Su-25 attack aircraft

So what happens when the amount of Su-25 airframes runs out due to wear and tear and combat losses? Restart production lines? Spend 2 decades developing and testing a replacement?

Why not both?

Russia had the production facilities to build the two seat model aircraft, which was used for the Su-25T and Su-25TM upgrades, both of which were considered too expensive to bother producing... the Su-25SM3 uses the normal aircraft with less internal volume for stuff, so improved upgrades in the two seat versions might be interesting.

They are developing drones and buying a huge ammount ka-52 and mi-28 that didn't exist when su-25 was created. Both can use missiles and rockets in a much better way than su-25 which is quite old. Sm3 upgrade is good but they still use only rockets.

The Su-25TM is based on the two seat model and has more internal volume for bits and pieces... the T and the TM model added Vikhr ATGMs and I would say these new 110kg missiles with 30kg warheads that seem to be for replacing the Kh-25 missiles would be ideal for a new strike aircraft as well as for drones... a 40km range and perhaps carrying them on an increased number of weapon pylons... not to mention clusters of small guided bombs that could be carried in large numbers too.

The Il-102 had bombs of up to 250kg size that could be carried internally in a bomb bay mounted in the wings, but their new rocket pods are boxes and would be an absolutely ideal shape to form part of the wing... lowered for firing and loading, while retracted for low drag (not even a weapon pylon).

Rocket pods and dumb bombs are valuable weapons for such aircraft types and with modern avionics and continuously calculated ballistics computers their delivery can be surprisingly accurate and effective.

They don't need to reinvent the wheel... some sort of standardisation of MMW radar and EO systems for helicopters and aircraft and drones would be very useful and effective... larger calibre guns that don't have high velocity rounds but pack a powerful punch like those 57mm grenade launchers firing heavy HE bombs would be more effective than rocket launchers in some roles...

If there is a need they can easily set up a production line for su-25 which isn't a state of art product hard to make.

Not a complex or expensive plane.

They only use rockets for the SM3 because potbelly dinosaurs think only rockets are useful. The SM3 can shoot X-29T, Vikhr, X-29L, Grom, X-38, UPAB, drel, Izd.305, S-25L, etc.

You are not listening... when the enemy is 100 men spread out over a large area either running forward to attack or back to escape a missile like Vikhr or Grom or even a 250kg bomb is not that useful... with them spread out and the concentration of the blast you might only get 4-8 men with each hit if you are very lucky.

With unguided rockets or cannon shells you can spray the field with dozens of explosives each of which might be dangerous to 10-20m in radius, but again all hitting close together is a bad thing because your 10-20m kill radius is for each munition or shell so having them all hit together concentrates your fragments into a small area.

A volley of rockets spread over a large area where no two rockets land within 10m of the other offers a good spread of fragments making it likely you will kill or injure a much larger portion of the enemy.

Lofting those in the air has been shown on video to spread the rockets out beautifully... this is terrible for use against a truck or tank, but for enemy troops in the open it is the best option... the only other option that comes close is very high speed aircraft releasing cluster bombs from a higher altitude than normal that really spreads out the submunitions... but most western countries get shitty when other countries do that.

New mini guided munitions means aircraft with lots of wing pylons become more interesting and multi ejector racks for tiny guided missiles becomes interesting... whether that is the Kh-25 replacement or even just Vikhr pylons... I would say Vikhr and another similar setup for SOSNA/Pine would be excellent... both are guided and have decent range... PINE has excellent speed and would be very good for air and ground targets too, and Vikhr is the same but slower (1,200m/s vs 600m/s), but the new rocket pods would be a core part of the aircrafts armament.

Which is just what we have been saying... unguided rockets are to attack spread out soft targets or to hit areas you know the enemy occupies but you don't have precise coordinates for each individual target.

Lofting the rockets has the double bonus of allowing their use from standoff distances... outside the range of HMG and light automatic cannon and also MANPADS which are heavily deployed on this battlefield, and also giving otherwise rather accurate rockets a good spread on the target area which expands their kill potential.

If all the rockets landed in the same place you might as well just be launching one rocket because if its fragments don't kill then the next rocket to hit that location wont kill anyone either... having the rockets land all over the place is a good way to deal with a modern army that does not bunch together and spreads out in the hopes that one artillery round wont kill them all.

Lofted rockets spread the impacts and improve the chances of multiple kills and multiple damage.

The unguided rocket is like the machine gun... you don't fire at individual people, you fire at groups.

Fuel tanks are probably cheaper that dispersed operations.

When the enemy is trying to go guerilla then having your air operations at a single airfield sounds like a vulnerable target because all your aircraft and people are located in one place, but all your defences and protections are there too.

Splitting your air groups into 2-3 planes each operating from a section of motorway or road means multiplying the targets the enemy can hit while diluting their defences and protections.

The speed an Su-25 can fly at a few extra 100km flight distance is not that important... an extra 20 minutes on the flight perhaps?

Edit: I would also add that the logistics of delivering not just fuel but also ordinance and spare parts to the different operational locations creates a supply line that would be easy to ambush too and would be rather complicated to manage as well, which increases the chance of a group of planes not completing their mission because not enough rockets were delivered to their operating location... or the aircraft recovered to the wrong stretch of road and so have to taxi to the correct location...

Russia may commandeer factories in Belarus to make what they need?

With new modern ceramic armours as used on their new armoured vehicles and electronics becoming more capable all the time I would think a decent upgrade to the Su-25 that goes even further than the Su-25TM upgrade they rejected because it was too expensive would be in order if it makes them safer on the battlefield.

The new sensors and weapons and equipment developed for the Mi-28MN and the Ka-52M could be used on the Su-25 to make it rather better and presumably also better able to cooperate with those rotary wing platforms in combat too.

We have seen side by side LMUR launch pylons on helicopters... I wonder if a MER could be designed for the Su-25 to carry two twin launchers in tandem for four missiles on each pylon?

Automated or remote control systems are probably not yet at the level that they can replace a human pilot when doing CAS.
Flying nap of the earth is not that difficult - cruise missiles do it all the time. But if you add observation of targets, assessing the tactical situation and performing survival maneuvers on top of communicating with ground forces you're probably looking at a control system that is a lot more expensive than the aircraft itself could ever be.

The replacement rate for modern aircrafts are something like a dozen per month. Not even. Pilots are even harder to replace.
So no, you can't just use your airpower without care for losses, or you won't have an airpower left after a few months or careless usage.

Russian AD nets destroyed the entirety of Ukraine's Bayraktar fleet like it was nothing. Russian Orion drones would not fare any better against an intact Ukrainian AD net.

flamming_python wrote:But if it's a drone so then who cares.

That's the thing. You don't have hundreds of drones to lose. You have a few dozen. Try using them in a devil may care way that Ukraine did and even the diminished Ukrainian AD would attrit them to bits.