Why did the Su-25 "Frogfoot" manage to achieve widespread

>>30666855
Because no attempt was made to export the a10

>>30666855

Are those bombs or fuel tanks?

>>30666855
>widespread export success

It didn't. It is not an export unless someone pays for it voluntarily.

>>30666855
The A-10 was not for sale?

>>30666869

this

more adequate size, speed, armor, survivability + anti-ship missile capability for lesser price. doesn't mean that thunderbolt is a worse system overall, it was just designed for its own specific purpose

>>30666869
lmao. and why wasn't it exported? because no one wanted it

thunderbolt is next to useless without it's gun that feeds of exlusively depleted uranium slugs

>>30666874
fuel tanks

>>30666855
Because "free market" of weaponry did not exist in Cold War. If you're blue, you're buying US stuff. If you're blue but not in good relationship with US, you're buying French or German. If you're Red, you're buying Soviet stuff. If you're somehow fucked up relationships with USSR, China always here to help. Very short amount of countries had right\privilege\opportunity to buy stuff from both Red and Blue weapon shops.

>>30666883

The Shah planned to buy some but that got cancelled after Khomeni took over.

>ywn watch Imperial Iranian AF A-10's take on hundreds of zergrushing Iraqi monkey model T-55's

>>30666869
Oh there was. Nobody was particularly impressed though. That huge gun its built around might seem impressive but when you stopped to consider its raison d'etre of popping Soviet tanks from above was not even fulfilled when it entered service, it loses its luster pretty quick.
>>30666855
>Why did the Su-25 "Frogfoot" manage to achieve widespread export success whereas the A-10 did not?
Its a cheap enough workhorse strike aircraft for the most part.
>>30666882
>It didn't. It is not an export unless someone pays for it voluntarily.
Iraq and a couple African nations bought some.

>>30667024
>tanks

there's that meme again

>>30667024
>Iraq and a couple African nations bought some
No.

Most western countries either already had their own ground attack planes they were comfortable with, or weren't large enough to warrant a dedicated aircraft.

>>30667024
>Oh there was.
[citation needed]

>>30666944

>thunderbolt is next to useless without it's gun

The GAU-8 was designed, and then someone decided "let's make this fucker fly," hence the A-10.

The plane was literally designed around the gun.

Now it's useless, but the point was to use NATO air superiority to have A-10s swarm and eliminate armor units in a Fulda Gap scenario.

Massive casualties were expected among A-10s.

It was obsolete about the time it rolled off the assembly lines.

It's still obsolete, but bomb trucks don't really need suitability when shitskins who've exhausted their 70's-era Stingers are your main opponent.

File: su-25k tail art.jpg (2MB, 3015x2010px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3015x2010px

>>30666855
Because it's a solid and cheap aircraft that gets the job done.

File: 140710_F_UL677_114.jpg (675KB, 1280x897px) Image search: [Google]

675KB, 1280x897px

>>30667024
Im not an expert or anything but I would have thought that Germany would have bought a few. They were right on the border with the East Berlin and a bunch of other communist countries. Gotta spam dat cannon and the hordes of Soviets, right?

File: yeah well you know that's just like your opinion man.jpg (74KB, 394x406px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 394x406px

>>30667097
>obsolete
You don't seem to know what that word means.

The A-10 was designed for ground attack and CAS in an environment where you have air superiority. It does not need to be supersonic, it does not need to be stealth, it does not need the latest air-to-air radar and avionics suite, it does not need to be cutting edge. Its gun and missile load can still take care of the targets it was intended to attack with no issues, and it still has good survivability, that's really all that matters. Phasing it out for some new cutting edge ground attack plane would be a waste of money. It's old, but it's not obsolete. Same goes for the C-130 and its variants and the Apache; old but not obsolete by a long shot.

>>30667024
>Iraq and a couple African nations bought some.

Nations that needed to shoot poor people and not fight actual militaries.

>>30666855

>Gun is useful against soft skins and static targets
>Useless against tanks with AA defense around
>Tests against static T-62 targets showed that they had to strafe the fuck out of them multiple times before achieving their desired effect

>>30667117
We have the Tornado, 'nuff said.

>>30667136
>Nations that needed to shoot poor people and not fight actual militaries.
Oh, le irony. Sounds like the US needs to buy a sizeable batch of Frogfoots.

>>30667117
Germany didn't have the resources to really afford investing heavily into anything that wasn't multirole.

>>30667185
>Tests against static T-62 targets showed that they had to strafe the fuck out of them multiple times before achieving their desired effect

Source?

>>30667097

>Massive casualties were expected among A-10s

Massive casualties were expected for everybody. Nobody was daft enough to imagine that WW3 was going to be a cake walk.

>>30667200

Not that anon, but there was a guide for the pilots viz a viz targeting the T-62 that effectively ruled out pretty much everywhere on the tank that wasn't the back engine block, or a very low altitude oblique shot to the tread.

requesting someone post the coloring book of tank targeting zones made for A10 pilots

File: 1468663647851.jpg (158KB, 1250x513px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1250x513px

>>30667117


In case the soviets made a move through the Fulda gap A10s were expected to take 90% combat losses

>>30667131

>The A-10 was designed for ground attack and CAS in an environment where you have air superiority

No, the A-10 was designed to fly around the GAU-8 and pick off armor, which it couldn't do when it first saw use.

The gun is less accurate (with a spread of 80% rounds on target in a 6m radius at 1200m) than a comparable PGM (the SDBs are now accurate to within 1m at standoff distance)

In permissive environments:

They are outclassed in loiter time, armament, and payload by B1-Bs

For support of specific tactical units requiring directed, sustained support on target, they are outclassed by Longbows

In contested environments:

Useless

In environments with soft anti-air capabilities:

too dangerous to operate

They were cool, and I will be very sad to see them go, but they need to be retired now.

>>30667221

I know, it isn't a negative thing, I was just saying how we wanted a swarm of armor-killing, budget attack planes to push back enemy armor waves.

>>30667314
this tbqhwyf.
a cool and legendary bird with a ton of fans, but in the end lacking in raw performance.

>>30667097
The A-10 was actually built entirely for the purpose of killing the AH-56 Cheyenne attack helo program, which it did successfully, but then the Air Force was stuck with it.

Then in its first real conflict, Desert Storm, when it tried low attack vector it got BTFO, and primarily did all of its hunting from medium altitude with Mavericks. Which the pilots also needed to have mounted to operate at night, since the missile's FLIR cameras were the only way they had that capability.

>>30666869
They tried to sell some to Canada but we couldn't afford the ammo and multiple weapons that went with it. It was F-18 or bust.

>>30667455
And they are still stuck with that piece of shit today

>>30667117
They had the Tornado, which can carpet bomb the hordes and fire hellfires.

>>30667455
>killing the AH-56 Cheyenne
dodged a bullet there, the Apache is 9000 times sexier.

>>30667698
Well, yeah, but it's a great example of how inter-service rivalry in that era was so fucked up.

>>30666855
Because only the U.S. Looked at a gun and said "make it fly". Then they decided to design it in such a way that it would be able to fly even if it was missing half of the parts. It was more for us.

It needs a redesign and update though. She's getting a little old. Either that or can her, but it seems like a shame.

>>30667771
It's 30mm chain gun
It's not even a big gun
If it had been a big gun, it would have been an actually good aircraft

File: difference_between_a_m242_bolt_and_a_m16_bolt_by_major_azrael99-d717orz[1].jpg (125KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1024x768px

>>30667778
>It's 30mm chain gun
It's a hydraulically driven gatling, not a chain gun. A chain gun is a motor-driven chain drive operating the action on a single barrel.

>>30667811
seek help with you're autism m8

>>30667819
>knowing a things you didn't when you made an ass of yourself is autism

Cool.

>>30667819
>uses wrong terminology
>gets corrected
>"b-but autism"
leave /k/ and never come back

>>30666944
>lmao. and why wasn't it exported? because no one wanted it
I guess no one wants the F-22, hence why it hasn't been exported.

>>30667771
Why does the GAU on the modernized A-10 suck on Arma 3 ?

ArmA 3 hellfires are much better, radar lock, even the short-range anti-air missiles are better.

Is it not loaded with HE 30mm by default or what?

>>30667940
Probably because it sucks in real life. The gun is not the primary weapon, no matter what Warthogfags tell you.

>>30667097
>the gau-8 came first, then the thunderbolt

Can this meme die

>>30667819
You're the autistic, Anon.

>>30666995

Based Egyptians did didn't they? Also I think the Yugos used some Western gear.

>>30666855

Warsaw Pact countries weren't in charge of their own air warfare doctrines at all, while NATO countries could choose to make their own decisions, often ending up with decent domestic ground attack planes.

Soviets sold equipment in complicated packages. Buy mech inf battalion worth of IFV's... also get bunch of APC's for attached mortar and supply units, plus all small arms. Out of items Soviets wanted to export to their allies, T-62 is pretty much only thing almost none their closest allies didn't want to buy. Generally WP countries bought a lot of shit they wouldn't have unless being told to do so, helicopters and planes aren't exception, their air forces essentially just tactical units of Soviet Army lacking strategic elements. MiG

>>30667117
>Im not an expert or anything but I would have thought that Germany would have bought a few

Fiat G91, Alphajet and Tornado.

When it comes to rest of NATO.

UK: Buccaneer, Tornado, Harrier and Jaguar.
France: Jaguar, Mirage5, Mirage F1 and Alphajet.
Belgium: Mirage5 and Alphajet.
Italy: Fiat G91, Tornado, AMX...

One problem with US manufacturers in past has been shitty local assembly and manufacturing deals. F-16 and F-104 are notable exceptions from cold war. End of cold war made 'em more cooperative with clients. Northrop for example refused to even negotiate about local assembly when they tried to sell F-17 to European NATO countries.

File: ov-10_hero_med_01_1280x436.jpg (181KB, 1280x436px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1280x436px

>>30667131

A-10's got fucked on first time those entered properly defended airspace over Iraqi republican guard in Gulf War. Regular Iraqi army was seriously out of ammo for their SAM systems thanks to decade long WWI re-enactment with Iranians. As A-10's started to get shot down, USAF simply started using F-16's against republican guard.

A-10 has found niche to fill after 9/11 as COIN plane. It's pretty much most suitable plane for that job in USAF inventory. B-1B being probably bit more suitable due to even longer loiter time. In reality OV-10 or Super fucking Tucano would have been better suited for pretty much everything A-10's has done after first two or three weeks of Iraq war.

>>30668131
>Based Egyptians did didn't they?

US basically bribed Egypt to change sides in Cold War in deal involving peace treaty with Israel in late 70's. Soviets were willing to continue to supply 'em with certain spareparts once their economy went that bad that cash became priority. Egypt had at that point started to modernize their Soviet tanks with western weaponry, engines and shiiieeet. In middle east Iraq and Libya bought both western and Soviet stuff. Pakistan and India both had decent relations to both sides.

>Also I think the Yugos used some Western gear.

Finland and Yugoslavia were neutral and access to decent equipment from both sides. Sweden also was neutral on paper, but remained completly western aligned in practice. Romania was another exception as it was a trouble maker in WP, as reward UK, French and US supplied 'em with some equipment. Notably Alouette III and Puma helicopters and AGM-65 Maverick, RR Viper-engines and ejection seats for IAR-93.

>>30668515

assuming a permissive environment, night time, and some good target imagery so you don't blow up a Nobel Peace Prize-winning medical charity's hospital, an AC-130 is better CAS than an A-10.

which is less of a problem than you'd think given the US's love for nighttime raids.

>>30668515

also i thought all Vipers were GE (better) or P&W (crappier) engined

The Soviets were better at MiG diplomacy than the Americans.

>>30667117
we had this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLqCxCLKfGk

>>30666855
A-10 is not the Western equivalent of the Su-25. Harrier is.

>carrier capable
>unarmored
>widely exported

File: IAR-93SC_aircraft.jpg (298KB, 1920x1282px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 1920x1282px

>>30668548

Rolls-Royce produced family of small turbojets called Viper since 50's. It was pretty popular in advanced trainers as single engine installation until 70's and as twin engine installation in business jets and attack aircraft. If you wonder why a RR engine isn't named after river there is perfectly reasonable explanation, engine was inherited from Armstrong Siddeley, their engine division was merged with Rolls-Royce in 60's. Their engines were named after animals, jets after snakes.

>>30666944
>size
They are roughly the same length and height, with the A-10 having a 10ft longer wingspan

>speed
The Su-25 is only slightly faster but this is irrelevant for a low-altitude strike/CAS aircraft. Lowest possible stall speed, low altitude/speed turning performance and acceleration/climb rate are the most important metrics. The A-10 kicks the shit out of the Su-25 in two out of three of those metrics.

>armor, survivability
Pilot protection is roughly equal. The largest survivability difference between the two designs are the Su-25's marginally greater chance of a single weapon knocking out both engines (and them being in a slightly more vulnerable airframe position) and the A-10's greater percentage of wing and tail surfaces which can be damaged but still retain survivable flying characteristics. There is also the very serious consideration that an IR seeker SAM/A2A missile will strike the Su-25 directly in the center of the fuselage, thus increasing the chance of ancillary systems damage. The A-10's engines being more offset marginally reduces this chance.

Furthermore, you completely miss two of the most important characteristics of battlespace strike/CAS aircraft, as envisioned in the 1970's: payload and loiter time. The A-10 has twice the pylon payload and similar combat radius on internal fuel to the Su-25 (with the greater payload meaning that it can be set up for longer combat radius and greater loiter time than the Su-25 where necessary).

There are certainly some tactical situations where a good argument for a more suitable Su-25 can be made, but overall the A-10 is the largely superior airframe of the type.

>>30670128
>There are certainly some tactical situations where a good argument for a more suitable Su-25 can be made, but overall the A-10 is the largely superior airframe of the type.
I would add that this is all largely moot, considering the simple fact that both designs are obsolete in a serious large scale conventional battlespace and both are perfectly adequate in a low intensity/COIN role. In a "highway of death" scenario, the A-10 gets the nod because of the doubled payload capacity (even though the Desert Storm highway of death revealed the F-111 and thus modern high-altitude precision munitions as the more efficient airborne platform for the work, as compared to the A-10).

>>30668660
Closer to accurate than the OP's comparison, I like it.

File: 53816218.frogfoot.jpg (37KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 800x600px

>>30666855
>Why did the Su-25 "Frogfoot" manage to achieve widespread export success whereas the A-10 did not?

Same reason every other Soviet weapon saw widespread export success.

Because the Soviet Union produced huge surpluses of weaponry and vehicles. As their economy worsened, or they developed newer models, they could no longer afford to maintain these stockpiles, and so they dumped them onto the market at discount. This effect has repeated after the collapse of the Soviet Union, as former-Soviet states have struggled to balance their budgets (or enterprising individuals sought to profiteer off the chaos).

Truthfully, most of the "export users" of the Su-25 are nations that either have tiny numbers (like 1-2 flyable), or former Soviet States that simply absorbed them in their national militaries after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The only "real" non-Soviet users of the Su-25 are Iraq and North Korea.

It has basically nothing to do with the actual capabilities of either aircraft.

>>30670172
SU-25 can into SEAD though, that alone makes up for all those petty shortcomings of it.

>>30672139
If you're running an A-10 or an Su-25 in non-permissive airspace on a modern battlefield, you've already screwed the pooch, anon.

>>30672139
A-10C can equip the AN/ALQ-131 or AN/ALQ-184 ECM pods. It's just not integrated for HARMs. In every other way it's the Su-25T's equal at SEAD.

>>30671441

ThisThisThis

>>30666855
cheap simple parts

they put the missiles on with rubber bands

>>30672260
And the A-10 definitely has no chance against low level radar AA while the SU-25 can do the same job of the A-10 AND throw out some SEAD at the same time too.

>>30672312
>A-10 can only attach ECM pods
>It's JUST not integrated for HARMS no biggie senpai

wew lad

>>30668022
the GAU-8 was designed, then the A-10 was designed with it in mind

>>30668651
Beautiful

>>30672139
>>30672359
I love how people always assume these aircraft are operating in a vacuum with nothing else in theater.

