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
Ad

Our projects are looking for authors in the news and analytical departments. Requirements for applicants: literacy, responsibility, efficiency, inexhaustible creative energy, experience in copywriting or journalism, the ability to quickly analyze text and check facts, write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. The work is paid. Contact: [email protected]

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 New
    +1
    "+". For more of them ...
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 15 August 2013 10: 34 New
      +6
      But isn’t it better to stop these “upgrades” and switch to the Su-39? After all, it is likely that, as in the example of tanks, normal modernization, along with the restoration of the resource at a cost, will be at the level of creating a new aircraft?
      1. Tersky
        Tersky 15 August 2013 10: 42 New
        +4
        Quote: Spade
        But isn’t it better to stop these “upgrades” and switch to 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 New
          +3
          This is not so important. The main thing is that they are new
          1. avt
            avt 15 August 2013 11: 04 New
            +2
            Quote: Spade
            But isn’t it better to stop these “upgrades” and switch to the Su-39?

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

            Well, this is a Gypsy argument - not my Fruz children, come here and do new ones. What's wrong with that? If the glider is not killed - take out the inside, put a new one. But the amers do not bother and they completely turn the old gliders into new modifications, and by the way the same thing in helicopters, and they don’t disdain tanks, Abrashkami. So it’s quite good news, if only a new, “grade” 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 New
              0
              Quote: avt
              Well, this is a gypsy argument - not my Fruz children, come here we’ll make new ones.

              These are not children, these are tools. You can upgrade your old two-handed “friendship” as much as you like - to install plastic ergonomic handles on it, to fasten the laser pointer of the line with a chainsaw, it will never become.
              1. avt
                avt 15 August 2013 11: 59 New
                +3
                Quote: Spade
                You can upgrade your old two-handed “friendship” as much as you like - to install plastic ergonomic handles on it, to fasten the laser pointer of the line with a chainsaw, it will never become.

                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 New
                  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 New
                    +2
                    They don’t peck their money

                    If it were so real, they would all have switched to F-22 and F-35. After finishing the last one. But apparently, both of these aircraft from the series "are very expensive and will serve at the bases."
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 15 August 2013 13: 14 New
                      0
                      They do not cross, they complement
                      1. Wedmak
                        Wedmak 15 August 2013 13: 34 New
                        +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 New
                        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 there are no articles on the Penguin on the site, this does not mean that .. "everything is dead" .. just the opposite bully

                        On August 14, the VFA-101 "Grim Reapers" squadron located at the United Naval Forces Joint Training Center began flights.
                        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 more ... in the topic "stalled" laughing F-35B sea trials at Wosp will be this week bully



                        F-35B performs 500th vertical landing. August 3, 2013 bully
              2. VAF
                VAF 15 August 2013 19: 48 New
                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 ... "modernize" .. 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 New
              +3
              I think this is the wrong analogy. Any aircraft is primarily a complex sharpened to perform a certain range of tasks. ts "performance improvement" in performing such tasks does not depend on the glider of the aircraft. The laws of aerodynamics dictate the glider, and they will not change today and tomorrow and in 100 years. But all the other characteristics are determined by the power plant and the composition of the avionics, and both that and the other, in general, is easily upgraded. In general, the stage-by-stage modernization path is much more promising and economically profitable than the creation of a new aircraft each time conditionally saying “under new bombs” ... all the more so since the Grach far from its objectives far from exhausted its modernization reserve. The installation of a new avionics, the ability to work with high-precision weapons, the strengthening of structural protection and thrust-weight ratio will allow this machine to carry out its tasks for many years as a "battlefield aircraft."
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 15 August 2013 12: 30 New
                +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 New
                0
                Quote: Taoist
                Any aircraft is primarily a complex sharpened to perform a certain range of tasks. ts "performance improvement" in performing such tasks does not depend on the glider of the aircraft.


                Right, but only in theory! wink And where are you going to "increase productivity" .. will you "push" ???? 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 New
            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 New
        0
        http://topwar.ru/22556-su-39-pererozhdenie-shturmovika-su-25.html
    2. xetai9977
      xetai9977 15 August 2013 10: 46 New
      +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 New
        +1
        Quote: xetai9977
        So has the Russian Air Force decided on the attack aircraft?

        As far as I understand, there is practically no reserve for modernization in the Su-25, and there is no money to make a new attack aircraft. In general, in the 21st century, an attack aircraft is a relic of the past, why carry a ton of armor when you have the means of detection and the means of destruction allowing 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, the Su-34 is equipped with the Platan LTPS (infrared direction finder combined with a laser rangefinder, target designator and TV camera), installed practically between the air intakes, has the ability to work only at the heading, its characteristics are unknown, there is an assumption that this is some refinement Kaira-24 with the addition of an infrared 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 the MZA shell or MANPADS missile ...
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 15 August 2013 11: 50 New
          +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 New
            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 New
              +1
              Actually, the goals of attack aircraft are the destruction of the enemy, and not an attempt to scare him ...

