Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future CAS aircraft / Su-25 replacement?

    Share
    avatar
    Rmf

    Posts : 506
    Points : 493
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Re: Future CAS aircraft / Su-25 replacement?

    Post  Rmf on Fri Sep 16, 2016 7:04 pm

    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.
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1382
    Points : 1383
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Future CAS aircraft / Su-25 replacement?

    Post  AlfaT8 on Fri Sep 16, 2016 7:05 pm

    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.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3220
    Points : 3306
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Future CAS aircraft / Su-25 replacement?

    Post  medo on Fri Sep 16, 2016 8:05 pm

    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.

    marcellogo

    Posts : 76
    Points : 82
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Re: Future CAS aircraft / Su-25 replacement?

    Post  marcellogo on Fri Sep 16, 2016 8:19 pm

    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.
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 583
    Points : 581
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Future CAS aircraft / Su-25 replacement?

    Post  hoom on Sat Sep 17, 2016 3:58 am

    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.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16510
    Points : 17116
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future CAS aircraft / Su-25 replacement?

    Post  GarryB on Sat Sep 17, 2016 10:49 am

    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.


    _________________
    “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

    kopyo-21

    Posts : 68
    Points : 70
    Join date : 2013-08-21
    Location : Bangkok - Thailand

    Re: Future CAS aircraft / Su-25 replacement?

    Post  kopyo-21 on Tue Sep 27, 2016 10:21 am

    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.




    Firebird

    Posts : 953
    Points : 985
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    An armoured Su-34 to replace the Su-25 CAS aircraft?

    Post  Firebird on Sun May 28, 2017 12:24 pm

    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?
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5538
    Points : 5579
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Future CAS aircraft / Su-25 replacement?

    Post  Militarov on Sun May 28, 2017 12:57 pm

    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.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 820
    Points : 818
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future CAS aircraft / Su-25 replacement?

    Post  Isos on Sun May 28, 2017 8:18 pm

    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.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16510
    Points : 17116
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future CAS aircraft / Su-25 replacement?

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 29, 2017 8:02 am

    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 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

    Posts : 1184
    Points : 1337
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Future CAS aircraft / Su-25 replacement?

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Mon May 29, 2017 8:11 am

    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.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3220
    Points : 3306
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Future CAS aircraft / Su-25 replacement?

    Post  medo on Mon May 29, 2017 10:04 am

    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.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16510
    Points : 17116
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future CAS aircraft / Su-25 replacement?

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 29, 2017 10:54 am

    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:



    _________________
    “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

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future CAS aircraft / Su-25 replacement?

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:33 pm