Su-25T

Am I overlooking a dedicated section in the forums regarding the Su-25T? If so sorry for posting here.

Just need to know what year the Su-25T was released/entered service before being written off from the Russian Airforce. Can't find anything through google and unfortunately I don't speak Russian which might help more while googling.

Thanks in advance!

Only a hand full were made I believe.

I know. Just found this:

"Three Su-25Ts prototypes were built in 1983–86 and 8 production aircraft were built in 1990."

Later on it says that the programme was canceled in the year 2000 in favour of the Su-25SM.

They saw some limited service in the Chechen campaigns, so that gives you an idea for initial service trials. The TM/Su-39 were based on the same design as the T, but there were only a handful of them built as well. All were binned for cost, but I believe most of them are still flying.

The SM is basically an avionics update to the A model, but nothing super extensive. If I remember correctly the modern fleet is about half As and half SMs of various marks.

Closest forum I think is in the "FC3" section. Although labeled SU-25, it has many -25T threads.

So obviousley the Russian Airforce's missing some real tank killer among the attackers. While the USAF has the A-10 the Russians have the Su-25 with no modern/sophisticated weapon systems; such as the FLIR-TV, ground radar, GOES etc. for engaging heavy and/or modern ground units. Surely the Su-34 is a beast but that's not its actual role. The MiG-27 is used by India only and the Su-24 is a less capable Su-34 so to speak. That leaves them with ca. 100 Ka-52's and ca. 90 Mi-28's for tank killing operations plus maybe over 300 Mi-24's with the latter being out of consideration in today's modern anti-tank missions.

They're not just depending on helicopters for the task, are they?!

So obviousley the Russian Airforce's missing some real tank killer among the attackers. While the USAF has the A-10 the Russians have the Su-25 with no modern/sophisticated weapon systems; such as the FLIR-TV, ground radar, GOES etc. for engaging heavy and/or modern ground units.

Actually the Su-25SM is more like that. The SM3 got the TV and thermal targeting etc.

The Su-25SM can guide Kh-25ML and KH-29L laser guided missiles on two different targets simultaneously and SM3 can to four targets. Both capable to launch and guide them in level flight (instead like in Su-25A in a dive.

Su-25SM was taken in service at 2006 and has few upgrades. The production units Su-25SM-01 to Su-25SM-04 were testing versions.

Su-25SM-05 to Su-25SM-43 were production that got "SM1" designation and were produced 2010 date.

The SM2 upgrade was from Su-25SM-44 to Su-25SM-79 versions and SM3 upgrade is in Su-25SM-80 to Su-25SM-84.

Surely the Su-34 is a beast but that's not its actual role. The MiG-27 is used by India only and the Su-24 is a less capable Su-34 so to speak. That leaves them with ca. 100 Ka-52's and ca. 90 Mi-28's for tank killing operations plus maybe over 300 Mi-24's with the latter being out of consideration in today's modern anti-tank missions.

 

 

They're not just depending on helicopters for the task, are they?!

Su-25 is doing anti-tank operations as well. Just remember that "tank" is not synonym with MBT but means every armored tracked vehicle with a weapon for self defense. And while CAS is typically done at low level and in visual ranges, you have not required any TV targeting as you put the crosshair on target and shoot.

So firing laser guided rockets, bombs and so on few kilometers from target has been enough, but SM2 and SM3 has changed that by SM3 offering the Su-25T/TM TV guidance capability.

The Su-25SM just ain't capable to perform recon missions or loiter for long periods like A-10C can do, but it is still well capable to perform anti-tank and CAS missions.

And helicopters are good for all kind missions.

The Su-25 is created for the exact same CAS role as the A-10. It is smaller, faster, less sophisticated, and has less ammo for the gun. It also has access to precision weaponry, albeit less than anA-10, because it's smaller as already mentioned.

They both have titanium tubs for the pilots, extensive system armoring and redundancy, and both have reputations for flying even after torn to shreds. They both have 30mm cannons with RoF over 3000rpm, only the 25 has 250rds or so instead of 1,000. They even both make the 'BRRRT' sound, as do all the high fire ratevweapons used on 99% of aircraft.

As Fri mentions, anti tank does not mean anti MBT. You need stuff like Mavericks and Kh-25s, Hellfires and Vikhrs, etc, for that. The 30mm on the A-10 is not magically able to pen armor that requires specialised shape charges to get through normally. It can eat up BMPs, BTRs and other 'small arms proof armored vehicles' though as is the 25's gun.

So, with consideration for its smaller size and payload, yes, it serves all the same functions as an A-10, except JTAC, etc.

