0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
737 $
SOUTHFRONT'S MONTHLY BUDGET

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

Donate

Loading the player...

On June 6, 2018 the Russian Defense Ministry’s Zvezda TV channel released a video [original in Russian] providing a look at Russia’s Su-25 attack aircraft. The modern motificatinos of the warplane, like the Su-25SM, were acrtively employed by the Russian Aerospace Forces during the main phase of their anti-terrorist operation in Syria.

The Su-25 Grach is a single-seat, twin-engine warplane developed in the USSR by Sukhoi. Its role is the close air support. The Su-25SM is an upgraded version of the warplane, which was designed in the framework of the Russian effort to upgrade its fleet of Su-25 jets in 2000s. The Su-25SM has expanded combat capabilities, enhancing its lethality, slashing operating and maintenance burden.

The warplane’s navigational accuracy was also improved improved and the ordnance’s efficiency was increased. The upgrade increased combat payload on the new MBD3-U2T-1 bomb racks up to 5,000 kg and expanded the ordnance list allowing R-73E air-to-air guided missiles and S-13T rockets.

The Su-25SM3 is the further upgraded version of Su-25 attack aircraft. The warplane got the advanced tactical EW suite “Vitebsk-25”, a new encrypted communications system with a range of 1000 km and updated navigation and armament control systems and other improvements allowing the attack aircraft to increase its operational capabilities.

Su-25 warplanes deployed in Syria played a key role in the Syrian conflict providing a close air support to anti-terrorist operation of pro-government forces across the country. National Interest foreign policy magazine even described the Su-25 as the “single most effective Russian aircraft deployed to Syria”.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Daniel Miller

    i doubt that the SU24 and SU34 are far more effective and are not obsolete like this or the A10.

    • Jesus

      Suk 24 is contemporary with Suk 25, they are older planes with remodernized avionics, targeting systems, communication…etc, Suk 34 is a new design fighter bomber that has great strike along with air to air capabilities.
      A10 is comparable to Suk 25, it employs the 30MM Gatling anti tank gun dubbed the “can opener”, it lacks the avionics modernization, it would be an easy target against well established SHORAD defenses, its guided weaponry can be jammed or shot down.

      • FlorianGeyer

        One advantage ofthe US A10 is that it carries more cannon ammunition than the SU25 I think.
        In the 70’s I was standing on a hilltop and an A10 suddenly appeared out of nowhere and I felt that I could touch it :)

        The SU 25 is an excellent weapon that NATO are very fortunate not to have encountered in Europe.

        • You can call me Al

          What were you doing, standing on a hill ?.

          • FlorianGeyer

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

          • PZIVJ

            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. :)

          • FlorianGeyer

            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 :)

          • PZIVJ

            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. :)

          • FlorianGeyer

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

          • You can call me Al

            OH right, moving on !!.

        • Jesus

          The A10 cannon spits out 30-40 rounds a second as it flies low above tank columns as it was intended, they are graceful and flying so low to the ground they appear and disappear in a few seconds.
          They were capable aircraft, especially merciless when air superiority was a given, however, with the advent of Russian short range air defense developments made the A10 a sitting duck.

        • vladput

          As i know, SU-25 had laways problem with cannon. Therefore they do not use it.

      • Daniel Miller

        Like i said the SU25 and A10 even when modernized are obsolete aircraft CAS aircrft are obsolete they have been replaced by attack helicopters and smart bombs.

        • Jesus

          Attack helicopters flying slower than A10 or Suk 25 would be easy targets for Pantsir or Tor air defenses to shoot them down, also helicopters do not carry a heavy payload.
          Smart bombs using GPS can be counteracted by EW or simply shot down.

          • Daniel Miller

            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.

          • Jesus

            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

          • Daniel Miller

            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?

          • Jesus

            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.

          • Daniel Miller

            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.

          • Jesus

            You hit the top of the turret or hull.

          • Daniel Miller

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

          • Jesus

            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.

