VVS Air Force Videos

RuAF in Germany (Templin, Groß Dölln) in the 90s. Last Su-17M4 left in April 1994.

Don't know about you guys, but they should have kept the Su-17 in service. It would have done wonders for them in Syria imo.

miketheterrible wrote:Don't know about you guys, but they should have kept the Su-17 in service. It would have done wonders for them in Syria imo.

Without extensive upgrade, disagree. And they kept more capable Su-24s, they are still doing more than wonder

Actually the Su-17 was not fantastic at what it did.... the rather slow rather better protected Su-25 was superior in every regard in combat in Afghanistan.

It was not invincible, but it did a much better job.

There is a reason the faster light strike aircraft are pretty much gone, replaced by multirole aircraft like the MiG-29SMT or Su-27SM3 types or Su-30s.

Pretty much in the early 1980s you would need a MIG-23 for medium range interception, MiG-27 for short range strike, and a MiG-21 for short range dog fighting.

The MiG-29SMT can replace all those platforms and do a rather better job in each case, though with rather more expensive guided munitions.

None of these aircraft can perform the CAS role... only Su-25 and A-10 like aircraft are even worth considering for such missions.

Actually, the first project of Gefest & T in early 1990's was to modernize Su-22M4 for Polish AF, not for Su-24M. I hope Russia will upgrade some Su-17M4s it is keeping to Su-25SM3 level or Su-25 Gefest & T then sell them to other countries where Su-17/22s are still very usefull and more fit the job than Su-25.

The best feature of the Su-17 was speed, but as the Su-25 shows speed is actually counter productive in finding and attacking targets on the ground.

The Gefest & T upgrade is an excellent cheap simple upgrade that turns otherwise ineffective dumb bombs into potent effective weapons that are still effective when delivered from safe altitudes, but for a country with no recon or C4I then being able to hit a point on the ground means little if you don't know where the bad guys are and when.

Without the target detection and identification network supporting them the accuracy and low cost means very little.

They would be better off developing a low tech low cost MiG-29 or Su-27 that can accurately drop bombs on designated positions from medium altitude that could later be upgraded to do more like engage enemy aircraft, or take on enemy cruise missiles in large numbers.

The operating costs of an Su-17 would be rather more than for an Su-25 just in fuel burn per flight.

Probably the best replacement for either aircraft would be a UCAV that flys above the ground fire but can spot targets with magnified optics and accurately deliver cheap dumb bombs on priority targets on the ground using some sort of G&T system.

Recon and attack package in one.

I don't think Su-17 spend more fuel than Su-25.

Su-25 with 3 tons internal fuel, 2 1,150L fuel-tanks and 2 tons of weapons have combat radius 400km. Su-17m4 with 3.75 tons internal fuel, 02 1,150L fuel-tanks and 2 tons of weapins have combat radius 750km. Compare the fuel consumption and combat radius, Su-17 is far more efficiency than Su-25. For some countries, the combat range is very important due to the long distance between airbase to target and without air-refueling so Su-17 is more suitable than Su-25.

The Soviets used both the Su-17 and Su-25... they stopped using the Fitter and still use the Frogfoot to this day.

I don't think it is an accident, or a curiosity of nature.

the fire control system and electronics on the early model Su-25 was directly transferred from the Su-17... not sure which model... but even with the same avionics the Su-25 was better... more manovuerable... safer for the pilot... more effective in combat.

I agree that the Su-25s have more survivability dute to their 2 engines and heavier amored, and brighter future to upgrade than Su-17s.

However, in some countries, Su-22s more fit the required jobs than Su-25s. For example Vietnam, after they retired Mig-21s, Su-22s have to replace Mig-21s in the role of air defense with R-13M and R-60M missiles. They also use Su-22s to protect islands that are in confliction with China. The distance between closed airbases to those islands is 600 - 700 km that Su-22s can handle but Su-25s. They already have the supportive infrastructure for Su-22s so buying more Su-22s and upgrading them all is not bad idea.

If they are serious about their own defence they will not bother with air defence "fighters" like the Su-17 or Su-25...

They would actually be better off removing the Fitters from service and buying lead in fighter trainers like Yak-130s... even if fitted with a basic radar in the nose it will be better in all areas than the Su-17 or Su-25 in air to air roles and with a new engine... perhaps a single upgraded RD-33 engine you could have a new light fighter/bomber/trainer.

What I am trying to say is that even if it is very cheap any upgrade to the Su-17 to make it a fighter would be time and money wasted... if they can handle a single engine swing wing fighter then why not go for MiG-23s?

Air defense is just the secondary role of Su-22s in the mean time waiting for newly bought fighters. For the key role of sea/ground attake, Yak-130s lack range, payload and speed so can not replace Su-22s.

Russian supersonic MiG-31s face off in stratosphere training (VIDEO)
https://www.rt.com/news/416754-mig-31-stratosphere-training/

Cooooool

Jhonwick3 wrote:

This video, which shows the infamous slogan "Putler Kaput" painted on the belly of a Tu-160, hasn't been taken in September 2018 during any "routine readiness exercise".

It has been taken during rehearsal of the 2013 Victory Day parade (see Youtube video Ywxfnist714).

According to the Russian Defense Ministry, air-to-air refueling is one of the most difficult elements of flight training.

The R-77 launch pylon has a pneumatic arm that throws the missile down at launch so this twin pylon must have two pneumatic arms one for each missile to throw it clear of the aircraft.

They were originally designed for internal weapons carriage which is why the R-77s have slim body strakes and folding rear grid fins.

Having the catapult launch would actually make them safer to launch from between engine nacelles than R-27s in practise.

(The R-33 and R-37 have similar catapult launchers so they clear the belly position of the MiG-31 firing them but also being a large heavy missile if a gust of wind at launch directs the missile up into the launch aircraft it could do serious damage to itself and the plane, so the arm launch ensures clean separation every time...)