Sukhoi Su-25

[Orionblamblam]

Russians Scramble To Edit Wikipedia So The Kremlin's Claims Make Sense

As we reported earlier, the Kremlin now says that flight MH17 was "tailed" by a Ukrainian military Su-25 aircraft during much of its flight over Ukraine. As we pointed out, this claim may be physically impossible since Russia says that the Su-25 was consistently between 3 and 5 kilometers away from MH17, but the Su-25 can't fly high enough to have this claim make any sense.
Well, today the Su-25 has been given some significant upgrades -- at least on Wikipedia. Several IP addresses that track back to central Moscow appear to have edited the maximum altitude of the Su-25 from 7 kilometers to 10 kilometers to match the flight path of MH17.
One such IP address that made such a change appears to use the "ROSNIIROS" ISP (Russian Institute for Public Networks) and, according to one IP tracking service, is associated with an organization called "JSK IT. Information Technologies Co."

I note that on the English-language Wikipedia page for the Su-25, there's this bit of wisdom:

Service ceiling: 10,000 m (22,960 ft) clean, 9,000 m (30,000 ft) with max weapons

Does the exchange rate between feet and meters change at lower altitude?

 

[flateric]

Sukhoi's own data kinda supress all the stupid attempts

http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su25k/lth/

 

[Avimimus]

I was hoping you were going to report on an engine upgrade program for the Su-25SM... I've always had a soft-spot for the design myself.

 

[TomS]

While this claim by the Russians is clearly nonsense, let's not forget that "service ceiling" is not the maximum altitude attainable by an aircraft. It's the maximum altitude at which it could maintain a specific rate of climb (I think 100 ft/min for commercial aircraft, but it may differ for military aircraft). Above that altitude, climb rate falls off, but it may be possible reach much higher with patience and favorable conditions.

 

[Steve Pace]

500 fpm for fighters. -SP

 

[Kiltonge]

Even if the Su could spend another 30 minutes struggling up to the 777's altitude, climbing at an overly-generous 350 knots, the latter would have opened at least 50 nm distance cruising at 450 kts. x

I wouldn't like to be trying to work out that interception geometry. Any slight change of heading would make it impossible.

 

[Reaper]

If nobody can prove it anyway that a Su-25 intercepted MH-17 (which is not really possible), why not make it a e.g. Su-24 in the first place?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

It makes no sense at all, and proposing it just makes the Russian's look guiltier.
Su-25 can only carry the R-60 AAM - too small to cause the kind of devastation seen. Its speed, climb and ceiling are against it.


If the Ukrainians wanted to shoot something down with a plane, they'd use an Su-27.


Maybe there was a Ukrainian Su-25 flying nearby which someone took a pot-shot at with a Buk SAM which accidentally hit MH17 instead.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Maybe there was a Ukrainian Su-25 flying nearby which someone took a pot-shot at with a Buk SAM which accidentally hit MH17 instead.

Seems unlikely. The Su-25 - and the A-10 - would not only struggle to attain jetliner altitudes, they'd be incredibly vulnerable and well outside their comfort zones. Mudfighters like these are happiest down in the weeds, rather than at high altitude, where every air superiority fighter in a hundred miles can see them and easily stroll on by to blow them to scrap.

I wonder if the original claim was supposed to be that MH17 was being shadowed by a Ukrainian Su-27, but someone flubbed the line and called it an Su-25.

 

[RadicalDisconnect]

Internet comments are full of people claiming that it's the CIA using VPN to make these edits, thus trying to frame Russia. Yeah, right...

 

[Arjen]

Black comedy.
Real death.

 

[Avimimus]

Maybe there was a Ukrainian Su-25 flying nearby which someone took a pot-shot at with a Buk SAM which accidentally hit MH17 instead.

Seems unlikely. The Su-25 - and the A-10 - would not only struggle to attain jetliner altitudes, they'd be incredibly vulnerable and well outside their comfort zones. Mudfighters like these are happiest down in the weeds, rather than at high altitude, where every air superiority fighter in a hundred miles can see them and easily stroll on by to blow them to scrap.

I wonder if the original claim was supposed to be that MH17 was being shadowed by a Ukrainian Su-27, but someone flubbed the line and called it an Su-25.

It is within the realm of plausibility that a Su-25 could have been flying at higher altitude in an attempt to increase response time against surface-to-air missiles (reasonable given the recent shoot-down). The Ukrainian upgraded Su-25M1's are advertised as being able to acquire and attack ground targets from 6,000 metres altitude.

So, it is plausible that there were Ukrainian military aircraft, including potentially Su-25s, operating in the area and at an intermediate altitude that day.

In any case this is almost certainly a case of mistaken identity on the part of whoever fired the missile - so I don't see how it changes things.

Of course, Andrei Kartopolov's attempt to imply that it could have been an R-60 from a Su-25... well, it goes without saying that he probably shouldn't be commanding anything, or at least shouldn't be mouthing off to the press. An embarrassing statement if it is correctly attributed. I don't see why anyone would bother with such gibberish when there are much more valid criticisms.

 

[bobbymike]

Russian graphics of SU-25 "ATTACK" looks like a Boeing 707 being attacked by an F-111 is this what passes for competence?

 

[SpudmanWP]

LOL, that's an EF-111

 

[F-14D]

Maybe there was a Ukrainian Su-25 flying nearby which someone took a pot-shot at with a Buk SAM which accidentally hit MH17 instead.

Seems unlikely. The Su-25 - and the A-10 - would not only struggle to attain jetliner altitudes, they'd be incredibly vulnerable and well outside their comfort zones. Mudfighters like these are happiest down in the weeds, rather than at high altitude, where every air superiority fighter in a hundred miles can see them and easily stroll on by to blow them to scrap.

I wonder if the original claim was supposed to be that MH17 was being shadowed by a Ukrainian Su-27, but someone flubbed the line and called it an Su-25.

It is within the realm of plausibility that a Su-25 could have been flying at higher altitude in an attempt to increase response time against surface-to-air missiles (reasonable given the recent shoot-down). The Ukrainian upgraded Su-25M1's are advertised as being able to acquire and attack ground targets from 6,000 metres altitude.

So, it is plausible that there were Ukrainian military aircraft, including potentially Su-25s, operating in the area and at an intermediate altitude that day.

In any case this is almost certainly a case of mistaken identity on the part of whoever fired the missile - so I don't see how it changes things.

Of course, Andrei Kartopolov's attempt to imply that it could have been an R-60 from a Su-25... well, it goes without saying that he probably shouldn't be commanding anything, or at least shouldn't be mouthing off to the press. An embarrassing statement if it is correctly attributed. I don't see why anyone would bother with such gibberish when there are much more valid criticisms.

The problem here is that from the communications intercepts there's no indication the shooters thought they were shooting at an SU-25. At best they thought they were shooting at a military transport, which is why they were so suprised that they found nothing but civilian bodies and baggage. That's the best. The other two possibilities were that they had no idea what they were shooting at, they just shot, or it was deliberate, totally misjudging how the world would react, at least verbally. I personally think it was one or two.

 

[F-14D]

Russian graphics of SU-25 "ATTACK" looks like a Boeing 707 being attacked by an F-111 is this what passes for competence?

98% of people will not recognize any of that, and their target audience will buy it totally.

 

[Avimimus]

Of course, if we judged all facts by graphics in press conferences... well the standard isn't high.

I actually watched the press conference and I should partially retract what I said - the Su-25 insinuation is worthy of ridicule, but the press conference *seems* to be pushing for more open publication of both Russian and American data. Which seems to be the right direction. I mean: If you're going to put out propaganda, at least put out propaganda that encourages disclosure of data...

Btw. This whole situation tweaked my curiosity about the performance of the Su-25... so, I'm looking into DCS/Eagle Dynamics. They have pretty state-of-the-art flight modelling for the Su-25 and they produced a simulation for the Air National Guard. So, it might be neat to see what isn't possible...

 

[Orionblamblam]

Cynic of human nature that I am, I can't imagine anyone capable of operating this system actually pulling the trigger on something they knew to be a civilian jetliner, outside of religious whackjobs on a jihad.

 

[F-14D]

Cynic of human nature that I am, I can't imagine anyone capable of operating this system actually pulling the trigger on something they knew to be a civilian jetliner, outside of religious whackjobs on a jihad.

I suggest you read the interviews given in the '90s by Gennadi Osipovich, the SU-15 pilot who shot down KAL 007. Here are direct quotes from one of them: "''I was just next to him, on the same altitude, 150 meters to 200 meters away,'' ''I saw two rows of windows and knew that this was a Boeing,'' he said. ''I knew this was a civilian plane. But for me this meant nothing. It is easy to turn a civilian type of plane into one for military use.''

 

[AeroFranz]

The article here mentions previous Ukrainian losses due to SAMs. I wouldn't put too much weight on the technical analysis of the article, but the base facts about the number and type of aircraft shot down are probably correct.
Several "analyst" have theorized that the 777 was mistaken for another Il-76. If indeed the battery was being operated by hastily trained militia men, without the benefit of a larger integrated radar network, I could see how their identification skills might have failed them.
I can only assume that surveillance radars associated with these missiles would be able to pick up a civilian airliner transponder though, right? I tend to believe that incompetence rather than malevolence is what happened here.

 

[Avimimus]

I'd also put this potentially in the context of someone potentially believing that civilian flights would be diverted away from the area (especially after having successfully downed a Su-25 a few days before).

After all, one of the factors was the failure to recognise the possibility on the part of regulators, airlines and the Ukrainian government (which has been inconsistent on whether long-range SAM capabilities were held by the separatists). I'd be more likely to look at these areas for improvement.

I can definitely see the merit of firing off missiles if you fear losing your launcher to SEAD (and also, more generally - firing first in a war zone). Minimising collateral damage is a priority, but when actually trying to stay alive as a soldier - idealism often gets tempered by practicality. Even if I had a command vehicle - I might split up the launchers if I only had captured three of them...

The whole thing is pretty sad and horrible...

 

[F-14D]

The article here mentions previous Ukrainian losses due to SAMs. I wouldn't put too much weight on the technical analysis of the article, but the base facts about the number and type of aircraft shot down are probably correct.
Several "analyst" have theorized that the 777 was mistaken for another Il-76. If indeed the battery was being operated by hastily trained militia men, without the benefit of a larger integrated radar network, I could see how their identification skills might have failed them.
I can only assume that surveillance radars associated with these missiles would be able to pick up a civilian airliner transponder though, right? I tend to believe that incompetence rather than malevolence is what happened here.

I too feel it is unlikely they deliberately meant to shoot down an airliner if for no other reason than the bad publicity for them and Mother Russia. I personally believe they just had it in their heads it was a Ukrainian military aircraft and didn't bother to check. Not all that sure the acquisition radars would interrogate transponders since the designers would assume that if there was a war going on your enemy wasn't going to be helping you by using their transponders and in any case a mobile SAM system wouldn't be tied into the civilian ATC system where that data would be kept anyway. It'd be looking for IFF.

Besides the Ukrainian IL-76 of last month was downed by MANPADS and machine gun fire as it was trying to land at Luhansk, while MH 17 was at 33,00 feet and was above the altitude that had previously been published as the danger zone. Also, the "separatists" clearly thought they were shooting at an AN-26 (which, BTW, would likely have been flying at a lower altitude).

 

[F-14D]

I'd also put this potentially in the context of someone potentially believing that civilian flights would be diverted away from the area (especially after having successfully downed a Su-25 a few days before).

After all, one of the factors was the failure to recognise the possibility on the part of regulators, airlines and the Ukrainian government (which has been inconsistent on whether long-range SAM capabilities were held by the separatists). I'd be more likely to look at these areas for improvement.

I can definitely see the merit of firing off missiles if you fear losing your launcher to SEAD (and also, more generally - firing first in a war zone). Minimising collateral damage is a priority, but when actually trying to stay alive as a soldier - idealism often gets tempered by practicality. Even if I had a command vehicle - I might split up the launchers if I only had captured three of them...

The whole thing is pretty sad and horrible...

Well, the 777 was above the level of the restricted airspace.

I'd also find it hard to accept that anyone felt that they were in fear of being hit by a SEAD strike from a plane in level flight at 33,0000 feet that was just overflying. Besides, didn't they initially think they were shooting at a military transport?

Definitely sad and horrible for everyone.

 

[Avimimus]

I was more pointing out that they might be jittery and/or expecting to potentially be attacked eventually - which might change the mentality.

As for what they thought they were shooting at - we don't yet know the provenance of the tweets & radio chatter with 100% certainty. An AN-26 has less than half the cruise speed - so that'd be pretty incompetent of the operator. Not that any of it makes a difference.

I think the fact that it was 1000ft above the level of restricted airspace just suggests that the restrictions weren't aggressive enough to keep airliners safe.

 

[Arjen]

With hindsight, all airliners should have been routed around eastern Ukraine.

I've read repeatedly that Ukrainian ATC should have done just that, because it was known the separatists had captured Ukrainian Buk launcher(s). Maybe so. The captured launcher story told by the separatists may have been just a cover to hide Russian deliveries, in which case Ukrainian ATC could not be held to expect more than MANPADS use by the separatists.
I don't know.

I am inclined to agree with Aerofranz that this horror is due to incompetence rather than malevolence. I still think this was a crime, even if it was one of reckless negligence.

 

[Arjen]

Statement from European Cockpit Association

ECA Statement on Malaysian Airlines MH17

23 July 2014 - 7:53pm

The European pilot community shares the concerns of the international stakeholders and reiterates the need for a thorough and independent investigation of the circumstances surrounding the loss of Malaysian Airlines MH17. ECA considers this as a non-disputable prerequisite that should be ensured at all costs. At the same time, this event places the ability of the industry to adequately assess risks and the principles of flying over conflict zones under intense scrutiny. As pilots and safety professionals we cannot disregard one fundamental question “What could have been done and can be done in the future to prevent this sort of tragedy?”

“We share the public outrage over MH17, and we owe it to the passengers and crew who lost their lives, and all our future passengers, to see past this and focus on prevention first and foremost,” says Nico Voorbach, ECA President. “MH17 exposed a significant weakness – if not a failure – of international threat and risk assessment in civil aviation. In hindsight flying civilian aircraft over an area where powerful anti-aircraft systems capable of bringing down an airliner at cruising altitude are in active use is not acceptable. So the question is what went wrong and how do we fix it?”

At first sight, appropriate risk assessment apparently DID occur in the case of Ukraine. But it only worked for the carriers of some countries. The fact that some airlines had been avoiding the area based on their own assessment for weeks begs the question “why?”. It appears that some airlines have the possibility of very good intelligence and advice from the most powerful national security services. It is not right that some countries may provide privileged risk assessment and advice to their carriers, whilst others are left at greater risk. After all, this is about people's lives, not national silos.

Additionally, it would seem likely that some restrictions may be placed on what intelligence an airline can share with other airlines and stakeholders. We must ask governments what those restrictions might be, and how we can ensure that the airlines are able to share information in such a way that the highest levels of risk avoidance can be rolled out to all.

There may also be cases where there is some economic or commercial pressure for airlines to use privileged intelligence information to either fly more directly where it is safer in reality than commonly thought, or to avoid areas where it is less safe than widely understood. We would urge stakeholders to develop means to share this sort of security information for the benefit of all, in a way that excludes commercial considerations.

Given that the only body currently able to close airspace is the nation state that ‘owns’ it, we need a system that does not rely on what may be a war-distressed country conducting an honest self-appraisal of its own risks. They are the last body to be in a position to do this accurately. This is why we suggest an international approach that allows operators to risk assess and avoid efficiently rather than relying on external decision makers.

