Frosty Posted October 30, 2015 Author Share Posted October 30, 2015 can the su-34 do SEAD, and isn't it a better CAS aircraft than the su25 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] "If the MWS didn't see it. it never happened" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esac_mirmidon Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Louder. I can hear you. " You must think in russian.." [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Windows 7 Home Premium-Intel 2500K OC 4.6-SSD Samsung EVO 860- MSI GTX 1080 - 16G RAM - 1920x1080 27´ Hotas Rhino X-55-MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals -Track IR 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted October 31, 2015 Author Share Posted October 31, 2015 Or decided that the su-34 is better than the a-10 I terms of armament, better than the f-15 in terms of multi-role and better than anything regarding SEAD capability Dunno how durable it is. If it's as durable as the su-27-- might not be so hot. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] "If the MWS didn't see it. it never happened" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fri13 Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) The HUD literally points everything out to you, in the su-25 you have to fiddle about with the optical system to spot. I've went over the target more times than none. The only way I've found a way around that is using the mercury pod (night vision) to spot targets a lot easier But anyway. Isn't the su-34 just better at doing the same job? HUD is the glass in front of you, between you and the front windshield. It reflects the projector that is aiming upwards. It projects at you the basic information like speed, altitude, attitude, weapons reticles and so on. What you are talking about is the avionics from weapons targeting systems at Shkval TV or in A-10C the CMFD (Color Multi Function Display) that is used for slaving targeting systems. Yes, TGP is nicer than Shkval but Shkval works well in DCS as (IIRC) it use same code as TGP for the video. The real difference just is that TGP allows to point 360° around and only gets blocked by itself and aircraft fuselag as well. While Shkval requires to fly toward so 70° azimuth angle is hold to target. But being able to spot the targets from far enough for weapons release it isn't a problem. Edited October 31, 2015 by Fri13 i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S. i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ФрогФут Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 The HUD literally points everything out to you, in the su-25 you have to fiddle about with the optical system to spot. I've went over the target more times than none. The only way I've found a way around that is using the mercury pod (night vision) to spot targets a lot easier You're comparing professional level simulator of A-10C with fictional Su-25T cockpit and early 80-s SU-25 from the game? can the su-34 do SEAD, and isn't it a better CAS aircraft than the su25 Yes. No, it is too fast and can not turn above the battlefield. "Я ошеломлён, но думаю об этом другими словами", - некий гражданин Ноет котик, ноет кротик, Ноет в небе самолетик, Ноют клумбы и кусты - Ноют все. Поной и ты. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted October 31, 2015 Author Share Posted October 31, 2015 Never mind So i guess there isn't something as good as the a-10 on the Russian side apart from the Su-25sm3 That is all that was needed to be said [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] "If the MWS didn't see it. it never happened" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weta43 Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 The A-10 & Su-25 are different planes with different design philosophies and modes operation in mind. If you look at the enormous number of sorties that were flown by the Su-25 in Afghanistan for a very low loss rate per sortie, On average, each aircraft performed 360 sorties a year, a total considerably higher than that of any other combat aircraft in Afghanistan. By the end of the war, nearly 50 Su-25s were deployed at Afghan airbases, carrying out a total of 60,000 sorties. Between the first deployment in 1981 and the end of the war in 1989, 21–23 aircraft were lost in combat operations it's difficult to see how the Su-25 can be seen as anything but a very successful aircraft. If you leave that sort of consideration aside, then yes, the A-10 is definitely better at being exactly the same as an A-10 than an Su-25. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiedDroit Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 If you leave that sort of consideration aside, then yes, the A-10 is definitely better at being exactly the same as an A-10 than an Su-25. This is the best summary ever :megalol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted October 31, 2015 Author Share Posted October 31, 2015 In literally looking at the avionics and sensors only [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] "If the MWS didn't see it. it never happened" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted October 31, 2015 Author Share Posted October 31, 2015 Never mind. Found what I was looking for was a su-25KM (nick name: scorpion) I thought there was some airframe I've never heard of. Turned out what I was looking for was an upgraded su-25. And after looking at that cockpit, I know what I'd rather fly. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] "If the MWS didn't see it. it never happened" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perun Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 can the su-34 do SEAD, and isn't it a better CAS aircraft than the su25 Yes, the Su-34 can do SEAD missions like no other aircraft but no Su-34 is not a CAS aircraft like A-10 or Su-25. There is a reason why Su25 and A-10 have armor to the extent they have and Strike Aircrafts like F-15E or Su-34 do not. F-15E is less fidelity aircraft for the job of F-111 while Su-34 is the less fidelity but with more effeciency of the job of Su-24. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Dioxin Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) ....for which, the Su25 is a TERRIBLE choice. which makes no difference. He asked for details on what the Su-25 can do that A-10 can't, so I told him. Simple, really. How good it is or isn't is not the issue. Edited October 31, 2015 by Brixmis Kneeboard Guides Rig: Asus B650-GAMING PLUS; Ryzen 7800X3D ; 64GB DDR5 5600; RTX 4080; VPC T50 CM2 HOTAS; SN-1 Pedals; VR = Pico 4 over VD Wireless + Index; Point Control v2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weta43 Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) Yep Frosty, the Su-25KM is quite an upgrade. but I suspect out of necessity - the Georgians probably have to apply the aircraft across a wider range of tactical roles than the Russians... Edited October 31, 2015 by Weta43 Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted October 31, 2015 Author Share Posted October 31, 2015 It would be awesome to see an updated su-25 in DCS but the fact we already 2 veriants it's very unlikely. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] "If the MWS didn't see it. it never happened" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boberro Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 A-10A is much better than Su-25 (vanilla). Be honest, basic Frogfoot is blind, uses archaic tactic and practically rely just on unguided ammo. I would say that just speed, better armor and higher payload capability don't make it II World War plane. Su-25T is better to compare vs A-10A. It is flying brick but can do a lot. Su-25SM is vanilla Su-25 plus some stuff like GPS or HUD. Still can't use optics, FLIR, ect., still no dedicated light guided weapon - Kh-25s are quite heavy, aren't they? They could make a bit stronger Vikhr which is quite universal missile. A-10C overtakes any Su-25 upgrade (SM3 included I think). It has great avionics, pod, fancy MFDs ect. Reminder: Fighter pilots make movies. Bomber pilots make... HISTORY! :D | Also to be remembered: FRENCH TANKS HAVE ONE GEAR FORWARD AND FIVE BACKWARD :D ಠ_ಠ ツ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tflash Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 I like the SU-25 in game very much for its speed and manoevrability, it really flies well. If I'm right the avionics upgrades in the SM series allow to deliver unguided weapons with high precision from medium to medium-high altitude, and it also supports laser guided bombs. Should be a big improvement. Also one can guess the countermeasures have improved. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted October 31, 2015 Author Share Posted October 31, 2015 I like it because it's not as complicated to fly as the a-10A Sorry? What's that? You want me to tell you how to explode on the ground? Do it yourslef you stupid bomb [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] "If the MWS didn't see it. it never happened" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MBot Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 A-10A is much better than Su-25 (vanilla). Be honest, basic Frogfoot is blind, uses archaic tactic and practically rely just on unguided ammo. The A-10 did not have a fire control computer until the early 90s. So no CCIP, CCRP or computed gun pipper for Hogs during Desert Storm. Except for the superiour Maverick missile, Soviet Su-25 as they flew in Afghanistan were probably more accurate weapons platforms than contemporary A-10s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted October 31, 2015 Author Share Posted October 31, 2015 Really? No CCIP till the 90's? Shocking Warthog beta program ? Haha [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] "If the MWS didn't see it. it never happened" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esac_mirmidon Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 (edited) And don´t forget the speed. Speed is life in