those who had the opportunity have long ago acquired the appropriate air defense systems. Therefore, the concept, if it is not Israel against Hamas, sounds like "further away, but lower." MANPADS have greatly reduced the effectiveness of the use of the ShA, to about the same extent that SAMs have reduced the effectiveness of aviation in general. But the means of countering them are also being improved and will continue to be improved, so it is incorrect to put crosses, and even big ones, based on the use of the latest MANPADS against aircraft that are half a century old, whose wings fall off from old age.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: IVZ

Do you mean hitting large stationary targets? What does battlefield aviation have to do with it?

No, exactly moving targets.

Quote: IVZ

SAMs have reduced the effectiveness of aviation in general

SAMs, due to their visibility during operation, are not capable of significantly reducing the effectiveness of aviation. You exaggerate the importance of SAMs too much. They are strong in a single information field, when centralized control is established. If the enemy Air Force destroys key air defense facilities, then the defense goes from centralized to focal and is easily neutralized. The only thing that cannot be neutralized is MANPADS, so you should stay out of its reach.

[Good Evil]

Quote: IVZ

And each time another funeral of attack aviation - battlefield aviation... Until the next war.

Here is another war that buried it... As, in its time, the cavalry was buried. New times - new wars. When they started churning out drones, like 7.62x39 cartridges (I'm exaggerating, of course ) there is no point in sending a pilot to certain death in an expensive device under the sights of MANPADS, which are also riveted like cartridges( ) and other SAM systems. The same applies to tanks, which have been fitted with a ton of drones and ATGMs. And the current war has shown this very clearly.
All - IMHO!

[air wolf]

Well, why, Su-25, for example, can chase drones, and Banderites launch them by the hundreds, hang a container with a radar and go ahead, GSh-23 and R-60 are in the base, there is a little armor in case of a drone explosion close by.

[Cympak]

Quote: air wolf

Well, why, Su-25, for example, can chase drones, and Banderites launch them by the hundreds, hang a container with a radar and go ahead, GSh-23 and R-60 are in the base, there is a little armor in case of a drone explosion close by.

There is no working container with radar for Su-25. Moreover, the original Su-25 (not Su-25SM/SM3) does not even have MFD (monitor) in the cockpit to display information from the radar. On the HUD, or rather ASP-17VS, it is also impossible to display information from the radar.
The R-60 missiles have been removed from service (due to expiration of their shelf life); new ones are not being produced.
The built-in VPU-17A gun mount with a twin-barreled 30-mm GSh-30-2 aircraft cannon has a small ammo capacity of 250 rounds.
The indication on the ASP-17 does not allow effective engagement of air targets, only in the old-fashioned way on the grid, i.e. from a close distance. When hitting a strike UAV from a close distance, it is possible to hit the aircraft due to a close detonation of the warhead. The armored cabin covers the pilot from below, and when firing from the cannon, the UAV under attack will be located directly, slightly above.

[air wolf]

I had the ASP-17 on the Ka-29, but there is a problem with displaying additional information, and it weighs about 100 kg, I think a Chinese projector on the windshield will solve this problem and is inexpensive and displays information from the radar on it, as for weapons, you can hang a couple of containers with GSh-23, and NAR blocks with S-5 with flechettes, I think there are enough of them in warehouses, target designation can be displayed on the screen from the ground radar on the windshield, everything can be solved and hang MANPADS and ATGMs, the question is in the correct formulation of the problem

[Cympak]

Quote: air wolf

I had an ASP-17 on my Ka-29, but there was a problem with displaying additional information, and it weighs almost 100 kg. I think a Chinese windshield projector will solve this problem and will be inexpensive and display information from the radar on it.

Then the Ukrainian case is more realistic - to give the pilot a tablet with the ability to interact with additional non-standard equipment.

[Lozovik]

Quote: air wolf

I had ASP-17 on my Ka-29, but there was a problem with displaying additional information

The helicopter ASP-17V and the aircraft ASP-17BC are different sights.

[Lozovik]

Quote: Cympak

On the ILS, or rather the ASP-17VS, it is also impossible to display information from the radar.

Probably, ASP-17BC-8 was meant. In general, only the sighting head is needed from the sight, a lot can be displayed on it. For example, on the MiG-23MLD, both flight and aiming indication were displayed on it.

[Same lech]

Quote: Puncher

Because it’s easier to make a tandem with something like a Yak-18, it will be much cheaper.

The Yak-18 has a lousy speed and can carry very little ammunition on board.
But you can fit a lot more drones into a container for UAVs...you'll get a swarm of kamikaze drones...that would be more serious.
The SU-25 can easily carry all this equipment to the front lines.

[Yuras_Belarus]

I don't know what the author wanted to cancel, but the cancellation of battlefield aviation is the cancellation of aviation as a whole. Strategic aviation is flying nuclear missile launchers, and a fighter is a shield against it. They fly high, they don't care about the battlefield. Do you think drones can do everything? Even fiber optics cannot always and everywhere reliably hit the enemy in his operational rear. How much fiber is needed to reach a long-range howitzer or air defense system?

So far the author has cancelled only one model. And if I were him, I would suggest thinking not about cancellation, but about rearming the attack aircraft (in terms of radio technology and weapons) and about the concept of a battlefield fighter to accompany and cover the attack aircraft from air defense missile systems and drones.

[Luminman]

Quote: Yuras_Belarus

If I were him, I would suggest thinking not about canceling but about rearming the attack aircraft.

The whole point is that today there are alternative ways to support ground forces and strikes are carried out by unmanned aerial vehicles and, in part, high-precision missile systems...

