By: Levsha
- 1st March 2015 at 12:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If you look at it this way any payload has nothing to do with survivability.. However the post was strictly about payloads, and some others "considered" PGMs are an advantage of A-10 in (terms of survivability), so that it would be further away from the SAM threat and not get shot down. I agree to that perspective; I believe munitions that can deal with the enemy better, quicker, or further away from the enemy is a KEY part of survivability.
Well then we don't disagree. But if a stand-off launch range is 'KEY' to an attacking aircraft's survival it would make such slow and heavily armoured types like A-10 and Su-25 fairly irrelevant - no wonder the USAF have been trying to get rid of the A-10 for years.
A-10/Su-25, are CAS aircraft, they are expected to operate right within range of enemy SHORADS.
Wrong. These aircraft would not survive most modern air defence systems like you mentioned (Tor-M, Tunguska), not a chance.
For a pre-planned attack againist a tank brigade that is protected by numerous Tor-Ms, Tunguskas etc, sole ability of carrying Kh-25MP, Kh-58U and Kh-31P (on newer variants), improves survival chance more than anything; armor, PGMs, maneuverability, DAS etc. In fact a pair of anti-radiation missiles can improve survival chance from close-to-zero to very-high.
Why have you got this fixation on the idea of the Su-25 carrying out SEAD? I don't think this is the assigned role of the Su-25 in RuAF service and they are unlikely to be equiped for the task. Su-24 and Su-34 are Russian SEAD attackers.
By: Levsha
- 1st March 2015 at 13:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A-10 would have been a better plane if it had just the Su-25's Gast gun, or European-style twin 30mm revolver guns.
The USAF are pretty happy with the gun - it's what they specified 45 years ago - although sure, they probably wouldn't specify it again. Since when was a gun in any application ever considered over-powerful?
on a related note
can Georgia still produce Su-25s?
By: Andraxxus
- 1st March 2015 at 13:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
it would make such slow and heavily armoured types like A-10 and Su-25 fairly irrelevant - no wonder the USAF have been trying to get rid of the A-10 for years.
True, if everything works as advertised. Eventually, when technology will guarantee every target can be detected and destroyed from long ranges, they will be irrelevant. USA, Russia or even Ukraine has aircraft to use PGMs from distance to bomb a specific location. And even in the latest conflicts like afganistan, georgia or ukraine A-10 and Su-25 is heavily used. So for today getting close to enemy is still a necessity and heavy armor is still useful.
Wrong. These aircraft would not survive most modern air defence systems like you mentioned (Tor-M, Tunguska), not a chance.
Why have you got this fixation on the idea of the Su-25 carrying out SEAD? I don't think this is the assigned role of the Su-25 in RuAF service and they are unlikely to be equiped for the task. Su-24 and Su-34 are Russian SEAD attackers.
We are not comparing assigned role, but available capability. Su-25 is capable of SEAD. IF needed, and no other aircraft is available, Su-25 can do it. And by definition of SEAD, it can not only survive, but also take out Tor/Tunguska or similar systems from distance.
For example both Su-25 and A-10 are capable of carrying A/G munitions on outermost pylons. Should I ignore this capability as well, simply because it isnt used in real life?
By: Levsha
- 1st March 2015 at 13:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We are not comparing assigned role, but available capability. Su-25 is capable of SEAD. IF needed, and no other aircraft is available, Su-25 can do it. And by definition of SEAD, it can not only survive, but also take out Tor/Tunguska or similar systems from distance.
For example both Su-25 and A-10 are capable of carrying A/G munitions on outermost pylons. Should I ignore this capability as well, simply because it isnt used in real life?
Yes, I agree. Any strike aircraft can carry out a so-called SEAD or DEAD mission using whatever munitions they have at their disposal. In operation Desert Storm in 1991 the air war was begun with SEAD missions against the Iraqi radar network - performed not by the USAF, USN or RAF - but by the US army with their AH-64s.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 1st March 2015 at 15:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, I agree. Any strike aircraft can carry out a so-called SEAD or DEAD mission using whatever munitions they have at their disposal. In operation Desert Storm in 1991 the air war was begun with SEAD missions against the Iraqi radar network - performed not by the USAF, USN or RAF - but by the US army with their AH-64s.
In the context of this thread, SEAD aircraft are those who can perform such mission using dedicated anti-radiation missiles. Eastern publications mention that Su-25BM, Su-25UB(K), Su-25UTG and Su-25T/TM can also carry Vyuga system container under central fuselage hinges for control of Kh-25MP and Kh-58U/E ARMs.
New
Posts: 2,171
By: Berkut
- 1st March 2015 at 16:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And a video of Su-25 returning during Chechen war, starting from 5.50:
So yeah, it is plenty tough not to mention afghan war. IMHO Su-25 has demonstrated more toughness than A-10 has ever done, then again A-10 has been hit less, presumably because of the much better active systems. Su-25SM3 should be an unbeatable combo.
By: TR1
- 1st March 2015 at 20:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A-10C has a clear electronic advantage over the cheaper Su-25SM upgrade. The latter does not even have MAWS.
Both vanilla birds are horribly outdated in any case.
Su-25SM3 really should be the bare minimum for any new CAS purchases/modernizations. Flying either the A-10 and Su-25 without DIRCM today is just stupid.
By: Andraxxus
- 1st March 2015 at 22:38Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Both vanilla birds are horribly outdated in any case.
Su-25SM3 really should be the bare minimum for any new CAS purchases/modernizations. Flying either the A-10 and Su-25 without DIRCM today is just stupid.
I agree that DIRCM and MAWS is a must for any new modernization/purchase today, but I don't think flying without them is stupid or not having them automatically makes aircraft obsolete. MANPADS weren't a lesser threat in 1985. Its true seekers have improved in last 30 years, but so does the countermeasure flares. Vanilla Su-25 did well enough in 1985, IMHO it will do just as well today; by simply using flares, tactics, maneuverability and armor.
By: El_Indigo
- 2nd March 2015 at 02:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Su-25 also had redundant systems, and apparently much heavier armor than A-10. To quote myself (I've translated from a source I currently can't find it on my pc.)
755 kg was a total amount devoted for protection and only 2/3 of that weight was for the titanium armor if I recall correctly.
A-10C has a clear electronic advantage over the cheaper Su-25SM upgrade. The latter does not even have MAWS.
Both vanilla birds are horribly outdated in any case.
Su-25SM3 really should be the bare minimum for any new CAS purchases/modernizations. Flying either the A-10 and Su-25 without DIRCM today is just stupid.
You know what would also be nice ? For MoD stop ******* around and provide the funding for Tula to finish Hermes ******* A's
By: TomcatViP
- 5th March 2015 at 13:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
interesting also:
the Pentagon has just confirmed that: “[…] US and Coalition aircraft have not been, and will not be, using depleted uranium munitions in Iraq or Syria during Operation Inherent Resolve,” meaning that the 30 mm Depleted Uranium ammunition has not and won’t be loaded onto the A-10s.
Posts: 2,814
By: Levsha - 1st March 2015 at 12:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well then we don't disagree. But if a stand-off launch range is 'KEY' to an attacking aircraft's survival it would make such slow and heavily armoured types like A-10 and Su-25 fairly irrelevant - no wonder the USAF have been trying to get rid of the A-10 for years.
Wrong. These aircraft would not survive most modern air defence systems like you mentioned (Tor-M, Tunguska), not a chance.
Why have you got this fixation on the idea of the Su-25 carrying out SEAD? I don't think this is the assigned role of the Su-25 in RuAF service and they are unlikely to be equiped for the task. Su-24 and Su-34 are Russian SEAD attackers.
Posts: 2,814
By: Levsha - 1st March 2015 at 13:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The USAF are pretty happy with the gun - it's what they specified 45 years ago - although sure, they probably wouldn't specify it again. Since when was a gun in any application ever considered over-powerful?
No.
Posts: 932
By: Andraxxus - 1st March 2015 at 13:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
True, if everything works as advertised. Eventually, when technology will guarantee every target can be detected and destroyed from long ranges, they will be irrelevant. USA, Russia or even Ukraine has aircraft to use PGMs from distance to bomb a specific location. And even in the latest conflicts like afganistan, georgia or ukraine A-10 and Su-25 is heavily used. So for today getting close to enemy is still a necessity and heavy armor is still useful.
We are not comparing assigned role, but available capability. Su-25 is capable of SEAD. IF needed, and no other aircraft is available, Su-25 can do it. And by definition of SEAD, it can not only survive, but also take out Tor/Tunguska or similar systems from distance.
For example both Su-25 and A-10 are capable of carrying A/G munitions on outermost pylons. Should I ignore this capability as well, simply because it isnt used in real life?
Posts: 2,814
By: Levsha - 1st March 2015 at 13:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, I agree. Any strike aircraft can carry out a so-called SEAD or DEAD mission using whatever munitions they have at their disposal. In operation Desert Storm in 1991 the air war was begun with SEAD missions against the Iraqi radar network - performed not by the USAF, USN or RAF - but by the US army with their AH-64s.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 1st March 2015 at 15:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In the context of this thread, SEAD aircraft are those who can perform such mission using dedicated anti-radiation missiles. Eastern publications mention that Su-25BM, Su-25UB(K), Su-25UTG and Su-25T/TM can also carry Vyuga system container under central fuselage hinges for control of Kh-25MP and Kh-58U/E ARMs.
Posts: 2,171
By: Berkut - 1st March 2015 at 16:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And a video of Su-25 returning during Chechen war, starting from 5.50:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUq8DKJkZsw
So yeah, it is plenty tough not to mention afghan war. IMHO Su-25 has demonstrated more toughness than A-10 has ever done, then again A-10 has been hit less, presumably because of the much better active systems. Su-25SM3 should be an unbeatable combo.
Posts: 9,579
By: TR1 - 1st March 2015 at 20:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A-10C has a clear electronic advantage over the cheaper Su-25SM upgrade. The latter does not even have MAWS.
Both vanilla birds are horribly outdated in any case.
Su-25SM3 really should be the bare minimum for any new CAS purchases/modernizations. Flying either the A-10 and Su-25 without DIRCM today is just stupid.
Posts: 2,619
By: topspeed - 1st March 2015 at 21:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How big a difference is the 270 km/h slower top speed on A-10 ?
Posts: 932
By: Andraxxus - 1st March 2015 at 22:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I agree that DIRCM and MAWS is a must for any new modernization/purchase today, but I don't think flying without them is stupid or not having them automatically makes aircraft obsolete. MANPADS weren't a lesser threat in 1985. Its true seekers have improved in last 30 years, but so does the countermeasure flares. Vanilla Su-25 did well enough in 1985, IMHO it will do just as well today; by simply using flares, tactics, maneuverability and armor.
Posts: 275
By: El_Indigo - 2nd March 2015 at 02:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
755 kg was a total amount devoted for protection and only 2/3 of that weight was for the titanium armor if I recall correctly.
You know what would also be nice ? For MoD stop ******* around and provide the funding for Tula to finish Hermes ******* A's
Posts: 2,619
By: topspeed - 2nd March 2015 at 08:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Is Tula Hermes a two stage medium range missile system ?
http://www.russiadefence.net/t339-the-missile-complex-hermes-will-replace-ataka
Posts: 4,619
By: mrmalaya - 5th March 2015 at 10:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here are some delicious images of a filthy A10 fleet laden with a wide range of weapons for the pounding of ISIS:
http://theaviationist.com/2015/03/03/a-10-loadout-kuwait/
[ATTACH=CONFIG]235706[/ATTACH]
Posts: 5,905
By: TomcatViP - 5th March 2015 at 13:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
interesting also:
Extracted from the above Link