Su-25 attack aircraft

3 more Su-25SM3 arrived in the Krasnodar.

https://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/113595/

Off topic slightly. but what's people's view on disadvantages and advantages between su-25 and A-10.

Also can anyone confirm ceiling height for su-25 keep getting various figures from various sources some seem very low to the point that means su-25 unable to stay out of manpad range. I know that this type of aircraft normally flies low in its role but I'd still expect it to be able to stay out of manpad range in certain missions. 

Also I read that it's target tracking radar range for ground targets was only 8km range this true? I would of thought it to have been further 

and correct me if I am wrong su-25 are no longer produced as the factory in Georgia was destroyed in the short war with Russia or has sukhoi got a factory in Russia producing aircraft

Su25 doesn't have radar. They fly at max 7-8km altitude while manpad are limited to 2 or 3 km.

Su-25T is better. It has more weapons.

The T variant is as good as a-10 in destroying tanks. Advantage to the su-25 for SEAD mission with much bigger and supersonic missiles.

Normal su-25 is outdated and pretty bad.

No more production. Only upgrades.

Off topic slightly. but what's people's view on disadvantages and advantages between su-25 and A-10.

In practical terms the A-10 was a hunter that would operate over the front line or behind enemy lines looking for convoys of vehicles of any type to shoot up with cannon or guided anti armour missile in the form of the Maverick.

It was sort of a mix of CAS and short range strike, so it needed range and lots of guided missiles, and a gun with a large amount of ammo... which is basically what it was.

The Su-25 was more of a ground support aircraft like a stuka, but instead of dive bombing it would generally use conventional bombs from very low level and direct fire unguided rockets and cannon.

It could carry guided weapons but not very often and normally it was something like an AS-10 laser homing missile for use against point enemy positions like bunkers or buildings...

The Su-25 didn't need long range or incredibly heavy payload, but was small and fast and with direct delivery of weapons accurate enough.

Various upgrades that didn't really catch on included the Su-25T and later Su-25TM, which added the SHKVAL EO system similar to the one carried by the Ka-50 Hokum, which allowed it to also carry and use the Vikhr ATGM, which was actually rather impressive for its time in terms of detecting and auto tracking targets.

It had no thermal capability and was purely optical so it wasn't all weather capable.

The T and TM upgrades were rejected for being too complicated and expensive... a bit like the rejection of the SMT upgrades for the MiG-29... it made the aircraft rather more capable, but without the high tech precision weapons in mass production they were just more complicated to service... Vikhr was ordered a few years ago but in the 90s and early 2000s they didn't have it in stocks...

A new low drag pylon holding 4-8 Ataka missiles could have been rather useful for the Frogfoot...

The Su-25SM3 has a lot of basic improvements including DIRCMS and the built in EO system looks rather good too, but the focus is still flying near friendly troops on the front line dropping dumb bombs and firing unguided rockets at enemy positions rather than standoff attack with guided missiles.

The original factory was in Georgia, but there is a factory in Russia that produced the two seat version... the Su-25T and TM were based on the two seat model so more avionics could be added...

Have read about a few western pilots who were given a chance to fly some Soviet types and they all wanted to fly the MiG-29 or Su-27, but some flew the Su-25 and were surprised at how much they liked it... It seems to be a good little aircraft with few vices and easy to fly, with good manouver performance.

For Su-25SM3 we could say that its improvements were done exactly for stand off precision operations. It got new MAWS sensors, not DIRCM and new ECM pods for self defense. New Pastel RWR was tested with Su-25SM3 to use Kh-58 anti-radar missiles. New EO sight SOLT-25 include thermovision camera for night operations and it got new data link communication. New navigation complex with GLONASS satnav give high precision bombings capabilities with unguided bombs from higher safe altitudes. Su-25SM3 also got new armament, like TV guided bombs and missiles and satellite guided bombs like new satellite guided gliding cluster bomb PBK-500U Drel with 30 km range. Bazalt also plan to equip this bomb with pulsejet engine to increse range to at least 80 km.

d_taddei2 wrote:Off topic slightly. but what's people's view on disadvantages and advantages between su-25 and A-10.

Su-25 is designed for dive bombing surgical strike, therefore people demand high maneuverability, and they concentrate all the weights into the center of gravity.

