Su25 unnecessary aircraft

[Riain]

The RAF addressed the loiter issues by using the Harrier on "ground loiter" at a forward base close to the front. Sids strip in the Falklands is a good example; GR3s would be at Alert 5 only 50 miles from the front lines leading to very quick response times without the need for long flight endurance.

 

[Father Maryland]

The effectivness of the A-10s gun is highly overrated, especially when it comes to tank-busting. If you look at operational reports of the conflicts in which the A-10 was employed it made most of its tank kills with various guided munitions, which the Su 25 can do likewise without needing the huge cannon.

Arguably by a pretty wide margin the GAU-8's biggest and most useful role isn't as the armament of the A10 but the Goalkeeper CIWS (For the A10 from what I understand both in more COIN conflicts like the War and Terror and more Conventional Conflicts like the first gulf war is actually semi rarely used with things like AGM-65 Mavericks being a good deal more common. And the A-10 Meta love is from what I understand more of a civilian thing and during the War on Terror for troops under attack AC-130's were a lot more beloved because it had a longer loiter and could be used to provide fire support very close to US/Allied troops. That and it packed a lot of firepower (dependng on the variant what 2 20mm Vulcan Miniguns, a 40mm Bofors, and a 105mm Howitzer with the more recent versions adding the ability to deply a variety of different "smart munitions" instead of just relying on it's guns.) (in the sense that as a gun it stands a darn good bit above it's competitors in most area.

Namely the naval Goalkeeper CIWS which uses a GAU-8 as it's armament. If I remember correctly the 30mm Goalkeeper has something like twice the lethal/usable range as the 20mm Phalanx. Combined with it's radar it's a superior CIWS (and at least to me arguably better then any other Gun CIWS other then maybe the Kashtan.). The only area the Phalanx is better in is the fact that it's a lot smaller, lighter, and easier to install then a Goalkeeper since it's sort of an integrated unit that can almost be bolted onto the deck while a Goalkeeper needs the ship to be designed for it or require massive redesign and reconstruction to fit it. It's also signifigantly bigger and heavier then a Phalanx requiring either a larger vessel or spending more of the area on the CIWS. Still a truly exceptional CIWS and at least theoretcally if your on a ship about to be under air/missile attack then having a Goalkeeper to defend you is way preferable to a Phalanx since from what I understand the Goalkeeper radar is more accurate and longer ranged and the guns range is far longer and each shell offers a much biggest usable payload over a 20mm round.

 

[Father Maryland]

The RAF addressed the loiter issues by using the Harrier on "ground loiter" at a forward base close to the front. Sids strip in the Falklands is a good example; GR3s would be at Alert 5 only 50 miles from the front lines leading to very quick response times without the need for long flight endurance.

More then a few countries used sort of a similar work around by using light combat aircraft (often something like an armed variant of a trainer like the Folland Gnat or BAE Hawk) with a strategy of using mobile runways utilizing stretches of road or highway and the various needed support manpower/equipment/suppplies being formed up as truck mobile units to allow say what would otherwise be a completely permanent airbase unit (with the airbase being a known position). Using the highway airstrip and truck mobile support units you could base your light combat aircraft right behind the lines in moving chains while doing a good deal more sorties because your airplane is making much much shorter sorties. Basically take off from the temporary airship fly at a couple hundred MPH to the target a relatively short distance away and then hit it. If you need to you can loiter because even with the aircraft's short flying time the distance it needs to fly to return is so short that it's minimized.

Think the Finns did that with Folland Gnats and later BAE Hawk 200s and te Indians did them with Gnats and their own license production version of the gnat.

 

[alspug]

When you look at the actual loadout the Su 25 would carry into combat and the utility against field fortification's and NATO tank formations the Su-25 becomes more of essential part of frontal aviation. The Soviets of course had a large history from WW2 and even the Korean conflict for the use of ground attack immediately before an attack begins. In the Fulda Gap I would assume the first strikes would be by the supersonic aircraft onto weapons depots and airfields. The Su-25 regiments would probably shoot in the helicopter envelopment.

 

[George Carty]

The Su-25 fit into the well-worn role of shturmovik, which describes the job of battlefield close support*. This was distinct from the job the supersonic fighter-bombers like the MiG-27 and Su-17 performed, as while they were capable strike machines like the Super Sabre in Vietnam their inability to loiter over the battlefield for long periods of time was not popular with the troops.

If loiter time was a design consideration for the Su-25, why wasn't it equipped with turbofan engines, even if the limitations of Soviet engine technology meant they likely wouldn't be as high bypass as the A-10's General Electric TF34s?

 

[Richard V]

If you look at the failed Syrian offensive in 1973, that was caused by among many things, unsupported armor attack against well defended positions. A few Su-25 at the right place and time could have made all the difference. Even if hundreds are lost it would be better than losing thousands of tanks and failing to breakthrough.

If loiter time was a design consideration for the Su-25, why wasn't it equipped with turbofan engines, even if the limitations of Soviet engine technology meant they likely wouldn't be as high bypass as the A-10's General Electric TF34s?

The Il-102 had turbofans. Su-25 won the contract because simplicity and quantity was what they wanted.

 

[Gunnarnz]

I more or less agree with what others have said about the Su-25. But I think the A-10 is the wrong comparison. Take a look at the other contender in that competition, the YA-9... there's a few interesting similarities there.

 

[Monk78]

When you look at the actual loadout the Su 25 would carry into combat and the utility against field fortification's and NATO tank formations the Su-25 becomes more of essential part of frontal aviation. The Soviets of course had a large history from WW2 and even the Korean conflict for the use of ground attack immediately before an attack begins. In the Fulda Gap I would assume the first strikes would be by the supersonic aircraft onto weapons depots and airfields. The Su-25 regiments would probably shoot in the helicopter envelopment.

Supersonic aircraft can target armored columns and masses of APC as well , I mean most of NATO F16A main task would be air to ground , and even F111 was flown in that role in 1991

 

[jsb]

If loiter time was a design consideration for the Su-25, why wasn't it equipped with turbofan engines, even if the limitations of Soviet engine technology meant they likely wouldn't be as high bypass as the A-10's General Electric TF34s?

Is one of the most important parts of SU25 not that not used old engines (from Mig 21 etc) and could be built in the old Mig 21 factory in Georgia to keep the workers in jobs?

 

[alspug]

The main point is doctrine, the second point to look at is price, the third point to consider is the realities of an armoured aircraft.

The Mig 27 was a supersonic attack aircraft and although effective was unable to perform properly in Afghanistan and had to fly too high to be really effective.

The entire tactical operation of both the A 10 and Su 25 is that they are slow enough to fly low enough to use terrain to obstruct SAM batteries and strong enough that a single MANPADS hit is unlikely to kill them. The method of employment planned for the aircraft is very similar and the loss rate in the event of WW3 in the Fulda Gap would have been high, the rough field operations would have kept them flying while most other aircraft had been grounded.

 

[Monk78]

The main point is doctrine, the second point to look at is price, the third point to consider is the realities of an armoured aircraft.

The Mig 27 was a supersonic attack aircraft and although effective was unable to perform properly in Afghanistan and had to fly too high to be really effective.

The entire tactical operation of both the A 10 and Su 25 is that they are slow enough to fly low enough to use terrain to obstruct SAM batteries and strong enough that a single MANPADS hit is unlikely to kill them. The method of employment planned for the aircraft is very similar and the loss rate in the event of WW3 in the Fulda Gap would have been high, the rough field operations would have kept them flying while most other aircraft had been grounded.

How high the su25/a10 type aircraft loss rate would be versus A7/su17/f111/mig27 types ?
Would OCA be less dangerous of a mission than CAS ?

 

[Monk78]

If you look at the failed Syrian offensive in 1973, that was caused by among many things, unsupported armor attack against well defended positions. A few Su-25 at the right place and time could have made all the difference. Even if hundreds are lost it would be better than losing thousands of tanks and failing to breakthrough.

The Il-102 had turbofans. Su-25 won the contract because simplicity and quantity was what they wanted.

Would carpet bombing NATO defenses by bombers like tu22/su24 be another option ?
The Syrians probably had no aerial options to fall upon

 

[Leander]

How high the su25/a10 type aircraft loss rate would be versus A7/su17/f111/mig27 types ?
Would OCA be less dangerous of a mission than CAS ?

The faster aircraft are usually less vulnerable to SHORAD, which is often also particularly dense in the environments CAS missions are flown in. I dont know how cold war defenses of air bases look like, but would expect them to be less intense than directly over a frontline and maybe more focused on mid- to long range weapon systems.
It would then ultimately boil down to a comparison of the vulnerability of high-and-fast-aircraft vs. longer ranged air defenses and low-and-slow aicraft vs. SHORAD.

Edit: And I dont know of any sufficently recent peer-to-peer conflict where both of these things were common enough to draw proper conclusions. Is there something from the Iraq-Iran war?

 

[Monk78]

The faster aircraft are usually less vulnerable to SHORAD, which is often also particularly dense in the environments CAS missions are flown in. I dont know how cold war defenses of air bases look like, but would expect them to be less intense than directly over a frontline and maybe more focused on mid- to long range weapon systems.
It would then ultimately boil down to a comparison of the vulnerability of high-and-fast-aircraft vs. longer ranged air defenses and low-and-slow aicraft vs. SHORAD.

Edit: And I dont know of any sufficently recent peer-to-peer conflict where both of these things were common enough to draw proper conclusions. Is there something from the Iraq-Iran war?

I think WP fast and low attackers like su17/mig27 biggest threat would be NATO fighters than SAMs ?
were F4 / Mirage III / F104 /f16A a sufficient threat to these attackers for NATO to be confident that their staging areas airfield ports troop concentrations would not take a pounding? I’m not sure

 

[FrangibleCover]

Esp given their biggest rival was NATO whose armies were well equipped with MANPADS and SAMs , these defenses would have mauled them.

I'm going to give a slightly different response to everyone else: Most of NATO had poor-to-laughable short range air defence capabilities. The Germans and French were alright because they had Roland, Gepard and AMX-13 DCA, although neither had a credible MANPADS until very late. British capabilities basically didn't exist in the 70s and were added to in the 80s by a series of questionable MANPADS and the quasi-mobile Tracked Rapier. Belgians and Dutch had Gepard alone, Danes had nothing, Norwegians had RBS-70, Italians were okay with SIDAM and Stinger. The US had systems to fill the role, but PIVADS was pretty crap and I have very little faith in Chaparral, so you'd better hope Stinger gets hits. Honestly, I think the Su-25s and Mi-24s would have had a field day.

 

[Monk78]

I'm going to give a slightly different response to everyone else: Most of NATO had poor-to-laughable short range air defence capabilities. The Germans and French were alright because they had Roland, Gepard and AMX-13 DCA, although neither had a credible MANPADS until very late. British capabilities basically didn't exist in the 70s and were added to in the 80s by a series of questionable MANPADS and the quasi-mobile Tracked Rapier. Belgians and Dutch had Gepard alone, Danes had nothing, Norwegians had RBS-70, Italians were okay with SIDAM and Stinger. The US had systems to fill the role, but PIVADS was pretty crap and I have very little faith in Chaparral, so you'd better hope Stinger gets hits. Honestly, I think the Su-25s and Mi-24s would have had a field day.

Do you think NATO fighters were expected to compensate for the lack of anti air defenses? And how would you rate them in the mid 80s against WP attackers ( inc but not limited to su25 s)

 

[Bougnas]

I'm going to give a slightly different response to everyone else: Most of NATO had poor-to-laughable short range air defence capabilities. The Germans and French were alright because they had Roland, Gepard and AMX-13 DCA, although neither had a credible MANPADS until very late. British capabilities basically didn't exist in the 70s and were added to in the 80s by a series of questionable MANPADS and the quasi-mobile Tracked Rapier. Belgians and Dutch had Gepard alone, Danes had nothing, Norwegians had RBS-70, Italians were okay with SIDAM and Stinger. The US had systems to fill the role, but PIVADS was pretty crap and I have very little faith in Chaparral, so you'd better hope Stinger gets hits. Honestly, I think the Su-25s and Mi-24s would have had a field day.

This, with the caveat that Chaparral was actually pretty neat post 1978-80 with the introduction of new seekers and with good kinematics. Late 80's RSS version was on par with Stinger C at least, Improved Chap was on par with AIM-9L more or less.
The chassis leaves things to be desired, though.

 

[CV12Hornet]

How high the su25/a10 type aircraft loss rate would be versus A7/su17/f111/mig27 types ?
Would OCA be less dangerous of a mission than CAS ?

Over Afghanistan the Su-17 showed itself not all that less vulnerable than the Su-25. While supersonic, in practice and without a mass of precision munitions enjoyed by the USAF in the Gulf War the Su-17 still had to get low and expose itself to anti-aircraft fire, with machine guns accounting for about as many aircraft as Stinger missiles.

 

[Monk78]

Over Afghanistan the Su-17 showed itself not all that less vulnerable than the Su-25. While supersonic, in practice and without a mass of precision munitions enjoyed by the USAF in the Gulf War the Su-17 still had to get low and expose itself to anti-aircraft fire, with machine guns accounting for about as many aircraft as Stinger missiles.

Targets in Afghanistan were probably harder to hit as well with small bands of guerillas mountains caves and valleys probably was impossible to maintain the high speed low level dashes as would be possible in flatter terrain

 

[butch4343]

Supersonic aircraft can target armored columns and masses of APC as well , I mean most of NATO F16A main task would be air to ground , and even F111 was flown in that role in 1991

Becareful here monk, firstly the F111 did indeed carry out tank plinking during ODS, however they weren't intending to do so, the success of the air campaign meant that a number could be re-roled towards battlefield air interdiction towards the end of the war crucially at medium altitude. In NATO/WP I strongly suspect that F111s , Tornados ect would have more than enough interdiction targets to keep them busy.

A2G is not CAS , A2G is more wide ranging than CAS, so Battlefield Air Interdiction and general interdiction tasks further back behind WP lines, effectively trying to stop the WP follow on forces getting to the fight and swamping NATO armies or at least delaying them.

You also assume that the F16 fleet would be A2G orientated, not so, it would depend very much on the state of the air war, if not carrying out DCA sorites, SEAD and airfield denial operations could take up a significant amount of their efforts. IIRC it was assumed by all that in the first few days of conflict NATO wouldn't be able to provide a lot of CAS except in places where it was an emergency , ie a soviet tank army is threatening to break NATO lines. Until NATO air forces could create a favourable air situation , the ground forces would need to pretty much rely on their own resources, except for harriers, A10s and perhaps the German Alphajet fleet and organic attack helicopter fleets.

Supersonic aircraft can attack armour you are correct, but it doesn't mean they do it well , but then every ship can be mine sweeper, it doesn't mean a destroyer will do it as well as say a hunt class minesweeper. The same applies to supersonic aircraft, F111 can attack armour and vehicle columns as you say the problem is target acquisition. At low level you have very little time to acquire, and accurately drop weapons, hence the reason in the 1970s NATO used cluster bombs to improve the chances of attacking aircraft hitting armoured formations and in the 80s/90s you saw a real effort to develop smart munitions such as the SFW submunitions and things like Brimstone and Trigat.

This might be of interest, I recently read Air Defence Artillery in Combat, 1972 to the Present and in there it mentions that in 1973 Yom Kippur that as many as 4000 SA-7s are reported to have been fired during the conflict with 8 known kills and 38 damaged aircraft , so it takes a large number of MANPADs to score a kill, and again I appreciate these were early SA-7s and their spin offs however in the 80s we had stinger, and the SA-14/16 were coming into service and been more effective, but as with all these things they are not developed in a vacuum, ECM/countermeasures ect would and did develop to counter the threat.

MANPADs are prolific in both NATO and WP armies, however, they would require a large number to be fired to achieve kills, and NATO and presumably the WP would team up different elements to try and deal with the heavier AD systems such as AH or artillery, infact am sure CENTAG and 4ATAF did some good work to develop tactics that would attack helicopters or artillery prosecute air defence vehicles and allow the heavier hitting A10s and other battlefield aircraft to deliver weapons against the armoured units.

Regards

Everyone raves about the A10s gun as others have mentioned , the gun was the most effective means to kill armour from the air at the time of the A10s conception, I suspect if the A10 was designed 10 years later then the requirement for the gun would have been much reduced.