              Yes, I know. I’m also aware that the attack aircraft should be over the target for minimum time, approaches from different directions and so on ... Nevertheless, it’s one thing when a rocket arrives “out of nowhere”, a dolbanet and silence ... and quite another when a pair of such here is a bird, and begins to peck the enemy one by one. Where is more psychological pressure?
              1. Nayhas
                Nayhas 15 August 2013 14: 36 New
                0
                Quote: Wedmak
                Where is more psychological pressure?

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

                  I wouldn’t say that ... A sudden attack by a rocket simply does not allow to think about what will happen - hop and that’s it. And few people think, "But if a rocket arrives now?"
                  But the stormtrooper that appeared on the horizon will make you think, “Is there a plane flying through my soul ...” That in the end can just frustrate another attack, or delay the convoy.

                  the "experienced" person understands that the pilot in Su-25 does not see a damn thing on the earth, he drops bombs in squares and in 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 New
          +4
          It is interesting, and in what is expressed the "lack of a reserve for modernization"? I had the pleasure of meeting Rook at the very beginning of his journey as an airplane technician. Personally, I do not see a single unit and assembly that could not be upgraded in this machine. Moreover, modern electronics has much better overall dimensions that allows you to use this stock even without upgrading the power plant. And about the fact that everything can be solved "remotely" ... 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. For every machine gun nest or mortar on a guided missile you will not spend ...
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 15 August 2013 12: 42 New
            +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 New
              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 New
                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 New
            +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 having less mass? You are clearly aware of the so-called “modernization” of the Su-25 and you can soberly, without slogans, evaluate it. Has there been an increase in fuel supply or combat load?
            Quote: Taoist
            And about the fact that everything can be solved "remotely" ... Well, experience shows that this is, to put it mildly, a misconception. And a machine capable of direct suppression of troops (literally in battle formation) to work to suppress the front edge and over the front edge ...

            I doubt it very much. In 2000 mistakenly (a notorious inconsistency) a couple of Su-25s were sent to our group, while we were not hiding while being on the open slope of the mountain (30 people). When I saw a couple of “Rooks” I didn’t even understand what it was to our liking, it was funny to see how one indicated the place of discharge by heat traps, and then in turn dropped cluster bombs, they flew by parachute and then scattered into the cloud. We didn’t even hear breaks, they missed so much. About what worked for us, we learned 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 New
              +2
              We didn’t even hear breaks, they missed so much.

              Don't you think you're incredibly lucky? If you hit this “cloud”, horns and legs would remain ... If attack aircraft had modern navigation and sighting equipment.
              1. Nayhas
                Nayhas 15 August 2013 14: 46 New
                +1
                Quote: Wedmak
                Don't you think you're incredibly lucky?

                Of course I think I am very glad that the capabilities of destroying ground targets on the Su-25 are not much different from the IL-2. But damn it is not the case. The pilot performing the task should still be guided by no luck. In the courtyard of the 21st century and rely "on the eye" wildly. 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. 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 have seen it before ...
                1. Wedmak
                  Wedmak 15 August 2013 16: 11 New
                  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 New
                  +1
                  Have you ever seen how the F-15 works? or judge by agitation ...? By the way, they’re happy with their friendly fires regularly ... bully
            2. Taoist
              Taoist 15 August 2013 18: 33 New
              +2
              I'm afraid that you will extrapolate your experience (in this context, negative) to the general idea. Our pilots in the same Chechnya, alas, often didn’t even have normal flight skills, and they generally flew for military use as they should (if necessary) - this is the trouble of the machine and technical ideas and solutions that are not incorporated into it - this is the trouble of organization, interaction and the level of combat training . I can give a bunch of reverse examples across Afghanistan - when the Sukhoi literally “sawed” spirits out of gorges a couple of hundred meters from our groups.
              By the way, a stupid increase in combat load or fuel supply is not an end in itself. 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. In contrast to the "archarch", the rook is multi-purpose and not an anti-tank attack aircraft. if interested a little later I can tell you in detail what exactly and how modernized.
              1. VAF
                VAF 15 August 2013 20: 09 New
                0
                Quote: Taoist
                Rook's combat radius is quite sufficient.