The MH17 accident and/or criminal investigation may be compromised and the crash site treated shamefully. But the question of prevention, and what should have happened but did not, is not wholly dependent on the investigation. These faults require our immediate attention and our long-term thinking. Therefore Europe's professional pilots are urging a thorough analysis of the industry’s approach to risk assessment, high level international intelligence sharing, and ultimately preventing tragic avoidable events like MH17.

Via pprune - Dutch RTLnieuws reports: Pilots Association: Intelligence services knew that flying over Ukraine was dangerous

Pilots Association: Intelligence services knew that flying over Ukraine was dangerous

A small number of countries already knew about the risks of a missile attack over Eastern Ukraine before the 17th of July, but kept this information to themselves and only told their own airline companies, said Nico Voorbach, the chairman of the ECA, the European pilots association, to RTL Nieuws.

According to the European Cockpit Association, airline companies in the US, Canada, the United Kingdom, France and Australia were “warned of the fact that should they fly over this region, no matter at what altitude, their planes could be the target of acts of war.”

At high altitude
"It was about which anti-aircraft warfare or missiles were used by the separatists and other militants in the area and that there was a risk that these missiles could reach commercial airliners at high altitudes,” Voorbach told the research team of RTL Nieuws.
According to Voorbach it was know that “they were in the hands of people who would use them against Ukrainian or Russian planes, and therefore also against otherplanes flying over, the so-called collateral damage.”

“It is about human lives”
According to the ECA this kind of information is not structurally shared with airline companies from other countries. “If this information had been known to them, not a single plane would have flown over this area.” This means that airline companies from other countries were unaware of these risks. According to the ECA, neither KLM nor Malaysia Airlines were apprised of this information. Voorbach feels this is outrageous. "Because this is not about intelligence or commercial interests, but about human lives."

The ECA bases its claim not only on information from pilots within their own association, but also on contacts within intelligence services. The ECA wants a special organization to be appointed as soon as possible to gather information about risks worldwide and to share this information with all countries and airline companies.

No comment
The American intelligence service CIA and the American aviation authority FAA did not want to react to ECA’s claims. The Dutch National Coordinator for Counterterrorism said that the Dutch Safety Board will investigate all matters concerning the crash, including this claim. The Dutch General Intelligence and Security Service AIVD, could not yet react.

Voorbach's comments are consistent with Air France and British Airways flights routing around Ukrain.

 

[Rickshaw]

In any situation, given a choice between a conspiracy and a cock-up, it's best to invariably choose a cock-up as the explanation. To me, there seems always to be assumptions as to "responsibility" that the players involved are infallible and have access to perfect sources of information and know everything that has occurred, when it occurred and what it's probable consequences would be. In this situation, it seems that Vladimir Putin has scored something of an "own goal" outsourcing his foreign policy to a bunch of largely ignorant, armed thugs who aren't interested in looking at the "big picture" ramifications of what they are doing.

 

[Avimimus]

In any situation, given a choice between a conspiracy and a cock-up, it's best to invariably choose a cock-up as the explanation. To me, there seems always to be assumptions as to "responsibility" that the players involved are infallible and have access to perfect sources of information and know everything that has occurred, when it occurred and what it's probable consequences would be.

...and once you take this position it is possible to recognise that airlines, regulators, the Ukrainian government, the Ukrainian separatists, the Russian engineers - all had some room in which they could've acted to prevent this. Most history requires mistakes and oversights by multiple parties for it to happen.

 

[Avimimus]

Btw. It is completely irrelevant - but in response to the original post on Su-25 performance I ran a few tests with the ED flight model (which is based on some data from Sukhoi).

I think it goes to show how fallible even relative experts are: Shadowing might be quite possible in the hands of an experienced pilot.
- Specific excess power isn't a problem, even at altitude.
- Maximum speed at sea level is above the cruise speeds of a 777.
- Without air-to-ground stores the Su-25 seems able to climb to much higher altitudes (albeit at a lower rate of climb).

The big barrier would appear to be transonic buffering at altitude. The lower air-pressure at higher altitudes and straight wing really don't get along anywhere close to the VNE. In comparison the 777's wing is designed to cruise at the very upper margins of the subsonic range.