And if attack aircraft are able to reveal their potential somewhere, it will only be in an area with weak ground-based air defense and a complete absence of fighter aircraft, for example, to fight the Papuans and various kinds of rebels and separatists in Third World countries. Unfortunately, these planes are no longer suitable for modern warfare....

[alexoff]

Drones and missiles have a noticeable flight time, while an attack aircraft can hit targets within seconds of detection. Well, if someone bothers with its armament other than Nurs

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Yuras_Belarus

So far the author has cancelled only one model. And if I were him, I would suggest thinking not about cancellation, but about rearming the attack aircraft (in terms of radio technology and weapons)

When rearmed for the modern battlefield, the attack aircraft becomes a fighter-bomber.
Because first, to reduce losses from air defense, the range of onboard weapons is increased - the aircraft leaves the front line. As a result, it turns out that armor is no longer needed - the MZA and MANPADS no longer reach the rearmed attack aircraft, and the armor is powerless against the MD and SD SAMs. So the armor is exchanged for combat load, air defense and weapons operator.
The result is a classic information security solution.

[Yuras_Belarus]

"Fighter-bomber" - this is what they call a fighter that can, if necessary, work on ground targets. In other words, this is not attack aviation, which should work on a ground enemy in the operational-tactical zone. In addition, attack aviation must carry out orders from ground units and subdivisions to eliminate suddenly emerging threats. An attack aircraft is tied to the ground - that's where its targets are.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Yuras_Belarus

In addition, attack aircraft must carry out orders from ground units and subdivisions to eliminate suddenly emerging threats.

In practice, this means either moving forward airfields into range of the OTRK and heavy RS. Or being on duty in the area near the front line with the prospect of receiving a SAM from a suddenly revived SAM. The typical scheme is: the RTV and RTR open up the duty area, the SAM moves in and takes up position (quietly, without radar or radio transmissions), the RTV detects the target, the command post issues target designation, the SAM goes on the air, locks on the target and launches a SAM - and runs away, dropping its slippers.

[Andy_nsk]

I would like to start by stating that there are no prospects for development of attack aviation.

This is where I finished reading the article. Why read evidence of obvious things? After the emergence of a large number of UAVs, risking the lives of pilots is simply criminal.

[Hole puncher]

The author is right, the time of the Su-25 and its ilk has long passed. But his faith in the omnipotence of drones is somewhat off the charts. The fact that drones today terrify both sides of the LBS is just an indicator of the technical backwardness of these sides. This would not work with the US or Chinese army.

[Vladimir-TTT]

Quote: Puncher

The fact that drones today terrify both sides of the LBS is just an indicator of the technical backwardness of these sides. This would not work with the US or Chinese army.

It's all a dream about a "wunder weapon".
Plus, there is the clip-like nature of modern thinking, instilled by the Internet.
You can think about one type of weapon - drones, you can think about a second - Su-35, and even a third - an infantryman.
But that's all.
That there could be 10 or more types of weapons is beyond the capabilities of the modern user and consumer.
and the fact that they must also interact is beyond the power of even generals...
Sarcasm, if anyone didn’t understand, but in general our reality is close to this.

[Andrey VOV]

Skomorozov cancelled wheeled artillery, cancelled tanks, cancelled ships, cancelled the Su-25, what else.... The Great Canceller!!!

[Dutchman Michel]

Quote: Andrey VOV

Skomorozov cancelled wheeled artillery, cancelled tanks, cancelled ships, changed the Su-25, what else...

All that remains is to abolish the army

[shocktrooper]

Don't worry, he also cancelled all sorts of things with the Americans and others. In short, screw these technologies, we need to fight with stones and sticks, like our ancestors, that's something that will last for centuries, not like your planes, aircraft carriers, missiles and so on!

[bar]

Quote: The same LYOKHA

Everyone already understood that we will talk about kamikaze UAVs

Why not make it a tandem with the SU-25... use the attack aircraft as a means of delivery to the front line...

Probably because now the “cutting edge” is a very conditional concept.

[George Sviridov]

There is development in attack aviation, simply because it is the first to become unmanned. Moreover, as soon as it becomes unmanned, it will be able to become an attack aircraft again, and not a pitching one...
In my opinion, it is attack aircraft and attack helicopters that should become unmanned first.

[AC130 Gunship]

The decision to remove all A10s from service was made 2 weeks ago

[solar]

It's surprising that it lasted so long. The A-10 is a special situation, in that the plane was actually attached to a cannon, and not in the classical way - a cannon to an aircraft. As a result, it is theoretically possible to use suspended sighting containers and guided weapons for strikes from a fairly long range, but the cannon - the A-10's main weapon - remains meaningless ballast.

[Dutchman Michel]

Quote from solar

The cannon, the A-10's main weapon, remains a pointless ballast.

So the A-4 was originally created as a tank destroyer. It was only later that they stuck everything they could on it.

[Alexey RA]

Quote from solar

It's surprising that it lasted so long.

Nothing surprising. The A-10 is an aircraft of a unipolar world, in which the US has no comparable opponents, and all military actions are reduced to local wars with the taming of wild Zusuls.
In these conflicts, the cost of a typical target (a Chinese DShK crew, an old Toyota, etc.) is several times less than the cost of the cheapest guided munition. And the enemy has virtually no air defense systems, except for the command and control center and rare MANPADS.
So the A-10 with its brrrrrrt is ideal and economical in such conditions.

But as soon as the concept changed, and medium- and high-intensity wars loomed in the future, the US Air Force leadership, which had previously put the brakes on all plans to rearm from the A-10 to the F-35 (right down to the mocking demands for the "penguin" to attack ground targets with cannons), immediately changed its tune and decided to write off the A-10.

[solar]

The A-10 is an aircraft of a unipolar world

The A-10 was created as a highly specialized means of deterring a tank attack on the West and, in general, as a battlefield support aircraft during the bipolar world - A10A. But then the situation changed and the aircraft was converted into a carrier of high-precision weapons - A-10B. Its main weapon - the cannon - began to be used episodically, turning into ballast. Against a poorly armed enemy, the States have and have had light attack aircraft - Dragonfly, Bronco, modern Wolverine, Air Truck, Skyraider.

[Cympak]

In Afghanistan, the A-10C was valued for its ability to destroy the enemy at a minimum distance from its units (minimal risk of collateral damage), as well as the ability to have a large range of ASP on board for various tactical situations (NARs, APKWS, AGM-65 missiles, JDAM bombs). From a destroyer of Soviet tank armadas, the A-10 turned into a scalpel on the battlefield.

[solar]

In principle, attack aircraft were originally precision strike weapons. This fully applies to the A-10 with its cannon. But over time, this niche has largely shifted to high-precision guided munitions (which can be used not only from attack aircraft) and kamikaze UAVs.

[Alexey RA]

Quote from solar

The A-10 was created as a highly specialized means of deterring a tank attack on the West and, in general, as a battlefield support aircraft during the bipolar world - A10A.

Yeah... at the same time, traditionally for attack aircraft, it was designed for the previous generation of air defense forces: the technical specifications were written based on the Shiloka and Strel-1, but it was already in use during the Tunguska campaign.
And yes - I would like to see the A-10 in action after it fires all six of its Mavericks. A BSHU against a column covered by a ZRPK with its SAMs and 30mm machine guns is quite a ride.

[solar]

It is logical that air defense is always the primary target of strikes in the first wave.

[Cympak]

Quote: Alexey RA

And yes - I would like to see the A-10 in action after it fires all six of its Mavericks. A BSHU against a column covered by a ZRPK with its SAMs and 30mm machine guns is quite a ride.

But the practice of the SVO has confirmed what "armchair experts" have said many times: the column will not be covered by a ZRPK with almost 100% probability. Either the ZRPK will cover something more valuable than the column, or the ZRPK will be knocked out before the main attack on the column.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Cympak

But the practice of the SVO has confirmed what the “armchair experts” have said many times: the column will not be covered by an anti-aircraft missile and gun system with almost 100% probability.

The practice of the SVO confirmed a completely different thesis of the "armchair experts": neglect of statutory norms even on the march leads to a lot of bloodshed. If you fight like in the SFV in 1939 (then one of the divisions even threw its ZA into the PDP - We are going to liberate, who will bomb us?) - then nothing will help at all.

[Cympak]

If you look at the OSHS, even the Soviet approaches to covering troops with army air defense systems are not sufficient today.
At a minimum, everything needs to be brought down one level: regimental level systems to the battalion level, divisional level systems to the regimental level, army systems to the divisional level.

[Luminman]

The understanding of the role of the attack aircraft in modern warfare came long before the start of the Central Military District, when our army and attack aviation in Afghanistan began to suffer losses from portable systems, and especially from the emergence of Stinger, capable of holding a target in a very difficult background environment and able to recognize heat traps (the latest models). Rutskoi immediately comes to mind, who was on his Su-25 were shot down twice by some illiterate donkey and ram drivers. I am writing from memory, but during the Afghan war only one Stinger something like two hundred and fifty planes and helicopters were lost...

Well, the Americans weren't far behind us either - several were shot down by Taliban MANPADS, including the Stinger that had once been given to the mujahideen. A-10 Thunderbolt II. And the Americans are also racking their brains over what to do with their attack aircraft, which have too narrow a scope of application, which can easily be filled by fighter-bombers. And wanting to get rid of the attack aircraft that have become unnecessary, the idea of transferring A-10 Ukraine, but the American military rightly feared that their attack aircraft would become easy prey for Russian air defense...

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Luminman

The understanding of the role of the attack aircraft in modern warfare came long before the start of the Second World War, when our army and attack aviation in Afghanistan began to suffer losses from portable systems, and especially from the appearance of the Stinger, capable of holding a target in a very difficult background environment and able to recognize heat traps (the latest models).

Yeah... and after the appearance of the "Stingers", the Su-25 in Afghanistan actually switched to IBA tactics. No "hovering" over the target, no multiple approaches - a flight to the target and from the target at high altitude, one or two approaches with unloading all the suspension - and return home.

[Andrey VOV]

If I am not mistaken, the second time Rutskoy was shot down from a Pakistani plane when he was returning from a combat mission near the border with Pakistan, they were specifically hunting him, and the first time he was shot down from an FIM-43 Redeye MANPADS.

[garri-lin]

So are we talking about the Su 25 or about attack aircraft in general?
Light single-engine fighters were also sprayed with everything possible. However, now they are very much needed, but they are not there.
The army needs a stormtrooper. And it will need one for a very long time. Just the right stormtrooper and for the right purposes. No one has canceled wars with slipper wearers and forced peace. And there, a stormtrooper will come in handy. Something like a Tucano. Light and inexpensive. And properly equipped.
There is no need to shout, it is outdated, you can shout as loudly as you like. But practice shows that such shouts are often wrong.

[bulatmuhamadeev]

Light fighter-bombers actually occupied the niche of attack aircraft. And yes, we really need them. Flying Su-34s to drop 4 UMPK or UMBP is ruinous.

[garri-lin]

I'm talking about something else. Russia now desperately needs an inexpensive but very mass-produced fighter to chase drones.
But they are not there. They shouted that they are not needed.
The same goes for attack aircraft. It is clear that in the form in which the Su-25 is used, it is already too late to use it.
But low-intensity conflicts have not been cancelled. A patrol and attack aircraft based on the same hull is needed. And will be needed for a long time. Drones cannot replace it.

[Bez 310]

"...whose operator will also bring the high explosive bomb with the UMPK to its natural end"...
Is this just an unfortunate turn of phrase, or does the author really believe that the bomb with the UMPK is controlled (guided) by a navigator (operator)? Maybe I don't know something?

[Nikname2025]

Maybe I don't know something?

This author always has a lot of "wonderful discoveries". He also has

The Lebed-XII, with its Shkulnik or Kolpakov-Miroshnichenko bomb racks capable of carrying up to 50 kg of small fragmentation bombs and a 7,62 mm Colt machine gun to protect the rear hemisphere, was recognized as the world's first attack aircraft.

However, the author does not specify where and by whom he was recognized.

[nekromonger]

Now unmanned systems are experiencing their heyday, but there will also be a decline and perhaps soon, they will come up with means to combat them, I mean all these FPV Mavics, they will make jammers, perhaps lasers or electromagnetic emitters, perhaps they will invent a pocket air defense system worn on the back.

[Ivan_1234]

And in Russia, nothing has a future: neither attack aircraft, nor aircraft carriers, nor tanks, nor strategic bombers, nor 5th generation fighters, nor civilian airliners, nor the auto industry.

[Dmitry Eon]

As long as ground warfare is relevant, armored vehicles will also be relevant, and attack aircraft are needed against them. The fact that the Ministry of Defense, instead of upgrading to the level of the chic Su25T(M), chose the terrible Su25SM variant does not mean that the Su25 is "bad", especially since there is a clause about the "war on terrorists", after the SVO History does not end, and proxy conflicts will be provoked against us. In addition, it is high time to develop an analogue of the Hellfire with laser guidance and a range of 20 km (such a product is clearly no more complicated than Krasnopol) and up to 25 such missiles can be suspended on the same Su16

[Cympak]

Quote: Dmitry Eon

The same Su25 can carry up to 16 such missiles

This requires the desire of the Russian Ministry of Defense, the corresponding technical specifications, the allocation of funding and the ability to break military-industrial feudalism through force.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Dmitry Eon

In addition, it is high time to develop a Hellfire analogue with laser guidance and a range of 20 km (such a product is clearly no more complicated than Krasnopol) and the same Su-25 can carry up to 16 such missiles

Who will guide these missiles? The Su-25 is not an option - laser guidance means that the target must be kept in line of sight at all times.
And yes, the impossibility for combat pilots of a single-seat attack aircraft to simultaneously pilot, evade air defense fire, maintain control over the situation, detect and track targets was proven back on the Su-39.
And one more thing: with a launch range of 20 km, why do we need armor?

[Cympak]

Quote: Alexey RA

Who will guide these missiles? The Su-25 is not an option - laser guidance means that the target must be kept in line of sight at all times.

For this, forward air controllers with LCU are needed. A forward air controller can be an aircraft (airplane, helicopter, UAV), ground armored vehicles (including drones), special forces with LCU,

[bulatmuhamadeev]

Why would a Hellfire analogue with a range of 20+ km need a special armored aircraft if they can be hung in clusters under fighter-bombers? If we are going to replace the Grachs, then at least with the MiG-35 (and ideally with the Su-75).

[Sulimov Vladimir]

The author is a prisoner of misconceptions about the BKO (onboard defense system), having written "Belarusian Talisman/Vitebsk". Here only Talisman is Belarusian, and Vitebsk is Russian. This is how our entire Aerospace Forces are mistaken, thinking that these are the same thing. These systems are incomparable in terms of effectiveness. The Belarusians have equipped all their Su-25s with Talismans. Russia does not have them.

[Melior]

The issue with classic attack aircraft can be considered closed: in modern conditions, it can be used with impunity for its intended purpose only against savages with a bow and arrow, in all other cases they will suffer heavy losses. The idea of "adapting" the same Su-25 to modern conditions by installing long-range weapons on it, allowing it not to enter the zone of destruction of air defense systems, raises a reasonable question "why?" - all this can be done by a much cheaper unarmored aircraft? As a result, in modern realities, the Su-25 is a low-speed, low-altitude and gluttonous aircraft with a small radius of action, plus it is blind and has a very limited range of weapons.
Thus, I came to the conclusion that the role of direct support on the battlefield should be left to helicopters and drones, and attack aircraft as a class have no prospects at this stage.
I also believe that the army really needs an aircraft similar to the Il-28. Firstly, such an aircraft can be used for its intended purpose as a bomber and drop bombs both from the UMPK without entering the air defense zone, and conventional ones from medium and high altitudes with suppressed air defense systems, while being above the military air defense zone. Also, based on the experience of using the Il-28, it can be used as a light transport for delivering cargo and landing sabotage and reconnaissance groups. The large internal compartment will also allow the creation of specialized aircraft on its basis: electronic warfare, electronic reconnaissance, repeater, etc.

[Vladimir-TTT]

During the invasion of the Ukrainian Armed Forces into the Kursk region, the attack aircraft worked, worked, and worked.
Because they were in the coverage area of their own air defense and outside the coverage area of the enemy’s air defense.
Therefore, it is too early to “bury” it; there is nothing to replace it anyway.
Especially if it is for the defense of the country, and not for attack.

[Melior]

I am not talking about taking everything and cutting it, but about the lack of prospects for development in this area. What we have should certainly be used while it is expedient.

