What do the Russians think of the A-10? Respectable? They have

>>31360513
They tried. The gun they used nearly crashed the jet and revealed why our version requires a near WW-2 airframe model basis.

>>31360513
>What do the Russians think of the A-10? Respectable?

Russians built a lot of AAA, to shoot down all kinds of planes. The A10 is just another plane to shoot down. There is nothing special or remarkable about it in this context.

>They have their own version?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-25

Russians like low and slow 1970s planes to feed their S400s.

And closest thing Slavs came up with is Su-25 which is garbage when compared to A-10.

They have better helicopter gunship for that kind of role.

File: mig-27 with gsh-6-30.jpg (126KB, 1142x714px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1142x714px

>>31360513
It's a fine aircraft that desperately requires a modification. Russian MiG-27 was the original BRRRT, but the actual Russian aircraft similar in role to A-10 would be Su-25.
>>31360523
It didn't crash the jet, it was just gradually destroying it and was later generally understood to be excessive.

File: su-25k & a-10.jpg (117KB, 1024x692px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1024x692px

>>31360578
>Su-25 which is garbage when compared to A-10
Go chew on some dick, they're both nice.

>>31360578
Are you dumb?
Su-25t is perfect

File: 1456152604658s.jpg (5KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 125x125px

>>31361002
>>31360854
>Ivan buttmad that the A-10 outperforms Su-25 by a vast margin in every aspect except speed.

>>31360513
Why are people still obsessed with this shit aircraft? It's been outdated since it's inception and should have been retired literal decades ago.

>>31361006
The A10C is obviously a better PGM truck but are there that major differences in ground attack capability between the A10A and SU-25 variants?

File: su-25sm (1).jpg (256KB, 1450x980px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 1450x980px

>>31361002
Su-25T is old and obsolete. Su-25SM3 is where it's at.

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

2MB, 3015x2010px

>>31361023
No, he's just baiting desperately.

>>31361023
Being a PGM/bomb truck is both planes main role.

A-10 does it better, hence, is a better plane. Im not even that guy.

>>31361101
Stateing facts is not bait. Do you want to compare?

File: you tried.jpg (8KB, 250x238px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 250x238px

>>31361133
>Stateing

>>31361156
>i cant argue facts so i will argue grammar

Wew laddy. I am extremely sorry, it must really mess with your translator.

>>31361185
>Muh feels are facts

>>31361300
Are you sure you want to do this? It wont be pretty for the SU-25...

File: image.png (511KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

511KB, 1024x1024px

>>31361185
>spelling a word incorrectly
>grammar

>>31361340
Linguistic morphology is generally considered apart of grammar.

File: 1453180217245.jpg (40KB, 650x374px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 650x374px

>>31360513
there could be some interesting abominations, bum my motherland lost all polymers in aviation, so we enjoy su-25 and other soviet flying dinosaurs

>>31361328
There's not need to be this salty about people not accepting your feels as facts.

>>31361390
Well then.

A-10 Hardpoint Payload capacity: 7,260kg

Su-25 Hardpoint Payload capacity: 4,000kg

Shall i go on?

>>31361405
First, Su-25 payload is 4500 kg, second, cut ammo weight from that A-10 payload, third, Su-25 is generally a much lighter aircraft with smaller silhouette. On the top of that is faster and has longer range. In short, go bait elsewhere.

Oh wait, 4340 kg, not 4500.

Weren't SU-25 and A-10 initially made for different roles?
A-10 more for killing tanks and SU-25 for more general use?

Before upgrades and shit

>>31361440
SU-25 with max weapons can't even get above 16K ft. Even a Cessna 182 can climb higher.

>>31361440
First, thats hardpoint payload capacity, not total.

http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104490/a-10-thunderbolt-ii.aspx

> Su-25 is generally a much lighter aircraft with smaller silhouette.

A-10 empty weight-11,321 kg

Su-25 empty weight- 9,800 kg

Wow such difference!

A-10 length- 16.26 m

Su-25 length- 15.53 m

Whao so much bigger!!

>On the top of that is faster
Sub mach, cas/tank busting, speed is SOOOOO important.

>and has longer range

Pffft, ranges are effectively the same.

Also, the A-10 has a much better gun, with a metric fuckton more ammo.

>>31361460
You can make it 4500 for all i care, its pitiful compared to the a-10.

>>31361472
The increased weight is because A-10s are meant to survive. Increased weight slower speed, less radius, etc.

Meanwhile Su-25 pilots are just supposed to die if they come into contact.

>>31361488
Except its basically 1000kg of weight difference, thats fucking nothing.

Second off, the a-10 and the Su-25 have basically the same range.