combat. How much time an A-10C spent in a typical offset profile climbing, rolling and firing. How much a Su-25 for the same profile. A-10´s are kings manouvering but the lack of speed and energy limits a lot what they can do. The precision suite pack for A-10C allows the warthog to employ stand off-pgm weapons to help his lack of energy but speed is very important also. Edited November 1, 2015 by Esac_mirmidon " You must think in russian.." [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Windows 7 Home Premium-Intel 2500K OC 4.6-SSD Samsung EVO 860- MSI GTX 1080 - 16G RAM - 1920x1080 27´ Hotas Rhino X-55-MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals -Track IR 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evilducky Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 A-10A is much better than Su-25 (vanilla). Be honest, basic Frogfoot is blind, uses archaic tactic and practically rely just on unguided ammo. I would say that just speed, better armor and higher payload capability don't make it II World War plane. Su-25T is better to compare vs A-10A. It is flying brick but can do a lot. Su-25SM is vanilla Su-25 plus some stuff like GPS or HUD. Still can't use optics, FLIR, ect., still no dedicated light guided weapon - Kh-25s are quite heavy, aren't they? They could make a bit stronger Vikhr which is quite universal missile. A-10C overtakes any Su-25 upgrade (SM3 included I think). It has great avionics, pod, fancy MFDs ect. The A-10A is pretty blind itself.. You only really have the AGM65Ds that provide any optics. And the newer SU-25's can be equipped with the Kopyo radar pod that give it a pretty good air to ground radar capabilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiedDroit Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 The A-10 did not have a fire control computer until the early 90s. So no CCIP, CCRP or computed gun pipper for Hogs during Desert Storm. Except for the superiour Maverick missile, Soviet Su-25 as they flew in Afghanistan were probably more accurate weapons platforms than contemporary A-10s. They also got the LASTE later, which included the PAC. Without it the gun was much less accurate (this might be one reason why they dropped the selectable rate of fire, not sure). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ФрогФут Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 (edited) A-10A is much better than Su-25 (vanilla). Be honest, basic Frogfoot is blind, uses archaic tactic and practically rely just on unguided ammo. Basic A-10A from 70-80s has no means of measuring the distance to the target, except manual input for depression for the sight. Basic Su-25 has laser rangefinder, ballistic computer, has BIG rockets, is much faster and much smaller, which makes it more difficult to hit with the AAA. It has some guided weapons, but they are rather massive and are used vs bunkers/buildings. The only advantages of the basic A-10A are range and AGM-65. A-10C overtakes any Su-25 upgrade (SM3 included I think). It has great avionics, pod, fancy MFDs ect. A-10C overtakes Su-25 in CAS capabilities, but Su-25 can perform more roles, let's say. And it is still developing. And the newer SU-25's can be equipped with the Kopyo radar pod that give it a pretty good air to ground radar capabilities. No it can not. Edited November 1, 2015 by ФрогФут "Я ошеломлён, но думаю об этом другими словами", - некий гражданин Ноет котик, ноет кротик, Ноет в небе самолетик, Ноют клумбы и кусты - Ноют все. Поной и ты. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted November 1, 2015 Author Share Posted November 1, 2015 And the newer SU-25's can be equipped with the Kopyo radar pod that give it a pretty good air to ground radar capabilities. Source on that ? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] "If the MWS didn't see it. it never happened" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt_Maverick Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 The F-16 using the HARM is more effective than the 25t is. Supposedly the 35 is going to be more effective than the 16 but there are a lot of "supposed to be" statements about the 35. However, if they wanted to put the 88 on the A10C they could do so. Somebody pointed it out earlier. The A10C is not necessarily there to exterminate Radar. By the time it moves in things have already gotten dirty. The 16 can penetrate, terminate and exfiltrate quite efficiently. I know we're talking about the SU-25T vs. A-10C; but I wanted to point out how easy it would be to arm the A-10C with HARMs; it just wouldn't make much sense. Like somebody else pointed out, even if the 25t isn't that good at SEAD, at least it has the capability. I'd also venture to say that it would be more practical for it as well. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] "The first time I ever saw a jet, I shot it down."- General Chuck Yeager, USAF, describing his first confrontation with a Me262. JayRac3r/Lt_Mav YouTube Channel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts