T-toad is a GREAT SEAD platform!

[GGTharos]

I think based on LO its easy to overestimate the Hog's capabilities. First of all its SLOW. And when you fly with a serious combat load (like 6 AGM-65 + bombs) it will be even slower.

 

Actually the AFM hog will probably be FASTER than what's in LO. The drag indeces in LO are grossly over-estimated, and the engines are a little under-powered as well.

Also, no Hog goes out with 6 AGM-65 unless it's in the Fulda Gap ... 2 65's + 4-6 bombs is it. And gun.

 

If you execute your attack in a realistic maner (with MANPADs in mind), you will have to do a diving attack to get extra speed and then climb out again to safe altitude again. And that can take endless time. ;)

 

Not at all. This is simply the safest aproach, and the Hog can execute it quite fast. There are recorded bomb runs from 29000' with the A-10 pulling out at 16000' ...

 

This attack pattern will also mean you have to aquire your target from long distance and altitude. Not easy at all without sensors. But then again thats true fun :D

 

But then again, when your A-10 has a FLIR pod and GBU's, which is entirely possible ...

[ThunderChief]

Don't want any multipost argument about A-10 but ;)

 

1. I agree! It does carry limited load because it is slow and would be too slow with full load (based on MTOM).Thats because it has huge drag compared to true fighters I guess. And Fulda Gap is what it was designed for right?

 

2. I agree! This ingress + egress is safest because its faster (ROE besides). It takes even longer as you are realy slow at those high altitudes and you have to manouver in the right position first as you would not want to bleed of any speed due to manouvering on the bombing run.

 

3. I agree! But that depends on the model. You can also use the Maverik seeker + you are so slow you can savely use binouclars (would that be modelled).

 

So we are both right. The tactics which are used in combat were designed to match the A-10s limitations.

But in LO you can very well do away with those tactics and just do some super manouvers with combat load which should be impossible in reality.

As I understand it the dragforce of the external payloads is underestimated in LO (SFM) which would make the A-10 suffer if it gets a AFM but ofc I could have got that wrong.

[GGTharos]

Actually the drag problem occurs with multiple ejectors/launchers ... you can't use multiple mav launchers with the latest model Mav's anyway - the drag issue causes fuel efficiency/loiter problems, but nothing that makes the Hog 'too slow' or not maneuverable.

Yes, SFM aircaft lack certain restrictions but I suspect you'll find that the AFM Hog is still nicer to fly at ANY combat load than a Su-25T. A Su-25A will fare better, except for that narrow undercarriage.

[Frostie]

A-10 is a great Tank killer, it should be as it was designed solely with the purpose to counter the Warsaw Pact tank threat. The only reason its still flying today is to deal with third world threats. Unfortunately it lacks the versatility, power and speed of the T-Frog.

 

LOMAC's A-10 is funny and surely the easiest to fly, if you can't rack up kills and look good in it then your doing something drastically wrong, I expect, hope and look forward to it being a hell of a lot tougher to master in DCS.

[RedTiger]

A-10 is a great Tank killer, it should be as it was designed solely with the purpose to counter the Warsaw Pact tank threat. The only reason its still flying today is to deal with third world threats. Unfortunately it lacks the versatility, power and speed of the T-Frog.

 

LOMAC's A-10 is funny and surely the easiest to fly, if you can't rack up kills and look good in it then your doing something drastically wrong, I expect, hope and look forward to it being a hell of a lot tougher to master in DCS.

 

If you mean tougher because you have avionics to deal with, I agree. As for flying and fighting in it, I've never heard anything about the Hog being notoriously hard to fly. I've heard the contrary, actually. I think that part of being a good combat aircraft is being easy to fly. I've read quotes here and there about various aircraft and pilots over the years seem very quick to praise a docile aircraft.

 

And I agree with tflash, if the real Su-25T is anything like its LOMAC counterpart, it has to be one of the best examples of the tendency to add more and more crap to an originally light and clean aircraft to the point where its been completely hobbled.

Edited July 30, 2008 by RedTiger

[Frostie]

If you mean tougher because you have avionics to deal with, I agree. As for flying and fighting in it, I've never heard anything about the Hog being notoriously hard to fly. I've heard the contrary, actually. I think that part of being a good combat aircraft is being easy to fly. I've read quotes here and there about various aircraft and pilots over the years seem very quick to praise a docile aircraft.

I agree with you totally as ive heard the same but I guess these guys that call it docile have never flown our A-10.:D

[GGTharos]

The A-10 is being retained - and upgraded - because it is an excellent CAS machine. It has nothing to do with 3rd world country targets.

 

The A-10 is also aerodynamically superior to the frog in terms of turn radius, and lower wing loading even under maximum load conditions. It has better loiter capability, and is better equipped with coordinate with ground forces and better ability for precision engagement, AFAC duty and CSR duty roles than the Su-25, especially with the A-10C upgrade. It can carry a larger payload right off the bat. It can air refuel, and deliver a whole lot more firepower farther away than a Su-25 can hope to. Any advantage the Su-25's had in dropping bigger precision sticks for demolition ended with the A-10C.

 

What's this 'more power and versatility' stuff you made up?

[Boberro]

And I agree with tflash, if the real Su-25T is anything like its LOMAC counterpart, it has to be one of the best examples of the tendency to add more and more crap to an originally light and clean aircraft to the point where its been completely hobbled.

 

Old 25 is clean and "cool" but its abilities are almost zero. Only bomb & rockets (leave alone missiles with super aiming, until u aim u get shot). Avionics remember II World War :D

 

They had to upgrade it. Even if now 25T is heavy,it has much more abilites to fight than old 25. 25T is not very good result of upgrade but the upgrade progress compared to vanilla is really huge.

 

The A-10 is being retained - and upgraded - because it is an excellent CAS machine. It has nothing to do with 3rd world country targets.

 

The A-10 is also aerodynamically superior to the frog in terms of turn radius, and lower wing loading even under maximum load conditions. It has better loiter capability, and is better equipped with coordinate with ground forces and better ability for precision engagement, AFAC duty and CSR duty roles than the Su-25, especially with the A-10C upgrade. It can carry a larger payload right off the bat. It can air refuel, and deliver a whole lot more firepower farther away than a Su-25 can hope to. Any advantage the Su-25's had in dropping bigger precision sticks for demolition ended with the A-10C.

 

What's this 'more power and versatility' stuff you made up?

 

Yep now A-10C is cool :D I am curious why they didn't change these poor engines which A-10 has, or did they finally?

 

Anyway bad decisions, various things made that many projects (from East) or I say it another way, there weren't any money for upgrades, new technology. So for now 25T looks like look. It seems the worst decision was Vikhrs which make you really easy target. I don't know why they didn't want wait a bit more and do Active missiles which don't require laser, or whatever else beaming. Probably costs. Nevermind. This was one of decisions which made this plane invalid.

 

Hehe but in LO it ROCKS everything!

[159th_Viper]

Apples and Oranges, Gents!

 

How one can even compare the two, or rationalize an attempt at it, has me in a Fit of Hysterics at the best of times............

 

 

And then to go so far as to attempt a RL comparison.................Oh stop before I bust a Gut ;)

 

:pilotfly:

[GGTharos]

I think it is still 'on hold' which is a pity. The upgrade was supposed to give slightly better overall thrust and much better thrust at high altitude.

 

Yep now A-10C is cool :D I am curious why they didn't change these poor engines which A-10 has, or did they finally?

[Frostie]

What's this 'more power and versatility' stuff you made up?

Who me?

 

Su-25T as well as CAS capabilities it has SEAD, it has higher speed a greater climb rate and higher powered engines, facts not made up.

A-10 is a tank killer designed perfectly for killing tanks.

 

Apples and Oranges, Swings and Roundabouts, if you want to kill tanks get an A-10 if you want a selection of roles get an Su-25T why debate which is the best when they both clearly have their plus points.

[Teknetinium]

in RL U could use Kh29T when engaging short sam defences and still maintain maneuverability and silent attack ,

A-10 has better cockpit design, u see so much better from it then su-25T, I would say that is still big factor for ur survivability and situation awareness even whit all sensors both of them are using to get the best overlook of the target area.

Edited July 30, 2008 by Teknetium

[RedTiger]

Here's the thing I don't get about the Su-25T; why put the Vikhr and Shkval on a plane? The whole system just shouts "helicopter" but they decided to ruin a good design by sticking that system in a plane! Painting a moving target with a laser at low altitudues until impact is silly and suicidal.

 

Russia has had TV guided missles for some time, why didn't they just do something like shrink the Kh-29TD? They could have fed the TV picture to a screen in the cockpit and then you would effectively have the equvalent of the Maverick which is fire and forget and small enough to carry several. I bet this would have saved space and weight since the TV picture is coming from the missile, not a shkval.

[GGTharos]

I would venture to guess that miniaturization problems may have been to blame at the time. Also keep in mind that the Su-25T is built in an extremely low number of aircraft.

 

I also think that the Russians may simply not have had the need for a Maverick-like weapon. They had cluster bombs and other fun things - their main armament seemed to center around taking our lighter vehicles or bunkers. They had an overwhelming amount of tanks, plus helicopters for actual tank-busting.

