Military Review

The Rooks Case

156
Russian attack aircraft begin a new life


The Su-25 attack aircraft has been one of the most belligerent vehicles for more than thirty years. Behind the “Rooks” of the war in Afghanistan, Tajikistan, both Chechen conflicts, the Georgian campaign and, of course, the ongoing operation in Syria.

To date, the park Su-25 has been upgraded. On the updated machines, which received the SM index, modern navigation systems and an aim complex are installed. There were other improvements. But since the August events of 2008, it is already impossible to deny that the modified Su-25CM are too vulnerable in the modern war, even against a technologically underdeveloped enemy. The two main problems of the “Rook” - how to timely detect the enemy and evade the air defense fire.

“Vladimir Babak:“ We made a large set of heat traps of various calibers, and also developed various programs for their shooting, which are selected automatically depending on the angle from which the threat comes to the aircraft ””
9 August 2008 of the year in Tskhinval as a result of a head-on battle with Georgian troops, part of the battalion tactical group of the Russian 135 th mas, was cut off and, taking all-round defense, fought off enemy attacks. In 15.30, the command of the 4 Army of the Air Force and Air Defense retargeted the support of the blocked motorized infantry aircraft of the 368 th assault aviation regiment based in Budennovsk. Both ordinary Su-25 and Su-25CM participated in the operation.

It turned out that in the conditions of urban combat, when Georgian troops not only responded with small-arms fire weapons, but also actively used MANPADS, "Rooks" did not operate effectively enough. Due to the lack of modern optoelectronic systems, it was very difficult for pilots in the conditions of urban combat and heavy smoke to find the enemy. Suffice it to say that one board was looking for a target for almost 11 minutes. All this time, the Georgian military fired at the "Rook" from small arms and MANPADS.

The intensity of the work of enemy air defense in that battle is indicated by the fact that, on average, for every Su-25, which in that battle supported 135 fighters in Tskhinval, fired up to six missiles MANPADS. From the loss of the pilot-attack aircraft saved only their high professionalism. In 17.00, unable to withstand continuous air strikes, as well as Russian artillery fire and close combat with motorized infantry cut off, Georgian units and units began to retreat, and after 19.00 completely left Tskhinval. Undoubtedly, the most important role in that battle belonged to the pilots of 368-oshap.

And now you're a bomber


At the time of the first aviation strikes by the Russian Aerospace Forces on the positions of militants in Syria at the Khmeimim airbase, ten Su-25SMs and two combat training Su-25UBs from the 960th separate assault regiment from Primorsko-Akhtarsk were deployed. By the beginning of the withdrawal of troops, according to the "military-industrial complex", "Rooks" flew 3500 sorties out of a total of nine thousand. On average, each of the ten attack aircraft spent 250 to 300 hours in the air in five months of combat. Combat trainers, performing primarily auxiliary tasks (weather reconnaissance, inspection of areas), flew only 60-80 hours aboard.

The Rooks CaseNote: in Syria, the Su-25 did not work as a classic attack aircraft. They performed in a somewhat unusual for themselves the role of conventional bomber, dropped on the enemy ammunition from a height of five thousand meters. And the pilots did not even look for targets, their coordinates were laid in the onboard systems before departure.

Through the eyes of the Su-25, unmanned aerial vehicles and special operations forces fighters, who after detecting and identifying enemy targets, gave out their exact coordinates. Depending on the type of target, attack aircraft left for the task with two or four free-fall aerial bombs.

After take-off from the Khmeimim airbase, the pilot went out to the target area and activated the on-board sighting system, which brought the attack aircraft to the object, and automatically dropped bombs.

The “Rooks” showed very high accuracy in Syria, sometimes not lagging behind Su-24M front-line bombers equipped with a special computing subsystem SVP-24. Thus, according to the Military-Industrial Courier, the vast majority of bombs dropped by attack aircraft, regardless of the time of day and weather conditions, fell within meters of the 10 – 15 radius from the aiming point.

At the same time, due to the higher performance characteristics, the Su-25 managed to make more departures per day than the Su-24М and Su-34 that worked with them. In the most intense days, attack aircraft rose to the sky up to ten times.

According to the representative of the Russian Aerospace Force of Russia, familiar with the situation, now that the intensity of the fighting has plummeted, there is no need for the Su-25. But if the confrontation resumes with the same intensity, Su-25 will return first to the Khmeimim airbase, which, as the interlocutor put it, are capable of bombarding the enemy with high accuracy.

But despite the rather good results of the Syrian mission, it cannot be denied that the attack aircraft actually worked as carriers of bombs. Su-25 turned out to be invulnerable to the air defense weapons of the militants, primarily due to the fact that they flew no less than five thousand meters. There remains a serious problem with the search for targets and, as the Sukhoi Attackers CPC admits, if not for the KSSO fighters and reconnaissance drones who found targets, the effectiveness of the Rooks in Syria would have been much lower.

More vigorous and stronger


Currently, the VKS of the Russian Federation consists of four separate assault aviation regiments (Chernigovka, Domna, Budennovsk and Primorsko-Akhtarsk) and an assault squadron (Crimea). Till 2017, it is planned to restore the 899 th error disbanded during the transition to a new look at Buturlinovka airfield. So while the VKS is not planning to abandon the Su-25 attack aircraft.

According to the representative of the military, since the beginning of 90's idea to write off "Rooks" arose several times. The main argument of the attackers' opponents - the Tbilisi Aviation Plant, which mass-produced them, remained outside Russia, and Ulan-Ude mastered the production of only combat Su-25UB and created on its base, but never marched into a series of anti-Su-25T .

At the same time, the Su-25 is a reliable, unpretentious and fairly cheap to operate machine. "Flying Kalashnikov assault rifle", as the pilots themselves and the technical staff of the assault air regiments say. The experience of fighting in Chechnya has shown: only these machines could provide support for ground forces.

In 2011, the Russian Ministry of Defense attempted to find a replacement for the Gracham, opening a competition for the so-called promising attack aircraft (PSS). Several projects were considered, including a machine based on the Su-25UB, which was planned to be equipped with an airtight cabin, a new optical-electronic system, a radar and armed with anti-tank guided missiles "Whirlwind".

But as far as “MIC” is known, at present the work on PSS is closed. The military department made a choice in favor of the “Grach” deep modernization project, which received the index Su-25СМ3

According to the chief designer of Su-25, Vladimir Babak, the first works on СМ3 began immediately after Georgia was forced to peace. The attackers had to be made capable of striking well-defended mobile targets covered with modern air defense systems.

The heart of the new attack aircraft was the optoelectronic system SALT-25 and the electronic protection complex Vitebsk. SALT, which is installed in place of the Klen laser station, allows not only to detect, but also to take on target tracking, day and night, in bad weather conditions at a distance of up to eight kilometers with an accuracy of up to half a meter. The system capable of giving an image with 16-fold increase, includes a television channel, a thermal imager and a laser range finder, which not only determines the distance to the target, but also highlights it for rockets and bombs with a laser homing head. True, the work on the optical-electronic system, which the Krasnogorsk Mechanical Plant developed for the new attack aircraft, was somewhat delayed and it is only being released for testing as part of the entire Su-25CM3 complex now.

“In August, the 2008-th Georgian air defense received information from radio equipment of NATO’s southern flank. As soon as the Su-25 Budennovsky Regiment rose above the Caucasus Mountains, they were immediately detected both by stationary radar, and DRLO aircraft, and radar stations on ships. The data was transmitted to the Georgian military in an automatic mode, and a hot meeting was waiting for the Rooks. After all, Georgia had quite modern air defense systems. Not only MANPADS, but also long-range "Buki" and "Wasps," recalls Vladimir Babak.

Therefore, the second most important task, in addition to detecting targets on the battlefield, for the designers of the Sukhoy Sukhoi military-industrial complex, was to equip the Su-25CM3 with an on-board self-defense complex capable of handling both Buk, Osa, Thor and Patriot air defense systems, and with anti-aircraft gun mounts and MANPADS.

“Previously, the air defense breakthrough meant the overcoming of a certain line. I crossed it - and the resistance is already minimal. But in modern combat, all possible targets are covered by anti-aircraft defense. We must not be afraid of it, but destroy it, ”the chief designer of the Su-25 believes. Therefore, the Eite Vitebsk complex not only sets up powerful noise and imitation interference, but detecting the launch of an MANPADS missile on the plane, shoots down special traps, but also makes it possible to hit enemy radars using X-58 missiles.

By the way, “Vitebsk”, developed by the Samara Scientific Research Institute “Ekran”, became part of the on-board equipment of the Mi-8AMTSH and Mi-8МТВ-5 transport helicopters, as well as the Ka-52 drums. Machines with the newest complex, a characteristic feature of which are the balls of laser searchlights installed on the fuselage and suspension nodes, are actively involved in the fighting in Syria.

However, to accommodate the entire complex on board the aircraft, quite a lot of space is required, so part of the Vitebsk elements in containers L370-3C-K25 is placed on the suspension nodes, where the R-15 missiles that were part of the Su-25 ammunition set were installed. 60.

The work of MANPADS complex detects self-defense with ultraviolet sensors. However, again, due to the design features of the Su-25CM3, it was not possible to place a laser searchlight on its board, capable of suppressing even the newest multispectral thermal homing heads.

“When creating the Su-25CM3, we, from the experience of August 2008, laid down a situation where up to six MANPADS missiles were already flying behind the plane and each needed to be repulsed. In such a situation it is necessary to put a group interference. The laser projector copes with only one purpose. Save traps. We made a fairly large set of heat traps of different calibers, and also developed various programs for their shooting, which are selected automatically depending on the angle from which the threat comes to the aircraft, ”explains Vladimir Babak.

Su-25M3 will be able to use the full range of modern aviation weapons, including laser-guided and television-guided, as well as GLONASS-corrected. Unfortunately, the supersonic ATVM Whirlwind, already implemented on the Su-25T, was not part of the armament of the Rook, as, according to representatives of the Sukhoi Assault Rifle Scientific and Production Corporation, difficulties arise in setting up the laser beam channel needed to control the missiles.

As Vladimir Babak noted, the Klevok complex, also known as Hermes, created by the Tula Instrument Design Bureau, is being considered as a regular ATGM for the newest Su-25CM3. But as the work continues, he, alas, has not yet joined the arms of the Rook.

Russian VKS plans to receive at least 2020 of Su-45CM25 attack aircraft by 3 year. Modernization will be carried out at the 121-m aircraft repair plant in Kubinka, where Su-25CM is also launched. But the plans of the command and control crew and the Sukhoi Sukhoi military-industrial complex can be affected by the fact that during work on the upgraded Grachi, it will be necessary not only to install on-board equipment, but also to carry out a comprehensive repair of the aircraft - with the restoration of components, assemblies and mechanisms.

As a further development of the Su-25 family, its developers have now offered the Su-25SMT aircraft to the Russian HVACS.

“At the plant in Ulan-Ude there are several previously released Su-25T gliders. We offer to install on-board equipment similar to the Su-25CM3. On the new machine, the flight range will increase, and due to the sealed cabin, the ceiling will grow to 12 thousands of meters. Ready to make other changes that enhance the capabilities of the new attack aircraft. If we get good, we will be able to lift the new car into the air next year, ”said Vladimir Babak, chief designer of the Su-25,.

Change of Role


If you look at the modern aviation fleet of the Russian Aerospace Forces, it is striking that there are no relatively light, cheap, multi-purpose fighter-bombers in its composition. At the beginning of 90's, the then president of the country, Boris Yeltsin, decided that only combat aircraft with two engines should remain in the Russian Air Force. As a result, the Su-17 and Mig-27, which formed the basis of attack aviation, were written off, and their tasks shifted to the highly specialized Su-25.

As further experience of wars and military conflicts showed, the Russian Air Force was sorely lacking light, easy to operate and capable of carrying out a large number of departures per day of strike aircraft equipped with modern optical-electronic stations and using both high-precision and unguided aviation weapons. Not only the old Su-24, but also the newest Su-34 are quite sophisticated and expensive cars that require long preparation for a combat mission. It can be assumed that it was for this reason that unpretentious Su-25, which carried out the tasks of front bomber, were transferred to Syria.

Su-25SM3 is no longer a classic attack aircraft - the heir to the IL-2, as they say. This is a multifunctional machine capable of solving a wide range of tasks, ranging from destruction tanks and other armored objects and ending with the suppression of enemy air defense. The updated "Rook" can effectively act against a high-tech enemy and against militant units.

In fact, the Su-25 emerged from the niche of a highly specialized machine for direct support of troops on the battlefield and now gradually takes the place of lightweight multi-function attack aircraft that solve a wide range of tasks, spending moderate funds for this. Therefore, the appearance of the Su-25CMT becomes quite logical, which will finally consolidate the status of a multi-functional machine for the Rooks family.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/30427
156 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. sergey72
    sergey72 April 30 2016 05: 26
    +6
    He would have been motivated by normal, but what is now worth it has such an expense ......
    1. Sergei1982
      Sergei1982 1 May 2016 05: 24
      +2
      Here is in detail about the level of modernization of the Su-25CM3 http://alexeyvvo.livejournal.com/157910.html

      the difference as we see between the first Su-25 and Su-25SM3 is like heaven and earth, SOLT-25 (optical laser thermal system) there are exactly the same optical channels as on the Sniper.
      As for the comparison of the Su-25 and a-10, in the first versions of the Su-25 it clearly exceeded the A-10, so it already had a wide selection of laser-guided tools, so now the Su-25CM3 is much more interesting than the A-10C, at least due to the presence of X -58USH, R-73 and X-29 in the nomenclature of A-10C there is nothing like that. By the way, how could the USA upgrade 200-300 A-10 for 400 mil.dol, when one Sniper costs 7 mil.zel. And here Lopatov destroyed Tor and A-10C for two times without explaining how he could detect Tor and hit. If Thor is disguised, then Sniper is not an assistant, if Tor is in motion, then again the A-10C has nothing to hit him with, Su- 25CM3 it will not be difficult for the X-58USH to be guided by the STR and everything can hit not only Tor, but also Patriot, since the X-58USH has a range of 200 km +. In addition, I’m not sure that the A-10S has analogous Vitebsk.
    2. papik09
      papik09 1 May 2016 08: 28
      0
      Quote: sergey72
      He would dviglo normal, but what is now worth it has such an expense ......

      hi
      Your prefix "would" spoils the whole picture repeat Finally - the plane is awesome, even with this "dviglom". Somewhere like this, here. repeat
  2. izya top
    izya top April 30 2016 05: 32
    +60
    remembered ...
    1. Mik13
      Mik13 April 30 2016 06: 40
      +10
      Quote: izya top
      remembered ...

      DEFINED)))
      One of my favorite songs.

      And the clip is successful.
      1. Yuri from Volgograd
        Yuri from Volgograd April 30 2016 11: 36
        +13
        Yes, the song is sincere, thanks!
        On the topic of the article, you also need a few words.
        Whatever aircraft, even of the fifth generation, even of the seventh, but just simple machines will rake up most of the conflicts, it’s already established (the history of stealth in Yugoslavia is fixed to the Yankees, the raptor is protected as an icon).
        So, both the Su-25 and Mi-8 will for a long time be integral participants in all conflicts where their countries will be drawn.
        1. Suhow
          Suhow April 30 2016 12: 48
          0
          I SUPPORT Yuri, but about light and not expensive aviation, I want to say my amateurish word, if I use the Yak-142 like (flying school desk) for now ... I apologize if I made a mistake in numbering the model.
          1. vv3
            vv3 April 30 2016 23: 38
            0
            There is a Yak-130 aircraft that can be used to destroy ground targets in conditions of weak air defense or its absence. Such a plane will have huge export potential. PNK does not complicate, take as a basis the complex with the SU-17M4 only in a modern design. It should be simple and effective.
        2. Inok10
          Inok10 April 30 2016 12: 54
          +8
          However, again, due to the design features of the Su-25CM3, it was not possible to place a laser projector on its board, capable of suppressing even the latest multispectral homing heat heads.
          ... I set a plus for the article, but there are a lot of inaccuracies ... it’s just the laser spotlights that will be on the SU-25CM3, and the helicopter system uses neodymium lamps in the spotlights ... I prepared myself to read carefully at the TU holidays on the SU-25 SM3. .. if I master it myself, I will write ... or I will give the administration material on the attached screen hi ...
          ... further, what about "Whirlwind" ... which the author did not find on CM3 ?! ... for that there is a video from 2015 RT ...
          Posted on: 5 Dec 2014
          From December 01 to December 04, during special training, the crews of the latest Su-25СМ3 Grach airplanes of the air base of the Southern Military District deployed in the Krasnodar Territory will perform flight missions in difficult weather conditions. Also, during combat training missions, attack aircraft will launch guided missiles and reset correctable bombs.
          ... there we just see the SU-25SM3 with "Whirlwind" in operation ... I bow to the sim ... hi
          1. g1v2
            g1v2 April 30 2016 14: 17
            +1
            To be honest, it’s not clear to me whether the class of attack aircraft itself has a future. My doubts are fueled by the fact that the order for a promising attack aircraft never appeared.
            In theory, the functions performed by the attack aircraft can be distributed between the front-line bomber type su34, attack drones and attack helicopters. Is another class of aircraft needed if its functions can be performed by other classes - a riddle? By the way, mattresses, too, from their attack aircraft are gradually abandoned in favor of drones. If someone sees the need for such a class, I will listen with interest. hi
            1. vv3
              vv3 1 May 2016 09: 29
              -2
              You don’t even want to spend time on you. Do you have a button to reset the memory and return to the factory settings? And the rating is over the top ?!
          2. Vadim237
            Vadim237 April 30 2016 21: 30
            +1
            I must say - a modest modernization of the Su 25.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. rotmistr60
      rotmistr60 April 30 2016 07: 16
      +7
      Test song. Many talents in the Russian army.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. Prapor-527
      Prapor-527 1 May 2016 09: 55
      +3
      Thank! A great song for a great airplane and for the real guys flying it ...
  3. Uncle Murzik
    Uncle Murzik April 30 2016 06: 00
    +6
    SU-25 is a good, inexpensive hard worker of war!
  4. kugelblitz
    kugelblitz April 30 2016 06: 16
    -1
    The best attack aircraft of all time! Neither the A-10 flying gun, nor the competitor Il-102, even close stand close by the degree of booking and survivability.
    1. Aleksandr1959
      Aleksandr1959 April 30 2016 12: 56
      +5
      IL-102 was developed almost on an initiative basis. flights were carried out only in Zhukovsky. Of military test pilots, only Colonel Oleinikov Vadim Anatolyevich carried out sorties on it. Naturally, no Il-102 flights with ASA were carried out. Yes, and according to the recognition of the Ilyushinites, this plane was a little late in comparison with the Su-25.
      The Su-25 was also lucky that in 1980 a joint project with the Sukhoi Design Bureau "Rhombus" was carried out - "Testing of the Su-25 attack aircraft in the special conditions of mountainous terrain." Those. even before the end of the state tests, the aircraft was tested with real combat use in Afghanistan.
      1. kugelblitz
        kugelblitz April 30 2016 15: 15
        +1
        There is an opinion that the IL-102 was overtightened, due to the not very necessary shooter cabin with a tail unit. Theoretically, of course, you could hit from it after flying over a target, but still with modern guided weapons you can even destroy targets remotely. wassat
    2. godofwar6699
      godofwar6699 April 30 2016 13: 27
      -9
      Northrop A-9 and Fairchild Republic A-10
    3. Come on
      Come on 3 May 2016 19: 25
      +1
      Quote: kugelblitz
      Neither the A-10 flying gun, nor the Il-102 competitor, even stand close by the degree of reservation and survivability.


      Watch from the 1st minute.
  5. Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack April 30 2016 06: 29
    +3
    a reliable car - we’ll upgrade - will still serve. good luck!
  6. demiurg
    demiurg April 30 2016 06: 31
    +6
    Mig-27K and BM are sorry that they wrote off. There were very good machines for working on the ground.
  7. avia12005
    avia12005 April 30 2016 06: 45
    +43
    Mig-27D was laying a simple training bomb in the Trans-Baikal area in the middle of 80-s in the Trans-Baikal polygon into the window of the wall of the house layout. Pilots 58-th apib in the Steppe even argued among themselves on brandy, in which window and on which floor ... And some people won. And then new IBA airplanes, especially Su-17m4, among which were vehicles with a touch of only a couple of dozen (!!!) hours, were driven into the middle of 90-x to the storage bases, where they sawed into metal. Many Air Force generals made good money on this. The late 23 Commander BA Lieutenant-General Kutsokon, learning that the General Staff was about to disperse the 58 th apib, called the head of Nenshtab Kvashnin and the Mats (they studied at the General Staff Academy) and persuaded him not to disband the regiment, but to retrain Su-25. As a result, instead of almost new Mig-27D and K, they received dead Su-25 from the Far East, which did not stand by TTX and the resource reserve. So that the destruction of IBA by the enemies of the people is still waiting for its historians.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. avia12005
        avia12005 April 30 2016 07: 36
        +3
        ZaIbashili ... am
  8. godofwar6699
    godofwar6699 April 30 2016 07: 21
    .
    Quote: kugelblitz
    The best attack aircraft of all time! Neither the A-10 flying gun, nor the competitor Il-102, even close stand close by the degree of booking and survivability.

    A-10 more advanced.
    1. Dimon19661
      Dimon19661 April 30 2016 07: 30
      +10
      And what is its great advancement ???
      1. BarakHuseynovich
        BarakHuseynovich April 30 2016 07: 42
        +13
        In that he is American and has one and a half times lower maximum speed.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov April 30 2016 09: 04
          +1
          And this does not matter much when the sighting system is able to detect the target and ensure its destruction from a height not of 5 km, like the Su-25, but from 15 km
      2. Lopatov
        Lopatov April 30 2016 08: 44
        +4
        In many ways. For example, the bomb load is almost double.
      3. Leto
        Leto April 30 2016 09: 06
        -5
        Quote: Dimon19661
        And what is its great advancement ???

        The combat load is greater, there is a refueling system in the air, the range of weapons is an order of magnitude wider, the presence of means of detecting targets.
        Well, they are much less lost despite the fact that Thunderbolt from the wars does not come out.
        1. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 April 30 2016 11: 16
          +8
          Quote: Leto
          the nomenclature of weapons is an order of magnitude wider,

          What, directly in 10 times wider? what Well, they’ve killed. crying
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov April 30 2016 11: 41
            -6
            Quote: Mordvin 3
            What, directly in 10 times wider?

            Almost yes. It depends on how you count. For example, the good old "Mayverick". On the one hand, this is one ammunition. And on the other, five. Three options with a high-explosive fragmentation warhead, and two options with a cumulative one.
            1. Mordvin 3
              Mordvin 3 April 30 2016 12: 30
              +6
              If so, then the General Purpose 30 2 shoots four types of ammunition. So you don’t need to upload the pro in 10 times wider. I will not believe.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov April 30 2016 12: 44
                -5
                And you not only count the cannon.
                1. Mordvin 3
                  Mordvin 3 April 30 2016 12: 53
                  +4
                  What do I have nothing more to do, how to count all types of bombs? Let Summer count. Whose words are an order of magnitude greater? His words.
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov April 30 2016 18: 04
                    -5
                    Quote: Mordvin 3
                    What do I have nothing more to do, how to count all types of bombs?


                    Of course not. It’s enough to write patriotically

                    Quote: Mordvin 3
                    What, directly 10 times wider? Well, they’ve killed.
          2. Leto
            Leto April 30 2016 18: 19
            0
            Quote: Mordvin 3
            What, directly in 10 times wider?

            Well damn you are meticulous. You can count.
            What is Thunderbolt, unguided ammunition:
            Air bombs of the Mark 80 series, namely:
            1. Mark 81
            2. Mark 82
            3. Mark 83
            4. Mark 84
            Also incendiary bombs
            5. Mark 77
            6. BLU-1 / B
            7. BLU-27 / B
            Cluster bombs:
            8. MK-20
            9. CBU-52
            10. CBU-58
            11. CBU-71
            12. CBU-87
            13. CBU-97
            14. CBU-103
            15. CBU-105
            NURS can be calculated by the type of rockets for multiple types of launchers
            16. 70 mm. Hydra 70
            17 mm. Zuni
            Now guided ammunition:
            18. AIM-9 Sidewinder
            19. AGM-65 Maverick
            20. GBU-10 with Mark 84
            21. GBU-10 with BLU-117 / B
            22. GBU-10 with BLU-109
            23. GBU-12 with Mark 82
            24. GBU-12 with BLU-111A / B
            25. GBU-16 with Mark 83
            26. GBU-16 with BLU-110
            27. GBU-31 with Mark 84
            28. GBU-31 with BLU-109
            29. GBU-32 with Mark 83
            30. GBU-35 with BLU-110
            31. GBU-38 with Mark 82
            32. GBU-38 with BLU-111

            Announce your list please
            1. Taoist
              Taoist April 30 2016 21: 52
              +8
              Learn materiel ... Su 25 has only NURSOV S-5, S-8, S-13, S-24, S-25 ... Controlled from "Whirlwinds" to X-58 ... Free-falling all up to 1500kg in caliber ...
              We learned the nomenclature of American ammunition - it would be nice to know your own ... otherwise you’re carrying a blizzard ...
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 2 May 2016 10: 44
                0
                This Su 39 could take Whirlwind missiles, but the Su 25 has no sighting system for them.
                1. Taoist
                  Taoist 3 May 2016 11: 18
                  -1
                  So here, too, the data is not A10A ... Su25 SMT is modernized for "vortices" ...
            2. Sergei1982
              Sergei1982 1 May 2016 04: 32
              +11
              Announce your list please
              May I.
              1.FAB-100
              2.FAB-250M54
              3.FAB-250 M62
              4.FAB-250TS
              5.FAB-250ShL
              6.FAB-500T
              7.FAB-500M54
              8.FAB-500M62
              9.FAB-500ShN
              10.FAB-500ShL
              11.OFAB-100-120
              12.OFAB-250T
              13.OFAB-250ShL
              14.OFAB-250-270
              15.OFAB-250ShN
              16.OFAB-500U
              17.OFAB-500ShR
              18.BETAB-500
              19. Beta AB-500ShP
              20.BetAB-500U
              21.ZAB-100-105
              22.ZAB-250-200
              23.ZB-500ShM
              24.ZB-500GD
              25.FZAB-500M
              26.OFZAB-500
              27.ODAB-500PM
              28.RBC-500U
              29.RBC-500 AO2,5RTM
              30.RBC-500 OAB2,5RTM
              31.RBC-500 BetAB
              32.RBC-500U BetAB-M
              33.RBC-500 PTAB-1M
              34.RBC-500U PTAB
              35.RBC-500U SPBE-D
              36.RBC-250 ZAB2,5M
              37.RBC-500 ZAB2,5
              NURSES
              38.S-13T
              39.S-13OF
              40.S-13DF
              41.S-8KOM
              42.S-8DF
              43.S-8BM
              44.S-8T
              45.S-8DFM
              46.S-24B
              47.S-25 O
              48.S-25 OFM
              Smart weapon now
              49.X-25ML
              50.S-25L
              51.S-25LD
              52.X-29L
              53.X-29T
              54.X-29TD
              55.X-29TE
              56.KAB-500Kr
              RVV
              57.R-60.
              A plus on the Su-25SM3 go
              58. KAB-500S
              59.X-58U
              60.P-73
              61.Spab.
              Maybe something else lowered.
              As a result, the A-10 quietly sniffs aside in front of the Su-25 nomenclature.
        2. sivuch
          sivuch April 30 2016 15: 31
          +1
          still add — all dimensions, including the midsection, are greater, the speed is lower (it’s just not necessary that the attack aircraft doesn’t need it — as Afghanistan showed — it’s sometimes very necessary), the thrust-weight ratio is lower, the gun, which was hardly used (although the aircraft was built around it)
          And when did you refuel?
        3. Taoist
          Taoist April 30 2016 21: 43
          +3
          Learn materiel ... about the "nomenclature of weapons" in general hung up ... Means of detection of targets ... this is also brilliance ... Well, what for "battlefield aircraft" is a refueling system in the air, unless your goal is overseas in your head came?
      4. tchoni
        tchoni April 30 2016 10: 06
        -2
        That takes on board twice as much cargo. And the speed for the attack aircraft is not important. But the ammunition ... Plus a wide range of weapons used.
        1. sivuch
          sivuch April 30 2016 23: 16
          +1
          In the memoirs of General Major Alekseev (in Afghanistan, he was a colonel and commanded the 168th IAP), I quote from memory: In some cases, MLDs were preferable to the Su-25, for example, when working near the Pakistani border, when from the percussion machine required speed and acceleration, or if necessary to bomb from a dive. (with a dive angle of more than 30).
          And this despite the fact that the Mig-23 did not have a single gram of armor and the forward-down review was very limited.
          1. tchoni
            tchoni 3 May 2016 22: 48
            0
            Here you are, do not distort. You know what I wrote. And what I meant. Two hundred kilometers plus the maximum speed is not an indicator that the attack aircraft should be proud of. I did not understand anything about speed and acceleration during a dive. They usually try to repay. And do not dial. Something like this. Near the Pakistani border, the Migi could be more convenient due to a possible threat from the Pakistani Air Force
            1. sivuch
              sivuch 4 May 2016 20: 20
              0
              If you mean the difference between the maximum speed of the Su-25 and A-10, then this is 300 km / h, and if the difference between what the military wanted and what they got was yes, 200. And still, in principle, they were right, how to exclude opposition from the enemy’s air force is far from always possible. As it was in Afghanistan. When working near the border (and sometimes they crossed it), it was important to bomb, quickly pick up speed and slow down. So, even the difference of 200 km / h in these In those cases, it was more important than viewing from the cockpit and booking. The Americans could democratize Iraq without risk of running into enemy fighters. And if the horizontal maneuverability of the A-10 was very good, due to the huge wing area, then for all vertical maneuvers, rate of climb, overclocking, it was inferior to drying. Also, of course, when working in the highlands.
              And about the dive, it’s just taken from the phrase memoirs, neither the su-25 nor the A-10 worked from the dive
    2. Wedmak
      Wedmak April 30 2016 07: 32
      +8
      A-10 more advanced.

      Than? Its main weapon - the cannon, can no longer be used effectively without an almost 100% chance of running into MANPADS or Shilka. And you can’t remove it ...
      1. godofwar6699
        godofwar6699 April 30 2016 08: 14
        -2
        His main weapon is a gun ?? lol
      2. Lopatov
        Lopatov April 30 2016 08: 50
        -1
        Quote: Wedmak
        Than? His main weapon is a cannon.

        ?
        A cannon and 7.2 tons of missile and bomb on 11 nodes of the suspension
      3. Leto
        Leto April 30 2016 09: 22
        0
        Quote: Wedmak
        Its main weapon - the cannon, can no longer be used effectively without an almost 100% chance of running into MANPADS or Shilka. And you can’t remove it ...

        Okromya guns archarch can do much more than cause trouble, but yes, you can’t remove the gun, and the ability to use it against the enemy with MANPADS is rather low. Carry often unnecessary load.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 April 30 2016 20: 35
          +3
          That's just against the ZUSHeks in jeeps and MANPADs calculations, this gun is just right - great firepower and the area of ​​destruction.
      4. Vadim237
        Vadim237 April 30 2016 20: 51
        -2
        In the United States, the creation of systems leading and blinding MANPADS does not stand still.
    3. 73bor
      73bor April 30 2016 10: 21
      +2
      A plane that does not even wait for modernization, lasts its last engine life and will be written off completely! In terms of vitality, our abruptly will be, but in terms of bells and whistles, yes!
    4. Lt. Air Force stock
      Lt. Air Force stock April 30 2016 11: 44
      +1
      Quote: godofwar6699
      A-10 more advanced.

      How is he advanced? If you are talking about a cannon, then on the Su-25, past the built-in double-barreled cannon, you can also place an additional 1 double-barreled cannon under each wing, for a total of 6 barrels.
      1. WUA 518
        WUA 518 April 30 2016 20: 19
        +3
        Quote: Lt. air force reserve
        1st double-barreled gun under each wing,

        Even in the process of testing, the use of SPPU-22 was recognized as ineffective, and inappropriate.
  9. godofwar6699
    godofwar6699 April 30 2016 08: 02
    .
    Quote: Wedmak
    A-10 more advanced.

    Than? Its main weapon - the cannon, can no longer be used effectively without an almost 100% chance of running into MANPADS or Shilka. And you can’t remove it ...

    my opinion is the best attack aircraft
    1. BarakHuseynovich
      BarakHuseynovich April 30 2016 08: 16
      +6
      MiG-27 is the best
    2. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 April 30 2016 08: 49
      +4
      Quote: godofwar6699
      my opinion is the best attack aircraft


      The car is good, no doubt. But what is the best in the world is a big question.

      You still have not substantiated your claim that A-10 is the best in the world. What are the parameters?
      1. Leto
        Leto April 30 2016 09: 34
        -3
        Quote: wanderer_032
        What are the parameters?

        So there’s nothing special to compare. Everyone compares with the Su-25, which in principle is not entirely correct. Su-25 in a different weight category, it was designed as a light attack aircraft, hence its main drawbacks, low load and small radius of action. The location of the engines in the Su-25 is unsuccessful, in the Varkhog the engines are not only spaced, but also shielded from below by a horizontal tail. The Su-25 has a chance of hitting two engines with one missile, this is clearly visible in the photo.
        Both vehicles do not have on-board means of detecting the enemy, but Varhog can use Sniper XR and LITENING hanging sighting containers, and there is nothing for Grach to hang.

        1. Verdun
          Verdun April 30 2016 10: 13
          +11
          The Su-25 has a probability of hitting two engines with one rocket, this is clearly visible in the photo.
          The ability to fly on one engine is important for an attack aircraft. Here are just "unsuccessfully" from your point of view, the placed SU-25 engines withstand a direct hit from the stinger and continue to work, but the A-10 cannot boast of this. The American also has a lower level of protection for the pilot.
          “The Su-25 is more maneuverable, it has no limitations like the A-10. For example, our aircraft can fully perform complex aerobatics, but the “American” cannot, it has limited pitch and roll angles, it cannot fit into the A-10 canyon, and the Su-25 can, ”the test pilot noted.



          According to Tolboev, the engines of attack aircraft are seriously different. “The Americans are a little more powerful, but they are very vulnerable, because they are upstairs in the open, ours below are closed under the belly, and between them there is a titanium plate. If one of the engines is hit by a missile, the second works, ”Tolboev explained.

          He also recalled that the Su-25 engines are omnivorous, while the American attack aircraft only flies on aviation kerosene. The expert is convinced that the domestic attack aircraft is significantly superior to the American in survivability.
          1. Leto
            Leto April 30 2016 16: 43
            -4
            Quote: Verdun
            Here are just "unsuccessfully" from your point of view, the placed SU-25 engines withstand a direct hit from the stinger and continue to work, but the A-10 cannot boast of this.

            Go from thinking to facts, how many Su-25s have been lost from MANPADS and how many A-10s? Su-25 and A-10 operate in parallel in Iraq and Syria, at least one Su-25 shot down, A-10 not a single one. Ukrainian Air Force tried to use the Su-25 and how did it end?
            Quote: Verdun
            He also recalled that the Su-25 engines are omnivorous, while the American attack aircraft only flies on aviation kerosene.

            Many cases when ours refueled the Su-25 not with keros, but with liquefied gas or salyarka? Can you bring at least one?
            1. Verdun
              Verdun April 30 2016 20: 13
              +1
              Many cases when ours refueled the Su-25 not with keros, but with liquefied gas or salyarka? Can you bring at least one?
              Since I quoted from an interview given to a journalist, I think the whole problem is the technical illiteracy of the journalist. Most likely, it was a question of aviation fuel of various quality. It can differ greatly in its standards and not all engines are omnivorous.
        2. Sergei1982
          Sergei1982 April 30 2016 12: 56
          +4
          but Varhoog can use the Sniper XR and LITENING hanging sighting containers, and Rook has nothing to hang.
          You did not carefully read the article on CM3, it is put SOLT-25 which works in any conditions.
        3. Aleksandr1959
          Aleksandr1959 April 30 2016 13: 21
          +7
          The location of the engines in the Su-25 is unsuccessful, in the Varkhog the engines are not only spaced, but also shielded from below by horizontal tail. The Su-25 has a chance of hitting two engines with one missile, this is clearly visible in the photo.

          This photo was taken during the events of 8.08.08. I think the car is from Budenovsk. Despite the defeat of MANPADS, the aircraft safely reached the airfield.
        4. wanderer_032
          wanderer_032 April 30 2016 18: 58
          +2
          Quote: Leto
          Both vehicles do not have on-board enemy detection


          The Su-25 has a pilot alert system for a missile attack. And as far as I remember, it was immediately put.
    3. Verdun
      Verdun April 30 2016 09: 37
      +13
      my opinion is the best attack aircraft
      Than? Appearance? Specializing in the destruction of armored vehicles, the A-10 cannot do half of what the Su-25 can do. However, it is significantly inferior to the "Rook" in survivability.
    4. Vadim237
      Vadim237 April 30 2016 10: 48
      .
      In terms of combat load and firepower, it exceeds Su 25, and in terms of maneuverability they are comparable.
      1. Verdun
        Verdun April 30 2016 11: 03
        +3
        and in terms of maneuverability they are comparable.
        That is, you believe that the honored pilot test of the Russian Federation, Hero of the Russian Federation Magomed Tolboev is lying?
        1. Aleksandr1959
          Aleksandr1959 April 30 2016 13: 30
          +6
          In this case, I would not refer to Tolboev, who is indirectly related to the Su-25, but to military test pilots who tested the Su-25, both the Su-25T, and the Su-25TM ... the list goes on. And for test pilots of the Sukhoi Design Bureau, both now flying, and already retired. On the same Oleg Grigorievich Tsoi. Also Hero of Russia and Honored Test Pilot of the USSR. For example, on the Su-25T, I would talk with former military test pilots V.P. Bukhtoyarov, A.G. Bondarenko, V.A. Aleinikov, S.I. Khraptsov, A.G. Goncharov. .... who participated in the State Test of the Su-25T
  10. godofwar6699
    godofwar6699 April 30 2016 08: 54
    .
    Quote: wanderer_032
    Quote: godofwar6699
    my opinion is the best attack aircraft


    The car is good, no doubt. But what is the best in the world is a big question.

    You still have not substantiated your claim that A-10 is the best in the world. What are the parameters?
  11. Alexander 3
    Alexander 3 April 30 2016 08: 56
    +10
    Each sandpiper praises its swamp. Our rooks mistakenly did not drop bombs in hospitals and on escort vehicles.
  12. Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 April 30 2016 09: 09
    +3
    Boris Yeltsin decided that only combat aircraft with two engines should remain in the Russian Air Force.

    Yeltsin (also an aviation specialist for me) only signed what was offered to him.
    The military themselves decided on the basis of the budget and their ideas and knowledge.
    Not always important decisions are made by specialists. Even among them there are people who are guided not by state, but by their personal interests ...
  13. Verdun
    Verdun April 30 2016 09: 34
    +8
    In fact, the Su-25 left the niche of a highly specialized machine for the direct support of troops on the battlefield
    The only comment to the author of the article is that direct support of the troops is by no means a highly specialized task. This is precisely the wide range of tasks for which the SU-25 was created. Unlike its American counterpart A-10, whose main task is to destroy armored vehicles. The upgrades being carried out improve the fighting qualities of the Rook, allowing it to fulfill its role even better.
  14. sabakina
    sabakina April 30 2016 11: 09
    +4
    Here, some praise the A-10 ... Maybe a good plane, BUT! As they said in one famous film "Walk over the heads, look into the pipes of houses, but find ...". A-10 can do that?
    2. I can bomb with 15 meters. Sturmovik ... From 000 km ... And not from space?
    3. Constantly fighting ... With the poits?
    I’ll probably run into cons, but I wrote what I think! IL-2, Su-25, judging by the comments, there were projects to replace the Rook. But there is such a thing ...
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov April 30 2016 11: 26
      -7
      Quote: sabakina
      I can bomb with 15 meters. Sturmovik ... From 000 km ... And not from space?

      Here sometimes a hundred meters matter. Take, for example, the valiant Russian motorized rifle. The team with their regular means from the Su-25 will be able to fight back, but from the A-10C is no longer. Do you think it matters?
      1. sivuch
        sivuch April 30 2016 15: 40
        +3
        Quite the contrary. Getting into a crash-like battle like the A-10 is much easier even from the rifleman, but speaking of the MZA. Even if he returns, the next flight will not be soon.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 April 30 2016 20: 12
          0
          Believe me - A 10 will return even after hundreds of hits - and you can get from the gunner into any plane - the main thing is that the flight be low.
      2. Vadim237
        Vadim237 April 30 2016 20: 45
        -2
        And 10 with just one cannon will turn an entire column of several dozen cars into flaming Swiss cheese - at one go.
        1. sivuch
          sivuch April 30 2016 22: 38
          +3
          Only in Iraq, for some reason, the Mavericks used more (by the way, also from very short ranges). Apparently, they could not find suitable columns.
          And once again, in 91, two A-10s were shot down by S-10s in one day on one sector of the front. The Americans are fortunate that Strel-10 was relatively small
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 1 May 2016 10: 20
            -2
            There, mainly helicopters, tanks and fighters, bombers worked on columns and everything else, and that two A 10 were shot down there, during the war with Georgia they shot down 4 Su 25 - not a single plane is safe from this.
            1. sivuch
              sivuch 1 May 2016 22: 59
              +1
              http://www.rjlee.org/air/ds-aaloss/
              actually bigger.
              and pay attention to what they shot down and especially what damaged them. The fact is that the Iraqis didn’t have modern strikes (at that time), and there weren’t too many shirts, otherwise most of the damaged would migrate to Losses.
              And as of 08.08.08, this is the most part of the Su-25’s losses, it’s friendly fire. Well, it’s so Soviet, and then the Russian air defense of the SV was always distinguished by a high fire density.
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh April 30 2016 19: 46
      +4
      Circular deviation of 10 m when bombing from a height of 5000 m
      a free-falling bomb - unscientific fiction.
      Even an accurate guided bomb with military GPS gives a deflection
      to 5 m.
  15. Denis Skiff
    Denis Skiff April 30 2016 11: 12
    +2
    Quote: Verdun
    The Su-25 has a probability of hitting two engines with one rocket, this is clearly visible in the photo.
    The ability to fly on one engine is important for an attack aircraft. Here are just "unsuccessfully" from your point of view, the placed SU-25 engines withstand a direct hit from the stinger and continue to work, but the A-10 cannot boast of this. The American also has a lower level of protection for the pilot.

    that is, all its (A-10) pluses are nullified. weakly protected pilot. the plane will not return after shelling from the ground The pilot survived? If the keels and thrusts of rudders of direction and altitude do not break, it may return.
    In short, how lucky. Drying returned with a torn shell and torn pieces. The pilot is intact.
    That's when the batch will be strong, then we'll see how quickly the number a-10 will melt. And so. fight with the Papuans, then of course, the best for this matter, poorly protected aircraft. and cheaper is desirable. if they hit with a stick, it will not be so sorry.
  16. godofwar6699
    godofwar6699 April 30 2016 11: 33
    0
    Quote: Alexander 3
    Each sandpiper praises its swamp. Our rooks mistakenly did not drop bombs in hospitals and on escort vehicles.

    i like them both good
  17. iouris
    iouris April 30 2016 12: 16
    +1
    Quote:
    The Rooks showed very high accuracy in Syria, sometimes not inferior to the Su-24M front-line bombers.
    End of quote.
    The accuracy is provided by GLONASS, not the plane. It doesn’t matter which platform to put the equipment on.
    From the author’s reasoning, two conclusions naturally follow.
    1) Su-34, Su-24M and Su-25 could be replaced by a light single-engine aircraft equipped with equipment for dropping bombs from a height of 5000 m.
    2) there is no attack aircraft for operations against a group saturated with MANPADS.
    And further. It can be concluded that guns, NURSs and SDs in Syria were practically not used due to the presence of simple air defense systems in militants.
    What would be the result of the operation, if not for GLONASS and reconnaissance satellites?
    1. marshes
      marshes April 30 2016 12: 31
      0
      Quote: iouris
      1) Su-34, Su-24M and Su-25 could be replaced by a light single-engine aircraft equipped with equipment for dropping bombs from a height of 5000 m.

      In principle, they were already in the arsenal of the Kazakh army MIG-27, bought in the Russian Federation, repaired in UA.
      MiG-27D.
      1. iouris
        iouris April 30 2016 16: 09
        +2
        All MiG-23, -27 were decommissioned by Yeltsin's decree in the early 1990s and put into "storage". I think the units from these aircraft were then sold through legal and illegal channels.
        1. marshes
          marshes April 30 2016 16: 23
          +1
          Quote: iouris
          All MiG-23, -27 were decommissioned by Yeltsin's decree in the early 1990s and put into "storage". I think the units from these aircraft were then sold through legal and illegal channels.

          With your permission, we scoured all the warehouses that we found in a better state and sent them for repairs to Ukraine, and you did not have repairs in those years after the 2000s.
          Really cool aircraft, we have more than 30 pieces ...
          During use, there were not significant emergency situations, they still fly.
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh April 30 2016 23: 23
      -1
      1) Su-34, Su-24M and Su-25 could be replaced by a light single-engine aircraft equipped with equipment for dropping bombs from a height of 5000 m //////

      That's right. At us F16 perfectly cope with this work.
  18. marshes
    marshes April 30 2016 12: 19
    +2
    Yes ... The attack aircraft is good.
    It would be necessary to start production again. Only one "snag" demand will be for a slightly modernized "old" version of the Su-25, as a counterpartisan aircraft.
    For the carrier of highly accurate weapons with a high ceiling, there are other types of aircraft.
  19. godofwar6699
    godofwar6699 April 30 2016 13: 35
    -1
    Quote: CERHJ
    Quote: Spade
    For example, the bomb load is almost double.

    He practically never flew with her .. Since the radius of action. But the main maneuverability became unacceptable for the attack aircraft .. The Americans themselves conducted research on the appearance of a promising attack aircraft in the 90s, it turned out just the appearance of the Su-25 with its characteristics .. . The bomb load from the experience of use rarely exceeded 3 tons. Why is there 7200 kg? Our Su-25s rarely took the same more than 2 tons ..
    And the cannon yes they have a test with a good ammunition ...

    Su-25 looks like Northrop A-9
    1. Mikhail Matyugin
      Mikhail Matyugin 3 May 2016 22: 19
      0
      Quote: godofwar6699
      Su-25 looks like Northrop A-9

      But it’s true! I didn’t think about this similarity!
  20. D24081973
    D24081973 April 30 2016 14: 38
    0
    domestic production is either destroyed or in a decayed state. All that is being done is the last thing that can be squeezed out of the legacy of the USSR, and therefore they patch up the old, long-spent equipment
  21. sivuch
    sivuch April 30 2016 15: 53
    +3
    And by the way, the A-9 test showed the best results. It’s just that the manufacturer’s support is not only in Russia. The Fairchald company was then without orders, unlike Northrop
    But at the expense of the engines it’s partially correct. On the A-10 there are dual-circuit engines, by definition cooler, also shielded by plumage.
    On the Su-25, the ancient R-95 engines from the Mig-21, in addition, their nozzles are deployed 3 degrees down, just like for MANPADS shooters. For the modernized R-195s, they promised to reduce the IR signature by 3 times, but whether it’s done - from the article is unclear.
    Another thing is that for the rifleman, MZA, Shilok with Tunguska, Os the IR signature is not important, but the overall size is even very. And even the S-10 had not only an IR channel
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 April 30 2016 21: 43
      -5
      No structural changes were made to the Su 25СМ3 - modernization to a minimum.
      1. Aleksandr1959
        Aleksandr1959 April 30 2016 22: 42
        +4
        No structural changes were made to the Su 25СМ3 - modernization to a minimum
        .
        Modernization compared to which version of the Su-25? And modernization of what exactly? What design changes are we talking about? What version of Su-25 do you take as a starting point and with which option do you compare?
        If we just talk about modernization, without naming the specific components of the aviation complex, then this is a conversation about nothing. Fuselage upgrade? Is she really needed? Modernization of avionics? Compare the original version of the Su-25 and the options of the Su-25CM and Su-25CM3. These are two big differences. Changing the nomenclature of the applied TSA .... it.d. etc.
        I will give you another advantage of the Su-25. It can fly on diesel. Such tests were carried out in the late 80s in Akhtubinsk. Using both summer and winter diesel fuel. At the same time, the gas-dynamic stability of the engine was tested with the use of guns, LDCs and ASMs.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 1 May 2016 10: 22
          -5
          For Su 25СМ and Su 25СМ3, the difference is only in BERO and even then the minimum.
          1. Sergei1982
            Sergei1982 1 May 2016 10: 46
            +3
            For Su 25СМ and Su 25СМ3, the difference is only in BERO and even then the minimum.
            Above, I posted the details of the modernization of the Su-25SM3, there is a huge difference even between the Su-25Sm and Su-25SM3, it is like the Su-30Mk and Su-30SM. In the link it’s highlighted that the main features are replaced and it’s SOLT-25 and Vitebsk, SOLT- 25 allows you to work in any conditions and expands the range of weapons; in the future, work is underway on the installation of a small-sized AFAR on the Su-25SM3, integration of new ASPs in the form of KAB-250, X-38 and a number of interesting new products in the future of Hermes (aka Klevok) .All who cite the fact that the Su-25s were shot down in Ukraine and Georgia write nonsense. In Ukraine, pilots flew 20-30 hours a year, most Su-25s didn’t even have Linden, wrong tactics, the same thing Georgia, our pilots had a low raid, Georgia’s air defense was not previously suppressed, the aircraft were without EW (they began to put Omul on the Su-25SM after 2008, and Vitebsk went completely unavailable), again they did not use TSA in the form of X- 25/29, lack of intelligence and much more.
            In Syria, the Su-25SM had 3500 sorties and thank God without losses, although there are enough militants for MANPADS and MZA, this suggests that every mission is planned and the targets are explored, and our pilots have already flown 120-140 hours a year, and not 20-40 as it was.
            1. Aleksandr1959
              Aleksandr1959 1 May 2016 10: 56
              +3
              An interesting possibility is the use of missiles with a laser seeker from horizontal flight
              Due to the introduction of the program-controlled target tracking mode, the Klen-PS illumination and ranging station ensures the use of the Kh-25ML and Kh-29L laser-guided air-to-surface missiles from horizontal flight.

              http://ak-12.livejournal.com/25433.html
  22. marshes
    marshes April 30 2016 16: 06
    0
    In general, the fate of the Su-25 and A-10 is interesting, the comrades have already described above that it is not their “fate.” In principle, I agree, all the same, MANPADS and modern cannon artillery have appeared on the battlefield, MANPADS will already be a widespread phenomenon. conventional information security, with super-smart weapons. Attack helicopters are also offered here as a replacement, but this is fraught with huge losses.
    So a tendency has emerged to use light aircraft as attack aircraft in counter-guerrilla operations. Also "flying Tractors", my favorite smile Super Tucano and so on. By the way, the Americans for some reason created a cheap Scorpio, the answer of the Russian Federation may be the Yak-130.
    1. iouris
      iouris April 30 2016 16: 29
      0
      RF cannot afford to develop too many projects. "Driving" NATO reconnaissance aircraft on the border and destroying unrecognized groups fighting "by proxy" are different tasks. There are no universal aircraft. An ordinary war with NATO is impossible for the Russian Federation, because it is likely to be lost due to numerical superiority, or victory will be achieved at an unacceptable cost. Therefore, it is correct to have conventional forces, relatively small in number, but sufficiently modern in equipment. Too low the number of conventional armed forces makes the weapon too expensive and does not allow the potential buyer to believe in the effectiveness of the weapon of interest. Too large the number of armed forces reduces combat readiness, controllability and makes it difficult to ensure a high technological level of weapons and military equipment.
      Perhaps some samples should be purchased. For example, in Brazil.
  23. iouris
    iouris April 30 2016 16: 15
    +2
    When comparing aircraft of the same purpose, remember to compare their maintenance suitability and equipment reliability characteristics. At one time, the MiG-27M and -K were almost the most "failed" in the Air Force, and the replacement of PrNK equipment required such quality "adjustment work" that up to 15 out of 45 aircraft were idle in the TEC ap.
  24. Verdun
    Verdun April 30 2016 21: 11
    0
    There is no need to play the A-10 "Il-2", it can throw bombs and missiles accurately even from 4 km.
    Here, many in the comments wrote that the Su-25 is not capable of using weapons from great distances and heights, and that it has a small combat load. Yes it is. But when striking from great heights and distances, there is no need for an attack aircraft to deliver many tons of ammunition to the place of action. Different types of bombers do a great job of this. The attack aircraft have completely different tasks. Yes, they have to be covered from the air (however, bombers, too), yes, before using them, it is necessary to suppress long-range air defense. But they are capable of carrying out bombing from low altitudes and work effectively on small, well-disguised and maneuvering targets, being in direct fire contact with the enemy. And the Su-25 is better suited for such tasks than the A-10, which the Americans themselves admit.
    1. iouris
      iouris April 30 2016 23: 56
      +2
      All this is correct. But note that the Su-25 in Syria (and this is a typical example of combat work at the present stage) were used not as attack aircraft, but as "bomb carriers". Consequently, the command assesses the risk of combat losses during assault operations as unacceptable. And this is despite the fact that the enemy has no modern air defense systems. If the infantry and tanks are covered with modern military air defense systems, the risks will be orders of magnitude higher. From this it follows that neither we, nor a potential enemy have an ineffective attack aircraft so far. Hence, it is necessary to rebuild, abandon the SHA and develop the RUK. We need sensors for reconnaissance equipment, target recognition algorithms, high-precision weapons with a decent range, ammunition for processing areal, linear targets. For this, at a minimum, it is necessary to produce microelectromechanical systems (MEMS). Rogozin promised to do all this three years ago.
      1. Verdun
        Verdun 1 May 2016 16: 53
        0
        Consequently, the command assesses the risk of combat losses.
        Everything is correct. Syria is not even Afghanistan. Because the soldiers of the Syrian armed forces are fighting on land. Even from a political point of view, it makes little sense to risk your people and technology. But I think that in the case when it comes to our own soldiers, the situation will change radically.
  25. Aleksandr1959
    Aleksandr1959 1 May 2016 10: 43
    +2
    “At the plant in Ulan-Ude there are several previously released Su-25T gliders. We offer to install on-board equipment similar to the Su-25CM3. On the new machine, the flight range will increase, and due to the sealed cabin, the ceiling will grow to 12 thousands of meters. Ready to make other changes that enhance the capabilities of the new attack aircraft. If we get good, we will be able to lift the new car into the air next year, ”said Vladimir Babak, chief designer of the Su-25,.

    Here's what's interesting. I think that Vladimir Petrovich Babak, in fact, will make another version of the Su-25 in a short time. After all, there is a Su-25UB glider without a second cabin. The Su-25T has an additional soft fuel tank with an avionics compartment above it in place of the co-pilot's cockpit. The nose section of the fuselage is lengthened and widened to accommodate the Shkval system. The modifications of the Su-25T and Su-25TM (Su-39) have a different shape of the nose cone of the laser target designation system; the Su-25TM is equipped with a pair of LDPE.
  26. TsUS-Air Force
    TsUS-Air Force 1 May 2016 14: 22
    0
    in the late 90s there were posters where the su-25 was called the su-39. where is he thirty-ninth? no one speaks about them
    1. Sergei1982
      Sergei1982 1 May 2016 15: 14
      0
      in the late 90s there were posters where the su-25 was called the su-39. where is he thirty-ninth? no one speaks about them
      There was no money and no aircraft, and for its time the Su-39 was super, and even now it would not have succumbed to not Su-25Sm3 or A-10S.
  27. aiden
    aiden 1 May 2016 19: 15
    +4
    here's a video on the topic where the SU-25 flew in from a mission with a fuzzed engine, a torn fuselage and a broken tank
  28. vlad575nso
    vlad575nso 2 May 2016 20: 14
    0
    The Su-25 is an excellent aircraft, but it’s time to produce drone drone, it’s possible to armored.
  29. Sergey-72
    Sergey-72 5 May 2016 22: 32
    0
    On the site, it's time to make subsections on the Air Force, Navy, etc. Where you could find all the performance characteristics and comparative analyzes, for specific samples. And then all the big guys with big stars write ... they are measured, but I want to read the specifics. The topics are interesting, but "and I have more than my neighbor ..., about nothing" ...., everything sits like that So.
  30. HELIX
    HELIX 18 June 2016 16: 12
    0
    Good luck in the sky, hard worker !!!