Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Su-25SM numbers

    Share

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    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).

    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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    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

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9432
    Points : 9924
    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?

    NickM
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 184
    Points : 131
    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 .

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    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.

    NickM
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 184
    Points : 131
    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 .

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    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

    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1082
    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.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    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

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    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

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    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

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    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.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  TR1 on Mon Dec 23, 2013 5:26 pm

    http://russianplanes.net/id126931

    The Su-25 with Omul is active it seems.

    Cyberspec
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1946
    Points : 2117
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  Cyberspec on Tue Dec 24, 2013 10:57 pm

    TR1 wrote:The Su-25 with Omul is active it seems.

    Nice find...


    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5629
    Points : 6282
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  Viktor on Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:38 am

    Nice.

    Pilots JUVO made its first flight on upgraded Su-25SM3

    Newest Su-25SM3 production company "Sukhoi" capable of hitting small-sized mobile and stationary ground targets "without visual visibility day and night."

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  TR1 on Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:05 am

    Curious how they do that. So far Su-25SMs have not been seen with any new thermal sighting systems, or radar pods.


    Really hoping Su-25SM3 actually materialized with new targeting systems and active defense features. Otherwise it is just too vulnerable, even with its sturdy build.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:19 am

    I heared the Shkval-V LLLTV sight system that are installed on Su-25's and Ka-50's were upgraded to have a IR channel but get little bit bigger than the housing for the standard Shkval-V would fit in Ka-50's thats why they first run it on FLIR pod and than upgraded it to EO ball FLIR sight.

    Does the Su-25SM still uses a shkval-V or VM/VN sight or a different one?

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  TR1 on Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:41 am

    Nothing as fancy as Shkval- so far good old Klen has been kept.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Jan 11, 2014 3:45 am

    TR1 wrote:Nothing as fancy as Shkval- so far good old Klen has been kept.

    But shkval-V was the standard EO sight for Su-25/Ka-50, never heared of KLEN...tbh.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  TR1 on Sat Jan 11, 2014 3:50 am

    You are thinking of Su-25T and TM...they are the only ones with Shkval, and were never serially produced anyways.

    All other Su-25s have the simple Klen-PS laser rangefinder/designator.

    Ka-50 indeed has Shkval, though the system is dead for all purposes.



    Klen



    Shkval.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  medo on Sat Jan 11, 2014 11:43 am

    For stationary targets I would say Su-25SM3 could use satellite guiding bombs, but for moving targets it need to see them. Maybe a new targeting pod is integrated in its complex.

    Any informations, if RuAF plan to equip Su-25 with MAWS and laser warning sensors?

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  TR1 on Sat Jan 11, 2014 9:13 pm

    There was mention of the SM3 being equipped with the Vitebsk-25 EW + DIRCM suit...but no sight of it yet.
    I think modernizing the birds without this suit is pointless.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Su-25SM numbers

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 5:01 pm


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 06, 2016 5:01 pm