Su-25 attack aircraft

Isos wrote:

limb wrote: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?

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.

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.

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.

limb wrote:

Isos wrote:

limb wrote: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?

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.

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.

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.

The Kh-29T, Kh-29L, Vikhr, S-25L were in service already long before the potbelly dinosaurs became potbelly dinousaurs. I think they're intimately familiar with their capabilities. The Su-25 tends to have a certain mission profile suited to its range, speed and optimal altitude - and typically for those it won't use anything larger than a S-25L, Vikhr or Izd. 305; with the preference to just the S-25L.
Rest of the stuff might be used 0.1% of the time when in a pinch or better suited aircraft for air-to-ground missiles aren't available.

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.

On numerous videos on the resources of the Ministry of Defense from month to month, day after day you can see the same picture: a pair (link) of Su-25 takes off with two outboard fuel tanks PTB-800 and two units B13L NAR of the S-13 family, launches missiles from a pitch-up and returns to its native airfield  

At the same time, many viewers should have some bewilderment:
1) why attack aircraft fly out on a combat mission underloaded ? ( 6 out of 10 underwing hardpoints remain empty);
2) why are the Su-25s releasing the NAR from a pitch-up ? (in fact, "in the white light"). Let's try to answer these and other questions.

https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/281713.html

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.

In the western strategic direction, in the near future, there will be assault aviation units equipped with the famous "Rooks" -attack aircraft of the Su-25 family. Until recently, the Western Military District did not have a single assault aviation regiment. Su-25s are capable of radically increasing the power of the Ground Forces. The tasks of the new aviation units will include destroying important enemy targets and strongholds, as well as supporting Ground forces on the battlefield. According to experts, this will increase the effectiveness of Russian forces ' actions in the western direction.

Heading West

The Ministry of Defense is currently working on the deployment of aviation units equipped with Su-25 attack aircraft in the western direction, sources in the military department told Izvestia. The task of the "Rooks" will be to directly support the Ground Forces on the battlefield. Attack aircraft will also interact with army aviation helicopters.

Previously, there was a military unit with Su aircraft in the western strategic direction-25 — 899-1st Guards Assault Aviation Regiment. It was based in the Voronezh Region at the Buturlinovka airfield. However, in 2009, the regiment was disbanded. As part of the strategic exercises "West-2017" and "West-2021", this direction was strengthened by attack aircraft of the Southern and Eastern military Districts. But at the end of the maneuvers, the Rooks returned to their permanent locations.

FULL ARTICLE: https://translated.turbopages.org/proxy_u/ru-en.en.a9c0b227-63c15716-8b6d05ae-74722d776562/https/iz.ru/1453664/roman-kretcul/grachi-priletaiut-zapadnoe-napravlenie-ukrepiat-modernizirovannymi-su-25

On numerous videos on the resources of the Ministry of Defense from month to month, day after day you can see the same picture: a pair (link) of Su-25 takes off with two outboard fuel tanks PTB-800 and two units B13L NAR of the S-13 family, launches missiles from a pitch-up and returns to its native airfield

At the same time, many viewers should have some bewilderment:
1) why attack aircraft fly out on a combat mission underloaded ? ( 6 out of 10 underwing hardpoints remain empty);
2) why are the Su-25s releasing the NAR from a pitch-up ? (in fact, "in the white light"). Let's try to answer these and other questions.

If the Su-25 only has less than 450km range with only 2 S-13 pods, why doesnt russia make frontline makeshift runways for them around 100km from the frontline? the Su-25 is easily rugged enough for that. They could just make them take off from civilian roads and hide them in random warehouses. or underground.

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...

franco wrote:In the western strategic direction, in the near future, there will be assault aviation units equipped with the famous "Rooks" -attack aircraft of the Su-25 family. Until recently, the Western Military District did not have a single assault aviation regiment.

Yes, it seems somewhat expected, although there are not too many Su-25s available, especially after the losses of Su-25s in the Ukraine and reorganization will be necessary.

The growth of helicopter regiments to brigades will probably make Su-25s disappear in Buddyonovsk and Chernigovka.
It is quite likely that Su-25s will end up burned in Ukraine

On the other hand there are already Su-25 in the western district brought from Domna for the Special Military Operation.
Settled first in Belarus and then returned to Russia, in google they have been one squadron in Sescha for months, although they may have moved again

It may be that this squadron of Su-25 will be assigned to Voronezh as the third squadron of the Su-34 regiment, I see it as quite difficult for a full regiment of Su-25 to open since stocks have dropped considerably.
Another possibility is to open a mixed regiment in Shatalovo similar to the one in Gvardeiskoye in Crimea.

How do you estimate the losses for su25?

How many su25 are able to be mustered by VKS

Source is a bit suspect and they got one point wrong on Su-25 being upgraded to carry nukes it was in fact Su-24 that was originally mentioned sometime ago.

Belarus I believe did already have a close production friendship with Belarus still supplying certain equipment etc. I always thought countries like Belarus and Serbia would have benefitted from joint export production equipment and vehicles. To note I remember an article from 2021 where it talked about Belarus still having large quantities of Soviet vehicles and artillery laying around so the western MSM talking about Russia running out of equipment which we know is BS it could still tap into this equipment if it really wanted to or if Belarus wanted to do it's own mobilization it would have plenty of equipment to provide.

Belarus to make Su-25 attack aircraft as Russia eyes industry takeover

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2023/02/21/belarus-to-make-su-25-attack-aircraft-as-russia-eyes-industry-takeover/

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?

Upgrading the Su-25 is not a bad idea but I think it's time that Russia came out with a UCAV design that can replace this aircraft wholesale. I mean it's not a critical type aircraft; if the enemy jams so who cares, it can fly back to base or crash or whatever. And without the pilot inside it can be totally expendable too and simply be used for the most risky strafing runs and in air-defense rich environments.

It shouldn't be that expensive either. Essentially the same Su-25 type of airframe, only with modern materials, no cockpit, and all the armour concentrated around the engines and fuel compartment instead. The control systems can be lodged in there too.

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 Su-25 should be an aircraft that russia can afford to lose in the dozens every month. Currently theyre being used as high value assets, doing indirect fire. It should interdict, be expendable and fly behind enemy lines to destroy artillery and shorads.

Can't be any worse than playing War Thunder online

For example, before the ugledar attack, over 60-70 Su-25s shouldve been used to attack any high value target in direct fire, and drop bombs on reinforcment columns behind enemy lines, without care for losses.

They shouldve been equipped with vikhrs, loitering and destroying vehicle with them on call.

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.

Then theres no point in building any more manned CAS aircraft. Russia shouldnt have bothered with Su-25s if theyre not expendable, and shouldve procured hundreds of orion UCAVs by the mid 2010s. The Su-25 is redundant in indirect rocket fire and ATGM usage compared to attack helos

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.

For example, before the ugledar attack, over 60-70 Su-25s shouldve been used to attack any high value target in direct fire, and drop bombs on reinforcment columns behind enemy lines, without care for losses.

They shouldve been equipped with vikhrs, loitering and destroying vehicle with them on call.

No-one's going to be so callous in regards to pilots and aircraft

Ater a certain number of aircraft you also get diminishing returns

And no Su-25s would have helped with a minefield anyhow

The only way is to have unmanned drones doing all that kind of work

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.

You can't compare the Ukrainian AD network to the Russian one

The Ukrainian one maintains enough strength to be able to ambush Russian aviation, and this is enough for the Russian VKS to use its assets cautiously and conservatively, without doing any unnecessary risks.
But if it's a drone so then who cares.

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.

Not when coupled with manned aviation and helicopters. And russian AD far outnumbered ukrainian AD. The only reason ukrainian AD hasnt been destroyed is because of lack of enough cheap UCAVs and AWACS data link. The latter can be countered by saturating the ugledar front with about 80 orions armed with glide bombs coupled with 12-30  Su-24s or Su-25s behind them who will destroy any AD that targets the orions. You have attrite AD, not the other way around. A NASAMs or IRIS T is far more valuable than an orion or sirius.