the a10 has never been in a real war though so thats mostly imagination. in ukraine it would have to fly at tree level all the time and eat manpads like crazy when popping up over over the frontline for the attack. it would basically not be able to do its intended role.
I don't mean to disappoint you anon, but >have to fly at tree level all the time and eat manpads like crazy when popping up over over the frontline for the attack. it would basically not be able to do its intended role
That is every single plane in that war, on both sides
Built for the low and slow dumb bomb and strafe days of close air support before PGM's became the standard. A bunch of them got shot down early war and you don't hear about them all that much anymore. At best it can be used as a PGM truck, especially for area's where air defense is suppressed. Basically most of the same issue with the A-10.
This is actually nonsense.
Early versions were built to sling short ranged PGM's - specifically AS-7 and AS-10 at tanks and fortified positions.
Standard loadout was PGM's and 122mm/240mm rockets (AT, APERS, DP, WP)
AS-14 came later in USSR but was designed to integrate with early SU-25
Later variants carrying insane amounts of Vikhrs are a pretty big threat to armored forces
I've heard this a lot on /k/, but is it really better? Considering how our military aviation has consistently dunked on Soviet/Russian aviation since airplanes existed, I'm curious what advantages the su-25 could possibly have over the a-10.
Realistically it doesn't matter, but SU-25 can break the speed of sound and has better maneuverability. The SU-25 is more likely to survive being attacked by light fighters/advanced trainers.
Later SU-25's can carry the full gamut of russian A2A missiles as well, which means they are a greater threat to fighters because of AA-12 and later active radar missiles.
SU-25 can take 23mm hits but the A-10 has better survivability against MANPADS.
Both will get shrecked by an AMRAAM (or an AMRAAM-ski AA-12)
>SU-25 can break the speed of sound
No it can't. >Later SU-25's can carry the full gamut of russian A2A missiles as well, which means they are a greater threat to fighters because of AA-12
Nonsense. Su-25 has no A2A radar and even if it had one it'd be blind and never see anything.
>Not having an A2A radar does not preclude the use of an Active Radar missile.
It makes it entirely pointless. Do you know how active radar guided missiles work? Do you know what's the purpose of making them that way? Of course you don't.
Neither Su-25 nor A-10 were built to sling PGMs, the A-10 has mavericks and Su has some laser guided missiles, but it's far from the primary attack mode in the 1980s. A-10C pivoted to a modern PGM platform because that was the only way to stay relevant. Also, no production model Su-25 actually carries Vikhrs.
A-10 is survivable to a degree, but the low level flyover attack mode is borderline suicidal, remember that they were withdrawn in the Gulf war due to losses, other tactical bombers could make much faster passes even at a low level, and have shorter pop-up times.
>SU-25 can break the speed of sound and has better maneuverability. The SU-25 is more likely to survive being attacked by light fighters/advanced trainers. >Later SU-25's can carry the full gamut of russian A2A missiles as well, which means they are a greater threat to fighters because of AA-12 and later active radar missiles.
this.
Rook can be excellent backbone of an airforce because dog fighting is dead and what really matters is how many and how good A2A missiles your force can put into battle.
Unlike NATO wonderwaffen, Rook can carry newest A2A AND operate from rough or damaged airstrips or open fields with a few trucks for support.
NATO is dead them moment their gold plated airbases get "contact".
The least capable NATO warplane, the Saab, will likely be the most effective after first 2 hours of conflict, due to its mild survivability and less than ideal conditions operations.
Nato has two types of national airforces. Non-American which are joke underfunded token units, and American which are on paper impressive but operationally riddled with Black folks who will all become at best "counter productive" in new and unexpected ways at first hint of action.
I've heard this a lot on /k/, but is it really better? Considering how our military aviation has consistently dunked on Soviet/Russian aviation since airplanes existed, I'm curious what advantages the su-25 could possibly have over the a-10.
It's not. The only thing it has for it is being slightly faster. Otherwise it's just worse, less durable, with less endurance, less bomb load, worse arament, much less loiter time(which the straight wings were used for) and a worse combat record.
Slavaboo homosexuals and shitskin trannies shill it over the A10 because it doesn't have a big gun that they hate.
Did Soviet aircraft have names like Western stuff did (Eagle, Falcon, Mirage, etc), or were they strictly given manufacturer names (MiG-29, SU-25, etc) and nothing else?
Not officially, but they did get monikers informally.
it's obsolete. maybe it's more cost-efficient than newer aircraft if you're bombing people who can't shoot back idk
>slightly faster
it's 1.3x faster, which is more than "slightly", especially since that's one of the core disadvantages of the a-10. idk where you're getting everything other than "less bomb load" from though
I understand the NATO reporting names, but I've never heard of any native Soviet names. Got any examples? Only thing I've heard of was the ahey liked how NATO named it "Fulcrum" for the MiG-29 and it was at least kind of used internally
some aircraft have names, e.g. "rook", "black tulip", but they're not as widely used afaik
there isn't really a Russian naming system for western planes, likely because they're named after their intended roles rather their manufacturer
>it's 1.3x faster, which is more than "slightly", especially since that's one of the core disadvantages of the a-10
It's not fast enough to be survivable either way, while A-10 was designed to have the capability to follow helicopters and do COIN missions which require you to be slow enough with enough fuel to not constantly outrun your escorted aircraft and stay in the sky for long.
And in reality the only thing both are good for is carrying around AT missiles for which 30% more speed is pretty nice.
1 month ago
Anonymous
A-10 has the bombload and cost per flight hour of the F-16 and has been upgraded to properly use precision guided weapons like JDAM and Paveway bombs.
Neither A-10 nor Su-25 carry AT missiles you retarded turd.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>What are Kh-29 and Maverick
>sits higher >sees better >sees first >shoots first >wins
hurr durr so complicated russian squat junk is better because it wont get stuck in da mud hurr durr
>Ignoring my point on mobility
>Slavaboo homosexuals and shitskin trannies shill it over the A10 because it doesn't have a big gun that they hate.
case in point [...]
I have a thing for Soviet gear, but I am heterosexual. Sorry if you were interested.
https://i.imgur.com/nYEe2Ct.jpg
>Russian gear has comparable performance to western
shut the fuck up already you worthless homosexual
I guess we could start analyzing this image, but somehow I don't feel like you want to have an intelligent discussion comparing the performance of cold war era fighters.
Why is /k/ so stupid?
1 month ago
Anonymous
Holy shit an unironic slavaboo tankie. I thought you guys had all offed yourselves after this horrendous performance, proving the whole "monkey model" cope was retarded.
1 month ago
Anonymous
who gives a shit about mobility mobik, also no fucking clue what makes you think the Abrams gets stuck in mud anymore then a T-80
the only thing russian "mobility" is good for is getting to the front line as fast as possible so you can get sent to fucking GOD by a NATO tank that saw you before you even knew it was there
1 month ago
Anonymous
You are a worthless subhuman turd and should be beaten to near death and drowned in feces for rearing your ugly head here.
1 month ago
Anonymous
who gives a shit about mobility mobik, also no fucking clue what makes you think the Abrams gets stuck in mud anymore then a T-80
the only thing russian "mobility" is good for is getting to the front line as fast as possible so you can get sent to fucking GOD by a NATO tank that saw you before you even knew it was there
Fuming mental illness.
1 month ago
Anonymous
I agree anon, liking russian equipment really is a mental illness I'm glad you agree and have come to terms with it.
1 month ago
Anonymous
You will never make good weapons, you will never not be a disingenous subhuman shill.
some shill will look at this and say its actually an advantage because the engine is newer
1 month ago
Anonymous
really depends on how cheap the engine is and how easy is it to replace it.
And, of course, every picture posted here is posted in good faith and it is irrefutable piece of evidence.
>Slavaboo homosexuals and shitskin trannies shill it over the A10 because it doesn't have a big gun that they hate.
case in point
It doesn't have a useless 30mm autocannon making it infinitely better. The more I think of it, the more baffling the developement of the a10 is. Why on Earth would you put a hard to upgrade autocannon in your CAS system just as missiles were becoming more common? It would have been at least somewhat understandable had the a10 been designed ten years earlier. Does any anon have a deep lore on it? Was it some braindead general who insisted on having the cannon?
It doesn't have a useless 30mm autocannon making it infinitely better. The more I think of it, the more baffling the developement of the a10 is. Why on Earth would you put a hard to upgrade autocannon in your CAS system just as missiles were becoming more common? It would have been at least somewhat understandable had the a10 been designed ten years earlier. Does any anon have a deep lore on it? Was it some braindead general who insisted on having the cannon?
This cannon has trash accuracy and it carries almost no ammo.
One of the main advantages of the GAU8 is that it is an extremely accurate cannon, about 2x more accurate than the Vulcan.
Su25 is using zip tied Garmin GPS for nav. No modern PGM capability (not that Russia has any real modern PGMs).
That's all that really matters, having modern avionics and PGMs, which it doesn't.
SU25 was garbage back in the 80s when they were getting yeeted daily by Stingers.
Sure, but only if you manage to hit a vulnerable spot, which is considerably harder than you think. Furthermore, exposing an expensive airplane to aa to maybe mission kill a cheap tank is not very smart. A proper multirole, like f-15 with mavericks will do the job much better.
the entire roof of the tank is going to get shit on, the whole roof is vulnerable... if a round gets in its sending shit into the crew compartment and its likely more then 1 is getting in, have fun getting spalled to death with uranium
russian junk is getting penned by 7.62x54R and 7.62x51 in ukraine, a 30mm DU from the air is going to turn it into swiss fucking cheese
> Furthermore, exposing an expensive airplane to aa to maybe mission kill a cheap tank is not very smart.
good thing the US has the largest, and most blatantly overpowered airforce (and navy) on the fucking planet and we don't fly unless we know nobody can do anything about it, and if they can we make it so they cannot, and then we do whatever we want like rape you from the sky 24/7 with impunity
1 month ago
Anonymous
They actually did experiments with a10 doing missions against t62 tanks, and the pilot would be lucky to get more than three hits.
The airframe is more agile, but that's achieved by not having a fuckhuge gun and having lower bypass engines, which reduces endurance.
Combat performance wise, with the '80s variants the primary advantage of the A-10 is the Maverick missile, meaning it can actually kill tanks reliably. Su-25 technically has guided missiles but can't guide them particularly accurately, with rocket barrages being the primary weapon. Modern A-10C wipes the floor with 'modern' Su-25 sensors and weapons wise
Su25 can carry Kh-29 missiles, which are comparable to Mavericks.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Forget Kh-29s, we haven't seen them or even Kh-25s being used in significant numbers since about a year ago. Not to mention they're fuckhuge compared to Mavericks and only have comparable range to them.
1 month ago
Anonymous
I mean we all know that the Russian economy is pretty shitty. But isn't the difference in size mostly because Kh-29 carries a much bigger warhead?
Yeah, Kh-25 is a guided missile but not a particularly good one, I doubt it can hit anything smaller than a building
[...]
Only production model that can carry Kh-29 is the Su-25SM as far as I know, not available until mid-2000s or something.
Both Maverick and Kh series use TV guidance, although maybe you're right that American electronics are better.
1 month ago
Anonymous
And it is also a proportionally bigger missile, yes, and with most variants has a pathetically low range, which is quite frankly embarrassing given kinematically making it go that far is trivial.
1 month ago
Anonymous
I wonder what's the cause of that. Do the Russians use a different fuel than Americans? Now that I think of it, are there any su25 variants which can carry Mavericks?
1 month ago
Anonymous
It's a limitation of guidance. The initial Maverick had a similar issue - you need to be close enough to get the target in sights through the missile camera, which has shit resolution and forces you to get close regardless of the size of the rocket engine. Maverick solved this by adding magnification channel for making long range shots. Soviets did not, apparently.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Well that's strange. Maybe they didn't want to spend semiconductors for that?
For the time period the cluster bombs were unguided and could be carried by most aircraft, including the A-10. It's only with the JDAM-based WCMD did the capability become specialized for PGM-capable planes.
You need to get pretty close with both dumb clusters and autocannons if you intend to hit anything.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Maybe they didn't want to spend semiconductors for that?
They didn't design it with that in mind and didn't improve upon it until they got their hands on imported electronics after the fall of soviet union. The initial variant of the KH-29 used the same laser guidance section as the KH-25.
1 month ago
Anonymous
B model mavs had high and low magnification variants, C and D introduced toggleable zoom. Also the IR homing one was the better variant, for which there was no soviet coubterpart
1 month ago
Anonymous
C was intended to be laser guided but was never fielded. D was the IR guided. It's open info, easily accessible, you know. No need to talk out of your ass.
1 month ago
Anonymous
B model mavs had high and low magnification variants, C and D introduced toggleable zoom. Also the IR homing one was the better variant, for which there was no soviet coubterpart
So does the magnification work using simple optics, or is it done via circuitry?
1 month ago
Anonymous
It's a mechanical change in the lens system, no major electronics involved
C was the predcessor of the E variant that never went into production. D was IIR and was adopted in 1983. You don't have to keep doubling down on your mistakes. You were wrong, take it and don't talk out of your ass next time.
Well I'll be fucked
1 month ago
Anonymous
C/D are TV and IR variants anon, E is laser
1 month ago
Anonymous
C was the predcessor of the E variant that never went into production. D was IIR and was adopted in 1983. You don't have to keep doubling down on your mistakes. You were wrong, take it and don't talk out of your ass next time.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Oh yeah my bad, I was thinking of the laser-homing variant Kh-25, I'm not sure the pre-SM ones can carry TV guided ordnance because they don't have a video monitor in the cockpit
1 month ago
Anonymous
?si=dBA9egKz5wH-eCOA
The KH 29 is the missile that regularly hits toilets. I suspect its usable but it is worse than what the west supplies
1 month ago
Anonymous
I think claiming that the missiles hit toilets is just a meme. However, it's of course fully plausible that the Maverick has less impurities in the components of the guidance circuitry, resulting in less noise in the signal and better accuracy. Don't the Russians prefer SACLOS missiles anyways, which might indicate poor performance for the TV guidance?
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Don't the Russians prefer SACLOS missiles anyways
They actually prefer unguided rockets for the Su-25. ATGMs are too much of a luxury, apparently.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Kh-29 anti-toilet missile
There's an India joke to be made here
1 month ago
Anonymous
>and the pilot would be lucky to get more than three hits.
>implying 3 30mm DU rounds smacking into your fucking 1.5 inch thick roof wouldn't ruin your day (forever)
1 month ago
Anonymous
If you manage to hit a critical location. Now compare if the t62 got hit by a Maverick...
1 month ago
Anonymous
don't think any A-10 pilots are doing gun runs while they still have ATGM's on the racks... unless specifically requested by ground troops which probably happened a lot, likely wouldn't need to drop a 500lb bomb on a group of dispersed towel heads in a flat desert with zero cover.. or drop the bomb who cares lmao
1 month ago
Anonymous
I strongly suspect that the a10 would not be very effective at killing small infantry formations. Most of the damage they'd do would be psychological.
1 month ago
Anonymous
The thing to understand about GAU-8 is that it's inherently designed as an area effect weapon. It even has spread added by a plate that indexes the 6 barrels at the front. It's not suitable for firing on a singular tank in the open because it was not designed to do so. It was meant to fire on the groups of enemy vehicles and be capable of both threatening the tanks, disabling their external equipment and completely shredding everything below with HE, including APCs and BMPs carrying infantry and the support trucks carrying fuel and ammo, mission killing the unit it's firing on.
It's not very survivable for that, especially against MANPADS but it does have reduced IR signature which could fool the 70s and 80s soviet missiles and it's armored against .50 cal pretty well to survive the AA machineguns typically mounted on soviet vehicles. So long as there's no dedicated AA platforms like Shilkas or SAMs it was plenty capable of doing significant damage to soviet formations.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>disabling their external equipment and completely shredding everything below with HE
is that not what a mission kill is??? the vehicle is combat ineffective, it might be recoverable or still operating but the crew cannot use it to effectively fight anymore
literally strafe a tank column and blind half of them, that's already an incredible utility aside from the fact these russian homosexuals usually have 12 sorry sacks of shit riding the backs of them so they'll get absolutely SEASONED in fragmentation or hopefully (I can only pray) directly impacted by a 30mm from a GAU-8
1 month ago
Anonymous
Yeah, i meant that it can K-kill everything below a tank while mission and mobility kill the tankes themselves, with some chance to knock them out too.
1 month ago
Anonymous
I don't think military vehicles typically drive close enough to each other for that to be a viable tactic. Or rather, a single cluster bomb would do the job far better.
1 month ago
Anonymous
We've seen them drive closer than what would be enough numerous times during this recent war. I believe we're still seeing this tactic used today and continue to do so in the future.
1 month ago
Anonymous
have you SEEN these retards in a convoy anon??? literally a tank-length between eachother
1 month ago
Anonymous
https://i.imgur.com/tq8TwTM.jpg
We've seen them drive closer than what would be enough numerous times during this recent war. I believe we're still seeing this tactic used today and continue to do so in the future.
From what I've seen the Russians have smartened up and tend to move in looser formations now. Still, the fundamental argument still stands that a cluster bomb is far more effective.
1 month ago
Anonymous
For the time period the cluster bombs were unguided and could be carried by most aircraft, including the A-10. It's only with the JDAM-based WCMD did the capability become specialized for PGM-capable planes.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>the Russians have smartened up
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahaha
oh you're serious?
HAHAHHA
1 month ago
Anonymous
Could you imagine if Ukraine had A-10s when the convoy to Kiev ran out of fuel
1 month ago
Anonymous
1 month ago
Anonymous
A single cluster bomb would have done the job of ten a10s.
>Don't the Russians prefer SACLOS missiles anyways
They actually prefer unguided rockets for the Su-25. ATGMs are too much of a luxury, apparently.
That doesn't sound very efficient. I wonder if they're doing the classic mistake of taking CAS pilots at their word, as we all know how CAS pilots tend to report every time their gun kicks up some dust as kill.
1 month ago
Anonymous
A-10s can carry cluster bombs so it's a win-win. >That doesn't sound very efficient.
It's not, but it's better than using unguided bombs that their pilots are incapable of hitting anything with.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Are there any tests looking at the accuracy of unguided bombs? I know in tests CAS fire was shown to be obscenely inefficient. (In both US and Soviet tests.) Come think of it, I am somewhat surprised that Mig-27 hasn't been mentioned. I like how it has a superior gun to a10 despite being much faster and lighter, with the downside being that shooting the gun results in the self disassembly of the plane. It's like a 40k ork weapon.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Are there any tests looking at the accuracy of unguided bombs?
It largely depends on the aircraft and the historic period, and also the altitude and pilot ability.
There is ww2 tier where you don't even have a working bombsight. There's basically optical bombsights that improve the accuracy but only work during daytime. Then there's radar and TV bomb sights that pick out large targets and release the bombs automatically at the right time but have limitations and then there's really high tech like thermals, accurate navigation systems that can guide the aircraft to the right place blindfolded and then release bombs and the most modern stuff automatically seeks targets and IDs them for you to choose, usually built-in in targeting pods like Litening that can be fitted to numerous aircraft turning them into capable bombers with a single upgrade.
You can assume all postwar aircraft with HUDs that can carry bombs has basic optical bomb sight. The radar bomb sights were installed on B-52s and later US heavy bombers along with the navigation systems that weren't really accurate enough for small targets on their own. Some F-105s had radar bomb sights installed for tactical targets during vietnam war. The first definite all weather tactical bomber was the A-6 which had the advanced navigation and bombing system to go after any target, in any conditions. It got first aircraft mounted thermals later on too. Similar system was fitted to the F-111 too.
1 month ago
Anonymous
As for soviets, their strategic bombers did have radar bomb sights but they weren't really good for targeting ground objects and were mainly for aiming at ships they hoped to deal with.
For tactical aircraft, in the 50s they didn't even have HUDs and all airaft prior to the Su-24 didn't have any navigation system or radar bombsights, limited to the pilot skill and eyesight. Even the Su-24's navigation system never actually worked and very very few airframes were kept and manned by the most capable mechanics to keep the night bombing electronics serviceable. They only got it to work somewhat properly with the Su-24M variant in the 80s. It was the only tactical aircraft with such capability in soviet service until the Su-34 which has much greater range, ordinance and serviceability, although the actual radar systems were skimped on during development and actually remain almost as outdated as they were on the '24. The Su-30's and su-35's radars are the first to have both air-to-air and air to ground capability so they can also serve the radar bombing function similar to the one on F-4 Phantom and later US aircraft, with similar resolution and identification limitations. Their fighter pilots don't train to bomb things, though.
The biggest problem with dumb bombs is that to get accuracy out of any system you need to fly low and be exposed to ground fire from anyone, and even an AK can score a lucky hit that can abort the mission. That's why PGMs are such a game changer - they allow you to do accurate bombing from the safety of higher altitude, assuming you can deal with large SAMs that are bigger targets themselves. They also are much more efficient and allow you to not only rely on singular aircraft to reliably hit small point targets but also use fighters with PGMs that can defend themselves while doing the bombing, massively improving the flexibility and safety of your missions but that's another story.
1 month ago
Anonymous
USAF also had a lot of nutty shit in regards to nukes, such as automatic toss or over the shoulder bombing systems that soviets never developed, just to get closer to the enemy safely and land that bomb more accurately.
US bombs themselves had more options, being more modular and available either in low drag or high drag variants to choose even mid flight, massive array of napalm and cluster munitions and so on. The nukes themselves had more options too, like delay fuses for penetrating into the ground for deep buried targets or laydown bombing which drops the bomb on the parachute so it safely lands on the ground and sits there for the aircraft to safely get away and then detonates(this would've been useful for soviet tsar bomba, they estimated a non-zero chance of killing their own bomber with it).
1 month ago
Anonymous
Good that you mentioned the A-6. I find it baffling that a piece of shit a10 was built when the US already had a much better ground support platform. Is this one of those air force and navy waste resources because both want their own toy situations?
1 month ago
Anonymous
It's cause the A-6 is premium and they wanted to give access to iconic groundpounding planes to f2p plebs as well
Mig23 was fearsome for its day, but I would not put it against the f15. Besides, wasn't the Mig23 more of an interceptor/fighter hybrid like tomcat, i.e. not really a dogfighter?
Mig-23 can barely beat anything at its own BR, the radar is too shit and the missiles are barely worth using
1 month ago
Anonymous
A-6 was for the navy. USAF had the F-111 as the absolute state of the art high tech plane. A-10 was never meant to be advanced or outstanding, it was meant to be a cheap, simple and rugged all purpose strike aircraft that can be operated for cheap, can take off from an empty field or a rough airfield and can fill various non-essential niches USAF wanted it to, like COIN, helicopter escort or a daytime bomber. It was designed at the same time as the F-16 and in some ways was a failsafe in case the latter turned out to be not as capable or efficient as it was intended to be. It turned out to be great, as cheap to buy and use and more effective than the A-10 so the hog didn't have much use outside of those niche scenarios, in addition to seeing fewer upgrades both because it's less effective and lower priority and because of less stuff to upgrade compared to the F-16 where upgrades were possible with just a software update. With precision guided weapons and targeting pods this became particularly obvious.
It's cause the A-6 is premium and they wanted to give access to iconic groundpounding planes to f2p plebs as well
[...]
Mig-23 can barely beat anything at its own BR, the radar is too shit and the missiles are barely worth using
And war thunder doesn't even simulate the extreme tendency of the aircraft to go into deathspins and the wildly different handling for the each of the wing angle modes for the pilot to get accustomed to while trying to not die horribly in the process. Of course, the wing angle modes are adjusted exclusively manually, leaving the decision making to the pilot already burdened with horrible workload in a very poorly designed cockpit with one of the worst visibility among fighter aircraft. It's no wonder that soviet air force wanted to keep Mig-21s instead of using this thing and only adopted it due to pressure from MIC that wanted to get paid for producing new planes.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>It turned out to be great, as cheap to buy and use and more effective than the A-10 so the hog didn't have much use
So why is the prevalent meme "infantryman calls in a loitering A-10 to brrrrrrrt enemy position" and not "infantryman calls in a loitering F-16 to laser bomb enemy position"? I'm 100% serious
1 month ago
Anonymous
>So why is the prevalent meme "infantryman calls in a loitering A-10 to brrrrrrrt enemy position"
Because BRRRRRRRRRRT is a big meme, in the popularity sense. F-16s lobbing JDAMs are probably the most common air support nowadays and have been for decades.
1 month ago
Anonymous
In the past, A-10 was more likely to be around because it was designed around super long loiter times at low speed so it could just hang around and answer calls all day. That's why it has straight wings.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>So why is the prevalent meme "infantryman calls in a loitering A-10 to brrrrrrrt enemy position"
Because BRRRRRRRRRRT is a big meme, in the popularity sense. F-16s lobbing JDAMs are probably the most common air support nowadays and have been for decades.
I would also naively imagine that you already need to have a precise targeting position for a JDAM to hit anything, whereas an A-10 can just do a slow pass and light up the entire area
1 month ago
Anonymous
You can quite easily find targeting coordinates using your own position and a bit of math or specialized pointers which do everything for you. Then it's a matter of just setting the coordinates and releasing the bomb in the general area while it does the rest of the work on its own afterwards. It was more problematic when instead of JDAMs you had Paveways that need laser marking from either you or the aircraft. These days instead of JDAMs there are things like SDBs that are smaller and can be used on various smaller targets that are even closer to your own troops while being launched from much longer distances just on call.
Target ID is still paramount, otherwise(and often even with it) your target pass can get friendly troops caught inside of it.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>You can quite easily find targeting coordinates using your own position
Yeah that's assuming you have eyes on the enemy compound or whatever so you can check on your map. I'm talking about "oh fuck there's some browns somewhere in that forest ahead, kill them!"
1 month ago
Anonymous
JDAMs have a pretty large kill radius, especially if you use several while dispersed but i can see the utility in this idea.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Another thing about A-10 was that it had some advantages when operating over enemy territory - because it was well armored it could not just survive anti-air gunfire but also bring the pilot home even if heavily damaged, reducing the risks of losing the pilot or sending a rescue mission there. Of course, it being slow and having outdated armament did make it more vulnerable in other ways but back in the days it was designed in this wasn't such a significant disadvantage yet.
1 month ago
Anonymous
SU-25 is heavily armored as well and can take the same level of AAA
The advantage the A-10 has is engine placement - AAA is more likely to hit armored fuselage/wing and MANPAD's have a hard time one shotting the A-10 - several incidents of a MANPADS only being able to take out a single A-10 engine, for the other to limp the aircraft back home intact, while SU-25 is more vulnerable to MANPADS.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Does Su-25 have armor around its engines or just the pilot? I don't believe it does, which makes it much more vulnerabke just from that.
The engines are also positioned worse. A-10's tail and fuselage are designed to shield the hot exhaust from many directions where manpads could aim at it. Su-25 has plain hot exhaust on both sides.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Armored bathtub, canopy, some lighter armor around other components
No armor around the engines.
A-10's engines are placed in an infinitely better position for negating MANPADS and groundfire
A-10 is more survivable, there aren't as many incidents of Su-25's eating MANPAD's and limping back to base
1 month ago
Anonymous
https://i.imgur.com/oD3bWnB.jpg
why didnt the ukrainian su25s attack that convoy?
1 month ago
Anonymous
maybe the convoy had Anti aircraft assets
1 month ago
Anonymous
The convoy probably still had pretty good AA coverage, plus there was active fighting across the country and presumably no shortage of more pressing targets.
No you fucking retard, that is Pierre Spree, a fifth columnist who has been shilling for big guns on airplanes since the 70s because they are rugged and reliable and missiles don't work.
1 month ago
Anonymous
I am actually kind of curious that where did your life go so wrong that you became such a fuming lunatic. How old are you?
gau 8 with its ammo weighs maybe 850 kg why not take it out and put an equally or more stupid thing in its place ? >conformal drop tank >giant EW pod >downward looking radar or camera >chemical laser >Mehrzweckwaffe 1 but bigger >CBU-107 but 3x the size >Casevac pod >cocaine holder >W54 warheads >an torpedo or ASM
The airframe is more agile, but that's achieved by not having a fuckhuge gun and having lower bypass engines, which reduces endurance.
Combat performance wise, with the '80s variants the primary advantage of the A-10 is the Maverick missile, meaning it can actually kill tanks reliably. Su-25 technically has guided missiles but can't guide them particularly accurately, with rocket barrages being the primary weapon. Modern A-10C wipes the floor with 'modern' Su-25 sensors and weapons wise
I only remember Kh-25s being used by both sides early on, given the repeated FAB runs by fucking Su-34s after only a little while I feel like it's safe to say Russian air-to-surface PGM stocks were pretty low. I wonder when we'll get a better idea of the extent of these shortages though.
Yeah, Kh-25 is a guided missile but not a particularly good one, I doubt it can hit anything smaller than a building
They actually did experiments with a10 doing missions against t62 tanks, and the pilot would be lucky to get more than three hits.
[...]
Su25 can carry Kh-29 missiles, which are comparable to Mavericks.
Only production model that can carry Kh-29 is the Su-25SM as far as I know, not available until mid-2000s or something.
>Considering how our military aviation has consistently dunked on Soviet/Russian aviation since airplanes existed
soviets were ahead of the usa for some time during cold war
Mig23 was fearsome for its day, but I would not put it against the f15. Besides, wasn't the Mig23 more of an interceptor/fighter hybrid like tomcat, i.e. not really a dogfighter?
1 month ago
Anonymous
Mig-23 has the absolute worst combat ratio of any soviet fighter. That should tell you enough about how bad it is.
1 month ago
Anonymous
I remember the Mig23 giving a hard time to f4 and Mirage, although that is to be expected from a newer fighter.
Very limited ability to carry guided missiles or bombs
Vulnerable to enemy air defences (good protection against HMG fire doesn't count)
Obsolete by 2000s
Still a /k/ino aircraft though
Did Soviet aircraft have names like Western stuff did (Eagle, Falcon, Mirage, etc), or were they strictly given manufacturer names (MiG-29, SU-25, etc) and nothing else?
I understand the NATO reporting names, but I've never heard of any native Soviet names. Got any examples? Only thing I've heard of was the ahey liked how NATO named it "Fulcrum" for the MiG-29 and it was at least kind of used internally
Russian gear has comparable performance to western, while being much cheaper and compact. I guess shitty ergonomics is the price. Consider for example how Russian ifvs are much less likely to get stuck in mud.
>Consider for example how Russian ifvs are much less likely to get stuck in mud.
they're also 110% more likely to explode and toss the turret into the lower atmosphere with 0 surviving crew, but give and take I guess huh
In practise both are fucked if hit by anti-tank weapons. While western stuff has better crew protection it's really not worth it if you're more likely to get stuck and are bigger, resulting in much highesr chances of getting hit.
>text >text >text >text >text text text text text text text text
The autistic retard that made this should end their life.
https://i.imgur.com/BTzuLzu.jpg
Whats the verdict on the Su-25 "The Rook"
A bomb slinger that does the job when there's nothing else to do it. T-72 of jets - everyone who has them wants to upgrade and move on, but just can't afford to.
Western electronics might be better, but there doesn't appear to be noticeable difference in performance. Russian ATGMs destroy Western tanks rather effectively, and vice versa.
Thats funny. Western tanks seem much more survivable let alone recoverable compared the discount cosmonaut turret programs. I dont think electronics tell the entire story.
Western tanks have flat out better crew protection with eg. spall lining, but the benefits appear to be rather marginal. Spall lining isn't gonna stop HEAT jets.
Some US pilots who flew it thought it was decent. The gun is okay, the plane is faster and turns better than the A-10. It can fire basic laser guided missiles, etc.
It's like a faster and more agile a-10, with a weaker gun, similar but potentially slightly weaker armour, and the same tech-level of the A-10 when it first came out. They are supposed to be upgrading them but russian "upgrades" are obviously a meme.
6/10, okay for attacking other slavshit if fielded in large numbers
Flying deathtrap in modern warfare much like the a10.
The A-10 has a humongous survivability rating. What are you talking about?
the a10 has never been in a real war though so thats mostly imagination. in ukraine it would have to fly at tree level all the time and eat manpads like crazy when popping up over over the frontline for the attack. it would basically not be able to do its intended role.
I don't mean to disappoint you anon, but
>have to fly at tree level all the time and eat manpads like crazy when popping up over over the frontline for the attack. it would basically not be able to do its intended role
That is every single plane in that war, on both sides
>never been in a real war
>The Gulf War
Try again. Don't worry, I believe in you. What's your next excuse?
The A-10 took proportionally more losses than any other bomb trucks in the Gulf War.
Extinct
Built for the low and slow dumb bomb and strafe days of close air support before PGM's became the standard. A bunch of them got shot down early war and you don't hear about them all that much anymore. At best it can be used as a PGM truck, especially for area's where air defense is suppressed. Basically most of the same issue with the A-10.
>and you don't hear about them all that much anymore
What's with absolute morons just coming to /k/ and making shit up?
This is actually nonsense.
Early versions were built to sling short ranged PGM's - specifically AS-7 and AS-10 at tanks and fortified positions.
Standard loadout was PGM's and 122mm/240mm rockets (AT, APERS, DP, WP)
AS-14 came later in USSR but was designed to integrate with early SU-25
Later variants carrying insane amounts of Vikhrs are a pretty big threat to armored forces
Realistically it doesn't matter, but SU-25 can break the speed of sound and has better maneuverability. The SU-25 is more likely to survive being attacked by light fighters/advanced trainers.
Later SU-25's can carry the full gamut of russian A2A missiles as well, which means they are a greater threat to fighters because of AA-12 and later active radar missiles.
SU-25 can take 23mm hits but the A-10 has better survivability against MANPADS.
Both will get shrecked by an AMRAAM (or an AMRAAM-ski AA-12)
>SU-25 can break the speed of sound
No it can't.
>Later SU-25's can carry the full gamut of russian A2A missiles as well, which means they are a greater threat to fighters because of AA-12
Nonsense. Su-25 has no A2A radar and even if it had one it'd be blind and never see anything.
In a dive, not level flight
Not having an A2A radar does not preclude the use of an Active Radar missile. Yeah though SU-25 can't use earlier SARH missiles.
>Not having an A2A radar does not preclude the use of an Active Radar missile.
It makes it entirely pointless. Do you know how active radar guided missiles work? Do you know what's the purpose of making them that way? Of course you don't.
Neither Su-25 nor A-10 were built to sling PGMs, the A-10 has mavericks and Su has some laser guided missiles, but it's far from the primary attack mode in the 1980s. A-10C pivoted to a modern PGM platform because that was the only way to stay relevant. Also, no production model Su-25 actually carries Vikhrs.
A-10 is survivable to a degree, but the low level flyover attack mode is borderline suicidal, remember that they were withdrawn in the Gulf war due to losses, other tactical bombers could make much faster passes even at a low level, and have shorter pop-up times.
>SU-25 can break the speed of sound and has better maneuverability. The SU-25 is more likely to survive being attacked by light fighters/advanced trainers.
>Later SU-25's can carry the full gamut of russian A2A missiles as well, which means they are a greater threat to fighters because of AA-12 and later active radar missiles.
this.
Rook can be excellent backbone of an airforce because dog fighting is dead and what really matters is how many and how good A2A missiles your force can put into battle.
Unlike NATO wonderwaffen, Rook can carry newest A2A AND operate from rough or damaged airstrips or open fields with a few trucks for support.
NATO is dead them moment their gold plated airbases get "contact".
The least capable NATO warplane, the Saab, will likely be the most effective after first 2 hours of conflict, due to its mild survivability and less than ideal conditions operations.
Nato has two types of national airforces. Non-American which are joke underfunded token units, and American which are on paper impressive but operationally riddled with Black folks who will all become at best "counter productive" in new and unexpected ways at first hint of action.
stop replying to your own idiotic posts, vatnagger homosexual
better than the a10 but still bad
I've heard this a lot on /k/, but is it really better? Considering how our military aviation has consistently dunked on Soviet/Russian aviation since airplanes existed, I'm curious what advantages the su-25 could possibly have over the a-10.
It's not. The only thing it has for it is being slightly faster. Otherwise it's just worse, less durable, with less endurance, less bomb load, worse arament, much less loiter time(which the straight wings were used for) and a worse combat record.
Slavaboo homosexuals and shitskin trannies shill it over the A10 because it doesn't have a big gun that they hate.
Not officially, but they did get monikers informally.
it's obsolete. maybe it's more cost-efficient than newer aircraft if you're bombing people who can't shoot back idk
>slightly faster
it's 1.3x faster, which is more than "slightly", especially since that's one of the core disadvantages of the a-10. idk where you're getting everything other than "less bomb load" from though
some aircraft have names, e.g. "rook", "black tulip", but they're not as widely used afaik
there isn't really a Russian naming system for western planes, likely because they're named after their intended roles rather their manufacturer
>it's 1.3x faster, which is more than "slightly", especially since that's one of the core disadvantages of the a-10
It's not fast enough to be survivable either way, while A-10 was designed to have the capability to follow helicopters and do COIN missions which require you to be slow enough with enough fuel to not constantly outrun your escorted aircraft and stay in the sky for long.
And in reality the only thing both are good for is carrying around AT missiles for which 30% more speed is pretty nice.
A-10 has the bombload and cost per flight hour of the F-16 and has been upgraded to properly use precision guided weapons like JDAM and Paveway bombs.
Neither A-10 nor Su-25 carry AT missiles you retarded turd.
>What are Kh-29 and Maverick
>Ignoring my point on mobility
I have a thing for Soviet gear, but I am heterosexual. Sorry if you were interested.
I guess we could start analyzing this image, but somehow I don't feel like you want to have an intelligent discussion comparing the performance of cold war era fighters.
Why is /k/ so stupid?
Holy shit an unironic slavaboo tankie. I thought you guys had all offed yourselves after this horrendous performance, proving the whole "monkey model" cope was retarded.
who gives a shit about mobility mobik, also no fucking clue what makes you think the Abrams gets stuck in mud anymore then a T-80
the only thing russian "mobility" is good for is getting to the front line as fast as possible so you can get sent to fucking GOD by a NATO tank that saw you before you even knew it was there
You are a worthless subhuman turd and should be beaten to near death and drowned in feces for rearing your ugly head here.
Fuming mental illness.
I agree anon, liking russian equipment really is a mental illness I'm glad you agree and have come to terms with it.
You will never make good weapons, you will never not be a disingenous subhuman shill.
Su25 has roughly the same carry capacity as the a10.
But anon, the su25 is reasonably durable, as are most Soviet and Russian weapons.
>the su25 is reasonably durable, as are most Soviet and Russian weapons
lol
some shill will look at this and say its actually an advantage because the engine is newer
really depends on how cheap the engine is and how easy is it to replace it.
And, of course, every picture posted here is posted in good faith and it is irrefutable piece of evidence.
My bad, I rechecked the numbers. The a10 has about twice the carrying capacity, which isn't that surprising since its twice as large.
>Slavaboo homosexuals and shitskin trannies shill it over the A10 because it doesn't have a big gun that they hate.
case in point
It doesn't have a useless 30mm autocannon making it infinitely better. The more I think of it, the more baffling the developement of the a10 is. Why on Earth would you put a hard to upgrade autocannon in your CAS system just as missiles were becoming more common? It would have been at least somewhat understandable had the a10 been designed ten years earlier. Does any anon have a deep lore on it? Was it some braindead general who insisted on having the cannon?
Yes it does, retard.
This cannon has trash accuracy and it carries almost no ammo.
One of the main advantages of the GAU8 is that it is an extremely accurate cannon, about 2x more accurate than the Vulcan.
Su25 is using zip tied Garmin GPS for nav. No modern PGM capability (not that Russia has any real modern PGMs).
That's all that really matters, having modern avionics and PGMs, which it doesn't.
SU25 was garbage back in the 80s when they were getting yeeted daily by Stingers.
100% DU rounds from above on any russian junk is going to mission kill it
Sure, but only if you manage to hit a vulnerable spot, which is considerably harder than you think. Furthermore, exposing an expensive airplane to aa to maybe mission kill a cheap tank is not very smart. A proper multirole, like f-15 with mavericks will do the job much better.
the entire roof of the tank is going to get shit on, the whole roof is vulnerable... if a round gets in its sending shit into the crew compartment and its likely more then 1 is getting in, have fun getting spalled to death with uranium
russian junk is getting penned by 7.62x54R and 7.62x51 in ukraine, a 30mm DU from the air is going to turn it into swiss fucking cheese
> Furthermore, exposing an expensive airplane to aa to maybe mission kill a cheap tank is not very smart.
good thing the US has the largest, and most blatantly overpowered airforce (and navy) on the fucking planet and we don't fly unless we know nobody can do anything about it, and if they can we make it so they cannot, and then we do whatever we want like rape you from the sky 24/7 with impunity
They actually did experiments with a10 doing missions against t62 tanks, and the pilot would be lucky to get more than three hits.
Su25 can carry Kh-29 missiles, which are comparable to Mavericks.
Forget Kh-29s, we haven't seen them or even Kh-25s being used in significant numbers since about a year ago. Not to mention they're fuckhuge compared to Mavericks and only have comparable range to them.
I mean we all know that the Russian economy is pretty shitty. But isn't the difference in size mostly because Kh-29 carries a much bigger warhead?
Both Maverick and Kh series use TV guidance, although maybe you're right that American electronics are better.
And it is also a proportionally bigger missile, yes, and with most variants has a pathetically low range, which is quite frankly embarrassing given kinematically making it go that far is trivial.
I wonder what's the cause of that. Do the Russians use a different fuel than Americans? Now that I think of it, are there any su25 variants which can carry Mavericks?
It's a limitation of guidance. The initial Maverick had a similar issue - you need to be close enough to get the target in sights through the missile camera, which has shit resolution and forces you to get close regardless of the size of the rocket engine. Maverick solved this by adding magnification channel for making long range shots. Soviets did not, apparently.
Well that's strange. Maybe they didn't want to spend semiconductors for that?
You need to get pretty close with both dumb clusters and autocannons if you intend to hit anything.
>Maybe they didn't want to spend semiconductors for that?
They didn't design it with that in mind and didn't improve upon it until they got their hands on imported electronics after the fall of soviet union. The initial variant of the KH-29 used the same laser guidance section as the KH-25.
B model mavs had high and low magnification variants, C and D introduced toggleable zoom. Also the IR homing one was the better variant, for which there was no soviet coubterpart
C was intended to be laser guided but was never fielded. D was the IR guided. It's open info, easily accessible, you know. No need to talk out of your ass.
So does the magnification work using simple optics, or is it done via circuitry?
It's a mechanical change in the lens system, no major electronics involved
Well I'll be fucked
C/D are TV and IR variants anon, E is laser
C was the predcessor of the E variant that never went into production. D was IIR and was adopted in 1983. You don't have to keep doubling down on your mistakes. You were wrong, take it and don't talk out of your ass next time.
Oh yeah my bad, I was thinking of the laser-homing variant Kh-25, I'm not sure the pre-SM ones can carry TV guided ordnance because they don't have a video monitor in the cockpit
?si=dBA9egKz5wH-eCOA
The KH 29 is the missile that regularly hits toilets. I suspect its usable but it is worse than what the west supplies
I think claiming that the missiles hit toilets is just a meme. However, it's of course fully plausible that the Maverick has less impurities in the components of the guidance circuitry, resulting in less noise in the signal and better accuracy. Don't the Russians prefer SACLOS missiles anyways, which might indicate poor performance for the TV guidance?
>Don't the Russians prefer SACLOS missiles anyways
They actually prefer unguided rockets for the Su-25. ATGMs are too much of a luxury, apparently.
>Kh-29 anti-toilet missile
There's an India joke to be made here
>and the pilot would be lucky to get more than three hits.
>implying 3 30mm DU rounds smacking into your fucking 1.5 inch thick roof wouldn't ruin your day (forever)
If you manage to hit a critical location. Now compare if the t62 got hit by a Maverick...
don't think any A-10 pilots are doing gun runs while they still have ATGM's on the racks... unless specifically requested by ground troops which probably happened a lot, likely wouldn't need to drop a 500lb bomb on a group of dispersed towel heads in a flat desert with zero cover.. or drop the bomb who cares lmao
I strongly suspect that the a10 would not be very effective at killing small infantry formations. Most of the damage they'd do would be psychological.
The thing to understand about GAU-8 is that it's inherently designed as an area effect weapon. It even has spread added by a plate that indexes the 6 barrels at the front. It's not suitable for firing on a singular tank in the open because it was not designed to do so. It was meant to fire on the groups of enemy vehicles and be capable of both threatening the tanks, disabling their external equipment and completely shredding everything below with HE, including APCs and BMPs carrying infantry and the support trucks carrying fuel and ammo, mission killing the unit it's firing on.
It's not very survivable for that, especially against MANPADS but it does have reduced IR signature which could fool the 70s and 80s soviet missiles and it's armored against .50 cal pretty well to survive the AA machineguns typically mounted on soviet vehicles. So long as there's no dedicated AA platforms like Shilkas or SAMs it was plenty capable of doing significant damage to soviet formations.
>disabling their external equipment and completely shredding everything below with HE
is that not what a mission kill is??? the vehicle is combat ineffective, it might be recoverable or still operating but the crew cannot use it to effectively fight anymore
literally strafe a tank column and blind half of them, that's already an incredible utility aside from the fact these russian homosexuals usually have 12 sorry sacks of shit riding the backs of them so they'll get absolutely SEASONED in fragmentation or hopefully (I can only pray) directly impacted by a 30mm from a GAU-8
Yeah, i meant that it can K-kill everything below a tank while mission and mobility kill the tankes themselves, with some chance to knock them out too.
I don't think military vehicles typically drive close enough to each other for that to be a viable tactic. Or rather, a single cluster bomb would do the job far better.
We've seen them drive closer than what would be enough numerous times during this recent war. I believe we're still seeing this tactic used today and continue to do so in the future.
have you SEEN these retards in a convoy anon??? literally a tank-length between eachother
From what I've seen the Russians have smartened up and tend to move in looser formations now. Still, the fundamental argument still stands that a cluster bomb is far more effective.
For the time period the cluster bombs were unguided and could be carried by most aircraft, including the A-10. It's only with the JDAM-based WCMD did the capability become specialized for PGM-capable planes.
>the Russians have smartened up
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahaha
oh you're serious?
HAHAHHA
Could you imagine if Ukraine had A-10s when the convoy to Kiev ran out of fuel
A single cluster bomb would have done the job of ten a10s.
That doesn't sound very efficient. I wonder if they're doing the classic mistake of taking CAS pilots at their word, as we all know how CAS pilots tend to report every time their gun kicks up some dust as kill.
A-10s can carry cluster bombs so it's a win-win.
>That doesn't sound very efficient.
It's not, but it's better than using unguided bombs that their pilots are incapable of hitting anything with.
Are there any tests looking at the accuracy of unguided bombs? I know in tests CAS fire was shown to be obscenely inefficient. (In both US and Soviet tests.) Come think of it, I am somewhat surprised that Mig-27 hasn't been mentioned. I like how it has a superior gun to a10 despite being much faster and lighter, with the downside being that shooting the gun results in the self disassembly of the plane. It's like a 40k ork weapon.
>Are there any tests looking at the accuracy of unguided bombs?
It largely depends on the aircraft and the historic period, and also the altitude and pilot ability.
There is ww2 tier where you don't even have a working bombsight. There's basically optical bombsights that improve the accuracy but only work during daytime. Then there's radar and TV bomb sights that pick out large targets and release the bombs automatically at the right time but have limitations and then there's really high tech like thermals, accurate navigation systems that can guide the aircraft to the right place blindfolded and then release bombs and the most modern stuff automatically seeks targets and IDs them for you to choose, usually built-in in targeting pods like Litening that can be fitted to numerous aircraft turning them into capable bombers with a single upgrade.
You can assume all postwar aircraft with HUDs that can carry bombs has basic optical bomb sight. The radar bomb sights were installed on B-52s and later US heavy bombers along with the navigation systems that weren't really accurate enough for small targets on their own. Some F-105s had radar bomb sights installed for tactical targets during vietnam war. The first definite all weather tactical bomber was the A-6 which had the advanced navigation and bombing system to go after any target, in any conditions. It got first aircraft mounted thermals later on too. Similar system was fitted to the F-111 too.
As for soviets, their strategic bombers did have radar bomb sights but they weren't really good for targeting ground objects and were mainly for aiming at ships they hoped to deal with.
For tactical aircraft, in the 50s they didn't even have HUDs and all airaft prior to the Su-24 didn't have any navigation system or radar bombsights, limited to the pilot skill and eyesight. Even the Su-24's navigation system never actually worked and very very few airframes were kept and manned by the most capable mechanics to keep the night bombing electronics serviceable. They only got it to work somewhat properly with the Su-24M variant in the 80s. It was the only tactical aircraft with such capability in soviet service until the Su-34 which has much greater range, ordinance and serviceability, although the actual radar systems were skimped on during development and actually remain almost as outdated as they were on the '24. The Su-30's and su-35's radars are the first to have both air-to-air and air to ground capability so they can also serve the radar bombing function similar to the one on F-4 Phantom and later US aircraft, with similar resolution and identification limitations. Their fighter pilots don't train to bomb things, though.
The biggest problem with dumb bombs is that to get accuracy out of any system you need to fly low and be exposed to ground fire from anyone, and even an AK can score a lucky hit that can abort the mission. That's why PGMs are such a game changer - they allow you to do accurate bombing from the safety of higher altitude, assuming you can deal with large SAMs that are bigger targets themselves. They also are much more efficient and allow you to not only rely on singular aircraft to reliably hit small point targets but also use fighters with PGMs that can defend themselves while doing the bombing, massively improving the flexibility and safety of your missions but that's another story.
USAF also had a lot of nutty shit in regards to nukes, such as automatic toss or over the shoulder bombing systems that soviets never developed, just to get closer to the enemy safely and land that bomb more accurately.
US bombs themselves had more options, being more modular and available either in low drag or high drag variants to choose even mid flight, massive array of napalm and cluster munitions and so on. The nukes themselves had more options too, like delay fuses for penetrating into the ground for deep buried targets or laydown bombing which drops the bomb on the parachute so it safely lands on the ground and sits there for the aircraft to safely get away and then detonates(this would've been useful for soviet tsar bomba, they estimated a non-zero chance of killing their own bomber with it).
Good that you mentioned the A-6. I find it baffling that a piece of shit a10 was built when the US already had a much better ground support platform. Is this one of those air force and navy waste resources because both want their own toy situations?
It's cause the A-6 is premium and they wanted to give access to iconic groundpounding planes to f2p plebs as well
Mig-23 can barely beat anything at its own BR, the radar is too shit and the missiles are barely worth using
A-6 was for the navy. USAF had the F-111 as the absolute state of the art high tech plane. A-10 was never meant to be advanced or outstanding, it was meant to be a cheap, simple and rugged all purpose strike aircraft that can be operated for cheap, can take off from an empty field or a rough airfield and can fill various non-essential niches USAF wanted it to, like COIN, helicopter escort or a daytime bomber. It was designed at the same time as the F-16 and in some ways was a failsafe in case the latter turned out to be not as capable or efficient as it was intended to be. It turned out to be great, as cheap to buy and use and more effective than the A-10 so the hog didn't have much use outside of those niche scenarios, in addition to seeing fewer upgrades both because it's less effective and lower priority and because of less stuff to upgrade compared to the F-16 where upgrades were possible with just a software update. With precision guided weapons and targeting pods this became particularly obvious.
And war thunder doesn't even simulate the extreme tendency of the aircraft to go into deathspins and the wildly different handling for the each of the wing angle modes for the pilot to get accustomed to while trying to not die horribly in the process. Of course, the wing angle modes are adjusted exclusively manually, leaving the decision making to the pilot already burdened with horrible workload in a very poorly designed cockpit with one of the worst visibility among fighter aircraft. It's no wonder that soviet air force wanted to keep Mig-21s instead of using this thing and only adopted it due to pressure from MIC that wanted to get paid for producing new planes.
>It turned out to be great, as cheap to buy and use and more effective than the A-10 so the hog didn't have much use
So why is the prevalent meme "infantryman calls in a loitering A-10 to brrrrrrrt enemy position" and not "infantryman calls in a loitering F-16 to laser bomb enemy position"? I'm 100% serious
>So why is the prevalent meme "infantryman calls in a loitering A-10 to brrrrrrrt enemy position"
Because BRRRRRRRRRRT is a big meme, in the popularity sense. F-16s lobbing JDAMs are probably the most common air support nowadays and have been for decades.
In the past, A-10 was more likely to be around because it was designed around super long loiter times at low speed so it could just hang around and answer calls all day. That's why it has straight wings.
I would also naively imagine that you already need to have a precise targeting position for a JDAM to hit anything, whereas an A-10 can just do a slow pass and light up the entire area
You can quite easily find targeting coordinates using your own position and a bit of math or specialized pointers which do everything for you. Then it's a matter of just setting the coordinates and releasing the bomb in the general area while it does the rest of the work on its own afterwards. It was more problematic when instead of JDAMs you had Paveways that need laser marking from either you or the aircraft. These days instead of JDAMs there are things like SDBs that are smaller and can be used on various smaller targets that are even closer to your own troops while being launched from much longer distances just on call.
Target ID is still paramount, otherwise(and often even with it) your target pass can get friendly troops caught inside of it.
>You can quite easily find targeting coordinates using your own position
Yeah that's assuming you have eyes on the enemy compound or whatever so you can check on your map. I'm talking about "oh fuck there's some browns somewhere in that forest ahead, kill them!"
JDAMs have a pretty large kill radius, especially if you use several while dispersed but i can see the utility in this idea.
Another thing about A-10 was that it had some advantages when operating over enemy territory - because it was well armored it could not just survive anti-air gunfire but also bring the pilot home even if heavily damaged, reducing the risks of losing the pilot or sending a rescue mission there. Of course, it being slow and having outdated armament did make it more vulnerable in other ways but back in the days it was designed in this wasn't such a significant disadvantage yet.
SU-25 is heavily armored as well and can take the same level of AAA
The advantage the A-10 has is engine placement - AAA is more likely to hit armored fuselage/wing and MANPAD's have a hard time one shotting the A-10 - several incidents of a MANPADS only being able to take out a single A-10 engine, for the other to limp the aircraft back home intact, while SU-25 is more vulnerable to MANPADS.
Does Su-25 have armor around its engines or just the pilot? I don't believe it does, which makes it much more vulnerabke just from that.
The engines are also positioned worse. A-10's tail and fuselage are designed to shield the hot exhaust from many directions where manpads could aim at it. Su-25 has plain hot exhaust on both sides.
Armored bathtub, canopy, some lighter armor around other components
No armor around the engines.
A-10's engines are placed in an infinitely better position for negating MANPADS and groundfire
A-10 is more survivable, there aren't as many incidents of Su-25's eating MANPAD's and limping back to base
why didnt the ukrainian su25s attack that convoy?
maybe the convoy had Anti aircraft assets
The convoy probably still had pretty good AA coverage, plus there was active fighting across the country and presumably no shortage of more pressing targets.
Why indeed :^)
Is this the kraut who almost certainly exagurated his killcounts ridiclously?
No you fucking retard, that is Pierre Spree, a fifth columnist who has been shilling for big guns on airplanes since the 70s because they are rugged and reliable and missiles don't work.
I am actually kind of curious that where did your life go so wrong that you became such a fuming lunatic. How old are you?
Considering the start of the Ukraine war with 30+km long convoys with no air cover, it seemed they predicted Russian doctrine perfectly.
gau 8 with its ammo weighs maybe 850 kg why not take it out and put an equally or more stupid thing in its place ?
>conformal drop tank
>giant EW pod
>downward looking radar or camera
>chemical laser
>Mehrzweckwaffe 1 but bigger
>CBU-107 but 3x the size
>Casevac pod
>cocaine holder
>W54 warheads
>an torpedo or ASM
because it's slow and big, old girl is finally gonna rest
The airframe is more agile, but that's achieved by not having a fuckhuge gun and having lower bypass engines, which reduces endurance.
Combat performance wise, with the '80s variants the primary advantage of the A-10 is the Maverick missile, meaning it can actually kill tanks reliably. Su-25 technically has guided missiles but can't guide them particularly accurately, with rocket barrages being the primary weapon. Modern A-10C wipes the floor with 'modern' Su-25 sensors and weapons wise
I only remember Kh-25s being used by both sides early on, given the repeated FAB runs by fucking Su-34s after only a little while I feel like it's safe to say Russian air-to-surface PGM stocks were pretty low. I wonder when we'll get a better idea of the extent of these shortages though.
Yeah, Kh-25 is a guided missile but not a particularly good one, I doubt it can hit anything smaller than a building
Only production model that can carry Kh-29 is the Su-25SM as far as I know, not available until mid-2000s or something.
>Considering how our military aviation has consistently dunked on Soviet/Russian aviation since airplanes existed
soviets were ahead of the usa for some time during cold war
>soviets were ahead of the usa for some time during cold war
according to soviets
and american MIC
does anyone have that cap of the "F-15 will be unable to cope with the supermaneuverable Mach 3.5+ Mig-23 threat" headline?
Mig23 was fearsome for its day, but I would not put it against the f15. Besides, wasn't the Mig23 more of an interceptor/fighter hybrid like tomcat, i.e. not really a dogfighter?
Mig-23 has the absolute worst combat ratio of any soviet fighter. That should tell you enough about how bad it is.
I remember the Mig23 giving a hard time to f4 and Mirage, although that is to be expected from a newer fighter.
No, it wasn't. Maybe it doesn't have a meme gun but it is just worse overall from weapons to maneuverability
Anon, it has twice the range.
No it doesn't, lmao. Definitely not when loaded.
its can survive AA and bomb columns fast
>better than the A-10
In what fucking universe you slav-roach retard?
Shit for the same reasons the A-10 is, only effective because it’s used against illiterate sandmen and assraped pidors
that's the one that got shot down yesterday innit
Very limited ability to carry guided missiles or bombs
Vulnerable to enemy air defences (good protection against HMG fire doesn't count)
Obsolete by 2000s
Still a /k/ino aircraft though
spawned some good musi/k/
?si=jfFKbXPrxvqHjhTk
great song. Say what you will, but the Russians have some great music.
Best CAS plane in the World. Unfortunately, all CAS planes are useless trash.
?t=191
Obsolete.
Did Soviet aircraft have names like Western stuff did (Eagle, Falcon, Mirage, etc), or were they strictly given manufacturer names (MiG-29, SU-25, etc) and nothing else?
They did, but NATO gave them their better known names. Like the Mig-15 "Fagot", the Su-9 "Fishpot" and the Su-57 "Felon"
I understand the NATO reporting names, but I've never heard of any native Soviet names. Got any examples? Only thing I've heard of was the ahey liked how NATO named it "Fulcrum" for the MiG-29 and it was at least kind of used internally
Mig-21 was called "balalaika" because of its shape.
It follows a proud Russian tradition of sending pilots to their deaths the MOMEMENT they encounter any sort of capability to resist.
Whats the verdict on these fucking lazy and shitty threds
?si=ytPRoxqpP2iZM9pY
literally so shit all they can do is fling some unguided rockets hail mary style every 2 weeks or so
Does it come from Russia? If yes, then it is probably shit.
Russian gear has comparable performance to western, while being much cheaper and compact. I guess shitty ergonomics is the price. Consider for example how Russian ifvs are much less likely to get stuck in mud.
Now this is stupidity!
>Consider for example how Russian ifvs are much less likely to get stuck in mud.
they're also 110% more likely to explode and toss the turret into the lower atmosphere with 0 surviving crew, but give and take I guess huh
In practise both are fucked if hit by anti-tank weapons. While western stuff has better crew protection it's really not worth it if you're more likely to get stuck and are bigger, resulting in much highesr chances of getting hit.
>sits higher
>sees better
>sees first
>shoots first
>wins
hurr durr so complicated russian squat junk is better because it wont get stuck in da mud hurr durr
>Russian gear has comparable performance to western
shut the fuck up already you worthless homosexual
Holy shit the fucking cope.
>take original meme
>add a shit ton of text
How easily the lefty /misc/ lets the mask slip
>text
>text
>text
>text
>text text text text text text text text
The autistic retard that made this should end their life.
A bomb slinger that does the job when there's nothing else to do it. T-72 of jets - everyone who has them wants to upgrade and move on, but just can't afford to.
F-35 underbelly is so fucking sex, and dat gape! AAAAAAAAAAA
mutt
>Russian gear has comparable performance to western, while being much cheaper and compact.
So we're still going to regurgitate this retarded lie?
Western electronics might be better, but there doesn't appear to be noticeable difference in performance. Russian ATGMs destroy Western tanks rather effectively, and vice versa.
Thats funny. Western tanks seem much more survivable let alone recoverable compared the discount cosmonaut turret programs. I dont think electronics tell the entire story.
Western tanks have flat out better crew protection with eg. spall lining, but the benefits appear to be rather marginal. Spall lining isn't gonna stop HEAT jets.
*Ahem*
Armatard sucks donkey dicks.
That is all.
Call me a fat retard all you like but the A-10 looks so much more intimidating and cooler than this piece of Rus shit. Plus it sounds amazing.
naming military systems after chess terms is fucking gay
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rook_(bird)
Some US pilots who flew it thought it was decent. The gun is okay, the plane is faster and turns better than the A-10. It can fire basic laser guided missiles, etc.
It's like a faster and more agile a-10, with a weaker gun, similar but potentially slightly weaker armour, and the same tech-level of the A-10 when it first came out. They are supposed to be upgrading them but russian "upgrades" are obviously a meme.
6/10, okay for attacking other slavshit if fielded in large numbers
tr modernizes su 25's for azeris