Su-25 "Rook" or "Flying Tank"

43
"1" Introduction

The first experience of modern civil war is, of course, accumulated in Afghanistan. And he immediately showed a lack of effectiveness aviation. In addition to the unpreparedness of the pilots and the flaws in tactics, the aircraft themselves were poorly matched with the nature of the counterguerrilla war. The supersonic fighter-bomber designed for the European theater of war turned out to not turn around in the mountain gorges, and their sophisticated aiming and navigation equipment was practically useless when searching for an inconspicuous enemy. The capabilities of the aircraft remained unclaimed, and the effectiveness of their attacks was low.

The Su-25 attack aircraft turned out to be a suitable vehicle - maneuverable, obedient to drive, well armed and protected. Su-25 (by NATO codification: Frogfoot) - Soviet-Russian armored subsonic attack aircraft. Designed for direct support of ground forces over the battlefield day and night with visual visibility of the target, as well as the destruction of objects with given coordinates around the clock in any weather conditions. In the Russian troops got the nickname "Rook".



«2» History create

At the end of 60. it became clear that the Su-7B, MiG-19, MiG-21 and Yak-28 aircraft do not effectively defeat small ground targets on the battlefield, and the lack of reservation of the crew cabin and important units makes them vulnerable to small arms weapons and small-caliber artillery.

In March, 1968, the senior teacher of the Air Force Academy. NOT. Zhukovsky, I.Savchenko, suggested that the POO Sukhoi Design Bureau specialists jointly develop a project for a new ground support aircraft. The initiative group (O.S. Samoilovich, D.N.Gorbachev, V.M. Lebedev, Yu.V. Ivashechkin and A.Monakhov) developed the battlefield aircraft (SPB) and after determining its general appearance, presented the project P.O. Sukhoi, who approved it under the name T-8. In March, 1969 was held a competition for the development of a prototype attack aircraft with the participation of KB. A.I. Mikoyan and A.S. Yakovlev (proposed projects to modify the MiG-21 and Yak-28), S.V. Ilyushin and P.O. Sukhoi (new projects IL-102 and T-8). The winner was the T-8 project, which had a more sophisticated aiming complex and smaller, compared to the IL-102, dimensions and weight. The project envisaged the development of an easy-to-manufacture and unpretentious attack aircraft designed to be operated by a minimally prepared flight and ground crew, with little time to prepare for departure using the ground-based airmobile complex, which provided an autonomous ground attack aircraft on restrictedly equipped ground airfields.

The elaboration of the preliminary design of the aircraft directly supporting the troops over the battlefield of the SPB (“Polly Boy’s Aircraft”) was initiated by the instructor of the Air Force Academy named after Yu.A.A.Gagarin, I.V. Savchenko and the staff of the OKO Design Bureau P.O. Sukhoi, O. S.Samoylovich, D.N.Gorbachev, V.M. Lebedev, Yu.V. Ivashechkin and A.Monakhov in March 1968. In May 1968, the aircraft design was started in the PO O. Sukhoi Design Bureau under the name T-8 . The study of the aerodynamic scheme of the future attack aircraft started at TsAGI in 1968, the USSR Ministry of Defense, at the suggestion of Defense Minister A.A. Grechko, in March 1969 announced a competition for a light attack aircraft project in which the Sukhoi Design Bureau (T-8), Yakovlev (Yak -25LSH), Mikoyan and Gurevich (MiG-21LSH) and Ilyushin (IL-42). For the competition were formulated Air Force requirements. The competition was won by T-8 and MiG-21ЛШ aircraft. Production of working drawings and preparation for the construction of a prototype aircraft - summer 1970 g. At the same time, the Air Force changed the requirements for maximum ground speed to 1200 km / h, which put the project at risk of complete processing. By the end of 1971, it was possible to reconcile changes in the requirements for maximum speed to 1000 km / h (0.82 M).

The design of the T-8 was resumed in January 1972 after P.O. Sukhoi approved the general view of the attack aircraft (06.01.1972) and signed an order to begin the working design of the aircraft. MP Simonov was appointed project manager, Yu.V. Ivashechkin was appointed lead designer. Since August, 1972, the chief designer of T-8, is OS Samoylovich, the lead designer with 25.12.1972, is Yu.V. Ivashechkin (he is also the chief designer with October 6, 1974). The model of the aircraft was adopted by the commission in September and the construction of the prototype began at the end of 1972. The first flight of the prototype T-8-1 was made at the LII airfield in Zhukovsky 22 in February 1975 (pilot - V.S. Ilyushin). The second prototype, with some design changes (T-8-2), was put to the test in December 1975.

In the summer of 1976, on prototypes, engines were replaced with more powerful R-95Sh, some design elements were changed (1978) - the updated prototypes were named T-8-1D and T-8-2Д. In July, the X-NUMX T-1976 was called the “Su-8” and preparations began for mass production at the aircraft plant in Tbilisi (initially it was planned to start production in Poland). Tactical and technical requirements for the Su-25 attack aircraft with the P-25Sh engine, modified avionics composition - T-95-8D - approved by the USSR Ministry of Defense only 1 March 9 and discussed with 1977 on 11 May 24 on the mockup .

Information about the aircraft and the code name RAM-J appeared in the West in 1977, according to space reconnaissance data (RAM = Ramenskoye (airfield), railway station near the aerodrome of LII). The first production vehicle (T-8-3) was released in Tbilisi in 1978 and made the first flight of 18 on June 1979 (pilot - Yu.A. Egorov). State tests of the aircraft took place (first stage) from March to 30 in May 1980 (completed in December 1980). The production of double Su-XNUMHUB / UT / UTG and single Su-25 was conducted at the aircraft plant in Ulan-Ude. In March, 39 was signed an act of completion of state tests of the aircraft and it is recommended for adoption by the USSR Air Force. In April, the 1981, the aircraft began to arrive in the line units. Since June, 1981 Su-1981 participated in the hostilities in Afghanistan. Officially, the Su-25 was adopted in 25.

6.01.1972, the general view of the T-8 attack aircraft was approved and detailed design started under the guidance of MP Simonov (from August - OS Samoylovich), and from 25.12.1972 - Yu.V. Ivashechkin, who from 6.10.1974 became the head of the topic. In May, 1974 was decided to build two copies of the T-8 aircraft, in December, an experienced attack aircraft was transported to the LII airfield, and on February 22 1975, under the control of V.S. Ilyushin, took off. In June, 1976 was decided to deploy the production of attack aircraft at an aircraft factory in Tbilisi. In March, the tactical and technical requirements for the aircraft were approved by 1977, and the design bureau presented to the customer a draft design of an aircraft with P-95Sh engines, a modified wing and a more advanced aiming and navigation complex.

Officially, the aircraft was handed over to state testing in June 1978, the first flight was made on July 21, and flights under the state testing program began in September (V.Ilyushin, Yu.Egorov). By the beginning of the state tests of the aircraft, the Su-17МЗ refined aim-navigation system was installed, which ensured the use of the most modern guided weapons, including missiles with a laser guidance system. The cannon container was replaced by a double-barreled 30-mm cannon AO-17A (GSH-2-30 series). The pre-production prototype of the first Tbilisi assembly, on which all conceptual solutions of the attack aircraft project were implemented, took off 18 June 1979.

In the winter of 1979-1980. on the T-8-1D, T-8-3 and T-8-4 aircraft, the first state tests were completed. After the successful use of the T-1980-8D and T-1-8 planes in Afghanistan in April-June, the Air Force leadership decided to read this as the second stage of the state test without flight studies of the spin characteristics. The final flights of the test program took place at the Mary airfield in Central Asia, 3 was officially completed, and in March 30.12.1980 was signed a certificate of their termination with the recommendation to put the aircraft into operation. In connection with the failure of some points of the TTZ attack aircraft Su-1981 was adopted in 25.

"3" Aerodynamic design

In terms of its aerodynamic layout, the Su-25 attack aircraft is a plane made according to the normal aerodynamic configuration, with a high wing.

The aerodynamic layout of the aircraft is tuned to obtain optimal performance at subsonic flight speeds.

The wing of the aircraft has a trapezoidal shape in plan, with a sweep angle on the leading edge of 20 degrees, with a constant relative thickness of the profile along the wing span. The wing of the aircraft has a planned projection area 30, 1 m. Square. The angle of the transverse wing V is - 2, 5 degrees.
The selected laws on the swing span and curvature of the profile ensured a favorable development of flow disruption at high angles of attack, which begins near the rear edge of the wing in its middle part, which leads to a significant increase in the moment of a dive and naturally prevents the aircraft from getting into supercritical angles of attack.

The load on the wing is selected from the conditions for ensuring the flight to the ground in a turbulent atmosphere at speeds up to the maximum flight speed.

Since, on the basis of the flight conditions in a turbulent atmosphere, the load on the wing is high enough, then to ensure a high level of take-off and maneuvering characteristics, effective wing mechanization is necessary. For these purposes, the aircraft implemented wing mechanization consisting of retractable slats and two-slot three-section (maneuver-take-landing) flaps.

The increment of the moment from the released wing mechanization, is countered by the rearrangement of the horizontal tail.

Installation at the ends of the wing containers (gondolas), in the tail parts of which are fissile plates, allowed to increase the maximum aerodynamic quality. To do this, the cross-sectional shape of the containers and their installation position relative to the wing have been optimized. The longitudinal sections of the containers are an aerodynamic profile, and the cross sections are oval with compacted upper and lower surfaces. Tests in wind tunnels confirmed the calculations of aerodynamics to obtain when installing containers higher values ​​of maximum aerodynamic quality.

The brake pads installed in the wing containers meet all standard requirements for them - an increase in the resistance of the aircraft no less than twice, and their release does not lead to the rebalancing of the aircraft and the reduction of its load-bearing properties. The brake plates are made fissile, which increased their efficiency by 60%.

The aircraft has a fuselage with lateral unregulated air inlets with an oblique entrance. Lantern with a flat Lobovyk smoothly into the gargrot located on the upper surface of the fuselage. Gargrot in the rear fuselage merges with the tail boom that separates the engine nacelles. The tail boom is a platform for installation of horizontal tail with a rudder and single-fin vertical tail with a rudder. The tail beam ends container parachute brake installation (PTU).

The aerodynamic layout of the Su-25 attack aircraft provides:
1. obtaining high aerodynamic quality in cruising flight and high lift coefficients in takeoff and landing modes, as well as in maneuvering;
2. favorable course of the dependence of the longitudinal moment on the angle of attack, which prevents reaching large supercritical angles of attack and, thereby, increases flight safety;
3. high maneuverability when attacking ground targets;
4. acceptable characteristics of longitudinal stability and controllability in all flight modes;
5. Steady dive mode with an angle of 30 degrees at a speed of 700 km/h.

The high level of aerodynamic quality and bearing properties made it possible to return the aircraft with large damage to the airfield.

The aircraft fuselage has an ellipsoid section, made according to the semi-monocoque scheme. The design of the fuselage is assembled-riveted, with a frame consisting of a longitudinal power set - spars, beams, stringers and transverse power set - frames.

Technologically, the fuselage is divided into the following main parts:
1. head part of the fuselage with a folding toe, a folding part of the canopy, wings of the nose landing gear;
2. the middle part of the fuselage with the wings of the main landing gear (air intakes and wing consoles are attached to the middle part of the fuselage);
3. the tail section of the fuselage, to which the vertical and horizontal tail are attached.
Container brake parachute is the ending of the rear fuselage. The fuselage of the aircraft has no operational connectors.



Su-25 attack aircraft is a fairly highly protected aircraft. The combat survivability systems of the vehicle account for 7,2% of its normal take-off weight, which is as much as 1050 kg. At the same time, vital aircraft systems are shielded by less important systems and duplicated. Particular attention was paid to the development of the protection of critical elements and components of the aircraft - the cockpit and the fuel system. The cockpit is made welded from special aviation titanium armor ABVT-20. The thickness of the armor plates with which the pilot is protected ranges from 10 to 24 mm. Front cockpit glazing provides the pilot with anti-bullet protection and is a special glass block TSK-137 with a thickness of 65 mm. Behind the pilot, the pilot is protected by a steel armorplate with a thickness of 10 mm and an armored headpiece with a thickness of 6 mm. The pilot is almost completely protected from firing from any small arms with a caliber up to 12,7 mm in the most dangerous areas from a barrel weapon with a caliber up to 30 mm.

