Future CAS aircraft / Su-25 replacement?

Although this is still a top knotch CAS for now there will be a time it will need to be retired. What do you think will be the replaced. Are there any long term plans for a replcement in development? Or will it be replaced with the LMFS or Su-50 just as the americans plan to do with their A-10s?

In terms of stealthy I think what they mean as a stealthy replacement for the Su-25 will not be something like the F-35 at all.

They know that very high speed (ie supersonic) aircraft are just too fast and that the best performance comes from low and slow aircraft... though they didn't want as slow as the A-10.

I think whatever they come up with will still be well armoured and the stealth will focus on thermal stealth and visible stealth.

In the mean time I think they will add DIRCMs to the Su-25 to protect it from IR guided SAMs and AAMs, and I also think they will add some of the radar and EO systems that they have been fitting to their new attack helos, and associated weapons.

I suspect they might adapt the wing pylons to allow two lots of clusters of ATGMs to be carried like Vikhr or Hermes or Krisantema. 8 to a pylon for Vikhr and Krisantema and 4 to a pylon for the much heavier Hermes.

I also think a range of light air to ground missiles like Kh-25 could be developed with TV and IIR guidance.

I rather suspect that a new 45mm gun based on the new weapon for the BMP could be adapted for use by the aircraft. There were plans in the 1980s for such a weapon and the Il-104 was supposed to be fitted with either a 45mm calibre weapon or a 57mm gun for anti armour use, but it was decided that the best way to deal with tanks was cluster bombs with guided anti tank munitions.

I have seen a few models which included a forward swept wing model with two fuselages and therefore also two noses and two cockpits where one nose had a radar and the other had optics and other sensors and the large gap between the two noses joined together at the air intake and the large internal space was where the weapons were carried... internally.

Another model... which I personally liked better had a fuselage very similar to the current Su-25 but it had a rear mounted straight wing with a single tail mounted engine with a large contra rotating pusher propeller. The wing was covered in weapon hard points and the nose had two sets of canards. The model was all black and appeared to have a hinge on the wing... suggesting a folding wing arrangement for possible naval use.

If no what do you think will be the major requirements for a future CAS? Will increased performance and payload, better armor and reduced RCS play a factor in designing a replacement or will more advanced avionics,targeting systems and ordnance be the main factor? However I'm expecting the answer will be that the Su-25 will still be a top knotch aircraft for its role for decades to come with continuousadvances in ordnance and electronics updates and it wont ever need to be replaced.

The Su-25 is a good aircraft, though it has shown itself to be vulnerable to MANPADS.

To its credit it often gets the pilot home anyway, but not being hit in the first place is better than being able to take a hit.

Having said that I wouldn't remove the armour.

As mentioned in TR-1s post after yours they have plans for a new aircraft, but they also have plans to upgrade the existing aircraft too.

I don't think carrying more payload or more armour would improve the aircraft in its current role.

I do think improved targeting systems and self defence systems would make it better.

Add the President-M self defence suite with six turrets... two on the wing tips and two on the back of the aircraft and one at the base of the tail and one under the nose... putting them on the belly they would be blocked by the ordinance. The wingtip mounts can cover the lower quadrant including threats from the ground and sides from the air and ground while the turrets on the back of the aircraft can protect from aerial threats or when the aircraft is banking, and the turrets on the tail and under the nose fill in potential gaps and give overlaps in some areas... which is also good.

In addition to IR guided missiles of course in Georgia there were reports that the Su-25s that were lost might have been lost to BUK, which means radar guided missile protection (which president-M already achieves) but an extra jammer pod or two wouldn't hurt.

As datalink technology is added to ground forces it needs to be added to their support units and the Su-25 is no exception. With radar and EO sensors added it would be useful for the Su-25 pilot to transmit his view in terms of a combined picture from EO, Radar, and digital map that can be transmitted to the commander on the ground, who can use this aerial composite picture so he can designate targets on the map/video/thermal image for the pilot to attack.

Their primary focus is to support the ground forces and new weapons on the way should help them do that better with Hermes and Krisantema and possibly even Kornet-EM being very useful additions to the air to ground options.

As I mentioned above a 45mm cannon could also be added, though they might leave that to the new aircraft to replace the Su-25 rather than as an update.

I should be clear... this is just my opinion, these changes are not certain.

The Air Force has already rejected the Su-25TM upgrade which likely would have resulted in much better performance in Georgia and all the planes making it home safely.

The cheaper Su-25SM option was taken instead.

With the T-90AM they have also gone for the cheap option of upgrading the T-72s till the armata is ready.

I think the difference here is that in another war with Georgia, which everyone writes off as easy beats, but the force sizes in the conflict were not that different and the armament was probably slightly in favour of the Georgians with their Israeli upgraded tanks and C4I net system and new training the two sides were very comparable, with perhaps the Georgians having the advantage in numbers.