          • Daniel Miller

            ….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.

          • Jesus

            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

          • Daniel Miller

            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.

          • Jesus

            “””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.

          • Daniel Miller

            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.

          • Jesus

            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.

          • Daniel Miller

            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.

          • Jesus

            “””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.

          • Daniel Miller

            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.

          • Jesus

            “””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.

          • Daniel Miller

            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.

          • Jesus

            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.”””

          • Jesus

            “””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?

          • Daniel Miller

            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.

          • Jesus

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

          • Daniel Miller

            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.

          • Jesus

            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.

          • Daniel Miller

            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?.

          • Jesus

            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.

          • Daniel Miller

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

          • Jesus

            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

          • Jesus

            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

          • Daniel Miller

            Stingers are not known for their good hit ratio.

          • Jesus

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

      • Daniel Miller

        Also the SU24 is not conteporary with the SU25 its a strike bomber not a CAS aircraft.

  • Peter Moy

    For the ground attack role, there are few combat aircraft in use today that can approach the capabilities of the Rook. The only ones I can think of are the US A-10, Russian Su-24, 30 and 30, the old Panavia Tornado and maybe the Chinese JH-7A. In terms of range, loiter time, payload and ability to absorb the type of punishment that would down other aircraft, the Su-25 is hard to surpass.

    • Peter Moy

      I apologize ( I didn’t take my meds yet), it should be Su-24, 30 and 34. I also neglected to include the US F-15E Strike Eagle which has a very large payload but not the protection (titanium armor) of the Su-25.

      • Justin

        Peter lets be far more specific shall we?
        We are talking about “Close support” aircraft! Not “ground attack”of which there are plenty!

        • jako

          “The SU-34 is the upgrade of the SU-24 (not the SU-25)”
          Not exactly so.

          SU-34 is “upgrade” of SU-27 design not SU-24 design.
          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.
          Once they install more armored protection to the engines together with armored cockpit SU-34 will be able to give ground support & attack mission as well
          So it is (comparing to SU-24 and SU-35) true multi-role aircraft capable to replace BOTH airplanes in way….
          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 refueling.

          PAK-DA will replace directly SU-24 (not SU-34)

          • Justin

            “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!

          • jako

            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 !

          • Justin

            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!!!!!!

          • jako

            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 !

          • Justin

            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!

          • jako

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

          • Justin

            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!!!!!

          • jako

            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 !!!!!!!!

          • Justin

            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??

          • jako

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

          • Justin

            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!!!

          • Justin
          • jako

            WOW you have discovered Sukhoi site!
            BRAVO MORON!

          • Justin

            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!!!!!!

            :)

          • Justin

            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!

          • Justin
          • Justin

            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!!!!

          • jako

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

          • Justin

            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!!!

          • Justin

            * 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!

          • jako

            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!

          • Justin

            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!!!!

        • jako

          ALL newer SU (from SU-30 to SU-57) are “multi-role” !
          SU-34 even though “multi-role” are not used much for roles “ground “fighters”” -(ground support)
          That is SU-25 role (see Syria)
          Dropping bombs is not only aspect close ground support.

          SU-34 is NOT upgrade of SU-24
          SU-34 has overlapping in bombing roles that’s all they have in common…

          SU-34 is multi-role “medium-range fighter-bomber/strike aircraft” jet that can defend itself like any other fighter
          while
          SU-24 is “all-weather attack aircraft” a tactical bomber totally incapable to give anything like close support to the ground troops or defending itself.

    • Patriotic_White_American

      Did you forget when the Su25 got down by a shoulder fired rocket?

      Hahahahaha it’s a piece of junk

      • dontlietome

        You forget that the Ukrainians used the Su25 to shoot down a Boeing over the Donbas, you jews are good at shooting down civilian aircraft or using them as human shields………………. lucky for the yanks that you schlomo’s didn’t have the A10 when you tried to sink the USS Liberty ………you shitty-arsed traitorous filth.

      • Spit

        Fellow White, Do Not tell the Goyim know things. Dont forget the Sixty gorrillion.

      • Justin

        first and only one in history!
        can u name another time?

        how many A-10’s were lost?
        only 9 su-25s were lost in Afghanistan while they were on the ground by taliban soldiers!

        Also why isnt the Mil helicopter company sanctioned by the USA?

        Did you know…. that the americans bought the very old mi-17 for the afghan army to use and now the US forces themselves use them! WHY?

        Well because a reliable heavy lift helicopter is in high demand in afghanistan that can perform well in a mountainous region! So suddenly US forces are now purchasing from Russia the MI-17 (1960’s) helicopter from russia to use in afghanistan for their own troops by the demand of their own troops! John McCain was very very pissed! They couldnt sanction this russian company lol! The Chinook is dismissed now for use in the mountains! Only mi-17’s!

        So enough with the Russia hating!

        america makes good shit and dumb shit!
        Russia makes good shit and dumb shit!

        U guys made a good space shuttle, russians made a better one!
        russia made a shit supersonic passenger plane, UK made a better one and america dropped out!
        America made an awesome F1-11 aircraft (maybe the best plane ever made in history)

        So stop ur dick measuring competition!
        If u really want to be annoyed, ask urself why russia always wins world wrestling competitions? (most of them) and the USA doesnt!

        Very different Philosophies!

        Also remember this (America is the most rich and free nation in the world yet u are now going through a national crisis where Jews, bankers and globalist funders are trying to split ur country with ideologies of socialism and communism)

        Well before WW1 russia was the most Rich and free nation in the world! They had democracy too! But they were infiltrated by a jewish backed and Jewish manned gang called the Bolsheviks! They pushed in Marxism (a form of socialism and political correctness). After that, communism was installed and the Russians became Soviets (the word “Russian”was outlawed).

        Russians and Americans should be allies because u have the same enemies!
        Stop your dick measuring competition and start supporting each other for fuck sakes! u sound like a fucking retard every time u make a jealous comment! A FUCKING RETARD!

        Pull your head in!

        • vladput

          USSR lost at least 25 Su-25 in afghanistan. 9 of them to hostile fire while on the ground.Probaly some of 24 unidentified aircrafts were also SUu-25´s.

          Before ww1 Russia was a poor country with extremly low level of freedom. The citizens had not to visit the neighbour county without bumazhka (special paper, allowing the visit of conctere target town, city).

          Look:

          Economy before 1914

          Russia
          was a poor country. She had great resources but these were ‘locked in’
          by the vast size of the country and the extreme climate. She had
          produced cheap raw materials for other manufacturing countries and a
          growing surplus of grain, but it was the policy of the Tsars from 1855
          to compete as a manufacturing power.

          In 1914 85 per cent of the population were still peasants.

          Peasants had to practise subsistence farming.

          Economically, the vast majority of the population contributed very little to Russian society.

          Under a succession of Tsarist ministers (Bunge, Witte and Stolypin)
          railways were built, foreign investment attracted and landholdings
          reformed.

          Economic growth rates averaged 9 per cent from 1894–1900 and 5 per cent from 1900–1914. These were huge rates of change.

          Industrial growth was centred on armaments because Tsar
          Nicholas II wanted to protect Russia’s position as a great power.
          However, oil, textiles, minerals and iron and steel were the industries
          most affected by economic growth.

          Subsistence farming means that they produced what they needed,
          took little to market, did not use much money and could not easily be
          taxed.
          By 1914 the Russian economy had grown more slowly than those of Germany, the USA, France and Britain.

          • Zionism = EVIL

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

          • vladput

            yes, 23. it was mistype from my side.

          • Justin

            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!

          • vladput

            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.

          • Justin

            “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!

    • PZIVJ
      • Spit

        Newer Missiles have technology that predicts damage. Thses are 100% 70’s pictures.

      • Justin

        A-10 flies higher too! but the SU-25 flies much much faster!
        A-10 can be hit much easier by manpads! Su-25’s have a very good record against manpads!
        there is a dumb ass above who thought SU-25’s were defetaed by manpads in Aghanistan but he was wrong! they only lost 9 of them while they were sitting on the ground and attacked by the taliban!

        It was the helicopters that were hit by stingers!

        SU-25’s are the best close support ground attack aircraft! thats why they dont replace it, just upgrade it!

    • Zionism = EVIL

      True to some extent, but the SU-25 were not very successful in Afghanistan and proved very vulnerable to Manpads and some were downed by the Paki airforce F-16’s with a AIM9L Sidewinder. The most famous one was Alexander Rutskoy’s shoot down near parrot’s beak Khost region near Waziristan. On 6 April 1986 – An Su-25 strike jet was shot down, pilot Alexander Rutskoy safely ejects and was captured and held for a short time. He later on became the VP of Russian Federation. The USSR lost about 30 SU-25 in Afghanistan and one in Georgia. No confirmed losses in Syria so far.

      • Justin

        No way in hell can a SU-25 survive a fight with an f16 so why do u bother mentioning this? Its like saying a tank armed with 125mm gun plus missiles and machine gun was able to defeat a single soldier!

        SU-25 is a close support ground attack fighter (defends itself from ground attack)!
        f-16 is an air superiority fighter (designed to beat even multi-role fighters)

        u are comparing an eagle to a pigeon here!
        You made a very very bad comment here!

        If a US A-10 so happened to be spotted by a Mig-29, it would be the same thing!

        U DO NOT compare it!

        Because an A-10would be defended by an f-16 and a SU-25 would be defended by a Mig-29!

        Here is a much better example of Russian superior tech winning!
        The Russians used mi-24 helicopter gun ships and mi-17 troop carriers (heavy lift) in afghanistan!

        They were absolutley awesome and devastating against the taliban until the USA came along with stingers (manpads)!

        Now the USA is in Afghanistan, the USA prefers to use the Afghan purchase of mi-17’s to their own Chinooks! They bought the mi-17’s for the afghans to use and realised they were much safer and better performing in mountainous regions! So now the USA uses and buys Mi-17’s for their own troops to use (by the demand of the US troops in afghanistan) which is why the Mil corporation was never sanctioned by the USA hahahahaha!
        Yet here you are comparing an f-16 to a fucking su-25!
        How stupid do u wanna get?

        Why dont u compare tractor to a Ferrari next time because it would prove the same dumb shit u were trying to say!

        SU-25 vs a F-16 lol, u fucking idiot!

        Dont u dare say that u are just illustrating that they were shot down and lost to f-16 BECAUSE NO GROUND ATTACK CLOSE SUPPORT FIGHTER DEFENDS AGAINST AIR SUPERIORITY FIGHTERS! THATS WHY THEY HAVE OTHER FIGHTERS FOR! TO PROTECT THEM!

        Such DUMB comments made on this site!

        • Zionism = EVIL

          Sorry, I don’t want to insult you as you mean well. But these are confirmed losses of SU-25 Frogfoot as published. You may want to google them as every aircraft is listed with their serial numbers. I would also disagree based on FACTS that Russian aircraft have proved no match for western ones so far. The Arabs have been losing MIGS, Sukhois and all sorts of Soviet junk at a ratio of 50:1
          I am no fan of Americunts, but their technology is far superior. If the Syrians had any trust in Russian weaponry they would be send up their MIG-29 flying dishwashers and shooting down Zionist jets. Even the Russian more advanced SAM systems like the S-400 and 300 so far have proven to be decoration pieces. If you can prove a single shoot down by a S-300, S-400 or even SU-35, I would be more than happy :)

          • Justin

            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!

          • d’Artagnan

            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.

          • jako

            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.

