Military Review

Newly upgraded Su-25CM in Kubinka

56
On a number of web resources appeared photos of two regular ones upgraded at JSC 121st aviation repair plant "in the Moscow Air Force Su-25SM attack plane Kubinka near Moscow. Aircraft with tail numbers 25 red (registration number RF-93037) and 32 red (registration number RF-93022) have a two-color" gray-white "paint scheme ( the belly is now painted white instead of blue), and, curiously, the serial numbers of the modernized Su-25SM aircraft printed on the air intakes are Su-25SM-69 and Su-25SM-71, respectively (that is, they are the 69th and 71st modernized attack aircraft).


Under contract No. Р / 4 / 1 / 7-11-DOGOZ from 7 in November 2011, with the Ministry of Defense of Russia Aviaremont OJSC (which includes JSC 121-th ARZ) must modernize the Su-36 attack aircraft of the Russian Air Force Su-25CM total cost 25 billion rubles. The first eight aircraft under this contract were transferred to the customer at the end of 4,8467, another 2011 was upgraded in 16, and 2012 should be upgraded in 12 (vehicles with estimated numbers with Su-2013СМ-25 by Su-68М-25) .


The Su-121CM attack aircraft upgraded at 25 Aviation Repair Plant OJSC (the 25 red board number, RF-93037 registration number). Kubinka, August 2013 of the year (c) Igor Kryvoboorsky / russianplanes.net



The Su-121CM attack aircraft upgraded at 25 Aviation Repair Plant OJSC (the 32 red board number, RF-93022 registration number). Kubinka, August 2013 of the year (c) Mikhail Polyakov / russianplanes.net
Originator:
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/
56 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. svp67
    svp67 15 August 2013 10: 21
    +1
    "+". More of them ...
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 15 August 2013 10: 34
      +6
      Wouldn't it be better to stop these "modernizations" and switch to the production of the Su-39? After all, it is likely that, as in the example with tanks, normal modernization together with the restoration of the resource at cost will be at the level of creating a new aircraft?
      1. Tersky
        Tersky 15 August 2013 10: 42
        +4
        Quote: Spade
        Wouldn't it be better to stop these "modernizations" and switch to the production of the Su-39?

        hi ! As far as I know, the Su-39 is an export version of the modernized Su-25TM attack aircraft
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 15 August 2013 10: 50
          +3
          This is not so important. The main thing is that they are new
          1. avt
            avt 15 August 2013 11: 04
            +2
            Quote: Spade
            Wouldn't it be better to stop these "modernizations" and switch to the production of the Su-39?

            Quote: Spade
            This is not so important. The main thing is that they are new

            Well, this is a tsigansky argument - not my children Fruza, come here we will make new ones. What's wrong with that? If the glider is not killed - take out the insides, put a new one. Here the amers do not bother and quite themselves are turning old gliders into new modifications and by the way the same on helicopters, and they do not hesitate to use tanks, Abrashkas. So it’s quite good news, if only the new "equipment" was at the level.
            Quote: xetai9977
            like going to use the Yak-130 as an attack aircraft.

            I’m not very prayerful, but to remake Yak into a ground attack aircraft - you get Su-25 laughing The maximum that you can squeeze out is a counter-guerrilla plane, which is expensive, let it be training, as it were, naturally with a suspension.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 15 August 2013 11: 12
              0
              Quote: avt
              Well, this is a gypsy argument - not my Fruz children, come here we’ll make new ones.

              These are not children, they are tools. You can modernize the old two-handed "friendship" as much as you like - install plastic ergonomic handles on it, screw the laser pointer of the cutting line - it will never become a chainsaw.
              1. avt
                avt 15 August 2013 11: 59
                +3
                Quote: Spade
                You can modernize the old two-handed "friendship" as much as you want - install plastic ergonomic handles on it, screw the laser pointer of the cutting line - it will never become a chainsaw.

                And who is actually against what would flippers transplant on flying saucers? laughing Only now, again, why do the same amers take the old Warthog and not particularly complex upgrade it, even the old Ganship of the Vietnam War on the even more ancient platform S-130 is not written off. And it’s okay, it’s okay, even the Marines at UDC won’t change the old Cobra to the Viper, but they could blind the new drone without any problems. They don’t look for good, if only they would modernize them. A two-handed saw is very useful for health to work, like an ax, I don’t go to the site in winter - I don’t harvest firewood for the winter, so I don’t buy gasoline, I have two-handed ones. laughing
                Quote: Wedmak
                It doesn’t work out - the armor is small, and the rest will have to be seriously redone.

                Well, that's what I’m talking about - start turning the Yak and in the end, even in the drawings, at least in numbers, the Su-25 will come out.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 15 August 2013 12: 10
                  0
                  Quote: avt
                  And who is actually against what would flippers transplant on flying saucers?

                  Those who receive income from the modernization and restoration of the resource.


                  Quote: avt
                  Only now, again, why do the same amers take the old Warthog and not particularly complex upgrade it, even the old Ganship of the Vietnam War on the even more ancient platform S-130 is not written off.

                  They don’t peck their money; they can afford to modernize airplanes with an almost exhausted airframe resource.
                  1. Wedmak
                    Wedmak 15 August 2013 12: 38
                    +2
                    They don’t peck their money

                    If it were so real, they would have all switched to the F-22 and F-35. Having previously finished the last one. But apparently, both of these aircraft from the series "are very expensive and will serve on the bases."
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 15 August 2013 13: 14
                      0
                      They do not cross, they complement
                      1. Wedmak
                        Wedmak 15 August 2013 13: 34
                        +2
                        Well no. If they conceived F-22 as a fighter for gaining superiority in the air, then the F-35 program is designed to replace the F-15 / 16 / 18 with three F-35 (A / B / C) with a high degree of unification.
                        Yes, just not very good. Rumor has it ... The Navy wants more of the F-18, the vertical has stalled somehow ... The land version alone is somehow being finalized. He’s already launching rockets. F-22 is not available at all.
                        With such "successes" now yes ... complement. laughing
                      2. VAF
                        VAF 15 August 2013 19: 57
                        0
                        Quote: Wedmak
                        The Navy wants more than the F-18, the vertical has stalled somehow ... The land version alone is somehow being finalized.


                        Denis, dear ... you're wrong! lol if the site does not have articles about the Penguin, then this does not mean that .. "everything is stalled" .. just the opposite bully

                        US Navy Squadron VFA-14 "Grim Reapers", located at the Joint Training Center, began flights on August 101.
                        The first flight on the F-35C with the S / n CF-7 was performed by the comasco Lieutenant Commander Chris Tablet.



                        The ground staff of the fleet is already mastering new equipment, and then student pilots will arrive in time.

                        At the moment, the squadron has only two aircraft, replenishment will only take place next year from LRIP V.

                        The relative slowness of the fleet is explained by the fact that it plans to adopt the "Lightning II" several years later than the ILC and the Air Force. wink

                        And yet ... in the topic "stalled" laughing -sea tests of the F-35B at Waspe will be this week bully



                        F-35B makes its 500th vertical landing on August 3, 2013. bully
              2. VAF
                VAF 15 August 2013 19: 48
                0
                Quote: avt
                why then the same amers take the old Warthog and especially not complexing it upgrade


                So the fact of the matter is that the amers upgrade good , and ours ... "modderize" .. that's the difference! bully

                And in the end, what the A-10 carries and can and what the Su-25SM carries and can. I'm not talking about .. range and tactical range crying

            2. Taoist
              Taoist 15 August 2013 12: 05
              +3
              I think this is a wrong analogy. Any aircraft is primarily a complex that is sharpened to perform a certain range of tasks. ts "performance improvement" in performing such tasks does not depend on the airframe of the aircraft. The glider is dictated by the laws of aerodynamics, and they will not change today and tomorrow and in 100 years. But all other characteristics are determined by the power plant and the composition of the avionics, and both are generally easy to upgrade. In general, the path of phased modernization is much more promising and economically profitable than the creation of a new aircraft each time, conventionally speaking "for new bombs" ... especially since the "Rook" for its tasks has far from exhausted its modernization reserve. The installation of a new avionics, the ability to work with high-precision weapons, increased structural protection and thrust-to-weight ratio will allow this machine to perform its tasks as a "battlefield aircraft" for many years to come.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 15 August 2013 12: 30
                +1
                Quote: Taoist
                In general, the phased modernization path is much more promising and economically viable.

