User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 7:39:34 PM EDT
[#1]
I've heard good things about Kermit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 7:42:16 PM EDT
[#2]
It's not an A-10.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 7:43:48 PM EDT
[#3]
 ...!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 7:45:24 PM EDT
[#4]
I would really like to see what an A-10 with modernized gun pods under the wings could do.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 7:46:03 PM EDT
[#5]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 7:46:26 PM EDT
[#6]
I wouldn't want to stand in front of one that didn't like me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 7:46:57 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would really like to see what an A-10 with modernized gun pods under the wings could do. Thought that was for the F16? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 7:48:28 PM EDT
[#8]
They didn't do well in Afghanistan once the Stingers were delivered.
And I wouldn't call it "Russia's A-10" since it's just an imitation of the A-10s competitor in the AX fly-off, the YA-9. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 8:48:34 PM EDT
[#9]
That is a misconception I believe. It's not a tank killer and was not designed to be an A-10. It's principle role was to disrupt soft logistic targets and supply chains in the rear.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 8:48:51 PM EDT
[#10]
The Russians shipped a squadron of Su-24s for medium-ish altitude strike missions, and one of Su-25s for when they have to fly low. If you have to fly in to manpads range you want a Su-25. That's a big difference with the west right there, the USAF doesn't think that it needs to fly low anymore so from that perspective an armored ground attack aircraft isn't that useful.
You could write a book on comparing the Su-25 versus the A-10 but the fact is that the Su-25 is still in production while the A-10 will soon be in museums. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 8:57:44 PM EDT
[#11]
Air-to-Air A-10 vs SU-25. Who wins?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 8:57:59 PM EDT
[#12]
The Frogfoot is a good combat aircraft. Lots of people will hand-wave it away because it's built with old tech and everything under the access panels look archaic, but it was built to survive and do its job and it is a hell of an attack aircraft in the fullest tradition of the Sturmovik.
I would not want to be looking up at one that wasn't wearing my colors. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 8:58:47 PM EDT
[#13]
I wouldn't kick one out of the hangar for eating crackers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 9:04:59 PM EDT
[#14]
LOL russian A-10..... :golf clap:
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 9:06:01 PM EDT
[#15]
I don't see no BRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP maker.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 9:10:04 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't see no BRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP maker.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 9:10:59 PM EDT
[#17]
It has a pew-pewpewpewpewpew maker..........twin barreled 30mm guns under the cockpit
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't see no BRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP maker. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 9:13:49 PM EDT
[#18]
Meh, the Frogfoot ain't ugly enough.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 9:17:09 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It has a pew-pewpewpewpewpew maker..........twin barreled 30mm guns under the cockpit Quote HistoryQuoted:
It has a pew-pewpewpewpewpew maker..........twin barreled 30mm guns under the cockpit Quoted:
I don't see no BRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP maker. How does the twin 30mm in the Frogfoot compare to the single GAU-8 in the Warthog? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 9:18:13 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Frogfoot is a good combat aircraft. Lots of people will hand-wave it away because it's built with old tech and everything under the access panels look archaic, but it was built to survive and do its job and it is a hell of an attack aircraft in the fullest tradition of the Sturmovik. I would not want to be looking up at one that wasn't wearing my colors. I was going to say something Similar. One thing I noticed screwing around under the hood of several Warsaw-Pact Jets, while they might not be as PRETTY as our stuff, they;\'re RUGGED, and I didnt see any shoddy workmanship, they were just...Solid, and built with the idea that the maintainers were going to be Conscripts with not a whole lot of Schooling or training. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 9:18:45 PM EDT
[#21]
Great simple, tough, reliable aircraft.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 9:23:44 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was going to say something Similar. One thing I noticed screwing around under the hood of several Warsaw-Pact Jets, while they might not be as PRETTY as our stuff, they;\'re RUGGED, and I didnt see any shoddy workmanship, they were just...Solid, and built with the idea that the maintainers were going to be Conscripts with not a whole lot of Schooling or training. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The Frogfoot is a good combat aircraft. Lots of people will hand-wave it away because it's built with old tech and everything under the access panels look archaic, but it was built to survive and do its job and it is a hell of an attack aircraft in the fullest tradition of the Sturmovik. I would not want to be looking up at one that wasn't wearing my colors. I was going to say something Similar. One thing I noticed screwing around under the hood of several Warsaw-Pact Jets, while they might not be as PRETTY as our stuff, they;\'re RUGGED, and I didnt see any shoddy workmanship, they were just...Solid, and built with the idea that the maintainers were going to be Conscripts with not a whole lot of Schooling or training. They're designed like Mad Max vehicles from the ground up. They're intended to be maintained with a hammer and a screwdriver and a 3rd grade education, and keep working. I don't care how fancy you can build shit, pulling that off is an engineering accomplishment all itself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 9:24:57 PM EDT
[#23]
Not sure of the ballistics, but the A-10 carries more ammo
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How does the twin 30mm in the Frogfoot compare to the single GAU-8 in the Warthog? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It has a pew-pewpewpewpewpew maker..........twin barreled 30mm guns under the cockpit Quoted:
I don't see no BRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP maker. How does the twin 30mm in the Frogfoot compare to the single GAU-8 in the Warthog? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 9:25:44 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Great simple, tough, reliable aircraft. Yep 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 9:28:04 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Great simple, tough, reliable aircraft. Yep https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A-0PVAHCAAA7mJf.jpg Odds are decent that aircraft flew again in the same conflict. Not after a trip to AMARC, or back to the factory for a year-long rebuild, but patched up and flying again at that field. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 9:28:52 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Great simple, tough, reliable aircraft. Yep http://iliketowastemytime.com/sites/default/files/historical-photos-pt7-su-25-damaged-2008-georgia-war.jpg Well, here's your problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 9:30:30 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How does the twin 30mm in the Frogfoot compare to the single GAU-8 in the Warthog? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It has a pew-pewpewpewpewpew maker..........twin barreled 30mm guns under the cockpit Quoted:
I don't see no BRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP maker. How does the twin 30mm in the Frogfoot compare to the single GAU-8 in the Warthog? It's a slow firing cannon and it does not carry much ammo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 9:31:33 PM EDT
[#28]
It's a capable airplane, and supersonic-which the A-10 isn't. I wouldn't feel vulnerable flying one into combat. Both aircraft rely on simplicity and carry a lot of payload. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 9:31:59 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't see no BRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP maker.   
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 9:34:51 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Air-to-Air A-10 vs SU-25. Who wins? Take away the electronics and integrated battlefield, just two pilots, a stick, rudder, pedals and trigger and I think I'd take the commie plane. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 9:35:34 PM EDT
[#31]
Serious question. Frogfoot, flogger, etc, are these the Russian names for the planes, or Western names?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 9:36:34 PM EDT
[#32]
NATO designations
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Serious question. Frogfoot, flogger, etc, are these the Russian names for the planes, or Western names? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 9:36:49 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Serious question. Frogfoot, flogger, etc, are these the Russian names for the planes, or Western names? Ours. NATO naming of russian combat aircraft. F = fighter B = Bomber C = Cargo etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 9:37:29 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Serious question. Frogfoot, flogger, etc, are these the Russian names for the planes, or Western names? Western names. Used by NATO. Names that start with "F" are fighters/ground attack aircraft. Names with one syllable are prop driven, names with two syllables are jets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 9:38:33 PM EDT
[#35]
I've never heard anything bad about them
while they're no A-10 they seem like a pretty good attack bird also heard they're maneuverable as hell this thread needs more Grach pics 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 9:42:03 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Air-to-Air A-10 vs SU-25. Who wins? Depends on the package and pilots. Chances are the SU 25 in A2A. The A10 is made for ground attack. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 9:42:44 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Great simple, tough, reliable aircraft. Yep http://iliketowastemytime.com/sites/default/files/historical-photos-pt7-su-25-damaged-2008-georgia-war.jpg God damn, look at the lines and lines of rivets. Make that bird smooth, it would probably go 100 knots faster... 
So many structural members it must be nearly solid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 10:03:28 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's a capable airplane, and supersonic-which the A-10 isn't. I wouldn't feel vulnerable flying one into combat. Both aircraft rely on simplicity and carry a lot of payload. Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's a capable airplane, and supersonic-which the A-10 isn't. I wouldn't feel vulnerable flying one into combat. Both aircraft rely on simplicity and carry a lot of payload. I don't believe the Frogfoot is supersonic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 10:06:37 PM EDT
[#39]
I believe it is in a dive.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 10:06:59 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't believe the Frogfoot is supersonic. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's a capable airplane, and supersonic-which the A-10 isn't. I wouldn't feel vulnerable flying one into combat. Both aircraft rely on simplicity and carry a lot of payload. I don't believe the Frogfoot is supersonic. Nope, max speed is ~0.8Mach, IIRC. I have a 1:48 model of one in my office from my modeling days. Need to get my kids into that... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 10:17:10 PM EDT
[#41]
I saw/heard a 4 ship of SU-25's take off while I was in Romania. They are really really really fucking loud if that's any indication of its capabilities
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 10:23:20 PM EDT
[#42]
Older models really weren't meant to deliver guided weapons. God-awful amounts of unguided rockets, including up to 330mm (!!!) models, were the weapon of choice.
Georgia taught them that unguided weapons suck when the pilot is under the stress of flying in a contested environment, so the Russians are kicking off the SU-25SM upgrade program to make it more practical to carry a range of guided weapons. Interesting to see what variant they deployed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2015 10:52:21 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Air-to-Air A-10 vs SU-25. Who wins? SU-25. It's much faster and newer variants can carry the very capable R-73. They probably don't have helmet mounted sights to take advantage of the very high off bore site cueing, but it's still a better missile then the sidewinders the A-10 packs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2015 1:01:02 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's a capable airplane, and supersonic-which the A-10 isn't. I wouldn't feel vulnerable flying one into combat. Both aircraft rely on simplicity and carry a lot of payload. Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's a capable airplane, and supersonic-which the A-10 isn't. I wouldn't feel vulnerable flying one into combat. Both aircraft rely on simplicity and carry a lot of payload. In what universe is the frogfoot a supersonic plane? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2015 10:36:26 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I saw/heard a 4 ship of SU-25's take off while I was in Romania. They are really really really fucking loud if that's any indication of its capabilities Speaking of loud, I wanna watch a Tornado dive through the Mach Loop with my own eyes. Or ride in one. Whatever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2015 10:43:15 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't believe the Frogfoot is supersonic. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It's a capable airplane, and supersonic-which the A-10 isn't. I wouldn't feel vulnerable flying one into combat. Both aircraft rely on simplicity and carry a lot of payload. I don't believe the Frogfoot is supersonic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2015 10:44:55 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I believe it is in a dive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2015 10:49:21 AM EDT
[#48]
The Soviets Russians know a thing or three about armored ground attack aircraft.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2015 11:14:05 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not sure of the ballistics, but the A-10 carries more ammo Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not sure of the ballistics, but the A-10 carries more ammo Quoted:
Quoted:
It has a pew-pewpewpewpewpew maker..........twin barreled 30mm guns under the cockpit Quoted:
I don't see no BRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP maker. How does the twin 30mm in the Frogfoot compare to the single GAU-8 in the Warthog? 30x165mm on the SU-25. 30x173mm on the A-10. I'm guessing the A-10's 30mm uses a heavier payload. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2015 11:18:05 AM EDT
[#50]
Czechs don't like Russians, apparently
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
