Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 91

Thread: A10 vs SU-25

  1. #61
    Contributor
    Join Date
    06 Oct 06
    Posts
    651
    It could still be a single aircraft, firing from longer range (An A-10 will use the gun from up to 5nm slant range, thus giving it a large CEP) ... to me the video looks more like a strafing run than a CBU.

    The reason is that you see the fire 'walk up' the road, then 'walk back down' - CBU's don't tend to have this pattern - they just blanket explosions 'walking' in one direction.

    So it looks like the pilot walked the pipper up the road and then back down the road. This is just an opinion though so don't quote me on it.

  2. #62
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    16 Nov 05
    Posts
    2,224
    Same for me...but I'm no expert.

    Quote Originally Posted by jlvfr View Post
    Isn't the spread area a bit wide? I'd have thought the shots would be somewhat closer...
    You can see the aircraft jink in the middle of the clip. It could be a CBU, but it doesnt look all that different from some strafe videos I've seen.

  3. #63
    Regular Operator's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 Oct 06
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Kommunist View Post
    The A-10 has non-afterburning twin GE
    The Su-25 Frogfooot on the other hand has twin R-195 (MiG-21 variant) engine and this makes the plane capable of Mach1+ flight.

    Not saying you're wrong, but I've yet to find a source that puts the SU-25 over Mach.

  4. #64
    Contributor
    Join Date
    06 Oct 06
    Posts
    651
    The Su-25 does not use a single-piece elevator ... that makes it unsuitable for flying at mach (basically, compression effects would cause you to lose control of the aircraft, just based on those alone)

    Quote Originally Posted by Operator View Post
    Not saying you're wrong, but I've yet to find a source that puts the SU-25 over Mach.

  5. #65
    Contributor Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Jul 06
    Posts
    651
    Has any country ever thought about or requested to buy the A-10 apart from America?

    Just wondering. They are such useful close air support planes.

    There was recently a piece in the Defence news saying that the UK may withdraw the harrier in 5 years time to save cash. I wondered if they might consider a lease deal on the A-10 - commonality with USA using shared airbases in Afghanistan. Would be interesting.
    Naval Warfare Discussion is dying on WAB

  6. #66
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    2,044
    I doubt it. Let's face it, the A-10 is simply too "mission-specific", ie a pure short-range (relatively speaking) air-support plane, that (like the SU-25) pretty much demands total air superiority to operate. Most air forces are too small to aford (or even need) such a dedicated plane. Most just take planes that can perform as many missions as possible... hence the comercial sucess of the F-16...

  7. #67
    Contributor Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Jul 06
    Posts
    651
    Given that the A-10 would never be sent in without air superiority im not too worried about the size of the RAF - given that in this day in age we are very very unlikely to go into a situation with out US support and complete air superiority. I wonder though if the british wish to maintain an independant source of close air support would facilitate and instigate the look at purchsing a limited number of A-10's with which to achieve this.

    Im talking limited numbers of 10-20 planes.
    Naval Warfare Discussion is dying on WAB

  8. #68
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    2,044
    Quote Originally Posted by Stan View Post
    I wonder though if the british wish to maintain an independant source of close air support would facilitate and instigate the look at purchsing a limited number of A-10's with which to achieve this.

    Im talking limited numbers of 10-20 planes.
    They had that, it was called Jaguar: cheap to operate, highly capable, could deploy anywhere... loved by all, and it still got the axe, due to costs (apparently...); so, getting an even more speciallised plane is out of the question...