        • jako

          You are trifle bit way too aggressive …with insults and all….
          and people _up-vote you on top?!
          Strange and…not nice….and also your comment is “dumb” in different way…
          Some people don’t know those things about airplanes that upset you so much… no harm meant….this is not forum for the experts.
          Go to the specialist forums, talk to the people who know if you don’t like it.

          “f-16 is an air superiority fighter”?
          In the name maybe but in reality not so much “air superiority fighter” after all…
          F-16 doesn’t stand chance against SU-35 air superiority fighter.
          MIG-29, is also sometime called “air superiority” in fact they are as well multi-role like F-16 and less “air superiority” they also don’t stand chance against
          F-22 on one to one combat.
          True “air superiority” in Russia are SU-35 and SU-57 even though they are multi -role as well so those lines are sometime blured.
          The same goes for US F-15 and F-22

          And they can be compared sometime even though not same category because majority of the jets are multi-role

          “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)

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

          HA,HA,HA,HA,HA :-)))))))))))
          In Syria …Russia using SU-35S and SU-30SM for air support only
          They have no 50 year old Soviet jets in Russian air force buddy!

          • Justin

            “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!!!!!

      • Harsha
      • grumpy_carpenter

        “No confirmed losses in Syria so far.”

        They lost one to a manpad over Idlib last February.

        Both the A-10 and SU-35 are direct descendents of the Stuka / Sturmovik WW2 ground attack aircraft. Just like in WW2 they are vulnerable from ground fire and if they don’t have fighter cover they easy pickings for enemy fighters. Both aircraft are designed to take fire and protect the air crew as much as possible but they are both vulnerable to fire and casualties are to be expected.

        • Tudor Miron

          Saying that Su-25 is a descendent from Stuka is ridiculous. Il-2 was the origin for all later Russian CAS aircraft. I see that you mentioning Shturmovik – may be you mean that Stuka led to A-10 and Shturmovik to Su-25 than OK, but you should know that shturmovik is not a name, it’s russian word which can be translated as assault/storm etc.

          • grumpy_carpenter

            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.

          • Zionism = EVIL

            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.

    • jako

      the ground attack role;
      SU-25 is specialized so it is normal that is “hard to surpass” in ground attack
      SU-34 yes but not so much SU-24
      SU-30 is multi role true but can’t replace ground attack of SU-25 completely as much as SU-34 can

      Soon SU-34 will have titanium protection cockpits for pilots so that they can completely replace SU-25 in ground support and attack roles (once SU-25 is out of service)

  • Patriotic_White_American

    This is the same flying scrap metal that got shot down by a MANPAD

    LOL

    • Daniel Miller

      Well its really no better then the A10 in that respect since they got massacered in the gulf war by manpads and autocannon fire. Just like this aircraf the A10 is obsolete.

      • Patriotic_White_American

        The A10 never got shot down

        SU25 is a total pigeon in combat

        • dontlietome

          LIAR,Liar,pants on fire………….. you must be a jew !

        • grumpy_carpenter
          • John

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

          • Patriotic_White_American

            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

          • grumpy_carpenter

            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.

          • Patriotic_White_American

            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

          • grumpy_carpenter

            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 .

        • grumpy_carpenter

          Then you lost another one again to the Iraqi’s on April 8, 2003. Good lord ….. that was after the Iraqi’s were beaten in the Gulf War and sanctioned for 10 years. You think you would have learned ….. only use your aircraft against terrorists with small arms and civilians. US doctrine 101.

        • Daniel Miller

          Really? February 2nd 1991 An A-10A Thunderbolt II (Serial Number : 80-0248) was shot down by an Igla-1 (SA-16) surface-to-air missile.

          February 15 – An A-10A Thunderbolt II (Serial Number : 78-0722) AAA ground fire 60 miles northwest of Kuwait city while attacking Republican Guard targets. Thought to have been engaged by SA-13 Gopher SAM.