File: 1433825850650.gif (58KB, 608x580px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 608x580px

>>31361467
>Attack aircraft
>Max altitude
Are you this desperate?
>>31361472
>thats hardpoint payload capacity, not total
Cool story.
>Wow such difference!
Now look at max. takeoff weight. There's your difference.
>Whao so much bigger!!
>The world is two-dimensional, length is the only metric known
What the fuck is area, indeed.
>speed is SOOOOO important
Speed is important, because it allows to engage your targets in shorter amount of time.
>ranges are effectively the same
No, they are not.
>A-10 has a much better gun
Which is useless for virtually anything newer than T-55.
>>31361474
It is pitiful how desperately you are trying to bait.

File: 1354628346_11.jpg (72KB, 800x495px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 800x495px

>>31361488
>Su-25 pilots are just supposed to die if they come into contact
Weak bait, try again.
>>31361501
More like at least 3700 kg difference.
>a-10 and the Su-25 have basically the same range
No, they do not.

>>31361515
>Cool story.

Every source states this. You upset at this fact, anon?

>Now look at max. takeoff weight. There's your difference.

Well being that the A-10 carries a metric fuckton more, yeah, i would say the max takeoff weight would be a metric fuckton different. In fact, its about 4k kg difference, WHY, THATS THE PAYLOAD DIFFERENCE!

>What the fuck is area, indeed.

Well being that the A-10 is shorter, and the only difference is wingspan (a whole 10 feet more), what the fuck indeed?

>because it allows to engage your targets in shorter amount of time.

Yet, both are well into sub mach, so this is effectively pointless.

>No, they are not.

Yes anon. They are. The combat radius of the su-25 is 400km. Its the same for the A-10.

http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/sukhoi_su25_frogfoot.htm

And thats me being nice and ignoreing that the a-10s is technically larger by a small amount.

>Which is useless for virtually anything newer than T-55.

>using guns on MBTs.

It has a fuckload more ammo, for things like EVERYTHING BUT AN MBT.

>It is pitiful how desperately you are trying to bait.

>Sourced facts = bait.

I fucking asked you anon, if you wanted to do this.

This is what you get.

>>31361524
>More like at least 3700 kg difference.

Not empty, fuccboi, the max weight represents the massive fucking payload difference.

>no they dont!

Yes anon, they do, see above.

>>31361552
>Muh feels are a source
Deal with it.
>WHY, THATS THE PAYLOAD DIFFERENCE!
Payload difference is about 2120 kg depending on ammo composition. Maximum takeoff weight differs for 5 to 6 tonnes depending on the strip they are taking off from.
>the only difference is wingspan
What the fuck is area, indeed?
>Speed difference is pointless because muh feels
No need to be this upset.
>The combat radius of the su-25 is
510 km with full fuel load and ordinary combat load.
>a-10s is technically larger
>"technically"
Dat backpedaling, top kek. There's photo of both next to each other in the 6th post of the thread. It is really amusing to see you're desperately trying to ignore the very concept of "area".
>Muh feels are sourced facts
Please. They're both decent attack aircraft with their own pros and cons.
>>31361556
Since the payload difference is much smaller, it clearly does not. A-10 is generally larger and heavier. It's a basic objective fact.

>>31361658
>>Muh feels are a source

I have now posted two sources

>http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/A10ThunderboltII/Pages/Specifications.aspx

3 sources

>http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=25

4 sources

>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II

5 sources that specifically say the A-10 has over 7k kg on the pylons.

>depends on the gun

Nope. Spoiler- the gun and ammo is not considered payload because the plane cannot fly without it. The CG is thrown off to much.

>510 km with full fuel load and ordinary combat load.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su25/

>1: 375km

http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/sukhoi_su25_frogfoot.htm

>2: 400km

http://www.enemyforces.net/aircraft/su25.htm

>3: 400km

http://www.lowflying.net/warplanes/warthog-vs-frogfoot

>4: 460km

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail-page-2.asp?aircraft_id=195

>5: 235km

Spoilers: combat radius depends entirely on the mission.

>Maximum takeoff weight differs for 5 to 6 tonnes depending on the strip they are taking off from.

Ahh, the A-10 has a MTOW of 25000 kg?

HAHAHAHAHAHA

File: image193.jpg (40KB, 600x449px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 600x449px

>>31361488

>>31361101
praise KEK

File: 2008_Moscow_Victory_Day_Parade_-_9K22_Tunguska[1].jpg (117KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 800x600px

>>31360513

They were scared enough that they made a specialized vehicle specifically to counter it.

>>31361753
>depends on the gun
When did he say this?

>Spoiler- the gun and ammo is not considered payload because the plane cannot fly without it. The CG is thrown off to much.
So you're saying the pilot can't use his gun because then he'll crash?

>>31362338
>where did he say this

>Payload difference is about 2120 kg depending on ammo composition.

>So you're saying the pilot can't use his gun because then he'll crash?

No, without the gun and ammo the center of gravity shifts way to the rear and the plane will flip over on its tail on the tarmac.

>>31361472
>http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104490/a-10-thunderbolt-ii.aspx
can't open it.

>A-10 empty weight-11,321 kg
From one of your source:
>weight(empty):27,999 lb (12,700 kg)

>Sub mach, cas/tank busting, speed is SOOOOO important.
And doing strafing runs with that stupid gun is a viable tactic against anyone with more than rifle fire and harsh language as anti-air?

>>31362386
>cant open it

Meh, works for me

>~1000kg difference

Meh, it will always very. Maybe they were talking about a10c, oa-10, whatever.

>speed on a cas bird

Again, not the most important thing in the world.

>>31361045
>Su-25T is old and obsolete
To be fair, so is the A10.

>>31362595
A-10C will never be obsolete until they have a better plane.

>>31361354
>Hind AB10
That's beautiful.

>>31361101
I thought frogfoot was a NATO name. They made homage to it?

File: lockheed-f35-lightning-ii_2[1].jpg (37KB, 800x528px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 800x528px

>>31362617

There you go.

>>31361352
>apart
Well baited good sir

File: 1471813288893.jpg (181KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 900x675px

>>31362680

>>31362701
Took long enough, fack.

>>31362798
Stop

>>31361753
>northropgrumman.com
That's the only noteworthy source so far and it only states that its maximum payload capacity is 7200 kg. Which can be as high as that or lower, depending on gun ammo load.
>It can not fly without gun ammo
Try harder, please.
>All that random bullshit
Now, back to the actual technical documentation:
http://sandrermakoff.livejournal.com/912433.html
>A-10 has a MTOW of 25000 kg?
A-10 has MTOW of 23 tonnes, Su-25 has MTOW of 17-18 tonnes, depending on the strip.
>>31362655
It's Czech, look at the roundel.

File: Su-25-009.jpg (93KB, 1280x842px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1280x842px

>>31360540
>>They have their own version?
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-25

The Su-25 is actually nothing like the A-10, it's flight performance is completely dissamillar and it's gun not a weapon it has any real use for.

The speeds and angles of attack the Su-25 flies at is pretty the much the same as any other fixed wing jet, fast, and at downward oblique angles, with little time to prepare for an attack before it has to pull up again. The weapon and use of the Su-25, as a mobile rocket arty launcher

>>31365398
>b-b-b-but the SU25 and the A10 are not perfectly identical copies of one another!!

OK? We knew that.

OP asked what the Russians use for ground attack. They use the SU25.

This really isn't as complicated are you're making it out to be.

>>31365456
>>>They have their own version?
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-25
>their own version
>being this retarded to not be able to read and getting defensive about it

>>31365483

Why are you having a meltdown about this?

What point are you even trying to make here?

>>31365502
Someone clarifies the vast difference between the frog and the warthog, and the very next poster (you) has a problem with it, kek

>>31365569
>Someone clarifies the vast difference between the frog and the warthog

But this is apparent to anyone who even glances at these two aircraft.

Nobody said that they were identical. You're pitching a fit about something that A) nobody said, and B) we're already aware of.

>>31365596
>But this is apparent to anyone who even glances at these two aircraft.
>except for the third poster, and me

>>31365740

What do you want me to say here?

We're in complete agreement about the facts of the matter. I can't imagine what you think you're achieving here by pretending that we're not.

>>31365757
>someone calmly and clearly explained the difference between the A-10 and Su25
>(you) gets mad

>>31365795

How many times do I need to point out that you were correct before you stop pretending that I ever said otherwise?

You're really spoiling for a fight here. I suggest you find someone who actually disagrees with you about something.

>>31365854
>said the guy who got mad for no reason

>>31366001
not him but you are autistic too

>>31365456
>b-b-b-but

What did he mean by this?

>>31360513
I'd rather have the international opinion on one of America's most successful exports, the F-16.

>>31366001
lol i'm in agreement here>>31366001

There where two contenders for the ground attack aircraft, the a9 and the a10.

The USSR stole the plans for the a9 because the early testing showed it was a better plane.
Thay than made the SU25 using the stolen information.
The similarities between the A9 and the SU25 are more than form following function, I will leave it as an exercise for the class to review both airframes and decide for yourself.

File: A-9A-c.jpg (226KB, 1800x1173px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1800x1173px

>>31360578
The Su-25, AKA YA-9 was the runner-up in the A-X project to the YA-10, what would become the A-10.

Pic related is the YA-9. Look familiar?

>>31362655
A lot of Russian pilots are apparently very fond of NATO reporting names. MiG-29 pilots refer to their own aircraft as Fulcrums because they're flattered by the idea that their multirole bird is pivotal to the entire VVS.

>>31366946

Are you stupid on purpose?

>>31362449
>>31362386
works foe me as well

>>31361760
Do they have an armored bulkhead between the engines to stop a turbine explosion from killing the other engine?

Actually, do any twin engine jets (F-5, F-18, F-4, MiG-29, etc) have this?
To me it seems like a no brainer.