[Max Max]

In case of a big war, when the rear and entire factories are destroyed, including those with chips and control boards for the same UAVs and precision weapons, they will run out much faster than in the current conflict. The time of attack aircraft seems to have gone irrevocably and of course this is true, but before the current conflict no one thought that T55, T62 and old armored personnel carriers would be taken out of storage.

[Evil eye]

You can make reserves. "In case of a nuclear war."

[Evil eye]

Weakly.
If classic attack aircraft are outdated, what should replace them? Missiles are expensive, and drones are disposable and carry little explosive. 500 kg "somewhere there" - this is provided that the bomb is completely stupid, although laser guidance for bombs appeared back in the 60s.

The issue of attack aircraft in naval aviation has not been considered either. At least a reservation could have been made that we are talking only about aviation in land battles.

[Bez 310]

"...the issue of attack aircraft in naval aviation has not been considered"
Could you at least give me a hint as to what you meant?

[Evil eye]

That's what I'm hinting at. The author himself first wrote that the attack aircraft's target could be both land and sea targets. After which he began to talk exclusively about the dangers that await an attack aircraft in a modern land theater of operations, and somehow forgot about the sea, although partisans with Stingers cannot hide in the bushes at sea due to the lack of bushes.

Well, for example, it turns out that the Intruder's analogue is also kind of outdated (if we take not just naval aviation, but specifically carrier-based aviation), although in terms of combat load, the Intruder would beat any modern aircraft.

[Bez 310]

I didn't understand your hints, but I completely agree with comrade Melior:
"The issue of attack aircraft in naval aviation does not exist at all".

[solar]

attack aircraft in naval aviation

Perhaps this is a matter of terminology, but carrier-based attack aircraft are quite well known and were used quite widely - American Corsairs, Intruders, French Super Etendards, English Buccaneers. Including from the shore against ships - like the Argentine Super Etendards in the Falklands War, for example (although formally they were carrier-based). Isn't carrier-based aviation considered naval?

[Melior]

The Intruder was a great attack aircraft for its time, but with the refusal to use it for direct support of troops, it immediately became unnecessary: as a launch platform for guided bombs and missiles, the Super Hornet is superior in all respects. The Skyhawk, as very cheap to produce and operate, could have been left to maintain skills and hunt for small ships and drones.

[solar]

This is a general trend - carrier-based aviation is becoming more and more universal (as is land-based aviation, by the way). Guided weapons are taking up an ever larger niche, and a specialized attack aircraft is not necessary for them.

[Melior]

First, as a replacement I suggested helicopters and drones. Drones are not only disposable, but also quite reusable strike drones, like the same "Bayraktar", which did a good job of burning Armenian tanks in the last Karabakh conflict. Helicopters also perform the tasks of classic attack aircraft quite well, plus they can be used from sites outside airfields, which increases their stealth, makes them less vulnerable and allows them to be located closer to the combat zone.
The question of attack aircraft in naval aviation does not exist at all: it is only very conditional to call vertical takeoff and landing aircraft like the Yak-38 or Harrier attack aircraft, since they ended up in this class only because their low flight characteristics did not allow them to be put into any other. And the same US Navy rejected classic attack aircraft for the reason I indicated above: if you arm them with weapons that allow them to strike without entering the kill zone, then they become completely unnecessary, since these same tasks are performed by fighters, and much more effectively.
Also, continuing the conversation about American aircraft, I would like to draw attention to the letter index "A" in their name. This "A" can be either "attack", that is, "attack aircraft", or "assault", that is, "strike", which implies delivering strikes without entering the zone of destruction of at least military air defense. Thus, the A-4, A-6, A-10 are classic attack aircraft, but the A-5, for example, is an "attack aircraft", that is, a tactical bomber-missile carrier. Aircraft with the letters F/A in their name, for example, the F/A-18, are fighter-bombers.

[Anthony]

Quote: Melior

First, I suggested helicopters as a replacement.

IMHO they can only be used for TV pictures and again with pitching, that is, with a result of about zero.

[Melior]

If it's an AH-64D Apache Longbow with a hub-mounted radar and Hellfires, then not only that.

[Illanatol]

Are helicopters really capable of carrying only unguided weapons? However, there are also missiles with homing heads, in particular.

[Evil eye]

helicopters and drones

This is not a replacement, they have different tactical niches. Helicopters are good, of course, but the helicopter (which is quite obvious) has more modest characteristics. If the classic attack aircraft in general and the Su-25 in particular are outdated, then a replacement is needed that is capable of quickly responding to a request from ground forces and, if possible and necessary, patrolling over the battlefield.
Bayraktar has even less characteristics, it's not funny. In order for a drone to be comparable in terms of payload to an airplane, it must match the airplane in terms of dimensions and cost, and all that remains is to put a pilot in it so that the electronic brains don't get dull. Of course, we can talk about cost and all that, but 150 kg of combat load on a device flying at a speed of 200 km/h is not a replacement for an airplane. Just as, pardon me, a pistol is not a replacement for a heavy machine gun.

And the US Navy abandoned classic attack aircraft for the reason I indicated above: if they are armed with weapons that allow them to strike without entering the kill zone

As far as I know, “strike without entering the kill zone” is far from the only way to use naval aviation, and not even the most important one.

...then they become completely unnecessary, since these same tasks are performed by fighters, and much more effectively.

For example, the Intruders' combat radius without drop tanks was one and a half times greater than that of the F-35C. Negatively more effective?

[Melior]

The helicopter has a lower speed, combat radius and flight altitude than the Su-25, but the same Ka-52 is superior in armament. And it is much better at patrolling the battlefield.
One conditional "Bayraktar" will not replace the Su-25, but 10 will, and will be cheaper both in terms of money and in operation.
Intruder retired not the F-35, but the Super Hornet, and it has about the same combat radius.

[Evil eye]

You're kidding, the Su has a higher combat load.

Do you personally often see helicopters flying over the battlefield and killing enemy infantry? On video, for example. I haven't come across anything like that. If an airplane is vulnerable to MANPADS and cannons, then a helicopter is even more so. Perhaps it's harder for a fighter to shoot down a helicopter compared to an attack aircraft. Although the author's approach - to think that enemy fighters freely fire at our attack aircraft, and they should fight back somehow, while our fighters are busy with God knows what, do not capture enemy airspace, etc. - is at least strange. Oh well. A helicopter is good when there is an opportunity to hide or sneak up at low altitude behind some cover, such as a fold in the terrain, and take off from there to strike.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Melior

One conditional "Bayraktar" will not replace the Su-25, but 10 will, and will be cheaper both in terms of money and in operation.

10 Bayraktars will be more expensive than one Su-25, both in price and in operating costs.

[Melior]

Have you calculated the cost of training a pilot and maintaining his flying skills throughout his service?

[Illanatol]

Even if we calculate it, it will still be cheaper than 10 bayraktars with the personnel they need.
In addition, we already have the Su-25, but aircraft-type drones similar to the Bayraktars still need to be produced.
If I'm not mistaken, Bayraktars also need a concrete runway?

[Melior]

Su-25 while there are, but the question arose of what would replace them. To mold a new attack aircraft from scratch, or to cover the main part of their tasks with helicopters and drones, and what they cannot do, with frontline fighters and bombers. Bayraktars need a concrete runway, but a smaller one, and they can fly from any flat section of the road.

[Illanatol]

Su-39M, obviously. No need to reinvent the wheel. You can create something new by improving the old.
"Rooks" can also take off from the highway.

[Melior]

They can take off, but as for landing... Read about the front landing gear control on the Su-25.

[Cympak]

Quote: Mustachioed Kok

And here is a stormtrooper.
An aircraft that must fly as close and low as possible to the LBS, despite the fact that it is not fast (limitation of flight characteristics for work on ground targets) and does not have the ability to use high-precision weapons.

On the contrary, the Su-25 (as well as the American A-10) were initially created as carriers of high-precision ASP. The Su-25's armament complex included missiles with LGSN Kh-25L/ML, S-25L/LD, Kh-29L. But no one took care of continuing their production and modernization.

Quote: Mustachioed Kok

And its means of protection and maneuverability are barely enough to protect itself even from MANPADS. And more serious air defense systems destroy it without any problems.

And just recently the idiot box was "singing" about analog-net booking.

Quote: Mustachioed Kok

You can, of course, try to use it as a strike fighter - attack from a high altitude and at a decent distance with a quick retreat immediately after the attack.

The Su-25 does not have a pressurized cabin, it is not suitable for flights at high altitudes. In addition, for the effective use of bombs with SNS and UMPK, speed is needed (to give the bomb an initial impulse), and the Su-25 cannot provide the required speed, especially at altitude.
The next problem with the Su-25 is that it does not have a PRNK for bombing from high altitude and SNS. The Su-25SM3, which are equipped with SNS, are available in the VKS in homeopathic quantities. The Su-25 pilot is not able to detect a small ground target from high altitude, since the only detection devices he has are his eyes.

Quote: Mustachioed Kok

But it doesn't have a radar for that, and a second operator is also desirable. Because of the aerodynamics and layout, it won't be able to fly fast.

This is the key problem of the Su-25/Su=25SM3. Without a second pilot, there is no point in either the radar or the pod. A second crew member is needed to search for ground targets, recognize them, and guide high-precision ASPs to them. Otherwise, the pilot's workload during direct support of troops will be extreme. By the way, the Ulan-Ude Aviation Production Association began serial production of two-seat attack aircraft back in the USSR: Su-25UB - about 200 units (from 1986 to 2005), Su-25UTG - 15 units (1990-1992), Su-25TM (Su-39) - 4 units.
That is, if desired, it would have been possible to expand production.

Quote: Mustachioed Kok

Yes, there are many hardpoints. But now some heavy aircraft have more than Grach.

The whole point is that the Su-25 was created back in the USSR. And its PRNK can only operate with a limited set of ASP (no more than one type of V-60 + R-XNUMX missile + cannon). There are many suspensions, but you can't hang a variety of weapons on them.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Cympak

By the way, at the Ulan-Ude Aviation Production Association, back in the USSR, serial production of two-seat attack aircraft was launched: Su-25UB - about 200 units (from 1986 to 2005), Su-25UTG - 15 units (1990-1992), Su-25TM (Su-39) - 4 units.

UB and UTG are still training machines.
SU-39 - single-seater. The operator was eaten by fuel (hello Il-2) and avionics.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Alexey RA

UB and UTG are still training machines.

UB - training and combat. This type can be used in combat.

[multi-category]

Quote: Cympak

The Su-25 cannot produce the required speed, especially at altitude.

Could you please clarify the parameters?
for a female with a ceiling of 10-18 km (su-39)
and the speed of 0.82 Mach is not enough energy to launch gliding munitions?
It seems to me that the problem is not here, but that this aircraft is not optimized for this type of work.

[bulatmuhamadeev]

Simply put, the best attack aircraft is a light fighter-bomber with a PRNK.

[Anthony]

How else is it used today on LBS? Except by pitching up from a distance of 10+ km and hitting with NURS (which are difficult to hit even with aiming from a distance of 1 km)??? The author is right.

[Konnick]

The last page of attack aviation was written in the late 60s of the last century, when the Il-102 and Su-25, which was then still called T-8, met in a competition. As is known, the Su-25 won and for almost 45 years this aircraft has been an attack aircraft in the Russian Air Force.

And which was practically never used in real wars, and the SVO showed the inferiority of the armored attack aircraft concept; for modern air defense systems it turned out to be an easy target and the armor did not help.

[multi-category]

I fundamentally disagree with the author. Attack aircraft are not obsolete, their tasks have changed. If earlier it was literally everything that exists on earth, now the attack aircraft is becoming a specialized means, each flight of which must be planned.
However, some of their functions have become obsolete with the development of guided weapons and not only drones. What are the glide bombs worth?

[I_Kov]

Today is the 130th anniversary of the birth of the outstanding Soviet aircraft designer Pavel Sukhoi.
The SU-15TM was a good plane. For me, in particular.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

An attack aircraft is an aircraft controlled by a pilot and belonging to the attack category.

Definition by type: a heavier-than-air aircraft with an engineering system and a kerosene engine.
As I understand it, Roman considers it beneath his dignity to even look into the combat regulations of the SHA and the tactics of the SHA?

[agond]

It is impossible to install any kind of full-fledged armor on airplanes and helicopters, if it is still installed, then at the expense of deterioration of flight characteristics and reduction of payload., Saturated air defense on the front line, and on the approaches to it seriously complicate the actions of any front-line aviation, in such conditions an attack aircraft, no matter how you armor it, nothing will change, and the radar will not help it. But the main thing is not this, but that there is a refusal to use simple free-fall bombs and unguided missiles, it is necessary to rethink the role of military aviation as a whole, and not just attack aircraft. Cruise missiles, UAVs, are easier and much cheaper to launch from ground launchers,

[Alexey Lantukh]

Cruise missiles and UAVs are easier and much cheaper to launch from ground-based launchers.

That's exactly it. We need to go down this path, but what we have should also be used in a situation where there is no excessive risk for the pilot. The drying will end and the problem will disappear.

[Aviator_]

As I understand it, Roman considers it beneath his dignity to even look into the combat regulations of the SHA and the tactics of the SHA?

Don't demand the impossible from a political officer.

[Atlant83]

But it is possible to improve the SU-25 to be a UAV hunter, and then it will still
will serve and will bring a lot of benefits.

[DO]

Atlant83, a long-range UAV hunter needs a radar. Otherwise, finding this drone over the endless fields and forests of Russia will be very difficult.
An attack aircraft will only be able to attack a cruise missile on a collision course, because it will not be able to catch up with it.
Therefore, the MiG-29/35 light fighter is needed here as a hunter.

[Totor5]

One problem is that the Lancet carries very little warhead and is not a replacement for a bomb.

As I wrote a long time ago, only FAB25 bombs with guidance can give a second life to the Su-500.
If it is possible to carry out a modernization similar to the late Harriers, which were used in wars like Yugoslavia and Iraq, mainly for dropping guided weapons like satellite-guided bombs, etc.
I think the Su25 wouldn't be that bad in this matter.
The characteristics are similar to the Harrier, and the developer himself said that the real flight ceiling of the Su-25 is over 12 km. Which is just right for dropping bombs from the UPC and cable.
Again, it is suitable for wars in Asia.

[Octillion]

FAB-500, and even with UMPK, will probably be too heavy. 250 caliber bombs - maybe. We need an analogue of GBU-39. By the time they do that, the remaining Su-25s will have exhausted their resources from throwing unguided rockets into the sky.

[Totor5]

It can now carry 8x500 kg (FAB-500), and the updated one is the X31.

Of course, there is no point in making new Su-25s, but the old ones can be modernized for mass dropping of 500 kg of UMPK at the front. That way, it will have at least some meaning in a real war.
It’s just that no one wants to modernize it (like they already have the Yak130), preferring to send the Su-25 to the slaughter for dropping free-fall bombs from low altitude or launching it into nowhere with a nose-up attitude.

[Octillion]

There is no talk of resuming production. Because the competences have been lost.
The Su-34 can theoretically carry 16 FAB-500, but in real conditions with the UMPK it can carry only 4. Remember, back in the beginning, when they were just starting to use the UMPK, the additional mass of the module often led to bombs falling off the suspension? And the Su-25 is weaker, older, worn out, with fatigue, recently one fell apart in the air. That's why smaller bombs with better aerodynamics are needed - i.e. an analogue of the GBU-39. The American analogue in the face of the A10 carries such bombs.

[Totor5]

Maybe we just shouldn't send planes on missions whose wings are falling off?
Maybe it's worth doing repairs and upgrading for KAB500?

[bushmaster]

I understand that the author didn't just call himself a buffoon for nothing, he sees his calling in making people laugh, but for some reason the jokes aren't funny
I don't know how you can compare a kamikaze UAV, which is essentially a very slow projectile with television control, and with a weak warhead, with an aircraft that is a carrier of projectiles
The attack aircraft is a transitional link between helicopters and more expensive aircraft, especially the Su-30 and Su-34, which are large, expensive, and rare.
what is needed then
a cheap two-seater attack aircraft that can carry a FAB-500 with an UMPK and some kind of radar, essentially an airplane that should be superior to a helicopter in terms of armament

UAVs are not a panacea
very very slow compared to missiles and bombs, which gives a lot of opportunities for air defense to shoot it down, even with a helicopter using a cannon, and allows the target to hide while this UAV gets to it with its propeller
RA and RER do not sleep, the UAV operator can simply lose contact with the UAV, or the interference will be so strong that it will be impossible to aim at the target, plus recently the Russian Aerospace Forces have begun to intensively bomb UAV control points of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, so it is still unknown where it is safer, maybe in the Su-25
UAVs are afraid of nets, tree branches and other flimsy obstacles, compared to missiles and bombs, this is a pitiful sight, aircraft missiles and bombs cannot be intimidated by any barbecues

[bulatmuhamadeev]

a cheap two-seater attack aircraft that can carry a FAB-500 with an UMPK and some kind of radar, essentially an airplane that should be superior to a helicopter in terms of armament

I wonder if all the Su-17s were cut down or if there are still some left at storage bases?

[highlight]

Quote: bulatmuhamadeev

I wonder if all the Su-17s were cut down or if there are still some left at storage bases?

I think that our aviation storage bases are graveyards for aircraft wrecks, what ends up there will never fly again

[VlK]

Of course, attack aviation will not go anywhere - air support of one's troops on the battlefield, and defeat of the enemy in the immediate rear will always be in demand, if not at all will be of decisive importance, even possibly in the future in completely "contactless" battles. The manned aviation we are accustomed to will become a thing of the past - there is no point in exposing the pilot and operator to risk when there is a technical possibility of controlling the aircraft from the ground from a protected control point. And unmanned strike systems of aircraft and helicopter type + loitering munitions in the near future, on the contrary, will not increase their presence over the battlefield many times over - the question here is already, IMHO, purely technical, related to the width and stability of the communication channel and the reduction in the cost of aircraft, the risk of losing which will not be a pity.

[exo]

In general, I agree with the author. But how does "Tornado" relate to stormtroopers? Or did I miss something?

[Anthony]

The saturation of the air defense battlefield, coupled with its multi-level nature, made it impossible to use not only attack aircraft, but also bombers and helicopters (well, if you don’t take into account TV propaganda). UAVs are harder to detect, even harder to shoot down, they are cheaper, there is no pilot in them, and 100500 more pluses.

[Hitriy Zhuk]

Why can a human stormtrooper or tanker risk their lives, but a pilot is so fucking valuable?

[VlK]

the selection of candidates is much more rigorous, the training is longer, more difficult and more expensive, their number is smaller, and accordingly their loss is much more critical for the army system, not as individuals, but as individual high-class specialists - elements of this system. This is obvious.

[Dzungar]

There is a Su-34, the operator of which will also bring a high-explosive bomb from the UMPK to its natural end.

But don’t our FABs with UMPK fly according to the programmed program without the participation of an operator on board the aircraft?

[Mykola Kovach]

author Are you so sure that Russia will fight only with the Ukrainians and NATO? But I think that no Lancet or SU34 will be able to catch Azeri terrorists in the Caucasus Mountains! We need an attack aircraft that can also take drones out of the sky, and a bandit from a mountain, and get close to an enemy bridge or a locomotive leading tanks to the front.

[Aleksey24]

To be fair, it must be said that air defense systems have equalized all aircraft in the sky; no one is flying in someone else’s zone.

[Grossvater]

So it’s time for attack aviation to go down in history.

Gone are the war chariots, cavalry, pikemen and halberdiers, torpedo-carrying naval aviation, dive bombers...
I have specifically listed the types of troops and weapons that at one time played a decisive role on the battlefield.

[Sergey Mitinsky]

We should start with the fact that there are no prospects for manned aviation at all, but that is in the future, but for now they exist
And regarding attack aircraft, the author is absolutely right, but this is if we imagine that the enemy has the entire arsenal capable of destroying such aircraft. And what if he doesn’t?
And if it does not, then an attack aircraft on such a battlefield will be more valuable than a squadron of modern attack aircraft with stealth technology. So the author is right, but also wrong at the same time, because why hammer nails with a microscope if you can hammer them with a simple hammer? And if it comes down to it, the prospects of attack aviation depend primarily on what the prospects of manned aviation in general depend on. Namely, on how far the pilot sees and how effectively he can hit targets from there. Actually, nothing new, it's just that attack aviation is losing its narrow specialization, just like pure fighters, which turned into attack aircraft, lost theirs
That is, we can state the following: The prospects for manned aviation are seen in its complete and unconditional unification. This is what manned combat aviation of the future will be like until it is finally replaced by unmanned aviation.

[Gunther]

Quote: Author

...prospects
there is no development in attack aviation

If the author had put this in the title, I would have recognized him immediately, by his firm confidence in his... constructions)))

[Gunther]

I agree with NIKNN, it’s too early to bury him.

Quote: Author

...if a UAV is shot down, its operator will curse,
will take another drone and fly to the target

Well, of course, but during the storming of Chasovo Yar, 70 UAV crews were destroyed...
The author builds his flimsy construction of assertions on a momentary situation that can change. For example, unmanned attack aircraft)))
And when using EMP weapons, all radio-electric equipment (radar, UAV) will be disabled, and the remains will be cleared out by attack aircraft.

As Hillary Bellock said:
"We have one answer to all your questions.
We don't have "EMI weapons", you have "EMI weapons".

[Panadol]

By the way, when EMP is used, planes won't fly either. Not at all.
If anything flies, it will be unguided missiles.
But that, as they say, is a completely different story.

[Gunther]

I agree with NIKNN, it’s too early to bury him.

Quote: Author

...if a UAV is shot down, its operator will curse,
will take another drone and fly to the target

Well, of course, but during the storming of Chasovo Yar, 70 UAV crews were destroyed...
The author builds his flimsy construction of assertions on a momentary situation that can change. For example, unmanned attack aircraft)))
And when using EMP weapons (which we have, unlike them), all radio-electric equipment (radar, UAV) will fail, and the remains will be cleared out by attack aircraft.

As Hillary Bellock said:
"We have one answer to all your questions.
We don't have "EMI weapons", you have "EMI weapons".