Meet Su-25 – Russia’s ‘Most Effective’ Aircraft Employed In Syrian War

It was a map reading exercise if my memory is correct :)

Land navigation, the way to get around before GPS. I also did this.
But if you take away a persons up link , they may be in big trouble. :)

I used to teach map reading :)
In fact I still use paper maps now, even if I use a satnav. Satnavs do not always take the best route and in wild country paper maps make the brain work as well :)

I once went for a 20 km+ loop adventure. The trail degraded into landslide areas , and had to navigate up to mountain saddle using terrain map. Ran out of daylight, had to make fire against wind break to stay warm. But when daylight hit I was less than 4 meters from the trail home !! I thought it was the worst of times early in journey, but was best of times when I got up (perhaps shivering) and saw the trail home. :)

Yes, its far wiser to hunker down for the night that wander over a cliff :)

OH right, moving on !!.

And the A10 and SU25 cant get shot down? Sorry but no the SU25 was the only aircraft shot down by the terrorists and let me not start on how many A10’s the US lost in Iraq form enemy fire.
Attack helicopters dont need big payloads they can destroy targets from a stand off range while CAS aircraft need to get in close and cant hover at standoff range.
Also smart bombs are not just GPS/GLONASS guided they can also be laser or internaly guided to their targets.

CAS aircraft can take casualties since they are on the scene of the battle, doing the hard and dirty work instead of a standoff role aircraft firing missiles.
The modernized Suk 25 will have features that enhances its survivability in a CAS role, its EW countermeasures and flying over 5000 meters would ensure safety and still enable it to hit targets effectively. The A10 gun is not effective from that height, so it has to fly lower to straf tanks.

Helicopters are slower, have limited range, maneuverability and whatever standoff weapons they carry will have limited range and explosive power. Pantsir on Tor ( have developed missiles that have ranges of 40kms) air defense systems augmenting ground forces would make quick work of the helicopter gunships; 100 Apache gunships firing Hellfire missiles from 10kms would be viable targets for a Pantsir SM firing its missiles with a 40 kms range

So you will just be left with a SU24…since they can do the exact same thing as a modernized SU25 can only you dont need to overhaul the aircraft.
You forgot to mention helicopters can use terrein to hide from AA attacks unlike CAS aircraft.
Also no they do not have limited range most modern attack helicopters can carry long range standoff weapons just like fixed wing aircrft.

Also that goes the same way for aircraft you do realise that right?

Suk 25 can be used in antitank mode utilizing the 30MM gun, Suk 25 does not have that capability; yes, helicopters can fly low hugging the ground, however the curvature of the earth does not help them much as they are used in gunship mode.
An Apache helicopter has a range of 300 miles, A10 comes at combat loaded miles.

30mm is useless vs tanks you need to hit the rear engine deach of a tank to penetrate it…like i said they are useless.

You hit the top of the turret or hull.

it wont ever penetrate at any range 30mm is to weak

That is your opinion, turret armour is between 20-30MM, 30MM armour piercing canons can penetrate that armour easily at 2000 meters on a flat trajectory.

….ummm no its not my opinion its fact old cast turrets hve 50 to 70mm of top armor while modern T90A welded turrets have even more.
Only the M1 and Challanger 2 have weak turret roofs.
Also if the top turret armor is so weak why dose the A10 manual of arms state in order to kill a T62 with the 30mm you need to be at less then 2000m (and less then 2500m is considered a suecide zone) and aim for the engine dech at as flat of a angle as possible since 30mm APDS round are hose shit at penetrateing angled armor.

Produce some legit info in regards to 50-70 MM top turret armour for Russian tanks…..if the top is that thick how thick are the front and sides?
Flying under 2000 meter is dangerous, however, the aircraft afforded the pilot good protection because of a titanium tub that enclosed the cockpit, the engine arrangement was masked reducing it heat signature. There is no angled armour on top of the tank, turret included, here are some statistics of how the 30MM round performed:

Precision: 80% of rounds fired at 4,000 feet (1,200 m) range hit within a 40-foot (12 m) diameter circle
Ammo:
PGU-14/B API Armor Piercing Incendiary (DU)
PGU-13/B HEI High explosive incendiary
PGU-15/B TP Target Practice
Armor penetration of Armor-Piercing Incendiary ammunition, BHN-300 RHA, attack angle 30 degrees from vertical:[21]
76mm at 300 meters
69mm at 600 meters
64mm at 800 meters
59mm at 1,000 meters
55mm at 1,220 meters

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhgrCNiWRPFtiBbXA_Pn7uxkhEzee41pH-3R_e9FFHYq_dHWaj
that is a minimum of 50mm thick (and thats a T72A the B has even thicker top armor and dont get me started on the T90A)
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tjMel6d-P9g/VmbwlU0wxbI/AAAAAAAAEzY/sm6WKbQFkc0/s640/t-62%2Bcommanders%2Bstation.jpg T62’s top armor

Also 2000m the aricraft will be shreded by AA fire,who gives a shit about the pilot protection when the rest of the aircraft will be blow apart in seconds by cannon and missile fire also even if the top was 20mm you need to hit it at at angle of attack of 60 degrees that is diveing on your target…you will get shreded also no you cant mask the heat form the engines why do you think so many A-10’s and SU-25’s have been shot down by heat seaking missiles?

Also no shit their is not but your angle of attack makes it sloped at a extreme unless you are right above your target and good luck doing that with airdefenses in place.

“””that is a minimum of 50mm thick (and thats a T72A the B has even thicker top armor and dont get me started on the T90A) ”””

The armour of glacis and cheeks of the turret are 350-400MM, the sides are 80MM and the rear is 40MM, therefore it is reasonable to conclude the top armour is in the vecinity of 20-30MM. The picture you sent showing the commanders cupola, the width of circumference of the ring is not indicative of the armour thickness.

“””Also 2000m the aricraft will be shreded by AA fire,who gives a shit about the pilot protection when the rest of the aircraft will be blow apart in seconds by cannon and missile fire also even if the top was 20mm you need to hit it at at angle of attack of 60 degrees that is diveing on your target…”””

A10 was designed to withstand severe punishment, it could fly on one engine, one wing, the titanium tub protected the pilot from up to 23MM ground fire, flying low to the ground gave it advantage of surprise, especially if the terrain was contorted, during the Desert storm campaign in 91, there were 6 lost aircraft, in context of 6 Harrier losses, 6 A-6, 3 F16 and 2 F15.
The A10’s were credited with killing 900 tanks and close to 2000 other vehicles.

“””Also no shit their is not but your angle of attack makes it sloped at a extreme unless you are right above your target and good luck doing that with airdefenses in place.”””

A10’s were supposed to overfly tank columns at low altitude and straf them, the inherent danger of air defenses at the time were taken into account when the plane was designed and built.

the sides are around 100 to 120mm not 80 while the rear is about maybe 80 the actual thikness is unknown. And i can say for shure the top is at least 70mm https://houseofqueeg.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/ref-t90a-24.jpg look at the commanders hatch as well as the gunner’s i rest my case.

“A10 was designed to withstand severe punishment, it could fly on one engine, one wing, the titanium tub protected the pilot from up to 23MM ground fire, flying low to the ground gave it advantage of surprise, especially if the terrain was contorted, during the Desert storm campaign in 91, there were 6 lost aircraft, in context of 6 Harrier losses, 6 A-6, 3 F16 and 2 F15.
The A10’s were credited with killing 900 tanks and close to 2000 other vehicles.”

Did you reallu just claim a A-10 can fly with one wing? are you retarded? A-10’s will get shreded at less then 2000m away not just by cannon but also missiles it will get torn apart in seconds. If a single Igla-1 can shoot a A-10 down what makes you think 30mm cannon wont?
Also terrain wont save you if the enemy has good air defenses
And tha fact the US lost 6 A-10’s to Iraq witch berly had any AA is testement to that.

Compare apples with apples, A10 was designed to deal with the air defenses prevalent in the 70’s, with modernization and improved avionics and EW it could deal with present day dangers, most likely fire salvoes of Hellfire missiles to soften up targets and then go in for the strafing run.

“””And tha fact the US lost 6 A-10’s to Iraq witch berly had any AA is testement to that.”””

I disagree, maybe their missile air defenses were not the best, however, they had ample 23MM caliber and higher weaponry that could inflict damage to helicopters and low flying planes.

1.No it cant their are no reliable countermeshures for modern air defenses
2.Modern airdefenses like the Pansir can shoot down incoming missiles as well so idk how useful that will be.
3.No they did not the Iraqis did not use anti air weapons to great effect they simply did not have them most of their Shilkas did not even have propperly working radars.

“””No they did not the Iraqis did not use anti air weapons to great effect they simply did not have them most of their Shilkas did not even have propperly working radars.””

On the battlefield, under attack you can make visual contact with the A10 and and fire at the target you see…..if the radars do not work properly.
12.7 MM on tanks can lay down some good fire by visual observation.

“””2.Modern airdefenses like the Pansir can shoot down incoming missiles as well so idk how useful that will be.”””

The multiband sensor system guiding the Pantsir missile could be jammed using effective EW, Russian EW make aircraft invisible to known radars, I am not sure if US can come up with the technology for that.

12.7mm rouds had truble shooting down WW2 era prop planes made of wood let alone a aircraft like a A-10. + radar guided guns are far more accurate then manually operated ones thus you can score hits mutch better but even so 12.7mm is useless vs any aircraft particularly ground based since they do not have a high rait of fire needed to score multipule hits on a high speed target.

No it cant the Panstri has also a passive IR mode in the seaker its not a pure radar guided missie
EW dosent make a aircraft invisible to a radar the radar can still see it but the it confuses its fire control computer with extra radiation from the EW pods.

“””12.7mm rouds had truble shooting down WW2 era prop planes made of wood let alone a aircraft like a A-10.””” Can you cite where such a thing accrued during WW2.
And besides, a modern day 12.7 MM shoots 13 rounds a second, maybe A10’s armour can protect it from such caliber shells, the point is, this is how aircraft were shot down during WW2 without the use of radar guided guns.

“””No it cant the Panstri has also a passive IR mode in the seaker its not a pure radar guided missie””” You need to look at the matter more diligently, it is radar guided because it cost efficient.

EW confuses enemy radar by creating clutter, that is how a Suk 35 got close to a F22 and turned behind it. The F22 radar did not register the Suk 35 presence.

13 rounds a second is not even close to the requiered imount the gau-21A has a 1200rpm /20 rounds a second rait of fire and it was still considered in suffichent why do you think even the single barrel 30mm GSH-30-1 has a minimum rait of fire of 1500 rounds a minute?
Also ofc the Panstir has a dual IR and radar sekker the Pansir launcher has a thermal imager to help the missile aquier its target if the radar is ether jammed or out of commision.

Pantsir does not have an IRST based on latest documentation…..read this
“””Design and protection
Pantsir-S1 carries up to twelve 57E6 or 57E6-E two-stage solid fuel radio-command-guided surface-to-air missiles in sealed ready-to-launch containers. Missiles are arranged into two six-tube groups on the turret. The missile has a bicalibre body in tandem configuration. The first stage is a booster, providing rapid acceleration within the first 2 second of flight, after it is separated from the sustainer-stage. The sustainer is the highly agile part of the missile and contains the high explosive multiple continuous rod and fragmentation warhead, contact and proximity fuses as also radio transponder and laser responder to be localised for guidance. The missile is not fitted with seeker to keep target engagement costs low. Instead high-precision target and missile tracking is provided via the systems multiband sensor system and guidance data is submitted via radio link for up to four missiles in flight. Missiles can be fired in at up to four targets but also salvos of two missiles at one target. Missile is believed to have a hit probability of 70-95% and have a 15 year storage lifetime in its sealed containers. Pantsir-S1 combat vehicles can fire missiles on the move.”””

“””The A-10 is exceptionally tough, being able to survive direct hits from armor-piercing and high-explosive projectiles up to 23 mm. It has double-redundant hydraulic flight systems, and a mechanical system as a back up if hydraulics are lost. Flight without hydraulic power uses the manual reversion control system; pitch and yaw control engages automatically, roll control is pilot-selected. In manual reversion mode, the A-10 is sufficiently controllable under favorable conditions to return to base, though control forces are greater than normal. The aircraft is designed to be able to fly with one engine, one half of the tail, one elevator, and half of a wing missing.[62]

Can you name any helicopter that can do that?

Mi-24 Mi-28 KA-52 Mi-35 and AH-64 all of them have back up systems same as the A-10 and all of them can survive 23mm cannon fire the Mi-28 can even sustain 30mm fire.

They do not measure up to A10 or Suk 25, considering mass, velocity and firepower.

Mass? You mean weight? well no shit they dont the SU25 and A-10 are mutch larger then a normal heli but even that they are not that much heavyer then a Mi-28 the Mi-28 weighs 7890kg empty the SU25 is 9800kg and the A-10 is 11.321kg. while the Mi24 is 8500kg…sooo yea speed wise they are faster ofc they are fixed wing aircraft but fire power wise i dont really see a advantage all modern attack helis can carry the same type of weapons as the A-10 and SU25 the only things they have over helis are their now useless 30mm cannons.

All modern attack helicopters carry limited payloads with limited armaments that do not have a reach beyond 10kms. A10 can carry Maverick with a range of over 20 kms and tons of bombs, while Suk 25 can carry an assortment of air to ground missile with much heavier warheads than helicopter counterparts, anti radiation and air to air missiles and bombs. The Suk 25 can turn at 6.5 g, and uses speed to outperform any attack helicopter.

limited to 10km? Really? then how come the KA-52 and Mi28 both can carry all Kh-25 variants? the KH-25MTP has a range of 20km while the MP variant has a range of 60km. Also helicopters can also carry air to air missiles the AH-64 can carry all side winder variants hile all Russian helis can carry all R60 and R73 variants.
Also what good is speed when you have a air to air or air to ground missile witch can pull 20+G and goes at mach 3 comeing at you?.

I did not look at the MP version, so, helicopters carry short range air to air missiles, aircraft flying at a higher level sing IRST can nip them like flies, CAS aircraft carry significant bomb loads compared to helicopters, helicopter’s short range necessitates them being close to the front line subsequently prone to indirect attacks. CAS aircraft because of their longer range can be deployed a couple of hundred miles behind the front lines.
You have a conflict like Vietnam, the use of helicopters was appropriate, if you have a fast pace Barbarossa type of war helicopters would be rather ineffective.

i give up fine you win keep on worshiping your cold war era titanium coffins.

