Does the Su-25T replace the Su-25?

[guitarxe]

In terms of capability (not in terms of the module capability, but the aircraft itself), it seems to me like the 25T has all the capability of the 25, but with much more. Better avionics and targetting, an epxanded armament possibility. Heck, the in-game tutorials for it even have it flying SEAD, even though I haven't found any mention of that on wikipedia. It was a prototype aircraft, so I guess ED took some "artistic liberty"?

 

Anyway, so is this the case? Does the Su-25T does everything that the Su-25 can, and does it better? And can do more things besides? Is there anything that the Su-25 excells in over the 25T? (Apart from the slight difference in weight and agility).

[SkateZilla]

it's also heavier....

 

I know people that refuse to fly the SU-25T over the SU-25

[cichlidfan]

it's also heavier....

 

I think the OP is aware of that.

 

(Apart from the slight difference in weight and agility).

[xaoslaad]

I think the Su-25 has an edge if you intend to use unguided weapons. Gun pods, rockets, dumb bombs, etc. It's faster and more maneuverable so using the T for this stuff is like taking a step back in performance for no reason. If you intend to use guided weapons or a mix though it will necessitate using the T's features.

 

Also, bare in mind there are only something like 32 Ka-50's build with 5 variants if you include the two-seat Ka-50-2 which was probably a precursor to the Ka-52. Not many will be identical. That doesn't mean ED took a whole lot of artistic license - from what I understand it is a very well modeled representation of one of the variants.

 

On the other hand the Su-25T had something like 11 built. 3 prototypes and 8 production...

[kontiuka]

I think the Su-25 has an edge if you intend to use unguided weapons.

Even with unguided weapons, I think the "T" is better to use. You have a CCIP reticle as oppossed to that cross thing. And you can do CCRP in the "T".

[Genchou]

In terms of capability (not in terms of the module capability, but the aircraft itself), it seems to me like the 25T has all the capability of the 25, but with much more. Better avionics and targetting, an epxanded armament possibility. Heck, the in-game tutorials for it even have it flying SEAD, even though I haven't found any mention of that on wikipedia. It was a prototype aircraft, so I guess ED took some "artistic liberty"?

 

Anyway, so is this the case? Does the Su-25T does everything that the Su-25 can, and does it better? And can do more things besides? Is there anything that the Su-25 excells in over the 25T? (Apart from the slight difference in weight and agility).

 

Concerning the SEAD : on Wikipedia, the Kh-58 is said to be used on the Su-25TK variant (no words about that specific model) while the Kh-25MP is used on the Su-25. So it seems that the Su-25T really does have the capacity to use anti-radiation missiles.

[fjacobsen]

Even with unguided weapons, I think the "T" is better to use. You have a CCIP reticle as oppossed to that cross thing. And you can do CCRP in the "T".

 

You can also do CCRP in the A.

[number3]

In terms of capability (not in terms of the module capability, but the aircraft itself), it seems to me like the 25T has all the capability of the 25, but with much more. Better avionics and targetting, an epxanded armament possibility. Heck, the in-game tutorials for it even have it flying SEAD, even though I haven't found any mention of that on wikipedia. It was a prototype aircraft, so I guess ED took some "artistic liberty"?

 

Anyway, so is this the case? Does the Su-25T does everything that the Su-25 can, and does it better? And can do more things besides? Is there anything that the Su-25 excells in over the 25T? (Apart from the slight difference in weight and agility).

 

The Su-25A can technically perform SEAD operations, just not as well as the Su-25T nor with the same survivability. The Su-25A can take out shilkas (and other types of AAA, radar assisted or not).

 

But when it comes to SAMs the T by far is your weapon of choice; the Su-25A will have a difficult time getting close enough; you won't want to take it out with a laser guided missile because you have to guide the missile to the target and you will get shot at. Your other alternative is to fire of a salvo of unguided rockets, but it's a spray and pray you hit the target and survive on your egress.

 

The Su-25A has a longer operating range because of the differences in weight. That's probably the only thing the A excels at.

 

Also the T also has a better tank busting package and capability.

[joey45]

FYI the T doesn't actually exist, it was more of a prototype......

[number3]

FYI the T doesn't actually exist, it was more of a prototype......

 

Not according to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-25#Su-25T. Or did you mean it wasn't mass produced as much as the other variants?

[xaoslaad]

Is this inaccurate? It says it not only existed/exists but that it was also successfully deployed in combat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-25#Su-25T

 

edit: number3 beat me to it. What he said.

[Boris]

What would be really nice in game is an Su-25 SM, which is the upgraded avionics version of the Su-25A. This cheaper alternative won out over the SU-25T.

 

I'd love to see a high fidelity version of this aircraft.

[joey45]

Not according to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-25#Su-25T. Or did you mean it wasn't mass produced as much as the other variants?

the Su-25T programme was officially canceled in 2000 for the SM.

[number3]

the Su-25T programme was officially canceled in 2000 for the SM.

 

Right, but having a program cancelled doesn't mean that it only existed as a prototype.

 

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

[xaoslaad]

the Su-25T programme was officially canceled in 2000 for the SM.

 

It doesn't change the fact that it did exist and was flown successfully in combat. People aren't especially flying around UH-1H's or P-51D's anymore either. Why does that preclude it from being in the game or suggest the modeling of that aircraft is somehow inaccurate? I can only guess that's the point you're trying to make anyway.

[Boberro]

I don't know how anyone could willingly use basic Su-25 over T-brick to attack enemy. Vanilla is just a slightly better ancient II WW plane (or Korean War) with bigger engines and payload weight.

[Vedexent]

Well - I for one prefer the A to the T. It's faster and it's more maneuverable.

 

Ts are basically the same platform with all that extra weight. It gives them better weapons control and targeting, but it comes with a price in flight performance.

 

I've flown mixed Su-25 / Su-25T missions, and the Su-25s were always having to slow down, hold back, etc. to let the Ts keep up with the formation.

 

That said, in the mixed formation, the Su-24T were much better at taking out SAM units so the Su-25s could flatten armor units. And - let's not discount the ability to use Vikhrs.

 

Don't get me wrong - I like the Su-25T; they're just different aircraft for different mission profiles.

 

I personally like being able to do it for my own damn self and not use the avionics/autopilot as a crutch.

 

It's the reason I'm looking forward to the Mig-21bis and the F-86F Sabre.

 

I would, however, love to see a DCS Su-25SM which I think would be a wonderful blend of original airframe performance with modernized targeting and weapon control.

[steve65]

What would be really nice in game is an Su-25 SM, which is the upgraded avionics version of the Su-25A. This cheaper alternative won out over the SU-25T.

 

I'd love to see a high fidelity version of this aircraft.

 

+1 I would also like to see the su-25sm even if it was fc3 since it is actually what the Russian air force is using currently.i didn't realize the su-25t wasn't what the Russians were currently using.since the su-25sm is a upgraded su-25a can it use the vikhr and shkval systems and does it retain the flight characteristics of the su-25a?

[Boberro]

+1 I would also like to see the su-25sm even if it was fc3 since it is actually what the Russian air force is using currently.i didn't realize the su-25t wasn't what the Russians were currently using.since the su-25sm is a upgraded su-25a can it use the vikhr and shkval systems and does it retain the flight characteristics of the su-25a?

 

Flight characteristic is much more closer to vanilla Su-25.... but it cannot use any Vikhrs, so far I haven't heard of any TV\FLIR pod manufactured for Su-25SM - yes, it is blind, no TV, no Vikhrs.

You have Kh-25ML, Kh-29T, KAB-500Kr (GPS too) and rest of vanilla Su-25 weaponry. So not against moving targets, not precise weapons like Su-25T or A-10C against vehicles.

[steve65]

The series wings of the red star has an excellent video on the su-25. Even has some good commentary from American pilots that have flown it and talk about the planes flight charteristics.

Edited June 22, 2014 by steve65

[thinkr]

I would say the main benefits of flying the Su-25 instead of the T version are simple.

 

Lighter, Less avionics and less difficulty maneuvering, more fun concentrating on actual flying the aircraft.

 

The biggest reason that compels most to fly the 25 and not the "T" is because its a simpler plane it less stringent on your CPU as well!

 

Meaning people with weaker computer systems can fly it more readily since they get better FPS flying the SU-25! How cool is that!

:pilotfly::joystick::thumbup:

Edited June 24, 2014 by thinkr

[johnv2pt0]

I also much prefer the A to the T. The only reason I will fly the T is if SEAD is required or I know I will be engaging MBTs (vihkrs). The only other reason I like the T is the autopilot system.

 

The shkval doesn't add very much situational awareness for me usually. If I know exactly where a target is supposed to be, then it's useful because I can get a good look of the area further out, but most often my eyes do better and keep me better oriented to what's happening in the battlespace. That's not to say with proper techniques the shkval won't give you better SA but I usually see people cruise right overhead bad things because they're head's down in the TV trying to find that target that they just overflew at 600kph. And with the main threat being IR weapons, you'll never see that missile launch.

 

Also, I prefer the HUD in A over the T. It doesn't have flight information (which would be nice) but the reticle is so far superior imo. Clean, capable, non-obstructive. I hate the reticle in the T.

 

To each his own.

[muamshai]

I prefer A when some generous guy had shot smoke rocket on the target area.

[esb77]

My understanding is that there were two series of T variants, and counting both as Ts the total number of production planes was about 16.

 

Which is not a lot.

 

In terms of combat effectiveness it's much better than the original Su-25, but it got dropped for lack of money, lack of clear need, and lack of sexiness compared to multi-role derivatives of the Su-27. If I had to place a bet on what really finished the program off it would be lack of sexiness. Air forces are usually led by former pilots, and pilots usually want the sexy airplanes no matter how useful the ugly planes might be.

 

If you want to fly highly effective CAS and have enough budget to afford the guided munitions a Su-25T is worth 2-8 Su-25s in terms of effectiveness.

 

If you're under budget pressure, but doing serious precision damage isn't really important the Su-25 is the way to go.

 

In terms of speed and agility, it really depends on fuel and payload. The base planes aren't all that different. That said, unless you're doing SEAD you almost always want Vikhrs on the 25T and Vikhrs are both heavy and high drag.

[Fri13]

Someone would like to see a upgraded Su-25K "Scoprion" with the MFCD sets.

But what I have seen from the manufacturer video, it looks it only got more complicated to operate and manages to give less for more.

One reason why I like Su-25T is its simplicity and very efficient way to engage multiple different kind targets in short time period.

 

But the new changes since 1.2.8 I don't get. Russia doesn't seem to use Vikhr missiles anymore (Vikhr-M) and in DCS the max range has gone from 10km > 7.7km with release (unless overriding release) what made huge difference to planes capabilities.

 

 

SU-25T has been in combat but if you look it as technology, it is too old. A CRT display doesn't belong to modern combat plane these days. I don't like that in Su-25T because it blocks the view, I don't like that in many planes when the HUD blocks the view (why I like F-15 or F-16 HUD designs) limiting the angle of view. Just dreaming that at someday we have OLED on windshields layering data around whole cockpit, calculated positions by same kind HMS as used for aiming.

 

 

First time I saw that at late 90's and still we don't have them :)

(That would offer a great benefit too, like add a shading to sun area or overlay intelligence what is easily seen just by looking around, or close the shades when missile is coming at you and you don't want to see it ;)).