A Look At Russia's Version Of The A-10 Warthog

[video]https://youtu.be/CtAThLpxmxw[/video]

It's 4 minutes long but gives a great deal of insight into the Frogfoot, an aircraft the Russians seem to want to keep around for some time to come.


Story w/links @ http://warnewsupdates.blogspot.com/2016/08/a-look-at-russias-version-of-a-10.html

 

Yeah, I had seen that some time ago.

Where the US airforce is very delicate, high-tech and high-maintenance, the Russian planes are strong, durable, low-maintenance and can easily land on makeshift landing strips... As warplanes are supposed to be.

Won't be a good idea to go to war with the Russians, that's for sure.

 

Good thing you aren't in my military. I've never met someone so scared of the Ruskies as yourself. It would be a nasty war for sure, but not one Russia would win. In any instance. We have the oceans and that's rule number 1 for war. We have the oceans by far. Their aircrafts mean nothing to me when they can't strategically house them.

 

You assume a war with Russia would be a World War-esque total conflict. If the Russians only sought limited objectives, like seizing the Baltics, they could most definitely win.

 

Not as long as we are slaves to NATO. But I do see your point

 

Even with NATO. Russia could seize the Baltics in less than 100 hours and have enough forces there that we would not be able to force them out without destroying major cities. The Baltic states would adopt a "better red than dead" position rather than be "liberated" but utterly destroyed.

 

Sigh. All I did was post a piece about an airplane and it turns into this?

 

Nice plane.

 

I love this song Nikolay Anisimov. "Rooks have arrived".

[video=youtube;fOaTEDYJmi0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOaTEDYJmi0[/video]

The song's title is a play on words: Su-25 in Russia unofficially called "rook". And there's a very famous painting Savrasov "The Rooks Have Come Back" ("Rooks have arrived") (in English the meaning of the translation is a bit distorted). The song has a very emotional and technically high-quality and reliable text on how the two Su-25 helped to reconnaissance platoon who was ambushed.

I'm afraid my "electronic" English is not enough to provide interesting for the readers of the translated song.

Almost all of the video frames in the video made by the pilot of the Su-25 Michael Kuslin. A unique man who carried with him in sorties of heavy 7-pound video camera "Panasonic" and videotaped fighting with camera in hands (remember that Su-25 single-seated attack!)

If some frames from the video are of interest, please ask, I have a lot to comment on.

 

Meh. It suffers from the same problems as the A-10. IIRC so many were damaged in Ukraine recently that they stopped flying them.

Maybe over the desert.

The Russians aren't even risking them in Syria because they are susceptible to manpads.

They say Russian helo's are more survivable.
http://russia-insider.com/en/su-25-attack-helicopters/ri13814

 

It is Su-25 in Syria. Su-25 is inefficient for application from big heights where they won't be downed by manpads. There it is more favorable to use Su-24 or Su-34. So Su-25, obviously, are applied from small heights. As well as, for example, helicopters.

 

From what I have read the 25 is being pulled out, see the provided link.

 

Now — yes. Su-25 were are brought out of Syria. But they were applied there earlier.

But it isn't connected with risk or reliability of Su-25 in any way. To use helicopters more risky. But they are applied and now.

 

The article mentions its because they are vulnerable to small arms, and manpads in particular. Helicopters are more survivable? That tells me they are worried about anti air.

Its an interesting aircraft, but it has the same vulnerabilities as the A-10. Are the Russians using guided weapons on their aircraft? I thought conventional. This usually involves flying at relatively low/slow altitudes.

The manpads are getting better too, as the Russians have seen at the Turkish border.

 

A Russian requirement for an attack aircraft in the A-10 Thunderbolt II class materialized in the Sukhoi Su-25, which was selected in preference to a rival design, the Ilyushin IL-102. In fact, it is true to say that the IL-102 was the true equivalent of the A-10, the Su-25 - allocated the NATO reporting name 'Frogfoot' - approximating more closely to the Dassault-Dornier Alpha Jet or the British Aerospace Hawk.

Ilyushin IL-102 -> http://www.aviastar.org/air/russia/il-102.php

 

IL-102 was never a "rival design", it's first flight happened a year after Su-25 was put into service.
Also, calling light trainers an equivalent to twin-engined armored CAS aircraft. Alternative reality right over there.

 

The most successful CAS aircraft ever to fly has one engine, a big piston radial engine that sucked up high octane avgas. The Douglas A-1 Skyraider. First flown by the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps but they had to get that avgas off the carriers so they gave their A-1's to the U.S. Air Force during the Vietnam War.

The best jet powered CAS aircraft during the Vietnam War was the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk.

http://www.airvectors.net/ava1spad.html

The A-10 Warthog wasn't developed at a CAS aircraft but as a Battlefield Air Interdiction aircraft. To destroy Soviet tanks in Europe.

Many people including way to many in the military confuse "Battlefield Air Interdiction" with "Close Air Support" Two different things.

CAS is when an aircraft is under the direct control of a ground FAC ( preferably a Marine fighter pilot who is attached to the rifle platoon or company) and the aircraft is providing direct support to the ground troops usually in a "Danger Close" situation when artillery or naval gunfire support isn't available.

It was the U.S. Marine Corps during the Banana Wars early 20th Century who invented CAS. It was perfected in the Pacific during WW ll and during the Korean War.

The U.S. Air Force never wanted to be in the CAS business, they just wanted to get into dog fights with enemy fighters and drop bombs from high altitudes. They always consider CAS to be the Marine Corps job.

But after 15 years of low intensity wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and other jihadist places the USAF seems to want to get in the CAS business. They want to replace the A-10 with a new aircraft specifically to be used for CAS mission and also to be able to conduct BAI missions over the battlefield.

But I have a friend who's a Marine FA-18 pilot who is doing a two year tour of duty as a ground FAC and what he's telling me, the U.S. Air Force still has a long way to go before they perfect CAS missions. The Air Force fratricide rate while conducting CAS missions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, etc. is still to high.

The reason why the U.S. Marine Corps are second to none when it comes to CAS is because every Marine is a rifleman first including fighter pilots. Every Marine officer has been trained and qualified to lead a Marine rifle platoon into combat. So basically you have a Marine infantry officer sitting in the cockpit of the FA-18 or F-35 B. They understand what's happening on the ground.

BTW:
Trainers have made good COIN light CAS aircraft like the T-28 , T-37, Embraer EMB 312 Tucano.

 

Il2 was a dedicated ground attack plane often used in CAS mode. It was constructed as a ground attack aircraft from the very beginning. Considered to be the best ground attacker of ww2, considered to be one of the most numerous plains ever built.
It was considered to be heavily protected. The engine and the pilot are incased in an armor bathtub 5-16 mm thick. Standard Il2 carries 780 kg of armor, versus 4360kg of empty weight.
Armor takes 18% of the construction weight. (and don’t forget the tail gunner)

Henschel 129 – 6 to 12 mm armor, including 5 mm armor on engines. Ground attacker/tank killer from date of birth. Absolutely dedicated to pilot protection, total weight of armor - 469 kg, still considered to be an easy to kill by Russians fighters. Empty weight 3810kg, 469kg is armor
Armor takes 12% of the total construction weight.

Skyraider is a makeshift ground attack craft built out of a discontinued torpedo-bomber concept.
90 kg original armor
In Korea Skyraider was employed for low level close support missions where suffered heavy losses.
A package of additional armor was added - 280kgs
Totaling 370 kg…
Skyraider empty weight is 5400kg. Armor is 370kg.
Armor takes 7% of the total construction weight.

No doubt this is a formidable strike craft, but considering it to be the best? Why? In case of serious AA umbrella it would burn like a lighter, no miracles are there even for US marines. You cant replace armor with mobility. This fact is proven over and over again. Skyraider is clearly the “clear sky” attacker. Good result can be achieved only when the AA is suppressed or absent. It is slow, it is big, it is lightly armored.

Please correct me if I am wrong on Skyraider armor weight, or if any additional upgrades are there.

 

Because those of us who actually have been in combat on the ground, the grunts and those who were in the air flying the aircraft that provided CAS for the grunts on the ground have done a lot of debating and the # 1 CAS aircraft was the Douglas A-1, # 2 was the Chance Vought F-4 U Corsair, # 3 the A-10 Warthog, # 4 the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk.

There's a private members only military blog/forum who's members are mostly Air Force and Marine pilots who have been in the CAS business from the Korean Wat through today in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are the ones who came up with which aircraft were the best CAS aircraft.

Foreign aircraft were talked about, The Stuka was talked about a lot but it was a dive bomber used in "Battlefield Air Interdiction" (BAI) not for "Close Air Support" (CAS).

As I mentioned before, most confuse CAS with BAI, they aren't the same. BAI some times called Deep Close Air Support.

