Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Su-25SM numbers

    Share
    avatar
    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7255
    Points : 7555
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  sepheronx on Wed Jun 12, 2013 9:02 pm

    GarryB wrote:It was also rather expensive... particularly the optical attack system called Shkval-M, which is related to the system fitted to the Ka-50 Hokum.

    Personally I would love to see some of the systems developed for the Ka-52 and Mi-28N/M fitted to the Su-25 in the form of the optics and radar, and of course the Vitebsk system is a huge step forward in terms of defence for the aircraft.

    Improved avionics that increase the effectiveness of dumb unguided weapons, plus lots of guided weapons would be a good step forward. Certainly if they buy a batch of Vikhrs then they would be a very useful addition to its armoury with two pylons carrying 16 guided missiles able to take out point targets out to 15km in the later models.

    Wondered why, with all the different type of FLIR sights that have came out over the years, that they have no made a pod sooner that would have worked for Su-25 without any massive modernization.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16038
    Points : 16669
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:28 am

    The new system shown on the Mig-29M2 might be an external pod version of the system fitted internally on the Mig-35 and would be useful for other aircraft to use including the Su-25SM.

    Pod mounted systems add drag and weight and often take up a pylon, but they can be fitted when needed and removed when not needed, plus they are far easier to replace with new technology. With new avionics they will likely be plug and play...

    They have been working on a range of pods including a thermal imaging pod, but I suspect the new optics in the Ka-52 and Mi-28M would make rather more sense as they are already optimised for the role of CAS with all the weapons integrated that they might use.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7255
    Points : 7555
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  sepheronx on Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:47 am

    GarryB wrote:The new system shown on the Mig-29M2 might be an external pod version of the system fitted internally on the Mig-35 and would be useful for other aircraft to use including the Su-25SM.

    Pod mounted systems add drag and weight and often take up a pylon, but they can be fitted when needed and removed when not needed, plus they are far easier to replace with new technology. With new avionics they will likely be plug and play...

    They have been working on a range of pods including a thermal imaging pod, but I suspect the new optics in the Ka-52 and Mi-28M would make rather more sense as they are already optimised for the role of CAS with all the weapons integrated that they might use.

    Exactly.  Do we know more about the pod found on the MiG-29M2? (I thought it was a MiG-35?).  Is it the Sapsan-E pod?  FLIR?

    A pod like that if made en mass, would be VERY useful for not only Su-25's, but on Su-24's, Su-34s (apparently they are using Domacles), Su-35 for better ground attack roll, Su-30 to further improve them.... Pretty much all aircrafts that need better air to ground capabilities.

    Surprised though that they have not made one based off of the Ka-52 and Mi-28M because those systems already have them installed, and how hard would it be to make it into a pod to work on aircrafts?

    All that being said, what about the Kopyo radar?  That too would give the Su-25's even more capabilities.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16038
    Points : 16669
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:36 am

    Just after the photo showing the new external pods was posted here I think TR-1 posted this:



    My Russian is not great but it clearly says Mig-29M and Mig-29M2, which makes sense to me as adding a new pod should allow capabilities with new weapons which older model Migs don't carry anyway.

    I rather suspect this pod system is simply the same as the internal system fitted to the Mig-35 that can be fitted to Mig-29M and Mig-29M2 aircraft.

    Pods probably make more sense for multi role aircraft, but for dedicated aircraft there is some scope for their use to expand or upgrade capabilities too.

    The main issue with the Kopyo radar on the Su-25 is that its belly position makes it not so useful in the air to air role of scanning the air for air targets.

    Radars are not cheap, but I think fitting the new radar being developed for the Ka-52K naval helo into the Su-25SMx upgrade would make a lot of sense in terms of all weather day and night target detection capability... fitting it in the nose would give it the best field of view for air and ground targets while chin mounted optics should complete the package... though a 45mm gun with telescoped ammo or 57mm gun with laser guided shells might be a useful addition too except for a lack of room... the Frogfoot replacement will likely need to be bigger.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    a89
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 105
    Points : 110
    Join date : 2013-01-09
    Location : Oxfordshire

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  a89 on Thu Jun 13, 2013 12:26 pm

    Are there photos of new Su-25 being produced for VVS?

    The main issue with the Kopyo radar on the Su-25 is that its belly position makes it not so useful in the air to air role of scanning the air for air targets.


    Sukhoi fitted R-77 in Su-25TM version. It was too much for an airframe like the Frogfoot. I think SM upgrades were much more economical and improved the Frogfoot main weaknesses.
    avatar
    Cyberspec
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1931
    Points : 2096
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  Cyberspec on Mon Jun 24, 2013 12:37 am

    Model of a Su-25UBM armed to the teeth

    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16038
    Points : 16669
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jun 24, 2013 11:03 am

    Sukhoi fitted R-77 in Su-25TM version. It was too much for an airframe like the Frogfoot.

    For a small air force I would think that is a good idea... certainly an Su-25TM would still be much cheaper than previous generation fighters yet offer rather more air to air capability than old Mig-21s when using R-77s in the air to air realm (except for its low speed of course), while in the air to ground role it is much more capable than most supersonic fighters in the same price range (which is an empty group really...)


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1156
    Points : 1311
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Fri Jun 28, 2013 12:29 pm

    I've read on western forums that the Su-25 has poorer protection on the rear than the A-10 because its engines are below the tail making it very vulnerable. Is this a legitimate statement or just propaganda?

    Rpg type 7v
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 399
    Points : 263
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Fri Jun 28, 2013 2:30 pm

    it is true ,russia ground attack aircraft , missile will come from bellow and hit the engines .
    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5700
    Points : 5736
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  TR1 on Fri Jun 28, 2013 10:54 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:I've read on western forums that the Su-25 has poorer protection on the rear than the A-10 because its engines are below the tail making it very vulnerable. Is this a legitimate statement  or just propaganda?

    Zero Su-25s were shot down in A-stan after engine titanium plate was installed.

    The A-10 has also had its engines blasted out by MANPADS, like in Iraq.

    The difference I would say is negligible, due to engine placement.
    What is more important is speed (where the Su-25 leads) or inbuilt defensive systems (where the A-10C leads, and the Su-25Sm3 should catch up on).
    avatar
    Flyboy77
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 61
    Points : 64
    Join date : 2013-06-01

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  Flyboy77 on Sat Jun 29, 2013 8:06 am

    Not to mention that servicing or replacing the engines of the A-10 with them being raised up is a lot more complexed process that requires specialised equipment. Its because of this that the A-10 isn't as capable of operating from unprepared Airfields as the Su-25. Even though the A-10 a very advance CAS aircraft the easier to operate Su-25 meets the CAS needs of most nations.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16038
    Points : 16669
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jun 29, 2013 10:11 am

    I've read on western forums that the Su-25 has poorer protection on the rear than the A-10 because its engines are below the tail making it very vulnerable. Is this a legitimate statement or just propaganda?

    On paper the A-10 is vastly superior to the Su-25 in terms of survivability.

    In actual use however the widely spaced engines mounted high up in the rear are no better protected than the engines in the Su-25 that are much closer together but have an armour plate between them to prevent damage to both engines at once.

    The smaller lighter faster Su-25 seems to do very well in terms of surviving ground fire... and of course more modern MANPADS are no longer designed to be tail chasers so the issue is becoming a dead one as later model Iglas apply a course correction just before impact to hit the centre of the aircraft instead of the engines which makes them far more deadly than older missile types.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 10045
    Points : 10533
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  George1 on Thu Jul 04, 2013 5:48 am

    so we have any recent info about the total number of Su-25SMs?
    avatar
    NickM
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 181
    Points : 128
    Join date : 2012-11-09
    Location : NYC,USA / Essex,UK

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  NickM on Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:13 am

    GarryB wrote:On paper the A-10 is vastly superior to the Su-25 in terms of survivability.

    GarryB unfortunately the ignorance propagated by these Indians / Asians etc on this forum has taken a toll on you .
    Logic is not a forte of ill formed people who comment in this forum . I see comments on S 400 ( apart from a whole lot of Russian stuff) made by Indians , Asians etc . There are a couple of important questions that needs to be answered.

    How exactly do they know about the S 400 ? Last heard India can't afford it . Have the Indians been to Russia ? Did they work for Almaz Antei ? You know , I know the answer to these questions is a resounding NO . When I myself have never been close to a S 400 fielded in Moscow inspite of visiting Russia a number of times.

    The A 10 is head & shoulders above the SU 25 . I can explain in details but Defense IQ already did the research in UK.
    Here is the link

    http://defencesummits.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/su-25vsa-10_1.jpg

    See the truth for yourself . Don't let these ignorant people fool you or any other right minded Russian in this forum .
    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5700
    Points : 5736
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  TR1 on Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:17 am

    What a stupid chart. Who the hell cares what they would prefer?

    Typical nonsense from Nick though. Add in some delicious racist, and what do you expect.

    Funny how you bring up S-400, when you made an ass for yourself claiming MEADS of all systems was head and shoulders above anything Russia. Typically when you get called out you don't respond.

    How you haven't been banned for your thinly veiled racism is a mystery to me.
    avatar
    NickM
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 181
    Points : 128
    Join date : 2012-11-09
    Location : NYC,USA / Essex,UK

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  NickM on Tue Jul 30, 2013 9:47 am

    TR1 wrote:What a stupid chart. Who the hell cares what they would prefer?

    So why don't you come up with a better chart to prove your points .

    TR1 wrote:Typical nonsense from Nick though. Add in some delicious racist, and what do you expect.

    I suspect you are Asian and a butt hurt Asian like you will find everything racist .

    TR1 wrote:Typically when you get called out you don't respond.

    The opposite is true . I have provided innumerable links to prove my points . You have done nothing.

    TR1 wrote:How you haven't been banned for your thinly veiled racism is a mystery to me.

    Coz the moderators in this forum are not puny heads . And they realize that speaking out against some ethic tribes for justified reasons is not racism .
    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5700
    Points : 5736
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  TR1 on Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:19 am

    So the evidence is a chart, followed by : We prefer the A-10.

    Wow, what an argument!

    I don't even need to comment on your incessant blabbering about Asians and Indians. Anyone with two eyes can see what is going on here.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16038
    Points : 16669
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:47 am

    GarryB unfortunately the ignorance propagated by these Indians / Asians etc on this forum has taken a toll on you .

    The picture/chart you produce just reproduces the ignorance of the western sources during the cold war and does nothing to actually look at the reasons behind why the Su-25 was created and its purpose in the Soviet and now Russian inventory.

    My comments are being propagated by ME and therefore is white Anglo Saxon ignorance if you can prove it to be wrong in the first place.

    If we scroll down the chart the Soviet invention of a dedicated ground support aircraft called a Shturmovic is ignored... as are all the various aircraft developed afterwards that might not have entered service but were in continuous development but not put in service by a short sighted military who was fixated with shiny supersonic planes like Mig-21s.

    They didn't know any better so they call the Su-25 a copy of the A-9 which was the failed contender in the competition that the A-10 finally won.

    The amusing thing is that the Il-102 was the direct competition to the Su-25 and was in many ways a very close equivalent to the A-10 in that it was a much larger and more powerful aircraft with 5 ton thrust engines (non afterburning RD-33s from a Mig-29 in fact), but it had two crew and was going to be fitted with a 57mm cannon... its payload was over 7 tons and in many ways was comparable to the A-10 yet is was rather different in that it had a tail gunner and internal bomb positions on the wings.

    The Su-25 actually looks rather more like an Il-40 Brawny with its air intakes shortened... and guess what... the Il-40... while looking like a double barrel shotgun... with its engine intakes shortened looks a lot like an A-9 except it was designed in the early 1950s which makes the A-9 look more like a copy of a Soviet aircraft and the Su-25 an evolutionary product... hmmm imagine that.

    Next down the list... the most modern variant is hardly the Georgian/Israeli cockpit upgrade... that was nothing but a cosmetic shallow upgrade. The Su-25TM is the best known upgrade with the Su-25SM3 and the new replacement aircraft design on the way should occupy that spot.

    Further down the list under lethality on the one side it claims the Su-25 is only able to hit fixed targets, while on the other side of the equation states that the DU rounds of the A-10 are more effective than the 30mm rounds of the Su-25.

    Of course you should really be questioning how relevant the enormous 30mm gun that occupies 3/4ths of the A-10s airframe... the plane is pretty much built around the gun and its motor and its ammo bin, really is. Its main claim to fame is a radioactive toxic round that would require extensive clean up measures if it was used anywhere friendly forces had to live after the conflict. The difference in penetration is not actually that significant and when firing HE shells the Soviet gun is a fraction of the size and a fraction of the weight yet fires a round with a similar weight projectile at very similar speeds at a similar firing rate.

    The next gen of guided air to ground weapons the Russians will be introducing will make the Frogfoot far more capable even just GLONASS guided bombs.

    In terms of survivability... the Su-25 has much better response rates in thrust with its turbojet engines which can be critical in low flying in steep terrain where the slower turning turbofans of the A-10 take a while to accelerate to full thrust. The difference in heat would be irrelevant to a modern SAM as both aircraft would be easy to lock... most don't lock onto engines anymore so the awkward position of the A-10s engines doesn't offer as much of an advantage as you might think. The Frogfoot also has self sealing fuel tanks and can operate on diesel and other fuel types.

    Interesting they talk about recent accident history and not full accident history...
    In terms of cost effectiveness aviation fuel is the least of the aircrafts problems. The bill for cleaning up firing ranges when DU ammo dwarfs the price of fuel and components... and the Frogfoot is still in production... the increasing cost of parts is not a problem for Russia.

    My verdict... smaller, faster, just as safe to fly, speed is life and manouver capability is more use than the ability to carry 7 tons of external stores because if you want to actually survive there is no way you would take off with that weight of ordinance and survive in real combat.

    The Su-25 has a much better record of not killing friendly forces too.

    The A 10 is head & shoulders above the SU 25 . I can explain in details but Defense IQ already did the research in UK.

    What would the British know about CAS? They use possibly the worst aircraft in the world for that mission... the Harrier.

    On paper it is an excellent machine and very very capable, but even in the improved American version the AV-8 it is still a missile magnet with its engine nozzles mounted on the sides of its fuselage... with the hot engine nozzles at the rear most aircraft are vulnerable but the Harrier is vulnerable from most angles to IR guided missiles.

    Perhaps we should look at the armament comparison for example to see why the chart is a poor comparison.

    Under Rockets it mentions basically two types of american rockets... the 70mm rockets and the 127mm Zuni rockets in various types of rocket pod.

    For the Su-25 in comparison it mentions four types of rocket... the 57mm rocket, the 80mm rocket, the 240mm rocket, and the S-25 rocket it misidentifies as the 330mm rocket. The 57mm rockets are not widely used anymore, but the 80mm rocket, the 122mm rocket, the 240mm rocket, and the 266mm rockets are still widely used... the latter including a laser guided model.

    Under missiles it mentions Maverick and Sidewinder for the A-10, but only mentions Kh-23 AS-7, AS-9, AS-10, AS-14, AA-2, and AA-8. Of course a more realistic list would include AA-2, AA-8, AA-11, AA-10, AA-12, plus AS-7, AS-9, AS-10, AS-11, AS-12, AS-14, AS-17, plus of course air launched versions of the Kh-35 and the laser guided model of the S-25 called the S-25L...

    In bombs it is even worse... all those US weapons have Russian equivalents and the Su-25 can use them all, plus it can also use a wide range of other bombs and incendiary tanks and gun pods and towed targets.

    There is even a fire fighting bomb that extinguishes fires that the Su-25 can carry.

    Cheaper... smaller... lighter... faster... both are CAS, but the A-10 was intended to operate deep behind enemy lines hitting targets of opportunity... mostly armour.

    The Su-25 on the other hand was optimised to support infantry operations so it is expected to hit enemy strongpoints... bunkers, firing positions, etc etc.

    Against a weak enemy for example COIN ops then both are very useful aircraft, but against a strong enemy the A-10 would not last long deep behind enemy lines. The Su-25 would do better because it operates with friendly forces most of the time in a supporting role and its design isn't so compromised about a huge heavy gun.

    Removing that heavy 7 barrel gatling and the motor it uses to fire and all that space freed up could be used for all sorts of useful sensors like those planned for the Commanche... night vision optics and radar equipment.

    Replace the gun with two 25mm high velocity cannon from the AV-8 and anti armour performance would not actually be that much different but you would have a lighter smaller better aircraft.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 904
    Points : 1070
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  Sujoy on Tue Jul 30, 2013 9:59 pm

    NickM wrote:I suspect you are Asian and a butt hurt Asian like you will find everything racist .

    TR1 Asian lol! lol!  . I suspect Clowning has no limits . Very Happy 

    NickM wrote:So why don't you come up with a better chart to prove your points .

    A better chart to a fictional chart that you have put up ?

    This chart is fundamentally flawed . It does NOT take into account the deep scale upgrades that the SU 25 has undergone over the years. A modern day SU 25 can fire a whole range of PGMs, be it of Russian or non-Russian origin.

    A 10's have been shot down using RPG 7 in Afghanistan & Iraq whenever the A 10 employed terrain-masking flight profiles & flew low over valleys.
    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5700
    Points : 5736
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  TR1 on Sun Aug 11, 2013 6:04 am

    George1 wrote:so we have any recent info about the total number of Su-25SMs?
    In 2011 there were 43 Su-25SMs. By the end of this year there will be 79.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16038
    Points : 16669
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 11, 2013 10:59 am

    Not only that but there has been stated they are looking at a deep modernisation of the Frogfoot followed by a new replacement aircraft.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5700
    Points : 5736
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  TR1 on Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:10 am

    http://russianplanes.net/images/to116000/115621.jpg

    71st Su-25SM
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16038
    Points : 16669
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 13, 2013 11:48 am

    So new and shiny looking...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5700
    Points : 5736
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  TR1 on Wed Aug 14, 2013 2:41 am

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/592687.html

    The contract for 36 SMs over 3 years cost around ~4 million USD per bird.
    avatar
    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5669
    Points : 6318
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  Viktor on Thu Dec 05, 2013 3:09 pm

    mack8 wrote:Here is a breakdown of what is supposed to be delivered this year:
    http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/19370681/v-vojska-postupit-bolshe-samoletov-chem-obeschaet-putin

    Quick question (i'm supposed to  work right now!), any idea how many Su-25SM have been delivered or will be this year, and any idea in regards to the supposed hold-up of Su-35S ? Thanks!
    This might help.

    Now we know that unknown number of the Su-25SM3 has been delivered. cheers Very Happy 

    Air Group Commanders held JUVO "master class" for young pilots on Su-25SM3

    "Unit commanders and units confirmed flight qualification when piloting three different versions of fighter planes Su-25, including in 2013 received new Su-25SM3, the press service of the Ministry of Defense"

    Sponsored content

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:09 pm