Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
i wonder if production of su-25 could be restarted.
+65
lancelot
Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E
Broski
diabetus
Arkanghelsk
Lurk83
mnrck
TMA1
mnztr
Russian_Patriot_
Backman
JohninMK
Begome
The-thing-next-door
marcellogo
slasher
Azi
Rodion_Romanovic
dino00
higurashihougi
miketheterrible
Hole
franco
LMFS
Cheetah
GunshipDemocracy
AMCXXL
Benya
PapaDragon
Isos
T-47
SeigSoloyvov
RTN
kopyo-21
jhelb
magnumcromagnon
AlfaT8
Austin
iraqidabab
mutantsushi
d_taddei2
victor1985
Berkut
mack8
Viktor
Hannibal Barca
Werewolf
Sujoy
NickM
Flyboy77
Rpg type 7v
a89
sepheronx
flamming_python
Vympel
KomissarBojanchev
TheRealist
TR1
George1
JPJ
Russian Patriot
medo
Cyberspec
Mindstorm
GarryB
69 posters
Su-25 attack aircraft
George1- Posts : 18523
Points : 19028
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece
George1- Posts : 18523
Points : 19028
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece
Evpatoria Aircraft Repair Plant transferred the first repaired Su-25 attack aircraft to the Russian Aerospace Forces
The original was taken from a colleague diana_mihailova in the Yevpatoria Aircraft Repair Plant transferred to the Russian Aerospace Forces the first repaired Su-25 out of six ordered
ARZ in Yevpatoriya handed over to the customer the first repaired Su-25, tail number 34 red. Five more cars are in operation..
The overhaul began in the early 90s by order of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine.
Our blog previously reported that the State Unitary Enterprise of the Republic of Kazakhstan "Evpatoria Aircraft Repair Plant" (formerly 316th aircraft repair plant), along with the resumption of repair of Be-12 amphibious aircraft of the Black Sea Fleet since 2015, has also begun repairing Su-25 VKS attack aircraft Of Russia. It was reported that the first Su-25 attack aircraft was repaired at the plant at the end of 2015 - in the pictures of that time, two Su-25s under repair with white tail numbers "10" and "30" were visible.
https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3800759.html
miketheterrible- Posts : 7383
Points : 7341
Join date : 2016-11-06
They could restart production but why bother? Maybe give MiG the contract for MiG-AT but modern. They need contracts way more than Sukhoi does.
Isos- Posts : 11602
Points : 11570
Join date : 2015-11-06
miketheterrible wrote:They could restart production but why bother? Maybe give MiG the contract for MiG-AT but modern. They need contracts way more than Sukhoi does.
Max takeoff weight su-25 : 19 300 kg
Max takeoff weight Mig-at : 7 800 kg
Max takeoff weight yak-130: 10 290 kg
You can't replace the su-25 with a trainer aircraft. It's a CAS aircraft with armor and huge weapon load (4000kg). Put the armor of the su-25 on those trainers and they won't even takeoff. Don't put the armor and they will be destroyed by 12.7mm gun fire.
miketheterrible- Posts : 7383
Points : 7341
Join date : 2016-11-06
Isos wrote:miketheterrible wrote:They could restart production but why bother? Maybe give MiG the contract for MiG-AT but modern. They need contracts way more than Sukhoi does.
Max takeoff weight su-25 : 19 300 kg
Max takeoff weight Mig-at : 7 800 kg
Max takeoff weight yak-130: 10 290 kg
You can't replace the su-25 with a trainer aircraft. It's a CAS aircraft with armor and huge weapon load (4000kg). Put the armor of the su-25 on those trainers and they won't even takeoff. Don't put the armor and they will be destroyed by 12.7mm gun fire.
Yeah, I realized that after I made the mistake as I got Il-102 mixed up with MiG-AT.
I believe MiG did offer an alternative to Su-25 and I think it should be considered.
Hole
Hole- Posts : 11122
Points : 11100
Join date : 2018-03-24
Age : 48
Location : Scholzistan
The plant in Ulan-Ude produced the double seater of the Su-25 and developed a single seater out of it.
Was called Su-39. Put the modern electronics of the Su-25SM3 into it and start production (if needed).
Was called Su-39. Put the modern electronics of the Su-25SM3 into it and start production (if needed).
GarryB- Posts : 40548
Points : 41050
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
I believe MiG did offer an alternative to Su-25 and I think it should be considered.
Actually the MiG entry was sort of a mix of a MiG-21 with a MiG-27, but with fixed wings and cheek mounted air intakes... it was very much a mish mash of the two designs with no guarantee the best features of each would be present.
It was very much a two horse race, with the smaller more nimble and agile Su-25 being the best choice of the two.
The Il-102 was criticised in the west when first shown in the early 1990s at airshows, but if you actually look at its specs it is more like the A-10... being bigger and heavier with potentially a much heavier weapon load and the capacity to carry a 45mm or 57mm calibre forward firing gun and a rear firing 23mm self defence weapon.
A quick redesign removing the rear gun position and rear gun and using the space for avionics and equipment and perhaps an internal weapon load and you could probably end up with a decent aircraft.
You would need a serious redesign... make the fuselage bigger but move the pilot forward and up a bit to improve forward and downward view and add some nose mounted sensors and equipment and a decent sized belly mounted 57mm gun with ammo where the rear gunner sat... and redesigned wings with better spaced pylons with multiple ejector racks and Hermes launch positions... would be rather interesting I would think...
But then they are talking about a PAK Shkas type anyway...
Certainly the Su-39 would be rather more achievable and with the current upgrades and new technology fitted to the Su-25SM3 and of course the new sensors and weapons fitted to the Mi-28NM and Ka-52 an upgraded two seat model should have plenty of room for new equipment and systems.
Isos- Posts : 11602
Points : 11570
Join date : 2015-11-06
It also has weapon bays or should I say bomb bays. They could make a cheap and stealth version for surprise ground attack keeping only the bomb bays and removing hardpoints, in very limited numbers.
GarryB- Posts : 40548
Points : 41050
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Yeah, but I think the complication is not worth the effect.
It is never going to be stealthy, and the extra drag is not really worth worrying about especially considering the remaining wing pylons generally would carry rocket pods.
Ironically it was the tail gunner and the tail gun and the internal bomb locations that resulted in it being written off by western experts in the early 1990s as being antiquated.
But I would think if you get rid of the tail gunner and the tail gun and fitted a 57mm cannon with a 120 round ammo magazine as fitted on land vehicles like the modified PT-76 in the A-220 turret, and got rid of the internal bomb bays and just had rather long weapon pylons so you could load bombs in tandem under the rather thick and wide wings and use the internal space where the bombs went for extra fuel... shifted the pilots position well forward to give a better view forward and down and replaced the nose with radar and optical sensors from the Ka-52 and Mi-28NM and the Su-25SM3, and fitted rather more powerful turbofan engines minus the after burners you would have quite a potent ground attack aircraft.
But then I think the Su-39 would be easier and cheaper to achieve and with the improvements in sensors and systems and new weapons it will be even more potent today.
It is never going to be stealthy, and the extra drag is not really worth worrying about especially considering the remaining wing pylons generally would carry rocket pods.
Ironically it was the tail gunner and the tail gun and the internal bomb locations that resulted in it being written off by western experts in the early 1990s as being antiquated.
But I would think if you get rid of the tail gunner and the tail gun and fitted a 57mm cannon with a 120 round ammo magazine as fitted on land vehicles like the modified PT-76 in the A-220 turret, and got rid of the internal bomb bays and just had rather long weapon pylons so you could load bombs in tandem under the rather thick and wide wings and use the internal space where the bombs went for extra fuel... shifted the pilots position well forward to give a better view forward and down and replaced the nose with radar and optical sensors from the Ka-52 and Mi-28NM and the Su-25SM3, and fitted rather more powerful turbofan engines minus the after burners you would have quite a potent ground attack aircraft.
But then I think the Su-39 would be easier and cheaper to achieve and with the improvements in sensors and systems and new weapons it will be even more potent today.
GarryB- Posts : 40548
Points : 41050
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
In the 1990s there was a image shown with a black plastic model with a pusher turboprop design with a straight wing design that looked interesting...
Here it is:
I would make the wings thicker and bigger with less emphasis on top speed, and more on the most ordinance you can get on there and a big gun and weapon pylons able to carry lots of weapons in multiples, but then of course a new CAS just needs to carry rocket pods with guided rockets for awesome fire power...
One 32 shot 57mm rocket pod, and perhaps two 20 shot 80mm rocket pod, and one 5 shot 122mm rocket pod per wing plus an 8 missile pylon for Hermes or that new 25km range missile would make a rather potent loadout most of the time... perhaps a modular centre mount for either a long barrel 30mm cannon or a long barrel 57mm gun depending on the mission and nose mounted radar and optics. A gun that can be angled down up to 45 degrees would be interesting and quite useful...
But a loadout of a 32 shot 57mm rocket pod, and 40 80mm rockets and 5 122mm rockets and 8 Hermes guided air to ground missiles under each wing would be rather potent together with perhaps 1,000 30mm cannon shells or 120 57mm shells.
That would be 64 x 57mm rockets, 80 x 80mm rockets and 10 x 122mm rockets plus 16 Hermes missiles... with 5 weapon pylons under each wing... which is not excessive...
Of course the last thing they want to do is turn it into a big heavy slow A-10 with too much gun and not enough everything else...
Here it is:
I would make the wings thicker and bigger with less emphasis on top speed, and more on the most ordinance you can get on there and a big gun and weapon pylons able to carry lots of weapons in multiples, but then of course a new CAS just needs to carry rocket pods with guided rockets for awesome fire power...
One 32 shot 57mm rocket pod, and perhaps two 20 shot 80mm rocket pod, and one 5 shot 122mm rocket pod per wing plus an 8 missile pylon for Hermes or that new 25km range missile would make a rather potent loadout most of the time... perhaps a modular centre mount for either a long barrel 30mm cannon or a long barrel 57mm gun depending on the mission and nose mounted radar and optics. A gun that can be angled down up to 45 degrees would be interesting and quite useful...
But a loadout of a 32 shot 57mm rocket pod, and 40 80mm rockets and 5 122mm rockets and 8 Hermes guided air to ground missiles under each wing would be rather potent together with perhaps 1,000 30mm cannon shells or 120 57mm shells.
That would be 64 x 57mm rockets, 80 x 80mm rockets and 10 x 122mm rockets plus 16 Hermes missiles... with 5 weapon pylons under each wing... which is not excessive...
Of course the last thing they want to do is turn it into a big heavy slow A-10 with too much gun and not enough everything else...
slasher- Posts : 196
Points : 194
Join date : 2015-09-28
Military acceptance. Attack aircraft Su-25SM3 - Super Rook
Feb 29, 2020
Would be nice to get an update on how many Su-25 aircraft are currently in service as well as current/future procurement numbers.
Feb 29, 2020
Would be nice to get an update on how many Su-25 aircraft are currently in service as well as current/future procurement numbers.
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
Su-25sm3 shooting down plane with the Vikhr ATGM.
Rodion_Romanovic- Posts : 2654
Points : 2823
Join date : 2015-12-30
Location : Merkelland
GarryB wrote:I believe MiG did offer an alternative to Su-25 and I think it should be considered.
Actually the MiG entry was sort of a mix of a MiG-21 with a MiG-27, but with fixed wings and cheek mounted air intakes... it was very much a mish mash of the two designs with no guarantee the best features of each would be present.
It was very much a two horse race, with the smaller more nimble and agile Su-25 being the best choice of the two.
The Il-102 was criticised in the west when first shown in the early 1990s at airshows, but if you actually look at its specs it is more like the A-10... being bigger and heavier with potentially a much heavier weapon load and the capacity to carry a 45mm or 57mm calibre forward firing gun and a rear firing 23mm self defence weapon.
A quick redesign removing the rear gun position and rear gun and using the space for avionics and equipment and perhaps an internal weapon load and you could probably end up with a decent aircraft.
You would need a serious redesign... make the fuselage bigger but move the pilot forward and up a bit to improve forward and downward view and add some nose mounted sensors and equipment and a decent sized belly mounted 57mm gun with ammo where the rear gunner sat... and redesigned wings with better spaced pylons with multiple ejector racks and Hermes launch positions... would be rather interesting I would think...
But then they are talking about a PAK Shkas type anyway...
Certainly the Su-39 would be rather more achievable and with the current upgrades and new technology fitted to the Su-25SM3 and of course the new sensors and weapons fitted to the Mi-28NM and Ka-52 an upgraded two seat model should have plenty of room for new equipment and systems.
Exactly, already several upgrades that should have gone on the su39 were retrofitted in the su-25 SM and SM2.
Combining the SM3 modification with possibly a modified airframe and upgraded engine, and eventually all the new systems for the attack helicopters should do the trick.
Maybe later on they could also introduce a brand new engine (like they are doing for the su57).
Syria campaign showed that they are still very useful airplanes; of course they cannot replace fighter bombers like su24 and su34, but they perform a different role.
Anyway the existing airframes are not eternal, and eventually they would need to either put forward a replacement aircraft or build new su25/su39.
We already saw that they cannot be replaced by an attack version of a trainer aircraft, or by an armored su34.
The Ulan-Ude plant is going back to produce also aircrafts (the baikal monoplane) in addition to helicopters, so it could be a good moment to ask them to restart production of an heavily upgraded su39.
EDIT:
Maybe even in 3 versions.
Single seater, two seater version for training and Close Air Support Combat drone.
slasher- Posts : 196
Points : 194
Join date : 2015-09-28
magnumcromagnon wrote:Su-25sm3 shooting down plane with the Vikhr ATGM.
Comments for that video state that's not the sm3, which is the latest upgrade.
d_taddei2- Posts : 3028
Points : 3202
Join date : 2013-05-11
Location : Scotland Alba
I remember a couple of years back when there was talk of yak-130 as a replacement however it lacked armour. Quite a few forums and articles slate the su-25 they fail normally down to trying to compare it to a normal fighter jet, the A-10 or the base model su-25. Although the A-10 is designed for the same role the aircraft are still different and both have there advantages and disadvantages and it really boils down to what you really want a big gun big payload or if you want more speed and agility. As for the articles when they talk about the su-25 they always refer to the base model su-25 and forget about the upgrades over the years I might be wrong but I'd say the su-25sm3 is likely had more modern upgrades than current A-10.
At the end of the day both the su-25 and A-10 are unique in there own way and different to other aircraft every aircraft has there niche or advantages and disadvantages whether that be the su-25, su-24 or the yak-130 each has a role and all are useful depending on your needs.
Cas aircraft are often seen as outdated and basic whoever are still useful and I bet many people thought cas aircraft would have been phased out long ago but as we have seen in the last couple of decades things like cas aircraft, AA guns (used in ground support), anti tank guns, cheap atgw (sagger/konkurs), mig-21, T-55, T-72, BM-21 have all proved their worth in recent conflicts and we are also seeing the focus of light attack aircraft coming to the for front something many people probably discounted as the race for expensive stealth aircraft became all the rage in the last decade. Older or less high tech equipment is still useful against the type of conflict we see happening today and for prolonged conflicts cheaper equipment has its economic value.
At the end of the day both the su-25 and A-10 are unique in there own way and different to other aircraft every aircraft has there niche or advantages and disadvantages whether that be the su-25, su-24 or the yak-130 each has a role and all are useful depending on your needs.
Cas aircraft are often seen as outdated and basic whoever are still useful and I bet many people thought cas aircraft would have been phased out long ago but as we have seen in the last couple of decades things like cas aircraft, AA guns (used in ground support), anti tank guns, cheap atgw (sagger/konkurs), mig-21, T-55, T-72, BM-21 have all proved their worth in recent conflicts and we are also seeing the focus of light attack aircraft coming to the for front something many people probably discounted as the race for expensive stealth aircraft became all the rage in the last decade. Older or less high tech equipment is still useful against the type of conflict we see happening today and for prolonged conflicts cheaper equipment has its economic value.
GarryB- Posts : 40548
Points : 41050
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Keep in mind that the Su-25TM (Su-39) is not a new design by any measure... I would probably get Kret and the avionics companies working on the Ka-52 and Mi-28NM to also upgrade the Su-23SM3.
The primary problem is that many look at the Su-25 and see it as a smaller lighter less well armed A-10 and to be honest they are intended for totally different roles.
The A-10 is a tank hunter... it is supposed to operate behind enemy lines looking for armour and vehicles to take on.
The Su-25 is supposed to support ground operations by directly hitting enemy hard points with rockets and bombs.
I remember in the mid 1980s when the Americans decided they could replace their slow A-10s with a ground attack version of the F-16 called the A-16.
It was supposed to be a delta wing version with a lower fuselage surface that could be covered in ordinance like bombs and missiles and it was a total failure because it ignored the main features of CAS... slow and low enough to actually find the targets, and armoured to protect it from the inevidable heavy ground fire flying low will inflict on your aircraft... the A-16 was neither...
The idea behind the Yak-130 was to use more stand off weapons to make it a stand off attacker that used smart weapons directed by troops on the ground or drones in the air much closer to the target... but then if that is the case then MiG-29M aircraft could also drop cheap dumb bombs or guided and unguided rockets from 10km altitude just as easily... in fact a transport plane could loiter for a much longer period and carry a hell of a lot more dumb bomb ordinance and do the job rather cheaper... the point is that being close and low and slow to find targets and engage them directly has a lot of value, so maybe some sort of heavily protected flying platform might be the solution... certainly protection for the engine and crew make sense, and significant sensors to find targets along with cheap simple weapons to destroy those targets effectively seems to be the key.
No stealth bullshit...
The primary problem is that many look at the Su-25 and see it as a smaller lighter less well armed A-10 and to be honest they are intended for totally different roles.
The A-10 is a tank hunter... it is supposed to operate behind enemy lines looking for armour and vehicles to take on.
The Su-25 is supposed to support ground operations by directly hitting enemy hard points with rockets and bombs.
I remember a couple of years back when there was talk of yak-130 as a replacement however it lacked armour.
I remember in the mid 1980s when the Americans decided they could replace their slow A-10s with a ground attack version of the F-16 called the A-16.
It was supposed to be a delta wing version with a lower fuselage surface that could be covered in ordinance like bombs and missiles and it was a total failure because it ignored the main features of CAS... slow and low enough to actually find the targets, and armoured to protect it from the inevidable heavy ground fire flying low will inflict on your aircraft... the A-16 was neither...
The idea behind the Yak-130 was to use more stand off weapons to make it a stand off attacker that used smart weapons directed by troops on the ground or drones in the air much closer to the target... but then if that is the case then MiG-29M aircraft could also drop cheap dumb bombs or guided and unguided rockets from 10km altitude just as easily... in fact a transport plane could loiter for a much longer period and carry a hell of a lot more dumb bomb ordinance and do the job rather cheaper... the point is that being close and low and slow to find targets and engage them directly has a lot of value, so maybe some sort of heavily protected flying platform might be the solution... certainly protection for the engine and crew make sense, and significant sensors to find targets along with cheap simple weapons to destroy those targets effectively seems to be the key.
No stealth bullshit...
d_taddei2- Posts : 3028
Points : 3202
Join date : 2013-05-11
Location : Scotland Alba
GarryB wrote:Keep in mind that the Su-25TM (Su-39) is not a new design by any measure... I would probably get Kret and the avionics companies working on the Ka-52 and Mi-28NM to also upgrade the Su-23SM3.
The primary problem is that many look at the Su-25 and see it as a smaller lighter less well armed A-10 and to be honest they are intended for totally different roles.
The A-10 is a tank hunter... it is supposed to operate behind enemy lines looking for armour and vehicles to take on.
The Su-25 is supposed to support ground operations by directly hitting enemy hard points with rockets and bombs.
I remember a couple of years back when there was talk of yak-130 as a replacement however it lacked armour.
I remember in the mid 1980s when the Americans decided they could replace their slow A-10s with a ground attack version of the F-16 called the A-16.
It was supposed to be a delta wing version with a lower fuselage surface that could be covered in ordinance like bombs and missiles and it was a total failure because it ignored the main features of CAS... slow and low enough to actually find the targets, and armoured to protect it from the inevidable heavy ground fire flying low will inflict on your aircraft... the A-16 was neither...
The idea behind the Yak-130 was to use more stand off weapons to make it a stand off attacker that used smart weapons directed by troops on the ground or drones in the air much closer to the target... but then if that is the case then MiG-29M aircraft could also drop cheap dumb bombs or guided and unguided rockets from 10km altitude just as easily... in fact a transport plane could loiter for a much longer period and carry a hell of a lot more dumb bomb ordinance and do the job rather cheaper... the point is that being close and low and slow to find targets and engage them directly has a lot of value, so maybe some sort of heavily protected flying platform might be the solution... certainly protection for the engine and crew make sense, and significant sensors to find targets along with cheap simple weapons to destroy those targets effectively seems to be the key.
No stealth bullshit...
i know you and I have talked quite a bit about a simple cargo plane turned into some sort of cheap bomber using Gefest and SVP-24 systems. The su-24 is a great aircraft for prolonged conflicts like syria being to to fly long distances, can decent payload, carry precision weapons as well as using dumb bombs to good effect using the system. Agreed that the yak-130 could be good using standoff weapons in support of ground troops and i would add be used for taking out drones, in the latter role could be armed with a few AA missiles, gun pods, and a drop tank for extended patrolling/hunting. gun pods would be enough to take out majority of drones. The L-39 seems to have done fairly well in Syria considering its age and limitations, the yak-130 is a better aircraft with much more options available. Bus as for CAS role its not really suited. I find the Su-25SM3 is pretty much at the pinnacle of CAS aircraft theres only so much you can do to improve a CAS aircraft. Next step would be adding a command link to a handful of UCAV lol.
GarryB- Posts : 40548
Points : 41050
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
i know you and I have talked quite a bit about a simple cargo plane turned into some sort of cheap bomber using Gefest and SVP-24 systems.
The question is, will that result in enough effective responsive fire power for the troops on the ground... and I must say I don't know.
I suspect having a heavily armoured plane come in with rockets and bombs and obliterate a target directly is satisfying for the troops seeing the object that has bothered them and held up their advance, but surely the same effect could be had with a 50kg HE bomb appearing from nowhere and blasting the target to bits from 10km up... I would think by the time of impact it would be supersonic...
The su-24 is a great aircraft for prolonged conflicts like syria being to to fly long distances, can decent payload, carry precision weapons as well as using dumb bombs to good effect using the system.
It is a nice aircraft, but it is a high speed penetrator, when the above suggestion is more of a bomb truck or perhaps a bomb bus/camper van...
Hell you could probably add an airship to the options mix... it wont be able to move from hotspot to hotspot quickly, but for troops on the ground that might be a good thing on its own... you get your own airship that is going to stay with you and not piss off to help someone else and not be there when you need them.
They already have airships that can carry 100 ton payloads... it could include a variety of bomb types and sizes and its low IR signature would make it relatively safe most of the time with fuel cell and solar cell energy generation and of course electric motor propulsion... you could cover it in optical sensors and radar and other crap too... you could have modular versions for different roles with a robotic arm that takes a bomb from a rack and throws it to improve accuracy and expand the area it can engage targets from its own specific foot print area...
Agreed that the yak-130 could be good using standoff weapons in support of ground troops and i would add be used for taking out drones, in the latter role could be armed with a few AA missiles, gun pods, and a drop tank for extended patrolling/hunting. gun pods would be enough to take out majority of drones. The L-39 seems to have done fairly well in Syria considering its age and limitations, the yak-130 is a better aircraft with much more options available.
Would probably need a radar and optics pod... perhaps based on the systems for the new attack helos to enable finding small and medium drones... a modification of the S-13 122mm rocket pod that holds 5 Igla-S missiles ready to fire perhaps?
Bus as for CAS role its not really suited. I find the Su-25SM3 is pretty much at the pinnacle of CAS aircraft theres only so much you can do to improve a CAS aircraft. Next step would be adding a command link to a handful of UCAV lol.
I would suggest a direct link to forces on the ground so the commander on the ground can see the radar and EO view of the target area that the pilot sees combined with the information from the ground forces and drones have collected all mashed together in a battle map so the commander on the ground or indeed special forces soldier can indicate targets they want hit or want a better look at from perhaps a different angle or whatever...
The pilot can then confidently engage targets knowing it is much less likely he will be taking out friendlies... and will actually be helping the ground forces he is working with.
In third world conflicts however I think the airship is a useful tool... it can perform multiple tasks including bombing or engaging targets with missiles or rockets from above, but also providing a stable relatively static eye in the sky in thermal and digital video as well as radar in several frequency ranges, but it could also be used for communication relay for troops on the ground... it could control friendly drones in the local region... operating at 10km altitude it should be relatively safe but with magnifying optics should get excellent views of the ground below... you could use its flat top for an airfield for larger drones... giving it a wing shape would maximise its surface area for solar panel power... and operating above the clouds should mean lots of sunlight power collected and stored...
marcellogo- Posts : 680
Points : 686
Join date : 2012-08-02
Age : 55
Location : Italy
GarryB wrote:i know you and I have talked quite a bit about a simple cargo plane turned into some sort of cheap bomber using Gefest and SVP-24 systems.
The question is, will that result in enough effective responsive fire power for the troops on the ground... and I must say I don't know.
I suspect having a heavily armoured plane come in with rockets and bombs and obliterate a target directly is satisfying for the troops seeing the object that has bothered them and held up their advance, but surely the same effect could be had with a 50kg HE bomb appearing from nowhere and blasting the target to bits from 10km up... I would think by the time of impact it would be supersonic...
The su-24 is a great aircraft for prolonged conflicts like syria being to to fly long distances, can decent payload, carry precision weapons as well as using dumb bombs to good effect using the system.
It is a nice aircraft, but it is a high speed penetrator, when the above suggestion is more of a bomb truck or perhaps a bomb bus/camper van...
Hell you could probably add an airship to the options mix... it wont be able to move from hotspot to hotspot quickly, but for troops on the ground that might be a good thing on its own... you get your own airship that is going to stay with you and not piss off to help someone else and not be there when you need them.
They already have airships that can carry 100 ton payloads... it could include a variety of bomb types and sizes and its low IR signature would make it relatively safe most of the time with fuel cell and solar cell energy generation and of course electric motor propulsion... you could cover it in optical sensors and radar and other crap too... you could have modular versions for different roles with a robotic arm that takes a bomb from a rack and throws it to improve accuracy and expand the area it can engage targets from its own specific foot print area...
Agreed that the yak-130 could be good using standoff weapons in support of ground troops and i would add be used for taking out drones, in the latter role could be armed with a few AA missiles, gun pods, and a drop tank for extended patrolling/hunting. gun pods would be enough to take out majority of drones. The L-39 seems to have done fairly well in Syria considering its age and limitations, the yak-130 is a better aircraft with much more options available.
Would probably need a radar and optics pod... perhaps based on the systems for the new attack helos to enable finding small and medium drones... a modification of the S-13 122mm rocket pod that holds 5 Igla-S missiles ready to fire perhaps?
Bus as for CAS role its not really suited. I find the Su-25SM3 is pretty much at the pinnacle of CAS aircraft theres only so much you can do to improve a CAS aircraft. Next step would be adding a command link to a handful of UCAV lol.
I would suggest a direct link to forces on the ground so the commander on the ground can see the radar and EO view of the target area that the pilot sees combined with the information from the ground forces and drones have collected all mashed together in a battle map so the commander on the ground or indeed special forces soldier can indicate targets they want hit or want a better look at from perhaps a different angle or whatever...
The pilot can then confidently engage targets knowing it is much less likely he will be taking out friendlies... and will actually be helping the ground forces he is working with.
In third world conflicts however I think the airship is a useful tool... it can perform multiple tasks including bombing or engaging targets with missiles or rockets from above, but also providing a stable relatively static eye in the sky in thermal and digital video as well as radar in several frequency ranges, but it could also be used for communication relay for troops on the ground... it could control friendly drones in the local region... operating at 10km altitude it should be relatively safe but with magnifying optics should get excellent views of the ground below... you could use its flat top for an airfield for larger drones... giving it a wing shape would maximise its surface area for solar panel power... and operating above the clouds should mean lots of sunlight power collected and stored...
You are describing quite exactly the way we used our AMX (you know, the other Nato CAS plane) in both Afghanistan than Iraq (in Kosovo it was much more straightforward bombing but it was still the only NATO asset able to effectively team up with A-10).
Small bombing but a constant team up with ground forces using reconnaissance pod with real time data link and a lot of strafing runs, someties also "dry", with the onboard pea-shooter, aimed more to dissuade goat fuckers to attack than to effectively kill them.
It worked great showing that persistence in the combat zone and capabilty to interface with ground troops its really what CAS is made of, not the body count.
GarryB- Posts : 40548
Points : 41050
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Small bombing but a constant team up with ground forces using reconnaissance pod with real time data link and a lot of strafing runs, someties also "dry", with the onboard pea-shooter, aimed more to dissuade goat fuckers to attack than to effectively kill them.
It worked great showing that persistence in the combat zone and capabilty to interface with ground troops its really what CAS is made of, not the body count.
In war time most of the time you want the enemy dead, but certainly in COIN operations sometimes better communications and more flexibility have a lot more value than the sledge hammer.
Very good communications with ground forces means better cooperation, better planning, more flexibility, and the air power results in a mobile responsive fire power that is hard to duplicate with a light mobile ground forces.
Of course a future where Coalition can fire 170km range guided shells could lead to the setting up of fire bases where drones support the ground troops and artillery strikes are called in from nearby fire bases for support 24/7 in any weather.
Of course the use of drones can be expanded from small ones with limited endurance that are designed to suicide into enemy targets of opportunity or land and become mines that continue to use their cameras and sensors to wait for an enemy combatant before exploding on command.
The idea of Airships could be expanded where a large airship becomes a command and recon post sitting on the ultimate high ground where drones can be launched and recovered where closer views are needed, with optical and radar sensors scanning for enemy and threats... you could even mount guns like an AC-130... a 120mm gun/mortar would allow fairly accurate delivery of 20kg HE payloads on targets within perhaps a 30km radius with a 10km altitude... perhaps a 57mm gun and 30mm gatlings too for a hovering gunship that could move around the battlefield at 100km/h intercepting enemy convoys or armoured forces and hammering them from above small arms fire range.
Perhaps a command and control model that also handles communications for ground forces including satellite links and manages drones on land and in the air and can deliver attacks perhaps with one 120mm gun/mortar. plus an AWACS/Jammer model that can operate much higher or could be used to follow ground convoys and jam remotely activated IEDs with optics to look for threats, plus of course a gunship model with an array of guns from 30mm gatlings through to heavier guns and bombs, plus of course a bomber optimised for bombing only.
You might want to use them in combinations or mix and match their payloads... a convoy escort with jammers to render remote IEDs useless but also a few gatlings and 57mm guns and grenade launchers to blunt any ambush on that convoy and optics to look for potential ambush points ahead of the convoy... It could also carry drones and operate them along the convoy route flying low looking for threats of indications of problems...
JohninMK- Posts : 15649
Points : 15790
Join date : 2015-06-16
Location : England
Sukhoi Su-57 Felon
Flag of Russia
Flag of India
@I30mki
·
5h
The pilots of Su-25SM3 attack aircraft used latest Salt-25 sighting & nav sys in Ex
Flag of Russia
The crews of Su-25SM3 attack aircraft of SE Military Dist based in Kuban during planned tactical flight training attacked air-defense units of conditional enemy at night as part of units & sqns
Flag of Russia
Flag of India
@I30mki
·
5h
The pilots of Su-25SM3 attack aircraft used latest Salt-25 sighting & nav sys in Ex
Flag of Russia
The crews of Su-25SM3 attack aircraft of SE Military Dist based in Kuban during planned tactical flight training attacked air-defense units of conditional enemy at night as part of units & sqns
slasher- Posts : 196
Points : 194
Join date : 2015-09-28
Another Su-25SM3 entered into service with the 960th Attack Aviation Regiment, Krasnodar Krai, Southern Military District.
https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/2020481618-QPakN.html
https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/2020481618-QPakN.html
slasher- Posts : 196
Points : 194
Join date : 2015-09-28
Pictures that prove that the Su-25 can certainly take a beating.
https://twitter.com/charly0153/status/1250477529858813957
An impressive plane often under-rated but highly successful and effective at what they're designed to do
.
https://twitter.com/charly0153/status/1250477529858813957
An impressive plane often under-rated but highly successful and effective at what they're designed to do
.
GarryB- Posts : 40548
Points : 41050
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Actually re reading some of the posts on this thread I looked again at Lsos's post of the wing mounted internal weapon bays for the Il-102 for use with bombs.
At the time it was revealed in the 1990s it was considered an archaic design... a tail gunner and internal bomb bays on the surface seems rather backward, but standard weapons for the Su-25 are bombs and the high drag bombs are popular though they generate a lot of drag in normal flight on an Su-25.