Also how they think it's no biggie to throw an Su-25 or A-10 into a SEAD role like it makes perfect sense. The last time this might have been a remotely good idea was Vietnam. Aircraft of this type are useless for SEAD in a modern environment.

>>30672363
And? Name a single combat aircraft that *wasn't* designed to accommodate a certain weapon system

File: 1363066662306.jpg (152KB, 720x574px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 720x574px

>>30667005
omg

>fapfapfap

What's with the "hurr durr, can't kill MBTs with gun"?

Most armor is not MBTs, but APCs and IFVs. The A-10 will still shred those with its gun. And it can still carry a shitload of Mavericks and cluster bombs for the tanks.

>>30672433
>well yeah it can do more stuff but it doesn't fit into my model of usefulness - I'll also conveniently ignore all of those other also useless criterion, that when using my rubric of modern environments, make the A-10 just as shit if not worse.

>>30672363

But that is simply wrong.

The A-10 and GAU-8 were created for each other simultaneously as part of the A-X program.

>>30672567
>reality doesn't agree with my preconceived notions, nationalistic urges and taste in planefus, so it's time to say fuck reality!

File: 1416172947923.jpg (101KB, 400x500px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 400x500px

>>30672680

>>30667940
Because the Wipeout needs to be wiped out, it's shit. Helicopters are infinitely more useful for pretty much everything in ArmA.

>>30672508
Because it was primarily sold with the idea of the main gun being able to knock out tanks at the time while supplemented by the Maverick and Clusters for Standoff requirements.

Instead it debuted and found out it only had like a 2% chance of actually penning a T-62 in a near perfect gun run and low attack angle. It wasn't until Highway of Death era that it switched to the "guns for soft targets only lol" fanbase/excuse came around.

>>30667104
Are you fucking kidding me? What are the chances of this being just a coincidence?

>>30672680
You're literally citing stall speed as part of a "can't CAS without low and slow" meme but then turning around and saying that HARMS are useless on a CAS oriented aircraft.

Especially for the question of export, a potential buyer would be very interested in a plane that could be configured for HARM/SEAD and CAS all on the same, robust, airframe. It makes more sense for a country like Iraq to be buying SU-25's than A-10's solely on their capabilities.

Just imagine trying to sell the A-10 airframe to some african shithole country or central asian country and telling them
>yeah well that sukhoi rep isn't explaining to you that HARMs are useless on CAS aircraft since you will have to SEAD their AA with dedicated platforms while running an AWACS so you can counter their fighters with your fighters. The threats to these aircraft are too persistent and too sophisticated to be within the scope of engagement. Did I mention the stall speed on this thing is a little bit better so you can shoot these expensive 30mm rounds all over their T-62 hulls to no effect?

>>30666855
A-10 was never for sale outside of the US.

>>30672890
>You're literally citing stall speed as part of a "can't CAS without low and slow"
No, I said low speed low altitude flight characteristics were important parts of the design. I then went on to say, very clearly: >>30670172
>I would add that this is all largely moot, considering the simple fact that both designs are obsolete in a serious large scale conventional battlespace and both are perfectly adequate in a low intensity/COIN role.
That's a pretty strawman you made, though. Modern CAS is not low and slow. Both airframes and the design philosphy behind them is obsolete in a modern conventional context. They are only useful today as low intensity/COIN aircraft in permissible airspace. Which I already said above.

>then turning around and saying that HARMS are useless on a CAS oriented aircraft.
Considering the simple fact that it's a hell of a lot more complicated than loading up HARMs on two of the pylons and then loading everything else up like normal, then saying "herp, redy to SEAD!", yes, HARMs are completely useless for a CAS dedicated aircraft or loadout. HARMs go on dedicated SEAD aircraft with proper pods and other mission appropriate munitions and sensors. The operator then concentrates solely on that job because it is an extremely delicate operation performed by dedicated aircraft with the support of other aircraft. That is why the USN has the Growler, and why the F-16J exists. That is also why there are many choices for the Russians for SEAD work which are superior to the Su-25T.