                Is not a fact. As far as I know, the airframe resource cannot be restored, it can only be extended in an administrative-command manner.
              2. VAF
                VAF 15 August 2013 19: 52
                0
                Quote: Taoist
                Any aircraft is primarily a complex that is sharpened to perform a certain range of tasks. ts "performance improvement" in performing such tasks does not depend on the airframe of the aircraft.


                Right, but only in theory! wink And where are you going to "push" to "increase productivity" ???? request
                Into the nose? Is it all to the eyeballs ?, under the belly? Only the radar and that’s all .... here’s the answer, so does it still depend on the glider or not?
                I don’t even speak about external suspensions, because I hope you are familiar with the performance characteristics and capabilities of the Su-25's? drinks
          2. Wedmak
            Wedmak 15 August 2013 11: 44
            0
            I’m not very prayerful, but to remake Yak into a ground attack aircraft - you get Su-25

            It doesn’t work out - the armor is small, and the rest will have to be seriously redone.
            The maximum that you can squeeze out is a counterinsurgency plane and then it’s expensive

            Precisely, anti-sabotage can still be done. And about the cost, it is hardly more expensive than the Su-25СМ.
      2. tchack
        tchack 15 August 2013 11: 38
        0
        http://topwar.ru/22556-su-39-pererozhdenie-shturmovika-su-25.html
    2. xetai9977
      xetai9977 15 August 2013 10: 46
      +2
      Let the initiates enlighten. Some time ago there was talk of new attack aircraft. Then there were articles about upgrading the Su-25. Moreover, it was like going to use the Yak-130 as an attack aircraft. Then they backed up, saying that they were not suitable for this. Has the Russian Air Force decided on an attack aircraft?
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 15 August 2013 11: 25
        +1
        Quote: xetai9977
        So has the Russian Air Force decided on the attack aircraft?

        As far as I understand, no, the Su-25 has practically no reserves for modernization, and the new attack aircraft has no money to make. In general, in the 21st century, an attack aircraft is a relic of the past, why carry a bunch of armor when there are detection and destruction means that allow you to perform tasks outside the air defense zone? The trouble with the Russian Air Force is that everything is very bad with the means of detection. For example, on the Su-34 is installed LTPS "Platan" (infrared direction finder combined with a laser rangefinder-target designator and a TV camera), installed practically between the air intakes, has the ability to work only on the course, its characteristics are unknown, there is an assumption that this is some revision "Kaira-24" with the addition of an IR direction finder (not a thermal imager), i.e. actually the level of the 80s. Those. Russian pilots have to train to fly close to the target, hoping that the armor will withstand an MZA projectile or a MANPADS missile ...
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 15 August 2013 11: 50
          +2
          In general, in the 21 century, a ground attack aircraft is a relic of the past, why carry a ton of armor when you have the means of detection and means of destruction that allow you to perform tasks outside the air defense zone?

          That's about this, I would argue with you. Detection and guidance tools may not always work, and an attack aircraft hanging in the sky causes the enemy to not pass brick laying - Mishiko will confirm to you. wink
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 15 August 2013 13: 58
            0
            Quote: Wedmak
            a ground attack aircraft hanging in the sky causes an adversary to block bricks

            Actually, the goals of attack aircraft are the destruction of the enemy, and not an attempt to scare him ...
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 15 August 2013 14: 31
              +1
              Actually, the goals of attack aircraft are the destruction of the enemy, and not an attempt to scare him ...

