A-10 vs. Su-25/39

Which plane do you prefer?
I'd go for the sukhoi one..

www.aviation.ru...


but theres no su-39
it is also can operate on an aircraft carrier unlike a-10

[Edited on 21-9-2003 by SectorGaza]

actually the real counterpart of the A-10 is Il-102

Originally posted by SectorGaza
www.aviation.ru...


but theres no su-39

Oh yes there is.. Su-39 is 2-seat Su-25 Trainer transformed to a single seat attacker.


Su-39 'Frogfoot'

Btw, Su-39 is first attack aircraft to have active IR-jammer.. (like in AH-1/64 or Mil-8/24/28 helicopters..)

It is mounted at Su-39s tail.

i know that there is su-39! its just not here

www.aviation.ru...

Gaza, how do you figure that?

"Il-102 is like A-10"?

Il-102 is like AX-9 as these both losed.. the one to Su-25, and other to A-10.

Sadly there isnt any pic about it in online..

But i have seem many pics about it.. in books.

and..

"i know that there is su-39! its just not here ".. Ok!

info about the su-39

www.maks.ru...

Round-the-clock performance at active counteraction of the enemy air defense, under simple and adverse weather conditions; sighting through the on-board optical-television 23-times zoom system or through the radar sighting device:
- detection and destruction of moving targets such as tanks, speed boats or helicopters with 0,9 probability;
- autonomous detection and destruction of warships, from high-speed boats and up to torpedo-boat destroyers;
- destruction of modern air defense platforms in any of their operation modes;
- Self protection against fighters and Air-to-Air close combat;
- High maneuverability at low and medium altitudes;
- Operation from mountains airfields with runway elevation up to 3000 m;
- Almost 100 % protection of pilots and all vital aircraft systems against destruction by 30 mm caliber of cannon armament and its splinters.
The Su-39 aircraft provides application of the following:

`Air-to-Surface` weapons:

- Missiles with laser homing with accuracy 0,5 m at targets up to 10 km away and universal aircraft weapons
- antitank guided missile `Vihre` (16 pieces);
- Antiship, antiradar and TV-homing missiles;
- Corrected bombs with TV-homing.

`Air-to-Air` weapons:
- Close-in and long-distance missiles with active and semi-active seekers; with IR-guidance seekers.
Unguided weapons:
- Bombs, rockets and built-in cannon of 30 mm caliber.

Undoubtedly the Sukhoi is a good aircraft, but since no one is posting much about the A10....


Sorry, pics dont work anymore... too bad, there were some good ones!

[Edited on 21-9-2003 by dragonrider]

A-10 rules...hands down....no argument.

Warthog all the way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nice pics Dragon

The A-10 is much more beautiful aircraft that Su-25/39..

And your also right that its cannon is 'rock bottom'.. but the ammo it uses is a crime..

(DU-rounds..)

It is just that Su-25/39s have much more better sensors and missiles..

From what i have heard A-10s dont really have nothing more on board that WAC, HUD and marked target seeker.. (maybe laser range-finder also?)

But Sukhois on the another hand have almost all sensors possible.. (TV, LLLTV, FLIR, LASER.. etc..)

But this really isnt even a 'good' poll.. as both aircraft have shown time and time again that they are both very good close support crafts..

I did vote for Sukhoi, had you posted your pics earlier, i would have voted for A-10..

As they are both 'rock bottom'.

some su-25 videos [from a lo-mac game]
Su-25 �Frogfoot� Cluster Bomb (8.9Mb)
ftp.ubisoft.com...

SU-25 Night Attack (7.5 MB)
ftp.ubisoft.com...

I dont know why my photos stopped working all of a sudden, but this is the site that I got them from (there are MANY more than what I linked as well)

www.a-10.org...

Here is the best of Dragons pics:


Before they stopped 'functioning'..

This is beautiful..

Which plane do you guys think can take more damage? I voted for the A-10. It's a damn fine aircraft.

The A10 was designed from the ground up to survive massive amounts of groundfire, and has proven this in combat several times. (One advantage of it being relatively low tech is that there are few electronic avionics to screw up)

However, Russian aircraft in general are known for being built like flying tanks. Dont have that much information on the known combat survivability of the Sukhoi but would be interested in it if anyone knows.

Originally posted by jetsetter
Which plane do you guys think can take more damage? I voted for the A-10. It's a damn fine aircraft.

Su-25.

As during 60000 sorties flown in Afganistan only 23 were lost. To all causes, including 'base attack'.

Sukhoi is also much faster than A-10.

Sukhoi is also much faster than A-10.

That may not be the asset in ground attack that one might think it to be.

One of the greatest attributes of the A-10 is its reputed agility during ground attack runs. The faster you fly, the less maneuverability you have.

Here guys. Check out this link: www.globalsecurity.org... . At the bottom of the page there are photos of a A-10 with battle damage. Looks like it can take alot.

The smaller size of Su-25 and its greater speed gives it a higher chance to remain undetected by enemy CAP.
and the pilot's rear armor is better then on the a-10
it can use diesel fuel
can haul fuel pump and some spares in special underwing containers.

it is performance in muddy unprepared airstrips is amazing: Su-25 were able to taxi where 6x6s trucks were stuck in the mud.


23 Su-25 were lost over nine years of conflict, with loss rate of one a/c per 2,800 hrs of operational flying.



Here are few more stories highlighting Su-25 roughness:

-Major Rubalov's Su-25 was hit in the engine which surged and flooded an engine bay with fuel, the cockpit was shattered, buster controls are gone and major's face covered with blood. None of the dials in the cockpit worked and his wingman guided him to the final approach. After belly landing, major rushed away from the Su-25 fearing that plane going to explode. After figuring that this is not going to happen, he got back to the aircraft and cut the engine.

-Another Su-25 was on fire which burned out most of the wiring and 95% of horizontal tail controls. In few moments before the landing, fire short cut the gear release wires and Su-25 made "conventional" landing.

-Lieutenant Golubtsov's Su-25 lost half of its rudder along with breaks. After landing his a/c ended up off runaway and rolled into adjacent mine field. He was forced to wait in the cockpit till mine squad cleared his way out.

-One Su-25 brought a missile in the engine which failed to detonate. (SAM?)

-Rutskoi's Su-25 was hit by AAA (ZGU) when a missile (Blowpipe) hit right engine (head on - it "turned off" the engine though the intake). Second AAA finally managed to shot it down. This is a second Frogfoot he flew (not the preproduction T-8-15 Blue 15 which was damaged twice). Rutskoi spent some time as Pakistani POW and was shortly exchanged.