>Especially for the question of export, a potential buyer would be very interested in a plane that could be configured for HARM/SEAD and CAS all on the same, robust, airframe.
Again, with the fantasy that the Su-25 was a tentpole export product? Furthermore, no Su-25T or Su-25SM aircraft were ever exported, and those are the only "SEAD capable" variants.

cont

>>30672890
>>30673049
>It makes more sense for a country like Iraq to be buying SU-25's than A-10's solely on their capabilities.
Again, none of the Su-25 SEAD variants were ever exported. The only reason the Su-25 was exported was cost and convenience coupled with the USAF/DoD/Congress' reluctance to export them.

>yeah well that sukhoi rep isn't explaining to you that HARMs are useless on CAS aircraft since you will have to SEAD their AA with dedicated platforms while running an AWACS so you can counter their fighters with your fighters. The threats to these aircraft are too persistent and too sophisticated to be within the scope of engagement. Did I mention the stall speed on this thing is a little bit better so you can shoot these expensive 30mm rounds all over their T-62 hulls to no effect?
Anon, if they're buying expensive modernized ground support fighters yet they cannot afford a basic air superiority option while also buying a few SEAD variants of that option, well, they're pretty fucking dumb. And again, this fantasy that the Su-25 is currently actively marketed or being bought in any numbers? Nope.

>>30673055
Damn. That was a mess. Let me fix that sentence.
>The only reason the Su-25 was exported and the A-10 was not revolved around cost and convenience coupled with the USAF/DoD/Congress' reluctance to export the A-10.

>>30672890
>Just imagine trying to sell the A-10 airframe to some african shithole country or central asian country and telling them
Well, the Su-25SMs are the only Su-25s currently being built with SEAD capability, and they aren't being exported (that'd be the Su-25UBM). Su-25Ts were never exported. So this argument is completely irrelevant.

>>30673137
In fact, the most recent export sale of the Su-25 was of 7 aircraft to Iraq in 2014, and before that of 6 aircraft to Chad (Su-25 and Su-25UB). Seems like the market's REALLY hot for these things.

>>30673188
>to Chad
in 2008

>>30666855
>Why did the Su-25 "Frogfoot" manage to achieve widespread export success whereas the A-10 did not?
This is literally on the same tier as:
>How did the AK47 manage to achieve worldwide export sucess and usage whereas the M16 did not?

>>30673055
Plenty of countries can't afford a real airforce but are interested in COIN/CAS operations and maybe a bonus of having a SEAD platform is a better bonus than the A-10's stall speed. It makes sense to but a multipurpose airframe that could do it rather than not. The SU-25 can even do AShM.

>>30673188
>A-10 exports: 0
Wait, if you consider the four that were shot down in Iraq you could say that Iraq got some exported in seperate pieces. :^)

>>30673300
>Plenty of countries can't afford a real airforce but are interested in COIN/CAS operations and maybe a bonus of having a SEAD platform is a better bonus than the A-10's stall speed. It makes sense to but a multipurpose airframe that could do it rather than not. The SU-25 can even do AShM.
This only makes sense if the Russians are exporting the Su-25SM. They're not. They've built SEAD capabilities into the worst possible fighter or fighterbomber for the role, save maybe the MiG-25/31. End of story.

>>A-10 exports: 0
Attempts to sell the A-10 to anyone else: 0
Only a retard crows about winning a competition no one else is playing.

>>30667097

The A-10 doesn't have it's own targeting FLIR?

Jesus.

>>30674129
Not then, no. The C can use a LITENING pod or the LockMart Sniper XR pod, but the LANTIRN pods that were still entering service as of Desert Storm and were only on the F-15E and F-16. So it had to use the Maverick's FLIR cameras.

>>30666855
Nobody has yet to explain when the usage of the A10 gun has ever really been useful.

Gulf War - Nope.
Iraq War - Nope.
Afghanistan - Nope.
ISIS - Nope.

Seems like a cool-looking lemon.

>>30670128
an unladen Su-25 can fucking punch it, thing's a hotrod when it's shot its wad

>>30667297
support your claim, Jhonny

>>30674569
The gun is good for morale.

>>30674652
It gives infantry huge erections, but statistically doesn't do many CAS missions compared to the Hornet, B-1, etc.

>>30674700
Well then. Take the gun out, dump the plane and fix the gun on top of trucks for the infantry to play with.