@viper8red "this thing" has proven itself very reliable. You can land it on it's belly and after that just clean the engines and fly off again. The Su-39 can also fight BVR with r-77 missiles. It can engage ships with Kh-35 missiles. The Su-25T can carry 16 anti-tank missiles only on two of it's pylon's and carry other bombs/rockets/guided missiles/guided bombs/anti-radar missiles at the same time. What can your a-10a do ?
Some comment are utterly inesact, : Frogfoot carry an 30mm GAST cannon (so 2 barrel and 1500rpm), First series were very simple , like A-10 also but beginning from su-25T they got laser guided bomb and TV guided bomb AND the systems to guide it even in behealf of the former models.
They were used in Chechnia and during south Ossetia conflict by both part.
And Soviet never fought Taliban, but afgan freedom fighters like the eroic Lion of Panshir Massoud, killed by by Al-Quaeda 2 days before 9/11
@Marcellogo Su-25T almost doesn't exist. There was 10 of them TOTAL, which have been upgraded to TM standards. That's all - no more than 10 Su-25T(TM). So you are tallking about not-existing plane compared to almost 400 Su-25 basic.
To conclude with, In my oppinion the better warplane is the one, that is able to fulfill its duty with lowest financial cost and highest combat effectiveness. The SU 25/39 fits this requirement deffinitly better, while A10 despite all his strong sides has too much excessive features. It is not bad, because it fulfillls its task well, but I still prefer sukhoi.
More to add, some "Advantages" of A10 may rather turn against it and/or its pilot. 1) the bigger payload there is, the longer plane stays in the air of battlefield, the more lead it gets. 2) It is larger, slower, less agile. for reason see point (1). 3) Its design. The engines are like telling enemy air defence "shoot us off". 4) "too advanced", making it too sophisticated and expensive in comissioning supplying and maintenance.
@EagleOwlHayakawa 1. Nobody takes full payload, this is not a game. :), 2. It is slower but have more fuel and is to stay much longer in air above enemy but doesn't have to. 3. Engines are not good, in terms of speed. But A-10 has enough sophisticated components to try avoid missiles. 4. Advanced mean much more survival and comfort for a pilot. :)
Both planes are great (A-10 is actually an ONLY good US warplane), but Su25/39 has clearly some advantages. 1) It is more durable, has safer configuration and better armoring. 2) It is simplier to handle: sophisticated doesn't allways mean advanced and as M. Kalashnikov once said, simple things are often harder to invent. 3)speed and maneuvrability. This 3 aspects are in my oppinion vital, for a better Attack aircraft.
@EagleOwlHayakawa 1. Where did it prove? Su-39 almost doesn't exist :) Su-25 fought only against talibs, so not too much... both has cockpit armored well :) 2. It is very simple. In modern battlefield almost useless, used only in dumb bombs attack and rockets spread. Nothing fancy ;] 3. You have the right to think that, but get more info about :)
@Boberrosini what do you call a modern battlefield and why do you think it is useless, while Georgian war prove it is not? It seems you have not heard about modern Su-25 are armed with Laser- and GLONASS guided bombs and KH-25/29 missiles, that definitly outperform US analogs. I say furthermore, it is all about usage doctrine or ROE. Even an ancient design sword could prove an effective weapon in modern combat, if you know some right tactics to use it.
@EagleOwlHayakawa Modern battlefield means modern SAM systems (or upgraded) with various threats around. Su-25 is not capable to survive well any modern battlefield. It is then useless to attack forces guarded by such air-defence. It can be used well against low threats like talibs huts. New Su-25 doesn't have (still) pod to guidance TV \laser missiles (it can guide laser missile pointed by someone else). It doesn't have also new missiles. It's been upgraded since 10 years.;]
@Boberrosini even the oldest version of Su-25 were capable of using laser-seeking homing missiles without any aside guidance. TV-yes, only modified versions like Su-25T. Even now it doesn't need any pods. Exception - anti-radar missiles
@Excelentz Yes but using laser missiles in basic Su-25 are only visually. Against moving target it is completely useless. New Su-25SM still doesn't have any guidanance. They can aim only by visual seeing or by aid of ground troops. Nothing fancy.
@Boberrosini all laser missiles are visually guided. You must see the target, "capture" it. After that the aiming mark will be guided manually or by computer. Go and check AT-16 Vikhr. Yes-old rockets like Kh-25L and Kh-29L were designed only for demolition of structures and other non-moving objects
@Excelentz Su-25 can only fire missiles either by VISUAL contact from the COCKPIT or lased by someone else. It means Su-25 is useless against moving targets and stationary vehicles - it can be used mostly to dumb bombing. Till Su-25 finds target and aim missile on the HUD, it will be killed.
Same situation to the Su-25SM, which also doesn't have any TV\FLIR to use so far where A-10 has been upgraded long years ago to the standards which Su-25 can dream at this moment.
@Boberrosini A-10 also need to identify the target visually first. It means to aim from cockpit=) Of course A-10 has a much larger field of view and target acquisition range - no doubts. But without any visual contact A-10 is useless (or it also needs laser guidance from observer). Attacking moving objects - i've already told you to read about AT-16. Also it can be equiped with Kh-29T missiles (tv guidance). It tells you about anything? P.S. Everything is said about Su-25T or latter
@Excelentz We're talking about Su-25 basic - the most spreaded version in RuAF inventory. Su-25T(TM in other name Su-39) almost doesn't exist so it is rather pointless to talk about non-presence plane.
Also Su-25SM upgrade is not finished and in many aspects it is old Su-25 with upgrades in the cockpit while in meantime lacking of targeting pod and new precision missiles.
@Excelentz A-10 (I talk about A) didn't have to identify target by pilot's eyes. Mavericks has in-built camera. Fact it is low range (up to 7 nautical miles) view but compared to Su-25 which has to see target by pilot's eyes first it is just like Mercedes and Lada.
As fact all A-10A are now upgraded to A-10C equipped by very advanced avionics and sophiscitated camera pod, where you can see targets freely from even 50 km.
@Excelentz Compare it to the Su-25 basic (most in Ru fleet) and you see reason why this plane fills mostly dumb bombing at Chechen huts. In real war its chances are just small.
There is hope for Su-25SM upgrade but since 10 years Russians still are not able to develop such advanced and effective plane update as A-10C is. No new pods, no new missiles.
Regarding AT-16 - it is outdated weapon, dangerous and low comfortable for pilot. This is why this weapon has been abandomed.
@EagleOwlHayakawa In Geaorgian war few Su-25s has been lost. Overall you can just compare its avionics suite, weaponry to the survival chances. Of course it doesn't mean it cannot be used. It can - but chances are very low. Good tactics can help, but it is just tactics - it doesn't replace technology.
Russian SU25T or SU39 are not too bad, Georgian SU25KM are very good.
And also too much suicidie pilots like japaneese are in russia because they are using too much unguided rockets ;) i waiting to employ unguided rockets in AA propsure ;)
@MrRusSerb Only 84s? So this tactics made russian SU25s so easy target to manpads, so Georgians equipped with Polish manpads shooted down some russian SU25s.
@ViciousCritique You should watch your language. Everyone who knows smth about aircrafts would be disagree with your opinion. Su-25 is an honoured one.
@Kenoshino You're right about Su-39 but dramatically wrong about "Frogfoot". It is a real combat machine. Yes, A-10 has much more modern electronic systems. Unfortunately, our military budget isn't as big as american, and we can't afford to buy Su-39 enough to replace Su-25.
@hotpocketpoison dude technical information does not hide the reality.In Iraq dozens of A-10's were shot down where the Iraqies didn't even have an Air Defence left except some Strellas and SA-7's.But during the war in Afganistan even though they had been equipped with the American Stingers only "7" SU-25's were lost in "7 years"...
This is why i call the SU-25 is better,not the technical data,the performance at war matters...
@dallamakanepe Strelas and SA-7? the iraqi ground forces had a massive amount of anti aircraft impalements including the shilka,Kub,and thousands of towed AAA systems. and in the iraq war only 1 A-10 was ever shot down.it was shot down over baghdad,the most heavily defended city in iraq.and 23 SU-25 were shot down by the afghanis,not 7,please do some research before you go spouting nonsense...PLEASE!!!
@RaptorGP just look on wikipedia, it gives the cost and statistics of both aircraft. and no A-10 were even used in the vietnam war so it is impossible to use vietnam in a comparison.
@hotpocketpoison I just talk about specifics of Vietnam and Afganistan. Their forces were supplied by USSR and USA thats why I said about similar conditions. Iraqi forces didn't have such kind of supply. Who knows what a situation could be? But it's dammned politics, I don't want to speak about it. :)
@dallamakanepe The Su-25 has a significantly smaller payload than the A-10. The Su-25 is more maneuverable & faster but the A-10 can hit harder. Both are excellent planes though.
@Mattc23q you know, the Su-25 carries a just a effective 23mm cannon and a multitude of guided, unguided, dumb and smart munitions and it can carry more than an A-10, can out preform an A-10. it is also faster and just as well armored as the A-10. By no means is the A-10 a bad plane the su-25 is just better.
@matrin2 Just as effective? the A-10 has 6 barrels, Su-25 has 1, and the 30mm is 7mm larger then 23, and the SU-25 can't fire lasor guided bombs for one clear reason, IT HASNT GOT A LASER SYSTEM IN IT, its got a glass hud, consisting of old-school flip up glass sites, as for the A-10 its got a Pave-Penny sniping system which can lock onto targets beyond visual range and fire AGM's, the A-10 is also more maneuverable at low speeds which is necessary for a ground attack aircraft.
I think you compared the very first model of the Su-25. The most recent updates have received quite the advancements, from latest navigational, to latest precision guidance systems. The Klen system provides just that...
@EagleOwlHayakawa Try to find debriefing\pilots interview\relations to the joint operations of A-10 and Su-25 in Europe (both excercise). IIRC it was since 2005 but don't remember exact time. I have read about this long time ago.
@matrin2 from 1990-2011 and in 4 wars only 6 A-10s have been lost in combat with just about 60000 sorties flown, all of them due to advanced soviet SAMs not AAA. from 1990-2011 over 45 Su-25s have been lost in combat in 3 wars with about 60000 sorties flown. however NONE of the enemies russia fought had anywhere near the amount of air defenses that the enemies of the US did, the iraqis had over 16000 SAMs(yes SAMs not AAA). the Afghanis, Chechens, and Georgians didnt have 1/10th that amount.
@matrin2 it is better armored, has a longer range, a higher service ceiling, a larger max takeoff weight, has a far superior cannon(with about 5x as much ammunition for it as well), and lower wing loading(more maneuverable). the only good thing about the Su-25 is its speed, however in a ground attack aircraft speed is NOT beneficial. and that last comment i posted was actually directed towards dallamakanepe but i must have replied to you by accident.
@Shadowsolider1 nice research dude. what you just said tells me that you are just a russian military fanboy, you do NO research(like i have done *points to previous comment*)and refuse to do so because you are afraid of the truth. so please, just go back to sleep and dont wake up until you know what you are talking about.
@Mattc23q The SU-25 has also Laser Guided Bombs,Missiles and a 30 mm Cannon.And the A-10 also uses Dumb Bombs.This is not an handicap for the plane.Depending on the mission the both use different types of weapons.They are not used only to hunt Tanks or Armored Carriers,they are used to support ground troop as well.
I would like that the russian TV channels use better cameramen and edition for their weapons videos, it's a matter of marketing and perception... airplanes are a product too
@Starscream2040 and i would like you advertising and PR motherfuckers to stop trying to label abso-fucking-lutely everything with a dollar bill... how do you live with yourself ?
обожаю этот самолет
Koootia 3 days ago
A-10 would smoke this thing.
viper8red 1 week ago
@viper8red "this thing" has proven itself very reliable. You can land it on it's belly and after that just clean the engines and fly off again. The Su-39 can also fight BVR with r-77 missiles. It can engage ships with Kh-35 missiles. The Su-25T can carry 16 anti-tank missiles only on two of it's pylon's and carry other bombs/rockets/guided missiles/guided bombs/anti-radar missiles at the same time. What can your a-10a do ?
ogi415 11 hours ago
loai nay viet nam ma co danh chet het bon tau khua.