          February 15 – An A-10A Thunderbolt II (Serial Number : 79-0130) Hit by ground fire approx 60 miles northwest of Kuwait city while attacking Republican Guard targets. Thought to have been engaged by SA-13 Gopher SAM. Pilot Captain Steven Phyllis killed in action. Phyllis died while protecting his downed wingman (1st Lieutenant Robert James Sweet). Phyllis’ body was later recovered

          8 April 2003 – A-10A 78-0691 of 124th Wing/190th FS shot down by Iraqi Roland SAM; pilot survived.

          You know you really need to do some digging for info befoe looking like a complete idiot.

          • Zionism = EVIL

            He is definitely retarded.

          • Daniel Miller

            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.

        • Zionism = EVIL

          Seriously, you are either a retard or a child or both :) Most of your posts are total lies and ignorant. Even the Iraqis downed A-10’s.

          • Chris Saunders

            He’s both . .

        • Sinbad2

          8 April 2003:78-0691 of 124th Wing/190th FS shot down by an Iraqi surface to air missile; the pilot survived and was rescued.

          • Patriotic_White_American

            Remember the aircraft carrier killer the Kursk?

            LOL

            How did that work out

          • Sinbad2

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

          • Patriotic_White_American

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

    • Alex

      Old version got shot down, without anti manpad upgrades, plenty of a 10 shot down, you fake american.

      • Patriotic_White_American

        In your dreams

        • John

          blah blah blah ……. LOL

        • Alex

          Very strong argument from you again.

    • Alejandro Bonifacio

      The a10 which killed many gringos in irak
      (friendly fire), good job indeed

    • Chris Saunders

      Shalom Shlomo . .howze the weather in Haifa, Ashkelon, or whatever occupied craphole you are living in?

    • NightTrain

      Patriotic_Israel_First_Jew

  • Tudor Miron

    What is significant about this video is that Grach is taking off and landing on the gravel. Can A-10 do the same? Is there a video proving it can do that?

    • Justin

      Yes i agree this aircraft is better!
      A-10 can fly higher though!
      But the frogfoot is much faster!
      The SM3 upgrade was much needed though! The ability to use the smart release for dumb / normal bombs were very necessary along with the comms package!
      Not many nations make a “close support aircraft”! I rate the SU-25 higher than the A-10 but the A-10 does have different advantages!i guess it depends on what kind of support is needed! The A-10 canon is extremely good!

      • Tudor Miron

        I was not saying that Su-25 is better than A-10 (or the other way around). I like them both while on emotional level I like Grach more but that’s personal and has nothing to do with technical aspects.

    • Garga

      It’s something A-10 is able to do too. Warthog was among the last American designed good aircrafts and is in fact a very forgiving plane, ideal for close air support. It may lose half a wing or one engine and half it’s tail and still able to land and keep it’s pilot in one piece.

      Both are good planes and without any rivals. The closest airplane to these two may be Alpha Jet which of course lacks the heavy armour and heavy gun these two planes have (12.7 mm against 30mm and the cannon A-10 was built around).

      There is a vast difference between the Russian and US (let’s call it western) philosophy of aircraft design. Russian ones are designed to work in hard conditions, which means less than ideal runways and perhaps inadequate time for maintenance, you know, the real conditions in a war zone. OTOH many have seen the morning ritual of the US airbases or carriers: A long line of personnel walking and sweeping the runway for the smallest of piece of rocks or debris.

      A-10 is not exactly designed and built based on their philosophy and in fact is a very reliable and tough plane. Taking off and landing on dirt runways is not common for western post WW2 planes and very few of them are able to do that (C-130 for example), nothing comparable to Mig-29 which can use unpaved runways or even grass fields with all kinds of nuts and bolts on it’s path!

      Su-25 is a very tough and simple jet with sufficient protection for the pilot and abundance of all systems for reliability. I honestly can’t choose a favourite between Su-25 and A-10.

      Video of A-10 take off from dried lake. It can also take off and land on gravel runways or roads:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi5_bcb08o0

      • Tudor Miron

        Thanks!

        • Garga

          You’re welcome.

          What I forgot to mention, is Su-25’s ability to use different types of fuel, even diesel or kerosene, which is a big, big advantage.

          These matters are also vital in close air support:

          – The time needed to make it ready to take off

          – Ability to take off from and land on any surface, even desert.

          – Aircraft’s speed: important when call for support is received (%30 faster than A-10)

          – of course the loiter time.

          Su-25 excels in above. It can perform aerial refueling, can take great punishment (return to base after a stinger blew it’s engine) and lastly, can operate from aircraft carriers.

          A few pics to finish it up nicely:

          https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-883add153c5596132959138b9f52e928-c

          https://battlemachines.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/4.jpg?w=601&h=450

          https://battlemachines.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/51.jpg

          https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a763807181a2e1862010a2cdc77b17d2-c

          • Sukhoi-35

            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.

          • NightTrain

            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.

          • jako

            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.

          • NightTrain

            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

          • jako

            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.

          • NightTrain

            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.

          • jako

            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 :-)) .

          • NightTrain

            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.

          • jako

            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.

          • NightTrain

            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.

          • jako

            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.

          • SG

            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/

      • Hisham Saber

        Interesting that the A-10 program has been scrapped. Its performance in Iraq was tarnished by a lot of friendly fire incidents.

        • jako

          The only “friendly fire” was A-10 giving away on the ground forces in Iraq not opposite….

          But SU-25 has received plenty of “friendly fire” because identical with Georgian
          SU-25

    • NightTrain
    • jako

      Russian jets are always in general more rugged, simpler easier to maintain than U.S. jets.
      And SU-25 is the most rugged jet in the Russian air force probably more sturdy build than A-10 because less sophisticated-simpler thus more resistant.
      Georgian war has proven that SU-25 can be heavily damaged and still fly back to the air base.

      I only wonder with how much weight (fuel,bombs, rockets) SU-25 can make take off from ordinary field…

      • Justin

        They are Awesome!

  • Spit

    So Russia is moving into Iraq.

  • alejoeisabel

    The world is seeking Russia’s protection from US predations.

  • Jonathan Cohen

    SU25 and A-10 both show how slower is better in ground attack in comparison to trying to modify high speed fighters like F-16 or Mig23. The only advantage of obsolete fighters like mig21 and F-4 are that they are already there.

    • Jonathan Cohen

      I wonder if new, STAL wings could be stuck on old fighters to improve ground attack? Sort of like how F-104 was turned into U-2.

  • Sukhoi-35

    Half the Russian SU-25 stock have been upgraded with radar/IR warning receivers, longer ranged air-air missiles, and EW/ECM pods (low band and high band) mounted on each wing + more chaff/flare dispenser pods and countermeasures. The older models have no ECM pods or 21st century radar/IR warning receivers… which reduces survivability in the skies. By 2020-2021 all SU-25 will be upgraded to the SU-25SM and TM modifications.

    • Justin

      Agree, the SM3’s are an awesome weapon! They were the backbone in Syria!

  • Sukhoi-35

    Important to note that the modernization of the Russian Airforce MIG-29, SU-24, SU-27, SU-30, SU-33, MIG-31, is close to being completed (2020-2021) with more than half upgraded with the newest technologies – ECM/EW wing mounted suites for all aircraft/helicopters, new helmet mounted display, new early warning radar/IR receivers, new long range AA missiles, Khinzal compatibility, improved GLONASS, improved secured communications systems, upgraded long range nav, upgraded air/ground target tracking ranges, etc.

  • John Whitehot

    National Interest foreign policy magazine is written by zionists, so i don’t see how they can get any credit.

    The reason why they are saying this, is because they want to divert the attention from newer Russian aircraft which were succesfully employed in Syria like Su-30/34/35 and even the Su-57.

    Which doesn’t mean the SU-25SM underperformed, it means that analysing the efficiency of a single weapon system in an operational context is not much more than propaganda.