So the question of Su-25 performance actually appears to be much more subtle. Just goes to show how little we know.

Imagine how little other people know?

 

[iverson]

Internet comments are full of people claiming that it's the CIA using VPN to make these edits, thus trying to frame Russia. Yeah, right...

To be fair, the CIA/NSA have done less sensible/plausible things within recent memory.

 

[Pioneer]

G'day gent's
As the title implies, I'm trying to ascertain information/pictures/drawings of early/original Sukhoi T8-1 prototype designed to meet the Soviet Ministry of the Aircraft Industry LSSh 'Shturmovik' requirement. A requirement which would evolve into the larger, more powerful and more specialised Sukhoi Su-25 'Frogfoot'

Now there are about five or six pictures of the smaller and less refined T8-1 (as attached), but I'm hoping there might be more out there!
Practically of interest would be if anyone knows or has an 'overlap' line drawing comparing both the T8-1 and production standard Su-25?

Please note the first attached picture has as a comparison the T8-1 (top), T8-2 (middle) and production standard T8-4/Su-25 (bottom)

Thanks in advance

Regards
Pioneer

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

T-8 3 view from Aviatsiya i Kosmonautika Feb 2010

 

[Pioneer]

That's' great thanks Paul

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Cy-27]

Images attached from a 1994 Russian book on the Su-25 Frogfoot of the T8-1, T8-1D, T8-2 and T8-3.

In the text, the T8 prototypes extend to at least T8-15.

Source:
Sturmovik OKB P O Sukhoi Su-25 - Vol 1 (I. Bedredinov) published by Kuchkovo Pole (1994) ISBN 5875330090

 

[Pioneer]

Thank you Cy-27 !
Some great pics that give me some perspective of the evolution process of the Su-25!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Foo Fighter]

Apparently a sholder launched missile brought down an SU-25 which I find difficult to believe. Do the Russian air force not use an integrated air space mission? Chaff and flares cannot be 100% obviously but overwatch, even drones would seem to be able to provide warnings and covering fire for downed crews. That the pilot was killed by one of the militia involved is a sad indictment of the current trends but then that is a topic for another outlet. My thoughts here are for the technical side of the aircraft and systems in use use by the Russian air force. Just what did they use to bring down the SU-25?

 

[Avimimus]

There is actually footage from multiple angles: The Su-25 had just made a rocket run and there was some anti-aircraft fire. However, it was shot down by a large explosion in the aft-quarter and some frames of the footage appear to show the flare of a missile engine approaching it. The Su-25 wasn't releasing flares and the pilot clearly didn't anticipate the threat.

I think you over-estimate the Russian capabilities in Syria. They've been doing a lot more with a lot less than the United States would uses - including by flying more sorties with the same number of aircraft. Honestly, it was impressive how quickly they were able to move to rescue the pilot of the downed Su-24 a few years ago (and even then they lost a helicopter in the process).

 

[_Del_]

I think people undervalue the Manpad threat. The US will generally not fly if there is a credible Manpad threat. It's very hard to be alerted. MAWS gear is typically not that great, so someone needs to get an eye on it. And the pilot has to quickly integrate what he knows from MAWS or someone else into a plan of action.

Saudis had an F-15 get hit a few weeks ago. Same story.

 

[_Del_]

I meant people as the public in general, not the armed services. I haven't stayed up on the Saudi story and the Alamo-- I'll have to look it up!

 

[netfires]

I think people undervalue the Manpad threat. The US will generally not fly if there is a credible Manpad threat. It's very hard to be alerted. MAWS gear is typically not that great, so someone needs to get an eye on it. And the pilot has to quickly integrate what he knows from MAWS or someone else into a plan of action.

Saudis had an F-15 get hit a few weeks ago. Same story.

DIRCM mitigates this somewhat now but they are fairly expensive and large systems in most cases so it's not an ideal solution for lighter (compared to a C-17 or KC-135 or what have you) tactical aircraft like the Su-25 or F-15.