 

NATO on the other hand was in desperate needs of tank-killing vehicles ... you'd ideally want your A-10 to hit 6 enemy tanks with the mavericks it carried, if at all possible, as the NATO forces would be outnumbered at minimum 2:1, IIRC.

[RedTiger]

I've thought of minaturization, but sort of discounted that one since the technology is based on cameras and television. Maybe I'm simplifying things, but I don't see that as being as difficult to minaturize as other things.

 

I never thought about the role the Russians wanted. I was projecting the role NATO wanted on their CAS aircraft to the Russians, which is a bad way to look at it.

[GGTharos]

AFAIK AMRAAM cannot measure distance due to miniaturization problems with the apparatus required to do so ...

 

I've thought of minaturization, but sort of discounted that one since the technology is based on cameras and television. Maybe I'm simplifying things, but I don't see that as being as difficult to minaturize as other things.

[jpm1]

lol , when i was talking about frogs i was talking regarding to my nationality . seriously concerning the comparaison between the A-10 and the SU-25 i think it's too difficult if not impossible to say which one is the best i think A-10 is better against tanks short turns radius special anti-tanks weapons but the SU-25 i think is better in anti-guerilla situations higher speed great loadout capacity , can land on rudimentary runways which allows great ranges and faster reloads which can be crucial against fast moving targets . if i were a soldier facing an armored convoy and if i had the choice i would call for a A-10 if i were in front of a town i had to explore full of hostile personels i would call a SU-25

[GGTharos]

lol , when i was talking about frogs i was talking regarding to my nationality . seriously concerning the comparaison between the A-10 and the SU-25 i think it's too difficult if not impossible to say which one is the best i think A-10 is better against tanks short turns radius special anti-tanks weapons but the SU-25 i think is better in anti-guerilla situations higher speed great loadout capacity ,

 

Wrong. The A-10 has greater payload capacity.

 

can land on rudimentary runways

 

So can the A-10 - but don't blame the USAF for avoiding damage where it can by landing them on real runways ;)

 

which allows great ranges and faster reloads which can be crucial against fast moving targets .

 

Again wrong. Aerial refueling and a reasonable sortie rate accomplishes the same thing where your rudimentary runway will eventually reduce sortie rate due to FoD and potential resupply issues.

 

if i were a soldier facing an armored convoy and if i had the choice i would call for a A-10 if i were in front of a town i had to explore full of hostile personels i would call a SU-25

 

I'd call an A-10. Why? Big gun, big bombs, accurate ability to employ both - AND the ability to employ precision munitions as well as better ability to coordinate with the FAC.

[Deadman]

+1

[Boneski]

Wrong. The A-10 has greater payload capacity.

 

 

Not on a hot day.

[Deadman]

could you explain further please?

[Boberro]

First and second plane are good more less in theirs own categories. 25T is not 100% CAS and A-10 is not 100% SEAD. Are not in this same league at all.

 

 

 

Not on a hot day.

 

Explain it :P

[RedTiger]

 

 

 

So can the A-10 - but don't blame the USAF for avoiding damage where it can by landing them on real runways ;)

 

Hee hee...reminds me of an argument on another board a few years ago about the Kalashnikov vs. the AR-15 family. Lots of people of course cite the ruggedness and durability of the Kalashnikov as a sign of its superiority. The counter argument was simple; an M-16 is just as reliable -- you just have to actually treat it like a rifle. :lol:

 

Hogs, frogs, bah! Can I have an F-16 please?

[hitman]

an M-16 is just as reliable -- you just have to actually treat it like a rifle. :lol:

 

Your supposed to treat it like all other guns--as if it were your life. The Army may be swapping back to 7.62 after a long fought out debate over the stopping power of the 5.56 NATO in CQC. It was designed to penetrate russian head gear at medium range distances, and easily penetrates bodies at close range without any substantial damage. But then again, thats why the Army has shotguns.

[RedTiger]

Your supposed to treat it like all other guns--as if it were your life.

 

Exactly! Maybe I wasn't clear but that was their point; treat it with respect, clean it, and take care of it and it works perfectly fine. With proper care the advantage the Kalashnikov has of working when dirty and abused is moot. Furthermore the arguement is silly because you cannot tell me Soviet conscripts were not taught how to field strip and clean their rifles.

 

Back on topic! The whole deal with Soviet aircraft having a certain level of FoD resistance, being able to take off from short and crude runways, etc. was out of necessity. I'm sure if they didn't need that capability, it would have been tossed aside like so much baggage. FoD doors on intakes are just extra weight and cost afterall.

Edited August 1, 2008 by RedTiger