Su-25 "Rook" or "Flying Tank"


The rescue of the pilot in the event of a critical attack of the attack aircraft is carried out using the K-36L ejection seat. This seat provides the rescue of the pilot at all speeds, modes and altitudes of flight. Immediately before the ejection, the cockpit canopy is reset. The ejection from the aircraft is done manually using 2's control handles, for which the pilot must be pulled with both hands.

"4" power plant

The aircraft has two interchangeable formless turbojet engines P-95, with an unregulated nozzle with a downstream drive box, with autonomous electric starting.

The P-95 is a twin-shaft, single-circuit turbojet aircraft engine, developed in 1979 at the FSUE "Scientific-Production Enterprise" Motor "" under the direction of S. A. Gavrilova,

Key Features:
• Overall dimensions, mm:
• length - 2700
• maximum diameter (without aggregates) - 772
• max. height (without object aggregates) - 1008
• max. width (without object aggregates) - 778
• Dry weight, kg. - 830
Parameters in terrestrial conditions at maximum mode:
• thrust, kgf - 4100
• air consumption, kg/s - 67
• specific fuel consumption, kg/kgf.h - 0,86

The engines are located in the engine compartments on both sides of the tail boom of the aircraft.
Air is supplied to the engines through two cylindrical air channels with oval subsonic unregulated air inlets.

The aircraft engine has an unregulated tapering nozzle located in the tail section of the engine nacelle so that its cut coincides with the engine nacelle cut. Between the outer surface of the nozzle and the inner surface of the engine nacelle there is an annular gap for air to escape through the engine compartment.

The systems that ensure the operation of the power plant of the aircraft include:
• fuel system;
• engine control system;
• engine control devices;
• engine start system;
• engine cooling system;
• fire protection system;
• drainage and breather system.
To ensure the normal operation of the engines and its systems, the drainage system ensures the removal of fuel, oil and slurry overboard after the engines stop or in the event of a failed launch.

The engine management system is designed to change the operating modes of the engines and provides autonomous control of each engine. The system consists of an engine control panel on the left side of the pilot's cabin and cable wiring with rollers that support the cable, tandems regulating the tension of the cables, and gear units in front of the engines.

The engine oil system is of a closed type, autonomous, designed to maintain the normal temperature state of moving parts, reduce wear and reduce friction losses.

The starting system provides autonomous and automatic starting of engines and their output at a steady speed. Starting engines on the ground can be made from the onboard battery or from the airfield power source.

Cooling of engines, assemblies and fuselage design from overheating is provided by the oncoming air flow through cooling air intakes due to high-speed pressure. Air intakes for cooling the engine compartments are located on the upper surface of the engine nacelles. The air which got to them under the influence of a high-speed pressure spreads on engine compartments, cooling the engine, its units and designs. The exhaust cooling air exits through the annular gap formed by the nacelle and engine nozzles.

Electric generators installed on the engines are also cooled by an oncoming air flow due to the velocity head. The air intakes for cooling the generators are installed on the upper surface of the tail boom of the fuselage in front of the keel, in the tail boom the nozzles are divided into left and right pipelines. Having passed the generators and cooled them, the air goes into the engine compartment, mixing with the main cooling air.

"5" Specifications:
Crew: 1 pilot
Length: 15,36 m (with LDPE)
Wingspan: 14,36 m
Height: 4,8 m
Wing area: 30,1 m²
Weight:
- empty: 9 315 kg
- equipped: 11 600 kg
- normal take-off weight: 14 600 kg
- maximum take-off weight: 17 600 kg
- mass armor protection: 595 kg
Powerplant: 2 × TRD R-95Sh

Flight characteristics:
Speed:
- maximum: 950 km / h (with normal. combat load)
- cruising: 750 km / h
- Landing: 210 km / h

Combat radius: 300 km

Practical range at height:
- without PTB: 640 km
- with 4 × PTB-800: 1 250 km

Practical range at the ground:
- without PTB: 495 km
- with 4 × PTB-800: 750 km

Ferrying range: 1 950 km
Ceiling: 7 000 m
Maximum combat use height: 5 000 m

Armament:
One 30-mm double-barreled gun GSH-30-2 in the lower nose with 250 cartridges. Combat load - 4340 kg on 8 (10) suspension units
Normal load - 1340 kg.



"6" Purpose of the aircraft

Su-25 - attack aircraft. The main purpose of attack aircraft is the direct air support of ground forces on the battlefield and in the tactical depth of enemy defenses. The planes were supposed to destroy the tanks, artillery, mortars, other technical means, as well as the enemy's manpower; to oppose the approach to the battlefield of tactical and operational reserves of the enemy, destroy headquarters, communications equipment and field depots, disrupt transportation, destroy planes at airfields and actively fight air transport and bomber aircraft; to sink river and sea vessels, to conduct aerial reconnaissance.

"7" Combat use

The Su-25 used in Afghanistan war (1979-1989), Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988), Abkhaz war (1992-1993), Karabakh war (1991-1994), first and second Chechen wars (1994-1996 and 1999 — 2000), the War in South Ossetia (2008), the War in Ukraine (2014).

The first Su-25 began to arrive in the line units in April 1981 of the year, and since June - serial attack aircraft have been actively working on enemy targets in Afghanistan. The advantage of the new attack aircraft was obvious. Operating at lower speed and altitude, the Su-25 did work that other aircraft could not do. Another proof of the effective operation of the Su-25 is the fact that combat missions often took place with a bomb load exceeding 4000 kg. This plane became a truly unique machine, thanks to which hundreds, and possibly thousands of Soviet soldiers were saved.

In Afghanistan (1979-1989gg.) For 8 years, starting in April 1981, Su-25 has confirmed high combat effectiveness and survivability. According to the OKB. P.O. Sukhoi made about 60 thousand combat missions, launched 139 guided missiles, of which 137 hit targets, and a huge number of unguided missiles were launched. Losses amounted to 23 aircraft, with an average flight time for each of them 2800 hours. Downed Su-25 had, on average, 80-90 combat damage, there were cases of the return of the aircraft to the base with 150 holes. According to this indicator, it significantly surpassed other Soviet planes used in Afghanistan and American planes of the Vietnam War. Over the entire period of hostilities, there were no cases of fuel tanks exploding and loss of attack aircraft due to the death of the pilot.

However, the present baptism in modern history within the Russian borders took Su-25 during the first Chechen campaign, when it was necessary to work not only in mountain conditions, but also in terms of settlements. There were cases when using a precision-guided laser-guided weapon, the Su-25 was working on a target within the limits of a single taken area at a household. Also, a pair of attack aircraft distinguished themselves in the liquidation of the CRI leader Dzhokhar Dudayev, who were guided onto the target by the radar reconnaissance A-50. In consequence, it was in the Caucasus that the effectiveness of the Su-25 and its modification was often the key to successful completion of the task and the loss of the land group without loss.

It is also worth noting that, despite its venerable age, the Su-25 successfully worked during the recent "Ossetian-Georgian" conflict, when Russian pilots successfully coped with the ground targets of the enemy and only three out of ten boards were shot down from the Buk air defense system. , which Georgia provided Ukraine. It was during this period in the network appeared a photo of one of the sides of the Su-25, which flew to the airbase with a torn right engine. Flew, and without any problems, on one engine.



8 Manufacturing and Modifications

Su-25 was serially produced from 1977 of the year to 1991 of the year. Existed and there is a huge number of modifications of the legendary aircraft.


With the 1986 of the year, the production of the Sparky Su-25UB, a combat training two-seater aircraft, began at the plant in Ulan-Ude. Apart from adding the second pilot seat, the aircraft is almost completely identical to the classic attack aircraft and can be used both for training and for combat operations.



The most modern modification of the Su-25SM serial attack aircraft differs from the “original source” with a more modern complex of onboard electronic equipment and the presence of more modern weapons.



The project of the carrier-based attack aircraft with a catapult take-off Su-25K did not go beyond the project stage (due to the lack of Russian aircraft carriers with catapults), but several deck-based training aircraft Su-25UTG designed to be based on the Admiral aircraft cruiser were released fleet Kuznetsov ”with a springboard take-off. The plane turned out to be so successful that it serves as the main training aircraft for training pilots on deck aviation.



The most interesting and complex modification is the Su-25T anti-tank aircraft, the decision to create which was made back in the 1975 year. The main problem in the development of this aircraft was the creation of airborne electronic equipment (avionics) for detecting, tracking and pointing missiles at armored targets. The basis of the aircraft was taken glider double training aircraft Su-25UB, all the space reserved for the co-pilot, took a new avionics. It was also necessary to move the cannon into the cabin compartment, to expand and extend the nose, where the Squall daytime optical sighting system was located to control the firing of the Whirlwind supersonic missiles. Despite the significant increase in internal volume, there was no room for a thermal imaging system in the new machine. Therefore, the night vision system “Mercury” was mounted in the outboard container under the fuselage at the sixth point of the suspension.



"9" The future of the Su-25

In terms of replacement, currently worthy alternatives to the Su-25 is not yet represented. The assault aircraft niche is so unique that it is difficult to create something more suitable for it than this attack aircraft. The Ministry of Defense said that, of course, projects that are preparing to replace the Su-25, exist, but their use is still premature. "The possibilities of attack aircraft in Russia have not yet been exhausted," - said the Ministry of Defense. “At the moment there is no need to immediately replace the Su-25 with another type of lethal apparatus. The advantage will be achieved through a deep modernization of the Su-25, both in terms of retrofitting the aircraft itself, and in terms of the weapons used in it. In particular, technologies that operate on the principle of “shot-and-forget” will be introduced.

Creating the Su-25, the designers saw in advance in it a huge potential for modernization. Unique in its survivability of the aircraft, today is the main fighting machine of direct support for the troops.

The main attack aircraft of the Russian air force Su-25 will be upgraded in the near future. It is planned to retool all available aircraft of this type in accordance with the modification of the Su-25CM. In addition to finalizing all attack aircraft will be overhauled, which will extend their life by 15-20 years.




Primary Sources:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D1%F3-25
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/attack/su25.html
http://worldweapon.ru/sam/su25.php
http://www.zelezki.ru/aviacatalog/russia/3193-shturmovik_su-25.html
http://kollektsiya.ru/samoleti/121-s...hturmovik.html
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

43 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +12
    15 December 2014 07: 34
    It’s a meaningful article, but the main thing, no matter what the 5th generation plane was. It is possible to strike both air and ground targets. But the Su-25 is the best in its class without a stormtrooper.
  2. +12
    15 December 2014 08: 20
    the plane is a legend, but it’s worth considering its use in Ukraine, it proved to be not so hot there, I hope this is due to the low qualification of the kelopelotaf.
    1. +15
      15 December 2014 09: 57
      Low qualification and no tactics of use is by itself. But there is one more nuance. Still, the IR visibility of the Su-25 is quite large - the old single-circuit (i.e., hot) engines, and even the nozzles are directed not a few degrees downward. Later, according to the experience of the war, they began to reduce the infrared signature. But for the yellow-black, I think, there were only non-modernized dryers.
      1. +4
        15 December 2014 11: 10
        I agree with your statement, and therefore I would like to clarify the issue for myself.
        I watched Pogosyan’s interview, and there he talked about the development of flat nozzles for the su-27 line, and so he said that the flat nozzle significantly reduces thermal radiation, why, when upgrading the su-25, this is not applied because for 25 it is a serious question.
        1. +4
          15 December 2014 12: 12
          It is unlikely that this is possible with the modernization of a production car. Here's what they write on the airborne about the R-195 (Su-25T)
          A distinctive feature of the R-195 engine from the R-95Sh is a nozzle with reduced infrared radiation. The nozzle is equipped with a central body, which is cooled by blowing through it atmospheric air supplied by an air intake mounted on the rear of the engine nacelle. Between the outer surface of the nozzle and the inner surface of the engine nacelle there is an annular gap for the exit of air blown through the motor compartment. When installing an engine on an airplane, it is interchangeable with R-95Sh
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. +5
            15 December 2014 12: 47
            Perhaps the Su 25 isn’t the most modern engines, but it can withstand a direct hit by a 23-millimeter projectile and remains operational with many less serious combat damage.
            And after serving in the army they can still come in handy in civilian life.
            An unusual thermal power station is operating in Pavlovsky Posad, Moscow Region, which provides electricity and hot water to several microdistricts of the city.
            The energy at this TPP is generated by two engines from the Su-25 good
            The power unit has become gas. Two such plants spin the generator shafts - 16 megawatts of electricity are produced at the output. The exhaust gases do not escape into the atmosphere, but heat the boiler.
      2. +3
        15 December 2014 13: 51
        single-circuit (i.e., hot) engines, and even nozzles are directed several degrees down