Which means all important parts are put in more or less a single chamber and therefore save material and increase armor thickness.

Meanwhile A-10 is optimized for gun firing and it emphasize stability, therefore everything is spreaded out.

Hi all thanks for the info and info on loaded ceiling height? manpads have upto 5km range does the su-25 operate above this? Or will it relay on the defensive systems only. many sources seem to indicate very low ceiling height. I did always see A-10 as similar but not the same in roles. I remember reading a report on it saying that it's engines were very robust and sand gravel etc didn't seem to bother the aircraft. 

I wonder if the su-25sm3 will be the last cas aircraft in Russian service will drones be the future ?

They continue investing in attack helos so I suspect they want aircraft to operate at low altitudes on the battlefield...

There has been talk of a PAK Sh or something intended to replace the Frogfoot, but I really don't see the point in making it stealthy... radar is hardly a common threat for CAS aircraft... that is why they fly so low.

GarryB wrote:They continue investing in attack helos so I suspect they want aircraft to operate at low altitudes on the battlefield...

There has been talk of a PAK Sh or something intended to replace the Frogfoot, but I really don't see the point in making it stealthy... radar is hardly a common threat for CAS aircraft... that is why they fly so low.

CAS jets are full of weapons that you can't store in weapon bays unless you carry few of them specially rockets and atgm. So can't be stealthy anyway.

Su-25 is very good only need better avionics, radar and a targeting pod.

The defense Ministry will repair and modernizes su-25 to su-25СМ3 for 2.8 billion rubles

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/6271174

Russian upgraded Su-25 attack aircraft to get sighting system with artificial intelligence

More:
http://tass.com/defense/1057440

It includes being able to receive target data from other platforms including the IC4R system included with Ratnik 2..., and the Havoc will get the same capability to receive target data directly from other platforms on the battlefield...

According to the head of the press service of the Southern Military District, Vadim Astafyev, on the eve of the Aviation of the 4th Army of the Air Force and Air Defense, having covered 800 kilometers, three advanced Su-25SM3 attack aircraft arrived. Given the previously delivered aircraft of this modification, the second assault squadron was fully formed. Earlier it was reported on receipt in the same part of four Su-25SM3. Thus, 2 squadrons of modernized attack aircraft have already been formed as part of the 4th Army.

The delivered vehicles were accepted by the engineering and technical services of the aviation unit and allowed to perform combat missions.
Su-25SM3 is a further modification of the Su-25SM attack aircraft. On the upgraded machines installed a digital display, which displays the ground and air situation, installed a new fire control system and satellite navigation GLONASS. The aircraft is capable of hitting ground targets from a considerable distance, without entering into visual contact with a target, but only by coordinates. The aircraft is designed to destroy small-sized mobile and stationary ground objects, as well as low-speed air targets.

Earlier it was reported that up to the level of the Su-25SM3 it is planned to upgrade the entire existing fleet of Su-25 attack aircraft, including the Su-25SM.

they have been "cannibalized" ..

I found that on facebook. No text with the images. They look pretty well actually. I wonder if it's not for some kind of modernization.

They should have never stop its production. This thing in huge number can operate near the battle front with no need for airport. Some flat terrain and it's good. Enemy aviation could intercept them all as they should fly for longer time for interception.

Because production of single seater ended up in enemy territory now. Sucks but that's what you get with USSR and then becoming foreign states.

Isos wrote:I found that on facebook. No text with the images. They look pretty well actually. I wonder if it's not for some kind of modernization.

They should have never stop its production. This thing in huge number can operate near the battle front with no need for airport. Some flat terrain and it's good. Enemy aviation could intercept them all as they should fly for longer time for interception.

They were built in Tbilisi (Georgia) (the single seater) and in Ulan-Ude Aviation Plant (U-UAZ) in Russia (the Two seater version).

Ula Ude plant is normally building helicopters, but they said they are capable to restart production of the Su-25.

Apparently they have enough aircraft in service and in reserve that can be upgraded to the latest SM3 standard, without requiring new production for a while.

Probably it would require a couple of years to restart the supply chain to sustain serial production of the aircraft.

It would make sense if they have a large enough number of new airplanes to be build, if not they can just continue modernising the existing ones.

Eventually later they can design and build a successor or a next generation version of the Su-25, partially based on the modernised SM3 version and on the experience in Syria. That could be also produced in both manned and unmanned (attack drone) versions.


P.S. the idea to substitute the su-25 with an armored version of the su-34 does not make much sense. They are different aircrafts with different purposes.
The Su-34 is an excellent aircraft but it is a fighter bomber, a sort of more agile smaller brother of the Tu-22M, while the su-25 is an attack aircraft needed to operate at low altitude, more similar in role to an attack helicopter, but with different and complementary capabilities.

Isos wrote:I found that on facebook. No text with the images. They look pretty well actually. I wonder if it's not for some kind of modernization.

They should have never stop its production. This thing in huge number can operate near the battle front with no need for airport. Some flat terrain and it's good. Enemy aviation could intercept them all as they should fly for longer time for interception.

There's already a Rook replacement program (which has not been highly publicized) it's called the PAK-Sha program. The likely out comes are:

1.) They take an existing aircraft (probably the Su-32/34) and make a specialized/advanced derivative of it as a Rook replacement. That's probably the cheapest and most conservative solution besides restarting Rook production.

2.) They opt to just to restart Rook production (for the already stated reasons). If it happens it'll only be a short-term solution, not a long-term solution. It'll eventually need a replacement.

3.) They take some of the other proposed CAS design ideas from the Soviet era and continue/modernize them. Highly unlikely outcome.

4.) They start completely from scratch. Probably the most likely long-term solution, but it's not a high priority. Finalization of the PAK-FA (5th-gen air superiority fighter), PAK-DA (strategic bomber), PAK-DP (high-speed interceptor), and PAK-TA (strategic airlift) programs are all much higher priority.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Isos wrote:I found that on facebook. No text with the images. They look pretty well actually. I wonder if it's not for some kind of modernization.

They should have never stop its production. This thing in huge number can operate near the battle front with no need for airport. Some flat terrain and it's good. Enemy aviation could intercept them all as they should fly for longer time for interception.

There's already a Rook replacement program (which has not been highly publicized) it's called the PAK-Sha program. The likely out comes are:

1.) They take an existing aircraft (probably the Su-32/34) and make a specialized/advanced derivative of it as a Rook replacement. That's probably the cheapest and most conservative solution besides restarting Rook production.

2.) They opt to just to restart Rook production (for the already stated reasons). If it happens it'll only be a short-term solution, not a long-term solution. It'll eventually need a replacement.

3.) They take some of the other proposed CAS design ideas from the Soviet era and continue/modernize them. Highly unlikely outcome.

4.) They start completely from scratch. Probably the most likely long-term solution, but it's not a high priority. Finalization of the PAK-FA (5th-gen air superiority fighter), PAK-DA (strategic bomber), PAK-DP (high-speed interceptor), and PAK-TA (strategic airlift) programs are all much higher priority.

Was not the YAk-131 supposed to replace the role of Su-25?

The Su-25 is an incredible effective aircraft! USSR/Russia used the aircraft in EVERY conflict, a good replacement is needed.

Azi wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Isos wrote:I found that on facebook. No text with the images. They look pretty well actually. I wonder if it's not for some kind of modernization.

They should have never stop its production. This thing in huge number can operate near the battle front with no need for airport. Some flat terrain and it's good. Enemy aviation could intercept them all as they should fly for longer time for interception.

There's already a Rook replacement program (which has not been highly publicized) it's called the PAK-Sha program. The likely out comes are:

1.) They take an existing aircraft (probably the Su-32/34) and make a specialized/advanced derivative of it as a Rook replacement. That's probably the cheapest and most conservative solution besides restarting Rook production.

2.) They opt to just to restart Rook production (for the already stated reasons). If it happens it'll only be a short-term solution, not a long-term solution. It'll eventually need a replacement.

3.) They take some of the other proposed CAS design ideas from the Soviet era and continue/modernize them. Highly unlikely outcome.

4.) They start completely from scratch. Probably the most likely long-term solution, but it's not a high priority. Finalization of the PAK-FA (5th-gen air superiority fighter), PAK-DA (strategic bomber), PAK-DP (high-speed interceptor), and PAK-TA (strategic airlift) programs are all much higher priority.

Was not the YAk-131 supposed to replace the role of Su-25?

The Su-25 is an incredible effective aircraft! USSR/Russia used the aircraft in EVERY conflict, a good replacement is needed.

How could it? The Yak-130 lacks the necessary cabin armor for the CAS role. Besides the Su-25, the Su-32/34 is the only other plane that has the sufficient cabin armor for the CAS role.

magnumcromagnon wrote:
How could it? The Yak-130 lacks the necessary cabin armor for the CAS role. Besides the Su-25, the Su-32/34 is the only other plane that has the sufficient cabin armor for the CAS role.

What's why I'm asking! I read somewhere that the Yak-131 should be the replacement for the Su-25... The Yak-131 will receive cabin and enigine armor.

Here from english wikipedia: Yak-130

Yak-130 - wikipedia wrote:Yakovlev Yak-131
Light attack aircraft as the Su-25 replacement.[54] This version will have cockpit and engine armour, a GSh-30-1 autocannon, and either the Phazotron Kopyo radar with mechanical or electronic beam scanning, or the Tikhomirov NIIP Osa passive phased array radar [55]

But the project Yak-131 is soo quite, nearly dead.

Azi wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:
How could it? The Yak-130 lacks the necessary cabin armor for the CAS role. Besides the Su-25, the Su-32/34 is the only other plane that has the sufficient cabin armor for the CAS role.

What's why I'm asking! I read somewhere that the Yak-131 should be the replacement for the Su-25... The Yak-131 will receive cabin and enigine armor.

Here from english wikipedia: Yak-130

Yak-130 - wikipedia wrote:Yakovlev Yak-131
Light attack aircraft as the Su-25 replacement.[54] This version will have cockpit and engine armour, a GSh-30-1 autocannon, and either the Phazotron Kopyo radar with mechanical or electronic beam scanning, or the Tikhomirov NIIP Osa passive phased array radar [55]

But the project Yak-131 is soo quite, nearly dead.

But it failed because it didn't meet the protection requirements.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Azi wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:
How could it? The Yak-130 lacks the necessary cabin armor for the CAS role. Besides the Su-25, the Su-32/34 is the only other plane that has the sufficient cabin armor for the CAS role.

What's why I'm asking! I read somewhere that the Yak-131 should be the replacement for the Su-25... The Yak-131 will receive cabin and enigine armor.

Here from english wikipedia: Yak-130

Yak-130 - wikipedia wrote:Yakovlev Yak-131
Light attack aircraft as the Su-25 replacement.[54] This version will have cockpit and engine armour, a GSh-30-1 autocannon, and either the Phazotron Kopyo radar with mechanical or electronic beam scanning, or the Tikhomirov NIIP Osa passive phased array radar [55]

But the project Yak-131 is soo quite, nearly dead.

But it failed because it didn't meet the protection requirements.

Good! I don't want to see a Yak-130 derivative as replacement for Su-25.

Yeah, the problem with the idea of using an Su-32 or Su-34 platform as a basis is that it is stupid.

The Americans tried to make an attack version of the F-16... it was called the A-16 and it failed for all the same reasons.

The Su-25 is cheap and able to operate at subsonic speeds and deliver accurate direct fire at enemy ground forces with a backup ability to deal to enemy CAS platforms like drones and helicopters.

Its replacement will need to do the same.

When they first started with jet powered aircraft the plan was to have the latest jet also perform ground attack, so the MiG-15 was both a fighter and a ground attack aircraft... as was the MiG-19 and MiG-21... but what they found was that the slower MiG-15 actually was better at ground attack than the later faster models, so with the MiG-23 they designed a dedicated ground attack model, the MiG-27 with better forward and downward view and more suitable engine for lower speeds, and a different gun optimised for ground targets... and pretty much what they learned was that penetrating into enemy airspace made high speed at low altitude important... so the MiG-27 became a light strike aircraft like a short ranged Su-24... but supporting troops didn't need high flight speed... in fact high flight speed was more of a problem than an advantage... and the Su-35 was born.... and stupid americans blab on about how it looks like the other contender in the competition for the A-10, but if they got off their high horse and look at previous Soviet aircraft they would see it actually looks like the Il-40 which evolved into the Il-102, which was the direct competition for the Su-25.

Western claims the Su-25 was a copy of the A-9 are amusing because in my opinion the A-9 looks more like the A-10 than the Su-25 does.