Insurgency wars and peer wars are different, peer wars are brutal with heavy punches and significant firepower employment, fluid development of front lines caused by breakthroughs, insurgency contingencies are of little value against a peer adversary in a hot war. In a hot war, helicopter gunships are mere pea shooters in view of very capable antiaircraft defenses, they are useful in cleaning up over ran positions or surrounded pockets

In Afghanistan Russian losses of Suk 25 amounted to 25 aircraft of which 9 were destroyed on the ground within 1980 – 1989 time period flying 60,000 sorties against Mujahideens that we’re equipped with Stinger manpads

Stingers are not known for their good hit ratio.

Regardless, 60,000 sorties for the loss of 16 aircraft comes to 3750 sorties per loss.

“SU-34 is “upgrade” of SU-27 design not SU-24 design.”

WRONG!
VERY WRONG!

Its the replacement aircraft!!!!!
The SU-24 is a 2 seater bomber!
So is the SU-34

However, its design is based on the SU-27 family because of its larger airframe and ability to also act as a air fighter but mainly to escape and evade air fighters! Survivability aspect!

the upgrade for the SU-27 is the SU-30 and SU-35!

“So it is (comparing to SU-24 and SU-35) true multi-role aircraft capable to replace BOTH airplanes in way….”

WRONG!!!

SU-34 will never replace the SU-35! have u even looked at their designs?
SU-34 replace ONLY the SU-24 and wont so much need a wingman protective fighter by its side!

SU-35 replaces SU-27!
SU-30 is mutli-role!

Get with the program! u need to read more!

No point talking to you and you go berserk for your reading problems only.
You didn’t read carefully and you twist my words.
SU-34 is BASED on SU-27 general DESIGN not on SU-24 DESIGN just look at the fucking jet and compare shape!
I never said that SU-34 is “air superiority” multi-role fighter bomber.
And where did I say “SU-34 will replace the SU-35”?!?
SU-34 has multi-role “fighter” aspect that SU-24 does NOT have! So they are not exact the same category!

AGAIN
SU-34 is “medium-range fighter-bomber/strike aircraft” and
SU-35 is different category! So read first!
SU-24 can’t defend itself like SU-34 do you get that?!?

Wrong again.
Not only “SU-30 is mutli-role” all newer SU models THEY ARE ALL “mutli-role” including SU-34, SU-35 & SU-57!

Wrong!
SU-35 replaces all SU-27,SU-30 (not only SU-27) at the end there will be only SU-35 and SU-57 left!
Only SU-57 can replace SU-35…. one day in distant future.

You are wrong again
PAK-DA replaces TU-95 and SU-24 only!!!!
(There you have no clue about Russian plans) Upgraded
TU-160M2 will stay for VERY long time and PAK-DA will NOT be supersonic (like TU-160) but subsonic stealth bomber and has nothing to do with “replacing” TU-160 !

Wrong!
SU-57 is NOT (tactical fighter) but true MULTI-role air superiority fighter!
Accent on “air superiority fighter” because even though
true multi-role SU-57 has “air superiority” as the most pronounced feature thus “supermaneuverability” as one of his best qualities.
And true multi-role because that jet does literally everything (compering to F-22 and F-35 for example)

STOP reading “National Interest” and “War is Boring” if you want to lecture on RUSSIAN jets !

PAK-DA: “Russian Major General Anatoly Zhikharev stated that the new bomber would replace both the turboprop-powered Tupolev Tu-95 and the supersonic Tupolev Tu-160”

BOTH STRATEGIC BOMBERS!!!!

“It is impossible to build a missile-carrying bomber invisible to radars and supersonic at the same time. This is why focus is placed on stealth capabilities”

So Russia will have Stealth Strategic Bombers and Supersonic strategic bombers!

Also Stealth Negates the need for speed (you idiot)! THINK!!!!!!

Do u know what Tactical means??
Do u know what Strategic means??

SU-57 is a TACTICAL fighter! How do u not understand this????

PAK-DA DOES NOT replace the SU-24 u absolute DUMB human being!
The SU-34 replaces the SU-24 (conventional bomber)

Jesus fucking christ how stupid are u??

PAK-DA replaces TU-160 and TU-95 but they are keeping and upgrading the TU-160!

USA has the B1 the B2 and the B-52 (all strategic)
B1 Supersonic
B2 Stealth
B-52 subsonic, long distance

Russia
TU-160 Supersonic
Pak-Da Stealth
TU-95 subsonic long distance!

Dont be stupid and say the Pak-da replaces the SU-24!
Do u realise u have exposed how dumb u are?

How does a STRATEGIC bomber replace a conventional Bomber???

SU-30 is multi-role equiv to F-15
SU-27 is air superior Equiv to F-16 and Mig-29
Su-35 Is air superior Eqiv to F-16 and Mig-29 and Mig-35
Su-34 is Equiv to land version of FA-18 super hornets (2 passengers)

What is upgrade for SU-24? (the SU-34)
Upgrade for SU-27? The SU-35
SU-30 is not an upgrade to su-27 because its more multi-role and made for export!

Also, SU-57 is a tactical fighteR BECAUSE IT’S A “FIRST STRIKE” WEAPON!

Conventional weapons fight in GENERAL war and they are mass made!
Tactical weapons are first strike weapons which pave the way for conventional weapons (can carry nuclear or conventional weapons and usually carry tactical weapons)
Strategic weapons are for intercontinental attacks! (Nuclear strike or to take out strategic targets in other countries)!

“The Lockheed team was awarded the contract to develop and build the Advanced Tactical Fighter in August 1991. The YF-22 was modified into the production F-22 Raptor version”

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5d69604eaa09de44db8b39605cef36d83b3c81d385e8255efa65a4bf887cc82c.png

like i said “TACTICAL” you dont know jack shit!!!!!!

You are IDIOT and lunatic
I will not waste my time with you imbecile!

TU-160M2 is not EVEN BUILT YET and you talking of REPLACING IT?!?
TU-160M2 will be completely new from inside and TU-160 only from outside!…
It is like talking of replacing SU-35 which still has very long time to go!
Of course that PAK-DA will exist after TU-160M2 because much newer model !! SU-57 also will !
PAK-DA WILL NOT BE SUPERSONIC therefore PAK-DA does not have role of replacing TU-160M2 only SU-24 as tactical bomber and TU-95 strategic bomber will be replaced by PAK-DA!!!
So you got your Google translation of Russian general probably very wrong.

Well SU-57, F-22, F-35 are ALL SUPERSONIC and “invisible” to the radars you moron ! Radar has NOTHING to do with SUPERSONIC infra red sensors does !!!

Upgrade for SU-27 is SU-30 and SU-35 in which SU-35 covers better “air-superiority” feature in multi-role.

NO SHIT !!?!! “TU-95 ” turbo prop is “subsonic” HA,HA ,HA how did you get that Einstain?!
And you have also discover that LONG RANGE STRATEGIC bomber travels ” long distance” ? HA,HA,HA BRAVO you are so smart!!
——————-
“Su-34 is Equiv to land version of FA-18 super hornets (2 passengers)”
—————————
NO IT IS NOT ! I have said multiple times what is definition of SU-34 and I will not repeat it any more!
(“2 passengers”)- it is called PILOT’S Einstein!
MANY – Sukhoi jets are 2 seater’s and putting the jets in the same category only because they have 2 seats is plain stupid!
Some models of jets are built for 2 pilots simply to do the TRAINING of the pilot’s and some (like SU-30) with the purpose of the mission.
—————–
Also, SU-57 is a tactical fighteR BECAUSE IT’S A “FIRST STRIKE” WEAPON!
—————–
NO it is not !”Tactical fighter” is your Western bullshit !!
No such distinct role for the MULTI-role jet and no such strategy in Russia that has only DEFENSIVE strategy ! NO “FIRST STRIKE” WEAPON not even with the NUKES !

“First Strike” RESPONSE weapons will be Avangard and Kinzhal, Iskander and Bastion, Bal, Onix, Kalibre, S-300,S-350,S-400, S-500, BUK M3, etc missiles against NATO or anybody who is mad enough to conventionally attack Russia.

I will repeat for the last time :
SU-57 is TRUE multi-role “air superiority” fighter jet built to fight against “air superiority” fighter jets like F-22 or Euro-fighter among other things.
SU-57 being TRUE multi-role does ALL other aspects of combat as well.
And now kindly f*ck off !

I SAID: “Also, SU-57 is a tactical fighteR BECAUSE IT’S A “FIRST STRIKE” WEAPON!

YOU SAID: NO it is not !”Tactical fighter” is your Western bullshit !!”

My Response: EXPLAIN THIS PICTURE YOU DUMB CUNT!!!! EXPLAIN IT!!!!!

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7241e4de838af13acd00097c6c40826835697de60bd559cf074436504134f761.png

you said . “TU-160M2 is not EVEN BUILT YET and you talking of REPLACING IT?!?”
my response: I…. FUCKING…… SAID……THAT……THE….PAK-DA…..REPLACES…… THE…..TU-95—-AND…….TU-160…… ALTHOUGH…..THEY….ARE….KEEPING…..THE…… TU160….AND…..UPGRADING….IT…. SO…. THEY…..HAVE……A…….SUPERSONIC…….AND…….STEALTH…….STRATEGIC…….BOMBERS!!!!! (ALSO THEY ARE KEEPING THE TU-95)

RE. PAK-DA : “On 27 August 2012, Jane’s Defence reported that Dmitry Rogozin had recently called for the bomber to be capable of hypersonic speed in order to match and better the air defenses of the United States. It is unclear whether Rogozin’s comments refer to the bomber being hypersonic or to its ability to carry hypersonic air-launched missiles.

In March 2013, it was reported that the selected PAK DA design would be a subsonic flying wing.[15] In order to maintain affordability, the PAK DA will be a less ambitious project than the Northrop Grumman B-21”

“Russian Major General Anatoly Zhikharev stated that the new bomber would replace both the turboprop-powered Tupolev Tu-95 and the supersonic Tupolev Tu-160.”

SU-34 Replaces SU-24 yet they still keep and upgrade su-24!

USA upgrades their planes too even though they bring in NEW tech replacements!

FUCK YOU !
I WILL NOT READ YOU CRAP ANY MORE !

FROM THE SUKHOI WEBSITE YOU DUMB CUNT!!!!

TACTICAL YOU DUMB CUNT!!!!
T.A.C.T.I.C.A.L…………. YOU DUMB CUNT!!!!
A
C
T
I
C
A
L . YOU DUMB CUNT!
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7241e4de838af13acd00097c6c40826835697de60bd559cf074436504134f761.png

YOUR DUMB ASS SAID :”NO it is not !”Tactical fighter” is your Western bullshit !!”

SUKHOI WEBSITE IS “WESTERN”???

WHO IS THE DUMB CUNT WHO THINKS THE PAK-DA WILL REPLACE THE SU-24???

YOU ARE THE DUMBEST CUNT ON THIS SITE!!!
THE DUMBEST!!!!!!!!!!!

I SCREEN SHOT ALL YOUR COMMENTS TO PROVE THIS TO EVERYONE!

EVERYONE!!!!!

So what if “TACTICAL” you fucking MORON SU-57 is AIR SUPERIORITY fighter above all!
ALL THOSE NEW JETS ARE MULTI-ROLE nad SU-57 more than any other and one can call them many names including “tactical”!!!

Do you know AT ALL ANY RUSSIAN BOMBER that is NOT “TWO SEAT BOMBER” ?!!! HA, HA,HA,!

YOU FUCKING IDIOT !!!!!!!!

YOU QUOTED ME: Do you know AT ALL ANY RUSSIAN BOMBER that is NOT “TWO SEAT BOMBER” ?!!! HA, HA,HA,!”

MY RESPONSE: you misquoted me u lying piece of shit! i said “Show me another 2 seater bomber aircraft in russia? 2 seats = pilot plus bomber!”

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bb84a6fc9612611b8125eb3d2eb24bba3def07d3381fd1ca3cfc2336a5da39c9.png

The reason i state this is to illustrate that the SU-34 is a replacement (complete replacement) of the SU-24 OF WHICH YOU DISAGREED!!
You said “not exactly so” because u THINK its a SU-27 design! (Which is agreed) picture below proves this! https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1941f51c6532e3dc5774d651a5e0b591eaaf305d89d5ea2da8507462e76fa12f.png

But for some STUPID reason u seem to think the S-34 is replacement for BOTH the SU-24 and the SU-35 for which i EDUCATED you as not correct!
The SU-34 does not replace the role of the SU-35! It just gives the SU-34 BOMBER more capabilities to defend and escape!

Example: USA send F-15 AND F-16’s to bomb SAA in DeZ!
Why not just send F-15’s????
Because if F-15 is intercepted by SU-35 or SU-27 then the mission can fail!

Example 2.
If Russia does same mission, they send SU-34 and SU-35!
If they send only SU-34 then how will they complete mission if they are intercepted by F-16???

DOES YOUR DUMB ASS UNDERSTAND???????///???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

YOU SAID: THE PAK-DA REPLACES THE SU-24!
YOU SAID THIS!!!!
This comment proves everything!!! this comment on its own proves u are the dumbest person on this site!!

I said: the pak-da replaces the TU-160 and the TU-95 (even tho they are keeping and upgrading the tu-160 and the tu-95)

I fucking said that from the very start!!!!! but u dont read!!!
u saw a quote i sent from wikipedia of a general saying it replaces the TU-95 and tu-160 because YOUR DUMB ASS ASSUMES IT REPLACES THE SU-24~

Example again for your dumb ass!

USA: (strategic bombers)
B-52 subsonic long range
B-1 Super sonic
b-2 Stealth and Subsonic (most modern and COULD replace all)

Russia: (strategic bombers)
Tu-95 subsonic long range
Tu-160 super sonic
Pak-Da stealth and subsonic (most modern and could replace all)

You said ” pak-da replaces tu-95 and su-34 only”

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/af2d5ca9be8e434300b4b450233510a510e45808bd3bc732ade7f0d2484ae7bc.png

i have some questions for this very dumb comment u made here:

1. HOW does the pak-da replace the SU-24???? Explain this to me please
2. They are not replacing the Tu-95 , they are upgrading it and keeping it like they are also doing to the Tu-160! But since the Tu-95 is a old subsonic STRATEGIC aircraft its still an OK statement to make!! But if they are upgrading the Tu-95 and keeping it, and they are upgrading the Tu-160 and keeping (like i fucking said) then why not mention the Tu-160 as well??

i QUOTED Wikipedia Russian General saying “the Pak-da will replace the Tu-95 and the Tu-160” because:
1. to prove it dooesnt replace the SU-24 (u idiot)
2. because the pak-da is the upgraded version that was CONSIDERED AT THE TIME to be Supersonic!!!!!

Where in the FUCK do u get the thought that the Pak-da replaces the SU-24?? What drugs are u on??

YOU are LYING piece of shit YOU FUCKING MORON
YOU KEEP CHANGING YOU OWN WORDS ALL THE TIME !
FUCK YOU IMBECILE !

i show u direct quotes for which u can copy and paste and do a page search!

i also supply you with screen shots to prove what u have said and what i have said!

i also provided you VISUAL PROOF of my facts and how wrong u are!

You are dumb!
you are a coward who cant admit he is wrong!
u are a person who thinks that the Pak-da is a replacement for the SU-24 (along with the Tu-95)
u are a person who THINKS the SU-57 is NOT a tactical fighter even though the Sukhoi website states this!
u are a person who then ADMITS the sukhoi IS a tactical fighter after i proved it and u did not even appologise!

your dumb ass actually said “So what if “TACTICAL” you fucking MORON SU-57 is AIR SUPERIORITY fighter above all!”

yet before i proved ur stupidity, u said this” NO it is not !”Tactical fighter” is your Western bullshit !!”

This PROVES that you are a liar!
that u are DUMB!
and i have screen shots to prove it!

now what will u do???
i KNOW you are dumb!!!!
i dont THINK u are dumb!
I KNOW U ARE DUMB!

but now u need to choose 1 of 2 things
1. Admit u are a dumb, lying sack of shit
OR
2. Delete your comments, pretend u didnt say these things, tell me that u will “not read my comments anymore”

Which one will u choose??

Remember… i have screen shots! i can prove all!!!!!!

i caught u! u fucking dumb rat!!!!
i got u!!!

WHY…. ARE…. YOU…..SO…..DUMB???

“TACTICAL”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a9b7f5afae2e2ab5828be13313f144bfafc5a8a2480c27c0ddc841136ee8c395.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c607f8f8131a5a7a3819f07a7e458881621768e20f9176b3a64addfca2699987.png

WOW you have discovered Sukhoi site!
BRAVO MORON!

Why did u say??:
1: “NO it is not !”Tactical fighter” is your Western bullshit !!”

Then u said :
2: “So what if “TACTICAL” you fucking MORON SU-57 is AIR SUPERIORITY fighter above all!”

Then u said:
3: “WOW you have discovered Sukhoi site!”

These are all contradicting statements u make here!
u challenge me that the SU-57 is not a tactical fighter when i said it was!
Then u say if i read this somewhere that it must be from a “Western bullshit site”
i then showed u its from the Sukhoi Website and its called a “tactical fighter”
but then u say sarcastically “Bravo moron”

if i was correct and you were incorrect then why would u call me a “moron”?

Wouldnt that make u the moron since i showed u i was correct and that u are dumb??

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7241e4de838af13acd00097c6c40826835697de60bd559cf074436504134f761.png

Then you said “FUCK YOU !
I WILL NOT READ YOU CRAP ANY MORE !”

is this because i proved how dumb u are and now u are embarrassed to debate me??

Why cant u just admit that u dont know JACK SHIT and that u are a DUMB CUNT!!!

SCREEN SHOT BITCH!!!!!!

:)

YOU SAID : “FUCK YOU !I WILL NOT READ YOU CRAP ANY MORE !”
I SAY: ITS BECAUSE YOU WERE PROVEN WRONG MANY TIMES!!

YOU SAID “NO it is not !”Tactical fighter” is your Western bullshit !!””
I SAID: LOOK AT THE SUKOI WEBSITE!
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7241e4de838af13acd00097c6c40826835697de60bd559cf074436504134f761.png

YOU SAID: “PAK-DA replaces TU-95 and SU-24 only!!!!”
I SAY: YOU ARE A DUMB CUNT!!!

IF I NEED TO EXPLAIN WHY FOR THE 5TH TIME THAT THE PAK-DA DOES NOT REPLACE THE SU-24 IM AFRAID THEIR IS NO CURE FOR YOUR STUPIDITY!
I 100% HONESTLY BELIEVE WITH ALLOF MY HEART THAT U DO NOT KNOW JACK SHIT ABOUT AIRCRAFT!

YOU ARE NOT EVEN A BEGINNER!

YOU ARE DUMB AS DOG SHIT AND PEOPLE ON THIS SITE WILL LAUGH WHEN I SHOW THEM THE SCREEN SHOTS OF WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN!

YOU WILL BE REMEMBERED AS A DUMB ASS AND LOSE ALL RESPECT!

NOW I THINK U WILL DELETE YOUR COMMENTS HAHAHAHAHA!

now u can shut your mouth and go away little boy!!!

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/221f2d6457b3cbae179a9678f9e6c48fe31074b78afe6a5401a044964c7a5f3e.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4442e8223114552503aaec2957bfe5f902d936b3d0b2b62a43e12739c2b9f9b0.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7241e4de838af13acd00097c6c40826835697de60bd559cf074436504134f761.png

Look at the shape of the SU-27 compared to the S-35!
They are almost identical! Why? Because the SU35 is the upgrade and replacement of the SU-27 (like i fucking told u)! THE SU-30 IS NOT THE UPGRADE AND REPLACEMENT OF THE SU-27! Like i told u! Why would Sukhoi make an air-superiority “multi-role” and another air superiority “multi-role” as u have suggested! i have screen shots of what u said!
You know nothing!!

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1859538f6d27b3eea7dc71d783ec19f0f91b7b5a86ffe8ec6bb741dc970d90a5.jpg

So u see above! SU-27 and SU-35 are directly related and the su-35 is a complete upgrade and replacement of the su-27! FACT!

Now look below (you dumb ass)! Can u see the SU-27 and the SU-30? Do u see the difference in air-frame design? Thats because the SU-30 is a new design BASED ON THE SU-27 but NOT the upgrade and replacement of it! It was mostly made for EXPORT! It is a 50/ 50 True multi-role aircraft! it wont dominate in the air nor will it be a hardcore bomber like the SU-34 or SU-24! In fact its airframe design is 50/50 design compromise of the SU-34 and the SU-27 (my opinion) which is why its NOT and upgrade for the SU-27 LIKE YOUR DUMB ASS SAYS!

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ba66ce6f81bca9e9fc96923b51fbdec620249a7d4d24bfbad22345dbe38c92b8.png
NOW HERE IS THE SU-34 2 SEATER AIRCRAFT!
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b67c2d9a56a2d61cea9cfe46c60168fd04b2c43607a49ab28873b1bce3703537.jpg

Yes multi-role p Hence the 2 seats side by side! Long range, pilot plus bomber! easy to work out! Yet your dumb ass thinks its not a replacement of the SU-24! Your dumb ass thinks it fills the role of both SU-24 and the SU-35!

Then why does every fucking forum tell us that the SU-35’s support SU-24’s and SU-34’s in Syria?
For the same reason the US used F-15’s and F-16’s when they attacked DeZ and killed a few hundred SAA!
AND LOOK AT THIS PICTURE! It’s a photo of an SU-35 (with air to air missiles) and an SU-34 with Bombs! Gee i wonder why they made this photo? Ill tell u why! BECAUSE THIS IS THE CONFIGURATION OF HOW THEIR MISSIONS ARE EXECUTED! Support fighter and strike bomber! Just the SU-34 has better survivability than the aircraft it replaces (SU-24)
But u didnt say this! u think the SU-34 replaces both roles of SU-24 and the SU-35! Well your dumb ass is WRONG!

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7bd0ba0630eba025412b59a39876261b5b0b27b5884c42f65372cdaf4a5802b2.jpg

i have screen shots of everything u have stated!
i was thinking to post them too! But if u respond to this post saying anything otherwise! i will post your comments to prove how dumb u are and how much u lie to save embarrassing urself!

Remember…… YOU KNOW FUCK ALL!!!
NEVER COMMENT ON AIRCRAFT AGAIN!!!
I WILL DESTROY YOU!!!!

You have EDITED my comments!
From all the retards here on South Front you are by far the biggest lunatic.

Well i have the originals too!
And u can always PROVE if i am wrong by unlocking your comments for people to see!
You can call me what u want, but what we do know (especially u and i) is that u have no fucking idea what u are talking about when it comes to aircraft!

Remember, if u edit your comments, discus plyugin INFORMS us that u edited it!
Also, i sent the link to the page!
People already commented!
They saw what u wrote!
100% proof!
Your move!
Screen shot your lies above! i never edited your words and people have already seen your comments!
BOOM!

ANNOUNCEMENT: Jako knows fuck all about aircraft and lies his ass off!

OK dig urself a deeper hole Jako!
Give me one example where u think ive edited ur words!
Go on!
I BET U DONT U SNEAKY RAT!

When u look at urself in the mirror, think of me! Justin!
And hear my words in your head that u know to be TRUE!
U are a DUMB, Lying piece of shit!

Embed that into your subconscience!

You know what u are! and now u have to live with yourself!
OR u can admit u know nothing, said dumb comments AND lied!

Clear your conscience Jako! Do it!
or live with being a scum bag!

i bet u choose “scum bag”!
Scum bags always do!!!

* I said:”The SU-34 is the upgrade of the SU-24 (not the SU-25)”
* You said: “Not exactly so.”
* my response: Show me another 2 seater bomber aircraft in russia? 2 seats = pilot plus bomber!
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4442e8223114552503aaec2957bfe5f902d936b3d0b2b62a43e12739c2b9f9b0.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/221f2d6457b3cbae179a9678f9e6c48fe31074b78afe6a5401a044964c7a5f3e.png
———————————
IN YOUR FACE!
———————————
* You said : “SU-34 is “upgrade” of SU-27 design not SU-24 design”
* My response: SU-34 is BASED on SU-27 design! But it replaces the ROLE of the SU-24! UNDERSTAND??

————————————
* You said :”SU-34 is “medium-range fighter-bomber/strike aircraft” and from mentioned the least of all a “fighter” even though capable to carry all modern AA missiles and defend from attacks.”
* My response: I AGREE!!! The SU-34 is a Russian twin-engine, twin-seat, all-weather supersonic medium-range fighter-bomber/strike aircraft! mainly a ground attack strike aircraft!

What is a strike aircraft??

An attack aircraft, strike aircraft, or attack bomber, is a tactical military aircraft that has a primary role of carrying out airstrikes with greater precision than bombers, and is prepared to encounter strong low-level air defenses while pressing the attack.[1] This class of aircraft is designed mostly for close air support and naval air-to-surface missions, overlapping the tactical bomber mission. Designs dedicated to non-naval roles are often known as ground-attack aircraft”

Therefore it replaces the SU-24 ENTIRELY and can PERHAPS escape and evade AirSuperior or Multi-role fighters! Doesnt need a protector!

* You said : “So it is (comparing to SU-24 and SU-35) true multi-role aircraft capable to replace BOTH airplanes in way….”
* My Response: NO!!!!! It completes and makes obsolete the SU-24….BUT….IT DOES NOT MEAN IT TAKES OVER THE ROLE OF THE SU-35!!!! SU-35’s are still flying along side the SU-34’s!!!

EXAMPLE: When the USA bombed the SAA in Deir Ezoir they sent F-16’s and F-15’s! Air superiority and Strike fighters!

Russia would send (in the same scenario) SU-35’s and SU-34’s! UNDERSTAND?? Russia WOULD NOT send ONLY SU-34’s because it still means they could fail the critical mission! UNDERSTAND???????

* you said : “SU-34 had its non-stop test flight from one end of Russia to another so it is more than “medium range” thanks to aerial refeuling.”
* My Response: So what!!! Yes its awesome but why are u making this point? It has a big gas tank, so what!!! it just suits Russia’s needs because they have a defensive strategy! Russia is a big place!

* You said:”PAK-DA will replace directly SU-24 (not SU-34″
* My Response: Fuck NO!!!!!! you are so wrong that i honestly think u are very very dumb!
How do i get this through to your thick head??? HOW???

PAK DA replaces the fucking TU-95 and the TU-160 (even though they are Keeping the TU-160 and upgrading it! I even sent u a fucking quote from TUPELOV saying this!!!!!

How can a strategic stealth bomber replace an old strike bomber?????

HOW??

This is the most stuppid comment u have made and makes u loook sooooo dumb!

The SU-34 replaces the SU-24 (get it through your thick head)
The Pak-Da replaces the Tu-95 STRATEGIC (extremely long distance and intercontinental) nuclear bombers!

What u are saying is equivelant to saying “The USA’s B-2 Stealth bomber replaces the F-15 and the FA-18 strike attack fighters”!!

Do u understand??

Do u even know what the Pak-da is?
Why are u making this comment? WHY?
u dont know what u are talking about! im embarrassed for you!

Do you understand meaning of my words”Not exactly so”?!
“NOT EXACTLY SO”!! means DESIGN of one was used and not of SU-24 but of SU-7 DESIGN you fucking BLIND idiot!

MULTI-ROLE jets are BUILT to replace FUNCTIONS of other older SINGLE ROLE jets!!!!
SU-34 does tactical bombings like other two but also DOES MORE because it is MULTI-ROLE jet!!!!!!

“Show me another 2 seater bomber aircraft in russia? 2 seats = pilot plus bomber!”
ALL RUSSIAN BOMBERS HAVE MORE THAN ONE PILOT !

Fuck you MORON !
I had enough repeating endlessly the SAME and you do NOT READ and take WORDS OUT OF CONTEXT !!!
No go fuck yourself you fucking lunatic!

You said : “NOT EXACTLY SO”!! means DESIGN of one was used and not of SU-24 but of SU-7 DESIGN you fucking BLIND idiot!”

LOOK AT WHAT I WROTE U ABSOLUTE DUMB FUCKING MORON!!!!
LOOK AND READ!!!!!!!

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1941f51c6532e3dc5774d651a5e0b591eaaf305d89d5ea2da8507462e76fa12f.png

DO U SEE WITH UR EYES OR ARE U TOO STUPID TO READ WHAT I WRITE???

YOU SAID :”ALL RUSSIAN BOMBERS HAVE MORE THAN ONE PILOT !”

You are taking the knowledge I GIVE u for yourself! hahahaha
I told u the SU-34 completely replaces (and more) the SU-24 I TOLD YOU THAT! and u said that it also replaces the SU-35 role too!

Yet i said (because u are dumb) that the SU-34 is mainly a bomber because it has 2 passengers sitting side by side just like the SU-24! I then said “name another russian plane with 2 pilots”!

Your arguement was that the SU-34 is a replacement for BOTH the SU-24 and the sU-35 and i am EDUCATING YOU that it IS NOT!!!!

23 confirmed losses in Afghanistan, 9 to CIA supplied Stingers.

yes, 23. it was mistype from my side.

U are missing the point!
Russia is the most richest country in the word including today!
This is a fact! its because of their land size an resources!

Russia’s economy was always lagging behind Europe due to trade embargo’s!

but they always had land and the West always begged them for help when wars began (Napoleon). Then after defeating such armies Europe would grant Russia even more land!

All of Europe had peasants too! But it was not the peasant people who account for the wealth it is the ruling class! They owned it all!

Not until the USA came about did the world finally see real equality among normal people!

But as of wealth, Russia was and is the richest nation in the world due to its natural resources! And as always, its economy is always restrained by the west in order to keep them weak! Because a financially wealthy Russia is a Russia to be feared!

Russia is the most richest country in the word including today!
This is a fact! its because of their land size an resources!

this is nothing

Russia’s economy was always lagging behind Europe due to trade embargo’s!

for the richest country this should be no problem ;)
anyway, if russia would not be a big gas station, but modern, innovative country, the embargos would have zero effect.

“anyway, if russia would not be a big gas station, but modern, innovative country, the embargos would have zero effect.”!

Absolutely agree with u here!
But do u remember the bolsheviks?
A Jewish Gang (Jewish funded) who took over Russia and installed one of their own as leader! Stalin was a Georgian JEW!

Trotsky and Marx were agents of Germany and England! Communism is a Brittish invention! You will need to read a lot to learn this!

Russia became a military state that spied on its own people! Thats why its military industry is so advanced yet its commercial industry is so bad!

So only since 1990 has Russia had the chance to become a commercial state!
Bread lines fucked that up! Oligarchs like Boris Berezovsky were selling russia off piece by piece!

So not until Russia’s intelligence agency installed Putin (a military coup) was Russia able to bring itself back to life! so from 2000 to 2007 Russia was surviving! 2007 came big oil prices and Russia could finally get back on its feet!

But when Putin came to power, Western backed Chechens were starting a war in the oil rich Caucuses of russia! They barely survived!

So now we have sanctions etc!

Russia is always under siege because the West needs to keep them weak!

The coup in kiev was a move against Russia!

Russia put all of its funds into its military in order to survive because the ultimate goal is for russia to break a part and be partitioned! that is a globalist dream!

And to implode the USA is also a globalist dream!

Putin is AWESOME!
Trump is AWESOME!

They will ally in 2020!

Firstly, the Arabs dont get the greatest planes from Russia OR the USA! They get “export versions”
Also,im sure youre smart enough to know that the difference isnt down to the plane either, it also comes down to the piloting!

The last time we saw Russian pilots fight american pilots was in Korea where the Mig-15 fucked the americans up big time!

So if we are to compare aircraft and pilots of Russia and the USA then Russia wins right? Because when the Russians were flying the mig-15 they had a better kill ratio!

You know just as well as i do that a western soldier(say a british paratrooper) vs an arab soldier that the british paratrooper wins hands down, not even a contest! Well guess what, its the same with pilots!

So IF YOU REALLY KNOW WHAT U ARE TALING ABOUT u would understand the difference between an export version and pilot training and skills! Then if u want to reference history then make it accurate! Russian pilots in Russian planes have a better kill ratio than US pilots in US planes!

Does an F-16 beat a mig 29? sometimes it does! But who is flying it? What version of the mig 29 are they flying? Are they well trained? how many f-16 were up against the mig-29 at the time?

Reference korean war! thats ur only russian vs america air war stage! Then come back with the facts!

USSR pilots fought in Vietnam too, including Armenians. They are also flying in Syria where Captain Mayor Albert Davidyan serving with the Russian Aerospace Forces lost his life on a ground attack mission.

On the 2nd of September 1958, Soviet MiG-17 piloted by Armenian SSR pilots shot down a U.S. Air Force reconnaissance-configured C-130 aircraft over Soviet Armenia; 17 crewman were aboard.

You are totally wrong to apologize to him…
But than that is your problem…
As for rest of your comment it is pile of nonsense (sorry but I must use right word).
Don’t know where to start….
Like this for example “S-400 and 300 so far have proven to be decoration pieces”

Syrians are shooting down those Israeli missiles and jets thanks above all to the Russian S-400 and S-300 radars.
Without them S-125 and S-200 are only outdated junk.

“F-16 doesn’t stand chance against SU-35 air superiority fighter.”
U are talking about a 35 year tech gap here! And of course the SU-35 wins!

Yes i know the mig-29 is a air superiority fighter thats why i said traditionally that would have been the plane to go up against the f-16! Also everyone knows the f-22 isnt a dog fighter, its a stand off fighter! Thats why it has stealth! lol

f-15 is a multi-role fighter, hence its size and ability to carry large weights!

“”Su-25’s were very successful and so were the mil helicopters UNTIL manpads arrived!”
Not true any longer.
They have new EW installed in the upgraded SU-25 and now man-pads can’t harm them at all (already use them in Syria)”

Firstly i was talking about Afghanistan! 1980’s!
Secondly know about the EW systems but they are only effective against 70% of manpads! Hence why one was shot down by a manpad in Syria!

“”the russian airforce and their mig-23’s and 21’s”

HA,HA,HA,HA,HA :-)))))))))))”

ARE YOU BLIND AS YOU ARE STUPID? DID U ACTUALLY READ WHAT I WROTE OR DO U JUST SKIP OVER THE WORDS???

I was talking about Afghanistan u MORON!

During that war Russian has mig 23’s and mig 21’s!

READ!!!!!

After Above incident Russians brought Su-25SM3 equipped with EW suite according to SF.

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2b2cff8ff078c7c118d1329233bfcbdc171c86d7343f6df9e9768032586ad5fa.jpg

https://southfront.org/photo-russias-deeply-modernized-su-25sm3-attack-aircraft-with-modern-electronic-warfare-system-in-syria/

No what I meant was their mission is directly descended from these aircraft ….. close air support for ground forces.

Theoretically you could take the lineage all the way back to the German Hannover Cl 2 and the British Sopwith Salamandar but the Stuka and IL-2 were really the first modern armoured CAS aircraft and really nothing much except the type of engine and specific ordinance has changed since these aircraft were introduced.

I apologize for not using the IL-2 designation. Had I known my post was being marked graded I would have been more careful.

You are right, it is the jet version of the Shturmovich. It is good robust aircraft but Russians in Afghanistan provided no CAP to the SU-25 or most combat ground attack sorties and proved vulnerable to US supplied Stingers and F-16 interceptors flown by Pakis who had US AWACS support and their radar bases a Badaber, Jacobabad, Sargodha and Kamra had real time intercept vectoring capacity and they used it to their advantage. The Russians should have been more aggressive in Afghanistan.

Nice call. He is full of it and is an irritator.

The Gulf War was a massive military victory for the US

LOL

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

Russian built junk getting recycled en mass

XD

Not the USA …..There were 8 countries representing close to a billion people in the Gulf War coalition against iraq, a third world country of 28 million that was broke and worn out after fighting Iran for a decade.

You got them out of Kuwait but you didn’t defeat them. You had to sanction them for another decade then fight another war and $5 trillion and 30 years later you’re still there.

Any rich fool can spend $trillions bombing the crap out of a country, all that takes is money. It takes a special kind of LOSER to fight for 30 years, spend $5 trillion and still not meet your political objectives.

When you started all this Saddam was an enemy of Iran and kept them in check. Today Muqtada al-Sadr …. the guy who led the insurgency against the USA in Iraq …. holds the balance of power in Iraq and they are now cooperating with Iran.

The Iraqi parliment just voted to kick the USA out of Iraq. Iran is now cooperating with Iraq militarily. Iran is firmly entrenched in Syria. You just spent $5T and 30 years to shoot yourself in the foot. Be good Americans, declare victory and go home. You can call yourself winner at home and I promise no one will laugh in your face …. behind you back for sure ,,,, but back in the USA you’re still winners.

Nah lol it was mostly US like 90 percent, we smashed those trash Russian systems and it was easy. Our allies were using our systems too

Easy win

Yea …. keep telling yourself that but you know the truth.

You’re like some idiot who kicks the shit out of some little kids and thinks he’s the heavy weight champion of the world. Look at your national debt since you started fighting in the ME in 1990 …. do you even understand the relationship with fighting wars and the ability to pay for them? money is just as much of a weapon as an aircraft carrier.

Look at the hundreds of billions in wear and tear on aircraft ships and equipment just to kill Iraqi conscripts in monkey model T-72’s with ancient air defences or barefoot kids armed with AK’s and RPG’s.

When your infantry has to call in an air strike using satellite guided aircraft from an aircraft carrier defended by a fleet of warships to deal with a few terrorists armed with RPG’s and AK’s you aren’t winning, you’re losing.

When the ordinance alone costs more than the tank you’re killing with it you aren’t winning , you’re losing.

You have 12 aircraft carriers and you’re building more but you only have enough F-18’s to keep 2 on station at any given time ….. that should tell you something.

The Germans liked to brag about how they were the superior race with their superior weapons and look where that got them. You keep making the same mistakes over and over while your nation is being destroyed and you believe you’re winning .

He is definitely retarded.

He is a provocateur…but not a good one since he uses the tactics of a 12 year old and calls ppl names and mocks Russia with petty insults. I mean if you want to provoke ppl at least try and use facts and not lie out your ass for fuck sake. If he gets payed to do this i think he will get fired soon enoth since he is not good at this.

He’s both . .

Remember the aircraft carrier killer the Kursk?

LOL

How did that work out

Lie on baby, lie on, that’s what you were raised to do.

Where’s the lie? The Kursk is the best coral reef on earth!

awesome posts. but it makes me wonder whose going to receive all the old american A-10 once they’re replaced by new planes. Ukraine? Israel? who knows… unless they’ll be scrapped.

The US air force will hang on to them for a while. There is nothing to really replace it in the close air support role which it is highly effective. I would rather see them scrapped than have the star of David on their wings.

I ,don’t think so
Too much money involved in buying F-35 and too much lobbying for replacing
A-10
The A-10 is already good as dead.
The retirement is only POSTPONED for certain number of A-10 due to delay of F-35 combat readiness.

The vast majority of the A-10 fleet will remain in service for the foreseeable future. The F-35 was not designed for the CAS role whereas the A-10 was designed for it.

Air Force gives new life to the A-10 Warthog

https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/24/politics/a-10-warthog-retirement-air-force-budget/index.html

Excuse me.
Yes they were designed for “CAS role” as well.
The problem that airplane is crap in many things including “CAS role”

“Air Force gives new life to the A-10 Warthog”
If they do it just shows how desperate they are.

The F-35 was not designed for the CAS role even though its proponents say it can. It was designed as an air superiority fighter. An effective CAS system has to operate and slower speeds to acquire smaller ground targets and be able to loiter in an area on station for hours and be already airborne when a call comes in for CAS which the A-10C does and the F-35 can’t.

So the link shows the A-10 is not dead and will keep on flying into the foreseeable future and probably with the fleet being upgraded. No sign of desperation. The A-10 performs the CAS mission well and there is no need to replace it.

The F-35 was designed to have problem for every situation ;-))

I will not enter this childish game where you say ” not designed ” and I say opposite when I am 100% positive to have read that information million times. Officially A-10 was to be replaced by F-35 it was repeated everywhere, so give it rest please.

Yes I remember …Air superiority fighter ;-)))))))))))))))))))) if they could call it “superiority fighter” they can call it anything!
How about “inferiority fighter” – that is his strongest feature?!

That flying brick can’t even operate on “slower speeds” let alone faster !
STOVL….It was built to “loiter” also but for jiffy only… due to
short endurance capability :-)) .

To say the F-35 could replace the A-10 and was designed for CAS was a sales job Lockheed gave the government. No matter what information Lockheed provided about the plane that it could perform the CAS role as good or better than the A-10 has proved to be a false bill of goods.

It’s not about being a child. It’s about observing the obvious when it comes to performance and results with the information provided.

The reason there was pressure to retire the A-10 was because there was no money to be made by the defense contractors off of the weapons system. Won’t argue with you about what a cost overrun disaster the F-35 has been.

It was published 1 000 000 times to be CAS jet as well over the long years….but OK if you say so…
So deep down you really believe that F-35 is “air superiority”?!
And why is that?
Computing power and famous “sensor fusion”??
So F-35 will take on SU-35S and SU-57, J-20 and such ?
Good luck with that.
Well we will see about that
I have no shadow of doubt that that SU-35 will see lock on F-35 and take car of it.
Now seriously;
To be perfectly honest I like F-15 (always did) and A-10
Good airplanes.
I am also one of those who think that not upgrading F-22 (making it cheaper also) instead of making new F-35 was strategic error of judgment.

It could be published one million times does not mean that it is a CAS aircraft. Again. A sales job. Will not refute what you read which was a false bill of goods.

Is the F-35 an air superiority aircraft? As of now? No. Its teething problems are too numerous. It is not air combat worthy. Does that mean in the future it can’t be? No.

The F-15 has a perfect record in air combat. None has been lost in air-to-air engagements. That is over several nations that fly it.

The A-10 is perhaps one of the greatest planes this country has ever produced. It has performed as billed and has proven itself in combat to be a devastating weapon system that impacts the battlefield.

My understanding is the F-22 is more expensive and was only designed for the USAF where the F-35 was designed for the USAF, USN, and USMC to meet there needs.

Israel will not buy A-10
A-10’s 30mm Gatling gun will have much smaller efficiency against the tanks and armored vehicles without depleted uranium ammunition because of much smaller penetration capability.

Although the A-10 is better armored compared to the Su-25, the latter is more maneuverable and stands a better chance at defending itself from hostile aircraft.

https://southfront.org/us-buys-6-additional-a-29-warplanes-for-afghan-air-force/