Su-25 vs A-10!
 

We've had a Mi-24 vs AH-64D discussion, and several threads about BMP-3 vs M2 Bradley, now let's take it to the CAS aircraft: Su-25 vs A-10! :) Remember, no dumb "Su-25 can shoot down A-10 because of this and that", CAS duties only, as these aircraft are meant for.

At first, I thought you had said the SU-27, and I was like 'pfft, no f*cking contest'.

I don't know much about the SU-25, but I do know that I really do NOT want to be on the wrong end of that badas<b></b>s depleted uranium GAU-8 motherfu<b></b>cker.

GAU-8 is all well and good for destroying tanks, but how well will it do against other types of targets, such as concrete bunkers? A-10 is good for tank busting, but Su-25/Su-39 (latest update of Su-25) are extremely flexible, capable of using basically everything, from cannons to rockets to missiles to bombs. An interesting development was rear-firing cannon pods, which turned out to be effective for laying down covering fire as the aircraft leaves the target area.

that is a brilliant idea:tup:. many times i wished i had those one my F/A-18...

A-10

As for the Mi-24 vs AH-64D discussion, who won? I missed it.

AFAIK, The A-10 is capable of using most any AG ordinace available to any other Fighter/Attack aircraft employed by the US Armed Forces. The A-10 features a Fire Control Computer and Laser Targeting system, 11 external hardpoints for mounting AGMs, iron bombs, LGBs, rocket pods, HARMs, recon cameras, ECM pods, etc. Aside from CAS, the A-10 has been successfully empoyed in Forward Air Control, Armed Recon, Wild Weasle, and BAI missions. It has a max speed of 450 knts at sea level, and a corner speed of 260 knts. Its dry weight is ~21,000 lbs, max weight is 50,000 lbs with a max external payload of 16,000 lbs (internal 11,000 lbs).

Care to elaborate on your A-10 selection Mr. HotDog?

As for Mi-24 vs AH-64D, I believe we all agreed to disagree.

ElectricSheep, it is capable of using various ordnance, in a sense that you can hang it onto the thing and drop it off, but wasn't designed to - it's avionics suite is meant for 2 weapons only - GAU-8 cannon and AGM-65 Maverick missile, everything else is secondary.

Rear firing cannons I could see, but then how would you target them? Do they just fire blind?

As far as missiles, there are <em>reasons</em> why you don't see any rear-firing A-A missiles. However, you <em>can</em> pull of an over-the-shoulder launch of a HARM with some effectiveness.

I don't know how did they target them, but they were used in Afghanistan, and with a high degree of effectiveness - often, 2 cannon pods were mounted, one firing forward and the other backward. I'd give you the link, but it's in russian :(

I would tend to favor the A-10, since the Su-25 has nothing that can compare to the GAU-8 (it has twin 30mm guns, but they're ordinary guns, not Gatlings).

Other than that, both have plenty of titanium armoring and plenty of hardpoints for air-to-ground weaponry. It ends up being a contest between avionics and missile technology, something I'm not that knowledgeable about.

A-10 all the way, GAU-8 Avenger + Maverick's makes tanks go boom :D

I'd like to take a moment to remind you that tanks aren't the only type of target that CAS aircraft have to attack.

This would own them all :)

LifesBane, I believe you know my opinion on Metal Storm.

Well, I'm not a huge aircraft techie. But the A-10 has a rather large payload, which can carry a vast variety of weapons. And the plane can fly on one of its engines (incase the second one is damaged). Oh, and the 30mm cannon (Is it 30? I'm not 100% sure on this) makes for some good tank bustin'. I guess its only major disadvantage is its speed.

And, I've been a major fan of the A-10 since I first got interested in aviation.

On survivability of Su-25, from memoirs of Viktor Markovskij, who piloted them in Afghanistan (my own translation from russian, so it's pretty bad):

A-10's have a great design. Even if a tank shots one of their wings, they can still fly. They can still fly even with one engine. The engines are purposely placed above the wings to give them more protection though :). The pilot sits in a metal bath tub, i believe it is 6" thick :D

The A-10. Ya gotta love a plane that has the front landing gear moved to the side to make room for a bigass cannon. ;)

And IIRC, it has 3 different sets of controls for maneuvering, so taking one down probably means doing a sh*tload of damage to it (especially if it can fly on one engine, didn't know that- damn!).

Another quotation, same source:

Keep in mind, that these aren't just abstract promises of "this plane can fly without wings and engines at all!", but true cases of aircraft returning to base with extremely severe battle damage.

On subject of bigass cannons on aircraft in general, they sure do look macho, but when they put a 75mm gun on B-25, pilots never used it, except sometimes firing off a shell just for fun because actually hitting targets with it was impossible. Germans tried to put 37mm AAA's, 88mm recoilless cannons, and Nb.Wrf.41 6-barreled rocket mortar on Hs.129's, Ju.87's and Ju.88's and found that chance to hit a stationary tank was average of 2.6%. Russians ran into the same problem trying to mount NS-37 and ShFK-37 37mm cannons onto Il-2 attack planes, so they developed the 1.5kg (~3.2lb) PTAB bomb, 220 of which could be loaded into a single Il-2 and sprayed over tank formations and the plane weaved over them in an S pattern.

I don't have any on me, but the A10 has similar survivability stories as well - both the aircrafts' are remarkable in survivablity. Only one I could remember is of an A10 missing something around 50% of its left(?) wing, with the pilot being able to see clearly through the hole.

Well, the same could be said about the SU-25.

http://vectorsite.tripod.com/avsu25.html

"In principle, a heatseeking AAM such as the R-60M ("AA-8 Aphid") can be carried on the outer pylon of each wing, and the aircraft has been qualified for "smart" weapons such as the Kh-29L ("AS-14 Kedge") laser guided missile. In practice, the Su-25 has mostly been photographed carrying simple "dumb" munitions."

"Attacks were made with dumb bombs and unguided rockets, though "Kedge" guided missiles were used to an extent late in the war. Laser guidance was provided by ground forces or another aircraft, as the basic Su-25 has no laser target designator. "

Here's some other good reads about both aircraft:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-10.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/su-25.htm
http://www.aviation.ru/Su/25/Su-25.html
http://www.janes.com/aerospace/milit...0425_1_n.shtml
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su25/

I would have to give the nod to the A-10. Here's why.

Survivability Edge: neither

Both aircraft are designed for two things: deal out a lot of damage and get the pilot home. I would give the A-10 a slight edge between its inherent airframe design separates the two engines to minimize both failing, but it's only a minor factor.

Avionics Edge: neither

The latest A-10 has been upgraded to handle current "smart" munitions and night combat capability. The Scorpion variant of the SU-25 adds a laser designator and night combat capability.

Gun Edge: A-10

The SU-25 has a 30mm cannon with only 250 rounds of dual-purpose ammo. The A-10 has the 30mm Avenger cannon with 1000 rounds of armor-piercing DU.

Payload Edge: A-10

The SU-25 can carry 4,400 kg. on ten hardpoints. If two of those are used for the forward-firing and rear-firing NR-23 23 millimeter cannon pods (260 rounds each), the payload is further reduced. Even the SU-37 variant only carries 6,000 kg. The A-10 carries 7,200 kg. on eleven hardpoints.

Oh, and finally here's a wierd fact about the A-10: "The A/OA-10 has a requirement for repaint every eight years."

I like russia....I vote Su-25 :p

Seriously I dont know much, but by the end of the thread I do now!

I would take the SU-25 in a blink of an eye, no doubts about that.

The A-10 is not a very good weapon platform, apart from its GAU-8, you cant put allot of ordinances on it (at the same time), the SU-25 however, can carry and extensive amount of ordinances at the same time, its a far better weapon platform.

The A-10 is allso a poor plane when it comes to avionics, unless its could weather an its carrying a light load, its hell'ish to fly, horribly underpowered, sluggish stearing, and hard to pull out of a dive, it will get the job done, but the pilot will be sitting on the edge of his seat fighting the plane untill he has jetisoned some of that weight.

The SU-25 is a far better aircraft in this sence aswell, it was buildt from the start to carry a huge payload, and with the option to mount multiple fuel tanks aswell, it can stay up for much longer doing its job, overall it is allot more mannuverable, even if its filled with ordinances, and its far less affected by the outside temperature, and powered just right.

Now im not going to say the GAU-8 issent an awsome weapon, that would be lying, but have you seen how effective the Longow uses its Hellfire missiles? nasty s<b></b>hit that, now have you seen their russian counterpart? thouse things are so big they have their own gravity center! now imagine putting 4 of thouse pods, 16 air-ground missiles, and still having space for two fuel tanks and the twin 30mm cannons (wich are fully capable of ripping trough a tank), and you have the SU-25, give me that over the GAU-8 and 8 air-ground missiles any day of the week.

Now when it comes to survivabillity, i would guess the two are very equal, both have the track record to prove they get their pilots back alive.

