Штурмовики и УБС

[Rurouni]

Цитата (Вуду @ Апр 16 2020, 00:46)

- Разумеется актуально.

- "Это сказка". От лазерных - не могут защититься даже тепловизионные ГСН.

Мы с вами это уже обсуждали, биспектральность это прежде всего ИК+УФ: http://waroffline.org/index.php?showtopic=296&st=20#
И если в ИК это светящаяся точка, то в УФ - непрозрачная точка, которая маленькой ловушкой имитироваться не может.

А вот «Верба»:

Ракета 9М336 (см. фото) оснащается новой головкой самонаведения (ГСН) и новым приборным отсека. ГСН ракеты - следящая пассивная трёхспектральная, работающая в ультрафиолетовом, ближнем и среднем инфракрасных диапазонах.
http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/verba/verba.shtml
УФ тоже на месте.

Теперь о диапазонах
ближняя: λ = 0,74—2,5 мкм;
средняя: λ = 2,5—50 мкм;
Разводят два диапазона как раз чтобы избежать подавления лазером. То же самое делают для тепловизионных ГСН - например Mica-IR: http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/mica/mica.shtml

Цитата

- ??  Законы физики актуальны всегда...  Если бОльшая часть излучения вообще не входит в диапазон работы ИК ГСН ЗУР ПЗРК - она и увидит цель на гораздо меньшей дальности.  Захватит, если только почти "в упор"...

Давайте конкретику - температуру выхлопа и диапазон ГСН. Посчитаем.

[Вуду]

Цитата (Rurouni @ Сегодня, 01:47)

Давайте конкретику - температуру выхлопа и диапазон ГСН. Посчитаем.

- Нет у меня конкретики под руками. Если есть желание - можешь сам найти. Нюанс заключается в том, что практически все типичные ИК ГСН проектировались с расчётом на типичные факелы ТРД. Двигатель TF34-GE-100F - совершенно "нетипичен" в этом плане!
http://airwar.ru/enc/engines/tf34-100.html
Его тепловая сигнатура из-за этого "в ауте" по сравнению с тепловой сигнатурой того же Р-195, она "в ауте" и по температуре, и по интенсивности излучения - 80% мощности срабатывается внутри двигателя на вращение КНД и вентилятора. Они создают основную тягу, ВТОРОЙ КОНТУР, а не первый, горячий контур! Потому, что там степень двухконтурности - 6,42! Т.е. воздух второго контура, которого больше, чем в первом в 6.42 раза, обтекает выхлоп горячего контура и вдобавок ещё разбавляет его!

[sulik]

Цитата (Вуду @ Сегодня, 09:07)

все типичные ИК ГСН

Что такое не типичные ИК ГСН?

[sulik]

Не, не так.

Цитата (Вуду @ Сегодня, 09:07)

все типичные ИК ГСН проектировались с расчётом на типичные факелы

[Показать/Скрыть]

[fahed]

Цитата (1239 @ Сегодня, 00:07)

А вот это -оно самое
27 февраля 1991
OA-10A "Тандерболт" II
Серийный номер 77-0197, позывной Nail 51, 23-я тактическая эскадрилья воздушной поддержки 602-го тактического крыла воздушного контроля ВВС США
Во время боевого вылета самолет 1-го лейтенанта Олсона был тяжело поврежден ракетой ПЗРК.
И еще 2-3 - предположительно .

Табличка от американского МО, потери А-10

[fahed]

Цитата (fahed @ Апр 16 2020, 09:46)

+ со специализированного сайта

https://www.2951clss-gulfwar.com/statistics.htm#a10-losses

[fahed]

Пилот А-10 о ПЗРК против А-10 (в частности в войне в Заливе)


Still, the A-10 has proven quite survivable against MANPADS that get close enough to do damage.

The Good
On the upside, most MANPADS have IR seekers, which means they chase heat. The A-10's engines are designed to get most of their (limited) thrust from bypass air, so they run a lot cooler than other jets, making it harder to lock on to, especially at longer ranges.

Also, the way the A-10's exhaust is shielded by the twin tails helps make it difficult for those pesky MANPADS to get a good lock on the Hawg from the side.

If someone shoots a MANPAD at you nose-on... well... you can imagine how that's going to go for the launcher. You pop flares, maneuver some to get out of the way of the missile while it chases the flares, then adjust your nose to settle your gun reticle on the launch point. A little half second BRRRRTTTTT to say "how ya' doin'?" and press on (extracting your seat cushion from your fourth point of contact as able).

The Bad
Of course, you're probably going to have a MANPAD looking up your hot tailpipe at some point (like when you're coming off target), or some other strange angle where they can see your exhaust, which is when they have a really good chance of ruining your day. That's what flares are for, and is why you usually want to pop flares during your entire attack run, beginning to end.

Compounding your troubles is that getting shot at from behind is often harder to notice. Since MANPADS don't give off radar warnings, you may not even know you're being shot at until there's this strange "thump" and warning lights flash on in the cockpit.

The Ugly
I don't know the exact tally of A-10 losses due to MANPADS, but we have lost some. At least, we think we have.


https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-A-10-sta...MANPADS?share=1

[sulik]

Выкинув три первых пункта из оригинала можно также описать Су-25.

[sulik]

Там ниже есть смежные вопросы. Одним из них сравнение Су-25 и А-10. Может кто-нибудь открыть. Меня не пускает на кириллице.

[fahed]

Цитата (sulik @ Апр 16 2020, 10:13)

Там ниже есть смежные вопросы. Одним из них сравнение Су-25 и А-10. Может кто-нибудь открыть. Меня не пускает на кириллице.

https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-Russian-...e-American-A-10

Там много пунктов, скопирую то пошаговое сравнение, которое поддержал бывший американский пилот

“Can the A-10 match the Su-25?” - this is more correct question, as for me.

Let’s go step by step.

Close air support

This term means not only "short distance of engagement", it also means "short reaction time". Really, when you are taking heavy fire you want your air support ASAP. Su-25 has few advantages in this case: is has 34% higher cruise speed, it can use any fuel available (like diesel), it can take of from literally any surface:


This means Su-25 can be located closer to frontline and it can reach it much faster. This is reall "close air support".

Yes, A-10 has significantly bigger range and fly time. It also can be refueled in flight. But when you are bombing Middle Age army down to the Stone age this is not really important. Things does change in the real conflict: bringing tankers to the front line is a suicide, patrolling the front line is making you easy to detect and easy to intercept (especially with 560km/h cruise speed). Also, advantage in speed and closeness to frontline allow Su-25 to make more sorties in the same period time. More sorties = more bombs dropped on the heads of evil guys.

The gun

Most successful department of GAU-8 developer is a marketing department. Everybody likes this gun, that photo with WW Beetle is really cool.


But what we have as a facts?

GAU-8 is overengineered, expensive and heavy gun than did not reach the goal it designed for. In Iraq A-10s destroyed most of their targets by the Mavericks. In averager there was spent about 124 GAU-8 shells per flight but the A-10 is carrying an astonishing 1200+ shells. It also carry used empty shells as a dead weight.

A-10 was build around GAU-8 but suddenly it appears, that it's not that useful weapon.

On the other hand Su-25 has GSh-30-2 gun wich is 3 times lighter, has 3000 RPM (it is more than enough) and has no limit to bursts lengths.

Other armaments

List of weaponary is roughly equal, but A-10 can carry twice the payload then Su-25. It's significant advantage, but if you count hardpoints and pieces of equipment on board there is much less difference.


Protection

Su-25 smaller but is has up to 1100kg of titanium armor on board (A-10 has "only" about 540kg). Su-25 is, also, much faster and more maneuverable. It is much harder to hit.

Russian Air force even had an aerobatics team that flew on Su-25.


—————-

It obviously that the planes was designed for different doctrines and direct comparison is kinda wrong, but for me Su-25 is superior and better suit a CAS role.

[sulik]

Лол.
Суперпушка оказалась весьма не супер.

[fahed]

Еще одно сравнение, которое поддержал на этот раз бывший американский пилот - но уже именно А-10

The Su-25 Frogfoot is the anti-American fanboy’s answer to rah-rah-go-America’s A-10 Warthog dominance.

In my personal opinion, all Sukhoi Su-25 variants are pathetic, except the Su-25T. Why?

Bog Down basic trainer-jet like capability

Su-25 has no HUD or Head-Up Display, basically a WW2 jet and that stereotypical communism’s quantity over quality approach. You kind of expect something made after Vietnam War to have some kind of advanced HUD, since fighter jets of the era commonly have it. But not Su-25s.

When I play it on simulator I was quite furious. The same aiming reticle is used to aim guns, rockets, and bombs. It is also used to indicate missile / laser bomb locks too. The perspex projector screen is also small, sometimes the reticle could be gone if you are heading off the boresight scope.

Finally HUD was introduced to the later Su-25T variant. It helped immensely, especially when you are multi tasking between flying the plane, planning an attack, identifying the target, and setting up the weapon systems. You’ll know how fast you are going, are you inverted or not, how close are you to the surface of the earth, all while being able to see through the transparent projector screen.

The lack of many common modern frontline fighter jet features almost makes the regular version of Su-25s like an armoured trainer jet.

What was under the wing?

Without HUD, this is how you know what munitions your plane is carrying:


See that 10 columns - 2 rows of lights at the left, below the twin dial gauges?

This is Russian basic version of American Storage Management Systems (SMS). The modern Russian jets with HUD may not have this, they will show the selected weapon on the HUD. American jets like the A-10 has it shown on both HUD and the cockpit display unit’s SMS page.

However, unlike the American version, this Russian basic weapon indicator thing cannot show you what exact munitions you are carrying, be it RBK cluster bombs of 250 kg variant or the 500 kg variant, the R-60 missile or the Kh-25 missile, or even which rockets (S-8 or S-13 or else). It is even worse, it doesn’t tell you which Kh-25 variants you are carrying. As it will only display:

Б for bombs,
УР for missiles,
НРС for rockets,
ВПУ for the built-in 30 mm cannon
The top row will just glow yellow if there is something underneath the station. The second row lights indicate which station is being selected. The indicator for the types of munition being selected is next to it.

Good luck with that. The pilot surely needs to glance back and forth between the wing, the panel, and what is ahead to make sure that he/she selected the right weapon. Bombing a structure? We need 250 kg FAB-250 iron bomb then. So, routinely, you looked at the indicator panel, saw station 3 and 7 being selected and it shows ‘Б’, surely a “bomb”. Looking back at the wings, you are quite sure that it is the iron bomb hanging there, but after you dropped the bomb, it suddenly break into smaller bomblets and rain explosives over the area. It does not even scratched the structure.

Blyat! You had selected the RBK-250 cluster bombs! The iron bombs are supposedly hanging under station 4 and 6! But, now you have expended your cluster munitions, and have to drop 250 kg of explosives over lightly armoured vehicles, which are your next objectives. Oh hell!

This system is still retained in Su-25T, my favourite Frogfoot of them all. At least, despite the drawbacks, the Frogfoot can fire salvo mode like a proper Russian fighter jets, which is to fire all of the same types of munitions at once. This is something that A-10 cannot do, but the pilots can just press the pickle button repeatedly in quick succession to fire multiple missiles in close proximity of each other.

Limited Weapon Load

With the exception of Su-25T and its modernisation Su-25TM, the Frogfoot can only carry one munition under each pylon, severely limiting their payload to just 11 munitions in Su-25TM and Su-39 or 10 munitions in other Su-25s.

The Su-25T and Su-25TM’s store expansion however, is limited to 9K121 “Vikhr” Anti-Tank Guided Missiles only, and only under those two particular pylons.


Up to 16 Vikhr missiles can be carried by the Su-25T/TM. However, Vikhrs are rather small missiles, which usually fired in salvo mode, creating cool helix-shaped flight patterns between them to confuse an armoured vehicle’s Active Protection Systems. That limits the Su-25T or Su-25TM to 8 effective Vikhr shots to have good chance at killing a modern Main Battle Tanks (MBT).

The inner 6 pylons are good for any guided missiles, the 2nd outermosts are good for rockets / unguided, bombs / R-73 or R-60 air-to-air missiles, the outermosts are only good for R-60 missiles or Sorbitsya jammer pods. The newer Su-25s like Su-25TM has a centreline pylon located under the fuselage, which can be used for unguided bombs or other electronic pods.

So, in addition to 16 ATGMs, they can carry additional 9 munitions for a maximum total of 25 bombs / rockets / missiles.

The 30 mm revolver cannon carried internally has 250 rounds.

The usual variants of Su-25 can only carry up to 4 or 6 guided munitions, with 2 have to be unguided ones (2nd outermost pylons).

This makes them sort of equal to A-10 that can carry this from the beginning:


4 out of 10 stations can be expanded to carry up to three munitions each. The much bigger Maverick missiles (each can effectively disable a modern MBT), and assorted of laser or GPS guided bombs can be loaded under those pylons. Up to 12 munitions in addition to the 6 regular stations.

The twin right-under-the-fuselage stations are good for guided bombs and rockets, the 2nd outermost are the same. The outermost are usually loaded as shown in the picture: twin sidewinders hanging on the right and the AN/ALQ-131 jammer pod on the left. Rumour said that this jammer pod can be exchanged for another twin sidewinders attachment too. At a maximum of 20 probable missiles, it is not bad, especially when all of its munitions are guided. It probably helped them creating less of CNN headlines of accidentally destroying non-targets.

The 30 mm gatling gun has a much longer barrel than the one in Su-25, which just fires as quick. But the A-10 has more than 1,000 rounds in store.

Sensors? Guidance? What?

Su-25T / TM are the only Frogfoot variant equipped with on-board laser targer designator. It has very limited operating time, when compared to US systems, before it overheated. Meanwhile, the A-10s are equipped with laser / infrared target pod from the beginning.


As part of this sensor upgrade, they also jammed in a monochrome monitor at the upper right-hand of the cockpit dashboard.

All of these contraptions just to guide the uber-cool in-flight twirling Vikhr missiles.

But did I tell you that their guidance is a passive laser beam-riding one?

It means the Vikhrs need the firing aircraft to continuously “beam” the targets with its laser until the missile hits it, homing on its beam reflection. This require the Su-25T to keep flying straight (with limited off-boresight course tolerance) towards the target until the hit is scored, or until the target retaliated and kill the Su-25T, which renders the missile harmless if the target managed to do this before the missile hits them. This whole process render the plane vulnerable as it flies towards the target in a very predictable flight path.

This laser target designator system is also hampered by inherent laser system’s weakness like field of vision obstruction, e.g. smoke, fog, or clouds.

Compared to “fire and forget” system in Maverick missiles, the Vikhr is quite limited. Not to mention that there are many variants of guidance for the Maverick, from TV, laser, radio, and so on. Whenever there is battlefield obstructions like fogs, smoke, or jammer, the A-10s have alternatives. While Su-25 may be loaded with other missiles thst features various different guidance systems, they cannot carry it as much as they carry Vikhrs (16 missiles) or A-10s carry Mavericks (6 missiles that can be varied).

Su-25s can indeed carry those gigantic supersonic Kh-31 anti-radiation missile or the cruise missile Kh-59 Ovod. But they are rather gigantic missile, and only one of it can be carried under each pylon. Unless your job is striking bunkers, or other massive targets, which is better done by launching these out of ground based or ship-based launchers (cheaper), its use is rather limited. Try this in city fights like Syria, the explosive yield will most probably affect huge area and hurt the innocents.

Better Performance, but…

The Frogfoot is quite significantly faster than the A-10, capable of flying at 975 km/h at sea level, while A-10s is not any faster than the world war 2 piston engined fighter P-51D Mustang at 720 km/h. Both planes will struggle to intercept a passenger jet that cruise at around Mach 0.80 to Mach 0.85 at their cruising altitude, because A-10s’ cruise speed is not “mach-worthy”, while Su-25 can only clock Mach 0.79 at its cruising altitude, just as fast as Airbus A320 or Boeing 737 can do, but a bit less than widebodies like Boeing 777 or Airbus A330’s typical cruising speed.

The Frogfoot climbs faster too, at 11,000 fpm (feet per minute), while A-10 is around Dc-10’s teritorry at 6,000 fpm. Despite this, the limited ceiling for Su-25 at 23,000 feet perhaps show its lacking in pressurisation system. The A-10s can get up to passenger jets cruising altitude levels at 43,000 feet. If both planes dogfight each other, the Su-25 clearly have the upperhand, if we assume the maneuverability of both fighter jets is similar.

All of these advantages for Su-25 sounds good, until you realise that the Frogfoot is supposed to be a ground attack plane. It flies much faster than the objects that it supposed to track, identify, and destroy. It has higher stall speed than A-10, has ¼ of A-10’s 4,000 km range (making them less available to ground troops), and noisier engine. All of which makes it difficult for them to do their main task.

The A-10 seems to be heavier as well (mostly from the gatling gun). When empty, it weighs 11.3 tonnes, while Su-25 is 9.8 tonnes. Perhaps the Su-25 is less armoured, but nobody knows. The gatling gun carried by the A-10 is surely heavier than Su-25’s cannon. The A-10 has its engine mounted on the back, up high, concealing it from ground fire, while the Su-25 has it nested close to the fuselage, in a position that is arguably more vulnerable to ground fire.

Verdict

All in all, A-10s have been a great weapon platform for its mission requirement: a Close-Air Support (CAS) with good tank-busting and limited reinforced structure-destroying capabilities (it can also carry 2,000 lbs guided bombs like the GBU-31 JDAM). All of its munitions are precision-guided, with options to carry dumb bombs or unguided hydra / zunni rockets. They are clearly designed with that in mind.

Su-25 meanwhile is like the jack-of-all-trades ground attack plane. It started of as bog down basic ground attack plane like its spiritual grandfather, the Ilyushin Il-2 Sturmoviks. But then, it sort of evolved into assorted air-to-ground weapons launching platform. Compared to A-10, Su-25 actually can do so much more:

Kill radars (suppression of enemy’s air defense / SEAD) - A-10s can’t carry HARM
Kill big ships - the guided bombs carried by A-10s have limited range, the Maverick missiles are too small for this job
Fire air-launched cruise missile (Su-25 can destroy bigger targets)
Fire the off-boresight R-73 missile, despite the helmet is not equipped with the cueing system, so kind of useless anyway
Fire salvo of munitions (cool effect and more assured destruction of the target)
Can be equipped with aftermarket Phazotron Kopyo Doppler radar to better track targets, especially ships and other big moving targets. However, since the Su-25s can’t carry any radar-guided R-27 or R-77 air-to-air missiles interfaced with this radar’s Fire Control module, so also kind of useless as well, besides making them less stealthy - A-10s don’t have any radar
These are all impressive capabilities for a much cheaper jet. However, each of those capabilities are limited. Its expansive ground attack capability also overlaps with Russian strike aircrafts like MiG-27, Su-24, Su-30 and Su-34.

The characteristics of this Russian jet clearly suited their hit-and-run style of Soviet military tactics. They will constantly retreat using limited facility airbases, which the Su-25 can be operated from, or in slow creeping offense, where they will set up series of temporary forward airbases from where Su-25’s and other Russian jet’s limited range mattered less.

All in all, A-10 still wins as the better individual ground attack plane for its job, especially the A-10C, even when compared to my favourite Su-25T. Damn! Mostly because A-10s focus on its main mission capability of doing CAS, and leave all those striking capabilities to the F-111s, F-15Es “Strike Eagle”, and other specialised planes.

My favourite is still the Su-25T, though. It is quite a menacing-looking plane with all those Vikhrs and that gigantic Kh-25 missile.


Ну и до кучи можно еще ут - https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-Russian-...r/Shawn-Lim-134

[sulik]

Зачем он тешку притянул их по вики всего 20 штук.

[fahed]

Цитата (sulik @ Апр 16 2020, 10:35)

Зачем он тешку притянул их по вики всего 20 штук.

Потому что зачастую Су-25 первых модификаций любят сравнивать с А-10С (последняя модернизация от середины 2000-х).
Да и вообще, там большая часть сравнивающих (хоть их ответы комментируют и поддерживают экс-пилоты ВВС) - любители симуляторов. А у них в симуляторах какие хочешь версии самолетов доступны).

[sulik]

Цитата (fahed @ Апр 16 2020, 10:39)

Потому что зачастую Су-25 первых модификаций любят сравнивать с А-10С (последняя модернизация от середины 2000-х).
Да и вообще, там большая часть сравнивающих (хоть их ответы комментируют и поддерживают экс-пилоты ВВС) - любители симуляторов. А у них в симуляторах какие хочешь версии самолетов доступны).

Лишь бы это настоящие пилоты были, а не симмеры или пассажиры с какого-нибудь Челябинска.

[fahed]

Цитата (sulik @ Сегодня, 10:41)

Лишь бы это настоящие пилоты были, а не симмеры или пассажиры с какого-нибудь Челябинска

Ну вроде как да, судя по их профилям на Quore. Один 20 лет в ВВС Флота - на A-7E, второй 10 лет на А-10.
Это я о тех, которые конкретно в цитируемых темах про Су 25 и А-10 отметились и чьи посты (либо поддержаные ими) я запостил в тему.

[Ghost]

Цитата (fahed @ Сегодня, 10:31)

Еще одно сравнение, которое поддержал на этот раз бывший американский пилот - но уже именно А-10

Судя по всему, претензии в основном к авионике?

[fahed]

Цитата (Ghost @ Апр 16 2020, 11:10)

Судя по всему, претензии в основном к авионике?

Вкратце - да, если речь о Су-25.

[Ghost]

Цитата (fahed @ Апр 16 2020, 11:21)

Вкратце - да, если речь о Су-25.

Да, о нем.
Ну, тут уж извините - это у кого как хайтек развит.
То есть, наши могут сделать хороший самолет, но начинить его всем вот этим - проблема.
Ну не верю я в секретные военные разработки, которые никак не отображаются потом в быту.
С такой точки зрения американцы и японцы всегда будут впереди.

[Rurouni]

Цитата (Вуду @ Апр 16 2020, 09:07)

- Нет у меня конкретики под руками.  Если есть желание - можешь сам найти. Нюанс заключается в том, что практически все типичные ИК ГСН проектировались с расчётом на типичные факелы ТРД.  Двигатель TF34-GE-100F - совершенно "нетипичен" в этом плане!
http://airwar.ru/enc/engines/tf34-100.html
Его тепловая сигнатура из-за этого "в ауте" по сравнению с тепловой сигнатурой того же Р-195, она "в ауте" и по температуре, и по интенсивности излучения - 80% мощности срабатывается внутри двигателя на вращение КНД и вентилятора.  Они создают основную тягу, ВТОРОЙ КОНТУР, а не первый, горячий контур!  Потому, что там степень двухконтурности - 6,42!  Т.е. воздух второго контура, которого больше, чем в первом в 6.42 раза, обтекает выхлоп горячего контура и вдобавок ещё разбавляет его!

На этот "нетипичный" двигатель наводились вполне типичные советские ИК ГСН Sa-13 (стрела) и Sa-16 (игла) - это по американским данным. Видимо он все же не настолько "нетипичный" по температуре выхлопа, как вы думаете.