Su-25T...what a turd

[JCamel]

To my mind it's a pitty that so many people here think that an older plane is "bad". I think it's more of a challange. Try to get along with what you have.

It's like going hunting in real life. Wouldn't it be boring if you just press a button and the deer drops dead on the ground? Thats why I would prefer a F-4 Phantom over a F-22 and I have so much fun in the KA-50. And I would love a War-Theatre in the 70ies or 80ies, where only a few BVR engaements result in a kill and you have IR A-A missiles with only rear aspect abilities, no JDAMs, etc...

Sure its fun to learn how the TGP works and it would be fun to learn all the stuff in a F-22 but the satisfaction of a kill drops with more sophisticated equipment - at least to me.

The '70s? Like sidewinders that don't work above 2g.:D

 

After a few goes the Su-25T flies okay, you just have to work the throttle more, and use the airbrakes when diving to stabilise the plane and wipe off excess speed. The rockets certainly pack more of a punch. Very impressed with how the 340mm ones work on aircraft bunkers and unleashing 4 pods-worth of S-13s makes it look like the area is being saturation bombed.

[GGTharos]

That's what people like to say, but the reality of the matter is that the Su-25 will probably never carry any sort of medium ranged AAM, ever. It's purpose is air to ground, and AAMs onboard are purely a waste of pylons and/or fuel. There are other aircraft for air to air engagements that will do the job much, much better.

[JABO2009]

For night ops there are illumination candles and LLTV Merkurij.

Choppers or other planes (vehicles) shoot illumination candles and voila :)

 

 

 

This LLTV was rejected by WWS due to its very low value... :)

 

 

It can be - I enabled it on my server and added Kh-31P and double Vikhr pack (4 packs together). It changes a battlefield a bit, especially long range Kh-31P.

 

 

Well, for fun yes. Sometimes older is more "funny" but on the battlefield there is no mercy.

And OP is right - on the battlefield lonely Su-25T would have been lost more likely than A-10C... but who would send 1990 plane for modern battlefield if you have newer versions? Nobody, except those who can't send anything else. ^^

 

 

ok, so to sum up, the Su25T is capable of night ops, but only when another plane lightens up the battlefield, then a time window for Su25s running in is open , once these candels are launched over target area..

 

LLTV was rejected and wont appear on MP servers

 

-> So , practically there is a rare chance to take out ground targets accurately with the Su25T at night cause the night candels cant be seen that often in MP ...

 

I think I ll have to get the A10C module ;)

[Novum]

To my mind it's a pitty that so many people here think that an older plane is "bad". I think it's more of a challange. Try to get along with what you have.

It's like going hunting in real life. Wouldn't it be boring if you just press a button and the deer drops dead on the ground? Thats why I would prefer a F-4 Phantom over a F-22 and I have so much fun in the KA-50. And I would love a War-Theatre in the 70ies or 80ies, where only a few BVR engaements result in a kill and you have IR A-A missiles with only rear aspect abilities, no JDAMs, etc...

Sure its fun to learn how the TGP works and it would be fun to learn all the stuff in a F-22 but the satisfaction of a kill drops with more sophisticated equipment - at least to me.

 

Well put!

 

Any news about F-4 ;)

[JCamel]

That's what people like to say, but the reality of the matter is that the Su-25 will probably never carry any sort of medium ranged AAM, ever. It's purpose is air to ground, and AAMs onboard are purely a waste of pylons and/or fuel. There are other aircraft for air to air engagements that will do the job much, much better.

True but you don't always get a choice and if the fighters are anywhere near as useless as the pilots on the CSAR mission*, I'd like that option.

 

*You have to call them in? Really? They can't see the big dots on the radar that they have and you don't?

[Brisse]

LLTV was rejected and wont appear on MP servers

 

That is a misunderstanding. You can use it as much as you want :thumbup:

[badger66]

Well put!

 

Any news about F-4 ;)

 

+1 ..... I would like to see this sim going back in time as opposed to forward ..... meaning from early 80's to late 1990's , and a cold war European front for a map . The F22 will take the piss I think !!!

[GGTharos]

It's ok, you can fly in your 60's junk ... just don't cry when the 90's junk walks all over it ;)

[badger66]

I'll stick with my A-10 ..... but dont want to see futurestic crap like F22 ..... that will move the goal posts big time , unless you got something to counter the F22 , which doesnt exist , does it ?

[GGTharos]

Nope, and that is the point. It isn't futuristic. 'Futuristic' right now would be the Chinese and Russian counter-parts to it.

[JABO2009]

F22 and F35 also have low prio for me, they have still this kinda protoype image...no combat action so far...

 

Mig 15 over korea

F16/tornados over bosnian territory

F15 /A10 over iraq

 

these would be scenarios with huge combat potential Imao

[joey45]

F22 and F35 also have low prio for me, they have still this kinda protoype image...no combat action so far...

 

Mig 15 over korea

F16/tornados/Jaguars/Harriers over bosnian territory

F15 /A10 over iraq

 

these would be scenarios with huge combat potential Imao

 

That's better.

[GGTharos]

F-22's aren't likely to see combat any time soon, but they're far, far past prototype stage. IOC was 2004.

[badger66]

F22 and F35 also have low prio for me, they have still this kinda protoype image...no combat action so far...

 

Mig 15 over korea

F16/tornados over bosnian territory

F15 /A10 over iraq

 

these would be scenarios with huge combat potential Imao

 

I got 2 words for ya COLD WAR

[GGTharos]

I don't think Iraq or the Kosovo thing have a particularly huge combat potential. Iran, North Korea - there's your combat potential.

 

F22 and F35 also have low prio for me, they have still this kinda protoype image...no combat action so far...

 

Mig 15 over korea

F16/tornados over bosnian territory

F15 /A10 over iraq

 

these would be scenarios with huge combat potential Imao

[Teapot]

I got 2 words for ya COLD WAR

 

Yeah. +1 for each of the two words baby. COLD WAR!

[Tango]

It might be a good aircraft for taking out some, chechen rebels somewhere, but on a modern battlefield it ain't gonna make it.

 

...

 

but if you don't know right where the enemy is located, it isn't going to survive.

Try telling that to some reporters that were on the wrong end of one a couple of years ago during the Georgia conflict. Pilot had no probs spotting them and shooting missiles very accurately in their direction.

 

Sure, against RADAR based systems they are screwed (unless they are flying DEAD), but they are a very capable platform for what they were designed to do. You are trying to compare MULTI-ROLE aircraft against a largely DEDICATED platform, and you can't do it.

 

It''s like saying the B-52 is useless for air-to-air. That isn't what it was designed for.

 

Best regards,

Vulcan.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Tango

[JCamel]

F-22's aren't likely to see combat any time soon, but they're far, far past prototype stage. IOC was 2004.

And still lose to Typhoons in dogfights during NATO training exercises.

[G-Lock91]

And still lose to Typhoons in dogfights during NATO training exercises.

 

Would like to read about that...

[Dudikoff]

Mig 15 over korea

F16/tornados/Jaguars/Harriers over bosnian territory

F15 /A10 over iraq

 

OK, 50s Korea has some potential (though, it's not my type of fun due to the aircraft being on the WW2 level), but Bosnia? Kosovo? Flying high and dropping lots of GPS guided munitions where the enemy SAMs are turned off so they are not destroyed.. not my idea of fun. I'm surprised the recent Libyan operation is not on the list. And Iraq is not that far off..

 

Why simulate real conflicts which were rather one-sided and relatively boring when you can have fictional scenarios which offer much more balance and variety (and no bad taste in the mouth which might follow a possible wrong/one-sided interpretation of some real-life conflict)?

 

Nope, and that is the point. It isn't futuristic. 'Futuristic' right now would be the Chinese and Russian counter-parts to it.

 

And the F22s having pilots which do not fear flying it ;)

[159th_Viper]

Why simulate real conflicts which were rather one-sided and relatively boring when you can have fictional scenarios which offer much more balance and variety (and no bad taste in the mouth which might follow a possible wrong/one-sided interpretation of some real-life conflict)?

 

:thumbup:

[Eddie]

And still lose to Typhoons in dogfights during NATO training exercises.

 

Erm, the two aircraft have never met in any exercise, NATO or otherwise.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

This is very silly comment ... F-35 will not do much better then Su-25 in case of unknown target location.

 

BTW, in a recent conflict, NATO did not know where the targets were. And with over 22 000 sorties with F-16, F-15's, Fa-18's, Tornados ... they managed to destroy only 17 mobile targets. And that was in over two months period, in en environment of full air superiority.

 

 

I've been messing around for a few days and getting into the heads of the engineers on this one. It seems really outclassed by U.S. hardware. It might be a good aircraft for taking out some, chechen rebels somewhere, but on a modern battlefield it ain't gonna make it. Maybe they have 10,000 of these aircraft to throw into the front, but if you don't know right where the enemy is located (unlikely in modern mobile warfare), it isn't going to survive.

 

I would make some mission to prove my hypothesis if it wasn't so damned complicated to do.

 

Thought from some fellow pilots of this thing?

[mmaruda]

I can't seem to understand why is this discussion still on... Plain and simple, the Su-25T is a plane for real men with hairy chests, that was always the deal, no questions about it. If you can't handle the lack of of sissy-boy avionics that insta-kill a target from 100 miles away, you may just not be man enough to fly the Toad. :)

 

But jokes aside, Gentlemen, whatever happened to to underdog favouring spirit? I used to fly all the important sims out there, mingle with community etc. and there was always this... thing for crappy planes. Sure, you can own in IL-2 with your Lavochkins and Doras, but nothing beats the thrill of going in a Rata against 109s and living to tell the tale. Again, Rise of Flight, that crappy Neuport you have is no match for the Fokkers, but if you can get back home safely and bring some wingmen with you, it's a day to celebrate. Same goes for the Su-25, sure it's hard, not much fancy computer stuff to do the job for you, if you just come back in one piece with a few tanks added to you tally, that is something! And mind you, the Ka-50 is no better than an outdated piece of '80 hardware itself, yet we still love it!

 

All in all, it's not the plane, it's the pilot, so enough of the talk about F-35s vs Toads, just bite your lip, man up, and do your best. ED has always delivered the best best Russian aircraft experience out there anyway, so have some appreciation and enjoy. And even if the Frogfoot is a turd, it's still a very mean turd, and there's no reason not to love it.

 

PS As for the old school Soviet planes on a modern battlefield they have one major advantage: they don't care for the wind, snow, rain or crappy runways, they operate in any conditions with minimal maintenance, which is something the F-22 and the F-35 can only dream on.

[159th_Falcon]

+1

 

Its not the plane that's a Turd, its what the person flying it is appearing it to be.:D