                I understand that there is a corporate ethic ... but so ... no need. respected? And suddenly. Some of .. "ignorant" will excite and .. will take an interest .. moreover. that ILE is now free, and there are all the schedules .... and 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 New
                  0
                  This is not much, but for a machine operating at the forefront is quite enough. Again, referring to the RLE, for some reason, you are comparing the "prospectus" range of action for foreign cars. I couldn’t compare it with other machines, but when I understood the ratio of my Yak-38 to Harrier as well ... it turned out that the weight return and radius of action of the Harrier during vertical take-off were even lower than that of Yak ... And all the "advantages" the latter in range were attributed to the presence of refueling in the air and PTB. I strongly suspect that it is the same with Grach ... We prepared cars 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 New
          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 New
            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 New
            +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 more. NATO has the lion's share of 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 New
              0
              NATO has 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 New
                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 New
        +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 New
        +4
        This is rather an “ideological” problem. Yak 130 is not a ground attack aircraft. This is, at best, a “lightweight IS” - it will not be able to carry out combat missions in conditions of active fire resistance. Its combat capabilities are more likely to be used for training pilots at firing ranges.
        Su-25 (with all the shortcomings available) has never had an alternative. It is certainly economically more expedient to increase its combat capabilities by modernization than to develop a new machine of this class now. Moreover, there is experience of such modernization. So Su 25 and its upgraded versions will still make up the backbone of the air force "direct support of the troops."
    3. Nayhas
      Nayhas 15 August 2013 11: 36 New
      +1
      Quote: Spade
      But isn’t it better to stop these “upgrades” and switch to 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 New
        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 New
          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 New
            +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 New
              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 New
                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 New
    0
    Quote: svp67
    "+". For more of them ...


    Agree smile It's nice to see the rooks fly soldier
  3. Su24
    Su24 15 August 2013 18: 43 New
    +1
    Listen, but the defense industry is gaining momentum after all. Already not small deliveries are coming.
  • KABAN009
    KABAN009 15 August 2013 10: 22 New
    0
    I think that something will be more about modernization ... a great plane!
  • Black Colonel
    Black Colonel 15 August 2013 10: 43 New
    +1
    And why is the paint glossy rather than matte?
  • kind
    kind 15 August 2013 11: 19 New
    0
    Su-25 handsome !!!
  • alone
    alone 15 August 2013 11: 53 New
    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 New
    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 New
    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 New
    +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 New
    0
    Oh handsome plane!
  • vm68dm
    vm68dm 15 August 2013 20: 01 New
    +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 New
    0
    By the way, about the essence of the Rook’s modernization ... they already laid out the info here, but I repeat ...

    “The upgraded vehicles should have a Panther avionics complex with a high-performance digital computer, a radar sighting system RLPK-25СМ based on the Kopye radar and an electronic warfare system. The Panther complex will increase navigation accuracy, maximize target search, recognition and defeat , the use of guided weapons of high accuracy with laser and television GOS, etc.
    The airborne radar is capable of mapping the underlying surface. It serves for detection and target designation in the air-to-air, air-surface and air-sea, air-radar modes. Su-25СМ differs from Su-25ТМ 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 combat capabilities of the aircraft have been expanded through the use of the PrNK-25СМ Bars sighting and navigation system. It includes information processing and display systems, satellite and short-range navigation, a radio intelligence station, an airborne transponder, an automatic radio compass, a digital-to-analog weapon control system, the Karat-B-25 flight data acquisition, processing and recording system, 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 on front-line aircraft, a variable rate of fire from a cannon launcher was used, which significantly increases the possibilities for the number of attacks on the target. New combat use modes have been implemented that allow the use of guided air-to-surface missiles from horizontal flight through the use of accurate program-corrected target tracking. The Su-25СМ is capable of hitting two targets in one attack, and the use of navigation bombing at night and in difficult weather conditions is for him, 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 armament of air-to-air missiles of not only short, but also medium range. The aircraft will be able to carry the UR R-27R (E), RVV-AE (R-77) and R-73. "
  • aviator65
    aviator65 16 August 2013 10: 34 New
    -1
    Speaking of an alternative to the Su-25, for some reason they don’t remember the IL-102. At one time, his combat capabilities were rated much higher than that of the "rook". If Simon couldn’t push his car through then, we could have a completely different attack aircraft.
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 16 August 2013 10: 48 New
      -1
      Yes, 102y certainly looked more serious than the Rook - but what good is it now to remember. Today, even if we assume that the 102 will be put into service and will start to produce it, it will immediately have to be modernized - over the past years its avionics are hopelessly outdated.
      1. aviator65
        aviator65 16 August 2013 11: 51 New
        +1
        It’s clear that the train has left. However, it could be immediately put into production with a new avionics and with more modern weapons. But this, again, provided that if the whole backlog of "102" would not have been sent by willful decision to landfill. And so, take the same MiG-29K. His first flight copy (ed. 9-31) was ready back in 88. But he went into the series only - only. At the same time, its initial filling also did not correspond to everything today. Nevertheless, they were able to bring it to the modern level and put it on stream. We just have to admit that to date, Pogasyan’s company has eliminated from the game all those who could at least somehow compete with it. Given its congestion in both the T-50 and the "superjet", of course, there are simply no funds or resources for the new attack aircraft. So you have to pull everything you can from the Su-25. Well, at least the new "strategist" was left to the Tupolevites.