11111111180420 1 week ago
@11111111180420 Наверно и так, но я не понимаю по-вьетнамски. :)
RaptorGP 1 week ago
@RaptorGP Вьетнаме, но этот вид может убить всех вражеских кораблей, размахивая
nhoang92 2 days ago
В арме он сама вата.
Gordorik 2 weeks ago
Красиво конечно, но это орудие смерти. Поменьше бы такой красоты
alexandertambow 3 weeks ago
Su-34- my type of attack plane
tht1drnkrussian 3 weeks ago
Some comment are utterly inesact, : Frogfoot carry an 30mm GAST cannon (so 2 barrel and 1500rpm), First series were very simple , like A-10 also but beginning from su-25T they got laser guided bomb and TV guided bomb AND the systems to guide it even in behealf of the former models.
They were used in Chechnia and during south Ossetia conflict by both part.
And Soviet never fought Taliban, but afgan freedom fighters like the eroic Lion of Panshir Massoud, killed by by Al-Quaeda 2 days before 9/11
Marcellogo 1 month ago
@Marcellogo Su-25T almost doesn't exist. There was 10 of them TOTAL, which have been upgraded to TM standards. That's all - no more than 10 Su-25T(TM). So you are tallking about not-existing plane compared to almost 400 Su-25 basic.
Boberrosini 1 month ago
su 25 is awesome sauce. su 39 is su 25's goodness multiplied by 3-4.
Ma3gau 2 months ago
@Ma3gau ROFL ;]
Boberrosini 2 months ago
To conclude with, In my oppinion the better warplane is the one, that is able to fulfill its duty with lowest financial cost and highest combat effectiveness. The SU 25/39 fits this requirement deffinitly better, while A10 despite all his strong sides has too much excessive features. It is not bad, because it fulfillls its task well, but I still prefer sukhoi.
EagleOwlHayakawa 2 months ago
More to add, some "Advantages" of A10 may rather turn against it and/or its pilot. 1) the bigger payload there is, the longer plane stays in the air of battlefield, the more lead it gets. 2) It is larger, slower, less agile. for reason see point (1). 3) Its design. The engines are like telling enemy air defence "shoot us off". 4) "too advanced", making it too sophisticated and expensive in comissioning supplying and maintenance.
EagleOwlHayakawa 2 months ago
@EagleOwlHayakawa 1. Nobody takes full payload, this is not a game. :), 2. It is slower but have more fuel and is to stay much longer in air above enemy but doesn't have to. 3. Engines are not good, in terms of speed. But A-10 has enough sophisticated components to try avoid missiles. 4. Advanced mean much more survival and comfort for a pilot. :)
Boberrosini 2 months ago
Both planes are great (A-10 is actually an ONLY good US warplane), but Su25/39 has clearly some advantages. 1) It is more durable, has safer configuration and better armoring. 2) It is simplier to handle: sophisticated doesn't allways mean advanced and as M. Kalashnikov once said, simple things are often harder to invent. 3)speed and maneuvrability. This 3 aspects are in my oppinion vital, for a better Attack aircraft.
EagleOwlHayakawa 2 months ago
@EagleOwlHayakawa 1. Where did it prove? Su-39 almost doesn't exist :) Su-25 fought only against talibs, so not too much... both has cockpit armored well :) 2. It is very simple. In modern battlefield almost useless, used only in dumb bombs attack and rockets spread. Nothing fancy ;] 3. You have the right to think that, but get more info about :)
Boberrosini 2 months ago
@Boberrosini what do you call a modern battlefield and why do you think it is useless, while Georgian war prove it is not? It seems you have not heard about modern Su-25 are armed with Laser- and GLONASS guided bombs and KH-25/29 missiles, that definitly outperform US analogs. I say furthermore, it is all about usage doctrine or ROE. Even an ancient design sword could prove an effective weapon in modern combat, if you know some right tactics to use it.
EagleOwlHayakawa 2 months ago
@EagleOwlHayakawa Modern battlefield means modern SAM systems (or upgraded) with various threats around. Su-25 is not capable to survive well any modern battlefield. It is then useless to attack forces guarded by such air-defence. It can be used well against low threats like talibs huts. New Su-25 doesn't have (still) pod to guidance TV \laser missiles (it can guide laser missile pointed by someone else). It doesn't have also new missiles. It's been upgraded since 10 years.;]
Boberrosini 2 months ago
@Boberrosini even the oldest version of Su-25 were capable of using laser-seeking homing missiles without any aside guidance. TV-yes, only modified versions like Su-25T. Even now it doesn't need any pods. Exception - anti-radar missiles
Excelentz 1 month ago
@Excelentz Yes but using laser missiles in basic Su-25 are only visually. Against moving target it is completely useless. New Su-25SM still doesn't have any guidanance. They can aim only by visual seeing or by aid of ground troops. Nothing fancy.
Boberrosini 1 month ago
@Boberrosini all laser missiles are visually guided. You must see the target, "capture" it. After that the aiming mark will be guided manually or by computer. Go and check AT-16 Vikhr. Yes-old rockets like Kh-25L and Kh-29L were designed only for demolition of structures and other non-moving objects
Excelentz 1 month ago
@Excelentz Su-25 can only fire missiles either by VISUAL contact from the COCKPIT or lased by someone else. It means Su-25 is useless against moving targets and stationary vehicles - it can be used mostly to dumb bombing. Till Su-25 finds target and aim missile on the HUD, it will be killed.
Same situation to the Su-25SM, which also doesn't have any TV\FLIR to use so far where A-10 has been upgraded long years ago to the standards which Su-25 can dream at this moment.
Boberrosini 1 month ago
@Boberrosini A-10 also need to identify the target visually first. It means to aim from cockpit=) Of course A-10 has a much larger field of view and target acquisition range - no doubts. But without any visual contact A-10 is useless (or it also needs laser guidance from observer). Attacking moving objects - i've already told you to read about AT-16. Also it can be equiped with Kh-29T missiles (tv guidance). It tells you about anything? P.S. Everything is said about Su-25T or latter
Excelentz 1 month ago
@Excelentz We're talking about Su-25 basic - the most spreaded version in RuAF inventory. Su-25T(TM in other name Su-39) almost doesn't exist so it is rather pointless to talk about non-presence plane.
Also Su-25SM upgrade is not finished and in many aspects it is old Su-25 with upgrades in the cockpit while in meantime lacking of targeting pod and new precision missiles.
---
Boberrosini 1 month ago
@Excelentz A-10 (I talk about A) didn't have to identify target by pilot's eyes. Mavericks has in-built camera. Fact it is low range (up to 7 nautical miles) view but compared to Su-25 which has to see target by pilot's eyes first it is just like Mercedes and Lada.
As fact all A-10A are now upgraded to A-10C equipped by very advanced avionics and sophiscitated camera pod, where you can see targets freely from even 50 km.
Boberrosini 1 month ago
@Excelentz Compare it to the Su-25 basic (most in Ru fleet) and you see reason why this plane fills mostly dumb bombing at Chechen huts. In real war its chances are just small.
There is hope for Su-25SM upgrade but since 10 years Russians still are not able to develop such advanced and effective plane update as A-10C is. No new pods, no new missiles.
Regarding AT-16 - it is outdated weapon, dangerous and low comfortable for pilot. This is why this weapon has been abandomed.
Boberrosini 1 month ago
@Boberrosini by MIG-27 is established laser-television "Kaira-23", and he came out earlier SU-25.
concluded or better in WIKI look (better in Russian, there is more)
greyderH2 1 month ago
@greyderH2 Su-25 doesn't not carry Kaira. If your source is wikipedia, than I have no more questions.
Boberrosini 1 month ago
@Boberrosini Then look at the English Wikipedia, the item "avionics." the same system as in the modern attack helicopters.
system Klen-PS
greyderH2 1 month ago
@greyderH2 Wikipedia is mostly not the source. I've seen not once info Su-25 can fly 2250 km\h. You'd believe that I guess :)
Boberrosini 1 month ago
@Boberrosini friend, I'm not forcing you to believe in something. it is simply obvious
By the way where you saw that speed. SU-25 at speed 950km / h
greyderH2 1 month ago
@greyderH2 You can believe in your truths :) Reality is different.
Such speed I saw on Wikipedia.
Boberrosini 1 month ago
@Boberrosini this speed does not exist anywhere in the wiki, even in your native language (Polish)
I don `t know where you find it
greyderH2 1 month ago
@greyderH2 It's been changed about year ago...
Boberrosini 1 month ago
@EagleOwlHayakawa In Geaorgian war few Su-25s has been lost. Overall you can just compare its avionics suite, weaponry to the survival chances. Of course it doesn't mean it cannot be used. It can - but chances are very low. Good tactics can help, but it is just tactics - it doesn't replace technology.
Boberrosini 2 months ago
luchshi shturmovik vsex vremion su-25 isho dolga paslujit nam veri i pravdi
ika24M 3 months ago
Russian SU25T or SU39 are not too bad, Georgian SU25KM are very good.
And also too much suicidie pilots like japaneese are in russia because they are using too much unguided rockets ;) i waiting to employ unguided rockets in AA propsure ;)
macieksoft 5 months ago
@macieksoft unguided rockets had been destroyed 84 Georgian soldiers in the woods ;) concludes itself...
MrRusSerb 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrRusSerb Only 84s? So this tactics made russian SU25s so easy target to manpads, so Georgians equipped with Polish manpads shooted down some russian SU25s.
macieksoft 4 months ago
@macieksoft They do seem to watch only YT movies :))
Boberrosini 2 months ago
@macieksoft su-25sm3 is very good ......
TATARSTAN59500 4 months ago
every aircraft has its own mission and according to this special occasion and time of utilization and only actions prove them in their fruitfulness
Kuncar1 5 months ago
did you know Su 25 its supersonic XD...dont belive american propaganda crap ;) its better to search some little more on the net
mauricioalfredo83 6 months ago
@mauricioalfredo83
Su-25 never exceed speed is 950km, 50km under supersonic - and don't say its American Propaganda, this information is coming from the Sukhoi website
Mattc23q 3 months ago
outdated piece of shit.
A-10C is totally superior.
ViciousCritique 6 months ago
@ViciousCritique You should watch your language. Everyone who knows smth about aircrafts would be disagree with your opinion. Su-25 is an honoured one.
RaptorGP 6 months ago
@ViciousCritique A-10C has been modified 100000000000000000x times while Su25/su39 are used for airshows and testing.
Kenoshino 6 months ago
@Kenoshino You're right about Su-39 but dramatically wrong about "Frogfoot". It is a real combat machine. Yes, A-10 has much more modern electronic systems. Unfortunately, our military budget isn't as big as american, and we can't afford to buy Su-39 enough to replace Su-25.
RaptorGP 6 months ago
@Kenoshino The Su-25 has seen more combat then the A-10.
Research before posting shit.
clawbog2 6 months ago
@clawbog2 learn to read befor "you" post shit!
Kenoshino 5 months ago
@Kenoshino The A-10 getting modified doesn't show it's combat experience.
clawbog2 5 months ago
中国没有这样火力的强击机
ihokkienmee 6 months ago
Beto vazquez je proste borec. A aj ten "klip" je dobrý...
marekmarusak 9 months ago
The SU-25 is better than the American A-10.İts Speed and weaponary and the Payload.Everthing's better.
dallamakanepe 10 months ago 16
@dallamakanepemax and this is where you fail!
speed:SU=590mph,A-10=518mph(ill l give you that)
max takeoff weight:SU=45000lbs,A-10=50000lbs(empty weight is almose equal)
ferry range(i cant find actual range):SU=1553mi,A-10=2580mi
service ceiling:SU=10000m,A-10=13700m
rate of climb:almost equal
wing load:almost equal
thrust/weight:almost equal
price:SU=$11million,A-10=$11.8 million
i usually let people live in their dream worlds, but this time is an exception. USA>russia
hotpocketpoison 6 months ago
@hotpocketpoison dude technical information does not hide the reality.In Iraq dozens of A-10's were shot down where the Iraqies didn't even have an Air Defence left except some Strellas and SA-7's.But during the war in Afganistan even though they had been equipped with the American Stingers only "7" SU-25's were lost in "7 years"...
