Military Review

Su-25SM: the second youth of "Rook"

107
Su-25CM attack aircraft (according to Frogfoot's NATO codification, “frog's foot”) is a modernized version of the Su-25 single-seat attack aircraft. The car features an updated avionics, the addition of an indicator on the windshield and a multi-function display in the cockpit. Since 30 September 2015, the Su-25CM aircraft have been flown against terrorist formations in Syria, acting as part of the mixed air group of the Russian Aerospace Force.


Design work on the Su-25 attack aircraft began in the Sukhoi Design Bureau as far back as 1968. The new combat vehicle was originally designed to support the troops directly above the battlefield and was designed as the ultimate, simple to maintain and operate subsonic jet aircraft with high maneuverability and increased survivability. State tests of the aircraft were conducted from 1978 year. The Su-25 attack aircraft were manufactured at the aviation plant in Tbilisi, the first production aircraft was flown around 18 June 1979 by the test pilot of the Sukhoi Design Bureau Yu. A. Egorov.

A distinctive feature of the new attack aircraft, which was designed to act directly over the battlefield, in areas saturated with air defense weapons, was increased combat survivability. In order to provide it with designers, a whole range of various activities were carried out: a plane cabin reservation appeared on the plane, the explosion safety of the fuel tanks was ensured by filling them with polyurethane foam, retrofitting, and so on. Before being introduced into the design of the aircraft, all these measures were adequately worked out at the stands at the Design Bureau, and later were able to fully confirm their effectiveness during the operation of the attack aircraft during the hostilities in Afghanistan.



Naturally, the aircraft development is still 1970-s difficult to attribute to modern machines. By the beginning of the XXI century, the attack aircraft, despite its phenomenal survivability, which was confirmed by combat exploitation, was outdated. First of all, the composition of the onboard radio-electronic equipment and the impossibility of using high-precision weapons. It was these problems that were solved when upgrading the attack aircraft to the Su-25CM version.

At Sukhoi Design Bureau, a program to upgrade the Su-25 aircraft, which were in the arsenal of the Russian Air Force, to the Su-25SM version began in 2001. The flight of the first modernized aircraft took place on March 5, 2002; it was performed by test pilot of the design bureau I. E. Soloviev. The lead enterprise in organizing this program was the 121st aircraft repair plant of the Ministry of Defense in the city of Kubinka. At the same time, work on modernization of attack aircraft was carried out under the guidance and in cooperation with OKB. Currently JSC “121 aviation Repair Plant ”is the largest enterprise for the modernization and repair of not only front-line aircraft, but also aircraft engines. The company is one of the leaders in the field of aircraft repair in Russia. Modernization with simultaneous repair of Su-25 attack aircraft into the Su-25SM variant is a priority for the 121st ARZ. As part of the modernization, the aircraft receives fundamentally new qualities. Almost at the plant in Kubinka, a new aircraft is being created, even the center section of the attack aircraft is partially riveted. At the same time, such an attack aircraft costs the military cheaper than a new machine that would have been produced at an aircraft factory. And although the plant is engaged in repairing aircraft around the world, only aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Forces are being upgraded here.

The Su-25CM attack aircraft was to become a relatively inexpensive, reproducible aircraft, designed for a mass wartime pilot. For this reason, one of the tasks in the modernization of the machine was to reduce the cost of its implementation, as well as the retraining of pilots and technicians. In particular, unlike most foreign tactical aircraft, the Su-25CM received not two, but one MFC. As studies have shown, this decision is quite justified.



The upgraded Su-25CM attack aircraft (T-8CM) was created for operation in difficult weather conditions that are typical for Eastern and Central Europe, when up to 75% of days a year the lower edge of cloudiness can be at an altitude of less than 400 meters. This means that the working height of the bombing should be 200-300 meters. At the same time, the ammunition was to be dropped by the pilot from both horizontal flight and from complex maneuvers with ensuring high accuracy of hitting the target. The first 4 prototype Su-25CM aircraft were upgraded at the 121 aircraft repair plant in 2002-2004. Already in 2005, the state flight tests of the new machine were completed. The 2006 year was scheduled for the conduct of SLI - special flight tests. The aircraft successfully passed them, after which it was recommended for carrying out serial modernization. As it turned out later, on the modernization of the first stage, as the Su-25CM. In the summer of 2007, two of the first four modernized aircraft were transferred to the military in Lipetsk, the center of combat use and retraining of flight personnel (tail numbers - 19 red and 87 red).

Developers in the process of upgrading attack aircraft almost completely updated avionics. At the same time on the plane from the old avionics remained almost only a laser sight-rangefinder "Klen-PS", which in the future is planned to change to a modernized version, which has greater accuracy and power. At the same time, the attack aircraft glider did not change and was completely preserved from the original Su-25. Thus, in the design of the already existing fuselage of the aircraft, which retained its original configuration, the updated equipment was successfully inscribed - radio electronic units and systems, electrical harnesses.

In the process of upgrading the car, it was decided not to touch the power plant - two TR-R-95Sh with each 4100 kgf each, which had previously proved to the military its durability and reliability. In addition, we took into account the fact that the aircraft engines had a reserve for increasing the resource. At the same time, on engines Su-25CM, by analogy with the variant Su-25T, a revision was made related to surging. This innovation allowed to expand the allowable use of weapons regardless of the flight modes of attack aircraft. After completion of the power plant under the electronic rotary stall alarm system (ESWS), the engines received a new index P-95 индекс letter SM. During the overhaul of the attack aircraft instead of the P-95Sh engines, it is also possible to install the P-195 engine.



The transition of the attack aircraft to the new avionics allowed to save approximately 300 kg only on the onboard equipment. Thanks to this, it was possible to transfer from the tail section of the aircraft, which is most vulnerable when firing rockets or MANPADS with thermal homing heads, a number of important blocks into a much more secure nose of the aircraft. There were also a number of improvements related to the increase in combat survivability of the attack aircraft. Some of these improvements have already been partially implemented on the latest series of Su-25. It is worth noting that, in order to carry out modernization, on the 121-th ARZ, first of all, airplanes of a later model year (10-series, which was produced from 1987) are transmitted, possessing still a rather high undeveloped resource, on which a number of improvements in areas of combat survivability. At the same time, as part of the modernization, the mass of the empty aircraft practically did not change.

The combat capabilities of the attack aircraft were significantly enhanced by the use of the new PrNK-25CM (56CM) Bars, specifically designed for this aircraft, on it. The complex included a digital computer, as well as information display and processing systems, near and satellite navigation, an electronic reconnaissance station, an automatic radio compass, an aircraft transponder, a digital-analog weapon control system, an on-board “Karat -B-25 "and some other systems.

On Su-25CM attack aircraft, the L-150 “Pastel” - radar warning warning station is mounted. In the nose of the aircraft was installed laser station for illumination and distance measurement "Klen-PS", which provides guidance to the target SD with laser homing heads. At the same time, aircraft upgraded from the 2013 of the year (in the Su-25CM3 version) also receive the newest EW station Vitebsk-25 and can also use an expanded range of guided weapons, in particular, adjustable laser and television guided bombs. The number of upgraded Su-25 in the structure of the Russian Aerospace System by 2020 should exceed 130 units. In this case, the simple Su-25 and the already upgraded Su-3CM will be upgraded to the Su-25СМ25 version.



The cabin of the upgraded attack aircraft was equipped with one multifunctional color indicator (MPCI), which can be displayed cartographic, flight, tactical or sighting information. In particular, information on the current location of the front line, the location and areas of the detected enemy air defense systems and other information can be projected against the background of a digital geographical map of the area. Instead of an aviation small sight АСП-17БЦ-8 (for the pilot, the main working tool when making an attack), a wide-angle indicator on the windshield (ILS) was installed on the Su-25CM attack aircraft. This indicator received a cathode-ray tube (CRT) of increased brightness, which allows the pilot to use ILS almost in direct sunlight. All necessary information for attacking and piloting can be displayed on the indicator on the windshield. At the same time, as in the usual Su-25, there was no autopilot on the last upgraded Su-25CM.
The presence of a built-in onboard equipment control system on a modernized aircraft has significantly reduced labor costs in preparing the attack aircraft to commit re-departure. Time for maintenance of the machine was reduced by 25-30% compared with the base model.

The accuracy of navigation and combat use of unguided aircraft armament systems on the upgraded aircraft increased 2-3 times, and in bomber applications it reached the level of accuracy of guided aircraft destruction weapons. As a result of the modernization, the Su-25CM aircraft became a combat vehicle with a new target designation and combat effectiveness, which increased 1,5 times. Thanks to the use of modern inertial-satellite navigation system on the aircraft, it was possible to achieve the accuracy of determining the coordinates around 15 meters with correction and 200 meters - without satellite correction.

Also among the unique features of the upgraded attack aircraft include the variable rate of firing from an aircraft cannon for the first time used on front-line aircraft. This made it possible to significantly increase the number of attacks on the target. The stationary air cannon installation VPU-17А with a double-barreled 30-mm cannon GSH-2-30 (9-A-623) now has a variable rate of fire 1: 1, 1: 4, 1: 8, XNNX, 1, 16, 25: 25, 3: 25, XNUMX: XNUMX, XNUMX, XNUMX: XNUMX, XNUMX: XNUMX, XNUMX: XNUMX, XNUMX: XNUMX, XNUMX: XNUMX-XNUMX It was possible for the designers to implement the new combat use modes of the attack aircraft, which made it possible to use air-to-surface missiles from horizontal flight through the use of precise program-corrected target tracking. Su-XNUMXCM aircraft are able to hit two targets in one attack, Su-XNUMXCMXNUMX aircraft are able to hit four ground targets in one attack with the help of guided means of destruction. And the use of navigation bombing in adverse weather conditions and at night has become a standard combat task for modernized aircraft, unlike the conventional Su-XNUMX.



The range of the arms Su-25SM3 addition uncontrollable high explosive, splinter and betonoboynymi bombs and rockets (C-5 caliber 55-mm C-25 340-mm caliber) includes corrected bombs KAB-500 and CC-1500, and air SD -air Р-73 (instead of Р-60 and Р-60М on Su-25 attack aircraft), as well as air-to-surface UR - X-25 and Х-29.

In the absence of a worthy replacement for the Su-25 attack aircraft at the moment, the program for upgrading it to the Su-25CM variant also allowed for the overhaul of vehicles that had already served 17-18 for years, to extend their service life in the Russian armed forces for another several decades. During this time, in the country, most likely, a new tactical tactical complex will be developed and put into production.

Photo Shoot: blog igor113.livejournal.com























Information sources:
http://igor113.livejournal.com/402356.html
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/attack/su25sm.html
http://bastion-karpenko.ru/su-25sm
http://www.sukhoi.org/planes/military/su25k/history
http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2014-05-16/12_su25.html
Author:
107 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. ImPerts
    ImPerts 26 January 2016 06: 29
    24
    The attack aircraft is excellent. Serve him and serve. Iron and iron. soldier
    1. Sweles
      Sweles 26 January 2016 09: 42
      18
      and if Western ideologists would call our plane shit, would our zhurnalyugs gladly pick up and spread such a name across our space? "Frog's foot, Satan" and all the rest are not our names of our products - this is an insult to our design teams and our own RUSSIAN CULTURE.
      Particularly disgusting against this background is the involvement in this disgusting game imposed by the West - to call our military products non-Russian names that contradict the Russian spirit and the precepts of our ancestors. Namely "armata, derivation, leader, federation, raptor
      and others. "Such names simply tear the ear and lead to foul speech with alien, far-fetched cliches ...
      1. Forest
        Forest 26 January 2016 10: 47
        11
        What is the difference, what is the name of the military equipment? Her main requirement is to kill as much as possible and not be destroyed.
        PS Armata is generally a word from the old Russian language.
        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 26 January 2016 11: 31
          +4
          Quote: Forest
          What is the difference, what is the name of the military equipment?

          As you name the ship, it will sail! wink
          P.S. Moreman - sorry for swimming ... repeat
          1. Forest
            Forest 26 January 2016 12: 23
            +1
            One hell, if the technique is good, it will be remembered more as a nickname, not a name. Look how much everything from AKM to AK-108 is called AK-47.
      2. Private Zhukov
        Private Zhukov 26 January 2016 16: 32
        +1
        What is the name? Just a word. If you call the fret Mercedes - it will not get better. The main thing is the technical characteristics. And, by the way, I am sick of our acacia, cloves and Pinocchio. Everything is subjective here.
      3. tomket
        tomket 27 January 2016 00: 56
        +2
        Quote: Sveles
        "Frog's foot

        Perhaps a minus to the author of the article for frogfoot instead of Rook. In addition, the submission in the article is such that SM is simply a miracle of technology. In fact, if there is a modification of the TM that was hacked, it is as cheapening and squalid as the tank crews when they have 3MS.
      4. Ramses_IV
        Ramses_IV 28 January 2016 02: 31
        +5
        The fact is that the Americans give the name to our technology not for its performance characteristics and not at all anticipating or offending them - it is only in the "strike force" that they say that.

        If you carefully look at the designations of the aircraft, then replace that all the designations according to the NATO classification of our aircraft begin with F (Mig-25 FoxBat, Mig-23 Flogger, Su-25 Frogfoot, Su-27 Flanker, Mig-29 Fulcrum, etc. .), missiles - with K (Kegler, Kayak, Karen, etc.). This is done exclusively for a legible classification in radio exchange, and nothing more.
    2. max702
      max702 26 January 2016 11: 45
      +6
      The most belligerent plane .. The soldier’s plane, the main horse of our aviation, bears the brunt of wars and conflicts over the past 35 years .. and was designed almost on an initiative basis for the remnants of funds and resources from other developments .. But it turned out to be the MOST demanded aircraft ..
      1. Aleksandr1959
        Aleksandr1959 26 January 2016 20: 29
        +1
        .
        But it turned out to be the MOST demanded aircraft ..

        I will add. With good upgrade potential.
        1. remy
          remy 28 January 2016 20: 32
          0
          there is still gunpowder ...
          By the way, 1987 - developments on the IL-102 attack aircraft may come in handy
          in particular, the internal bomb bay in the wings under 6 OFAB-250
          1. rubin6286
            rubin6286 29 January 2016 12: 58
            +2
            It’s immediately obvious that you are not a pilot. Internal bombs in the planes - this is unnecessary exoticism and complexity of the design. Try to guess what will happen if the bomb doors do not close on the plane damaged in a battle or vice versa, do not open, is it possible to detonate ammunition when a shell hits, etc. etc.
    3. Fregate
      Fregate 26 January 2016 14: 59
      +2
      "Rook" will still serve the Motherland. Interesting review.
      included corrected air bombs KAB-500 and KAB-1500,

      It’s even somehow interesting to look at him with the KAB-1500 bombs.
      1. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 26 January 2016 16: 41
        +2
        The Su-25SM attack aircraft was supposed to be a relatively inexpensive, fast-reproducing aircraft designed for a wartime pilot.

        I wonder how long in the case of wartime it takes the preparation of a Su-25 pilot, if the candidate never sat at the helm at all?
        1. Megatron
          Megatron 27 January 2016 00: 48
          0
          I think as always - it all depends on the candidate.
        2. rubin6286
          rubin6286 29 January 2016 13: 08
          0
          Another thing is interesting: is it possible in the conditions of war with the use of WMD and high-precision weapons to quickly reproduce military equipment and train pilots in mass?
      2. SSeT
        SSeT 26 January 2016 23: 52
        0
        That's also interesting, because they lie. do not mix cab-1500 on it
  2. aszzz888
    aszzz888 26 January 2016 06: 46
    +9
    The mericatos, who apparently saw the work of our SU-25 in Syria, decided not to write off their A-10s.
    Well, our Dryers will still fight, and will fight well, and even better !!!
  3. Magic archer
    Magic archer 26 January 2016 06: 48
    11
    There are only two similar machines in the world. Our Su-25 and the American A-10. Now they are designing so that the machine would be as far from the battlefield as possible, not like these dinosaurs of the Cold War era.
  4. D-Master
    D-Master 26 January 2016 06: 51
    +8
    Having an excellent glider, we have an infinite possibility of modernization, the benefit of modern electronics allows you to work truly miracles. And given that it is based on just that mass character. The car will be as unpretentious and mega reliable as its honored predecessor.
    1. Petrol
      Petrol 26 January 2016 13: 27
      0
      I look at the 6th photo there is an analogue of the "dry cargo" active jamming station .... a useful thing against the AIM-9 with TGSN even if the engines are given "maximum"
      1. SSeT
        SSeT 26 January 2016 23: 54
        +1
        "Dry cargo ship" is not there, okstyte
      2. remy
        remy 27 January 2016 22: 09
        +2
        but as for me, we would have to resume R&D on VTOL aircraft like Tu and Yak-141/201
        already with new technologies, not the 63rd year then ...
        The carcass is lower than what Harrier looks like ....
        1. rubin6286
          rubin6286 29 January 2016 13: 24
          0
          Why do we need a GDP combat aircraft? What are its advantages over a conventional design? Before it takes off with combat load, it is necessary to deliver ammunition, fuel, technical personnel and crew to the take-off site. What is the use of the fact that he will carry out a vertical landing. What next to do with this machine, and if it is also damaged? Who will be involved in the evacuation of a car for repair in a modern war? What is today for this?
    2. rubin6286
      rubin6286 29 January 2016 13: 17
      +1
      I have to say that not a single machine has an infinite possibility of modernization. including and Su-25. Its design is worked out quite well and no cardinal changes are provided for. Who told you that the aircraft is easy to manufacture and is designed for mass. These two conditions were met only by Po-2. Do you know how many enterprises are involved in the production of any modern combat aircraft? What will happen to simplicity and mass if a missile strike destroys a number of enterprises supplying components?
  5. Mera joota
    Mera joota 26 January 2016 06: 52
    +1
    By the beginning of the XNUMXst century, the attack aircraft, despite its phenomenal survivability, which was confirmed by combat operation

    What phenomenal survivability can we talk about if the Su-25 is the most downed aircraft in the world?
    At the same time, almost the only Klen-PS laser sight-rangefinder remained on the plane from the old avionics

    What the hell is he needed? Why carry this heavy box with characteristics worse than the Chinese laser pointer?
    Instead of the ASP-17BTs-8 aviation rifle scope (for the pilot, the main working tool when attacking), a wide-angle indicator on the windshield (ILS) was installed on the Su-25SM attack aircraft.

    And how will he find goals? By poking, to the touch?
    This indicator received a cathode ray tube (CRT) of increased brightness

    Who else in the world produces cathode ray tubes? A Th not gas discharge?
    The accuracy of navigation and combat use of unguided aircraft weapons systems on a modernized aircraft has grown by 2–3 times, and in bomber applications has reached the level of accuracy of guided aerial weapons.

    The lack of detection and targeting tools is justified by the improvement of the navigation system (level of the 90s), saying that this equates ordinary ASP with managed ... Yes, why would it?

    In general, just as the Su-25s were blind and the accuracy of the airstrike depended on the pilot's qualifications, they remained.
    Despite the fact that UOMZ and Shvabe regularly exhibit at exhibitions a number of samples of optoelectronic systems with characteristics that make it possible to significantly increase the efficiency of the Su-25 without compromising the main parameters!
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 26 January 2016 07: 26
      24
      What angry comments you have! Say that the most downed plane, but attack aircraft most often shoot down. Read the memories of those who flew on the IL-2, these were suicide bombers. Since then, nothing has changed, that the Su-25, that the A- 10. These climb into the heat.
      And the survivability of the Su-25 is really phenomenal.
      1. Mera joota
        Mera joota 26 January 2016 07: 36
        -27 qualifying.
        Quote: bober1982
        And the survivability of the Su-25 is really phenomenal.

        Compare the losses of the A-10 and Su-25
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 26 January 2016 07: 49
          15
          The A-10 was never used, like the Su-25, which was massively used everywhere and everywhere.
          1. Mera joota
            Mera joota 26 January 2016 08: 22
            -16 qualifying.
            Quote: bober1982
            The A-10 was never used, like the Su-25, which was massively used everywhere and everywhere.

            Well hello ... Warthog from the wars does not come out.
            1. Ingvar 72
              Ingvar 72 26 January 2016 11: 36
              17
              Quote: Mera Joota
              Well hello ... Warthog from the wars does not come out.

              What kind of wars? Where enemy troops have virtually no air defense systems and MANPADS. And anti-aircraft machine guns and artillery for the A-10, and for the Su-25 special pose no danger.
              1. mvg
                mvg 26 January 2016 22: 44
                0
                But did the rook meet strong air defense somewhere? 2008 .. if only .. and then it was suppressed, who interfered with this before? The same strategists.
                1. Ingvar 72
                  Ingvar 72 27 January 2016 09: 49
                  +2
                  Quote: mvg
                  But did the rook meet strong air defense somewhere?

                  Afghanistan. There the terrain allows very effective use of MANPADS. They weren’t really shot down anywhere else.
            2. NEXUS
              NEXUS 26 January 2016 17: 54
              +4
              Quote: Mera Joota
              Well hello ... Warthog from the wars does not come out.

              The warthog, you rightly noticed, does not climb out of wars, with the prayers of the Bush, Obama and the rest of the abomination ... but only he begins his work with suppressed air defense and at low altitudes, which is why they put a 1 × 30-mm seven-barreled GAU-8 / A cannon on the nose . Hence, relatively small losses in comparison with the "rook".
              The main incidents with the "warthog" were due to "friendly fire" and not from the actions of the enemy.
        2. VIT101
          VIT101 26 January 2016 09: 08
          +9
          Quote: Mera Joota
          Quote: bober1982
          And the survivability of the Su-25 is really phenomenal.

          Compare the losses of the A-10 and Su-25


          Due to what qualities, in your opinion, would the A-10's losses be lower than the Su-25 with the same anti-fire action?
          1. Mera joota
            Mera joota 26 January 2016 09: 52
            -17 qualifying.
            Quote: VIT101
            Due to what qualities, in your opinion, would the A-10's losses be lower than the Su-25 with the same anti-fire action?

            Successful tail design and engine layout
            1. Cympak
              Cympak 26 January 2016 18: 42
              +1
              More advanced avionics and weapons complex. Better pilot awareness, communication with ground forces and advanced aircraft gunners. To modify the A-10C, the possibility of using JDAM bombs, Mayveriks and laser NURS APKWS II without entering the reach of MANPADS and memory
              1. rubin6286
                rubin6286 29 January 2016 13: 36
                +2
                All this chatter about the advancement of the avionics, the better awareness of the pilot. Communication with aircraft controllers - where did you get all this? Our aerial bombs and missiles are absolutely not inferior to Western and American counterparts and even surpass them. Laser guidance is good in clear weather, but if the target is covered by clouds or a smoke screen, if the electronic warfare systems "extinguish" all the equipment in the cockpit? The more the plane descends for an attack and the closer it comes to the target, the higher the degree of resistance and its vulnerability.
            2. VIT101
              VIT101 26 January 2016 20: 29
              +2
              Quote: Mera Joota
              Quote: VIT101
              Due to what qualities, in your opinion, would the A-10's losses be lower than the Su-25 with the same anti-fire action?


              Successful tail design and engine layout

              Totally unconvincing. A-10 engines are located in the tail solely in order to free the wing for hanging weapons. So this scheme is not a virtue in the sense of vitality. In the Su-25, engines cover vital structural elements and equipment.

              Quote: Cympak
              More advanced avionics and weapons complex. Better pilot awareness, communication with ground forces and advanced aircraft gunners. To modify the A-10C, the possibility of using JDAM bombs, Mayveriks and laser NURS APKWS II without entering the reach of MANPADS and memory


              I partially agree about the avionics. At the same time, the A-10 is an aircraft for close support on the battlefield. But it was used much more selectively, it was not thrown into the embrasure. Had he been in the same conditions in which ours had to work in Afghanistan and other hot spots, the losses would have been no less.
              1. mvg
                mvg 26 January 2016 22: 48
                +1
                Rave. Diversity engines and tail. But the tactics of the application is not invented by the plane. A-10s and fought in Afghanistan. Against the same stingers and needles. And in Iraq and Yugoslavia they worked against full-fledged air defense. Not only MANPADS and machine guns ..
            3. code54
              code54 27 January 2016 19: 16
              +3
              Quote: Mera Joota
              Quote: VIT101
              Due to what qualities, in your opinion, would the A-10's losses be lower than the Su-25 with the same anti-fire action?

              Successful tail design and engine layout


              The entire A-10 is built around the gun, although when loading a full ammunition load to it, it is not possible to take an additional load! Well done, what can I say! )))); )))
        3. Forest
          Forest 26 January 2016 12: 30
          +3
          A-10 practically did not see air defense, there is nothing to compare with. Let's compare the combat losses of the Su-25 with some Boeing 737. In your opinion, the liner will be more fit and tenacious in battle.
    2. Professor
      Professor 26 January 2016 07: 49
      14
      Quote: Mera Joota
      What phenomenal survivability can we talk about if the Su-25 is the most downed aircraft in the world?

      You have a wrong understanding of the term vitality. The question is not how many were shot down (an aircraft of direct support of troops is always shot down more than, say, strategic missile carriers not included in the enemy's air defense zone), but in its ability to operate under air defense fire if you want to "take a hit." Otherwise I agree with you.
      1. Mera joota
        Mera joota 26 January 2016 08: 26
        -26 qualifying.
        Quote: Professor
        The question is not how many were shot down (an aircraft of direct support of troops is always shot down more than, say, strategic missile carriers not included in the enemy's air defense zone), but in its ability to operate under air defense fire if you want to "take a hit."

        The Su-25 does not have any advantages in "holding the blow" over other machines, since the main culprit of its "landing" is MANPADS, the rocket of which does not hit the cockpit, which has armor, but the engines that are not protected.
        1. Professor
          Professor 26 January 2016 08: 43
          25
          Quote: Mera Joota
          The Su-25 does not have any advantages in "holding the blow" over other machines, since the main culprit of its "landing" is MANPADS, the rocket of which does not hit the cockpit, which has armor, but the engines that are not protected.

          I can't argue without having statistics on the types of aircraft. Maybe you have it? EMNIP then not every MANPADS leads to the loss of an aircraft. On the other hand, the "effectiveness" of MANPADS against jet aircraft is very low.
          1. Mera joota
            Mera joota 26 January 2016 09: 58
            -21 qualifying.
            Quote: Professor
            I can’t argue without statistics on the types of aircraft. Maybe you possess it? EMNIP then not every MANPADS leads to the loss of the aircraft.

            Statistics for Afghanistan was online. Statistics on losses in Ukraine as well. The effectiveness of MANPADS was such that the Ukrainian Air Force refused to use the Su-25 and helicopters. Yes, there have been cases of the return of damaged Su-25s to the base, but there are fewer than those who were shot down.
            1. WUA 518
              WUA 518 26 January 2016 10: 12
              18
              Losses of the Su-25 in Afghanistan:
              No. Pilot Date Circumstances
              01/14.12.1981/XNUMX captain M. Dyakov, died Collision with a mountain at the exit from the attack
              02/14.04.1983/XNUMX catapulted, the pilot alive Crashed on take-off
              03/16.01.1984/XNUMX Lieutenant Colonel P.Ruban, catapulted, killed MANPADS in the area of ​​Urgun
              04/20.09.1984/XNUMX the pilot is alive. Crashed on landing during the ferry to Bagram.
              05/10.12.1984/XNUMX senior lieutenant V. Zazdravnov, died in the area of ​​Panjshirsky gorge
              06/22.07.1985/XNUMX Senior Lieutenant S. Shumikhin, Shot down DShK in the Panjshirsky gorge died
              07/06.04.1986/XNUMX Colonel A. Rutskaya, catapulted, alive Shot down MANPADS and anti-aircraft fire in the Khosta area
              08/23.08.1986/XNUMX catapulted, the pilot is alive Shot down MANPADS in the Iranian border
              09/02.11.1986/XNUMX, senior lieutenant A. Baranov, was shot down in the dark
              10 18.11.1986/XNUMX/XNUMX, catapulted, the pilot alive Sbit MANPADS
              11/20.11.1986/XNUMX Lieutenant I. Aleshin, killed MANPADS in the Salang area
              12-13 03.12.1986/XNUMX/XNUMX catapulted, the pilot is alive Shot down MANPADS in the Ryan area
              14/21.01.1987/XNUMX senior lieutenant K. Pavlyukov, catapulted, killed MANPADS on takeoff from Bagram airfield
              On January 15, 28.01.1987, he catapulted, the pilot was alive Shot down MANPADS in the Khosta area
              16 Captain M. Burak, died Shot by anti-aircraft fire during a night departure
              in the Kandahar area
              17 02.04.1987/XNUMX/XNUMX, catapulted, the pilot alive Sbit MANPADS
              18/01.06.1987/XNUMX catapulted, the pilot is alive Shot down MANPADS near the Kandahar airdrome
              19/20.06.1987/XNUMX senior lieutenant V. Paltusov, was killed Shot DShK or crashed on his return
              September 20, 13.09.1987, Senior Lieutenant V. Zemlyakov, was killed by anti-aircraft fire or MANPADS in the Baraki region
              21/26.12.1987/XNUMX Major A.Plusnin, killed MANPADS during a night departure
              March 22, 17.03.1988, catapulted, the pilot was alive Shot down MANPADS or lost during a training launch near the Bagram airfield
              23/07.06.1988/XNUMX, the sentry was killed destroyed by shelling the Kandahar airfield
              24-31 23.06.1988/XNUMX/XNUMX destroyed by shelling of the Kabul airfield
              32 04.08.1988/16/XNUMX Colonel A. Rutskoi, catapulted, alive Shot down by a Pakistani Air Force F-XNUMX fighter
              33 27.10.1988/XNUMX/XNUMX the pilot is alive The plane is damaged during landing and later destroyed by shelling the airfield
              On January 34, 07.01.1989, Senior Lieutenant E. Gordienko, was shot down over the Dzhanez gorge.
              1. ism_ek
                ism_ek 26 January 2016 11: 14
                +7
                The main losses from MANPADS occurred in 1986. Then, the design of the aircraft was amended to exclude the occurrence of a fire after a missile strike.
          2. Megatron
            Megatron 27 January 2016 00: 54
            -1
            Professor, if something doesn’t hurt ours, he won’t live a day.
        2. Ami du peuple
          Ami du peuple 26 January 2016 08: 43
          13
          Quote: Mera Joota
          the main culprit of his "landing" is MANPADS, the rocket of which does not hit the cockpit, which has armor, but the engines that are not protected.

          However, the hit of MANPADS in the engine does not always lead to the loss of the aircraft. "Rook" is a rather tenacious machine.
          1. Mera joota
            Mera joota 26 January 2016 09: 59
            -18 qualifying.
            Quote: Ami du peuple
            However, the hit of MANPADS in the engine does not always lead to the loss of the aircraft. "Rook" is a rather tenacious machine.

            I agree, but the probability of returning home is much less than the opposite.
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 26 January 2016 18: 01
              +3
              Quote: Mera Joota
              I agree, but the probability of returning home is much less than the opposite.

              As well as the A-10 ...
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. ism_ek
          ism_ek 26 January 2016 09: 22
          12
          Quote: Mera Joota
          The Su-25 does not have any advantages in "holding the blow" over other machines, since the main culprit of its "landing" is MANPADS, the rocket of which does not hit the cockpit, which has armor, but the engines that are not protected.

          Two engines. The design is such that both engines cannot be destroyed by one portable rocket. The plane can perfectly land on one engine. Control systems are duplicated. Less important cover more important.

          In Georgia, the Su-25s were shot down not from MANPADS, but from more powerful anti-aircraft systems. The use of attack aircraft in such conditions was a miscalculation of command.
          1. Mera joota
            Mera joota 26 January 2016 10: 06
            -19 qualifying.
            Quote: ism_ek
            Two engines. The design is such that both engines cannot be destroyed by one portable rocket. The plane can perfectly land on one engine. Control systems are duplicated. Less important cover more important.

            What do you paint the theory when the practical application of the Su-25 is known? Ukrainian Air Force lost 5! Su-25 out of 14! The number of sorties is unknown, but judging by the reports is negligible. These numbers speak more than your reasoning.
            1. ism_ek
              ism_ek 26 January 2016 10: 29
              +8
              Quote: Mera Joota
              What do you paint the theory when the practical application of the Su-25 is known? Ukrainian Air Force lost 5! Su-25 out of 14!

              The problem is the wrong use of the aircraft. The rebels were armed with powerful air defense systems, and not only "needles" and DShK.
              Su-25 is a budget weapon designed to solve simple tasks. It allows you to go down relatively low to detect the target, and then destroy it. If it is known in advance that the enemy does not have powerful air defense systems, you do not have to scout first, then send an expensive supersonic front-line bomber with expensive sighting equipment that dropped bombs or missiles from a safe height.

              Expensive optoelectronic systems are not installed on the Su-25, because it makes no sense to turn this aircraft into a front-line bomber
              1. Aleksandr1959
                Aleksandr1959 26 January 2016 11: 20
                +4
                As Deinekin wrote, most of the losses of the Su-25 in Ukraine were associated with a second approach
                “Either there the pilots are not able to attack the targets as they should, and leave after completing the mission, or the routes are used the same, or they are awaited by the MANPADS arrows already prepared for the appearance of the aircraft,” these words are the former commander-in-chief of the Russian Air Force, Colonel-General Peter Deinekin explains the large losses of the Su-25 attack aircraft by the Ukrainian troops.

                http://vz.ru/society/2014/7/23/696931.html
                And what else distinguishes the Su-25 in the context of combat survivability is the ability to ensure the survival of the pilot during combat action on the aircraft.

                Expensive optoelectronic systems are not installed on the Su-25, because it makes no sense to turn this aircraft into a front-line bomber

                There was an attempt. Su-25T, su-25TM (Su-39). There was an attempt to use self-propelled guns.
              2. Cympak
                Cympak 26 January 2016 19: 17
                +2
                The budget weapon is SuperTukano and other turboprop aircraft converted into light attack aircraft.
                Well, you don’t need armor on the plane if the pilot can guaranteed hit the target without entering the range of the enemy MANPADS and memory.
                Look at what paradoxical conclusion the Americans came to: they use the B-1B for direct support of troops. And all due to the fact that they need an airplane that can hang over the battlefield for hours, while having a sufficient set of weapons for various combat situations and the accuracy and caliber of weapons, allowing you to directly support your units. Caliber is very important in this. Our approach: we take a 500 kg bomb and its caliber automatically solves the problem of its low accuracy. At the same time, their units should be located at a great distance from the enemy.
                American approach: instead of taking 1 bomb with a caliber of 500 pounds, we take 4 small SDBs. But due to the high accuracy we hit 4 targets, and the small mass of the warhead allows the infantry to act quite close to the points of impact.
              3. rubin6286
                rubin6286 29 January 2016 13: 47
                0
                In general, it is interesting to read about "budget weapons for solving simple problems." Do we have "off-budget weapons"? I think that these are axes and shovels, table knives in the household of citizens. The defeat of enemy manpower and armored vehicles on rough terrain is not an easy task. Try to do it "live" yourself. Everything will become clear to you. there is no need to teach the Air Force command its combat use, because it does not teach civilians how to raise the economy, the ruble, etc. To each his own.
            2. Forest
              Forest 26 January 2016 12: 27
              +6
              I am interested to see how any other aircraft in the air defense zone will behave. No other machine has faced with MANPADS as much as the Su-25. Fighters without armor would not even have reached the airfield after half the damage that 25 made.
            3. NEXUS
              NEXUS 26 January 2016 18: 04
              +7
              Quote: Mera Joota
              Ukrainian Air Force lost 5!

              Excuse me, but what kind of raid "gallant Ukrainian aces" in particular was on the "rooks" a year before the events in Donbass?
              And the second question, how were the Ukrainian SU-25s shot down?
            4. aws4
              aws4 27 January 2016 00: 01
              +2
              enough nonsense to write you yourself understand everything .... the losses of Ukrainian su25 are caused by a whole chain here and the condition of the aircraft and the use and mediocrity of pilots who almost did not fly and had no experience .....
            5. 19001900
              19001900 27 January 2016 20: 33
              0
              You should not give the Air Force of Ukraine an example. If you don’t know how and what they were looking for there, then from their official losses Il-76MD -1 pcs., An-30-1 pcs., An-26-1 pcs., Mig-29-2 pcs. it can be decided that the DPR and LPR have fighter aircraft and they dominate the air almost to Kiev.
          2. Cympak
            Cympak 26 January 2016 19: 05
            -3
            In Georgia, all Su-25s were lost from friendly fire.
            The Georgian modernized Su-25s did not take off, and I well remembered the video in which our infantry shot down the Su-25 and rejoiced. Situational awareness of the units and the interaction of the air force and the army was absent in the war 8-8-8
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 26 January 2016 19: 11
              +4
              Quote: Cympak
              In Georgia, all Su-25s were lost from friendly fire.

              And this suggests that the "rook" is a bad attack aircraft? In my opinion, this more characterizes the command at the time of 2008.
              1. Lucy
                Lucy 27 January 2016 00: 02
                +2
                Your with Cempak discussions say that every couch gopher is an agronomist.
                Sometimes it's better to be silent, especially if not in the subject!
            2. Lucy
              Lucy 26 January 2016 23: 59
              +1
              And what about in 2008? not installed on the SCVO SRZO aircraft?
              Have you seen the video of launches from MANPADS? So on arrow-2 there is a friend or foe responder. Or "contrabass" 2008. dispensers are not trained to recognize the target not visually?
        5. tchoni
          tchoni 26 January 2016 09: 55
          +2
          I’ll insert 5 cents of mine. MANPADS are not always and not all.
      2. NEXUS
        NEXUS 26 January 2016 17: 58
        +4
        Quote: Professor
        and in his ability to operate under air defense fire, if you want to "take a hit".

        And excuse me, I'm wondering what kind of "blow" the A-10 held in Iraq, where the air defense of this state was decomposed into an atom long before the "warthogs" appeared there.
    3. ism_ek
      ism_ek 26 January 2016 08: 51
      24
      Quote: Mera Joota
      Who else in the world produces cathode ray tubes? A Th not gas discharge?

      Today, the indicator on the windshield remains the "last bastion" of using CRT in avionics. And to this day there is no indicator device superior to CRT in terms of light output.
      1. KVIRTU
        KVIRTU 26 January 2016 19: 12
        +4
        That is, they are the same OLED for example, but their service life is very limited at the brightness level required in this case (the problem is in heat dissipation - the light-emitting semiconductor rapidly degrades with increasing temperature).
        And no one canceled the resistance to ionizing radiation for military equipment (semiconductors are more susceptible than electrovacuum devices - CRTs).
    4. ism_ek
      ism_ek 26 January 2016 08: 56
      18
      Quote: Mera Joota
      What the hell is he needed? Why carry this heavy box with characteristics worse than the Chinese laser pointer?

      Chinese laser rangefinders are designed for a maximum of 500 ... 600 meters. Dual-use European rangefinders measure a distance of 2..3 km. The Klen-PS rangefinder sight is designed for 10 km.
    5. Slon1978
      Slon1978 26 January 2016 09: 08
      +7
      The latest electronic warfare station "Vitebsk-25."
      I hope this is not an empty phrase for an "expert" of your level?
    6. Sweles
      Sweles 26 January 2016 09: 50
      +9
      Quote: Mera Joota
      What phenomenal survivability can we talk about if the Su-25 is the most downed aircraft in the world?


      Well, the purpose of the aircraft is an attack aircraft, crawl on the belly and get all the lines and all the missiles that are there, and the density of fire on the modern battlefield has increased significantly compared to 2mv.
      Why don’t they just remember the Su39 because it was a step forward, a greatly modernized, essentially a new plane?
      1. Aleksandr1959
        Aleksandr1959 26 January 2016 11: 26
        +2
        Why don’t they just remember the Su39 because it was a step forward, a greatly modernized, essentially a new plane?

        Because when they tested the Su-25T and Su-25TM (Su-39), the main breakdown force was Vladimir Petrovich Babak, Chief Designer of the Sukhoi Design Bureau for Su-25. State tests of the Su-25T were completed in 1993. Machines produced by TAPO named after Dimitrov live their lives in the outskirts of the Lipetsk Center.
        True, as the Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force Bondarev mentioned, the Su-25UB will be taken as the basis for the PAK SHA.
  6. sergeyzzz
    sergeyzzz 26 January 2016 07: 32
    +7
    A successful aircraft, nothing more and everything is in its place, but it seems to me that they could not save on modernization, given that in the next 10 years there will be nothing to replace them. just do not give an example of the SU-34, it is closer to strategic bombers.
    1. ism_ek
      ism_ek 26 January 2016 09: 41
      +2
      Su-34 easily replaces the Su-25 in all respects and in many ways surpasses it. There is one drawback. Su-34 is much more expensive in everything. Expensive maintenance, expensive fuel, a bunch of expensive systems unnecessary to solve local problems.
      Su-25 is an economical solution for simple tasks. It's like an electric car in a factory.
      1. rubin6286
        rubin6286 29 January 2016 13: 55
        0
        Likewise, KAMAZ is in many ways superior to Gazelle.
  7. MarKon
    MarKon 26 January 2016 07: 43
    +1
    And what does the green tip of the keel mean?
    1. WUA 518
      WUA 518 26 January 2016 09: 40
      +6
      Quote: MarKon
      And what does the green tip of the keel mean?

      Radiolucent fairing.
  8. inkass_98
    inkass_98 26 January 2016 07: 50
    +6
    But what about the Su-39? He was to become the basis of the attack aircraft of the Russian Federation.
    http://topwar.ru/7845-grachi-su-39-tanki-ne-proydut.html
    1. Mera joota
      Mera joota 26 January 2016 08: 31
      0
      Quote: inkass_98
      But what about the Su-39? He was to become the basis of the attack aircraft of the Russian Federation.

      It is outdated by the time of creation. At present, our military-industrial complex has everything to create, based on the existing Su-25, a Su-39 level aircraft (even higher) while maintaining flight characteristics, but only the modification not described in the article ...
      PS: the television system Mercury in the 21st century is a terrible anachronism ...
      1. Aleksandr1959
        Aleksandr1959 26 January 2016 11: 33
        +2
        PS: the television system Mercury in the 21st century is a terrible anachronism ...

        Night vision station "Mercury" and during the tests proved to be an insufficiently reliable system. Frequent refusals. Illumination requirements - moonlit, cloudless night. Backlighting the screen when there are bright flashes on the ground.

        But what about the Su-39? He was to become the basis of the attack aircraft of the Russian Federation.

        It should not have been that the Su-25T, that the Su-39, became the basis of attack aircraft. They were supposed to be released in limited quantities to solve the problems associated with the use of precision weapons. And this option did not work. The Su-25T was used to a limited extent by the pilots of the Lipetsk Center in Chechnya.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 26 January 2016 12: 20
      +1
      Quote: inkass_98
      But what about the Su-39? He was to become the basis of the attack aircraft of the Russian Federation.

      EMNIP, the Su-39 had the same problem as the Ka-50: pilot congestion. That is, even for testers it was difficult to simultaneously engage in piloting, monitoring the air situation, detecting, selecting and using weapons on purpose. An operator was required - but for him in the Su-39 there was neither a place nor a reserve for engine thrust.
      1. Aleksandr1959
        Aleksandr1959 26 January 2016 13: 56
        +2
        That is, even for testers it was difficult to simultaneously engage in piloting, monitoring the air situation, detecting, selecting and using weapons on purpose

        This was noted in the GI Su-25T Act. The remark was made by the Institute of Aviation and Space Medicine. It was written approximately as follows: "When performing a number of combat use modes, the psychophysiological load on the pilot is close to the limit."
        This is for a first class military test pilot. Not all test pilots had a similar opinion. So, Honored Military Pilot of the Russian Federation, test pilot of the first class, Colonel V. Bukhtoyarov noted that it was not a problem for him to combine piloting with the process of combat use.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 26 January 2016 14: 13
          +4
          Quote: Aleksandr1959
          This was noted in the GI Su-25T Act. The remark was made by the Institute of Aviation and Space Medicine. It was written approximately as follows: "When performing a number of combat use modes, the psychophysiological load on the pilot is close to the limit."

          Thank! You have already quoted this quote, but I lost it. smile
          Quote: Aleksandr1959
          Not all test pilots had a similar opinion. So, Honored Military Pilot of the Russian Federation, test pilot of the first class, Colonel V. Bukhtoyarov noted that it was not a problem for him to combine piloting with the process of combat use.

          Yeah ... one of the first-class test pilots.
          So for the successful development and use of the Su-39 in combat units, the task was small - to clone Colonel's comrade to fill the states of all capes. smile
          1. Aleksandr1959
            Aleksandr1959 26 January 2016 15: 17
            0
            Babak V.P., at one time pushed the idea of ​​creating a special purpose assault group "Whirlwind" based on the Su-25T ... and young pilots. But after this remark was voiced ... the topic was removed. And in Chechnya, research pilots from the Lipetsk Center, pilots of very high qualifications, worked on the Su-25T. By the way, for the first time pilots of the Lipetsk Center flew the Su-25T during the GI. They were the head of the assault aviation department, Colonel Danilevsky and Lieutenant Colonel Kozulin. In 1989, about the ShAP pilots ... I had to meet at work. There were very experienced and talented people there. Moreover, in the 90s, there were pilots who had passed from Afghanistan, and Chechnya, and Tajikistan.
    3. rubin6286
      rubin6286 29 January 2016 14: 01
      0
      SU-39, this is SU-25TM - a specialized machine designed to destroy heavy armored vehicles. He successfully passed the tests, but at the present time it has been deemed expedient to limit himself to the production of the SU-25SM and Su-25T. The scope of operations for converting the Su-25T to the SU25TM is minimal and can be performed in the field.
  9. denisey
    denisey 26 January 2016 08: 52
    +5
    Quote: Mera Joota
    The Su-25 does not have any advantages in "holding the blow" over other machines, since the main culprit of its "landing" is MANPADS, the rocket of which does not hit the cockpit, which has armor, but the engines that are not protected.

    And in this photo, the engines themselves picked up the technicians.

    Do not carry nonsense with the Professor.
    1. Professor
      Professor 26 January 2016 09: 03
      +1
      Quote: denisey
      Do not carry nonsense with the Professor.

      I repeat. MANPADS are weakly effective against jet aircraft. They are not always able to cause damage even to passenger liners.

      PS
      1. denisey
        denisey 26 January 2016 10: 11
        +3
        Especially for you from an article on the use of MANPADS in Afghanistan, the Stinger "was very effective against jet aircraft - the vast majority of Su-22, Su-17 and MiG-21 were shot down by Stinger missiles. The American missile and aircraft proved to be very good, even so armored like the Su-25, in particular, the main losses from the Stingers (FIM-92B), as in the case of the Mi-24, fell on the first month of the use of new MANPADS by dushmans.
        http://www.forumavia.ru/forum/7/0/3383168683511125648261150264370_1.shtml?topicc

        ount = 18
        Not to mention more advanced models. And by the way, at what height do you think the SU-25 works, I naively assume less than 10000 meters, and what do you think?
        1. Professor
          Professor 26 January 2016 12: 18
          +3
          Quote: denisey
          Especially for you from the article on the use of MANPADS in Afghanistan, the Stinger "was very effective against jet aircraft

          Especially for you in response to the effectiveness of MANPADS against jet aircraft.
          Against fighters with powerful engines, the rocket proved ineffective, causing only some damage to the exhaust pipe; it usually could not bring down the aircraft. This was first noted during the Arab-Israeli war 1973, where the Egyptians launched hundreds of SA-7 at A-4 Israeli light bomber aircraft. Most A-4s with their 11,187 pounds of thrust engines experienced these hits. Large aircraft, such as the F-4 with 17,000 pounds of thrust engines, were even harder to knock down. Smaller commercial jets, such as the Boeing 737 or DC-9 (each using two 14,000 pounds of engine thrust), were more vulnerable. However, the Boeing 757 has much more powerful engines with the 43,000 pounds thrust, and the Boeing 747 63,000 thrust pounds. In addition, the rear ends of the jet engines are designed to withstand the effects of ejaculated hot exhausts. Hitting even the birds in the front of the engine can cause real damage, however, these old rockets are induced by heat and everything that is in the rear of the engine. Since 1970's, around 40 commercial aircraft have been shot down by SA-7, killing more than 500 people. Newer models of these missiles hit the part of the aircraft to which they are closest.
          Russian serial numbers
          1. rubin6286
            rubin6286 29 January 2016 14: 11
            0
            One can argue as much as one wants on this issue. In my opinion, if a MANPADS shooter is a master of weapons and is able to be at the right time in the right place, then the probability of hitting an air target (i.e. hitting it) is close to 100%. whether it be "Stinger", "Needle", "Arrow" or "Willow". During the exercises, I saw how easily our guys do it.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 26 January 2016 12: 23
          +4
          Quote: denisey
          Especially for you from an article on the use of MANPADS in Afghanistan, the Stinger "was very effective against jet aircraft - the vast majority of Su-22, Su-17 and MiG-21 were shot down by Stinger missiles.

          Heh heh heh ... attention, question - What unites these types of aircraft?

          Hint: what is the Su-25 2 times larger than the Su-22, Su-17 and MiG-21? smile
          1. bober1982
            bober1982 26 January 2016 12: 32
            0
            Tell the academician additionally, let the photo look.
      2. Lucy
        Lucy 27 January 2016 00: 14
        +1
        Professor, and where is the photo of the Syrian MiG-21pf, with a scattered (Israeli F-4e, AIM-9) force. the camera?
    2. Aleksandr1959
      Aleksandr1959 26 January 2016 11: 37
      +3
      Photo taken during the events of 08.08.08. One engine is damaged. The car flew to the airfield and sat on one engine. This is not an isolated case. And much depends in such cases on the qualifications of the pilot. Eject or continue flying.
  10. VIT101
    VIT101 26 January 2016 08: 58
    +5
    Author
    "... the explosion safety of the fuel tanks was ensured by filling them with polyurethane foam, designing, and so on."

    In aviation, there is the concept of a designed fuel tank. The author either does not know about this, or this is a random typo. In any case, one letter changes the meaning of the whole sentence.
    1. Aleksandr1959
      Aleksandr1959 26 January 2016 11: 41
      +2
      The protected fuel tank and filling the tanks with polyurethane foam are two different things.
      The engineered fuel tank reduces fuel leakage. And filling with polyurethane foam reduces the surface of possible combustion.
  11. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 26 January 2016 09: 05
    +1
    and the Su-39s were added ATGMs to the main armament, on the S-25SM they refused it, I wonder why? The idea is not bad.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 26 January 2016 12: 30
      +3
      Quote: Zaurbek
      and the Su-39s were added ATGMs to the main armament, on the S-25SM they refused it, I wonder why? The idea is not bad.

      How do you apply them? With a range of 10 km and a speed of the Su-25, the pilot has too small a "window" in time for searching, detecting, targeting and using weapons.
      At the same time, the pilot simultaneously with the use of ATGMs must pilot and observe the air and ground conditions.

      The problem could be solved by an external data center. But if we can send a calculation with the LTC tripod to the target, then why not send a calculation from the ATGM instead? smile

      The "Su-25 - PAN with LTSU" bundle has no alternatives in the case of using heavier missile launchers, such as the Kh-25, which are not so easy to drag along the ground.
    2. Aleksandr1959
      Aleksandr1959 26 January 2016 15: 21
      +1
      Vortexes were added to the Su-25T. Plus missiles with television seeker. In addition to the ILS, there was also IT-23. The pilot himself chose how to carry out the aiming process on the ILS or on the IT-23. More accurate guidance, of course, was on IT-23.
      1. aviamed90
        aviamed90 26 January 2016 15: 53
        +2
        Alexey RA

        "Bundle" Su-25 - PAN with LTSU "has no alternatives in the case of using heavier missile launchers, such as the Kh-25, which is not so easy to drag along the ground."

        Nobody argues.

        Only now at the moment there are more problems with the preparation of PAN than ever before.

        In the Union (by the end of the 90's), the Voroshilovgrad Air Defense Forces branch (Bagerovo) and the Stavropol Air Defense Forces Air Division (Stavropol) were doing this.

        They are not prepared separately (although there were once some courses for officers and sergeants). But it was a long time ago. And this was done due to the lack of PAN officers as part of the GBU MsD (td) in Yeltsin's times (when there was a pogrom of all the armed forces). They prepared them in a fire order for the Chechen company.
        This is not to say that such an experience was fruitful and effective.

        And according to the classics, the PAN training program is included in the training program for OBU (SH) KP. Now they are being prepared only in CHVVAUSH (it is not known how much).
      2. Cympak
        Cympak 26 January 2016 19: 22
        +1
        Where are these whirlwinds and missiles with a thermal imaging seeker? In combat units they are not. It is necessary to separate the complexes presented at the exhibition (mock-ups), adopted for service and received in parts
        "We have such devices, but we will not show them to you ..."
        1. rubin6286
          rubin6286 29 January 2016 14: 14
          0
          I will partially calm you down. "Whirlwinds" in the troops are.
  12. Wolka
    Wolka 26 January 2016 09: 19
    +3
    you can’t say anything about the airplane, it’s a sin to find fault, in a word, the hard worker-guy
    1. tchoni
      tchoni 26 January 2016 09: 58
      0
      But it is better to make an unmanned version of the device.
  13. Leader
    Leader 26 January 2016 10: 39
    -4
    After the catastrophic defeat of the Red Army in 1941. I am 70 years old explain that the aircraft and tanks produced 3-5-7 years before the start of the war were "very obsolete".
    And now planes fly in Russia and tanks of the 70s go - is this normal?
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 26 January 2016 11: 01
      +4
      planes of the 70s do not fly in Russia, you are mistaken, and there was no catastrophic defeat of the Red Army in 1941, the Germans had a catastrophe near Moscow, that was it.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 26 January 2016 12: 47
      +3
      Quote: Leader
      After the catastrophic defeat of the Red Army in 1941. I am 70 years old explain that the aircraft and tanks produced 3-5-7 years before the start of the war were "very obsolete".

      Another pace of technological progress.
      Take for example an interval of 25 years. And compare the planes and tanks of 1941 and 1916. And 2015 and 1990. smile

      In the late 30s, even 3-4 years could already lead to obsolescence. Because at this time there was another generational change - compare the BT-7 and its successor, the T-34. Or T-28 and KV. Or those three and four that were in 1938, with those that crossed the border on 22.06.41/XNUMX/XNUMX.
  14. Termit1309
    Termit1309 26 January 2016 11: 50
    +3
    Quote: ism_ek
    Quote: Mera Joota
    What do you paint the theory when the practical application of the Su-25 is known? Ukrainian Air Force lost 5! Su-25 out of 14!
    The problem is the wrong use of the aircraft. The rebels were armed with powerful air defense systems, and not only "needles" and DShK.

    There is a very big suspicion that the Ukrainian pilots were leaving damaged cars that could still be planted.
    And by the way, what powerful air defenses did the rebels have? belay
  15. Slippery
    Slippery 26 January 2016 13: 09
    +3
    Quote: Mera Joota
    What do you paint the theory when the practical application of the Su-25 is known? Ukrainian Air Force lost 5! Su-25 out of 14! The number of sorties is unknown, but judging by the reports is negligible. These numbers speak more than your reasoning.

    What a great argument !!! the best army on the "continent" has lost FIVE SU-25s, so it's a bad plane. And about Afghanistan, how many times was the SU-25 attacked and not shot down? No data available? By the way, the Mi helicopters also got lost, also not successful? I’ll tell you a seditious thought to the merkava and you can also knock out the armature. Everything that one engineer has done, the other will always disassemble and break, or figure out how to disassemble and break.
    PS Syria, how many sorties and more than one shot down SU-25, but etozh "wunderwaffle" not otherwise.
  16. D. Dan
    D. Dan 26 January 2016 15: 49
    +2
    Quote: Mera Joota
    Who else in the world produces cathode ray tubes? A Th not gas discharge?


    Judging by the comments, you are a connoisseur of aviation. Ever heard of ILS?
    I agree with the situation on the stormtrooper on e-opt systems. I would like the best.
  17. tomcat117
    tomcat117 26 January 2016 15: 59
    0
    Unkillable, reliable, plowman ... upgrade and even fly and fly.
    "The old man" is small, but smart!
    1. Cympak
      Cympak 26 January 2016 19: 25
      +1
      We need a new set of weapons, as well as reconnaissance and target designation.
  18. MarKon
    MarKon 26 January 2016 17: 05
    +2
    I think that this is not even a workhorse, it is PONY in the mine, which is very hardy, and it works and works! And their pilots are VKS miners (I think they will understand correctly)
  19. Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 26 January 2016 23: 36
    0
    Everyone should do their job well in their place.
    And then let them say anything about us ...
  20. sivuch
    sivuch 26 January 2016 23: 55
    +2
    Nevertheless, for all its merits, the Su-25 always had a serious problem - a large infrared signature, due to the layout of the aircraft and the use of single-circuit (and therefore "hot") engines. On the R-195 they promised to reduce the signature by 3-4 times .How they solved this problem on SM - I don't know, if nothing is very sad
    But the Warthogs still got lost. In Iraq there was a case when 2 A-10 Arrows-10 were shot down on one site in a day
  21. magician
    magician 27 January 2016 05: 19
    0
    the plane is still successful. You can compare the losses of the SU25 and A10, but it is necessary to take into account the conditions under which the attack was carried out. In DRA, SU25 fell to hard work and he dealt with it.
  22. Vitail
    Vitail 27 January 2016 19: 28
    +1
    Great car, still serve the motherland
  23. rubin6286
    rubin6286 29 January 2016 12: 34
    +2
    I had to pilot the SU-25. This is a real airplane soldier, “battlefield machine”, reliable, unpretentious in operation, designed for a pilot of average skill. compact and quite effective.
    I would like to say to the authors of a number of comments that any machine must undergo modernization during operation, but no modernization will turn a plane into a tank (although it is vulnerable on the battlefield) or a strategic missile carrier, and vice versa. There must be a mind in everything.
    If we talk about the modernized SU-25, then:
    • sighting and navigation system PrNK-25SM (56SM) “Bars”, with a digital computer, a display and information processing system, near and satellite navigation, a radio intelligence station, an automatic radio compass, an airborne transponder - very good;
    • digital-analog weapon control system, “Karat-B-25” on-board system for collecting, processing and recording flight information - it is really needed and helps pilot orientate in flight;
    • Radar warning station L-150 "Pastel" - it is needed and good if it has a circular view;
    • the Klen-PS laser illumination and ranging station mounted in the bow and providing guidance to the target with laser homing heads is needed and placed quite successfully;
    • EW station "Vitebsk-25" - it seems to me that it was before;
    • an expanded range of guided weapons, in particular, adjustable bombs with laser and television guidance - it seems to me that the expansion is associated with the appearance of new bombs, and the X-25 and X-29 missiles were used before;
    •. MFCI with a wide-angle indicator on the windshield (ILS) instead of the airborne rifle scope ASP-17BTS-8 - it seems to me that this is already superfluous. It might be better to simply replace the scope with a new and more perfect one;
    • There is no autopilot - it seems to me that you still need it, but if it allowed to perform an automatic landing, it would be generally great;
    • an integrated control system for on-board equipment, which can significantly reduce labor costs when preparing an attack aircraft for a re-launch - it’s good that it was installed;
    • engines old and new are reliable enough, placed rationally;
    • VPU-17A with a 30-mm double-barreled gun GSh-2-30 (9-A-623) with a variable rate of fire 1: 1, 1: 4, 1: 8, 1:16 - a long time ago it was necessary to do this.
    • new modes of combat use of the attack aircraft, allowing the use of airborne-class missile defense from horizontal flight through the use of accurate program-corrected target tracking and hitting from 2 to 4 targets in one attack - this is very important, because with strong air defense manages to make only one approach to the target;
    • the possibility of navigational bombing in difficult weather conditions and at night - expands the combat capabilities of the aircraft, but it is better to act in the afternoon.
  24. Dekabrev
    Dekabrev 31 January 2016 23: 57
    0
    Correctly noted - there are no losses in Syria so far. Because it is correctly applied. In the USSR there was not a budget weapon - the Su-24. However, one must understand that there are different wars. And German fighter jets were a fantastic technology miracle in those days. And what is the result? The fact is that you also always need a mass cheap option. And attack aircraft are intended for use in low-air defense.
    and the fact that in Afghanistan there were Stinger bandagers there - many thanks to our probable friends.
    Russia, unlike them, does not deal with such meanness, but it could (if only they said thanks).
    I would then look at the success of the A-10.
    Well done, that they began to modernize. Although two lost decades just do not pass without a trace - this is not 3-4 years before the war.