In essence, the SU-25 can carry out allot more jobs the A-10 wouldent, and under conditions where the A-10's would be grounded, it can carry a huge load of what ever it needs to get that job done (tank busting is far from the only role attack aircraft do, the SU-25 masters them all, the A-10 is a good tank buster, and an allmost capable attack aircraft), and its not as defenceless if attacked either, meaning it can go in even if full air superiorrity issent established, and often does, its definately the better of the two.

Now im in no way saying the A-10 is bad, just that the SU-25 outdoes it in every other catagorry than tank busting, wich it even does on allmost the same level, and well enough to make little difference, its definately the plane my moneys on.

Ohh yeah, and since my country does not use either of the two, i have no bias twords either for sentimental reasons, only twords what works the best, and what i would wish my country used (F16e's make sucky attack aircraft).

Actually, Su-25 had laser target designators from the start, although pilots didn't like to use them, and using land-based target designaters on BOMAN vehicles (modified BTR-70's) proved to be more effective. Overall, 139 H-25 and H-29L missiles were fired. The missiles were most often launched from a standoff distance of 4-5km, in a shallow dive at about 20-25 degrees, dispersion was no more than 1.5-2 meters from the aiming point. A Su-25 missile attack was vividly described a commander of an airborne company pinned down by fire from a bunker:

Most of the time, however, dumb munitions were used - 100kg and 250kg bombs against targets in valleys, 500kg bombs in mountains, NAR S-5M and S-5MO HE-frag unguided rockets launched from UB-32-57 32-rocket racks that covered 200-400 square meter in a single salvo of 8-12 rockets. Smaller caliber rockets were gradually replaced with more powerful 80mm S-8 in several versions - S-8M with fragmentation warhead, S-8BM with a deep penetration warhead that crushed firing points in rocks, S-8DM containing liquid explosive from which no cover helped - after a rocket strike, a fog of tiny explosive droplets covered the area, hitting even the deepest hideouts with a cloud of explosion. "Ravens", volume explosion ODAB-500P had the same effect, and about 3 times the power of same caliber HE bombs. An explosion of such a bomb destroyed all buildings in a radius of 20-25 meters, and swept out everything alive hundreds meters around with a white-hot shockwave. In hot or windy weather, when ODAB cloud dispersed quickly and lost effectiveness, a "cocktail" was used - a combination of smoke and volume explosion bombs, usually in ratio of 2 DAB-500 smoke bombs per 6 ODAB-500P's. Heavy NAR S-24 unguided rockets were also a favorite - they could hit a 7-8 meter circle from 2km away, and were used to attack a large variety of targets. A Su-25 could carry 8 of them, and pilots were often instructed to even keep a couple for returning to base, "just in case". Vehicles and machine gun nests were attacked with cannon fire, from the GSh-2-30 cannon. Instructions told pilots to use short, 1-second bursts of 50 HE-AP and HE-frag shells (mass of such a burst was 195kg), although pilots favored to make sure of the kill by using a longer, 2-3 second burst.

ASP-17BTz-8 automatic sight for firing cannons, launching missiles, and dropping bombs worked very well in plains type terrain. Pilot only needed to keep the target in crosshairs - the sight automatics measured distance to target using a laser rangefinder, took into account altitude, speed, temperature and munitions ballistics, and at the right moment, launched the attack automatically. Results of using the sight were so good, pilots often argued about the right to fly on a plane with a well-tuned sight. In mountains however, rapid altitude changes and complex landscape were too much for sight's computer to handle, and it missed often (do keep in mind, however, that in mountains, attacking targets was strikingly similar to Luke Skywalker's run against the Death Star - AAA fire often came from above the plane). In those cases, pilots had to fire cannons and launch missiles using the ASP as a regular callimatoric gunsight, and drop bombs "by heart's command".

those SU-25 stories remind me of old WW2 stories of B-17s and P-38s coming home on a wing and a prayer... one B-17 glided into a perfect crash landing in england, but when the emergency crews got there, there was no one on board, they had all bailed out, but were never found. a P-38 had a head on collision with a Me-109, because neither pilot was "chicken", and the P-38 got home while the Me-109 went down in flames from the collision. crazy, crazy stuff...

I can tell you a similar story about an IAF F-15. During exesizes, there was a midair collision, and an F-15 lost it's entire right wing and the pilot managed to land it safely (not crash land, mind you). McDonnel-Douglas guys refused to believe it when they were told about that happening.

lol, i'm sure that pilot was glad it wasn't a FW190 :)

SU-25 without a second thought.

A-10 = A plane built purely to carry the GAU-8/A and a few bombs. 8 mavericks... big deal. While the yank is screwing around with that, the russian in the SU-25 just fired his AT-6 Spiral and is watching it go on down.

The A-10 is limited in it's arsenal. It's got it's gun, and a pretty piss-weak array of explosives. The SU-25 has it's gun (30mm is memory serves me), and pretty much any missiles/rockets it wants.

You can load up the SU-25 with almost every russian missile or rocket pod ever made. The SU-25 can perform in many roles. The A-10 is restricted to ground attack.

Although the GAU-8/A is a massively powerful gun, it's also fixed, and can't fire at airborne targets as well as other cannons can. The SU-25 gets another 0wn1j point here for the ability to carry AA missiles, and thus defend itself.


SU-25 + GSh-6-N-30 + AA-8 Aphid makes tanks AND planes go boom.


SU-25 = w1nn4r!!!1 :D


------------------------------------
For Reference

SU-25 Frogfoot - http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/su-25.htm

A-10 - http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-10.htm

I suppose 16 Vikhrs can make more tanks go boom than 8 Mavericks as well, and probably at lower cost as well ;)

There is also this story of an UK heavy damaged bomber, an old Whitley bi-engine that returned home, piloted by the only survivor of the team, Mr. Biggs, the radio operator...who was blind (due to the explosion)! In fact, the mechanical engineer was still alive but his butt was stucked in the bomb panel door, close to fall. Impossible for him to move. Biggs landed the plane safely in a field after crossing teh Channel.


I also heard about an US bomber that returned home with one of his accounted victory. The german fighter was embedded in the fuselage...

*When back, report to commander:
- we downed one fighter Sir!
- can you proove it or do you have a testimony ?
- just look at your window, Sir!*
:D

Note: I never checked by myself this last story, remember there is a lot of urban legends about war.

P.S.: this one is funny and real:!


At the beginning of the war, French had also bombers: the Léo-451.
Sgt Berger started his mission with one, he returned home in...a Storch (german scout plane).

Facts: after succesfully bombing a german panzer column, he was downed by a Me-109. Him and one of his man landed in a field and found the Storch not far away with the mechanical crew sleeping nearby. They just stolen it! But were later forced to land in a road by an Hurricane that tried to down them.




@Gholam: when you say "Russia-effectiveness-Afghanistan", there is something FUBAR in there... :D.

To avoid going too much off-topic (and I'm sorry in helping that), I started a new thread about incredibles stories about WWII in the forum that suits best for that (Third Reich). Put your stuff there:


http://forums.beyondunreal.com/showt...threadid=90873

I remember that story.
see through it? :p
after it landed, Dude put a stepladder under the wing and stood up inside the hole, lol

A-10 as a plane is probly a match for the su25. but remember were talking about the whole package, not just the wings and gear.
in which case I would rather have an a-10 overhead than any other plane in creation. My next choice would be an av-8b or f-16.
Ill even take a raptor or an f-15 befor I choose su-anything :p

First off, american missiles doth rock. Maverics alone kick the collective hinys of russian missiles. The a-10 cannon goes through about any target you can fathom, save maybe an underground bunker.
manuverability is unmatched for her speed, her only weakness being the 600mph limit.

the one reason I dont trust russian planes for ground support is their record. They have a habit of torching enemy and friendly alike. its not a weapons package I want to be living under.

Raw payload means nothing without the ability to blast the target you were sent after.



side note:
there is only ONE role that a subsonic plane can fly these days, and thats for bombing.
intentionally doing anything else with it would be a suicide mission and a waste of a good plane.

while slower planes can try to defend themselves in the event their attacked, they have a much better chance if an escourt fighter is nearby.

american misslies rock? since when? they have alwas been outnmatched by their eastern block counterparts both in range and destructive power.

BTW American missiles were so good that the early sidewinders were about as usefull as chucking rocks at enemy planes, they tended to prefer the sun over the enemy aircraft. The mavericks were plagued with problems in acquiring targets as well.

*cough* SU-27 *cough*

ESPECIALLY AN SU-27! :p
damn flying debris piles, their only good for sam bait.

Right now our weapons are performing rather well compared to just a few years ago.
those same guidance systems your dissin, are helping bombers that are physically older than their pilots do missions that SOMEONES aircraft seemed to fail at previously ;)

the a-10 has been slated for retirement several times in the last decade.
and yet, havent you always seen them taxiing down the runway to the war-du-jour every time fighting starts?

as I said, if were talking the whole package then its an a-10 I want.


assuming you let our guys take an su-25 into the hanger, retune it, rearm it with our shit and put one of our pilots in the cockpit, I might change my mind.

failed at? right... soviet bombers inflicted massive damage upon any target they went after and that was 10 years ago smartass. Even then they allready outperformed their US counterparts as does any contemporary weapons system take a look at the stats for the current range of russian weaponry, each and every one of them outperforms their western counterpart.