        You know, in the early 80s I was waiting for our answer to the American A-10. In addition, there are 2 spaced bypass engines, the jet is screened from below by a horizontal tail, with side-vertical "washers". It would seem to be the standard of an attack aircraft. And ours relied on high speed. It is not clear, but there is nothing to compare with. The survivability of the A-10 is difficult to assess, the Americans and ours did not fight with an equal enemy with a serious air defense of the ground forces.
        1. +1
          18 December 2014 01: 22
          Quote: dauria
          ... And our bet on high speed .....

          The layout of the engines as in the Su-25 has its advantages:
          located in the center of mass of the aircraft, which means the aircraft is less inertial in any maneuver,
          are compactly located therefore less protection is required to cover the engines themselves and the tank.
          engines are located close to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft, so the failure of one of them has little effect on the controllability of the aircraft
        2. Kassandra
          0
          18 December 2014 03: 26
          Su-25 is better. and survivability and LTH.
          A-10 didn’t really fight in Iraq at all - only Apaches in 2nd and Harriers in 1st
          there, unlike Afghanistan, there was just a relatively serious air defense
          Su-25 fought a lot where. this is not an answer to the A-10, this is a transonic plane
          the A-10 has the highest achievable speed as a piston-gun of the Second World War.
  3. +8
    15 December 2014 08: 50
    Explicit article, thanks to the author!
    1. +3
      15 December 2014 12: 18
      Quote: Gray 43
      Explicit article, thanks to the author!

      I agree, but I’ll turn it around a bit. It seems that several people wrote the article.
      "In March 1968 g. Senior Lecturer, Air Force Academy NOT. Zhukovsky I. Savchenko invited the specialists of the P.O. Sukhoi Design Bureau to jointly develop a project for a new aircraft to support the ground forces. "And in the next paragraph:
      "The development of a preliminary design of an aircraft for direct support of troops over the battlefield of the SPB (" Aircraft of the Battlefield ") was initiated by Lecturer of the Air Force Academy named after ..Yu.A. Gagarin, I.V.Savchenko and employees of the Design Bureau of P.O.Sukhoi, O.S. Samoilovich, D.N. Gorbachev, V.M. Lebedev, Yu.V. Ivashechkin and A. Monakhov in March 1968 "
  4. +1
    15 December 2014 10: 23
    Taking a Su-25 wounded by a Buk as an example: the damage was serious, but the glider did not collapse, the question is - could the Buk shoot down a huge Boeing with one missile?
    1. +10
      15 December 2014 10: 43
      You are comparing incomparable things. Safety margin and constructive protection of the battlefield aircraft and civilian liner. In addition, the SAM does not hit directly by a fragmentation field, but the real effect depends very much on the relative position of the aircraft and the rocket at the time of the explosion. So in this case too, the compact and maneuverable attack aircraft will suffer much less than the carcass of a civilian airliner.
      1. +1
        15 December 2014 11: 59
        Exactly, could a rocket of this class instantly destroy a huge airliner, so much so that they wouldn't even have time to transmit anything to the ground? To cause fatal injuries - for sure (for which these missiles were created), to destroy it almost instantly - is something doubtful.
        1. LMaksim
          +1
          15 December 2014 22: 42
          Rumor has it that enough depressurization of the cabin, so that everyone faints. And on the details of the cabin liners were found traces of bullets or shells. It is possible that first shot the cockpit, and then finished off the plane with a rocket. The beeches in this story aimed at the target of the Su-25 and possibly insured the plane. Experts say that after the Buk missile is launched, its trace remains, but no one has seen this trace. The use of the Su-25 is also not accidental, one can always say that the militia was shot down by its attack aircraft, which they captured. In general, it seems to the state scheme that they themselves are damaging and blaming others. And I'm proud of the guys from the militia, doing everything they can.
        2. 0
          16 December 2014 15: 27
          There is such a thing as "explosive decompression" - and unlike combat vehicles, civilian pilots do not wear oxygen masks. And one more aspect - if the destruction of the skin and the power set was serious enough, then that very explosive decompression will finish the rest - the fuselage will collapse from the inside like a punctured balloon.
    2. +8
      15 December 2014 10: 54
      The SU was wounded clearly not by beech, but rather by MANPADS, whose rocket flew into the engine. SU-25 is certainly strong, but the beech would tear it to shreds, like a Boeing.
      1. +2
        15 December 2014 11: 56
        It is Buk that appears in the article, but there is little demand from journalists.
  5. +1
    15 December 2014 10: 48
    From the development timeline, it is clear that the aircraft was made on a leftover principle, alas, there was always and everywhere such an attitude towards attack aircraft, although these machines perform the lion's share of aviation tasks to support troops, and not only here. In the USA, their A-10 Thunderbolt II was made in the same way for the rest of the money and not in a hurry .. I’m wondering if it would have turned out to be a "rook" if at least half of the money was spent on it that was used in the Mig27 or Su17 .. the problem of saturating enemy troops with modern MANPADS (now everyone has them), even with the appearance of "stingers" in Afghanistan, the losses of the Su25 increased by an order of magnitude sharply limiting the use of aviation, forcing them to change tactics and go to great heights, thereby reducing the effectiveness of aircraft and helicopter weapons. and now it is necessary to decide how to deal with this problem, otherwise the attack aircraft turns into an easy target, raising the question of its expediency. I think that the designers will be able to adequately answer the next challenge in the competition of armor and projectile.
  6. +2
    15 December 2014 10: 53
    There are a lot of possibilities for modernization! Modern small-sized electronics consume less energy. But little has been written about the unique maneuverability of the device - only one turn "around the tail" is worth it in a combat situation.
  7. +2
    15 December 2014 10: 57
    Article: + !!! Excellent illustrated !!!!
  8. pahom54
    0
    15 December 2014 11: 14
    And the article is good, and the plane is magnificent.
    Just the first time I saw today that he had a GSh-30-2 gun with an ammunition load of 250 rounds, and I thought ... When I was in urgent service in 71-73, I was an aircraft mechanic for armament, so even then the GSh-23 had a rate of fire crazy (I don’t remember the number already). And now, on a more modern GSH-30-2, the rate of fire should still increase, and it turns out that if the pilot forgets to transfer the launcher to short bursts in battle, then with the click of a button he will release all 250 rounds ...
    Question: and then he needs a gun? In practice, it’s an extra headache for the pilot, or, like in a yard fight, a stone or a pig in your pocket just in case ...
  9. +16
    15 December 2014 11: 49
    Well, a clip in the subject, suddenly who did not see
  10. +3
    15 December 2014 12: 12
    During the war in Afghanistan, there were real legends about the Su-25 attack aircraft, as it was incredibly difficult to shoot down this Soviet attack aircraft. Thanks to the “roar” Alexander Rutskoi, the Hero of the Soviet Union and the future Vice-President of Russia, was able to go back from one of his combat missions in Afghanistan. After the landing, the technicians counted on the attack aircraft such a number of damages, in which no other aircraft in the world could simply return to the airfield.
    1. 0
      15 December 2014 23: 07
      IL 2! Flying tank of the Second World War.
    2. +1
      15 December 2014 23: 07
      IL 2! Flying tank of the Second World War.
  11. +5
    15 December 2014 12: 23
    And where did the Su-39, comrades? It seemed promising was the continuation of 25 ..
    1. +2
      15 December 2014 15: 05
      Quote: Lance
      And where did the Su-39, comrades? It seemed promising was the continuation of 25 ..

      There, where we have everything else in the 90s delhi ...
      The bagpipe has been going on for 20 years, recently some of the planes in the SM have been modernized, in principle, they differ from the TM (39th) only in the location of the radar station. But in fact the modernization turned out to be not quite as promised.
  12. +1
    15 December 2014 12: 47
    The article is informative and interesting. The aircraft is good, reliable and still in demand by the troops, although almost 35 years have passed since its first flight.
    The concept of combat use was chosen correctly and the potential for modernization has not been exhausted.
  13. +1
    15 December 2014 13: 09
    Give the Rooks the Sky! Beautiful aircraft, best in class! I always wanted to see him on a live flight, I saw many, but unfortunately he didn’t (
    1. Petrovi42202
      +1
      15 December 2014 21: 05
      And I saw them. hi We have in Perm a fighter aviation regiment, in which the MIG-31. What is there, the Su-25 did not understand me. But one thing I saw for sure (several times) was how they land. The speed is higher than that of the MIG-31. And they make less noise, and much more. I saw how they entered a bend at an altitude of 250-300 meters. Then I got the impression of the Su-25 as a nimble typewriter. I really took my breath away when they made turns in two. It was in November this year. Still puzzling: what did they do with us? request
  14. +2
    15 December 2014 13: 18
    Indeed, after all, the Su-39 was planned for replacement. Or change your mind
    1. slon82
      0
      15 December 2014 14: 36
      Su-39 is a modernization based on a flurry system. Aircraft with the SM index can perform the same tasks as the SU-39. In my opinion, there is no point in modernization without equipping a good hanging container. Today it is not.
      1. +2
        15 December 2014 15: 07
        Quote: slon82
        In my opinion, there is no point in modernization without equipping a good hanging container

