Military Review

Battle of stormtroopers. Su-25 vs A-10 Thunderbolt II

202

None of the recent local conflicts have gone without using aviation... The most frequent aircraft over the battlefield for many years were attack aircraft. Recently, they have given way to strike drones and kamikaze drones, but they are still used quite actively. The two most famous attack aircraft of our time remain the Russian Su-25, nicknamed the Rook and Comb, and the American A-10 Thunderbolt II, known as the Warthog. Let's try to figure out what advantages and disadvantages are inherent in these combat aircraft.


Peer stormtroopers


Both aircraft are designed to provide direct fire support to troops on the battlefield. Work on them was carried out at about the same time. The American attack aircraft Fairchild-Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II, named after the successful WWII fighter-bomber P-47 Thunderbolt, was developed in the 1970s and was officially adopted in 1976. Serial production of machines continued until 1984, during which time 716 aircraft were assembled in the United States.

The main purpose of the A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft is to combat enemy armored vehicles. The aircraft was created at a time when the United States and American NATO allies were seriously preparing to confront the threat from the armies of the Warsaw Pact countries in Europe, first of all preparing to fight numerous tank and motorized infantry units. The attack aircraft had to stop thousands of Soviet tanks on the way to the English Channel not only with missiles, but also with cannons. But more on that later.

The Soviet Su-25 attack aircraft began to be developed at the Sukhoi Design Bureau already in 1968. In 1970-71, it was the preliminary design of the Sukhoi attack aircraft that won the competition to create a new attack aircraft, beating representatives of the OKB Yakovlev, Mikoyan and Ilyushin. The draft design and model of the aircraft were ready in September 1972. The first flight took place on February 22, 1975. The overseas competitor had already flown for three years by that time, for the first time the A-10 took to the skies on May 10, 1972. State tests of the Su-25 attack aircraft were completed in December 1980, serial production of the aircraft began a year earlier at a plant in Tbilisi. The first serial attack aircraft entered the troops in April 1981, while the official adoption of the Su-25 took place only on March 31, 1987, that is, after six years of operation and active use in hostilities in Afghanistan.


A pair of A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft

The main purpose of the Su-25 attack aircraft, like its American counterpart, was the direct support of ground forces on the battlefield, including the destruction of objects with given coordinates. At the same time, the aircraft was designed for operations in a big war. It was assumed that the Su-25 would be able to conduct an offensive together with the army, regardless of airfields. It was this fact that determined the fact that the attack aircraft can also be used from unpaved runways.

Aircraft survivability and booking


Both attack aircraft are subsonic armored warplanes for direct support of troops on the battlefield. The very concept of using combat vehicles assumed their use from low altitudes and at subsonic speeds. Before the appearance of the Su-25, the USSR counted on high-speed fighter-bombers: Su-17, Su-22, MiG-23BN. These machines had one engine and did not carry armor, their means of protection was high flight speed. However, the fighting in Afghanistan confirmed that such vehicles are very vulnerable to fire from the ground when performing combat missions at low altitude. The Su-25 was devoid of these shortcomings, it received a serious reservation and a power plant from two engines.

Both attack aircraft have titanium armor that protects the pilot, control system elements, and the fuel system, and the Russian attack aircraft also has armored plates from the motorcycle compartment that separate the engines. On the Su-25, the thickness of titanium armor ranges from 10 to 24 mm, on the American A-10 from 13 to 38 mm. In general, the weight of armor on aircraft is about the same. The American A-10 attack aircraft has 540 kg of titanium aviation armor, while the Su-25 has 595 kg of armor protection. The total mass of combat survivability equipment is estimated for the Su-25 at 1050 kg, and for the American aircraft at 1310 kg.


Su-25 attack aircraft

The cockpit bulletproof glass protects the pilots of the two attack aircraft from small arms fire. weapons... It is known that in the Su-25 attack aircraft, the pilot is almost completely protected from the shelling of any barrel weapon with a caliber of 12,7 mm, and from the most dangerous directions - with a caliber of up to 30 mm. In the American attack aircraft, the pilot is declared protected from shelling by various ammunition of caliber up to 23 mm inclusive, while individual elements of the attack aircraft are protected from 57-mm anti-aircraft shells. When creating the aircraft, special attention was paid to the shelling from the 23-mm Soviet anti-aircraft guns, which formed the basis of small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery in many countries of the world.
Installation of two engines on aircraft increases their combat survivability, since the aircraft are able to continue flying on one engine.

While the engines in the Su-25 attack aircraft are covered with a hull and protected from ground fire by armor, the A-10 Thunderbolt II engines are placed behind the fuselage and there is only air between them. The two widely spaced engines on the American attack aircraft are positioned high on either side in the rear fuselage of the aircraft. From most angles, when fired from the ground, they are shielded by aircraft structural elements. From the front and rear hemispheres, they are covered by wing consoles, or by the tail unit of the attack aircraft. Both the one and the other scheme proved to be quite viable in combat operating conditions. Both vehicles are distinguished by increased survivability and returned to airfields after the loss of one of the engines.

The features of the American attack aircraft, aimed at increasing survivability, also include the two-fin tail of the vehicle. The choice of such a scheme was carried out as a result of studies of the combat survivability of the control system. Tests have shown that such a scheme allows serious damage on one side of the fuselage, without significant damage to the aircraft, and most importantly, without loss of control. The Su-25 has a classic single-fin tail unit.

Flight technical characteristics of attack aircraft


In terms of speed and maneuverability, the Russian Su-25 wins by a strong margin. The maximum flight speed of the Rook is 950 km / h, cruising speed is 750 km / h. The maximum flight speed of the "Warthog" is noticeably lower - up to 720 km / h, and the cruising flight speed is only 560 km / h. At the same time, the engines on the A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft are significantly more economical than on the Su-25; they provide the vehicle with a larger combat radius and a ferry range of 4150 km. The ferry range of the Su-25 with four PTB-800 suspended tanks (with drop) is limited to 1850 km.


Also, the Russian attack aircraft loses to its American counterpart in the practical flight ceiling, which is limited to 7 km. The American attack aircraft is able to climb to a height of 13 meters. Both aircraft have practically the same thrust-to-weight ratio at normal take-off weight, but the Su-380 wins here by a small margin. At the same time, the maximum take-off weight of the A-25 is noticeably higher - 10 kg, against 22 kg for the Su-700 (according to the Sukhoi company). It is not surprising that the Su-19 noticeably outperforms its competitor in terms of climb rate - 300 m / s versus 25 m / s for the A-25.

If we talk about the possibility of using outside concrete airfields, then the Su-25 has advantages, which can take off from unpaved strips. At the same time, the take-off run of two aircraft with maximum load does not differ much. 1050 meters for the Su-25 versus 1150 meters for the A-10. Both aircraft were designed to operate in a full-scale war. Therefore, we got a fairly strong chassis and large straight wings, which allow you to take off even from short, uneven stripes. The Americans built the plane with the expectation that it could take off from unfinished or damaged airfields, taxiways, and straight sections of highways. Incidentally, this is another explanation for the location of the two engines on top of the fuselage. This solution was chosen by the designers to reduce the risk of engine damage by foreign objects during takeoff from unprepared or damaged runways.

According to test pilot and Hero of Russia Magomed Tolboev, who flew both aircraft, the Su-25 is a more maneuverable attack aircraft, capable of performing complex aerobatics, while the A-10 has limited roll and pitch angles. "The Su-25 can fit into the canyon, but the A-10 cannot," Magomed Tolboyev noted in an interview with Russian media.

Weapon capabilities


A-10 Thunderbolt II is an attack aircraft designed primarily to fight enemy armored vehicles, including tanks. Its main armament is not rockets and bombs, but a unique seven-barreled 30-mm artillery mount GAU-8 Avenger, around which the aircraft fuselage is literally built. The ammunition capacity of the gun is impressive and amounts to 1350 rounds of 30 × 173 mm. Among the nomenclature of ammunition there are sub-caliber ones, including those with a uranium core. This gun can easily deal with any enemy infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers. But the tanks will not be good either, given that sub-caliber ammunition penetrates 1000 mm of armor from a distance of 38 meters at a meeting angle of 30 degrees. At the same time, the gun is also distinguished by high accuracy. From a distance of 1220 meters, 80 percent of the shells fired in a volley fall into a circle with a diameter of 12,4 meters. The artillery armament of the Su-25 is much more modest and is represented by the GSh-30-30 double-barreled 2-mm automatic cannon with an ammunition capacity of 250 rounds.


The main armament of the A-10 is a GAU-8 Avenger cannon against the background of a Volkswagen Beetle passenger car

Both aircraft have approximately the same number of suspension points. "Warthog" - 11, Su-25 - 10. At the same time, in such an important parameter as the combat load, the American attack aircraft surpasses the domestic aircraft almost twice. For the A-10, the maximum combat load is 7260 kg, for the Su-25 - 4400 kg. And this is without the ammunition load of the 7-barreled aircraft cannon, which weighs about a ton. The artillery ammunition load of the Su-25 is noticeably lighter - 340 kg.

Separately, we can note the range of used ammunition. "Warthog" is intended mainly for the use of high-precision weapons, including smart aerial bombs JDAM, which are able to engage and actively maneuver targets. But the main weapon of the American attack aircraft, in addition to the cannon, is, of course, the famous AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missiles with an electro-optical targeting system. The missile can hit well-armored and moving targets even in urban areas. In this case, the principle of "fire and forget" is implemented. After the missile seeker is fixed on the target, its flight no longer depends on the position and movement of the attack aircraft itself.

The Russian Rook is also capable of using a wide range of weapons, including smart ammunition. But the main work is carried out by free-fall and corrected bombs and unguided rockets. At the same time, during the modernization, for example, on the Su-25SM3 model, the ability to hit targets with conventional free-fall bombs was significantly increased due to the installation of the SVP-24-25 Hephaestus sighting and navigation system. This complex makes it possible to bring the accuracy of strikes with unguided aircraft weapons to guided weapons. True, this is only true for stationary purposes.