Personally I prefer the Su-25 simply cos it looks cool, but I do have to ask what is that American plane that looks like a Hurcules and has a Gau 8 avenger gatling gun a Boffors 30mm gun and 105mm howizter sticking out the side. I have heard alot about this posted in the papers, so can anyone please enlighten me more.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wor...00/1602000.stm

If you want to play it on computer, I only know one game that implements it: Jane's ATF (old game).

Have any of you seen a SU-27 in action(on tv)?
Planes dont get more manouverable then that, even the Americans admitted "we have nothing to match it..", but the nice thing about most of the US planes is that they are stealth(new ones) and that they carry more sophisticated weapon systems, which means that one F-22 can take out (in theory) an entire squadron of flankers before they(SUs) come into fireing range of the F-22...in theory....:rolleyes:

And Su-25 vs A10: Go play Flashpoint, not the most accurate game in the world, but the SU-25 will win 10 out of 10...;)
And have anybody got that smart bomb on the A10 to work properly in Ofp, mine always just go straight down...:(

Uh, Raptor? F-22 has next to no strike capability, putting it in CAS role would be similar to the early F-4's, only somewhat worse because it's low speed performance is ****. F-15 isn't much better in strike department either. F-16 is a decent enough multirole fighter, but it lacks the strike capability of even a late model F-4, much less a dedicated strike aircraft such as Su-25.

Concerning missiles, I'd like you to show me cold hard numbers showing that AGM-65 is better than any Russian missile produced. Keep in mind that Russians specialize in missiles more than any country in the world - they never did put as much trust in airplanes as western powers, preferring to rely on artillery instead, and the natural step up from concept of artillery is the concept of a missile - resulting in Red Army being the only army in the world where missiles are a separate branch of service.

GAU-8 30mm cannon goes through steel armor well enough, but it completely fails against concrete and viscous targets such as sand - to punch through concrete with DU shells, you need to fire a long burst at the same spot, which is physically impossible for an aircraft. Maverick missile carries too weak a warhead to penetrate thick reinforce concrete.

Su-25 and A-10 have similar protection, but Su-25 is quite a bit smaller, faster, and more maneuverable, making it overall a harder target - it's advantage in speed over A-10 is overwhelming, having discharged it's payload it can go transonic for hauling ass out of hot areas - and unlike A-10, it was designed not in a greenhouse, but right in the warzone, entering combat as early as pre-production prototype stage, in one of the hardest areas imaginable. Keep in mind, that fighting in Afghanistan wasn't picking off tanks and trucks in a wide open flat desert enjoying complete air superiority and near complete absense of ground-based antiair - the enemy employed a very large amount of 12.7mm and 14.5mm AAMG's, 23mm ZGU AAA's, as well as Strela-2M, Red Eye, Blowpipe and Stinger missiles, and had extremely good cover - can you imagine flying a CAS aircraft against enemy positions hidden in caves and in the bottom of gorges, demanding attack runs similar to Luke Skywalker's death star canyon run?

As for "russian planes having a bad record", if a pilot inflicts friendly fire, it's the pilot's fault, not the planes. Again, indentifying camouflaged and fortified targets in mountains, without any defined frontline, often in complete darkness at night, is nowhere as easy as shooting tanks in a desert.

The "this technology is obsolete because we got better, cooler, more expensive stuff now" attitude is extremely dangerous (to you, not to your enemy), as has been shown in many cases. Classic example: omission of cannons on early F-4's.

And if you call Su-27 a flying debris pile, I'm not even going to argue with you because it's pointless and you won't listen to any facts.

Not exactly the same missions - US troops haven't even set foot on Afghanistan soil yet, and the bombing missions have kept themselves to wide open areas such as cities. If you try to use B-52's to bomb targets in mountains, your targets will kill themselves by laughing at you, even if you use nukes.

AC-130 Spectre is nice when target is completely undefended, but place an AAA gun or two in the area and it's toast. Way too slow and vulnerable.

:lol:

1 of them has been downed in Iraq and another one in Somalia.
They still have 20 or 21 aircrafts active.

Because they learned their lesson on their predecessor, AC-37 Spooky aka Puff the Magic Dragon, and never used AC-130 anywhere the enemy had even a token air defense system.

If you 2-3 MiGs(31) vs 3 Specters = 3 dead specters... But thats not a realistic scenario, since the Spectre is ment as close groud support, almost as a helicopter, in way, almost, probably....

True! To laugh is forbidden under Taliban rules. Laughters will be executed. After all, this could be a valid tactic. :lol:

I'm not talking MiG's, I'm talking DShK or KPV machine guns on AA mounts. A few good bursts of 14.5x114mm ammo from a KPV, and there's a damned good chance a completely unprotected Spectre will either lose several engines, or suffer an ammo explosion.

Well said, I have had the pleasure of seeing an SU-27 aerobatic display team. They are without doubt the most impressive aircraft I've ever seen.

Oh and spike, the F22 is not a stealth aircraft, it imports some stealth technology but it is by no means invisible to radar. Anyway, unless you've got an AWACS in the area, stealth technology is useless to you because you have to target the enemy. If you turn on your radar, everyone else can see you

Uh, we were discussing the SU-25 and A-10 in CAS role? If we're talking about multi-role capabilities, then you should be comparing the SU-25 vs. the F-16.

but what chance would the m16's no armor single engine ill armed ass stand?

The GAU-8 "Avenger" is 30mm. I've verified this personally; I looked down the barrels of one at a range of about two inches. Oh, the crazy things a kid will do.

GE makes four Gatling cannons: the 5.56mm "Microgun", the 7.62mm "Minigun", the 20mm M-61 Vulcan cannon and the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger.



Both the A-10 and the Su-25 are heavily armored and will consequently can take an insane amount of damage and still fly home. Both can carry any air-to-ground weapon in their respective country's arsenal, but are generally armed with weapons suitable to ground-attack/tank-busting.

Anyone who says the A-10 is limited to the AGM-65 Maverick antitank missile is sadly misguided...it can carry anything, but usually doesn't because other things are not as useful for its assigned role of tank-busting. 1000lbs and 2000lbs dumb bombs are also a common load.

As for the F-16, they tried using it to replace the A-10, using podded GAU-8 guns...couldn't hit a thing...they gave up. Besides, I don't want to be anywhere near a -16 when it's going low against heavy flak.

This is correct. The A-10 has a double-redundant set of hydraulic controls, backed up by a set of manual controls.

Yes, manual as in the stick is physically hauling the control surfaces around, just like old WWI biplanes. Ouch.

The A10 can carry much more than just Mavericks.

According to www.fas.org it can carry:
2.75in Rockets
Mk82 500lbs GPLD bombs
Mk84 2000lbs GPLD bombs
Mk77 750lbs naphalm bombs
Mk20 Rockeye II cluster bombs
CBU52 cluster bombs
CBU58 cluster bombs
CBU71 cluster bombs
CBU87 cluster bombs
CBU89 cluster bombs
CBU97 cluster bombs
BL755 whatever?
AMG65 Maverick
GBU10 2000lbs LGB
GBU12 500lbs LGB
AIM9 Sidewinder

That makes for a little variety, doesn't it?

Of course the Su25/Su39 have a similar arsenal of rockets, dumb and guided bombs, AGMs and AAMs.

Also the A10 is quite maneuvrable, especially at low altitude - don't know how it's compared to the Su25/Su39 though, suppose this one moves nice too..

As the AC130 is concerned, it doesn't carry a GAU8. The AC130H has 2 M61 Vulcans, one 40mm Bofors and a 105 howitzer; the AC130U has the M61 replaced by a GAU12 25mm Gatling gun.
I believe this one too is made by GE, along with the GAU13(four barreled 30mm 'sister' of the GAU8, saw limited use as pod-mounted weapon for the FA16 project); there's also a .50 cal GG, the GECAL50..

As for the Su27, I too saw one on an airshow, and it's performance was awesome. It can make some maneuvers US aircraft can't do, think the cobra was one..

that's it,

Snakeye :D

Thing is, while A-10 is certainly capable of mounting those weapons, the avionics suite was designed with only two of them in mind - GAU-8 and AGM-65, and everything else was added as an afterthought. While all that array of different bombs looks impressive at first glance, there's only one napalm bomb, no FAE's at all, and only one type of unguided rockets, which is pretty weak at 80mm - all of those weapons that were found VERY effective for CAS by Su-25 pilots. I'm not aware of Su-25 ever dropping cluster bombs, but that's most likely because the primary combat theater for Su-25 have been Afghanistan mountains, and cluster bombs are utterly useless there.

hey I think this might help clear things up a bit. I got a old tank sim (M1 tank platoon 2) and it has a detailed section in the manual on the vehicles in the game include CAS support.

