No comments needed, its better than the A10, it may be outdated but it is still a solid CAS plane and capable of carrying 8 Rockets of fat frick ya muddag. I love this flying tank
I just love the SU 25
No comments needed, its better than the A10, it may be outdated but it is still a solid CAS plane and capable of carrying 8 Rockets of fat frick ya muddag. I love this flying tank
Anon, I like it, and the A-10, too. But they're lingering fossils from a time that is long gone. Modern munitions have made them obsolete. It is time to let go. Time to move on.
>Modern munitions
So they're still useful against Russians.
wrong, they were designed to work against insurgencies using dumb cheap munitions not to face 1st word armies and specifically designed to supress Black folk cheap, why would you use a 100k usd smart munition to blow a technical?
Thats not at all what they were designed for. They were designed for a cold war going hot, but since that never happened they ended up shooting at Black folk instead. You could afford tens of thousands of JDAMs for F-16s for the costs of keeping the A-10 fleet these days, so it makes no economic sense to keep them either.
was talking about the su25, a10 was designed to scam the state with an overpriced piece of shit
That's cope, the Su-25 was meant for the same thing. It was literally designed on the basis as being an improved version of the Il-2's and to fulfill the same role as the failed Il-40.
>work against insurgencies
If I were to fight insurgents i would have used prop aircraft like the A-29 instead. Cheaper and has the same use
They were designed to deal with armored columns in the absence of any air defenses, problem is they are not substantially better than any multirole fighter and it's main gun can't really do much against anything better than a T-54
>it's main gun can't really do much against anything better than a T-54
well we've seen the truth of that in Ukraine
30mm depleted uranium absolutely WOULD frick up the top, sides and rear of a T-72
>30mm depleted uranium absolutely WOULD frick up the top, sides and rear of a T-72
forget the T-72
test fires on the T-62 showed that an A-10 woul need to be diving nearly vertically to destroy the top armor or going very low to penetrate the side armor
M-kill performance was disappointing as well
de-tracking was not guaranteed, and hitting the optics or gunbarrel was even less likely
meaning their only decent chance was to get behind the T-62s and strafe them from the rear to hit the engine deck
their main use would have been using their cannon against BMPs and BTRs to force the tanks to slow down because they will be separated from infantry
and then use their missiles against the tanks
IDK what crack you're smoking but the thickest armor on the rear of a T-62 turret is about 65mm at the very base and thins out to barely over 30mm on the turret top. PGU-14 API is going to go right through that at typical engagement ranges. Hull rear? Even worse values, the engine would be gutted like a fish. If engaging MBTs with the cannon A-10 pilots were taught to approach from behind.
If they had to attack from the side with the cannon (still not advised) the T-62 upper hull side was 80mm at thickest. This could be penetrated under the right conditions. 1,500 ft slant range at 320 knot air speed and 3 degrees of dive. Lower part of the hull side is a small target to hit but if some shells do hit they can penetrate it at significantly greater ranges.
>strafe them from the rear to hit the engine deck
you can hit the engine deck from the side as well you know
I know, but their legacy lives on. Also apologies for the secound thread im currently on benzo withdrawal and my brain is fricked
Thats why I hate the SU-39, its an overengineered piece of shit designed for a task that other planes suit much better. It is a far cry from the doctrine of the original 25. If you want to bust tanks slap some S-25 on there not guided shit.
no cant be the A-10, SU-25 and other CAS planes are still viable... right?
Maybe against militas or Black folk but guided bombs are much better without the risk of getting a sub sonic truck with bombs blown out of the sky
The A-10 is still around because congress is full of boomers with no grip on reality, if it was up to the air force it would have gone away a decade or more ago. The Su-25 is still around because everyone who operates it is too poor to replace it with something usefull.
Well tbh the 25 is still kind of viable in ukraine due to the state of russian AA
Russian AA is very capable of downing Su-25s anon, they have shot down a bunch of Russian ones...
I didnt say it isnt existent but you have to agree that it sucks ass
It sucks ass at shooting down anything that isnt either a civilian airliner or belongs to the Russian Air Force, I agree on that.
That's what you get when you make them communicate with baofengs
I remember when I was like 15, I was telling a boomer that Su-25 and A-10 were pretty similar, and the boomer took this as a personal affront.
Even though we had both already talked about how the A-10 was cool.
The boomer has religious devotion to brrt. You can't even express anything that isn't total wank.
>backdrop is sewer treatment plant
Pottery.
>You will never get to see A-10s obliterating Russian armored columns in the Fulda Gap with 1st gen Mavericks and rockeyes while shilkas / first gen mobile SAM systems struggle to cope
Why live?
you may get to see SU25's shred some polish dipshits in suwalki tho, so theres always that!^
Russian air defense would shoot them down long before they entered Polish airspace
They never were relevant. Su-25s and A10s doing CAS are both vulnerable to Stingers and Iglas which are contemporary weapons
Go back to Battlefield 3
dcs actually
Haven't played that game in a decade.
I miss it.
Caspian Sea is still one of the best game maps ever designed
Kinda wish they had chosen the real flying tank instead
>No comments needed, its better than the A10, it may be outdated but it is still a solid CAS plane and capable of carrying 8 Rockets of fat frick ya muddag. I love this flying tank
and after it blows its load, it can almost go supersonic to gtfo, where the a10....CANT
West has the AV-8B for high subsonic attackers
Can't carry that much tho, I'll give you that
>West has the AV-8B for high subsonic attackers
not anymore they dont
lmfao, they have the f35 now
>no refunds!
pictured: 1/6th of the bulgarian air force
Didn't they give all of their 25's to Ukraine?
We still have some left.
Not all, but we will. I and most Bulgarians are ready to give our lives for the freedom of the Ukrainian nation.
I will never fight for this economic zone.
Oh and death to America.
ok shitskin
Speak for yourself Black person
Ruman pls
No, but we bought like 20 of those in the 80s and about 10 of them are still around. We could have a better air force right now but Lockheed Martin cucked us and delayed our order
i like it too for what it is, cheap cas soviet shitbox following il2 legacy.
much better than a10 with its useles gun
They both has useless 30mm guns, both have 11 hardpoints and A-10s can carry significantly more external weapons (7260kg vs 4400 kg)
>two sets of roundels
So it can still be identified in case the vertical stabalizer falls off. Bulgarians are used to operating ork tech so they know to plan for such occurrences.
Su 25 is probably the best russian aircraft
Combat proven and can be operated even by poorest shitholes
Migs, just terrible maybe mig 31 is good
Rest of su lineup didnt really prove it self
proven
The only thing proven is that it's a flying piece of shit, like the other things they build.
Unironically the A-10 is better at everything it does while being made first....
>Unironically the A-10 is better at everything it does while being made first...
unironically the A10 is worse in every single concievable measure, where as the SU-25 is the greatest ground attack aircraft ever devised, and outclasses a10's at every single possible measurement
What purpose does it serve to shoot the rockets at an incline like that? Surely you'd get better and more accurate results if you approached it like an A10 firing it's big frickoff-gatling gun
>What purpose does it serve to shoot the rockets at an incline like that?
its more accurate, and there is a calculation performed by the weapon system before launch
Does the pilot pull the trigger himself or does the computer do that? Is the aimpoint displayed on the HUD?
>Does the pilot pull the trigger himself or does the computer do that?
both^
>Wut
toss bombing is FAR more accurate than just dropping it, plus you can fling them essentially like frisbees from much further out
it turns out ballistic arcs are pretty easy to calculate with modern avionics
all fab's are basically toss-bombed, then the wings comes out and they can be further "guided" from there by INS or GPS
The US's main air-launched nuke
>the B61
is toss bombed, for example
>toss bombing is FAR more accurate than just dropping it
that is physically impossible. Maybe tossing a guided bomb is more precise than dropping a dumb bomb, but the longer the flight time is with a dumb bomb the less precise it will inevitably be.
Are you asserting that toss bombing is accurate because the US uses it for unguided nuclear weapons?
Anon, they toss bomb nukes because they have a several mile kill radius and don't need to be JDAM-accurate.
>more accurate
Wut
>Surely you'd get better and more accurate results if you approached
You'd think so but no. Such is the curse of dumb rockets and dumber pilots.
Either way both sides use their rotary aviation and CAS planes like really fast MLRS systems. You'd think this is just slav-jank adaptions to very dangerous airspace, but no, apparently this an official tactic codified by the SU complete with firing tables.
What the frick is that shitbox of a helicopter?
Probably an early Mi-8. They had PKTs in the nose like that.
Kek
It's an irl action movie helicopter attack scene, where the villain strikes closer and closer, but never actually hits the main character
Good to know sims accurately reflect how fricking useless those unguided rocket pods are
it's "mlrs" equivalent since there's plenty of cheap rockets and not like you can use them in other way without getting shot down. it's not just su-25s, plenty of footage of helicopters doing it as well.
>A-10 carrying capacity: 7260 kg
>Su-25 carrying capacity: 4400 kg
>inb4 carrying weapons isnt important for an attack aircraft
the SU-25 can go supersonic after it drops its load
>turns and burns
>Maybe tossing a guided bomb is more precise than dropping a dumb bomb, but the longer the flight time is with a dumb bomb the less precise it will inevitably be.
with modern glide kits, what is essentially toss-bombing becomes aimed guided shots that dont need rocket propellant or motors to achieve the same or greater distances, no thermal, low observable, low acoustic... the pros go on and on
>the SU-25 can go supersonic after it drops its load
It absolutly can not, especially not at the low altitudes it operates at. Even Mach 2 capable fighters struggle to go supersonic at extremly low altitude due to the huge ammounts of drag.
How much of that 7260kg is taken up by the near useless turret and it's ammunition?
None, because that's the payload figure for the under-wing and under-fuselage hardpoints.
Now post the video that has the same start as that one, but where one just slowly glides sideways into some trees when it takes off instead.
A-7D mogs the SU-25 into oblivion and was in service before the Frogfoot even had its first flight.
>tfw YA-7F Strikefighter never made it into production
I didnt mention a-10 at all?
Nor did i write that a-10 is worse?
Su 25 is combat proven, it can survive a lot of damage and it can be operated by cash strapped countries like chad and macedonia
Its a cheap aircraft its rugged and it does what its supposed to do
>toss bombing is FAR more accurate than just dropping it
Wrong
Wrong, they were decided to fire unguided rockets en masse for ground support. -SM3 is the only variant that is even slightly useful for COIN
Pre-SM3 the Su-25 doesn't even have a real ballistic computer nor a rangefinder aside from the nonfunctional laser module in the nose
The soviet obsession with unguided rockets is on a level of a fetish...and I love it
that digital camo is pretty cool
Any particular reason every soviet plane had that color wienerpit?
teal is supposedly calming. Same thing for hospitals, especially the psych floors.
Redpill me on the MIG-25 and why it is considered the best Russian plane ever made
Fast + enormous radar + big missiles made it a threat compared to everything else they had at the time, and it birthed the MiG-31 which ironed out a lot of the kinks
Don't forget it led to the US developing the F-15 which mogs it
Pretty sure the Mig-31 is better tbh.
They're the only reason why Russia hasn't completely lost the airspace over Ukraine.
Mainly because they don't even get close to Ukraine, just lob missiles from very far.
It's fast and looking like brick with wings has a certain charm to it. That's why I like it and the 31 at least
This video explains it better than I ever could
>see pic rel
>its more accurate
I knew this was a bait thread but I didn't realize you were this moronic.
>the SU-25 can go supersonic after it drops its load
No, no it cannon even after dropping pylons and fuel stores, it can only high subsonic at lower altitudes
>unironically the A10 is worse in every single concievable measure
But who was payload
But who was operational range
But who was sensor packages and fidelity
But who was integrated munition systems
The su25 is better in a some aspects, but it's not better in every way. Additionally they can't even put PGMs on it clearly, or they ran out real early into the war.
Based f111 bamboozler
Both a10 and su25 are piece of useless shit
God I fricking hate ziggers and their simps.
I'll give the Su-25 props for being more survivable thanks to more armor and higher max speed, besides that A-10 still mogs with better avionics and weapons
>Soviets put the GSh-6-30 in a fast attack aircraft (MiG-27) that gets shaken apart by the recoil when they could have put it in the slower and sturdier Su-25 instead
What did they mean by this?
They meant that MiG was hogging all the contracts in the 1970s.
Funny part about A-10, if you remove the gun it becomes a fine cheap JDAM truck in Ukraine.
Why does it look similar to the Phantom?
I don't know how does a short and stubby plane remind you of a Phantom, but maybe it's the tail.
I'm not a knee-jerk Russia hater, and I do agree the Su-25 is better in some roles, in practice neither plane of the two is really viable in a modern combat environment and if you want to kill armor, you need to drop guided bombs and rockets from high-flying planes.
Pic related is the best anti-armor plane ever made
An attack aircraft for ants?
That’s how the aardvark tricks them into getting closer
just load up on rocket pods. Good for saturating an area or something.
These were only ever a liability in combat and they cost a ton of money to have in the air.
It's a Katyusha but 1000x more expensive.
>better than A-10
Yeah come back when it gets better engine, targeting pod and fbw