This is why i call the SU-25 is better,not the technical data,the performance at war matters...
dallamakanepe 6 months ago
@dallamakanepe Strelas and SA-7? the iraqi ground forces had a massive amount of anti aircraft impalements including the shilka,Kub,and thousands of towed AAA systems. and in the iraq war only 1 A-10 was ever shot down.it was shot down over baghdad,the most heavily defended city in iraq.and 23 SU-25 were shot down by the afghanis,not 7,please do some research before you go spouting nonsense...PLEASE!!!
hotpocketpoison 6 months ago
@hotpocketpoison
I think you should compare soviet afgan war with USA's vietnam war instead of afganistan with iraq. The comparison isn't correct.
RaptorGP 6 months ago
@RaptorGP In Afghanistan the Soviets were fighting a group of ragtag rebels who had no heavy equipment.
In Iraq the Americans were fighting an army.
Hairysteed 2 months ago
@Hairysteed Иди лучше учись.
propusk2010 2 months ago
@hotpocketpoison not only 1 A-10 got shot,come on.And the war in Afganistan took how many years,please don't forget that as well.7 years.
dallamakanepe 3 months ago
@hotpocketpoison
Could you give me a link where you got the prices, please? It so hard to believe that A-10 costs just a little bit more expensive than Su-25.
RaptorGP 6 months ago
@RaptorGP just look on wikipedia, it gives the cost and statistics of both aircraft. and no A-10 were even used in the vietnam war so it is impossible to use vietnam in a comparison.
hotpocketpoison 6 months ago
@hotpocketpoison I just talk about specifics of Vietnam and Afganistan. Their forces were supplied by USSR and USA thats why I said about similar conditions. Iraqi forces didn't have such kind of supply. Who knows what a situation could be? But it's dammned politics, I don't want to speak about it. :)
RaptorGP 6 months ago
@dallamakanepe su-25 can't take as much beating as a-10 warthog/ thunderbolt
Smdw912 4 months ago
@Smdw912 look last su-25sm3 enter in service in 2006-2007
have more technology than a-10 and adopted new weapon bomb and last aa r-73 aa missiles
TATARSTAN59500 4 months ago 2
@TATARSTAN59500 Russians even didn't create even fully working POD. They are 20 years behind US.
Boberrosini 2 months ago
@dallamakanepe The Su-25 has a significantly smaller payload than the A-10. The Su-25 is more maneuverable & faster but the A-10 can hit harder. Both are excellent planes though.
franknbeans4761 3 months ago
Respond to this video... What so some crappy rockets, and dumb bombs are better then the A-10's laser guided smart bombs and 30mm Chain gun?
Keep dreaming russfag
Mattc23q 3 months ago
@Mattc23q you know, the Su-25 carries a just a effective 23mm cannon and a multitude of guided, unguided, dumb and smart munitions and it can carry more than an A-10, can out preform an A-10. it is also faster and just as well armored as the A-10. By no means is the A-10 a bad plane the su-25 is just better.
matrin2 3 months ago
@matrin2 Just as effective? the A-10 has 6 barrels, Su-25 has 1, and the 30mm is 7mm larger then 23, and the SU-25 can't fire lasor guided bombs for one clear reason, IT HASNT GOT A LASER SYSTEM IN IT, its got a glass hud, consisting of old-school flip up glass sites, as for the A-10 its got a Pave-Penny sniping system which can lock onto targets beyond visual range and fire AGM's, the A-10 is also more maneuverable at low speeds which is necessary for a ground attack aircraft.
Mattc23q 3 months ago
I think you compared the very first model of the Su-25. The most recent updates have received quite the advancements, from latest navigational, to latest precision guidance systems. The Klen system provides just that...
tropickman 3 months ago
@Mattc23q 7 barrels
Hairysteed 2 months ago
@Mattc23q Don't forget Su-25 CANNOT use cannon with working engines, I mean it must be set on "idle" otherwise plane can be damaged :D
Boberrosini 2 months ago
@Boberrosini source please...
EagleOwlHayakawa 2 months ago
@EagleOwlHayakawa Try to find debriefing\pilots interview\relations to the joint operations of A-10 and Su-25 in Europe (both excercise). IIRC it was since 2005 but don't remember exact time. I have read about this long time ago.