A10 specs:

Length: 52ft. 7in.
Width: 55ft.
Maximum weight: 42,825lb
Maximum speed: 460mph
Combat radius: 250nm
Armament 30mm cannon and up to 18,500lb. of ordnance on 11 external hardpoints.
Accomidation: pilot only
Note: Designed for close air support in Europe as a tank buster, the A-10 had proven itself a very valuable weapon for close air support.

SU-25:

Length: 50ft. 4.5in.
Width: 47ft. 7.75in.
Height: 17ft. 0.75in.
Maximum weight: 42,990 lbs.
Maximum speed: 512kts. (not sure what that is in mph)
Range 378 nm.
Armament: twin-barrel 30mm cannon with 200 rounds, 16 AT-9 anti-tank missiles, AA-8 air-to-air missiles and various other weaponary in the Russian inventory.
Accomidation: Pilot only.
Notes: This anti-tank aircarft originally entered service with the Soviet Union in 1978. The current version of this aircarft is the SU-25T, which entered service in 1993 with improved suvivablity in an anti-aircraft environment.

Nato arrmaent for A-10
GAU-8/A Avenger 30mm cannon

PGU-14B API
Penetration: 250mm
Muzzle Velocity: 1420 Metres per second
Rate of fire: 4200 rounds per minute maximum

PGU-13B HEI
Penetration: 50mm
Muzzle Velocity: 1100 meter per second
Rate of fire: 4200 rounds per minute maximum

AGM-65G Maverick
Range: 25,000 metres
penetration: -25,000 metres
Average speed: 350 metres per second
Guidence: Imaging infrared seeker

Russian Armament for SU-25
(Nothing mensioned about the twinn 30mm cannons)

9M120 Vikhr (AT9 Drakon)
Range: 6000 metres
Penetration: 925mm
Average speed: 300 metres per second
Guidence Laser guided
Special: Tandem warhead

(Nothing mensioned about the AA-8 air-toair missiles)

For those that don't know about the tandem warhead, these where desgined to defeat targets with early reactive armour. The missile contains two seperate shaped-charged warheads, arranged in tandam (Hence the name). The first charge detonates on impact and sets of the reactive armour, whcih disrupts the jet of the first charge. The second carge detonates a few microseconds later, so that its jet hits the targets armour after the reactive armour charge has dissipatted.

Reactive armour is another attenpt to protect tanks from shaped-charge warheads. It consists of a series of steel boxes containing explosives, bolted to the outside of the tank. When a box is hit ny a shaped warhead, the box detonates. This pushes the metal plate into the forming jet and disrupts it before it can penetrate the armour. The introduction of tandem warhead missiles has resulted in a new generatin of reactive armour. This type uses a larger box that incoporates a second rear plate. As the box detonates, the outer plate disrupts the first jet. The rear plate bpunces off the vehicle and then is in place to disrupt the main warhead. In addition. this double plating system has a significant chance to break a long-rod penetrator, providing protection from both armour piercing and HEAT rounds.
(see picture for a simplified diagram of how tandam warheads and reactive armour works.)



I do realise that this information IS from a game manual, and is proberbly not 100% accurate but I felt that it would show to some people what the diffrent aircraft can do/not do, and some ofthe defence systems that tanks employ to defend against these threats

opps pic didn't post

2.75in is 70mm, which may be weak, but has a variety of warheads and is a proven system. The US only uses those and 5in rockets IIRC, and the latter might only be used by the USMC(really not sure, think I read that somewhere..).

And to drop dumb bombs with a bit of precision is rather easy nowadays. If the target computer of the A10 can calculate a CCIP for the GAU8 it can do so for any bomb(perhaps with a bit of new software..).

Don't know why the US doesn't use FAEs on the A10, they have some nice 500lbs ones on the arsenal. Do you need more than 1 different naphalm bomb? The US uses 3(Mk77/750lbs, Mk78/500lbs and Mk79 1000lbs) though only the first one is used on the A10; 750lbs seems a nice choice though..

I never said any aircraft was better than the other, I just wanted to point out there's more than just GAU8 and Mavericks to fit on a A10. I'd still chose the Su39 over it anytime - speed(950 km/h compared to Mach 0.56..) is probably more handy than the fancy GAU8 when anyone fires at you, and since the other performance it quite similar..

Snakeye :D

Heh heh heh. I know more about air-to-air than air-to-mud, but here goes:



The Russians counterpart to the Sidewinder, the AA-10 Archer, has a wide-aspect IR seeker and vectored thrust, coupled with helmet-mounted HUD system. The U.S. won't be able to match that until the AIM-9X version of the Sidewinder is released AND our planes are retrofitted with the helmet HUD we have under development.

