Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Froogfoot Vs Thunderbolt  
User currently offlineWarlord From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 14808 times:

Very simple question which one is better?

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSouthernCRJ From Argentina, joined Sep 2001, 180 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks ago) and read 14764 times:

Hi warlord,

Your question seems to be very simple, but really it isn't.

First of all, I want to say that the Su-25 isn't the soviet couterpart to the A-10; it's more an attack version of the Bae Hawk than the thunderbolt counterpart. The real rival of the A-10 was the IL-102.

Here I will put some "facts" of each a/c so you can form yourself your own opinion:

-The Su-25 has a much greater speed than the A-10 due to the use of turbojets instead of turbofans (975 vs 682 km/h)

-The Su-25 can use diesel fuel for its jets

-The frogfoot has an amazing perfomance in muddy unprepaded airstrips

-The smaller size of Su-25 and its greater speed gives it a higher chance to remain undetected by enemy (but in the case of be detected, the A-10 has better chance to survive because of its well separated engines and its IR shielding give)

-Su-25 has a maximum load capacity of 4400 kg vs 7200 of the thunderbolt

-The Su-25 has a maximum range while carrying the maximum combat load plus two drop tanks of 400 nm (750 km) at low level or 675 nm (1250 km) at altitude (vs 2000 km of the A-10)


Regards from Argentina
SouthernCRJ






User currently offlineYKA From Netherlands, joined Sep 2001, 766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 14747 times:

-The A-10 carries 6300 pounds more of ordanance while offering the same combat radius.

-Both planes have a relatively same MTOW(the A10's is MTOW is 8000 punds higher).

-The A-10s GE engine burns alot less fuel thanks its high-bypass turbofan design while offering the same thrust as the outdated turbojets on the SU-25.

-The A-10's anit-tank 30mm cannon with its depleated uranium bullets causes more destruction then the one on the SU-25.

-The A-10 cant take extreme damage and still remain aloft thanks to its heavy armour, widely spaced, high mounted engines and unique tail configuration(half the tail can get blown off). The pilot is better protected thanks to heavy armour around the cockpit and bulletproof canopy. The A-10 also has self sealing fuel tanks.

All in all, the A-10 is a supperior aircraft in every respect.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 3, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 14738 times:

The A-10 can also use Diesel fuel. It is a Kerosene just like Jet Fuel So that isn't an issue.

The Turbofan engines on the A-10 present a cooler exhaust then the straight jets on the SU-25. This will make it harder for an IR missle to track onto it. As well mounting the engines where they are on the A-10 also shield them from observation from the ground.

Oddly enough the Northrop A-9 which lost the contest to the A-10 featured almost the exact same configuration that the SU-25 has.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineWarlord From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 14716 times:

Wait the minute do you want to say that su-25 and a-10 are the not same category fighters?
I'm asking this because i don't much about a/c and i read that both are ground strike fighters.
Alexander


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 5, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 14690 times:

The S-25 was designed for completely different missions.
While the A-10 was designed primarilly as a close-support aircraft for destroying armoured formations in Germany, the Su-25 was designed primarilly as a light bomber to attack (semi) fixed targets like depots and field-headquarters.

Soviet strategy relied far more heavily on groundbased forces to engage the NATO armies in Europe, after a decapitating strike using aircraft and ballistic missiles on NATO command&control facilities and depot and transport facilities. This dictated a fast general strikeaircraft.
NATO strategy on the other hand relied on aircraft and helicopters to quickly help out groundforces that could not survive on their own. Groundforces do not move quickly enough for that, and NATO knew it did not have enough groundforces to hold back a concerted WarPac assault without massive airsupport (or massive use of nuclear weapons). Therefore, a dedicated tankkiller was needed.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineSchreiner From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 960 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (12 years 10 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 14656 times:

Nothing beter that the 30 MM gun in that A10!


Soaring the internet...
User currently offlineMiG31 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (12 years 10 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 14637 times:

Su-25 IS the counter-part of A-10 and as a matter of fact a much better one, since it has no analogies in the world. While carrying the same amount of weapons it is smaller, lighter (9500kg vs. A-10's 11321kg.) and that is the mass of an emty a/c.
It has a bigger radius.
Su-25 = 1250km.
A-10 = 463-1000
Su-25 is faster (М=0.82) then A-10 (834km/h).

And you may disagree with me on this one, but Su-25 looks a hell of a lot better... Big grin

All the best!




User currently offlineSoren-a From Denmark, joined Sep 2001, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (12 years 10 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 14632 times:

MiG31 wrote:
And you may disagree with me on this one, but Su-25 looks a hell of a lot better...

I totally agree with you MiG31 the A-10 is much uglier, but that is why I like it  Big thumbs up

Regards
Søren Augustesen


User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (12 years 10 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 14627 times:

"Su-25 IS the counter-part of A-10 and as a matter of fact a much better one, since it has no analogies in the world"

 Insane

LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineYKA From Netherlands, joined Sep 2001, 766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (12 years 10 months 3 days ago) and read 14624 times:

Damn I try to diss a plane and end up dissing myself by making a bunch of typo's Insane

User currently offlineMiG31 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (12 years 10 months 9 hours ago) and read 14605 times:

YKA says: Lets just admit tha the Forgfoot sucks.

Listen up! You freshman F*UCK!!! I suggest that you be quiet unless you have something to say that is not complete BS!!! I will NOT, I repeat NOT tolerate comments like this about Russian a/c. Have you ever at least seen anything other than a Boeing 737 or flew one???

I suggest deletion of this retarded comment by YKA!!!


User currently offlineMiG31 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (12 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 14584 times:

Ok, my previous comment, right above this one is no longer relevant because the retarded comment, which I was quoting has been rightly deleted. So do not pay attention to it.
I am sorry for the language I used but I just hate when some little kids who go to something like www.boeing.com read it all and then think they're the greatest a/c experts in the world and start critising machines that they have no clue about...

All the best!


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Froogfoot Vs Thunderbolt
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Raptor Vs Typhoon posted Sat Mar 24 2007 23:53:57 by Blackbird
Slam Eagle Vs Typhoon, Part 2 posted Wed Mar 21 2007 22:31:32 by DEVILFISH
Exocet Damage: HMS Sheffield Vs USS Stark posted Fri Mar 9 2007 19:16:31 by DesertJets
Flight Path Vs. Pitching Deck posted Mon Feb 19 2007 02:04:30 by Vzlet
F-22A Vs F-14 Which One Sound Better? posted Mon Feb 12 2007 17:33:07 by 747400sp
Chengdu J-10 Vs Aidc F-CK-1C posted Sun Jan 7 2007 00:54:21 by DEVILFISH
E3C/D Vs Wedgetail 737 posted Fri Dec 8 2006 11:10:29 by CHRISBA777ER
Presidential Helicopters, Shipping Vs Ferrying posted Sat Oct 28 2006 16:01:14 by Boeing Nut
Boeing Mulls 767 Vs 777 Tanker Offering posted Wed Sep 27 2006 17:13:21 by DAYflyer
Fail-Safe Vs Dr.Strangelove posted Fri Sep 22 2006 19:30:52 by B741

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format