Su-25 attack aircraft

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.

I would think suicide drones could be used together with an Su-25 type with better defences against enemy weapons like Manpads, which seems to be rather successful assuming you don't believe claims Russia has lost thousands of aircraft already...

I personally think it makes more sense to put sophisticated capable systems in the aircraft to find and destroy ground targets and defend itself from enemy weapons and use cheap simple but accurately delivered weapons.

Having cheap dumb drones flying around... well when they are quickly shot down how cheap they are doesn't matter if they don't deliver on target... even cheap is useless if it does not get the job done of finding and destroying targets on the ground.

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.

Put a drone in there and I would agree... expendible... but an Su-25 has a pilot which means they can't afford to lose them in numbers... they are currently being used against enemy troops in the open... hense the primary weapon is rockets and the launch method is lofted from extreme range.... which improves effect on target and makes the launch aircraft safer.

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.

Would have been better to use MiG-35s from medium altitude in large numbers looking for targets to attack with laser guided bombs and missiles and with anti radiation missiles to deal with any SAM threat that could reach them.

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

Before we cancel Su-25s perhaps we should make sure the planned replacements can even do the job there Karen...

Su-25 can carry twice the rocket payload of any of their helicopters and can get to places much faster than any of their helicopters can and deliver rocket attacks and leave faster too.

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.

You are right, but more importantly the heavy and Effective use of drones to attack Orc positions will force the Orcs to actually try to use their air defence equipment to reduce the damage which exposes their air defence systems to attack by other platforms...

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.

Perhaps what they need is decoy drones in the medium and large size that are much simpler and much cheaper that they can send into areas to goad air defences to light up and while they are engaging them (you could fit them with ARMS so they can launch attacks at anything trying to shoot them down) then other higher flying drones can note where the enemy air defence equipment is and engage it too...

Even the very big drones can't carry heavy ordinance comparable to a Su-25 and even the ones who can are likely even more expensive and less expendable...

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.

The coordination and operation of 20 drones in one area would be complex enough, but you want 80?

Don't know how good their AI and Swarm technology, but that is going to be very labour intensive.

Perhaps when the new armour is in service and everyone is on Ratnik III and communication is at a level where anyone can see where anyone else is and therefore can also mark enemy very easily so they can be engaged by any other platform that this might work... but even then there will be problems I suspect.

A NASAMs or IRIS T is far more valuable than an orion or sirius.

Very much agree... any AD missile that can take down a manned aircraft is worth forcing them to use on drones or destroying.

Ukraine had all that and the planet's greatest ISR apparatus working overdrive. Didn't help them one bit.

And the one country that could afford hundreds of medium and heavy drones... even their old ones could be pulled out of storage and sent, but they refuse because they know how futile it would be against the Russian air defences.

@Spriter99880
Russia will train Belarusians to assemble attack aircraft
Belarus receives from Russia the technical documentation necessary for the production of Su-25 military aircraft components and their possible final assembly in Belarus. This was stated by the Ambassador of Belarus to Russia Dmitry Krutoy.

There were 2 plants were the su-25 were assembled.
One was in Tbilisi and the other if I am not mistaken in Ulan-Ude (where the 2 seater version were made).
The latter plant is now mainly used for helicopter production and is fully busy with that.

Probably Russia understood the need of renewed production of this aircraft and also the need of giving something to do to Bielorussian plants, while Russian plants concentrate on more modern aircrafts.

Furthermore it is easier to give them something older, for which already existing training and tooling are more compatible.

Plus they could look at upgrading the design, they have new experience with ceramic armour from light vehicles they could apply to make the aircraft lighter and harder to defeat.

They could look at their experience from this conflict and look at upgrades they can apply to the aircraft design to further improve it... perhaps more cannon ammo, or a larger calibre gun, maybe a change in ordinance or perhaps some of the features of the T and TM models that were considered too expensive at the time might be more affordable and easier to achieve now with newer sensors and electronics and equipment.

New radar and new thermal optics should allow better target detection... new thermals for the Ka-52M and Mi-28NM extended the range of target detection to beyond the 15km mark, which would make it useful for a light attack aircraft too.

Unifying the ground attack sensors and avionics and weapons between CAS aircraft and light attack drones and attack helicopters would make sense... but the smart sophisticated target detection stuff in the aircraft and use dumb cheap weapons to destroy those targets cost effectively... I wonder how long before we see western helicopters lofting rockets at targets... but then western rockets are designed for high accuracy and are quite expensive compared with Russian rockets... rockets are area weapons and are supposed to be fired at groups of targets using their fragmentation spread to kill lots of targets at one time.

Laser guided rockets can hit individual vehicles cost effectively but I suspect western laser guided rocket kits cost more than Russian air launched ATGMs like Kornet and Ataka.

The Su-25 needs better resistance against MANPADS with MAWS, less pilot overload with increased automation and possibly helmet mounted cuing of air to ground weapons, night fighting capabilities, plus the capability to deliver glide weapons. It needs to be modified to be able to fire cheap standoff weapons with higher range than the MANPADS. Plus it needs better integration with drones and infantry for target recognition.

Which was all supposed to be part of the upgrades it was getting, and also the sort of things their attack helicopters were supposed to be getting too.

Full DIRCMS self defence from MANPADS, but that wont stop gun based systems or beam riding missiles etc etc.

Better communication with drones and ground troops, and of course standoff weapons to hit ground targets are a given... it travels faster than helicopters so it should be able to loft release glide weapons like Grom and also 100kg and 250kg and 500kg bombs with glide kits.

Drones have improved quite a bit, but they are still relatively simple to shoot down and in some cases that renders them useless.

Keeping the drone cheap enough to make them expendable means they are simple and not well protected because redundancy and armour all cost money and performance and make drones more expensive but if enemy air defences are strong then an Su-25 with ARMs and other SEAD weapons is where you start to wear the enemy down and then you start taking out their armour and strong positions.

The Su-25 can carry heavy ordinance that a drone could not unless it is enormous which makes it expensive and less expendable...

The situational awareness of a manned aircraft always makes it more survivable and effective too.

The combination of unmanned drones hitting enemy air defences and armour together with Su-25s and attack helicopters also hitting enemy positions and groupings makes sense... it will be a while before drones replace everything.

If you want to fly high in a drone then you need rather more expensive cameras which means the drone is no longer cheap... if flying higher and with better long range sensors was the solution then a MiG-35 with an AESA radar and 9 pylons for about 6 tons of ordinance makes sense... but as often happens it turns out flying low and fast is safest and most effective way to find targets on the ground and engage them.

Lofting rockets at enemy positions is normally in response from calls for support from ground forces so response time is important as well as getting a good spread on those rockets to make sure you get good coverage in front of friendly troops.

The thing is that these days there are SAMs that don't need radar... Kornet-EM can hit targets at 10km altitude and it is laser beam riding with no radar required at all.

Sosna will be the same when it arrives and TOR and Pantsir and Tunguska and BUK have optical guidance modes too.

Upgrades and improvements can be applied to make sure the Su-25 can do a good job...

drones where never designed to take damage or perform CAS role. despite the numerous drones the USA has the Air force are still arguing to keep the A-10 theres a reason for that. Drones aren't at the stage of replacing aircraft they have their uses of course and in 30-40yrs who knows that we will have but for the next 10-15yrs i dont foresee drones taking over the role of CAS aircraft. I dont see drones as a replacement i see them as another tool that the military has at its disposal. Russia seems to have a tool for just about every scenario something the west doesnt have. for example siege warfare the Russians have 2S7 and Tulpan, or another example is TOS or BMPT although a niche weapon system it has its unique role and Russia as i said seems to have every scenario buttoned down. The drone has its role in certain scenarios and thats how i believe it should be view as not as a replacement certainly not right now or near future (10-15yrs)

GarryB wrote:If you want to fly high in a drone then you need rather more expensive cameras which means the drone is no longer cheap... if flying higher and with better long range sensors was the solution then a MiG-35 with an AESA radar and 9 pylons for about 6 tons of ordinance makes sense... but as often happens it turns out flying low and fast is safest and most effective way to find targets on the ground and engage them.

Lofting rockets at enemy positions is normally in response from calls for support from ground forces so response time is important as well as getting a good spread on those rockets to make sure you get good coverage in front of friendly troops.

The thing is that these days there are SAMs that don't need radar... Kornet-EM can hit targets at 10km altitude and it is laser beam riding with no  radar required at all.

Sosna will be the same when it arrives and TOR and Pantsir and Tunguska and BUK have optical guidance modes too.

Upgrades and improvements can be applied to make sure the Su-25 can do a good job...

you start seeing the logic of drone swarms. You have a bunch of drones, depending on the target size. They all fly in a swarm to the target with a few drones acting as guides. As they approach the target they move closer and strike the target in a tight group or dispersed depending on the needs. Some are shot down, but almost impossible to get them all

d_taddei2 wrote:drones where never designed to take damage or perform CAS role. despite the numerous drones the USA has the Air force are still arguing to keep the A-10 theres a reason for that. Drones aren't at the stage of replacing aircraft they have their uses of course and in 30-40yrs who knows that we will have but for the next 10-15yrs i dont foresee drones taking over the role of CAS aircraft. I dont see drones as a replacement i see them as another tool that the military has at its disposal. Russia seems to have a tool for just about every scenario something the west doesnt have. for example siege warfare the Russians have 2S7 and Tulpan, or another example is TOS or BMPT although a niche weapon system it has its unique role and Russia as i said seems to have every scenario buttoned down. The drone has its role in certain scenarios and thats how i believe it should be view as not as a replacement certainly not right now or near future (10-15yrs)

I don't really see the problem with drones performing cas. with glide bombs all the troops have to do is send in the grid coordinates.

The concept of a drone swarm is based on nature... when a million birds flock together like they do in some places there is really not much you can actually do, and equally when insects swarm there is not much you can do to stop them either, but with electronic drones, first of all you can attack the source of the drones... most drones have limited range so will need to be transported to the location where they are to be used... things like EMP devices, powerful explosives like air burst shells could take out quite a few at a time... for instance a drone swarm approaches an airfield... a nearby Tulip battery launches air burst 120kg HE bombs that detonate in the midst of the swarm shattering large numbers with each shot... jammers and EMP shells could also be used to damage them at greater range, and of course your own drone swarm could be designed to engage them individually too.

The best defence would be to treat them like a nuclear attack and reply in kind.

Ironically the west has to look at swarm attacks because the air defence of Russian forces are too strong for low flight altitude and stealth to work reliably, whereas Russia can use low flying cruise missiles to penetrate HATO airspace at will and of course their hypersonic missiles are unstoppable.... hell even Irans ballistic missiles are unstoppable for the US.

Talking about swarms is desperation and they really have not achieved it yet... the closest to a swarm attack right now would be Russian artillery.

Fitting new 180km range 152mm guns to new Russian ships would also create a swarm threat... firing 50 shells a minute you could overwhelm a British destroyer in a two minute attack from 60km away.

British destroyers have SAMs that should be able to deal with 152mm artillery shells but they only carry 48 SAMs... even assuming a 100 % success rate that ship is in trouble... and the Sovremmeny class Russian destroyer carried 1,000 x 130mm main gun rounds for its two gun mounts, so their new destroyers would likely carry just as many if not more.

And it gets worse... some of those rounds can be Jammer and EMP shells that will distract and attract enemy SAMs and interfere with radar sensors...

The US Zumwalt destroyer was supposed to have a 155mm gun that was going to replace their Harpoon missiles in the anti ship role... with greatly increased range they wanted the gun to reach as far as the Harpoon missile with similar accuracy for a fraction of the price, but they screwed up the gun ammo which ended up costing over 800K per shell meaning it was only slightly cheaper than Harpoon missiles and of course with nothing like their range to start with...

mnztr wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:drones where never designed to take damage or perform CAS role. despite the numerous drones the USA has the Air force are still arguing to keep the A-10 theres a reason for that. Drones aren't at the stage of replacing aircraft they have their uses of course and in 30-40yrs who knows that we will have but for the next 10-15yrs i dont foresee drones taking over the role of CAS aircraft. I dont see drones as a replacement i see them as another tool that the military has at its disposal. Russia seems to have a tool for just about every scenario something the west doesnt have. for example siege warfare the Russians have 2S7 and Tulpan, or another example is TOS or BMPT although a niche weapon system it has its unique role and Russia as i said seems to have every scenario buttoned down. The drone has its role in certain scenarios and thats how i believe it should be view as not as a replacement certainly not right now or near future (10-15yrs)

I don't really see the problem with drones performing cas. with glide bombs all the troops have to do is send in the grid coordinates.

U might not see the problem using g them in a CAS but the experts do as they haven't used them in a CAS role and no drone has been designed for the role yet. As I said maybe time will come when they do but not in the near future.

When you think about it an ATGM or AAM or SAM is a suicide drone and is either manually or automatically guided to the intended target and designed to collide with the target and explode.

During WWII the Germans and the Soviets had remote controlled demolitions robots that were driven up to enemy positions and exploded... they generally used wires to control them due to the level of radio technology at the time.

Essentially a drone is simple and can be cheap and able to be mass produced but its best features are its ability to go places that are not safe or to do jobs that are boring and not safe.

Things like flying over enemy airspace at 4 to 8 km altitude looking for targets on the ground and watching what the enemy is doing... not hitting targets itself but finding targets for other smaller lighter shorter ranged cheaper drones with simple cheap cameras and suitable payloads to then go in and take out the priority targets.

CAS is complex and is direct support of ground forces and you can't do that with a single 5kg warhead or a 20kg guided bomb... to get the armament needed you need a much bigger drone or you need hundreds of drones... and either will make them more expensive.