warlord
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 5:15 am

Froogfoot Vs Thunderbolt

Sun Nov 04, 2001 6:56 am

Very simple question which one is better?
 
SouthernCRJ
Posts: 170
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2001 5:23 am

RE: Froogfoot Vs Thunderbolt

Sun Nov 04, 2001 12:55 pm

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




 
yka
Posts: 723
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2001 3:00 am

RE: Froogfoot Vs Thunderbolt

Sun Nov 04, 2001 2:30 pm

-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-The A-10s GE engine burns alot less fuel thanks its high-bypass turbofan design while offering the same thrust as the outdated turbojets on the SU-25.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.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Froogfoot Vs Thunderbolt

Sun Nov 04, 2001 5:15 pm

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.
 
warlord
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 5:15 am

RE: Froogfoot Vs Thunderbolt

Mon Nov 05, 2001 9:31 pm

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
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Froogfoot Vs Thunderbolt

Wed Nov 07, 2001 1:06 am

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
 
schreiner
Posts: 909
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2001 7:50 am

RE: Froogfoot Vs Thunderbolt

Wed Nov 21, 2001 1:25 am

Nothing beter that the 30 MM gun in that A10!
Soaring the internet...
 
MiG31
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:52 pm

RE: Froogfoot Vs Thunderbolt

Wed Nov 21, 2001 5:35 pm

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!


 
Soren-a
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2001 10:13 pm

RE: Froogfoot Vs Thunderbolt

Wed Nov 21, 2001 6:22 pm

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
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: Froogfoot Vs Thunderbolt

Wed Nov 21, 2001 9:49 pm

"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
 
yka
Posts: 723
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2001 3:00 am

RE: Froogfoot Vs Thunderbolt

Thu Nov 22, 2001 12:43 pm

Damn I try to diss a plane and end up dissing myself by making a bunch of typo's Insane
 
MiG31
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:52 pm

RE: Froogfoot Vs Thunderbolt

Sun Nov 25, 2001 3:18 am

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!!!
 
MiG31
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:52 pm

RE: Froogfoot Vs Thunderbolt

Mon Nov 26, 2001 6:20 am

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!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests