Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM):

Its true that now Russian aircraft can use more guided weapons, but one aircraft that doesn't get that ability very much is the Su-25.

I've always considered post cold war Su-25 models(except Su-25TM) inferior to A10s since they can't carry TV guided weapons and ATGMs(even SM by default can't yet its supposed to be the most modern one).

While both TV guided and SALH mavericks with HEAT warheads are the staple weapon used for tank busting(GAU-8's power is ridiculously exaggerated against modern MBTs starting from T-64 up)

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Its true that now Russian aircraft can use more guided weapons, but one aircraft that doesn't get that ability very much is the Su-25.

I've always considered post cold war Su-25 models(except Su-25TM) inferior to A10s since they can't carry TV guided weapons and ATGMs(even SM by default can't yet its supposed to be the most modern one).

While both TV guided and SALH mavericks with HEAT warheads are the staple weapon used for tank busting(GAU-8's power is ridiculously exaggerated against modern MBTs starting from T-64 up)

Might I ask You what's wrong with GAU-8 power? Even AA guns are known to rip tanks apart, not mentioning such shower of projectiles coming from above

Its true that now Russian aircraft can use more guided weapons, but one aircraft that doesn't get that ability very much is the Su-25.

In coin conflicts the lack of an integrated air defence network for the enemy generally means that the Su-25s can complete their mission by engaging targets directly with bombs and rockets.

The A-10 on the other hand had a more roving role of operating behind enemy lines and destroying enemy armour... mostly with TV and IR guided Mavericks.

Where they are used for a similar mission the Su-25 and A-10 might be called in to deal with an enemy position that the ground forces are having trouble with... an A-10 might use its gun and a maverick, while the Su-25 is more likely to use rockets and dumb bombs... both aircraft were considered to be effective in their roles so we can assume both approaches worked.

I've always considered post cold war Su-25 models(except Su-25TM) inferior to A10s since they can't carry TV guided weapons and ATGMs(even SM by default can't yet its supposed to be the most modern one).

For most targets an accurately placed bomb is just as effective as any PGM, though when supporting ground forces laser guided AS-10 Karen Kh-25ML laser guided missiles are effective enough. There were plans for IR and TV guided Kh-25M models but they never seemed to bother. The new Kh-38 will include a range of air to ground models with a payload almost triple that of the Kh-25 series.

While both TV guided and SALH mavericks with HEAT warheads are the staple weapon used for tank busting(GAU-8's power is ridiculously exaggerated against modern MBTs starting from T-64 up)

Against the Russians yes, against villages in Yemen it is fine... though very politically incorrect to distribute nuclear waste on third world countries...

Might I ask You what's wrong with GAU-8 power? Even AA guns are known to rip tanks apart, not mentioning such shower of projectiles coming from above

Despite its marketing... it is still just a 30mm cannon... in a duel against a Tunguska... well the ground vehicle has all sorts of sensors to detect and track the A-10, while the A-10 does not have a radar to detect and track the 2S6M... and that is just gun talk...

Most of the A-10 is gun... if it had the 25mm guns of the AV-8 it would be just as potent but wouldn't be the size of a B-25.

GarryB wrote:
Despite its marketing... it is still just a 30mm cannon... in a duel against a Tunguska... well the ground vehicle has all sorts of sensors to detect and track the A-10, while the A-10 does not have a radar to detect and track the 2S6M... and that is just gun talk...

Most of the A-10 is gun... if it had the 25mm guns of the AV-8 it would be just as potent but wouldn't be the size of a B-25.

The A-10C has a pretty good RWR so it can pick up and give azimuth to radar emissions. There's an MWS for detecting launches when someone fires a MANPADS or a non-radar SAM at you as well. They also carry jammers, I've seen 119s and 131s carried, so they aren't exactly flying naked.

As to the size of the gun/airframe combo...without being that size, I'd bet it wouldn't be as damage resistant.

The A-10C has a pretty good RWR so it can pick up and give azimuth to radar emissions. There's an MWS for detecting launches when someone fires a MANPADS or a non-radar SAM at you as well. They also carry jammers, I've seen 119s and 131s carried, so they aren't exactly flying naked.

The A-10 was supposed to operate in the enemy rear looking for armoured formations and attacking them... it should have come across SA-8, Tunguska, SA-13, as well as SA-15, SA-11 and SA-17 on a regular basis.

It would have struggled... and relied on stand off missiles a lot.

As to the size of the gun/airframe combo...without being that size, I'd bet it wouldn't be as damage resistant.

Would not have been as much of a big slow target either... and photos prove the Su-25 was pretty missile resistant too...

It would have struggled... and relied on stand off missiles a lot.

While the A10 would've struggled while equipped with mavericks and ECM pods SU-25 would be massacred by roland , rapier, mistral and stinger SAMs due to absolute lack of any standoff AT munitions. They only had the RBK-250-500 and S-8 with HEAT. Also was the basic Su-25 capable of carrying any kind of ECM pod in service?

sepheronx wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

It would have struggled... and relied on stand off missiles a lot.

While the A10 would've struggled while equipped with mavericks and ECM pods SU-25 would be massacred by roland , rapier, mistral and stinger SAMs due to absolute lack of any standoff AT munitions. They only had the RBK-250-500 and S-8 with HEAT. Also was the basic Su-25 capable of carrying any kind of ECM pod in service?

Don't know about back then, but after the 080808 war, it is determined that all existing and future Su-25's are to be upgraded with some sort of ECM systems (pods obviously) in order to deal with most SAM systems. Guided munitions are Kh-29 (which comes in various flavours: Laser guided, Radar guided, TV guided and IIR guided). Su-25 was capable of carrying guided munitions. Thing is, guided munitions were and are pretty expensive, and a well trained pilot could do without them. I would say these days though, ECM pods are very important and some sort of anti-radiation missile or TV guided missile will be important in dealing with air defence systems and rockets for the rest.

The problem is that of all the guided weapons cold war Su-25s used, NONE of them had any antitank capability, absolutely all of the were designed either for anti radar, command bunker destruction or logistics bombing while the mavericks had excellentb antitank capability whicvh would allow A10s to do standoff strikes against warsaw pact armored assaults, with the Su-25 it
was COMPLETELY impossivble to engage AFVs without having to fly into SAM range in order to attack NATO vehicles.

In other words, in a NATO-warsaw pact conflict, Su-25s, unlike their ancestor, the Il-2, would've only been useful for tactical strikes against static targets and maybe suppression and destruction of soft targets and infantry, and unlike the A10, would be ALMOST USELESS against NATO armored formations with legitimate SAM and AAA defence(gepards, mistrals, stingers, rolands, vulcan, ADATS, etc.)

The problem is that of all the guided weapons cold war Su-25s used, NONE of them had any antitank capability, absolutely all of the were designed either for anti radar, command bunker destruction or logistics bombing while the mavericks had excellentb antitank capability whicvh would allow A10s to do standoff strikes against warsaw pact armored assaults, with the Su-25 it
was COMPLETELY impossivble to engage AFVs without having to fly into SAM range in order to attack NATO vehicles.

Su-25 was not a strike aircraft, nor was it anti tank... think of it more in terms of being a Stuka rather than a Shturmovik.

... and a 250kg bomb will destroy any armoured vehicle with a direct hit BTW.

If a Soviet unit was attacking a well defended position and had SAMs defending it the Su-17/22s or Mig-27s would likely use Kh-25MP missiles with a standoff range of 40km or so. Su-25s would be armed with rockets and bombs but for anti armour roles they would take anti armour submunitions bombs with top attack explosively formed fragments munitions to wipe out large numbers of tanks rapidly.

In other words, in a NATO-warsaw pact conflict, Su-25s, unlike their ancestor, the Il-2, would've only been useful for tactical strikes against static targets and maybe suppression and destruction of soft targets and infantry, and unlike the A10, would be ALMOST USELESS against NATO armored formations with legitimate SAM and AAA defence(gepards, mistrals, stingers, rolands, vulcan, ADATS, etc.)

Unlike? Gepards, Mistrals, Stingers, Rolands, Vulcan, ADATS... Gepards are very few in number... only the West Germans used those, Mistrals and Stingers are only MANPADS, Roland is a useful system, Vulcan was rubbish, and ADATS was not very widely deployed at all.

In comparison the A-10 has to fight through Igla, Tunguska-M, TOR, OSA, Shilka, SA-9, SA-13, and SA-11/17... and in rather greater numbers than NATO deploys their air defence systems.

Both aircraft are COIN aircraft and neither would have lasted very long in WWIII.

Wait, Su-25 had no stand-off?

Kh-29 did not exist?

Actually the Su-25 regularly carried the AS-10 (Kh-25ML), which was ideal for its mission to support troops... the troops could lase the target and the Su-25 could launch the missile from stand off distances.

In actual practise however enemy air defences didn't really warrant such weapons and such tactics very often so bombs and rockets and gunfire was generally used... and very effectively too I might add.

TR1 wrote:Wait, Su-25 had no stand-off?

Kh-29 did not exist?

I mean that almost all Su-25 models , unlike the A10 lack ANY type of antitank standoff capability.

GarryB wrote:Actually the Su-25 regularly carried the AS-10 (Kh-25ML), which was ideal for its mission to support troops... the troops could lase the target and the Su-25 could launch the missile from stand off distances.

In actual practise however enemy air defences didn't really warrant such weapons and such tactics very often so bombs and rockets and gunfire was generally used... and very effectively too I might add.

If the Kh-25 isn't usable against vehicles then *how* exactly can it be used for infantry support. As far as I know it has a very limited scope of targets: SAM sights, Command bunkers and supply depots.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

TR1 wrote:Wait, Su-25 had no stand-off?

Kh-29 did not exist?

I mean that almost all Su-25 models , unlike the A10 lack ANY type of antitank standoff capability.

But all Su-25s could use Kh-25 and Kh-29, both of which provide standoff AT ability.

TR1 wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

TR1 wrote:Wait, Su-25 had no stand-off?

Kh-29 did not exist?

I mean that almost all Su-25 models , unlike the A10 lack ANY type of antitank standoff capability.

But all Su-25s could use Kh-25 and Kh-29, both of which provide standoff AT ability.

Do they have HEAT warheads? I doubt a 90kg charge of the X-25 would destroy a leopard 2A4 or challenger I mk.2

As for X-29 that would definitely destroy tanks but is a bit of overkill.

I mean that almost all Su-25 models , unlike the A10 lack ANY type of antitank standoff capability.

The Su-25 is CAS, not dedicated anti armour.

For the majority of the time the Soviets/Russians would use armour and artillery to deal with enemy armour.

If the Kh-25 isn't usable against vehicles then *how* exactly can it be used for infantry support. As far as I know it has a very limited scope of targets: SAM sights, Command bunkers and supply depots.

Kh-25ML is laser homing and can destroy pretty much anything you care to point a laser at.

Its 90kg warhead would take out any armoured vehicle ever built... and if it had problems there is the Kh-29 in TV and laser homing models each with a 317kg HE warhead that will destroy any armoured vehicle from standoff ranges.

Do they have HEAT warheads? I doubt a 90kg charge of the X-25 would destroy a leopard 2A4 or challenger I mk.2

50kg IED destroyed Abrams tanks.

As for X-29 that would definitely destroy tanks but is a bit of overkill.

You could use Kh-29 by aiming the laser at the ground between enemy tanks and kill them two at a time...

Su-25 is not anti armour... it is a combat support vehicle. Its main targets are enemy positions and bunkers.

Roles for which unguided rockets and bombs are perfectly adequate... as well as gunfire.

WoW .... enjoy













LINK

Stealthflanker wrote:So PAKFA may only able to carry maximum of 2 KH-58U's in each bay ?

That was always the idea- just compare size.

Tactical Missiles Corporation will present the aviation precision tactical missiles Kh-59MK2. Despite its similarity index with the family of the famous missiles "air-surface" X-59 / X-59M missile, Kh-59MK2 according to available information, is almost entirely a new development and is essentially an analog of the famous western KR same class AGM-158 JASSM, Scalp EG / Storm Shadow and Taurus. Kh-59MK2 made in the fuselage contours with Stealth and has a significant range of fire (in the illustrated embodiment, the exhibition officially confined limits Missile Technology Control Regime in the "290 km"). The claimed performance characteristics of the missile shown in the picture.







http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1443681.html

Guided missile "Thunder-A1" and Gliding kit for guided munitions "Thunder-A2"







I hope this time will not stay as exhibition items as previous products

I wonder if they can replace the separate datalink pod as most modern aircraft will transfer data between aircraft and ground stations and AWACS aircraft via datalink... I suspect expanding that with modern communications systems could allow the elimination for the need for a separate datalink pod.

even infantry soldiers can pass video and images to HQ using datalinks too using standard communications equipment.