    And even the RAF is too small these days. It's down to a few strike/recon/air support craft (GR4), the new multipurpose fighter/interceptor Typhoon (fast replacing the F3), and the Harrier, who does duty as naval fighter (er...), air support and recon. Whatever the RAF gets next is going to have to full severall shoes (naval fighter, air support, etc); other wise, it will soon become the USAF-RAF Command )

  9. #69
    Contributor
    Join Date
    27 Apr 05
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    410

    RE: A10 vs SU-25

    Quote Originally Posted by Operator View Post
    Not saying you're wrong, but I've yet to find a source that puts the SU-25 over Mach.
    I have never seen it in print but, one of the pilots in the Wing's (2 hour) special, "Red October" made mention of it! That the Su-25 could go faster than Mach 1. They were surprised for they had previously thought its performance was like the A-10. It was said in passing because all of the F/A-18 pilots wanted a ride in the Su-25, while some of them flew in the MiG-29 they stated the Su-25 was a plane that was more fun to fly!

    Adrian

  10. #70
    Contributor Kommunist's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 08
    Location
    Toronto, ON, Canada
    Posts
    599
    Quote Originally Posted by avon1944 View Post
    I have never seen it in print but, one of the pilots in the Wing's (2 hour) special, "Red October" made mention of it! That the Su-25 could go faster than Mach 1. They were surprised for they had previously thought its performance was like the A-10. It was said in passing because all of the F/A-18 pilots wanted a ride in the Su-25, while some of them flew in the MiG-29 they stated the Su-25 was a plane that was more fun to fly!

    Adrian
    Yup, I've seen that, and also the fact that it basically uses 2x Mig21 (variants) engines, one of which was sufficient to put the 21 easily over Mach1.5
    Everyone has opinions, only some count.

  11. #71
    Senior Contributor Stitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Nov 06
    Location
    Patterson, CA
    Posts
    3,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Kommunist View Post
    Yup, I've seen that, and also the fact that it basically uses 2x Mig21 (variants) engines, one of which was sufficient to put the 21 easily over Mach1.5
    I'm still having trouble beliving a straight-wing, sub-sonic, CAS aircraft could break the sound barrier, even with two "MiG 21" engines; also, those two engines are of the non-afterburning variety, so it's hard to see how it could develop enough thrust to exceed M1.
    "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

  12. #72
    Contributor Kommunist's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 08
    Location
    Toronto, ON, Canada
    Posts
    599
    Quote Originally Posted by Stitch View Post
    I'm still having trouble beliving a straight-wing, sub-sonic, CAS aircraft could break the sound barrier, even with two "MiG 21" engines; also, those two engines are of the non-afterburning variety, so it's hard to see how it could develop enough thrust to exceed M1.
    Well, to be honest, my source was the "Discovery - Wings of the Red Star: Su-25" show. In that, the Su-25 pilots said that the plane was indeed capable of M1+ flight.
    So, I dont know whether this is possible or not, but i think that there is no reason for the Russian pilots to lie.
    Everyone has opinions, only some count.

  13. #73
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    2,044
    Quote Originally Posted by Stitch View Post
    I'm still having trouble beliving a straight-wing,
    The leading edge of the wing is not straight...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su-25

  14. #74
    Senior Contributor Andrey Egorov's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Oct 08
    Location
    Moscow, Russia, Russia
    Posts
    957
    It was prohibited to fly over 0,82 Mach on Su-25 due to wings flatter. General Staff wanted to go supersonic, but bureau failed this for two reasons - CAS never demand supersonic and Tbilisi Airplane Plant was unable to secure necessary precision of wing manufacturing.

    My source is Oleg Samoylovich's book "Near Sukhoy". He was a deputy of chief designer in Sukhoy at the time.
    We're so bad, we're even bad at it

  15. #75
    Contributor Kommunist's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 08
    Location
    Toronto, ON, Canada
    Posts
    599
    Wel, then it means that the Su-25 pilots pushed the plane beyond its official threshold, even though it was prohibited?
    Everyone has opinions, only some count.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Strike Aircraft Comparisons
    By SuperFlanker in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 237
    Last Post: 06 Nov 09,, 15:35
  2. A-10 Successor
    By PubFather in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 15 Oct 06,, 15:48

Tags for this Thread

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •