Su-25 vs A-10!

[LieLestoSbrat]

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

 

[Snakeye]

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

 

["Sp!ke"]

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

 

[Snakeye]

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

 

[Dupre]

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

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.

 

[Dupre]

Originally posted by Gholam
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.

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.

 

[The_Fur]

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.

 

[Dupre]

Originally posted by The_Fur
let see the f16 has... no armour, one engine and has but a few hardpoints with very VERY limited carying capacity... blah blah blah

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?

 

[striderteen]

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.

 

[The_Fur]

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

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.

so stick those aaaaaaples in your aaaaaaass dense man

 

[MadWoffen]

Originally posted by G-Fresh


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

Not precisely. F22 has a radar signature but very low when flying horizontally. IIRC, it has some kind of 5 stages from passive to active (the 5th is with active ECM, etc,...).

F22 only needs to open his radar when attacked or when firing long range missiles but it is generally the AWACS who do the job. Others missiles are IR and don't need an active radar to lock.

Laser designation also don't need the radar to be active otherwise, planes like B-2 or F117 would have an useless stealth technology.

One of the drawbacks of the F22 is that to be "invisible", it needs to carry his loadout inside his missile compartment but it has then a big signature when it opens this compartment....
Not to mention that this compartment has a very limited space.

 

[The_Fur]

The SU-37 would prove to be more then a match for the f22 if they indeed implement the new plasma based stealth techonology they are working on, it can outmaneuver the f22 easilly and with that type of technology they'd be able to carry the loads on the outside without loss of stealth ability.

 

[G-Fresh]

Er... Woffen I don't get your post, you are agreeing with what I said. In order to find the enemy when there isn't an AWACS in the area, the radar needs to be turned on. I never said anything about IR or laser designators, but how do you propose to provide effective fighter cover with the approx 3 miles range of an IR guided missile? To realistically have a chance of finding the enemy you need radar

 

[RAZZ]

how do you propose to provide effective fighter cover with the approx 3 miles range of an IR guided missile? To realistically have a chance of finding the enemy you need radar

Cause russian planes blaze on ir sensors like no ones business and become targets from over 6 miles away if I remember correct. then theres passive radar, where you just listen for unidentified signals.
if you dont care about being seen by radar, then weve got weapons with ranges of about 30 miles you can use.
---------

for all you f-16 bashers out there:
theres two things the f-16 has going for it, low price and adaptability. this means alotta people own them, and they carry weapons that get the job done.
ground troops dont give a **** so long as their enemies go up in a ball of flame.
ground support is a job the falcons have been doing rather well despite their short commings.

 

[Dupre]

Originally posted by Dupre
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.

Originally posted by striderteen
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.

Okay. That's perfectly fine then. But I'm not.

 

[Dupre]

Originally posted by The_Fur
uhm dupre you started it yourself so don't go insulting me

Nope. Someone else started it but you decided to be a dumbass about it. And gee, who threw in the first insulting post in the thread? Duh. Go manhandle a chicken. Dumbass.

 

[The_Fur]

I didn't do anything you waste of protoplasm, i stated that the f16 wouldn't be a match for the SU27 while also stating the reasons why, so go fondle a camel or something.

 

[Dupre]

No, you stated the F-16 isn't a match for the SU-25 in air-to-air combat. Errrrrn, duuuuuh. Hello McFly..

Fondle a camel? Waste of protoplasm? Oh my god. You suck. Do you even know how bad that is? Christ, man. That's so weak. Ol' Bubba in the pen gone and made you into his biiii-otch if that's all your mouth can spout. Why don't you get knocked up by a elephant? With the amount of crap you're putting out, you shouldn't have a problem with that.

 

[The_Fur]

"."

so you started insulting me because I stated something that you think is not true? what kind of a weak reason is that?

Let's compare the two as multi-role aircraft, does the SU-27 make an effective fighter, maybe not as much as a specialised fighter but it stands its ground. It is armoured it has dual engines and it can fire missiles backwards... no matter where you pop up if it spots you you are dead. Is the f16 a good fighter... hardly, it has one engine and no armour all it has is speed and that is by no means a sufficient method of defense since most air to air missiles go around mach 3 or more.

Now lets take a look at the support capabilities, the lack of armour and the lack of multiple engines as well as the inherent unstability of the f16 make it useless for cas, on top of that it's payload is minimal and it doesn't have effective cannons for ground attack. in short the f16 sucks for cas and any other form of support (seeing as it's weakness force it to stay at high alt and it is no use up there).

winner is su-27

loser is you

 

["Sp!ke"]

Fur: do you have any good sources on the new SUs?