The main difference was that none of the Georgian soldiers wanted to die for Saakashvili, whereas much of the Russian force was volunteers from North Ossetia and Chechnia wanting to help their South Ossetian brothers.

With fitting radar and EO turrets to helos I think adding them to their CAS aircraft makes sense, the armour was fine, but adding communication and datalink equipment to more closely tie the aircraft to the ground units they are supporting makes sense, and knowing the new weapons coming on line I would suspect enabling your main CAS aircraft to carry them too makes sense.

I would also add that the Ugroza guidance kits for unguided rockets would also make the aircraft much much more capable. The kit for each rocket would make each rocket about three times more expensive, but it will also mean that each rocket will become accurate enough to go after targets you would previously have had to use a guided missile or an entire pod of rockets to get a hit. This means paying three times more for each rocket but only using one rocket instead of 10 or 20 makes the rockets actually much cheaper and the aircraft much more capable.

A lot of targets on the battlefield are not hard at all, but they are small so they need a direct hit to kill.

A good example is trucks, you take out all your enemies trucks and watch his armoured operations grind to a halt in a few hours. With guided rockets with 20 rockets in an 80mm rocket pod you can probably kill 18-20 trucks per pod, so with an Su-25 carrying 8 pods, that is 160 odd trucks and you still have two AAMs and a cannon left.

For many ground targets an 80mm rocket would be plenty... a MG nest, a sniper position, a small bunker. A 4kg HE warhead placed with accuracy right into the middle of any of these targets will do the job and with the guidance system the rocket can be lofted at the target and therefore fired from maximum range without fear of missing, and reducing the risk of return fire.

After the experience of Georgia they will realise that armour between the engines is great... it saves the pilot, but it also means the plane is out of action and needs to be replaced. The more expensive option of the President-M system will mean not only can the plane keep operating, but also that the sources of SAMs can be located and indicated to the pilot who can then do something about them.

IFF also needs to be improved, and of course the ability of the pilot to communicate with the forces he is operating with and detection of targets needs work too.

Another criticism from the pilots was that the rate of fire of the twin 30mm cannon was too high and they were ending up firing too much ammo at some light targets.

Replacing the GSh-30 with the GSh-30K which has longer barrels with a higher muzzle velocity, but also two rates of fire... 300-400rpm in the low rate and 2,000-2,500 rpm in the high rate might be a better choice for the aircraft perhaps?

The GSh-30 fires at 3,000-3,500 rpm only. Certainly a powerful weapon, but it seems the pilots think it is the wrong tool for the job.

Yes, I remember reading about trials where the Yak-130 was used where the guy in the back actually controlled UCAVs, so they could fly at standoff distances and control the UCAVs with a direct line of sight control system to find and engage targets.

From memory they said it worked well but that the chance of the Yak-130 being engaged meant it needed armour protection.

Otherwise it was a good choice as it is small and light and doesn't use much fuel... and can fly at stand off distances at medium altitude away from trashfire.

I think the main problem was lack of mature UCAVs.

I would think that a UCAV with a weapons payload equivalent to an Su-25 and the armour to protect it from ground fire, and the sensors and datalink equipment to find targets and communicate with ground forces... well it is starting to get as expensive as an Su-25, but more vulnerable. Add President-M and you might as well move the pilot back into the aircraft...

It is not that I have anything against UCAVs, it is just that most of the time I think manned aircraft are more effective... for now.

Kyo wrote:Apparently a new stealth CAS plane named "Hornet" is in the make to replace Su-25SM beginning 2020. Is this the so-called PAK-SHA?

https://plus.google.com/photos/102549610567855022047/albums/6097933326642936209

Not much of sense making a CAS plane, that is operating just few hundred meters at hot zones, stealth.

A soldier in camoflauge jumping infront of you is not really "stealth".

Zivo wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

Kyo wrote:Apparently a new stealth CAS plane named "Hornet" is in the make to replace Su-25SM beginning 2020. Is this the so-called PAK-SHA?

https://plus.google.com/photos/102549610567855022047/albums/6097933326642936209

Not much of sense making a  CAS plane, that is operating just few hundred meters at hot zones, stealth.

A soldier in camoflauge jumping infront of you is not really "stealth".

Well, how long do you think the A-10's would last in all out war with Russia, China, or anyone else with good AA capability? CAS aircraft need some serious updating to remain relevant , especially in the age of UCAVs.

I've never seen a fan-made design I thought would work.  It'll be interesting to see what Russia comes up with. I don't think trying to stealthify a Su-25 is going to work, the design's going to have to be unique.

Like the designer of Mi-24 Mil Mi said, the combat life expectancy of Su-25 in real full scale totalitarian war in WW3 between Superpowers would be less than 3 minutes at the front and the Mi-24 was also designed to penetrate enemy front lines and deploy soldiers under SHORAD protected zones, the life expectancy under such unbearable conditions do not extent 3 minutes, the aircrafts were designed to at least deliver their payload before saying good bye.

I don't think it is a good decision to drop CAS aircrafts like A10 and Su-25, it is highly unlikely to have anyother scenario where stealthy high speed gunships would be more effective or justified in cost per unit to maintenance cost. There are planty of hotzones from low intensive to high intensive were CAS aircrafts are the only one that can operate with high effeciency and much safer than any other aircraft.

Zivo wrote:The problem with future CAS aircraft is, as gunships become faster, and UCAV's more numerous, the gap in coverage between high performance aircraft, and low performance gunships that currently exists gets smaller. The rapid response ground support niche shrinks.

I don't think developing a next gen CAS aircraft, a "stealth" analogue of the current CAS aircraft, is worth it. Many of the necessary design elements of V/LO aircraft, and conventional CAS theory almost seems contradictory to me.

The offensive and defensive capabilities of UCAV's and especially limited usefullness due steadily increasing enemy ECM capability on battlefield, limits its use and therfore coverage and makes it a very specialized weapon, to fill gabs with.

I think we will remain for next 3 decades to CAS, mainly focusing CAS to fill large amount of gabs via Combat Helicopters which over past 2 decades increased their capability to stay out of enemy envelope and deliver their payload without comprimizing their position immidiatley due their capability and relative high loitering time they have lower risk than CAS jets.
Near future capabilities for NLOS guided missiles is already in planning and testing and would enlarge their capability for deep strike missions which mainly were performed by Ground Attack Aircrafts such as Su-24/F-111 and A-10/Su-25.

The amount of UCAV's and their use will increase but i think they will face a limited use except against highly inferior opponents like already the case today.

Not much of sense making a CAS plane, that is operating just few hundred meters at hot zones, stealth.

A soldier in camoflauge jumping infront of you is not really "stealth".

In this context stealth might mean able to change colour depending upon what is behind it.

It doesn't need to be perfect like predator, but just enough to make an aircraft 5km away really really hard to spot.

Well, how long do you think the A-10's would last in all out war with Russia, China, or anyone else with good AA capability? CAS aircraft need some serious updating to remain relevant , especially in the age of UCAVs.

i would say proper implementation of DIRCMs would reduce losses rather more than radar stealth... how many CAS aircraft get shot down by radar guided weapons?

I was thinking something on the lines of a modified Su-34, with thicker armor, engines that have it's exhaust speed scaled back and it's dry thrust increased so it can carry a heavier payload, and the back room converted in to a air-mobile UCAV control center.

Would be better off starting with something like an Il-112 with a more powerful datalink and room for a dozen or more operators in comfort at much greater distances and altitudes over the enemy location.

It might be best to drop CAS aircraft altogether and focus on developing high speed gunships instead.

If an Su-25 can't survive how could a slower helicopter manage... even if it is the fastest helo in the world it still wont match the Frogfoots 950km/h top speed.

I don't think developing a next gen CAS aircraft, a "stealth" analogue of the current CAS aircraft, is worth it. Many of the necessary design elements of V/LO aircraft, and conventional CAS theory almost seems contradictory to me.

If you keep it sensible it should be possible.

It doesn't need to be super stealth radar invisible, but visually hard to spot would be much more useful as most ground fire at CAS is optically detected and aimed.

Having systems that detect ground fire and can automatically detect and engage incoming guided missiles like Stinger and Mistral would also be critical.

A simple projection system that has simple cameras and displays all round the aircraft so cameras pointing backwards can project what is behind the aircraft to the front displays and vice versa could make the aircraft very difficult to target let alone see in the first place.

it doesn't have to be a HD image... just some colour matching would make the aircraft difficult to spot and target.

Right up close you would be able to see the aircraft, but at 3-5km it would be much much harder.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

hoom wrote:Hmm, armored Su-34 seems a bit unlikely to me, too big a target, designed to go too fast.
I'd have thought new-build modernised Su-25s or something like that unless Syria ops showed problems with that platform?

Except the Su-34 is already armored, precisely an armored cockpit that can withstand 30mm caliber fire.

By battlefield requirements, the armor does not meet the standards as a CAS aircraft. It has no armor plates to isolate engines against projectiles or secondary effect like fire. It lacks explosion suppressive filler in fuel tanks, weight is to high- unnecessary technologies for the job, lack of technologies even they all exist like vitebsk.

The necessity for this job speaks a to deep modernisation to make a (dedicated) CAS plane.

So is the Su34 development going to form the basis of "the" new Pak Sha ie CAS aircraft?

Or is it going to be a short term option while a Pak Sha is developed?

I'm puzzled by the whole thing. Su34 is very fast, long airframe, v long range, aerodynamic, with a huge cabin that you can stand up in, have a pee, go to the mini kitchen etc.

Whereas the Su25 is slower, heavily armoured, shorter and smaller. Quite a different type of plane.

Would the Su34 based CAS be massively modified eg made to look short, squat and "muscular" or just look like a pretty regular Su34?