              Yes, I know. I am also aware that the attack aircraft must be above the target for the minimum time, approaches from different sides, etc. ... Nevertheless, it is one thing when a rocket arrives "out of nowhere", and silence will blow ... and quite another when a couple of such here the birds, and begins to peck out the enemy one by one. Where is more psychological pressure?
              1. Nayhas
                Nayhas 15 August 2013 14: 36
                0
                Quote: Wedmak
                Where is more psychological pressure?

                Denis, people are most frightened by the unknown, and a sudden blow from heaven provides this. The Su-25 can scare only an inexperienced fighter, a "seasoned" person understands that the pilot in the Su-25 does not see a damn thing on the ground, and he drops bombs on squares and landmarks.
                1. Wedmak
                  Wedmak 15 August 2013 16: 04
                  0
                  people are most afraid of the unknown, and this sudden blow from heaven provides.

                  I would not say that ... A sudden rocket attack simply does not give you a thought about what will happen - hop and that's it. And few people think "but what if a rocket arrives now?"
                  But an attack aircraft that appears on the horizon will make me think "is it not for my soul that an airplane is flying ..." That in the end may simply disrupt another attack, or delay the column.

                  a "seasoned" person understands that the pilot in the Su-25 does not see a damn thing on the ground, he drops bombs on squares and landmarks.

                  Remembering to remember that he himself can be a square or a landmark.
                  As for sees, does not see, I don’t know ... I did not fly. Of course you will not see a nifiga in green, but a convoy of equipment on the road is easy.
        2. Taoist
          Taoist 15 August 2013 12: 19
          +4
          Interestingly, and in what way is the "lack of reserve for modernization" expressed? I had the pleasure to get to know "Rook" at the very beginning of his journey as an aircraft technician. Personally, I do not see a single unit and unit that could not be upgraded in this car. Moreover, modern electronics have much better weight and dimensions, which makes it possible to use this stock even without upgrading the power plant. And about the fact that you can solve everything "remotely" ... Well, experience shows that this is, to put it mildly, a delusion. And the machine is capable of, at the direct request of the troops (literally in battle formations), to work to suppress the leading edge and over the leading edge ... you just cannot do without it. You won't spend on every machine-gun socket or mortar on a guided missile ...
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 15 August 2013 12: 42
            +1
            Quote: Taoist
            Well, experience shows that this is, to put it mildly, a misconception. And the machine is capable of working at the direct request of the troops (literally in battle formation) to suppress the front edge and over the front edge ... for sure, you can’t do without it yet.

            Experience shows that this kind of machine is effective only with perfectly functioning ground infrastructure in the troops in the form of PANs.
            Trained, with their machines, stable communications and other extremely important things.

            Since this is all absent, experience shows that the only method of interaction between infantry and attack aircraft is to dig a trench, set up a tank above it and scatter orange smoke to try to indicate its position in the immediate vicinity of the enemy.

            And experience also shows that infantry often shot down planes of the same assault aircraft. And aviation is bombing assaults on this infantry. Due to the total lack of interaction.
            1. Taoist
              Taoist 15 August 2013 14: 05
              0
              This all has a place to be ... but this is not a flaw in the AT and there is clearly no reason that it would not be upgraded. Moreover, there are some achievements in the automation of the military aircraft landing system - you just need to introduce them into the troops.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 15 August 2013 14: 15
                0
                Quote: Taoist
                Moreover, there are achievements on the automation of the military airborne system - you just need to introduce them into the troops.

                And why are they not being introduced?
          2. Nayhas
            Nayhas 15 August 2013 14: 15
            +1
            Quote: Taoist
            Moreover, modern electronics has much better overall dimensions that allows you to use this stock even without upgrading the power plant

            Well, where, then, is this modern electronics with less mass? You are clearly aware of the so-called "modernization" of the Su-25 and can soberly evaluate it without slogans. Has there been an increase in fuel or payload?
            Quote: Taoist
            And about the fact that you can solve everything "remotely" ... Well, experience shows that this is, to put it mildly, a delusion. And the machine is capable, at the direct request of the troops (literally in battle formations), to work to suppress the leading edge and over the leading edge ...