Meanwhile, the Russians are hard at work on staying ahead, with a new version Archer that's capable of firing BACKWARDS -- using the Su-27/35/37's rear-facing radar for a rough lock, then having the missile loop on launch for a rear shot.

Their medium range missile is said to be similar to our AMRAAM, but with better range.

Long range missiles? We don't have any, now that the AIM-54 Phoenix is being retired. Oops.



Basically, we're now reliant on stealth technology as our ace in the hole. Whether or not that works out in combat remains to be seen...and I for one think it won't.

AC-130 Spectre transport-gunship.

Rule No1: Never ever believe a game manual.

According to various sources on the net(which seem more credible to me than the game manual..):

The PGU-14/B 30mm API DU can penetrate 69mm@500m and 39mm@1000m. You may find that is nowhere near 250mm, at 1000m it's even less that the M1TP2 manual states for the PGU-13/B which is HEI!
Also muzzle velocities are about 980m/s for the PGU-14/B and 1030m/s for the PGU-13/B.

BTW just searched for the BL755, it's a British cluster bomb..

Snakeye :D

I was lookin at the bibliography part of the manual and it does have a very long list of books and resources it used, but like you said never belive everything or even the entire manual for a game. Most likely the change some of the weapons statistic to ballence out the game or somin like that.


oh and thx to those peeps who pointed out what the AC-130 Spectre transport-gunship is :D

Just to know you're not the only one, I too believed for a long time the PGU14 was at about 220-250mm penetration, until I found various sources for penetrations of smaller caliber cannons. If the 25mm Bushmaster doesn't go through more than 25mm@1300m(about 30mm for DU rounds) and if the Russian 30mm cannon mounted on the BMP3 goes through 25mm@1500m(all at 60° angle) why should a 30mm round of similar speed and weight go through 250mm? 39mm@1000m seems good enough in that category..

And just because striderteen didn't mention it again..
AC130H: 2x20mm M61, 1x40mm Bofors, 1x105mm howizer.
AC130U: 1x25mm GAU12, 1x40mm Bofors, 1x 105mm howitzer.
No GAU8 on any of the two, the A10 is the only aicraft carrying it..

Snakeye :D

Is a Machine cannon really necessary on modern airplanes to take out ground targets?

Necessairy is not the right word, needful fits better.

Of course you can use bombs and missiles for anything, but why not use a 30mm(or 20mm) cannon for trucks, light AFVs ans similar? Plus it can be handy against other aircraft/helicopters..

The US tried to eliminate cannons on the F4(for air-to-air, true) and found out they were needed, mainly because AIM7 and AIM9 in these times sucked - if any came near 10% hit probability it was a good one. The most modern AIM7 still had only 35%..
So cannons will remain on aircraft for both air-to-air and air-to-ground purposes.

Snakeye :D

Ah, here you go again with the profanity. Oh well. How would the metal hunk of slow ass SU-25 go against the multi-role F-16 when it drops 30 angels from above to peg it with no less than 4 Sidewinders. I'm sorry if you feel the SU-25 is inadequate, but all I am saying is to compare the SU-25 to the A-10 in CAS which was the point of the thread. Otherwise, I would have to say the SU-25 sucks balls due to its inadequate air-to-air fighting capabilities. It's not fair, is it? Apples to apples, dude. Next, you'll try to convince us that the Frogfoot can fly an orbit module to the Freedom space station, dock, and commit an EVA.. or some crap like that. Sheesh.

Well, I'd like you to show me cold hard numbers showing that the Russian missile equivalent is better. Otherwise, please consider both equal until someone debunks it.

let see the f16 has... no armour, one engine and has but a few hardpoints with very VERY limited carying capacity. Now since every AA missile in the world will outmaneuver and outun any aircraft of today and the SU-25 can carry a hell iof a load of aa missiles as well they are about matched as fighter leaving the puny f16 in the dirt when it comes to cas or any form of ground support seeing as it has nil survivability and firepower. The f16 is just a fighter that can drop the ocasional bomb from stand-off distance.

Dense man. Did you even read my post? What part of "comparing apples to apples" do you not understand? Aaaaaaaapples to aaaaaaaapples. Here, let me help you out. A SU-25 is an aaaaaapple. The F-16 is an ooooooooorange. An aaaaaapple is not an oooooorange. Does that help at all?

We're comparing the A-10 vs the F-16 in the role of CAS. Which the F-16 obviously sucks at...it's a good air-to-air platform with some air-to-mud capability, but definitely not CAS.

uhm dupre you started it yourself so don't go insulting me

so stick those aaaaaaples in your aaaaaaass dense man