The Su-25UTG (Uchebno-Trenirovochnyy s Gakom) is a variant of the Su-25UB designed to train pilots in takeoff and landing on a land-based simulated carrier deck, with a sloping ski-jump section and arrester wires. The first one flew in September 1988, and approximately 10 were produced.[47] About half remained in Russian service after 1991; they were used on Russia's sole aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov. This small number of aircraft were insufficient to meet the training needs of Russia's carrier air group, so a number of Su-25UBs were converted into Su-25UTGs. These aircraft being distinguished by the alternative designation Su-25UBP (Uchebno-Boyevoy Palubny) —the adjective palubnyy meaning "deck", indicating that these aircraft have a naval function.[48] Approximately 10 of these aircraft are currently operational in the Russian Navy as part of the 279th Naval Aviation Regiment.
I think Kamesh got carried away with the STOVL part... :-) STOBAR ops are interesting, one of those possibilities never pursued for the Hog. Rolling landings seem like the preferential operational mode for naval F-35B users anyways.
While I appreciate the results of your quick google search, that isn't the supporting evidence I was asking for. Kamesh Deepak stated a carrier STOVL capable version of the Su-25 exists. Yes, a carrier capable version exists. However, a STOVL version does not. Carrier capable does not mean Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) capable.
Examples of STOVL platforms are the Harrier, F-35B, Yak-38. The Su-25 does not mean the requirements for that designation.
Interesting the claim the Su-25 was "heavily based" on the A-9. I don't know many who really believe that there's anything other than a rather tenuous passing relation between the two (personally I don't think they look alike at all).
I wonder what would happen if we brought back to life the YA-9 design and update it with swept back wings of the SU-25 and the Survivability of the A-10. Would we have an improved version or an upgraded version of the A-10
Great I wish we were building new and improved versions that Army and Marines were flying
ReplyDeleteOne point to add there is a trainer version of Su-25, which is also carrier STOVL capable!!
ReplyDeleteWould you care to provide a bit of supporting evidence for a STOVL capable Su-25?
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZb_2lbWrYs
DeleteThe Su-25UTG (Uchebno-Trenirovochnyy s Gakom) is a variant of the Su-25UB designed to train pilots in takeoff and landing on a land-based simulated carrier deck, with a sloping ski-jump section and arrester wires. The first one flew in September 1988, and approximately 10 were produced.[47] About half remained in Russian service after 1991; they were used on Russia's sole aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov. This small number of aircraft were insufficient to meet the training needs of Russia's carrier air group, so a number of Su-25UBs were converted into Su-25UTGs. These aircraft being distinguished by the alternative designation Su-25UBP (Uchebno-Boyevoy Palubny) —the adjective palubnyy meaning "deck", indicating that these aircraft have a naval function.[48] Approximately 10 of these aircraft are currently operational in the Russian Navy as part of the 279th Naval Aviation Regiment.
Quick Google search.
I think Kamesh got carried away with the STOVL part... :-)
DeleteSTOBAR ops are interesting, one of those possibilities never pursued for the Hog.
Rolling landings seem like the preferential operational mode for naval F-35B users anyways.
While I appreciate the results of your quick google search, that isn't the supporting evidence I was asking for. Kamesh Deepak stated a carrier STOVL capable version of the Su-25 exists. Yes, a carrier capable version exists. However, a STOVL version does not. Carrier capable does not mean Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) capable.
DeleteExamples of STOVL platforms are the Harrier, F-35B, Yak-38. The Su-25 does not mean the requirements for that designation.
Sorry my Bad mixed up STOBAR and STOVL :)
DeleteNo worries.
Deleteits no biggee. STOVL isn't STOVL anymore anyway. everything is moving toward a style of short takeoff, short landing.
DeleteWhy didn't they include the 1991 war for the A-10?
ReplyDeleteInteresting the claim the Su-25 was "heavily based" on the A-9. I don't know many who really believe that there's anything other than a rather tenuous passing relation between the two (personally I don't think they look alike at all).
ReplyDeleteThe Iranian Su-25's attempted to shoot down an MQ-1, but didn't succeed. Big difference than what the table implies.
ReplyDeletehttp://theaviationist.com/2012/11/08/su-25-predator/
Also, if they're going to mention an almost air-to-air kill by the Su-25 then they should mention the two confirmed kills the A-10 racked up in 1991.
I wonder what would happen if we brought back to life the YA-9 design and update it with swept back wings of the SU-25 and the Survivability of the A-10. Would we have an improved version or an upgraded version of the A-10
ReplyDelete