Boberrosini 2 months ago
@matrin2 from 1990-2011 and in 4 wars only 6 A-10s have been lost in combat with just about 60000 sorties flown, all of them due to advanced soviet SAMs not AAA. from 1990-2011 over 45 Su-25s have been lost in combat in 3 wars with about 60000 sorties flown. however NONE of the enemies russia fought had anywhere near the amount of air defenses that the enemies of the US did, the iraqis had over 16000 SAMs(yes SAMs not AAA). the Afghanis, Chechens, and Georgians didnt have 1/10th that amount.
hotpocketpoison 3 months ago
@hotpocketpoison damnit i'm not getting into another youtube argument, the A-10 is more armored fine i don't give a damn.
matrin2 3 months ago
@matrin2 it is better armored, has a longer range, a higher service ceiling, a larger max takeoff weight, has a far superior cannon(with about 5x as much ammunition for it as well), and lower wing loading(more maneuverable). the only good thing about the Su-25 is its speed, however in a ground attack aircraft speed is NOT beneficial. and that last comment i posted was actually directed towards dallamakanepe but i must have replied to you by accident.
hotpocketpoison 3 months ago
@hotpocketpoison all versions are the su-25. the su-39 is actually better than the a-10 by a huge amount
Shadowsolider1 3 months ago
@Shadowsolider1 nice research dude. what you just said tells me that you are just a russian military fanboy, you do NO research(like i have done *points to previous comment*)and refuse to do so because you are afraid of the truth. so please, just go back to sleep and dont wake up until you know what you are talking about.
hotpocketpoison 3 months ago
@Mattc23q The SU-25 has also Laser Guided Bombs,Missiles and a 30 mm Cannon.And the A-10 also uses Dumb Bombs.This is not an handicap for the plane.Depending on the mission the both use different types of weapons.They are not used only to hunt Tanks or Armored Carriers,they are used to support ground troop as well.
dallamakanepe 3 months ago
@dallamakanepe By the time laser-guided bombs were incorporated into the SU-39 the A-10C has been carrying GPS-guided weapons
Hairysteed 2 months ago
@dallamakanepe My goodness where such bullshits you read?
Boberrosini 2 months ago
@dallamakanepe the A-10 has been upgraded to use far more precise munitions
reblo111 2 months ago
@dallamakanepe
A-10 maybe. A-10C, hell fucking no.
TheAntonkr 1 month ago
@dallamakanepe
wrong, the payload a bigger on the A-10. 7000 kg for A-10 vs 4400 for Su-25.
Also the gun on the A-10 is much more powerful than the SU 25. Although i like both planes equally.
LokiG36 1 month ago
@dallamakanepe A-10 is the payload ,it just has plane attached to it .
MrBrian987987 1 month ago
El video muestra que este avion fue construido para aguantar
Starscream2040 11 months ago
Los mejores coño!!!!!
Migsu 11 months ago
Эх, создадут ли еще что-нибудь достойное на российской земле или так все и кончится вместе с советским зачином...
RetiredNihilist 11 months ago
@RetiredNihilist
Создадут. Не сомневайся.
Су-34 (32) сделали . Но это взамен Су-24. Штурмовики пока что модернизируют.
Vagonetko 7 months ago
отличное видео
MsAllegator 1 year ago
@MsAllegator Благодарю!
RaptorGP 1 year ago
на 27ой секунде видео в кабине Александр Руцкой. в 86 его в Афгане на су-25 сбивали
6yxoupushkin 1 year ago
на 27ой секунде видео в кабине Александр Руцкой. в 86 его в Афгане на су-25 сбивали
6yxoupushkin 1 year ago
There are few images of SU-39
I would like that the russian TV channels use better cameramen and edition for their weapons videos, it's a matter of marketing and perception... airplanes are a product too
Starscream2040 1 year ago
@Starscream2040 and i would like you advertising and PR motherfuckers to stop trying to label abso-fucking-lutely everything with a dollar bill... how do you live with yourself ?
Cnupoc 1 year ago
@Cnupoc
What is your point?
Starscream2040 11 months ago
@Starscream2040 Be sure, now they are (about cameras)
RaptorGP 11 months ago
cheap clever containing high xplosivs cy 25
260874vishal 1 year ago