Su-25 attack aircraft at the Aviadarts competition, photo by the RF Ministry of Defense

The second feature of the Su-25 is the use of air-to-surface guided missiles with a laser targeting system. After capturing the target and launching the missile, the pilot must hold the target until it is hit. In this case, the laser rangefinder-target designator is located in front of the attack aircraft. The pilot must keep the plane on the course, highlighting the target until it is hit, which in the face of enemy air defense counteraction is associated with significant risk.
Author:
202 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. nnm
    nnm 8 October 2020 18: 16 New
    44
    Oh, these battles in a spherical vacuum!
    And what about the survivability of the "Rook" not a word about the experience of Afgan, but only dry figures, but about the fact that it is so omnivorous that even on diesel fuel the power plant can work up to 6 hours?
    And what about the fact that the miracle of the A-10 cannon after 1 round should be cooled for a minute? And about the cost comparison - silence.
    1. nnm
      nnm 8 October 2020 18: 21 New
      18
      The work of "Rook" A.Koshkin, with a flight time of more than 1 hours, was well described by "Sturmovik" in his memoirs.
      1. Aviator_
        Aviator_ 8 October 2020 22: 06 New
        12
        Interesting memoirs. I was very surprised that he had to reinvent the technique himself, which was widely used during the Second World War by our night lamps - they hung up SABs to blind the anti-aircraft crews. It seems that the classic experience of the combat use of night bombing with anti-aircraft countermeasures was forgotten for almost 50 years.
        1. ancient
          ancient 8 October 2020 23: 56 New
          +5
          Quote: Aviator_
          I was very surprised that he had to reinvent the technique himself, which was widely used during the Second World War by our night lamps - they hung up SABs to blind the anti-aircraft crews.

          In no way belittling the dignity of the respected A. Koshkin, but ... SABs of all calibers (depending on the type of aircraft and its flight characteristics) were used throughout life and in all conflicts, after the Second World War wink
          1. "Hanging" .. "chandeliers" for b / m from under the SAB'ov.
          2. They illuminated the enemy's territory (after all, the torches burned for 6-9 minutes) for the work of artillery and SRZO.
          3. But the third way .. our armamentmen have already come up with bully (the deceleration time of the "windmill" increases, the opening time of the bomb is naturally the same and the height is correspondingly less) ... then guess yourself wassat
          Quote: Aviator_
          the experience of the combat use of night bombing during antiaircraft countermeasures was forgotten for almost 50 years.

          So .. as they say .. "no one is forgotten and nothing .. is forgotten" soldier
          1. Aviator_
            Aviator_ 9 October 2020 07: 47 New
            +3
            So I was surprised by the presentation of the material by Koshkin - it turns out from his text that he personally reinvented it. However, given the mess of the late 80s and early 90s, it may well be that he himself.
            1. ancient
              ancient 9 October 2020 12: 42 New
              +1
              Quote: Aviator_
              However, given the mess of the late 80s and early 90s, it may well be that he himself.

              Well, here, most likely, for the Su-25 it was the first real test by fire ... then immediately after the GSE he was sent on a "business trip" for the "river" (past Lipetsk), so there are no methods for using the ASP on it for the "air force" ovsky "was not ... only according to the results of AB tests.
              Well, who tried what they knew before, because before that everyone had already flown somewhere and on something.
              So A. Koshkin could well have been the "founder" of the method of using ASP "from under the SABs" ..., that is. tactical technique specifically for the Su-25 wink
              There were a lot of "undressing" of the aircraft during the landing already during the flights (after retraining) ..... forgot and ... sat on the "braked pedals" wink
      2. psiho117
        psiho117 9 October 2020 00: 35 New
        19
        Quote: nnm
        And what about the fact that the miracle of the A-10 cannon after 1 round should be cooled for a minute?

        Overheating occurs after a two-second burst, at the maximum rate of fire. No one bothers the pilot to shoot in two second bursts, or reduce the rate of fire by half, if necessary.

        In addition, a minute to cool down is just until the attack aircraft turns around for the second run.
        And overheating is not a diagnosis yet, you can shoot further, if necessary - just dispersion and accuracy suffer. There is a full video on the network, where the pilots beat much longer than 2 seconds.
        1. yehat2
          yehat2 9 October 2020 09: 43 New
          10
          I've seen a-10 work on video.
          one target that needs to be approached in a minute rarely happens, usually he attacks a group of targets, some of which he can fire with a cannon, but in reality he is forced to shoot only one or two.
          By the way, don't think that the A-10 needs a long queue.
          half-second is enough for exercises.
          I personally think that the a-10 is an attack aircraft for the rich, and the su-25 is for the poor (nourishes, laser guidance, unguided bombs, cheaper shells, low requirements for the airfield). And objectively a-10 is better, but its operation is much more expensive and necessarily requires air superiority in the area of ​​application.
          1. Bryanskiy_Volk
            Bryanskiy_Volk 9 October 2020 17: 38 New
            -9
            What profound conclusions have you made based on just watching the video. You should write combat manuals and manuals, otherwise they buried, you know, your analytical talent while watching videos from YouTube ... laughing
      3. riwas
        riwas 10 October 2020 06: 37 New
        +2
        Rutskoi's memoirs about work on the Su-25 in Afghanistan are interesting. He asked to install the NAR package rotated 180 degrees. This made it possible to reduce the time spent under fire by the dushmans. I shot them after passing over the target with pitching. Otherwise, I had to make two runs.
        1. Letun
          Letun 14 October 2020 13: 21 New
          +2
          Quote: riwas
          I shot them after passing over the target with pitching. Otherwise, I had to make two runs.

          The effectiveness of such "rationalization" is interesting. It's like in a movie about elusive avengers, riding a horse and shooting behind the back with a revolver ...
    2. Tsoy
      Tsoy 8 October 2020 18: 52 New
      20
      the fact that the miracle of the A-10 cannon after 1 turn is supposed to be cooled for a minute


      I did not notice such a thing from the combat videos of work in Afghanistan. Can you tell me the size of the queue?

      The article is scanty, without a conclusion. And the topic is so hackneyed that it reduces the cheekbones. Both are excellent planes. Somewhere one is better, somewhere else. But what exactly is that Rook will survive the A-10. At least no one in Russia is going to write off attack aircraft.
      1. nnm
        nnm 8 October 2020 19: 00 New
        +1
        No problem, colleague! The Americans even had to reduce the rate of fire after testing. https://topwar.ru/100011-a-10-thunderbolt-ii-shturmovik-postroennyy-vokrug-aviacionnoy-pushki.html
        1. Tsoy
          Tsoy 8 October 2020 20: 02 New
          +8
          No problem, colleague! The Americans even had to reduce the rate of fire after testing. https://topwar.ru/100011-a-10-thunderbolt-ii-shturmovik-postroennyy-vokrug-aviacionnoy-pushki.html


          Thanks, but there is no source for this information either. The same is indicated on the Russian wiki and on airvar. That's just in English-language sources everywhere they write that the queue length is not limited by anything. A 2 second volley is needed only to save the resource of the trunks. That is, if necessary, there are no special obstacles to increasing the queue. But I do not insist and I admit that I am mistaken.
          1. yehat2
            yehat2 9 October 2020 09: 48 New
            0
            there are a lot of reasons to limit the queue.
            for example, the cumulative impulse seriously decelerates an aircraft near the ground.
            it is not worth describing how dangerous it is. Vibration during burst fire is also sensitive.
            exhaust fumes and particles at high density can damage engine performance.
            1. Tsoy
              Tsoy 9 October 2020 10: 57 New
              +1
              there are a lot of reasons to limit the queue.
              for example, the cumulative impulse seriously decelerates an aircraft near the ground.
              it is not worth describing how dangerous it is. Vibration during burst fire is also sensitive.
              exhaust fumes and particles at high density can damage engine performance.


              They write that the a-10 without any special consequences can release all the ammunition without any problems. The cannon creates energy when firing equal to half the thrust of the engines, that is, the story about the fact that an attack aircraft can stop and fly back is stupidity. Propellant gases were indeed a problem, but afterburners and scheduled cleaning of the blades after a certain shot were introduced. I just would like to see where the information about the minute interval for cooling came from, while only on Russian sites they write about it.
              1. yehat2
                yehat2 9 October 2020 11: 29 New
                0
                and I heard what the pilots themselves say - even after a 2 second queue, the plane literally stops. The impulse is felt very much.
                1. Tsoy
                  Tsoy 9 October 2020 16: 38 New
                  +1
                  I heard what the pilots themselves say - even after a 2 second queue, the plane literally stops. The momentum is very felt


                  There is such a thing. In the flight manual, it is forbidden to fire a cannon with one engine running. In this case, even 2 seconds is enough to go into a stall.
                2. Victor67
                  Victor67 9 October 2020 20: 38 New
                  +1
                  Did the A-10 pilot tell you personally about the impulse that stopped the plane? Or did you buy potatoes at the market in Mukhodransk, and there two pilots in front of you in line were discussing the work of GAU-8?
                  1. yehat2
                    yehat2 10 October 2020 05: 42 New
                    +2
                    I understand English and watch American materials
            2. Maxim73
              Maxim73 13 October 2020 13: 27 New
              0
              There, on the engine blades, there are special afterburners of non-burnt powder particles. Without afterburners, engines stalled.
        2. psiho117
          psiho117 9 October 2020 00: 28 New
          +3
          Quote: nnm
          The Americans even had to reduce the rate of fire after testing. https://topwar.ru/100011-a-10-thunderbolt-ii-shturmovik-postroennyy-vokrug-aviacionnoy-pushki.html

          They reduced the maximum rate of fire by only 300 rpm - from 4200 to 3900 rpm. Against the background of such figures, this is nothing.
          And I think the author knows this - after all, both articles were written by the same person.
          1. yehat2
            yehat2 9 October 2020 09: 49 New
            0
            what to copy and paste, no need to read
      2. Zoldat_A
        Zoldat_A 9 October 2020 05: 21 New
        +2
        Quote: Choi
        the topic is so hackneyed that it drives cheekbones

        Who is stronger - an elephant or a whale?
        1. yehat2
          yehat2 9 October 2020 09: 49 New
          +3
          the parasite is stronger than the worm. he is longer and eats both
        2. Tsoy
          Tsoy 9 October 2020 11: 00 New
          +1
          stronger - an elephant or a whale?


          Man. Those others will soon die out from him.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. Elderly Raccoon
      Elderly Raccoon 9 October 2020 18: 40 New
      -1
      so much the same that the pilots preferred the su-17 more
      1. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 9 October 2020 19: 31 New
        0
        Pilots, as a rule, predict a fighter-bomber for an attack aircraft. Well, just IS is faster, and the chances of getting a projectile or rocket are less. But the modernized Su-25 should hold a MANPADS missile better, in theory, while the Su-17 has long been gone.
  2. Mytholog
    Mytholog 8 October 2020 18: 20 New
    +6
    "Battle of stormtroopers". Loud, of course, but incorrect: attack aircraft are not intended for air combat, after all, for them it is a forced mode.
  3. novel66
    novel66 8 October 2020 18: 23 New
    31
    but I like thunderbolt, good, infection, very cleverly made
    1. Clear
      Clear 8 October 2020 18: 55 New
      +8
      Quote: novel xnumx
      "Grach" is 950 km / h, cruising - 750 km / h. Maximum flight speed "Warthog"

      Novel, but still our "Rook" is more beautiful than theirs "Warthog". True!? love
      1. SouzniK
        SouzniK 8 October 2020 19: 09 New
        -6
        Quote: Clear
        Quote: novel xnumx
        "Grach" is 950 km / h, cruising - 750 km / h. Maximum flight speed "Warthog"

        Novel, but still our "Rook" is more beautiful than theirs "Warthog". True!? love

        Exactly so Clear! love Here there is an attempt to throw mud at everything and everyone Russian, Russian.
        Do you hope in our trenches? soldier
        1. Clear
          Clear 8 October 2020 19: 27 New
          +3
          Quote: SouzniK
          Do you hope in our trenches?

          And, according to the initial disadvantages, it is not clear in whose trenches I am !? wink
          1. Grits
            Grits 9 October 2020 08: 51 New
            0
            Quote: Clear
            And, according to the initial disadvantages, it is not clear in whose trenches I am !?

            You be careful in the trenches there. Even in their trenches there are very stern men.
        2. Victor67
          Victor67 8 October 2020 19: 33 New
          +3
          He said and went to the kitchen to warm up the food in a non-Russian microwave, so that it would be more comfortable to watch a non-Russian TV set, sitting on a Chinese sofa with a Chinese smartphone in hand)))
          1. Igoresha
            Igoresha 8 October 2020 20: 31 New
            +4
            well, so that the sofa was Chinese is hard to believe))
            1. Victor67
              Victor67 8 October 2020 21: 16 New
              +3
              Well, of course, the upholstery is Chinese, the hardware is Chinese, even the terminal on which you paid the check for the sofa is Chinese, and the payment went through Chinese telecommunication equipment))) Then you called your wife from a Chinese smartphone and told you to cook dinner on a Chinese stove using Chinese When they came home, they put their smartphone into a Chinese outlet (well, or a Turkish one if you live richly), turned on the Chinese TV and lay down on the Chinese sofa. Everything, the circle is closed ...
              1. psiho117
                psiho117 9 October 2020 00: 52 New
                15
                Quote: Victor67
                the upholstery is Chinese, the hardware is Chinese, even the terminal on which you paid the check for the sofa is Chinese, and the payment went through Chinese telecommunication equipment ... called from a Chinese smartphone ... on a Chinese stove using Chinese dishes, when they came home they put their smartphone in Chinese outlet (well, or Turkish, if you live richly), turned on the Chinese TV and lay down on the Chinese sofa.

                Hmm, I went and looked specifically - I have a Czech stove in the kitchen, a kettle and a gas water heater - German, an Italian washing machine. Our refrigerator, Donetsk. Sofa - I don’t know, it’s not written on it, but most likely local production too.
                Sockets and switches - Belarusian, recently changed. The telephone, TV set and monitor are Korean. Tape recorder - Phillips made in Holland, it turns out ...
                only fan chinese wassat
                Tell me what am I doing wrong?
                1. YOUR
                  YOUR 9 October 2020 01: 56 New
                  -2
                  What's wrong? Yes, there is not a single high-tech device produced by us. Maybe there is something produced under license, but the technology has been developed and tested somewhere beyond the line.
                  1. vfwfr
                    vfwfr 9 October 2020 02: 26 New
                    +2
                    Router SNR MD1.1 Development Yekaterinburg, assembly ... where the iPhone is American ..
                    1. YOUR
                      YOUR 9 October 2020 03: 19 New
                      -1
                      Cool. Why SNR MD1.1 and not СНР МД1.1?
                      1. vfwfr
                        vfwfr 10 October 2020 00: 41 New
                        +2
                        1. Not all Chinese know well English, Russian and even more so .. it's easier and more convenient and possible for expanding markets ...
                        2. In addition to not expensive imported components, when they will install the Elbrus processor or at least Baikal ... then it will be possible to call the router camomile or violet in Russian letters 1.1)))))))))))))))))) ))))))))))))))))
                        PS I have nothing to do with the developers, the manufacturer. Just a user.
                      2. YOUR
                        YOUR 10 October 2020 01: 14 New
                        -1
                        Quote: vfwfr
                        PS I have nothing to do with the developers, the manufacturer. Just a user.

                        For that you explain well. So explain why there is neither this development, nor Elbrus nor Baikal in stores, only foreign samples.
                      3. vfwfr
                        vfwfr 10 October 2020 19: 47 New
                        +1
                        Objectively: 1. A horse price tag on the brain (processor), because a piece goods. And why sell in large quantities, if there is a production of not expensive imported goods (analogue). And the product is assembled in the "neighboring" yard where the analogue of the component is produced, without the added cost for transportation to another country. And it would be ... You would still be purple from what and how it is made. Buying a phone, tablet, TV, game consoles, and even a car ... You do not ask yourself a question, and whose brains are there, and who produces them !?
                        2. From the point of view of a home computer processor buyer, see the first sentence. For the actual development with the release of products now and not later is fucking expensive, without a guarantee of payback ...

                        Here's one of the reasons: that's why it doesn't lie.
                        PS Subjective opinion. I am not advocating).
                        PSS Not in the distant past.
                2. Rzzz
                  Rzzz 10 October 2020 00: 43 New
                  +4
                  Quote: vfwfr
                  Development Yekaterinburg,

                  Well, "development" most likely means a firm of three employees: 1. The director, who is also the owner who invested the money and developed this business process. Well, I also found Chinese
                  ODM. 2. An accountant who competently conducts white and black bookkeeping in order to pay less taxes, otherwise he will not pull out the business. And 3. A student-programmer who modifies the standard firmware and translates it into Russian.
                  1. vfwfr
                    vfwfr 10 October 2020 19: 54 New
                    +1
                    It is not excluded.
                    Take federal Internet providers in Russia, when connecting to the Internet: By buying or renting a WIFI router or TV set-top box, with the logo of this company .. In fact, the same thing. And no one complains that it is not ours ...). The business process can be the same, only "" a firm of three employees "" can not be called in any way))
            2. Grits
              Grits 9 October 2020 08: 56 New
              -1
              Quote: psiho117
              Tell me what am I doing wrong?

              Didn't save
            3. yehat2
              yehat2 13 October 2020 15: 50 New
              -1
              Quote: psiho117
              Tell me what am I doing wrong?

              it depends on whose laces you have
          2. Grits
            Grits 9 October 2020 08: 54 New
            +2
            Quote: Victor67
            Well, of course, the upholstery is Chinese, the hardware is Chinese, even the terminal on which you paid the check for the sofa is Chinese, and the payment went through Chinese telecommunication equipment))) Then you called your wife from a Chinese smartphone and told you to cook dinner on a Chinese stove using Chinese When they came home, they put their smartphone into a Chinese outlet (well, or a Turkish one if you live richly), turned on the Chinese TV and lay down on the Chinese sofa. Everything, the circle is closed ...

            In my case, also ... "fell asleep on the couch next to the Chinese border."
            by the way, just yesterday I was directly at the Chinese border. You can say stood with his feet on the line. The truth is in the boat. And 20 meters away from me, Chinese fishermen on their long boats, junks, were choosing fish from their nets. And on our side - the reserve and fish cannot be caught. Sungacha River.
            1. yehat2
              yehat2 9 October 2020 09: 53 New
              0
              in our reserve the Chinese are caught with nets)))
              1. Grits
                Grits 9 October 2020 15: 50 New
                -1
                Quote: yehat2
                in our reserve the Chinese with nets

                It seems not, they are behaving reasonably enough.
                And also in this place clouds of wild geese fly overhead. Just thousands, more than the sparrows in the city. It's just that there is a reserve on our side, plus the border zone behind a thorn - there is no one to shoot. And they don't shoot from the Chinese side, because the local population is forbidden to have weapons.
                1. yehat2
                  yehat2 9 October 2020 15: 53 New
                  +2
                  in my city geese fly right over my head in flocks in autumn
                  There is a reservoir 100 meters from the house - I even saw a heron there.
                  the truth is, there is a downside - birds tend to shit in flight.
                  Sometimes in the morning you go out on business - you look at the car, and it was not sparrows or even geese that shit on it, but at least dragons with hippos
          3. yehat2
            yehat2 9 October 2020 09: 52 New
            0
            I have a German kettle, a hob too. Chinese phone, Japanese car, Taiwanese TV. Polish sockets. And before the phone was from the Moscow region (I don't remember the company). By the way, I really liked it. Without much toughness, but reliable, non-buggy and convenient. antenna and in the elevator worked well.
            1. Victor67
              Victor67 9 October 2020 20: 54 New
              +1
              You take a closer look at the place where your German products are assembled, I dare to assume that this is Bosch with the assembly here, with sockets from Europa, they have long since said goodbye, sanctions, again.
              And a phone from Skolkovo cannot be remembered, this is about nothing, and an iPhone and a Samsung with an android as an OS provide millions of services to which people are simply accustomed and cannot live without them.
              Yes, if you take the phone only for working in the elevator, you have to be a special gourmet)))
              1. yehat2
                yehat2 10 October 2020 05: 41 New
                +1
                the elevator is made of iron and is often poorly shielded
                if the antenna of the phone there allows it to work, this is an indicator
                1. Victor67
                  Victor67 10 October 2020 06: 21 New
                  0
                  If he has such an antenna, then it makes sense to shield his head so that the tumor does not start malignant there ...
      2. loki565
        loki565 8 October 2020 20: 35 New
        +3
        Now everything is done in China, even American flags are produced)))
      3. Aviator_
        Aviator_ 8 October 2020 22: 10 New
        17
        And in order to have everything of its own, it was required during the Emergency Committee to wind the democratic get-together on caterpillars, as the Chinese did on Tiananmen. Then we would not have sat and used everything in Chinese, but they used everything in ours.
        1. Zoldat_A
          Zoldat_A 9 October 2020 05: 36 New
          +7
          Quote: Aviator_
          And in order to have everything of its own, it was required during the Emergency Committee to wind the democratic get-together on caterpillars, as the Chinese did on Tiananmen.

          Exactly about this I said a week or two ago. "Sleepers" were sketched - like a god of needles for a hedgehog. And what is wrong? ... Of course, it is still unknown where the Humpbacked Dog with his "perestroika" would lead the country, I do not consider the Emergency Committee - the key figures there were clearly unable to do something serious. But sooner or later Humpbacked Dog would have to leave. And without the power-hungry Sverdlovsk drunkard, ready to destroy the country to the size of the Moscow region for the sake of one-man unlimited power, they would have lived. And without Gaidar-Chubais-Soros we would have lived for sure.
  4. Masha
    Masha 8 October 2020 19: 15 New
    13
    but still our "Rook" is more beautiful than theirs "Warthog"

    As Tupolev said: "Only beautiful airplanes can fly well" ...
    1. Clear
      Clear 8 October 2020 19: 54 New
      +7
      Quote: Masha
      but still our "Rook" is more beautiful than theirs "Warthog"

      As Tupolev said: "Only beautiful airplanes can fly well" ...

      She had no doubt, Masha, that Tupolev was well known, only women yes
      Hi, there love
      1. Masha
        Masha 8 October 2020 20: 31 New
        +8
        Tupolev is well known, only women

        I would say ... not only women ... but some people felt ... wink
        Hello! love
    2. Lynx2000
      Lynx2000 9 October 2020 03: 11 New
      +4
      Quote: Masha
      but still our "Rook" is more beautiful than theirs "Warthog"

      As Tupolev said: "Only beautiful airplanes can fly well" ...

      recourse
      Beauty is also relative ...

      When the pilots saw a two-keel "object" during testing, the future MIG-25 was considered a "monster", called "Fantomas", "Cheburashka".

      By the way, the development of the future SU-25 was carried out by a group of young specialists from the Sukhoi Design Bureau, optional.
  5. Victor67
    Victor67 8 October 2020 19: 45 New
    -10
    Probably your messenger is prettier than their Mercedes? And a yotafonchik is more beautiful than an iPhone ... Here is a monument to the current heroes of the propaganda front during life!
    And as for the topic of the article, our Grachushka, in comparison with the A-10, sucks, which in terms of characteristics, as in the experience of combat use, is like a burn of 3 models of the 70s and a modern American car.
    1. Clear
      Clear 8 October 2020 20: 14 New
      +4
      Quote: Victor67
      As for ..., our Grachushka compared to the A-10 ... in terms of characteristics, which in terms of combat experience ...,
      belay recourse crying

      Quote: Victor67
      Rook in comparison with the A-10 sucks ... You probably have a messenger more beautiful than their Mercedes?

      Mom, "brave" Schweik, loved wink



      Quote: Victor67
      it's like a Gigue 3 model from the 70s and a modern American car.

      The US State Department commented on the launch of the Zircon rocket by Russia winked

      Quote: Victor67
      A monument should be erected to the current heroes of the propaganda front during their lifetime !!!

      I had a classmate by the name of Konopelkina. Will sit now for propaganda, probably. It's a shame. crying
      1. frog
        frog 8 October 2020 20: 19 New
        -7
        And sho you Zircon?
        1. Clear
          Clear 8 October 2020 20: 28 New
          11
          Quote: frog
          And sho you Zircon?

          НДvery much! And I'm proud good
          1. frog
            frog 8 October 2020 22: 14 New
            0
            Than? By the one that flies? so it should also hit the mobile target ...
          2. frog
            frog 8 October 2020 22: 16 New
            +1
            And how the people were proud of the Red Army in 1941 .....
      2. SouzniK
        SouzniK 8 October 2020 20: 23 New
        +4
        Thank you Yasnaya for the sarcasm and joking of some "tovayschey" love
        Laughed heartily !!! laughing crying Keep it up !
        OUR women have already entered the information war, the rest of the cowards men scattered nov that they are offended and do not understand, banned, etc. .. Eh you guys! negative

        Of course, they will shoot me for this insolence ... But we will meet again and have a heart-to-heart talk love hi
        P / S I would always put pros to you, but alas myself in minuses soldier
        This too shall pass !
        1. Clear
          Clear 8 October 2020 21: 28 New
          +6
          Quote: SouzniK
          I would always put pluses to you, but alas myself in minuses

          By forum rules - you can yes love
    2. mister-red
      mister-red 8 October 2020 20: 25 New
      +9
      Quote: Victor67
      Rook sucks in comparison with the A-10, which in terms of characteristics, that in terms of combat experience,

      As far as I remember, the military did not particularly like the A-10 at first, then it seemed like nothing, showed good efficiency and survivability. A couple of years ago, they wanted to completely abandon them. Somehow it does not pull on a superplane, the Americans would be promoting it to the fullest. Well, like the F-35.
      In terms of appearance, the A-10 is so simple that such an aircraft (purely outwardly, we do not say weapons and electronics) could have been made somewhere in the late 40s, which cannot be said about the SU-25. I personally like drying more if we proceed from the appearance. Just like the Panther is more pleasant than the Tiger, and the T-34-85 is more popular than the Panther. No comparison of characteristics. How can a warthog be beautiful? )))
      And if you compare the combat capabilities, then calling the Su-25 sludge compared to the A-10 is very bold, but unprofessional. It would suck, in the USSR they would have snapped something else in its place. A decent plane that will be in service for a long time.
      PS In order not to be gullible, a quote from The National Interest:
      "Each of the aircraft has its own advantages. The A-10 is focused on the use of a powerful cannon and electro-optical missiles, and the Su-25 is focused on precision bombing with conventional ammunition and the use of missiles and laser-guided weapons."
      The Americans don't think the Su-25 sucks. Well, where are they to our "experts", right? )))))
      1. Victor67
        Victor67 8 October 2020 21: 01 New
        0
        I just compare the combat capabilities according to statistics, A-10, having plowed at the forefront in all very serious conflicts (Iraq and Afghanistan), - losses are within 10 units, the 25th has tens (if not hundreds), only in Chechen campaign - 5 units, and the war in the Chechen Republic, with all due respect, this is not "Desert Storm", the scale is not the same, and the air defense is not that)))
        1. letter-to-vovan
          letter-to-vovan 9 October 2020 14: 29 New
          +1
          Well, what is a warthog and a rook talking about ??.
          Wart uses missiles that do not require target designation until the moment they hit, they were not designed for the Rook (the rook is to blame?).
          use the rook warthog nomenclature, it is still unknown who would have more losses.
      2. yehat2
        yehat2 9 October 2020 09: 57 New
        +1
        The A-10 was created based on the experience of attack aircraft in Vietnam.
    3. Lipchanin
      Lipchanin 8 October 2020 20: 55 New
      -2
      Quote: Victor67
      that from the experience of combat use,

      So when was this "Warthog" last used? SU-25 is still working in Syria
      1. Valdaev
        Valdaev 8 October 2020 23: 45 New
        +6
        Yeah, no air defense from the enemy
    4. Ramzaj99
      Ramzaj99 8 October 2020 21: 03 New
      -2
      Quote: Victor67
      Rook sucks compared to A-10,

      There is no more tenacious aircraft in the world than the SU-25
      Not a single aircraft will be able to independently return to the airfield with an unharmed pilot after being hit by several bursts of memory, fuselage penetration, cockpit penetration, and then another missile hit into the engine .........
      1. ancient
        ancient 9 October 2020 00: 11 New
        +9
        Quote: Ramzaj99
        There is no more tenacious aircraft in the world than the SU-25
        Not a single plane will be able to independently return to the airfield with an unharmed pilot after being hit by several bursts of memory, fuselage penetration, cockpit penetration, and then a missile hitting the engine.


        In no way belittling the dignity of our "Rook", all the same I ask you to be objective when "putting forward" such slogans and ... if you do not possess information ... "never .. say ... never" wassat
        1. The photo shows large destruction of the tail section of the A-10A as a result of the non-contact detonation of the warhead of the Igla-1 MANPADS missile. The aircraft has been repaired.

        2. Damage to one engine, failure of the hydraulic system, hundreds of holes in the wing, tail and fuselage. (Attack of Baghdad International Airport).
        Pilot Captain Kim Campbell managed to successfully land the plane at the airbase.

        Well and so on and so forth .... wink
        1. Ramzaj99
          Ramzaj99 9 October 2020 17: 51 New
          -1
          Quote: ancient
          Well and so on and so forth ....

          Don't compare warm to soft. On the grave, one can clearly see a punctured hydraulic system, current tanks, damage to the wings and tail, a broken lamp and a dashboard ...
          The casing was torn off immediately.
          Compare pores. elements of a rocket and a ZU shot and comparing Igloo and Buk, this is complete idiocy .......
          It's like shooting one bulletproof vest with a pistol and another with a 30mm cannon, and say that the second is shit ... but ...
          1. Sergey Sfiedu
            Sergey Sfiedu 9 October 2020 19: 36 New
            +1
            "comparing the Igloo and the Buk, this is complete idiocy ......." - Someone fired at the Su-25 with a Buk eh? Well, the Georgians / Ossetians shot down a lot of Su-25s with Iglami.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Hazey
          Hazey 16 October 2020 19: 03 New
          0
          What's this? Vitality indicator? How about this center][/ Center]
          .
    5. stalki
      stalki 8 October 2020 21: 37 New
      -10
      Probably your messenger is prettier than their Mercedes? And a yotafonchik is more beautiful than an iPhone ... Here is a monument to the current heroes of the propaganda front during life!
      And as for the topic of the article, our Grachushka, in comparison with the A-10, sucks, which in terms of characteristics, as in the experience of combat use, is like a burn of 3 models of the 70s and a modern American car.
      And you probably pedal on your clunkers and also your smarts? Yes? Oh yes, you want to build the first nuclear power plant, and then with someone else's technology. Well, catch up with them 10. Or maybe you have a nuclear club lying around? No? Sad, sad. Well, now it starts, Russian oligarchs have divided the country! Okay, at least we have ours, and you? 60% of your country's assets are already under someone else's oligarchy. You have not made independent decisions for a long time, do not even try to pretend to be independence. Your capital is one big incubator of someone else's business. Is there even a place to live there? Well, no matter how hard you try, I'll tell you about the garlic, you most likely will not reach the level of the 80s of your own rise. All that remains is to pour dirt on the Russians, you are not capable of more.
      1. Victor67
        Victor67 9 October 2020 06: 19 New
        0
        Whose capital did you mean? Personally, my capital is in Moscow, and I don’t throw dirt on Russians, moreover, I love my country to madness, but my brain doesn’t turn off from this. I can give you hundreds of examples where our country is utterly superior and better than others (ranging from normal heating in every apartment, to the speed of home and public Internet, which is orders of magnitude higher and cheaper than abroad), but I will not.
        The purpose of my critical comments is to remove the blinkers of hurray-patriotism from the eyes of comrades who are especially stubborn on this topic. And on the topic of the article, I repeat once again, our 25th against the background of their wartlog is a dull suck, you can compare any characteristics: range, load, quantity and composition of weapons (here you just need to imagine how it is to keep the target under fire from the ground) the flight time of the launched rocket and piloting at the same time, in WWII it was easier to work on the front edge on the IL-2), I'm generally silent about avionics. Actually, a comparison of losses during combat use explains everything perfectly. The very course of the design idea, where the engines were covered with planes from fire from the ground and duplicated the vertical tail, says a lot ...
        1. stalki
          stalki 9 October 2020 08: 14 New
          -2
          In order not to mislead which origin you are, change your avku. Because a Russian person, at least not Polish heroes, puts on it. I am sorry for the mistake. Then you can consider the commentary on Poland to be zeroed, it has nothing to do with you. And at the expense of the Su-25, I disagree with you, and the warthog and the rook have their advantages and disadvantages. Depending on the place and conditions of use. So your arrogant criticism is biased.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. stalki
              stalki 9 October 2020 23: 03 New
              0
              Yes, I just did not read it, so you can calmly "laugh" as you put it. I will not burn out of shame, because he is of no interest to me, I mistook the Pole. Well, I sat down in a puddle and God bless her, this is my puncture, rejoice. This is not my time and not my books. I also did not read "Kings and Cabbage" and put "The Thorns Singers" in waste paper and bypassed a lot of other things that were popular and interesting in your time. I do not smoke, I have nothing to do with gopota. I put Avka because I like owls and it looks not standard for the image of a bird. I read a lot of books, they just don't fit into your time and it's hard for you to understand. Whether you read "The Wasp Factory" or "All About Life" but Hemingway was most likely swallowed in one gulp like me. Permyak commands respect from your age. So don't judge strictly. We are from different eras. And at the expense of aircraft in arms I will not argue, here I agree with a clear advantage. But in terms of speed, maneuverability and price of the issue, this can be debated. For example, a warthog doesn't eat diesel, but a rook does. The beard cannot perform difficult aerobatics. And he loses the cruising speed. Ascent speed is the same. The rook is still more protected than the beard. And the Afghan has proven this in practice. The rook has a welded capsule, and the beard has bolted parts. And the engines are less protected. Yes, the beard has a lethal cannon, well, that's how it was made to destroy tank columns. A rook for battlefield support, the concepts are different. Therefore, spread rot against a decent car is not worth it for the sake of weapon calibers, as I understand they are closer to your heart in view of your specialty. You, in spite of your alleged education, avoid objective evaluations and arrogance unnecessarily. Well, that's your right. And I think the su 25 is a worthy machine of its time, and now it serves faithfully. It's like with tanks in World War II, but the tigers were cooler, but the final point was set by t34, the price of the issue hi you can continue to "laugh" with your wife. And I will go to a game of chess with mine.
          2. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. The comment was deleted.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. The comment was deleted.
                  3. The comment was deleted.
                  4. The comment was deleted.
                  5. The comment was deleted.
                  6. The comment was deleted.
                  7. The comment was deleted.
          3. The comment was deleted.
          4. The comment was deleted.
          5. The comment was deleted.
    6. The comment was deleted.
  6. The comment was deleted.
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. The comment was deleted.
  9. The comment was deleted.
  10. The comment was deleted.
  11. The comment was deleted.
  12. The comment was deleted.
  13. The comment was deleted.
  14. The comment was deleted.
  15. The comment was deleted.
  16. The comment was deleted.
  17. The comment was deleted.
  18. The comment was deleted.
  19. The comment was deleted.
  20. The comment was deleted.
  21. The comment was deleted.
  22. The comment was deleted.
  23. The comment was deleted.
  24. The comment was deleted.
  25. The comment was deleted.
  26. The comment was deleted.
  27. The comment was deleted.
  28. The comment was deleted.
  29. The comment was deleted.
  30. The comment was deleted.
  31. The comment was deleted.
  32. The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • Oprichnik
    Oprichnik 9 October 2020 00: 26 New
    -2
    And what have you yourself experienced both aircraft in combat conditions?
  • evgenii67
    evgenii67 8 October 2020 20: 44 New
    +4
    Quote: Clear
    Novel, but still our "Rook" is more beautiful than theirs "Warthog". True!?

    Maybe more beautiful, but not more effective. In the war with the Papuans, the rook will be good, but with the more prepared Papuans, it will be a warthog.
  • Lipchanin
    Lipchanin 8 October 2020 20: 52 New
    -9
    Quote: Clear
    but still our "Rook" is more beautiful than theirs "Warthog".

    And then a minus for what ??? belay
    Minushers, tell us why "Warthogs" are more beautiful than "Rooks".
    Remove the tongues from the anus, wash off feces and explain clearly !!!!
    1. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 9 October 2020 19: 42 New
      0
      Most likely Ukrainians and Georgians. But - for example, I didn't draw a minus for you, but for me both planes are beautiful. Beauty is a very subjective factor.
  • novel66
    novel66 9 October 2020 12: 17 New
    +5
    no lady! I, as an aeronautical engineer, cannot help but admire the idea of ​​the warthog. He is beautiful in his own way, and his gun ... ours to you love
  • NEXUS
    NEXUS 8 October 2020 20: 13 New
    +6
    Quote: novel xnumx
    but I like thunderbolt, good, infection, very cleverly made

    These two aircraft (both outstanding by the way) are sharpened slightly for different methods of attack. Both are tenacious as devils, but in some ways each is stronger in relation to the opponent.
    But at the same time, I believe our Rook will outlive the Warthog and still fight. In aviation, Rook is like a Kalashnikov assault rifle, simple, reliable and very tenacious.
    1. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 8 October 2020 21: 06 New
      +2
      "Our Rook will outlive the Warthog" - of course. The Su-25 is banally younger. They began to produce them when the A-10 had already been discontinued. Plus all 90s "Rooks" flew very little, and "Thunderbolts" used to the fullest.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 8 October 2020 21: 09 New
        +1
        Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
        "Our Rook will outlive the Warthog" - of course. The Su-25 is banally younger. They began to produce them when the A-10 had already been discontinued. Plus all 90s "Rooks" flew very little, and "Thunderbolts" used to the fullest.

        That is, the moment of platform modernization does not occur to you at all? Sadness ...
        1. Sergey Sfiedu
          Sergey Sfiedu 8 October 2020 21: 13 New
          +5
          What does the platform upgrade have to do with the A-10's airframe resource coming to an end? Ours clung to the "Hephaestus", so that uncontrollable bombs would still be thrown. The A-10 uses GPS-guided bombs - and the Americans are happy with everything, no more is needed to fight the jihadists. Or are you planning to use the Su-25 in Europe against troops covered by strong air defense - this was considered a mistake in Soviet times.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 8 October 2020 21: 18 New
            -2
            Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
            What does the platform upgrade have to do with the A-10's airframe resource coming to an end?

            And Grachenka has everything fresh? Thoth's mattresses decided to bring the Warthog back to service, apparently they had extra pilots. fellow
            1. Sergey Sfiedu
              Sergey Sfiedu 8 October 2020 21: 23 New
              +2
              Irony is inappropriate, as I have already written - the Su-25 is younger, and was used much less intensively. As for returning the A-10 to service - I did not understand your sarcasm, the A-10 was not taken out of action, but it is clear that they will not last long. As for the extra pilots - again I did not understand - the resource still allows. why not exploit. Fortunately, the cost of a combat mission is significantly lower than that of a fighter.
        2. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 8 October 2020 21: 14 New
          +1
          Here the question is in the modern tactics of application. A10 has not been engaged in "attack" for a long time. He is a platform for precision weapons. From which platform to launch there is no difference and the carrying capacity plays a small role. Moreover, armor, a powerful cannon, are simply atavisms.
      2. Dzungar
        Dzungar 12 October 2020 09: 54 New
        0
        Sorry, but do not tell me WHERE THE THUNDERBOLTS USED IN FULL ....?
    2. Valdaev
      Valdaev 8 October 2020 23: 46 New
      +2
      From poverty - yes, it will survive
  • Turist1996
    Turist1996 8 October 2020 21: 19 New
    +4
    Roman, I completely agree with you - not only is he good, but also handsome with some normal male power! Well, really - kind of awkward, but arouses respect!
    And how do you know what it was made for - respect for the designers!
    1. novel66
      novel66 9 October 2020 12: 23 New
      -1
      that's it! not everyone understands hi
  • akarfoxhound
    akarfoxhound 8 October 2020 18: 30 New
    +4
    On the Internet, such comparisons of the Rook with the Warthog are already "hundredyschmiliens", and the title of the article for comparing stormtroopers can still be thought up more stupid, eh? wink
    1. novel66
      novel66 9 October 2020 12: 23 New
      0
      can! IL-2 against a warthog
  • Alien From
    Alien From 8 October 2020 18: 59 New
    +4
    Both are veterans, and honored ones.
  • Undecim
    Undecim 8 October 2020 19: 14 New
    11
    famous AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missiles with electro-optical guidance system
    The Maverick missiles of the AGM-65A / B modifications with an electro-optical guidance system were finished 42 years ago, in 1978.
    1. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 8 October 2020 21: 19 New
      +3
      After them, other modifications were produced with electro-optical and infrared seeker. But in general, yes, "Mavericks" have not been released for a long time, and the whole rocket is outdated.
  • Virus-free crown
    Virus-free crown 8 October 2020 19: 23 New
    +4
    Well ... about the capabilities of "Rook" it is best to watch in this video soldier



    good
    1. I am silent I am silent
      I am silent I am silent 8 October 2020 21: 42 New
      +3
      Looked at the "work" of rooks - inspired! I remembered the years of service, albeit on the ground, and the planes were larger - TU22m3, but nevertheless, I am proud of our equipment and officers at the controls of these planes! I will not compare, because not my VUS. I wish all flight crew officers that the number of take-offs equals the number of landings!
  • Gunther
    Gunther 8 October 2020 20: 10 New
    -8
    Well, where does a warthog fight with a rook, especially with a flock of rooks?
    get bored, any entomologist will tell you this smile
    1. Cympak
      Cympak 8 October 2020 20: 26 New
      14
      On the ground, the A-10 significantly surpasses the Su-25 due to the AGM-65 "Mayverik" missiles with the "fire and forget" function. The launch range of the Maiveriks allows the A-10 not to enter the zone of action of the close military air defense (ZAK and MANPADS). In one run, the A-10 can attack 6 different targets with 6 "Mayverics". The Su-25 cannot do that, because you need to illuminate the target with a laser in front of you.
  • Cympak
    Cympak 8 October 2020 20: 19 New
    +1
    Both aircraft can be "felt" in DCS. Su-25T is given free of charge. There is also the Su-25, A-10A, A-10C, but already for a fee.
  • Nikolay R-PM
    Nikolay R-PM 8 October 2020 20: 23 New
    +2
    during this "battle of stormtroopers" it is absolutely imperceptible that Thunderbolt 2 was developed by specialists of the Republican company, after it was bought by Firechald. The chief designer of Republic until 1962, Alexander Kartvelli, was an emigrant of the first wave. Since the Korean War, our MiGs met him with thunderjets, then in Vietnam - with thunderbirds. Later, Kartvelli took part in the development of the a-10. Will machines developed in the USSR / RF meet again with machines developed by compatriot emigrants? Who knows?..
    it is surprising that one of the dramatic episodes in the history of our country creates a light historical and political background, such as a comparison of technical characteristics
  • loki565
    loki565 8 October 2020 20: 33 New
    +2
    In this battle, the UAV won, no one needs attack aircraft in modern realities.
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 8 October 2020 20: 45 New
      +6
      Predator C payload 2,9 tonnes. This is immediately for those who believe that UAVs have a low load.



      1. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 9 October 2020 00: 16 New
        -2
        Here are just the first two pictures, not the Predator, but the RQ-4 Global Hawk laughing
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 9 October 2020 00: 28 New
          0
          Quote: Saxahorse
          Here are just the first two pictures, not the Predator, but the RQ-4 Global Hawk

          Oh ... how thin you are, here is a photo of the RQ-4 Global Hawk, find 3 differences.

          1. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 9 October 2020 00: 32 New
            -4
            Please look at the vertical tail of the MQ-1 Predator.

            Are you still firmly convinced that Predator is in your first pictures? wassat
            1. OgnennyiKotik
              OgnennyiKotik 9 October 2020 00: 37 New
              +4
              Absolutely.
              Predator A
              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-1_Predator

              Predator B
              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-9_Reaper

              Predator C
              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_Avenger
              1. yehat2
                yehat2 9 October 2020 10: 05 New
                +1
                we would call such UAVs something in the style of a dandelion, a moth and hope.
                So that later the NATO air interception service is crazy about the content of the negotiations
                1. OgnennyiKotik
                  OgnennyiKotik 9 October 2020 10: 14 New
                  -2
                  Russian / Soviet names are a separate art form.
                  ATGM 9M14M "Baby", 9M123 "Chrysanthemum", anti-tank missile "Metis", equipped with a night sight "Mulat", radio direction-finding meteorological complex RPMK-1 is called "Smile", thermobaric warhead 9M216 - "Excitement", 240-mm missile MS- 24 with chemical warhead - "Laska", 122-mm rocket 9M22K with cluster warhead - "Decoration", UAZ-3150 "Shalun" vehicle, MR-352 "Positive" ship radar and 23-mm rubber bullet "Privet" and so on etc
                  1. yehat2
                    yehat2 9 October 2020 10: 32 New
                    0
                    Ukrainians spotted Cheburashka's terrifying military complex in Donbas
                    I don't know what they meant, but the name is good. laughing
                    They have not yet encountered the crocodile Gena ...
            2. OgnennyiKotik
              OgnennyiKotik 9 October 2020 01: 17 New
              +1
              Do you still have doubts? Welcome to the manufacturer's website
              https://www.ga-asi.com/remotely-piloted-aircraft/predator-c-avenger
              1. Saxahorse
                Saxahorse 9 October 2020 23: 07 New
                0
                Quote: OgnennyiKotik
                Do you still have doubts? Welcome to the manufacturer's website

                Slovichili? Like if all copiers are "copiers" then all UAVs from General Atomics are Predators? laughing

                The machines you have listed are well known by their own names. It is even noticeable by the names of your links :) As the MQ-1 Predator, the more famous is the MQ-9 Reaper, the most successful strike UAV in the world today. But the Avenger somehow has not come in until now. Because marketing dances about the alleged "Predator C".

                To pull an owl onto a globe, your link is good. But drones that have already gone down in history, such as the MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper, should not be confused with marketing promises. Reality is cooler than marketing!
  • Taoist
    Taoist 8 October 2020 21: 02 New
    +1
    An empty article is a naked comparison of numbers without any consideration for the simple fact that these machines were created for different tasks and completely different tactics of their use ...
    As practice has shown, Rook is more versatile precisely from the point of view of solving the main task of the attack aircraft "direct support of the troops." - Bolt is a flying anti-tank gun - and given the fact that he is unlikely to encounter hordes of tanks rushing to the English Channel, his "specialization" turns into a disadvantage.
    1. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 8 October 2020 21: 30 New
      +4
      "turns into a disadvantage." Yeah. All so "insufficient". But one of the most popular aircraft of the American Air Force.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 8 October 2020 22: 45 New
        +1
        And that these two facts contradict themselves? But flexibility of application suffers from specialization. You can, of course, plant on "spirits" and hellfires ... (if you don't have enough money), but from the heels of S8KO they will not be more effective ...
        1. Sergey Sfiedu
          Sergey Sfiedu 9 October 2020 20: 02 New
          0
          A-10 is not flexible or what? It seems that for almost half a century of operation it has shown itself. Nothing remained of the initial concept of application, their peers - the F-16s of the first series have long been decommissioned, and the Air Force needs Thunderbolts and they are still needed! In terms of the range of weapons used, the A-10 outperforms the Su-25 in all respects (unfortunately for us). And yes - it is better to work with guided weapons according to the "spirits" - and the plane will be more intact (nobody canceled MANPADS from the barmaleev, and S8KO does not cancel them), and there are less chances for civilians to catch them. Moreover, GPS-guided bombs are minimal. This is not me saying that the Su-25 is bad - no, the Su-25 is an excellent aircraft, but belittling good enemy equipment out of ignorance or false patriotism may turn out to be more expensive.
          1. Taoist
            Taoist 9 October 2020 21: 01 New
            0
            Well, in the first place, no one belittles ... (and no one canceled the economy) - that is why the Americans keep A 10. (there is no point in developing a new car). A 10 aircraft built around a cannon for which there are no adequate targets in modern conditions. Hellfires versus barmaley is certainly convenient - but also expensive. The nomenclature of unguided weapons on the A 10 is much narrower. (By the way, the Rook, in general, is not a T8 product for a long time) but it costs much cheaper.
            1. Sergey Sfiedu
              Sergey Sfiedu 9 October 2020 21: 04 New
              0
              "The nomenclature of unguided weapons on A 10 is much narrower" - what exactly is it? And for what? the Yankees practically do not use unguided weapons now ..
              1. Taoist
                Taoist 9 October 2020 23: 05 New
                +1
                Name the nomenclature of the used "bolt" NAR? And then our nomenclature ... I already wrote the same about guided weapons and the economy of the issue. SD is far from always more effective, but always more expensive. Even the United States cannot afford to spend on Hellfire for every barmaley car ...
                1. Sergey Sfiedu
                  Sergey Sfiedu 9 October 2020 23: 22 New
                  +2
                  "Will you name the nomenclature of the NAR used by the" bolt "? And then our nomenclature ..." - they have Mighty Mouse (Hydra 70) and Zuni, we have C-5 (garbage) and C-8 and like would be C-13 (but it seems that there were problems with the latter) - i.e. about the same as theirs and ours. On the Su-25 it seems it was still possible to have S-24 and S-25, but this is already a perversion, URs are better, the same S-25L.
                  “Even the United States cannot afford to spend on Hellfire for every car of barmaley people” - where did you get the idea? Yankees NURs and unguided bombs have practically not been used in combat for a long time. Our poverty is our problem.
                  1. OgnennyiKotik
                    OgnennyiKotik 9 October 2020 23: 56 New
                    +2
                    Hydras are no longer used for 70 years 5, instead of them the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) 2. This is a Hydra converted into a guided missile. They do not use non-guided bombs and missiles at all. Therefore, comparison of A-10 and Su-25 is possible only in the history section. A-10C is already a different class of equipment.
                2. The comment was deleted.
    2. Cympak
      Cympak 8 October 2020 21: 40 New
      +2
      That's right, the A-10 was originally designed against tanks. But he showed himself well both in Iraq and in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, it was prized because of the cannon, which made it possible to destroy spirits in the immediate vicinity of its troops
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 8 October 2020 22: 50 New
        0
        Well, was it worthwhile to fence such a monstrous weapon to shoot spirits? In this regard, the HP 30 is no worse ... and the presence of the CCP 23-250 would seem to be more effective ... For hunting small targets, it is not the size and power of the gun that is important, but the maneuverability and the range of ammunition.
        1. Valdaev
          Valdaev 9 October 2020 00: 12 New
          +3
          Aleksey, the A-10 was made for the use of its "monstrous weapon" against Soviet armored vehicles. No "shooting of spirits" in Afghanistan (when creating the aircraft) was not supposed. There was no Afghan. Look at the dates. The fact that he was useful there (in Afghanistan, for example) is a side effect. Therefore your post is based on postknowledge. Well, ela-fires ... "to shoot spirits" ... "to fence a vegetable garden." It is necessary to return from the books of the priest to real life. Highly recommend
          1. Taoist
            Taoist 9 October 2020 20: 46 New
            +1
            Who are you? I actually answered the post above. And about the Afghan, I know from personal experience and not from the "priestly little books".
        2. mmaxx
          mmaxx 9 October 2020 16: 00 New
          0
          Tolboyev said in the video that a ditch turns out from the A-10 gun across the road. Enough for many.
          1. yehat2
            yehat2 9 October 2020 16: 15 New
            +1
            so a10 is a flying bulldozer? laughing
            1. mmaxx
              mmaxx 10 October 2020 05: 32 New
              0
              Btm wink
              The name of the warthog speaks for itself wink
        3. Sergey Sfiedu
          Sergey Sfiedu 9 October 2020 20: 10 New
          0
          "CPC 23-250 will be more effective, as it were ..." - hmm, hmm. Not only is the caliber less at the same rate of fire, the outboard gun is always inferior in firing accuracy to the built-in one, the more super-lightweight UPK-23-250, which was built under the Yak-38, wrote that its (installation) resource is two times less than at the cannon installed in it.
          1. Taoist
            Taoist 9 October 2020 20: 55 New
            0
            Well, how can the resource of the cannon container be less than the resource of the gun itself, I'm sorry I don’t know ... But I mentioned the CCP not as a "separate gun", namely in terms of the number of barrels and the probability of hitting when firing, for example, from 8 installations simultaneously ... (This is exactly how much you can hang Rook ... (By the way, who told you what the CCP was made for the Yak?) This is a "Universal Cannon Container" - almost all aircraft and helicopters were armed with it. You are confusing the CCP and VSPPU.
            And the caliber of the gun, if we are talking about the defeat of manpower, does not matter at all ...
            1. Sergey Sfiedu
              Sergey Sfiedu 9 October 2020 21: 01 New
              +1
              The Yankees also have hanging cannon containers. And you can hang them on the A-10 until ... But why? This is the level of the Vietnam War. Using cannons in the XNUMXst century is a crime against pilots.
              And yes - they wrote that the UPK-23-250 was created in the Yakovlev design bureau for the Yak-38, which is why they were lightened to the point of indecency. Can be used from all beam holders of the corresponding class, no problem, but this is an outdated weapon ..
              1. Taoist
                Taoist 9 October 2020 21: 17 New
                0
                You do not take into account what I replied to the post of a person who admired the power of Bolt's cannon in terms of "manpower" ... ;-) Hence the answer that the CCP is more effective in manpower ... I do not know who wrote to you that the CCP was created for Yakov, but this not so ... Another container was made for Yak. and the CPC was made exactly as "universal" (and long before Yak). Regarding the guns in general ... well, I would argue ... they have already tried to abandon them ... But the "anti-tank" gun on the plane is really the last century ... Unfortunately, it will definitely not work to replace the gun with the "bolt" .. ...
                1. Sergey Sfiedu
                  Sergey Sfiedu 9 October 2020 22: 02 New
                  +1
                  "Hence the answer that the CPC is more effective in manpower" - and "Minigans" and Volcanoes "against manpower, perhaps even more effective. GAU-8 built-in cannon, so equate it with the GSH-30-2, and hang it on Su-25, that on the A-10 you can do everything your heart desires.
                  "I don't know who wrote to you that the UPK was created for Yakov, but it is not so ..." - there was an article about the Yak-38, in the magazine "Aviation and Astronautics", there everything was written about the UPK-23-250. He flew with such settings. Already at the end of its career, another VSPU-38 cannon container, ventral, was created for the Yak-36, but it did not become widespread. The fact that the UPK-23-250 is universal does not negate the fact that it was created primarily for the Yak-38, and at the same time for all others, since the suspension assemblies are unified.
                  "Universal cannon container UPK-23-250" GRAU index - 9-A-681. Introduced into service in 1967 (?). Developer - OKB im. A.S. Yakovleva... In production since 1971. "
                  http://www.russianarms.ru/forum/index.php?topic=13070.0
                  “Unfortunately, it’s not possible to replace the cannon with the“ bolt ”..." Everyone has their own shortcomings, the Su-25 flies with antediluvian single-circuit turbojet engines .. Alas! But the cannon on board, as you correctly noted, is never superfluous. So, just in case.
                  1. Taoist
                    Taoist 9 October 2020 23: 12 New
                    0
                    You contradict yourself The adoption of the CPC earlier than according to Yak the decree came out about the beginning of the design ... It's not a bolt that was built around the gun to first make a container and then an attack aircraft for it ...
                    Well, thank God I did not teach Yaki from the articles in "AiK" ...
                    1. Sergey Sfiedu
                      Sergey Sfiedu 9 October 2020 23: 40 New
                      0
                      This is not me, but the site of Russianarms - I immediately raised the question that this is clearly a typo. And so, yes, already the third experienced Yak-38 tested the UPK-23-250.
                      "Well, thank God I did not teach Yaki from the articles in" AiK "..." Did you learn the history of creating a universal cannon container? Does it bother you that the Criminal Procedure Code was done by the aviation design bureau, which neither before nor after did such nonsense?
                      1. mmaxx
                        mmaxx 10 October 2020 05: 46 New
                        0
                        On the Yak-130, they also drank from this SNPU, until they brought it to some kind of mind in production.
                      2. mmaxx
                        mmaxx 10 October 2020 06: 03 New
                        0
                        Yes, this is how all aircraft design bureaus do. What is the difference between the cannon?
            2. mmaxx
              mmaxx 10 October 2020 05: 41 New
              0
              The cannon in the container is mounted on a harness. There is a backlash in any suspension. The impact on a relatively light container is large. Suspended components of the suspension and the aircraft also stagger. Shooting accuracy is much lower. Suspended units of the aircraft for the cannon are special. That is, an outboard gun is always extra weight on an airplane. Although small. And you can't put a lot of shells in a container.
    3. karpusha
      karpusha 9 October 2020 16: 24 New
      0
      It is a pity that you do not understand anything in this matter.
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 8 October 2020 21: 09 New
    +3
    The Il-102 was close to the A-10. The A-9 was even better, but in political terms it lost to the A-10.
    1. Elderly Raccoon
      Elderly Raccoon 8 October 2020 22: 49 New
      0
      Il-102 was close to A-10 ??? what ??)) ahahaha made me laugh)))
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 8 October 2020 23: 53 New
        -1
        He initially had a good assortment of controlled weapons. Plus they also wanted to add. But the plane didn't go.
        1. Valdaev
          Valdaev 9 October 2020 00: 17 New
          0
          Shooter, and in the USSR, for each aircraft was created its own range of weapons? The question is rhetorical. In the sense that sometimes it was, yes. Apparently, the party and the government knew that this was very effective, reasonable and economical.
          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 9 October 2020 00: 35 New
            -1
            To use a weapon, an airplane must have a sight capable of directing this weapon. If there is no sight, then the weapon cannot be used.
        2. Elderly Raccoon
          Elderly Raccoon 9 October 2020 18: 42 New
          0
          I wonder what weapon? what prevented it from being installed on the Su-25 together with a normal sighting system? these are all technologies in the style of "deshman plane / unguided weapons women still give birth to pilots"
          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 9 October 2020 19: 32 New
            0
            There was a division. Controlled from bombers. The stormtrooper storms uncontrollably. A10 by the way was originally exactly the same. The main weapon was a cannon. But we got our bearings very quickly. And ours dragged on for a long time. A container under the belly for all-angle target illumination with a laser was requested already in Afghanistan.
          2. mmaxx
            mmaxx 10 October 2020 06: 07 New
            0
            In general, this opinion is not without foundation. I think so myself. And the losses of all Americans and Israelis in comparison with ours speak of the same thing. They will say - ours are braver. But an American just doesn't have to go down to be a hero.
  • Sergey Sfiedu
    Sergey Sfiedu 8 October 2020 21: 10 New
    0
    I wonder what clever heads these stormtroopers came up with for the big war? After all, it is clear that in a space saturated with air defense means, they will not last long. On the other hand, they are great for dealing with barmals, which seemed to be a secondary task for the A-10 and Su-25.
    1. Valdaev
      Valdaev 9 October 2020 00: 19 New
      0
      Sergey, these planes were created half a century ago
      1. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 9 October 2020 20: 15 New
        0
        Half a century ago, both NATO and the USSR had very good air defense of the ground forces + a high saturation of fighters. I remember that in the monograph on the Su-25 by Ildar Bedretdinov, the opinion of the pilots who tested him was given - "A good plane. But not for the European theater of operations."
    2. Cympak
      Cympak 9 October 2020 00: 26 New
      0
      The entire third world has long been using turboprop TCBs of the "Super Tucano" and "Pilatus" type to fight the barmaley. It is much cheaper to operate than the overpowered jets of the Cold War era. But most likely, they will be replaced by UAVs
      1. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 9 October 2020 20: 25 New
        0
        Well, then the third world. And the "barmaley" sometimes arrange such squabbles that "excessive power" is needed. Neither the Super-Tucano nor the Pilatus will be able to carry as much weapons and stay in the air as much as the A-10, the UAV, and of course it is impressive in the Karabakh example.
  • Turist1996
    Turist1996 8 October 2020 21: 13 New
    -7
    There is no "battle": both are stormtroopers! One of them is "narrow-cut" (A-10), the other is of a more "wide profile" (Su-25). And that's it! Everything else can be seen from this: NATO - was going and is going to attack! (Aggressor), and the USSR-Russia - to defend!
    You don't need to know more!
    1. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 9 October 2020 20: 27 New
      0
      "One of them is" narrow-cut "(A-10), the other is of a" wider profile "(Su-25)" - how are the "narrow-cut" A-10 and "wide-profile" Su-25 manifested?
  • 113262a
    113262a 8 October 2020 21: 44 New
    +5
    The enthusiasm for our SU-25 is darkened by the war in the Donbass. Yes, from May to the end of June 14 these planes in the hands of Svidomo severely spoiled our blood. They flew in, hung up a CHANDELIER and, under its cover with NARs and bombs, picked positions. After saturation of the LDNR troops with MANPADS and other more decent devices, the death began. Moreover, two arrows were enough. Ukrainian pilots flew out on a mission in civilian life, because .... well, you know ... So now the attack aircraft is really only for nikosov air defense.
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 8 October 2020 22: 54 New
      -1
      It is good that the Svidomites flew on old stuff, and the qualifications of the pilots there, in general, are below the plinth (without a raid) - you cannot repulse an attack with arrows properly organized and covered by an air defense suppression group ...
      1. Avior
        Avior 8 October 2020 23: 32 New
        +4
        So for a point target, a group of attack aircraft is needed, they were too vulnerable for MANPADS
        And what about qualifications

        I would not say that there is no plaque below the baseboard.
        1. Taoist
          Taoist 9 October 2020 21: 05 New
          +1
          For a "show" you can always find a couple ... we are talking about reality. They have no plaque. More or less, they began to fly only after the start of the war ... and then they quickly stopped - the planes ran out. Well, and "vulnerability" - modern air defense is not a toy. A stormtrooper alone is not a fighter.
          1. Avior
            Avior 9 October 2020 23: 28 New
            +1
            There is no pair
            They quite often fly at low altitudes above the coastline in resort areas.
            For holidaymakers entertainment
            It is clear that the attack aircraft is a specific weapon
            And so you're right, it's bad with aviation in Ukraine
            On the other hand, it makes no sense for them to develop it, all the same, the Russian one will be much stronger
            I think the logical move for Ukraine is drones
            Although modern ones do not completely replace aircraft, there is a range of tasks in which they will be stronger.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Elderly Raccoon
    Elderly Raccoon 8 October 2020 22: 42 New
    0
    Yab, of course, was indignant at how you can compare a Lada with a Mercedes, but what's the point? they should have been compared earlier. now we need to talk about UAVs, which in developed countries completely ousted attack aircraft from the frontline in cases of turmoil
  • Revolver
    Revolver 8 October 2020 23: 20 New
    11
    On parole and on one wing, but still the A-10 returned to base.
    1. is-22
      is-22 9 October 2020 06: 26 New
      0
      in Iraq or Yugoslavia, the A-10 simply "lost" the damaged engine and returned. on the Su-25, if a rocket hits 1 engine, there will be a fire and will have to leave the plane.
      1. Cympak
        Cympak 9 October 2020 10: 44 New
        +1
        It depends on many factors. But the Su-25 has a great chance of returning to the airfield on one engine (which has been confirmed many times in practice). The Su-1's survivability system is very well thought out: an armored cabin, local armoring of engine nacelles, tanks with filler, a firewall between the engines. reinforced traction.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 9 October 2020 13: 56 New
        +1
        Quote: is-22
        on the Su-25, if a rocket hits 1 engine, there will be a fire and you will have to leave the plane.

        Not a fact.
  • is-22
    is-22 9 October 2020 06: 20 New
    -2
    for some reason our twin-engine planes fall as well as single-engine ones. Either the bird hit, then the problem with the power plant.
  • Sasha_rulevoy
    Sasha_rulevoy 9 October 2020 07: 48 New
    +4
    The maximum flight speed of the Rook is 950 km / h, cruising speed is 750 km / h. The maximum flight speed of the "Warthog" is noticeably lower - up to 720 km / h, and the cruising flight speed is only 560 km / h.


    For an attack aircraft, high speed is not an advantage, but a disadvantage. The American's flight range is twice as long, and the cruising speed is one and a half less, i.e. the time that he hangs over his army is three times higher. At low speed, the pilot has a better view of the battlefield.

    Just recently watching a film, Australia filmed an Australian infantry company being ambushed by a Viet Cong. The commander on the radio yells: Send assault helicopters to our aid. He, they say, has no combat-ready helicopters now, we will ask the Americans for help. The Americans say: we can distinguish two "Phantoms". Two Phantoms flew in, the pilots say: we can't see anything from above. They are told: drop bombs at the intersection. They dropped their bombs into an empty space and flew away.

    In the end, the Americans correctly took into account the Vietnamese experience.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Hermit21
    Hermit21 9 October 2020 08: 46 New
    -3
    But the tanks will not be good either, given that sub-caliber ammunition penetrates 1000 mm of armor from a distance of 38 meters at a meeting angle of 30 degrees. At the same time, the gun is also distinguished by high accuracy. From a distance of 1220 meters, 80 percent of the shells fired in a volley fall into a circle with a diameter of 12,4 meters.


    Yes, the shelling of a burnt T-62 showed the "efficiency" and "high accuracy" of this squalor. From 1-0,9 kilometers out of 100 shells 10 hit, of which about not the least penetrate the armor of modern Russian tanks. Confused by this fool
  • Comrade Kim
    Comrade Kim 9 October 2020 08: 49 New
    -1
    [quote = Clear] anyway our "Rook" is prettier than theirs "Warthog". True![/ Quote]
  • certero
    certero 9 October 2020 09: 47 New
    0
    Quote: Clear
    but still our "Rook" is more beautiful

    Comb - this is what the su25 was called at the beginning. It is very similar when it flies with full body kit
  • Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. 9 October 2020 10: 25 New
    +5
    Su-25 outright loses the A-10 in terms of power plants. On the first copies:
    Double-circuit TF34-GE-100F General Electric Engine dry weight, kg 645, thrust 4116 kgf, beats fuel consumption. 0,37
    single-circuit turbojet engine R-95SH Engine dry weight 990 kg, thrust 4100 kgf
    That is, in the power plant there is a total loss of 790 kg at once, and a loss in fuel efficiency.
    on the modernized Su-25T (TM) attack aircraft, more powerful turbojet engines R-195 (2х4300 kgf) were used.

    As an artillery platform, the A-10 is immeasurably more powerful and more effective.
    1. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 9 October 2020 20: 37 New
      +1
      Alas! We've always had problems with engines. If there was a good two-circuit engine of suitable thrust, it would be installed on the Su-25. Initially, they wanted to install the afterburner (!) Version of the AI-25, but as the aircraft's mass grew, it had to be abandoned. And I had to put what is. P-95 is a non-afterburner version of the well-known P13-300, developed almost as early as the 50s of the last century. The newest aircraft was equipped with a dense engine - a spent, reliable, but alas, heavy, "hot" and gluttonous. On the R-195, the exhaust temperature was reduced, but the problems with gluttony did not go away.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 9 October 2020 10: 48 New
    0
    Quote: Elderly Raccoon
    Il-102 was close to A-10 ???


    Su-25 - Combat load - 4340 kg on 8 (10) hardpoints, normal load - 1340 kg.
    A-10 - Combat load - normal - 5435 kg or a maximum of 7258 kg (or 6505 with PTB) on 11 hardpoints.
    IL-102 - Combat load - 7200 kg at 16 hardpoints (including 6 compartments in the wing for bombs up to 250 kg).
    A-9 - Combat load - 8350 kg on 10 hardpoints
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 9 October 2020 10: 49 New
    0
    Quote: is-22
    on the Su-25, if a rocket hits 1 engine, there will be a fire and you will have to leave the plane.


    In the conflict with Georgia, the Su-25s returned home on the same engine and immediately went for repairs and modernization.
  • Tusv
    Tusv 9 October 2020 11: 18 New
    -4
    What is there to compare. Wild Pig vs Noble Bird. In the hands of an experienced pilot NURS Tse Eight awesomely accurate cannon, and in the article there is not a word about it. The Striker column will be reduced to dust before using the standard gun
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 9 October 2020 13: 59 New
      0
      Quote: Tusv
      What is there to compare. Wild Pig vs Noble Bird. In the hands of an experienced pilot NURS Tse Eight awesomely accurate cannon, and in the article there is not a word about it. The Striker column will be reduced to dust before using the standard gun

      Everything would be fine, but there is one problem - to approach the Stryker convoy within the range of the NAR launch.
      1. Tusv
        Tusv 9 October 2020 15: 11 New
        0
        I am of course a Semi-Military. The flyers answering the request are called upon to protect. Kag bae is not my business But! at tse eight KVO 0,2 meters from three km. And what about the striker's tower skills in centimeters? Hel fire not to offer. From nevertheless ka bae smart
        1. Sergey Sfiedu
          Sergey Sfiedu 9 October 2020 20: 43 New
          +1
          "Hel fire not to offer. From all the same ka be smart" - why not offer? The choice of weapons is up to whoever uses the machines. The first "Helfires" were laser-guided, now self-guided. The most is against armored vehicles. The main armament of the opposite UAVs. Expensive, yes. But the cost of the plane and the life of the pilot are more expensive.
  • pmkemcity
    pmkemcity 9 October 2020 13: 07 New
    0
    Quote: ancient
    Pilot Captain Kim Campbell

    Yes, she's just a blonde and didn't notice any problems, by the way she sat in an iPhone laughing And a man in the morning goes out into the parking lot - Zaya, what's the matter?
  • Sedoy
    Sedoy 9 October 2020 13: 16 New
    0
    with the section of the task "attack aircraft" - "warthog" is undoubtedly better
    one of the main requirements for an attack aircraft is the ability to move at minimum speed near the ground without stalling and attack at any convenient moment (it is impossible to attack at high speed near the ground - the pilot simply will not consider the target)
    Su-25 - about 300 km / h
    claim that the minimum flight speed at the ground of the Su-25 is less
    I don’t know what it is for A-10, but its stall speed is 220 km / h
    and for the Su-25 - 200 km / h
    so, we can assume that if the Su-25 has a gain in this aspect, then it is insignificant
  • mmaxx
    mmaxx 9 October 2020 16: 05 New
    0
    In addition to the Tbilisi plant, the Su-25 was also manufactured at the Ulan-Ude Aviation Plant.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Growlers
    Growlers 9 October 2020 16: 21 New
    0
    The impression is that the article was not written by Russian .... or translated from somewhere clumsy ... and in general I saw stormtroopers only in YouTube. Oh yes, to call our "Scallop" some kind of comb it must be able to
  • AML
    AML 9 October 2020 20: 05 New
    0
    Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
    Su-25 outright loses the A-10 in terms of power plants. On the first copies:
    Double-circuit TF34-GE-100F General Electric Engine dry weight, kg 645, thrust 4116 kgf, beats fuel consumption. 0,37
    single-circuit turbojet engine R-95SH Engine dry weight 990 kg, thrust 4100 kgf
    That is, in the power plant there is a total loss of 790 kg at once, and a loss in fuel efficiency.
    on the modernized Su-25T (TM) attack aircraft, more powerful turbojet engines R-195 (2х4300 kgf) were used.

    As an artillery platform, the A-10 is immeasurably more powerful and more effective.


    You got lost somewhere in time. The Su-25 is already in the CM3 modification, and you are all writing about the T. Well, do not forget that Cy25 is stupidly smaller in size.
    1. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 9 October 2020 20: 46 New
      0
      Did they come up with something better on the CM3 than the P-195, created back in Soviet times? And if you work outside the air defense (and this is the only way to work in the 25st century), then the size does not matter. Well, the Su-12T was a very cool modification, it's a pity that it seems that only XNUMX pieces were released. Two cars were sold to Ethiopia, where they showed themselves excellently, one of the cars withstood a close explosion of the Kvadrat air defense missile system.
      1. AML
        AML 10 October 2020 00: 21 New
        0
        What does it mean to work outside the air defense? Su 25 attack aircraft. For this purpose, they added armor per ton of live weight to it and reserved everything that was possible. Then why not disband the infantry. They will also shoot at her.
        1. Sergey Sfiedu
          Sergey Sfiedu 10 October 2020 00: 34 New
          0
          The A-10 is also an attack aircraft. And it works as a medium-altitude guided weapon carrier. Do you want to scatter planes and the lives of pilots - send the Su-25 to attack, the old fashioned way. Women still give birth to soldiers, what is there, though the industry will not give new Su-25s yet.
          And yes, the soldiers are sent into battle according to the rules when aviation and artillery work on the enemy, under the cover of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles.
  • AML
    AML 10 October 2020 01: 20 New
    0
    Quote: Sergey Sfyedu

    And yes, the soldiers are sent into battle according to the rules when aviation and artillery work on the enemy, under the cover of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles.


    Yes, and the war is fought by the rules. from 9 am to 12 pm, fighting, then lunch, then again a little thousand pysch, then dinner, and then a quiet hour.
    Do you also drive a car in strict accordance with traffic rules? Or is it different?
    1. Revolver
      Revolver 10 October 2020 06: 17 New
      0
      Quote: AML
      Yes, and the war is fought by the rules. from 9 am to 12 pm, fighting, then lunch, then again a little thousand pysch, then dinner, and then a quiet hour.

      War is war, and lunch is scheduled. lol
      Seriously, I happened to read the memoirs of veterans that in places during periods of calm with the Germans there was not so much an agreement, but a kind of mutual understanding, we do not shoot when they have lunch, they do not shoot when we have.
    2. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 10 October 2020 16: 02 New
      0
      "Yes, and the war is fought by the rules." - yes, and these rules are written in blood. You can, of course, send soldiers with a rusty saber against tanks, but if you have modern ATGMs, cannons, tanks and aircraft, fighting with a rusty saber is stupid.
      1. AML
        AML 10 October 2020 16: 53 New
        0
        Oh damn, we have already rolled down to the rusty sabers. I propose to bang a vigorous loaf. The women said that it was lazy for them to give birth, and we have a lot of loaves. And to the heap we will tear off a couple of aspirated ones, so that we will surely nail the UAV to the ground. UAVs will not fly, (long logical chain) this is the end of the war. Cheers cheers.

        The cynics win the war. And optimists will either become realists or quickly find their two square meters.
        1. Sergey Sfiedu
          Sergey Sfiedu 11 October 2020 07: 03 New
          0
          Good about vigorous loaves. But because of a dirty kishlak somewhere in Syria or Karabakh, there is no reason to tear a loaf of vigor. The Azerbaijanis clearly showed the Armenians what happens to those who neglect (or who have no money) for modern weapons.
  • karpusha
    karpusha 11 October 2020 23: 53 New
    0
    At the time of their appearance, these were approximately equal aircraft. But now the A10 in modification C is significantly superior to the last modifications of the su25. A more advanced target designation and convergence system, the presence of missiles of the system let and forget, integration with a unified information system of the battlefield. Well, and most importantly, there are more than 10 A200C units in service.