            I doubt it very much. In 2000. a pair of Su-25s was pointed at our group by mistake (notorious inconsistency), while being on the open slope of the mountain (there were about 30 people) we did not hide. When I saw a couple of Rooks, I didn’t even understand that it was for our souls, it was funny to see how one marked the drop site with heat traps, and then one by one dropped cluster bombs, they flew by parachute and then scattered into a cloud. We didn't even hear the breaks, they missed so much. We learned about what worked for us when we returned to the location. And the pilots clearly reported on the destruction of another gang of "Wahhabis" ...
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 15 August 2013 14: 35
              +2
              We didn’t even hear breaks, they missed so much.

              Don't you think you're incredibly lucky? Had this "cloud" hit you, there would have been horns and legs ... If the attack aircraft had modern navigation and sighting equipment.
              1. Nayhas
                Nayhas 15 August 2013 14: 46
                +1
                Quote: Wedmak
                Don't you think you're incredibly lucky?

                Of course, I think I'm very glad that the Su-25's capabilities for destroying ground targets are not much different from the Il-2. But damn it is not the case. The pilot performing the assigned task should still be guided by bad luck. It's the 21st century and it's crazy to rely on the "eye". If then an enemy with a Stinger or Igla-S MANPADS were in our place, the pilots would have had a hard time, not only did they not get anywhere, but they would also lose their cars. And if in place of the Su-25 there was an F-15E with a pair of JDAMs and a LITENING container, then we would not even have seen it before ...
                1. Wedmak
                  Wedmak 15 August 2013 16: 11
                  0
                  I am very glad that on Su-25 the capabilities for destroying ground targets are not much different from IL-2.

                  Well, on the contrary, I’m not happy (not because you are still writing here, but because you need equipment in a newer way). Although of course you have gone too far comparing with IL-2.
                  If the pilots had an enemy with the Stinger or Igla-S MANPADS in our place, the pilots would have had a hard time, not only didn’t get anywhere, but they would also lose their cars.

                  Far from a fact.
                  And if in place of the Su-25 there would be an F-15E with a pair of JDAM and a LITENING container, we would not even see it before ...

                  Here you are right, a lot would fall. True, I'm not sure what JDAM cassette tapes are. And compare a heavy multi-functional aircraft with an attack aircraft. Then, compare it with Su-24 ... you would see it too ... when there would be nothing to watch.
                2. Taoist
                  Taoist 15 August 2013 18: 35
                  +1
                  Have you seen how F-15s work? or judge by agitation ...? By the way, they regularly arrange "friendly fire-lilies ... bully
            2. Taoist
              Taoist 15 August 2013 18: 33
              +2
              I'm afraid that you extrapolate your experience (negative in this context) to the general idea. Our pilots in Chechnya, alas, often did not even possess normal flight skills, and they flew for combat use as needed (if necessary) - this is not the problem of the machine and the technical ideas and solutions not embedded in it - this is the problem of organization, interaction and the level of combat training ... I can give a bunch of reverse examples on Afghani - when the Sukhis literally "sawed out" the spirits from the gorges a couple of hundred meters from our groups.
              By the way, a blunt increase in combat load or fuel reserve is not an end in itself. The Rook's combat radius is quite sufficient. The question is whether he has the ability to use the entire range of weapons. But he has it. Unlike "Varhog", the rook is a multi-purpose and not an anti-tank attack aircraft. if interested a little later I can tell you in detail what exactly and how it is modernized.
              1. VAF
                VAF 15 August 2013 20: 09
                0
                Quote: Taoist
                Rook's combat radius is quite sufficient.