        Well, there is a container. Mercury. Regarding how good it is, it's an amateur))
  15. +2
    15 December 2014 15: 35
    Su-25T, based on the Su-25UB, the rear cockpit was occupied by the instrument compartment. "Mercury" - a night vision station, proved to be not very reliable in tests. State tests of the Su-25T were carried out in the period from 1987 to 1993. The start of flights under the GI program was carried out in parallel with the unfinished LCI. The tests involved, among other things, aircraft manufactured by TAPO im. Dimitrov, later transferred from Akhtubinsk to 4CBP in Lipetsk.
    A further development of the Su-25T was the Su-25TM (Su-39) with a Kopye radar suspended container and a more expanded assortment of ASPs compared to the Su-25T. Despite all the efforts of the Chief Designer of the Sukhoi Design Bureau Vladimir Petrovich Babak, these aircraft did not go into production, although, as far as I know, the Su-25T with Lipetsk pilots were noted during the Chechen events.
  16. 0
    15 December 2014 15: 43
    A wonderful aircraft that fully meets the combat tasks for which it is intended. Electronics radically updated and boldly into battle in the 21 century
    1. +3
      15 December 2014 18: 57
      Oh, and I'll tell you that this "papelats" can be called outstanding only according to the criterion of "inadequacy / luck" to a large extent this is ensured by its low cost, and not at all by its efficiency. Judge for yourself, the car was conceived like a TCB, but it turned out to be quite expensive and preferred the L-39. Reincarnation-competition "Army Aviation aircraft" the basis of army aviation, tasks; work from the ground in isolation from permanent bases, bombing strikes in simple MU from a loitering position. Work from the ground Su-25 never learned, loitering is also not his element, and in piloting the car was not as easy as we would like, however, as well as in maintenance. In fact, the competition ended with nothing. And the concept of AA itself has undergone significant changes due to both the professionalism of our commanders and the need for structural changes in the army. If it were not for Afghanistan, the car would again "lay under the cloth." It is worth mentioning that the military "dreamed" of a modification of the Il-28 (at that time, it showed itself most successfully in the DRA), but the insufficient number of sides available, their condition, did not Opportunities. And the organization of a series of machines "with a beard" was not advisable. That's when the Ilyushin Design Bureau proposed its "applicant" for the AA competition (Il-102). And as soon as this "skeleton in the closet" (AA plane competition) was touched, everyone The IL-102 quickly went into the shadows, but the MAP quickly presented the T-8, it was necessary to load the Tbilisi ASZ with something (they would not have pulled it). The Council of Ministers liked the price of the G24 very much (they were still "shaking" after two successively past epics (first Su-27, then Su-38) .In the Ministry of Defense, there was a twofold situation, on the one hand, there was an opportunity to quickly get the necessary aircraft, on the other, there were questions about its effectiveness (taking into account the MGH features of domestic ASPs, complex equipment, including WTO, quite reasonable) .Thus, there were preconditions for proving yak machine in real combat conditions - Operation "Rhombus". By the way, the "safety option" was the Yak-25. The operational characteristics were recognized as good, the car was hastily prepared for a series, the remarks of many officers at the Air Force headquarters that a subsonic machine with a rather low thrust-weight ratio would be very vulnerable when working in air defense zones, the answer was, "which air defense zones, you are fighting with the basmachi, and not with the army." - Despite the enthusiastic oaths of the public, the survivability of the Su-25 was always considered insufficient, which led to an increase in the mass of armor on the aircraft from the series to the series. And after the collapse of the Union and individual boards passing through the SR. Accordingly, reducing the payload. Every year, more and more claims were caused by the PrK, or rather its absence. With the collapse of the Union and the IBA, we voluntarily had to create a structure similar to it in purpose but cheaper for operation (it became the SHA) and there was simply no other twin-engine strike vehicle except the Su-24 (the Su-17 does not count as its operation is several times more expensive than the Su-25). -XNUMX tasks of a full-fledged attack aircraft? initially no. We need a new, fundamentally different car.
      1. 0
        16 December 2014 19: 02
        Dear Argon!
        I will allow you to disagree with you in the assessment of the Su-25. No need to come up with some unknown new criteria for evaluating it. The subject “Probabilistic methods for assessing reliability and combat effectiveness" is being studied at military universities. I explain in general terms that the coefficient Kef.iak is used to assess the effectiveness of the fighter aircraft complex (IAC) or, more simply, a single front-line fighter.
        Kef.iak = Kd + Kp / Sz, where
        Cd - a coefficient that determines the ability of an aircraft to conduct a duel battle;
        Kp - coefficient determining the ability of an aircraft to intercept a group of air targets;
        Cd = ∑ LH;
        Kp = ∑ PS + CO + RB, where:
        LH - flight characteristics of the aircraft (engine thrust, take-off weight, maximum speed, rate of climb, bend radius, practical ceiling, flight range);
        PS - characteristics of the aiming system (sighting and navigation system);
        СО - characteristics of the weapon system (airborne weapons complex);
        RB - ammunition size;
        Sz - the totality of costs;
        Cs = Cn + Cp + Ce, where
        Cn - the cost of production (price of a serial sample);
        Ср - development cost (R&D expenses);

        Се - the cost of operation (the costs of repair and restoration in the troops, which determine the survivability of the machine);
        To evaluate the effectiveness of the fighter aviation group or, more simply, the unit, squadron, the coefficient Kef.iag is used.
        Kef.iag - = T ef + Tpv + Vb + Vpvo / Sz, where,
        Teff. - the number of departures per unit time;
        T pv - time to prepare for the second flight;
        Wb - survival at the bases (coefficient of the state of the airfield);
        VPVO - survival rate in the enemy’s air defense coverage area (target saturation coefficient by air defense means)
        A similar system of indicators is used to assess the combat effectiveness of attack and reconnaissance aircraft, combat helicopters, etc.
        The combat effectiveness of an aircraft depends not only on its technical characteristics, but also on the characteristics of the enemy’s aircraft, their tactics and the conditions for conducting a military operation, determined by K vp - the coefficient of the likely enemy. The calculations usually take the flight characteristics of the aircraft and the tactics of the parties the same.
        From the point of view of mathematics, the smaller the denominator, the higher the coefficient of combat effectiveness of the machine when performing a specific combat mission.
        We leave to the conscience of the designers and economists Sp and Wed, of course, the bigger they are, the worse, but neither the pilot nor the technician know about this. Their task, in particular, is to reduce Se as much as possible. Here it is necessary to talk about the possibilities inherent in the design of the machine. In this regard, the Su-25 and today compares favorably with the rest of the battlefield machines. Strong, reliable, unpretentious - it is recognized by all. Initially, it was designed specifically as an attack aircraft, and not the TCB, and the famous Elka (L-39) had nothing to do with it.
        Using statistical data, modes of logic and a mathematical apparatus, even if very primitive, we can conclude about the effectiveness of the aircraft and even a whole kind of troops (for example, IBA), taking into account that the totality of costs is higher, the more complicated both the plane itself and the equipment, weapons, etc. used on it etc. The higher the complexity of the system, the higher the likelihood of failures, the larger and more complex the composition of the equipment used in preparation for the departure, the higher the number and qualification of staff.
        In this sense, the design of the Su-25 attack aircraft is optimal and there are reserves for modernization. Today, the SU-25 is significantly superior in combat effectiveness to Rafal and Mirage-2000. Changes should affect, first of all, the avionics complex and armament, and increase the crew’s security. introducing modern materials and technologies into production, etc. etc.
  17. +1
    15 December 2014 17: 09
    Rook is good, but an IL-102 would be a better alternative.
    1. Kassandra
      0
      17 December 2014 11: 23
      By the way, why is this article about the Su-25 again 7000? Bandera wrote?
      the article on the wiki in Russian has been redone so that you just can’t fix it there anymore ...
  18. slon82
    0
    15 December 2014 17: 30
    Quote: Odyssey
    Quote: slon82
    In my opinion, there is no point in modernization without equipping a good hanging container

    Well, there is a container. Mercury. Regarding how good it is, it's an amateur))

    Well, he is not a sniper scope as it should be, he read somewhere that he sees the target poorly at night. Therefore, consider that it is not. What stupid person set a minus?
    1. +1
      16 December 2014 03: 08
      Quote: slon82
      Therefore, consider that it is not.

