Future CAS aircraft / Su-25 replacement?

future cas replacements will probably be unmanned , thus ucavs , i can imagine 2 seater su-34 as ucav control center plane releasing them from belly or stinger in the rear.

Dumpest thing i heard since the F-35 replacing A-10, long range heavy fighter/bombers aren't built for CAS, although there better off then fragile light stealth striker.

Su-34 will never replace Su-25 attack planes as it is a big fighter-bomber created for far different roles. Su-25 replacemet could be made from Yak-130 trainer. They already install SOLT-25 complex in the nose of Yak-130 and if they equip it with more powerful engines without afterburners, than they could place some armor on it and will get a jet close to Su-25.

Here in Italy there were quite some discussion  about the topic, given that we have the the sole other NATO country having such type of planes (AMX).
Given our past experience, that included also real fighting, we draw some conclusions about it:

First, CAS is still an absolutely necessary mission and even if it can be performed using a wide range of assets, from UCAV to strategic bombers, a dedicated one is still the best option.
Second: CAS is about supporting troops on terrain not about body count, so an observation pod with direct data link with both said forces than with others air assets is the first thing to have.
Third: What differentiate a truly CAS plane from other ones are essentially three things: loitering, loitering but above all loitering.

How a plane as Su-34 would fare in it? Above the first point, it's too big and almost in the current version it would be better used in other mission first, still in a situation like the one in Syria with a great part of everyday missions being direct support, it is actually widely used in the role.
Second. It has a very good avionics specialized in A2G role, can carry tactical pods, self-protective devices and a good weapons load in the same time.
About the third : it can carry a lot of fuel , use rugged runways , it is fast to come but thanks to its advanced flight pattern it has, like all flankers, a low stall speed so it  can loiter at a low speed over the battlefield i.e. the essential prerequisite for a good CAS with the only possible doubt being the  fuel consumption rate at such a speed.
On a more tactical level we instead concluded that having a gun, even the M-61 peashooter of our AMX, is still highly useful as it can be used to make an attacking enemy squat down.
At the contrary, we concluded that the ideas of stand offo attack using weapon like the gliding SDB from long distance simply doesn't work for lack of a "scare factor":you can even kill scores of them in such a way but if they are not made aware of a constant menace from the air they would still keep attacking your own forces on terrain and possibly overrun them.
Modern targeting devices allow however to use even unguided ordnances like rockets , cluster bombs and even guns from enough altitude to shield a plane by AAA and most of MANPADS as the SVP-24 use has clearly showed in Syria.
So, best option is high enough to be safe but close enough to be noticed by both the enemy and your own troops and so influence their respective tactical approach.
In the end using Su-34 as a CAS asset is absolutely OK, it would be way better just let it not being the sole you will have.

stand offo attack using weapon like the gliding SDB from long distance simply doesn't work for lack of a "scare factor"

Thats a pretty interesting point.

CAS is all about hitting targets near the front line that are a problem for front line troops.

Flying low and slow and using direct fire weapons has been the standard up until recently.

The Su-34 is a medium to long range strike aircraft... it is not really ideal for CAS simply because it can't operate near the front line (ie airfields) and be on station in minutes, to attack targets and loiter in the area.

If flying a small aircraft over the front lines is not viable the next best option in my opinion would be a large aircraft like a Tu-22M3 with a huge bombload in low speed cruise at 10,000m over the front line armed with 80 odd 250kg bombs with GLONASS guidance packages fitted... when targets show themselves a bomb or two can be released to deal with the problem.

Periodic inflight refuelling allowing the bomber to remain on station for 6-8 hours would be sufficient to allow the attack to succeed.

Some UCAV with 50kg guided bombs could probably do the same from an altitude where the enemy wont see the target.

A lower flying smaller drone could be used as its eyes to detect targets to guide the bombs onto...

Regarding the base question I don't think the Su-34 could replace the Su-25... any more than the F-15E or F-35 could replace the A-10. No matter what the marketting companies would have you think.

Of course with 70km range 152mm artillery support with guided shells air support is not so important any more.

I think the idea using armored Su-34 to replace Su-25 is just of NAPO who is co-designer / producer of Su-34. They are trying to promote Su-34 to take more budget share like Irkut did with Yak-130/131 some year ago.

IMHO, nothing can replace Su-25 perfectly as a new version of Su-25. Just using the Su-25UB airframe for single-seat version like Su-39 to accomodate more internal fuel, replace 2 engines by new durable & fuel saving turbofans, add-on cockpit armore, Vitebsk self-defense, radar absorbance surface treatment, etc.

For sightings, using a nosed AESA radar, an under-beltly targeting pod T-220/e that is testing on Mig-35 and the SVP-24-25 mission programming & aimming complex, etc.

I was reading about plans to have an armoured Su34 is to replace the Su25 CAS armoured aircraft.

One thing I notice is that the Su34 is a much larger aircraft with a larger range and very high speed. So, from that point of view its very much UNLIKE the Su25.

Would they be literally using the 34 and armouring it. Or are they saying, take parts and concepts from the 34 and build a close air support aircraft?