Great information no doubt. Thanks for that.

If anti-tank doesn't mainly mean anti-MBT then there's a big deficit regarding its capabilities. If fighting against a gorilla army, militia or an armed mob etc. then no doubt an L-39ZA with 4 pylons for S-5 of a total of 64 rockets and a 23 mm gun with 150 rounds will most likely do the job. The Syrians have proven that over the last years among other operators. You get my point, I take it.

... Now if Russia is to face an ordinary army (God forbid! - let's not get political, please) with modernised MBT's that have some effective self-protecting systems then you will need something like the A-10C. If the SM upgrades as posted by Fri can do that then job's done. However carrying 4-6 laser/TV-guided missiles ain't enough. Does the SM upgrade support carrying Vikhr's as well?

I just typed a very long message contrasting the two and describing the environment they were designed to fight in... sadly, I clicked the wrong button and it got ate.

So instead you get the super, super short too annoyed to type it all again version :p

The differences between the two aren't that significant considering the ''WAR'' environment they were designed for. Life expectancy is low against a true layered ADS, as opposed to the made-to-win scenarios we play here for the most part (short range, mid range, long range, with air cover). Isolated clumps of troops are rare, and not valuable enough to risk an airstrike on. In a war environ, aircraft are a strategic asset flying out in groups of several dozen against heavily defended regimental size formations bringing their own air defenses.

As for L-39s and low intensity, you can use them as trainers and light attackers, but they are vulnerable to even light return fire that either of the other two would completely ignore. Also, if you care about collateral damage at all, either is a better choice due to precision weaponry if you want to destroy that building full of rebels but not the school next to it. Then there's the aspect either of them can carry more firepower than a fully loaded and fueled L-39 weighs. If you see people using stuff like that in combat, they're either very poor or very desperate, usually both.

I just typed a very long message contrasting the two and describing the environment they were designed to fight in... sadly, I clicked the wrong button and it got ate.

 

 

So instead you get the super, super short too annoyed to type it all again version :p

 

The differences between the two aren't that significant considering the ''WAR'' environment they were designed for. Life expectancy is low against a true layered ADS, as opposed to the made-to-win scenarios we play here for the most part (short range, mid range, long range, with air cover). Isolated clumps of troops are rare, and not valuable enough to risk an airstrike on. In a war environ, aircraft are a strategic asset flying out in groups of several dozen against heavily defended regimental size formations bringing their own air defenses.

 

As for L-39s and low intensity, you can use them as trainers and light attackers, but they are vulnerable to even light return fire that either of the other two would completely ignore. Also, if you care about collateral damage at all, either is a better choice due to precision weaponry if you want to destroy that building full of rebels but not the school next to it. Then there's the aspect either of them can carry more firepower than a fully loaded and fueled L-39 weighs. If you see people using stuff like that in combat, they're either very poor or very desperate, usually both.

Which is more or less what I've written. The Syrians used or maybe still do the L-39ZA only against untrained rebels. They did the job. No MANPAD's or AAA's, only small arms. Attacking ISIS forces however was done by MiG-21 and MiG-23 pilots. Faster, more agile and can take some hits. My concern was only about the Su-25 being a proper MBT nightmare or not. From what I've been reading looks like it is!

Yeah, sorry, the non truncated version was better thought out and detailed lol The woes of using a phone, too easy to mash a wrong button

However carrying 4-6 laser/TV-guided missiles ain't enough. Does the SM upgrade support carrying Vikhr's as well?

I think 4-6 missiles should be enough if the flight consists of 2 or more aircraft.

I think 4-6 missiles should be enough if the flight consists of 2 or more aircraft.

Yeah, maybe you're right. It's not like WWll with tanks by the dozens or hundreds crossing the borders!

Yeah, maybe you're right. It's not like WWll with tanks by the dozens or hundreds crossing the borders!

You don't take full load on those aircrafts just because you can. You are not there to destroy whole army alone.

In actual war you get one, maybe a two passes for a target as they are well defended. So you need to go and surprise the target and then get away, or stay so far that you can't be touched.

Either way you don't benefit from carrying full load unless you are totally sure you can use them and you are going to use them.

You don't take full load on those aircrafts just because you can. You are not there to destroy whole army alone.

 

In actual war you get one, maybe a two passes for a target as they are well defended. So you need to go and surprise the target and then get away, or stay so far that you can't be touched.

 

Either way you don't benefit from carrying full load unless you are totally sure you can use them and you are going to use them.

Exactly what I meant by making a point around tank battles in WWll. In today's battles between ordinary armed forces it's always small attacking groups using the element of surprise and weapons of the power of 10's of WWll tanks. So basically the quality of the arsenal of today's wars compensates for the quantity of older wars. You need highly trained and specialized personal to carry out objectives is all.

Mmmm, I wouldn't rule out mass formations altogether. Nowadays, operations wouldn't be on the scale of the 1970s ''RED TIDE'', but still.

To use a plausible example, if Russia decided to invade Ukraine, it wouldn't do so with isolated clumps of personnel, skilled or otherwise. You'd be looking at a multi-regiment 'front' consisting of multiple battalion size elements operating in reasonably close proximity to one another, each bringing limited short range air defenses with them, with medium range radar guided SAMs accompanying the regimental headquarters just behind the front line, with S-300 batteries close enough to overwatch the whole mess, and aircraft flying top cover. Modern communications and mobility lets them spread out more, but not TOO much or you lose overlapping support.

It really depends more on the scale and objective of the combatants. To refer to Ukraine again, the fighting there currently is smallish groups with no air support and limited heavy weapons, but neither side is really going for the throat either. It's more a series of never ending skirmishes as both sides really lack the power and political will to go for the kill. If they did, it wouldn't stay platoon and company sized elements for very long.

A lot of the international warfare in the Middle East has involved largish formations attacking enmasse. Desert Storm and the Soviet Afghan War involved large formations as well, but the technological disparity made outmaneuvering the Arab forces fairly simple.

Modern Syria is just small clumps of fighters slogging house to house, though, like Ukraine, a never ending series of skirmishes for most of the same reasons. Lack of power and unified political will by respective combatants, and foreign meddlers that don't REALLY care who wins at the end of the day.

Hmmm, all this WW2 tank talk made me think what a massacre it will be if you get a single A-10 vs a field of T-34s

Hmmm, all this WW2 tank talk made me think what a massacre it will be if you get a single A-10 vs a field of T-34s

I guess the same you would get with a Il2 against a field of Mk V WWI tanks...

Or the same you would get with a Delta Force squad against the 300 Spartans of Leonidas.

Or the same you would get with a Modern Task Force against the full Japanese Fleet at Pearl Harbour (Final countdown I'm looking at you...)

You can't compare warfare from two different eras. It is just not comparable...

Mmmm, I wouldn't rule out mass formations altogether. Nowadays, operations wouldn't be on the scale of the 1970s ''RED TIDE'', but still.

 

To use a plausible example, if Russia decided to invade Ukraine, it wouldn't do so with isolated clumps of personnel, skilled or otherwise. You'd be looking at a multi-regiment 'front' consisting of multiple battalion size elements operating in reasonably close proximity to one another, each bringing limited short range air defenses with them, with medium range radar guided SAMs accompanying the regimental headquarters just behind the front line, with S-300 batteries close enough to overwatch the whole mess, and aircraft flying top cover. Modern communications and mobility lets them spread out more, but not TOO much or you lose overlapping support.

 

It really depends more on the scale and objective of the combatants. To refer to Ukraine again, the fighting there currently is smallish groups with no air support and limited heavy weapons, but neither side is really going for the throat either. It's more a series of never ending skirmishes as both sides really lack the power and political will to go for the kill. If they did, it wouldn't stay platoon and company sized elements for very long.

 

A lot of the international warfare in the Middle East has involved largish formations attacking enmasse. Desert Storm and the Soviet Afghan War involved large formations as well, but the technological disparity made outmaneuvering the Arab forces fairly simple.

 

Modern Syria is just small clumps of fighters slogging house to house, though, like Ukraine, a never ending series of skirmishes for most of the same reasons. Lack of power and unified political will by respective combatants, and foreign meddlers that don't REALLY care who wins at the end of the day.

The Ukranian and Syrian wars being modern might be taking into consideration regarding what I've posted before but still the fact is that it's not two ordinary armies conducting these skirmishes. Small arms, trucks with MG's mounted on top etc. The Russians have a small number of Su-24's, Su-34's, Su-25's, Su-35's etc. operating in Syria. As far as I know they have no ground units except for air defences to protect their own regiment at whatever airbase they are operating from. So again, the Russians and Americans are not going at it with large formations smashing each other for the very reason you've mentioned yourself; an ordinary army has a large fomration comprised of small groups with an air defences line and air cover to complete a proper coverage. Since both Russians and Americans have ordinary armies with more or less the same consequent tactics you wont see them throughing their armies at each other like in the old days which brings us back to the initial thought I had and explains why the Su-25 is doing all good carrying "only" 6 laser/TV guided missiles and not 16 Vikhr's among other missiles fully loaded to the point where it becomes less manoeuvrable.