The Su-30SM and Su-35 fighter jets actively use unguided air-to-surface missiles against terrorists in Syria.
The Su-30SM fighter jet (Photo: RussianPlanes.net / Vladislav Perminov)
The fact of usage of unguided air-to-surface missiles by the Su-30SM and Su-35 fighter jets during attacks on ground targets has been spotted in Syria, the Vestnik Mordovii information portal reported. This is evidenced by videos published online.
As military expert Yuriy Lyamin noted, there were not any cases of such a use of the Su-30SM in Syria earlier.
“The fact is that the situation is emergency. Militants are now trying to break through the main line of defense to the north of Hama, Syrian reinforcements are just arriving, and the Syrian Air Force seems to be unable to use more of its forces due to the fact that they are now operating against terrorists on the eastern outskirts of Damascus, in Daraa. So, they have to use the Su-30SM with unguided missile weapons in the fighting,” the expert noted.
The portal also stressed the fact of usage of unguided air-to-surface missiles by the Su-35 aircraft, expensive fighter jets, which are used as ordinary attack planes in recent days.
The С-13’s weight can be from 57 to 68 kg. The warhead’s weight is from 21 to 32 kg. The launch range is up to 3 km. Some modifications of this unguided air-to-surface missile are capable to break a three-meter earthen overlap or one meter of reinforced concrete.
The most powerful unguided missiles that have been used in this war were the S-24s, which weight is 235 kg and length is 2.30 meters. The warhead’s weight is 123 kg. The flight speed is 430 meters per second. The launch range is up to 2 km.
The Su-25
The Su-34
Russia need to deploy in Syria a lot more Su-25… Because using such warplanes as Su-30/34/35 with unguided missiles is a bad idea. Bad guys, supported by Turks, might have a lot of heavy aa weapon.
Well-said!
True but they could just be testing these weapons
I am not quite sure why Syrian air force is not using its 40 or so SU-22 and around 18-19 operational SU-24 That is plenty of ground attack aircraft they have to address issues on all of their fronts. Russian air force should be used only as last resort and only for high precision bombing. For ground support operations, SU-22 is very capable plane if they have the necessary ammunition/bombs for it.
How do u know they’re not?
Why should Russian Air Force be used as a last resort when the enemy shows its hand and tries to be aggressive? The Hama pocket has to be bombed non stop, decapitating the enemy’s movement and logistics. If 50% of the force you mentioned is ready to go, you have 30 aircraft that can attack the Hama and East Damascus enemy positions. That is not enough for round the clock attacks; do not know how many sorties each aircraft can fly within a day, Syria does not have enough air capabilities to interdict Idlib, East Damascus and Palmyra front lines simultaneously, therefore the RUAF needs to have proper assets to pick the slack. For this occasion they need 25 Suk 25 to fire unguided rockets, along with helicopters, and 20 Suk 34. Suk 30-35 can drop gravity bombs.
An additional problem with modern fighters is that they make americans nervous, which is less of a problem with older pure attack planes like Su-25, this is in addition to their being cheaper to operate in greater numbers. Yak 130 makes sense to me here too, or possibly mig 23. How many mig 19s still work?
Yes, Americans were nervous with the introduction of S300-400 air defenses, and gen 4+ aircraft, after all, they have to realize how they measure up against a peer power and not some third rate power. I prefer a big aircraft like Su 34 that can drop heavy payloads with good accuracy, Su 25 is good, however, its payload is limited. When you attack an enemy and you want that enemy decapitated, you attack them with high firepower weapons; if you are going to Mickey Mouse with them, then you employ the lightweight toys. The war in Syria has to be concluded, whenever the jihadis strike, the response should be incapacitating and unforgiving whereby they cannot recover.
If you want weight then use bombers like american B-52 or russian Tu-95. All the capacity you could ever want with no air to air tension. However I also bet 3 su-25s could be deployed for the cost of 1 su-35 and be more effective. The point of light attack planes is to be used in numbers, like the highly effective US OV-10 Bronco; which should also be used in numbers. My point is that air to air capability is wasted and needlessly creates tension. So US should stick with A-10 and predator while minimizing use of strike Eagles etc.
Russians used long and medium range bombers in Syria with good success, the problem is that Su35 is far more capable than an F15, therefore Americans being aware of this fact, do not want these gen 4+ fighters around their playing area. Air to air capability is not wasted, it is there when it is needed, Su30-35 can be used to escort bombers or can be employed as fighter bombers….or if US tries to establish a no fly zone they will realize it is mere wishful thinking.
Why would it make Americans nervous? Who cares?
Because needlessly nervous superpowers spark unwanted dogfights. I won’t complain about Su-34 though. At least side by side seating is not a normal air superiority arrangement. what I am saying is that modern air superiority designs should be avoided by all sides in order to help everyone focus exclusively on ISIS and Al Qaeda without anyone having to waste time watching for modern fighters.
The US has only been in Syria for six months , if Russia flew more high end aircraft and deployed more troops , the US would get the message , that oh , ya we’ve got our own war going in Iraq . If the US stops funding and arming Al Qaeda and Al Nusra , that would be enough .
Of course America should do likewise and avoid air to air capable types over Syria, but in our case I’m not sure how, since almost all current US ground attack planes are multiuse. They keep retiring the A-10 and it has never been more needed than against ISIS over Syria without alarming Russian pilots. I’m not sure the US has enough A-10 and predator without using F-15,16,18. Certainly US should send ALL our A-10 and predators to syria while Russia should send ALL SU-25; so we can both hold back as many air to air fighters as possible. Though we both may have to deter Turkish F-16s to protect Manbij.
i dont think thats really necessary, but alright
Meanwhile, following government withdrawal from North Aleppo, Euphrates Shield forces took over Tadef. OMG!
the raghead leader just said that’s not true. very sad : (
It’s good to see that the Su-34 is indeed as versatile as claimed but wouldn’t the good old Su-25 perform this task better and at a less expense?
look
https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/turkish-forces-dislodge-syrian-troops-key-town-neighboring-al-bab-rural-aleppo/
Maybe they are testing it out
Unguided rockets remain one of the better tools air power can employ to destroy insurgent like targets. They are more versatile than unguided bombs, they are much cheaper than guided munitions and in many cases provide better efficiency. A small salvo of S-8 OFP rockets (The variant with HE-FRAG warhead) can bring the needed devastation to jihadist maneuver and fire teams, which consist primarily of dismounts and some armed trucks.
Deploying a couple of aircraft with a full load of these rockets is imho a correct choice by the Russian commanders. In addition to all the above, these planes (SU-30, 34 and 35) have modern fire control systems, that allow them to deploy unguided weapons with unprecedented precision.
Another positive aspect is that moderate fanatics, white hats and western “charity” operators will not be bitching about cluster bombs, which in this particular mission could be heavily employed too.
exactly hundred percent correct, guided missiles/rockets are for situations where u cant afford to get too low because of air defenses i think
rockets cannot be employed from too high altitudes as their dispersion gets too large to be precise – it does not matter how advanced is your fire control – it’s a feature inherent to this type of weapon. To put it a little simplistic, unguided rockets are the “shotguns” of air power.
Russian garbage. I love seeing it get blown out of the sky, and trust me, they lose jets daily but it isn’t reported. Look deep in “middle east” forums
This guy thinks he’s a good troll (:
flag all his comments
Do not fool and lair. US press manipulation would be more than happy to have some evidence of a russian plane going down. Fact are fact, do not talk about something if you do not have some evidence what your are talking about.
What?
means u trolling.
Ever see a flying tin can? Look no further than Russian jets.
Hum I guess a rocket is more accurate at medium altitudesThen bombs.And they have less lock on time then guided bombs.Also they weigh less so more room for fuel It a kind of like a hit and run weapon.Dam these Russian are getting some serious combat experience.The Su thirity…whatever has been proven to be a bad ass war plane
Sexy ass air craft too
Is there not enough Su-25 and attack choppers instead of using state of the art fighters in such a barbaric way ?