      Well, sorry, there is no other yet.
      Quote: slon82
      What stupid person set a minus?

      I do not know, compensated by a plus smile
    2. 0
      17 December 2014 15: 20
      Mercury during the tests proved to be unreliable. You need certain lighting conditions (such as a starry moonlit night). Plus "blind" in bright flashes.
      And about 7000 m. Due to the leaky cabin (Su-25), a tight cabin was provided for the Su-25T (TM). Although on the first copies it was leaky. But, if it is necessary to take characteristics at altitudes of more than 7000 (up to 10000m), a technique was developed by the Institute of Aviation and Space Medicine. Half an hour before departure, the pilot got into the cockpit and breathed pure oxygen. Breathing while flying with pure oxygen. Flights no more than three times a week.
      And then, it is worth taking into account such a moment as the forced depressurization of the cabin when entering the zone of possible damage, in order to avoid explosive decompression.
      About the control of the aircraft. An ACS was installed on the Su-25T (TM). True, they tinkered a lot with her.
      1. Kassandra
        0
        18 December 2014 01: 29
        high-altitude suit (spacesuit) dresses and all matters.
  19. slon82
    0
    15 December 2014 17: 30
    Quote: Odyssey
    Quote: slon82
    In my opinion, there is no point in modernization without equipping a good hanging container

    Well, there is a container. Mercury. Regarding how good it is, it's an amateur))

    Well, he is not a sniper scope as it should be, he read somewhere that he sees the target poorly at night. Therefore, consider that it is not. What stupid person set a minus?
  20. 0
    15 December 2014 19: 32
    Deeply and fully described "Rook"! Thanks to the author. He probably fought on a par with the US A-10A. They are classmates, but ours is BETTER wink
    1. 0
      16 December 2014 05: 18
      The most common misconception, the A-10 is a specialized "anti-tank" with
      Amoleth. He was engaged in direct support of the infantry only in Afghanistan, but if I am not mistaken, this is another modification not "A".
  21. -1
    15 December 2014 19: 47
    Quote: Gray 43
    Explicit article, thanks to the author!

    Sukhov’s attack aircraft is magnificent. And according to the article, to the Author + (I’ll turn a bit, 65 or 55mm bulletproof glass. / In the picture /. hi
  22. +3
    15 December 2014 20: 58
    Samoilovich's book "Near Sukhoi" interestingly describes the situation with the establishment of production of the Su-25 in Tbilisi. When the design bureau began to accuse the plant of non-compliance with the technology when assembling the attack aircraft, Shevardnadze raised a whole whirlwind, they say, this is an "ideological undermining" against the Georgian proletariat. The first planes were assembled with such violations that they spontaneously turned over in flight and the pilots were afraid to fly.
    Samoilovich was amazed by the small number of personnel in the shops, and this was in the midst of the launch of a new aircraft into series. In response, it sounded that the Georgians are massively "on vacation" to harvest grapes on their own plantings, and if they are not released, then they will almost all quit.
    Such is the southern flavor.
  23. 0
    15 December 2014 21: 00
    Quote: foma2028
    Samoilovich's book "Near Sukhoi" interestingly describes the situation with the establishment of production of the Su-25 in Tbilisi. When the design bureau began to accuse the plant of non-compliance with the technology when assembling the attack aircraft, Shevardnadze raised a whole whirlwind, they say, this is an "ideological undermining" against the Georgian proletariat. The first planes were assembled with such violations that they spontaneously turned over in flight and the pilots were afraid to fly.
    Samoilovich was amazed by the small number of personnel in the shops, and this was in the midst of the launch of a new aircraft into series. In response, it was sounded that Georgians are massively "on vacation" to harvest grapes on their personal plantings, and if they are not released, then they will almost all quit.
    Such is the southern flavor.
  24. TECHNOLOGY
    +1
    15 December 2014 22: 35
    Great article. Thanks to the author!
  25. 0
    18 December 2014 10: 47
    In the mid-90s, I had a chance to watch the performance of the aerobatic pilots on the su25 - they were called "Heavenly Hussars" The passages were made about 30 meters ... Then I almost fell into the caponier! Great respect to all attack aircraft!
  26. 0
    18 December 2014 16: 36
    Quote: max702
    It can be seen from the development timeline that the aircraft was made on a residual basis, alas, the attitude toward attack aircraft was always and everywhere, although these aircraft fulfill the lion's share of the tasks of aviation in supporting troops, and not only here.

    These same aircraft have the highest percentage of combat losses, and therefore there is no point in making them super expensive and sophisticated, since neither super-sophisticated expensive electronics nor stealth coverage will save the aircraft from the ZSU or DShK of any bearded rebel. Therefore, aircraft of this class should be cheap and it should be possible to produce them in large quantities.
    1. Kassandra
      0
      18 December 2014 17: 13
      DShK just does not take it, ZSU - not any, only class CIWS c cal more than 20mm
      1. 0
        18 December 2014 22: 15
        In the first Chechen one of the Su-25s was shot down precisely by fire from the DShK - bullets pierced the unarmored side glass of the cockpit lantern. This, of course, is an exceptional case, but still it happens:
        On May 5, a pair of Su-25s made a patrol flight in the area of ​​the village of Benoy. The planes were flying at low altitude. When the leader, Major Vladimir Sarabeev, rounded the rocky ridge rising in his path, suddenly from the flank, from the slope of the mountain, the DShK hit. The stormtrooper slid down and, a moment later, exploded on impact on the ground. Subsequently, it was found that the bullets pierced the unarmored side glass of the lantern and the pilot died in the air. "Vyacheslav Kondratyev. Terrible sky over Chechnya"
        1. Kassandra
          0
          19 December 2014 01: 03
          side windows are almost always armored. this is done to protect against rupture of shells with a radio fuse.
  27. 0
    19 December 2014 15: 49
    It is an exciting sight when sparks of rooks go from behind the clouds to a combat sunset and bomb the mountain ....
    1. Kassandra
      0
      20 December 2014 03: 15
      yes, especially when you sit there ...

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"