                I understand that there is corporate ethics ... but so ... it is not necessary. respected? And suddenly ... someone from the .. "ignorant" will excite and .. themselves take an interest .. even more. that ILE is now free, and there are all the charts .... and then what will you tell ????
                What a radius of 250 km. with one ton of BC at low altitude, and 330 km at medium altitude fellow ??
                1. Taoist
                  Taoist 15 August 2013 23: 12
                  0
                  This is not a lot, but for a car operating on the front line it is quite enough. Again, referring to the Airplane Flight Manual, for some reason, you are comparing the "prospectus" ranges for foreign vehicles. I did not have the opportunity to compare for other machines, but when I understood the ratio of my Yak-38 to the same Harrier ... it turned out that the weight recoil and range of the Harrier during vertical takeoff is even lower than that of the Yak ... And all the "advantages" the latter within the radius of action was explained by the presence of air refueling and PTB. I strongly suspect that it is the same with Rook ... We prepared machines for the "limited theater" and did not develop refueling for front-line aviation. By the way, this is also an option for modernization. Container systems already exist.
        3. max702
          max702 15 August 2013 13: 39
          0
          Religion say? And you are aware that in all recent conflicts and wars, attack aircraft that we have that the NATO troops did the lion's share of the work, and the infantry that decided the outcome of these conflicts, they are needed most of all, odious bombers super fighters stood at airfields and the strap of the war was pulled and pulled like that unpretentious attack aircraft, and nothing will change in the near future for 20-30 years. I have already expressed my opinion that whether f22 and su50 will be at war is a big question, but attack aircraft will be every day .. And money should not be invested in them sparingly, because it is they who save the lives of soldiers.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 15 August 2013 14: 15
            0
            Quote: max702
            And money should not be invested in them sparingly, because it is they who save the lives of soldiers.

            Sure? Is not a fact.
          2. Nayhas
            Nayhas 15 August 2013 14: 31
            +1
            Quote: max702
            you are aware that in all recent conflicts and wars, attack aircraft that we have that the NATO members carried out the lion's share of the work

            We have yes, because there is nothing else. In NATO, the "lion's" share is performed by the F-15E, F-16 Block 25/30/40/50, Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale, as well as MQ-1 Predator, MQ-1C Gray Eagle and MQ-9 Reaper.
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 15 August 2013 16: 15
              0
              NATO fulfills the lion's share

              And not tomahawks? The lion's share of knocking out the main targets (air defense, radars, etc.) is carried out precisely by the Kyrgyz Republic. Then aviation only finishes off the remaining without air defense. They’re out in Libya (!! what was there to bomb, huh?) Even the tomahawks ended, as they threw them to the right and left.
              1. max702
                max702 16 August 2013 23: 52
                0
                No, we are talking about the work after which the infantry goes, and not the generals move the flags on the map, in the West the most expensive resource is a man because it’s only one soldier’s insurance as the cost of one tomahawk, and if you add the cost of training, the cost of equipment, transportation from the homeland him necessary, living payment in the database zone, then the tomahawks, as it were, would come out cheaper ..
      2. Wedmak
        Wedmak 15 August 2013 11: 47
        +1
        A new attack aircraft is not yet expected. Not even in development. Su-39 remained experienced. Yak-130 - unless against bandits and partisans without MANPADS. So we decided to upgrade what we have.
      3. Taoist
        Taoist 15 August 2013 12: 14
        +4
        This is a rather "ideological" problem. The Yak 130 is not an attack aircraft. At best, this is "light information security" - it will not be able to perform combat missions in conditions of active fire resistance. Its combat capabilities are more likely to be used for training pilots at firing ranges.
        The Su-25 (with all its shortcomings) never had an alternative. Of course, it is economically more expedient to increase its combat capabilities through modernization than now to develop a new vehicle of this class. Moreover, there is experience of such modernization. So the Su 25 and its upgraded versions will continue to form the backbone of the "direct support of the troops" aviation.
    3. Nayhas
      Nayhas 15 August 2013 11: 36
      +1
      Quote: Spade
      Wouldn't it be better to stop these "modernizations" and switch to the production of the Su-39?