Internal carriage means zero drag, and experience in Afghanistan showed that often enemy forces will take cover as the Frogfoot approaches but then stand up and open fire as it departs, which means a tail gunner to direct suppressive fire, rather than defend the aircraft from fighters makes a lot of sense.
Looking again at the photo I thought of the new square or rectangular rocket pods they are developing and thought perhaps if the wing will be thick enough for bombs that where it has external pylons normally intended to carry 57mm and 80mm rocket pods that internally mounted retractable rocket pods could be used as well...
The original Il-2 carried rockets and bombs but also had internal bomb bays where about 192 x 2,5kg bomblets could be carried and dropped in bundles on armoured targets. The bomblets had HEAT warheads and were intended to attack the tops of armoured vehicles and were apparently rather more effective than rockets or cannon... by mid war the cannon were not powerful enough to penetrate armour except on soft bits though they were accurate enough to actually hit the tanks. The rockets tended to be easily powerful enough to destroy a tank but didn't hit them very often.
The bomblets released in large bundles had a good chance against a group of armoured vehicles and the fragments were effective against exposed troops and soft targets too.
Perhaps an Il-102 with internal bomb bays and retractable rocket pods... flying around with a clean wing so low drag, I would drop the rear gunner position and replace it with an optical system that detects muzzle flashes and smoke with perhaps a twin barrel 23mm cannon firing backwards to suppress enemy targets... perhaps with a dual feed system with flares and chaff ammo loaded in one belt and HE frag in the other in case a MANPAD is deployed against the aircraft.
The belly mounted main gun could be replaced with the 57mm grenade launcher with APFSDS rounds for anti armour use and a sabot shredder at the muzzle to prevent ingestion in the engine intakes...
MMW radar sensors and optics from the Havoc and Hokum programmes could round out the sensors and of course a full self defence EW suite to protect it from a range of threats.
Some weapon pylons would need to be optional because weapons like Hermes would require them...
At the time it was revealed in the 1990s it was considered an archaic design... a tail gunner and internal bomb bays on the surface seems rather backward, but standard weapons for the Su-25 are bombs and the high drag bombs are popular though they generate a lot of drag in normal flight on an Su-25.
Internal carriage means zero drag, and experience in Afghanistan showed that often enemy forces will take cover as the Frogfoot approaches but then stand up and open fire as it departs, which means a tail gunner to direct suppressive fire, rather than defend the aircraft from fighters makes a lot of sense.
Looking again at the photo I thought of the new square or rectangular rocket pods they are developing and thought perhaps if the wing will be thick enough for bombs that where it has external pylons normally intended to carry 57mm and 80mm rocket pods that internally mounted retractable rocket pods could be used as well...
The original Il-2 carried rockets and bombs but also had internal bomb bays where about 192 x 2,5kg bomblets could be carried and dropped in bundles on armoured targets. The bomblets had HEAT warheads and were intended to attack the tops of armoured vehicles and were apparently rather more effective than rockets or cannon... by mid war the cannon were not powerful enough to penetrate armour except on soft bits though they were accurate enough to actually hit the tanks. The rockets tended to be easily powerful enough to destroy a tank but didn't hit them very often.
The bomblets released in large bundles had a good chance against a group of armoured vehicles and the fragments were effective against exposed troops and soft targets too.
Perhaps an Il-102 with internal bomb bays and retractable rocket pods... flying around with a clean wing so low drag, I would drop the rear gunner position and replace it with an optical system that detects muzzle flashes and smoke with perhaps a twin barrel 23mm cannon firing backwards to suppress enemy targets... perhaps with a dual feed system with flares and chaff ammo loaded in one belt and HE frag in the other in case a MANPAD is deployed against the aircraft.
The belly mounted main gun could be replaced with the 57mm grenade launcher with APFSDS rounds for anti armour use and a sabot shredder at the muzzle to prevent ingestion in the engine intakes...
MMW radar sensors and optics from the Havoc and Hokum programmes could round out the sensors and of course a full self defence EW suite to protect it from a range of threats.
Some weapon pylons would need to be optional because weapons like Hermes would require them...
George1- Posts : 18523
Points : 19028
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece
According to the description, the most advanced modification of the jet, which is also known as "SuperGrach", has boosted the plane's electronic warfare system, navigation complex, and enhanced avionics, which allow the aircraft to be more effective during night raids.
Russian Defence Ministry broadcaster Zvezda has published an exclusive video, showing the shooting practice for a Sukhoi Su-25SM3 (NATO reporting name Frogfoot) - the newest modification of one of the most popular models in the country's Air Force. The video depicts Russian planes launching their missiles to hit targets and maneuvering near earth.
Russian Defence Ministry broadcaster Zvezda has published an exclusive video, showing the shooting practice for a Sukhoi Su-25SM3 (NATO reporting name Frogfoot) - the newest modification of one of the most popular models in the country's Air Force. The video depicts Russian planes launching their missiles to hit targets and maneuvering near earth.