Also I notice that the US rival the Warthog has engines above the wing.
Would there be any mileage in a new Russian CAS aircraft ie Su25 replacement having that format. So gunfire would pretty much need to penetrate the wings to hit the engines.

There's also talk of a prospective close air support plane being developed in Russia. Would that refer to an armoured Su34 type variant, or something else?

Firebird wrote:I was reading about plans to have an armoured Su34 is to replace the Su25 CAS armoured aircraft.

One thing I notice is that the Su34 is a much larger aircraft with a larger range and very high speed. So, from that point of view its very much UNLIKE the Su25.

Would they be literally using the 34 and armouring it. Or are they saying, take parts and concepts from the 34 and build a close air support aircraft?

Also I notice that the US rival the Warthog has engines above the wing.
Would there be any mileage in a new Russian CAS aircraft ie Su25 replacement having that format. So gunfire would pretty much need to penetrate the wings to hit the engines.

There's also talk of a prospective close air support plane being developed in Russia. Would that refer to an armoured Su34 type variant, or something else?

Apparently the idea is to use same layout, improve its CAS characteristics and probably designate it in another way, probably even using Su-34 as base nomenclature and then adding letter (S for sturmovik or who knows). However its still on a long stick, Su-25s are there to stay for a decade more at least.

Actually engines on Warthog are above the fuselage to reduce IR and general engine signatures when viewed from the ground.

Militarov wrote:

Firebird wrote:I was reading about plans to have an armoured Su34 is to replace the Su25 CAS armoured aircraft.

One thing I notice is that the Su34 is a much larger aircraft with a larger range and very high speed. So, from that point of view its very much UNLIKE the Su25.

Would they be literally using the 34 and armouring it. Or are they saying, take parts and concepts from the 34 and build a close air support aircraft?

Also I notice that the US rival the Warthog has engines above the wing.
Would there be any mileage in a new Russian CAS aircraft ie Su25 replacement having that format. So gunfire would pretty much need to penetrate the wings to hit the engines.

There's also talk of a prospective close air support plane being developed in Russia. Would that refer to an armoured Su34 type variant, or something else?

Apparently the idea is to use same layout, improve its CAS characteristics and probably designate it in another way, probably even using Su-34 as base nomenclature and then adding letter (S for sturmovik or who knows). However its still on a long stick, Su-25s are there to stay for a decade more at least.

Actually engines on Warthog are above the fuselage to reduce IR and general engine signatures when viewed from the ground.

They should restart a small production of an improved version with new equipement, new armor... It's one of their best aircraft and the most used by russian air force.

Su-34 is not adapted for that role, specially its egines being too close each other and in the way of every bullet from the ground.

I was reading about plans to have an armoured Su34 is to replace the Su25 CAS armoured aircraft.

If anything it would have replaced the MiG-27K, but there is simply no role for such an aircraft these days.

The US suggested an A-16 based on the F-16 to replace the A-10 and it was equally unsuccessful.

Would they be literally using the 34 and armouring it. Or are they saying, take parts and concepts from the 34 and build a close air support aircraft?

In many ways the Su-25TM was more like a strike aircraft than a CAS in the sense that it had an optical targeting system used to find and engage targets, much the same way a strike aircraft would.

Also I notice that the US rival the Warthog has engines above the wing.
Would there be any mileage in a new Russian CAS aircraft ie Su25 replacement having that format. So gunfire would pretty much need to penetrate the wings to hit the engines.

Have had lots of discussions with proUS people about the ideal shape for a CAS aircraft.

On paper the A-10 is better than the Su-25 in terms of its location for its engines... in reality the Su-25 actually makes more sense... it is better aerodynamically and armour between the engines is actually more effective at stopping hits destroying both engines than separating them... the air space between the A-10s engines wont stop shrapnel or bits of broken engine damaging the other engine... an armoured plate between the two engines in the Su-25 will.

Avoiding damage is much more effective than simply being able to absorb it.

Combat experience has shown an Su-25 can survive a MANPADS hit to one engine just like an A-10 can.

Modern IR guided missiles no longer hit engine exhausts so an explosion on the body of the aircraft is actually more likely these days.

There's also talk of a prospective close air support plane being developed in Russia. Would that refer to an armoured Su34 type variant, or something else?

Likely something else.

Actually engines on Warthog are above the fuselage to reduce IR and general engine signatures when viewed from the ground.

Effective against SA-7/-9/-14, but not so good against later missiles (SA-13M/-16/-18/-18S and whatever Verba will be called not to mention non IR guided missiles like TOR, Pantsir, Tunguska, etc)that can home in on the aircraft itself.

Su-34 is not adapted for that role, specially its egines being too close each other and in the way of every bullet from the ground.

The Il-2 has only one engine but the armour around it kept it operating...

I have seen some interesting models including a turbo prop with a double propfan (like the BEAR and An-70) in a pusher position at the rear of the aircraft. I seem to remember the makers were called SABA or something, and the aircraft had a rear mounted straight wing like the Su-25 but horizontal and downward vertical pointing canards...

Was an interesting looking aircraft.

The main advantage that the A-10 holds over the Su-25 in service is the ability to use TV guided munitions and LGBs.

BTW I don't know why is there such worship of autocannons as tank killers on CAS aircraft. Could HEAT tipped FFARs not do the job equally or better? They have higher penetration, around the same accuracy, same accuracy, cheap, not mention most aircraft can carry them while an aircraft has to be custom designed around a tank-killing autocannon to be successful, making development costs enormous.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:The main advantage that the A-10 holds over the Su-25 in service is the ability to use TV guided munitions and LGBs.

BTW I don't know why is there such worship of autocannons as tank killers on CAS aircraft. Could HEAT tipped FFARs not do the job equally or better? They have higher penetration, around the same accuracy, same accuracy, cheap, not mention most aircraft can carry them while an aircraft has to be custom designed around a tank-killing autocannon to be successful, making development costs enormous.

No more with Su-25SM3 equipped with SOLT-25 EO complex and it could also use antiradar missiles, which A-10 could not.

The main advantage that the A-10 holds over the Su-25 in service is the ability to use TV guided munitions and LGBs.

The Su-25 can also use TV and laser guided weapons (rockets and missiles).

What it lacks is large scale production of light TV guided missiles like Maverick.

They had the Kh-25 family, but no triple racks for weapon pylons like the A-10 did.

Of course the Su-25TD did introduce the 8 Vikhrs per pylon option and in the near future the same option for Hermes will make it more interesting.

Even basic model Su-25 can carry and use laser guided bombs... but its mission is to get up close so dumb bombs and rockets are more often used.

BTW I don't know why is there such worship of autocannons as tank killers on CAS aircraft. Could HEAT tipped FFARs not do the job equally or better? They have higher penetration, around the same accuracy, same accuracy, cheap, not mention most aircraft can carry them while an aircraft has to be custom designed around a tank-killing autocannon to be successful, making development costs enormous.

Actually laser guidance kits for unguided rockets would mean a very potent anti armour capability at fairly low cost and high volume...

Even with the 122mm rocket pods, that means 5 x 8 = 40 guided rockets with warheads in the 30-35kg range, while with 80mm rockets you only get about 5-8kgs warhead but 160 rockets in 8 pods of 20 rounds...

An armour hunting load could be two weapon pylons with Hermes (16), plus say 4 pylons with 4 x 20 = 80 80mm rockets, leaving two pylons left for either fuel tanks or two 122mm rocket pods for 10 x 122mm rockets.

with their 30kg warheads the Hermes and 122mm rockets would be potent against any modern tank, while the 80 x 80mm rockets would be effective against anything less well armoured than a tank like the light vehicles that make up most of an army.

BTW here is that aircraft i was talking about in my previous post:

Single seat version of Su-34 hinted as Su-25 replacement

http://tass.com/defense/973608

A range of 4,000km means it would be a strike aircraft and not a CAS aircraft...

Might as well adapt the Tu-22m3... it could carry 24 tons of weapons...

George1 wrote:Single seat version of Su-34 hinted as Su-25 replacement

http://tass.com/defense/973608

It becames just a normal su-27 ... with armour around cockpit which won't save the pilot if its engines are touched by any fire arm ... so its not a replacement.

Pro russians wants to make any imaginable versions of all their stuff for every imaginable task. They should really stop. If it is not a CAS su-34 it is a yak 130 armed to "compete" against f-22 or a 900T corvettes with better capabilities than cruisers. That's just stupid and impossible. Just stop with those ideas ...

Isos wrote:with armour around cockpit which won't save the pilot if its engines are touched by any fire arm

For one thing, a single seat Su-34 would probably be able to have more armour than the current version...but it's just Bondarev's personal opinion at this stage

Cyberspec wrote:

Isos wrote:with armour around cockpit which won't save the pilot if its engines are touched by any fire arm

For one thing, a single seat Su-34 would probably be able to have more armour than the current version...but it's just Bondarev's personal opinion at this stage

Entire aircraft needs to be armoured, not just cockpit

In this case developing new one makes more sense

I think it is important to keep in mind that this is just a suggestion and I suspect it probably came from someone within Sukhoi who is over the moon regarding the success of the Su-34 in Syria.

The US has also used B-52s as CAS in the sense that they can operate over a conflict zone with lots of fuel and lots of medium and small bombs.... a Su-34 with accuracy of the G&T level system or its equivalent means it could be as accurate from 10,000m as the Su-25 is from 1,000m altitude but obviously much safer.

The number of bombs the Su-34 can carry plus the fuel efficiency of operating at 10km altitude and the large fuel reserves means it could operate for 6-8 hours over the target area offering fairly rapid response times and the accuracy needed to get the job done as long as the coordinates passed on are accurate too of course.

That would mean forces on the ground and UAVs finding targets and passing on target data.

But as I said... a Tu-22M3 could also perform that mission with even more fuel and more bombs.

A new subsonic model could be developed with fixed wings and inflight refuelling... perhaps with just one of the new PD-35 engines being developed for the PAK DA and Tu-160M2 for lower top speed but less weight and space so more fuel and longer range and more weapons.