      And you still did not understand that the Su-39 simply did not work out, because it remained only in exhibition versions? The Su-25 has virtually no reserve for modernization, it already has a small radius and low load, an increase in mass (and the addition of equipment definitely causes its growth) will lead to a deterioration of the already not brilliant characteristics. The Su-39 is an attempt to fulfill the promise made by the Sukhoi Ustinov Design Bureau to make the Su-25 anti-tank, because the military did not want to accept the Su-25, because they did not need him without detection systems and guided weapons vz. The attempt failed.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 15 August 2013 11: 51
        0
        And you still do not understand that the Su-39 simply did not work out, because it remained only in exhibition versions?

        Why didn’t it work? Where does this information come from?
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 15 August 2013 14: 17
          0
          Quote: Wedmak
          Why didn’t it work? Where does this information come from?

          Because there is no information that he passed the ICG.
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 15 August 2013 14: 36
            +1
            Because there is no information that he passed the ICG.

            So they didn’t see the money for revision, and then they closed the program with a quiet glanders.
            1. Nayhas
              Nayhas 15 August 2013 15: 33
              0
              Denis, I apologize for misleading you, as they write in 1993. he went through the ICG, so the reason why they don’t do it I can only assume that by this time the Su-39 is already outdated.
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak 15 August 2013 16: 17
                0
                It's okay.
                But 39 was not out of date, and besides, it had good potential for modernization. He could use precision weapons without any hanging containers. But ... it just so happened.
  2. Constantine
    Constantine 15 August 2013 10: 54
    0
    Quote: svp67
    "+". More of them ...


    Agree smile It's nice to see how the "rooks flew" soldier
  3. Su24
    Su24 15 August 2013 18: 43
    +1
    Listen, but the defense industry is gaining momentum after all. Already not small deliveries are coming.
  • KABAN009
    KABAN009 15 August 2013 10: 22
    0
    I think that something will be more about modernization ... a great plane!
  • Black Colonel
    Black Colonel 15 August 2013 10: 43
    +1
    And why is the paint glossy rather than matte?
  • kind
    kind 15 August 2013 11: 19
    0
    Su-25 handsome !!!
  • alone
    alone 15 August 2013 11: 53
    0
    modernization is good because it never ends. you can fill your pockets with modernization. lopatov essentially says right
  • avt
    avt 15 August 2013 12: 07
    0
    Quote: lonely
    modernization is good because it never ends. you can fill your pockets with modernization. lopatov essentially says right

    It’s easier to fill pockets on the creation of a new project, it is always easier than to bring to mind when concrete work with iron and coordination with the manufacturer is higher than the roof and you need to give a specific result, and not to beat out the loot promises.
  • sds555
    sds555 15 August 2013 15: 50
    0
    It seems that with the new attack aircraft everything will be deaf to modernize and modernize the old ones until 2020 exactly http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/click.php?http://vpk-news.ru/articles/12848
  • shinobi
    shinobi 15 August 2013 15: 52
    +1
    25 has a very successful concept. With a competent approach to its upgrade, it will serve another 30 years. Actually, the joke with the design of new planes is that all of their concepts already exist and they are about 40 years old. Now, as soon as a bunch of new technologies and materials are gathered, they get old ahead of time developed.
  • Zhenya
    Zhenya 15 August 2013 17: 36
    0
    Oh handsome plane!
  • vm68dm
    vm68dm 15 August 2013 20: 01
    +1
    In the spring of 1980, four Su-25s underwent a combat assessment in Afghanistan, showing complete superiority over their competitors.
  • Taoist
    Taoist 15 August 2013 23: 22
    0
    By the way, about the essence of the modernization of "Rook" ... here they have already laid out the information, but I will repeat myself ...

    "The modernized vehicles should have a complex of onboard equipment" Panther "with a high-performance on-board computer, a radar sighting system RLPK-25SM based on the radar" Kopye "and a complex of electronic warfare equipment. , the use of high-precision guided weapons with laser and television seeker, etc.
    Onboard radar is capable of mapping the underlying surface. It serves for detection and target designation in the "air-to-air", "air-to-surface" and "air-sea", "air-to-radar" modes. Su-25SM differs from Su-25TM the presence of an onboard radar, not in a suspended container, but built-in, in the nose of the fuselage.
    The complex of electronic warfare equipment allows for electronic reconnaissance, to warn the pilot about the degree of threat, to target the missile defense with PRGS emitting radar from the enemy, to create leading, noise, flickering and redirecting radio interference, to control the operation of the device for ejecting false thermal targets. To reduce the load on the pilot, a modern information and control field with multifunctional color indicators and an indicator on the windshield has been created in the cockpit. The layout of the aircraft dashboard and aircraft control panels was changed, a new SAU-25 display and control system was installed.
    The aircraft's combat capabilities have been expanded through the use of the PrNK-25SM Bars sighting and navigation system. It includes systems for processing and displaying information, satellite and short-range navigation, an electronic reconnaissance station, an aircraft transponder, an automatic radio compass, a digital-analog weapon control system, an onboard system for collecting, processing and recording flight information "Karat-B-25" and a number of other systems.
    The built-in control system for on-board equipment can significantly reduce labor costs when preparing the aircraft for a second flight. Thanks to this, the maintenance time for the new attack aircraft was reduced by 25-30% compared to the base model.
    The cockpit of the attack aircraft is equipped with a multifunctional color display, which displays a digital map of the area and the flight route. The accuracy of navigation and combat use of unguided aircraft weapons has increased two to three times, and in bomber applications it reached the level of accuracy of guided weapons. Thanks to the use of a modern inertial navigation system, the accuracy of determining coordinates of the order of 15 m with satellite correction and 200 m without it has been achieved.
    For the first time, front-line aircraft used a variable rate of fire from a cannon installation, which significantly increases the number of attacks on a target. New modes of combat use have been implemented, which make it possible to use guided air-to-surface missiles from horizontal flight through the use of precise software-corrected target tracking. The Su-25SM is capable of hitting two targets in one attack, and the use of navigation bombing at night and in adverse weather conditions is for it, in contrast to the "usual" Su-25, a standard combat mission.
    The accuracy of the use of C-8, C-13, C-24 and C-25 unguided missiles has significantly increased, and the possibility of using the R-73E, X-29L, X-25MS (ML) guided missiles has been increased.
    A feature of the aircraft is its air-to-air missile armament not only of short range, but also of medium range. The aircraft will be able to carry UR R-27R (E), RVV-AE (R-77) and R-73. "
  • aviator65
    aviator65 16 August 2013 10: 34
    -1
    Speaking about an alternative to the Su-25, for some reason they do not remember the Il-102. At one time, its combat capabilities were rated much higher than that of the "rook". If Simonov hadn't been able to push through his car then, we could have had a completely different attack aircraft.
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 16 August 2013 10: 48
      -1
      yes, the 102nd certainly looked more serious than "Rook" - but what's the use now to remember. Today, even if we assume that the 102nd will be put into service and will begin to produce it, it will immediately have to be modernized - over the past years, its avionics have become hopelessly outdated.
      1. aviator65
        aviator65 16 August 2013 11: 51
        +1
        It is clear that the train has left. However, it could be immediately put into production with a new avionics and more modern weapons. But this, again, on condition that if the entire reserve for "102" would not have been a strong-willed decision sent to the landfill. And so, take the same MiG-29K. Its first flight copy (ed. 9-31) was ready back in '88, but it only went into production. At the same time, its initial filling also did not correspond to the present day in everything. Nevertheless, they were able to bring it to the modern level and put it on stream. You just have to admit that today Pogasyan's firm has put out of the game everyone who could compete with it in any way. Considering its workload on both the T-50 and the "superjet", of course, there is simply no money or resources for a new attack aircraft. So you have to pull out everything you can from the Su-25. Well at least the new "strategist" was left for the Tupolevites.