Example; a rifle company sees an enemy tank platoon on it's left flank two miles away that's no threat from the infantry achieving it's objective, They call for an air strike on the enemy tanks. That's not a CAS mission but a BAI mission. An enemy artillery battery is discovered and a air strike is conducted to take out the artillery battery, that's not CAS mission but a BAI mission.

A rifle platoon finds it self in front of enemy bunkers that small arms fire can't take out and is stopping the rifle platoon from achieving it's objective. Fire support is needed. Artillery is the first choice because they are faster putting rounds on target and artillery is very accurate, Naval gun fire support is the second choice. And back when the Navy had real warships with 5"/38, 6", 8" and 16" guns with a large choice of projectiles (HC, HE, AP, WP, Ill) and fuses (FQ, FD, FT, VT) and the kinetic energy of those projectile they could handle taking out any target. The last choice is CAS, the high risk of fratricide and the limited choice of ordnance. You can't rearm an aircraft already in the air carrying MK 82 bombs with Mk 81 bombs. The friendly troops are with in rifle range of the enemy is a CAS mission. DANGER CLOSE.

Real incident, I was the NGF Spot Team Leader with a FAC Team attached to a Marine rifle company. We ran up against a reinforced NVA company in trenches and bunkers. Heavy automatic enemy fire. We were out if range of the DD on the gun line and there was no artillery fire base in range so we needed CAS. But there were no Marine A-4's in the area.

But there was an Air Force F-4 squadron of 24 aircraft in the air that took off from Thailand heading north towards Laos. Two F-4's were vector to provide us CAS, We were about 300 meters from the target, I watched our FAC who was a Marine captain, a F-4 fighter pilot talking the Air Force F-4's on to the target then when he asked the Air Force pilots what they were carrying I saw the expression on his face. He told the company CO to order everyone to fall back 200 meters. The F-4's were armed with the Air Force bomb of choice during the era, the Mk 117, a 750 lb. bomb. Not the bomb of choice for CAS, The over pressure from a Mk 117 will blow your ear drums out If you didn't cover your ears, your deaf for three or more minutes. Any friendly troops with in a 1/4 mile are incapacitated for at least five minutes after the air attack. Unless you took cover and cushioned yourself on your arms under your chest in the prone position and covered your ears.

Re: A-1 armor.
What made the A-1 just as survivable if not more as the A-10 was it's engine. A big freaking Wright R-3350 radial engine, 2,670 lbs. of iron. You could stand away with a AK-47, M-16 or even with a M-14 from 100 yards and spend an hour shooting at the engine of the A-1 and like a Timex watch back when America was great, it kept on ticking.

When I first came "in country" in 69, Most Marine helicopter CH-34's squadrons had transition to the CH-46. There were still some Hussies ( CH-34 ) in country but by 69 it was mostly UH-1 Huey's, CH-46 Sea Knights, CH-47 Chinooks and CH-53 Sea Stallions. The AH-1 Cobra gun ships were just starting replacing the Huey Hogs gunships.

But the Huss (CH-34) was less likely to be shot down from small arms fire or AA because it had a big 2,670 lb. radial engine of iron. And CH-34 pilots loved the CH-34 because they sat just above that big engine that protected them from small arms fire. Now for the crew chiefs, door gunners and the grunts on board they saw it differently,

http://popasmoke.com/vw-vietnam-helos

From -> http://popasmoke.com/

 

Then you've never met anybody intelligent or that isn't full of sht.

Do I really have to spell out why the Russians are dangerous? They are dangerous because their nation doesn't burst into a stupor-induced trance when one of them dies on the field. It's been half-centuries since you faced anything apart third world nations, military speaking - and worse, your record's not so shiny ever since.

And we are nearing the days when your concept of a carrier fleet becomes obsolete. Ever heard about hypersonic missiles? There is nothing in the US arsenal that can stop an hypersonic missile. The US was a 20th century power, and it is still armed alongside that past century's ideology - that's why you suck so much against guerilla and insurgency. Russians are no fanatics with nothing else but a turban and a AK-47 - but the army that stopped the Third Reich in its tracks, and Napoleon before that. They notably have the Bomb. Will you too shatter your empire by going full front against the Russians? Some people never learn.

If the west goes to war against Russia, they should put such fools and chikenhawks in the first rank - it will make the others think.

 

Unlike America who's generation of "men" of military age are PC millennial snowflakes, where 3/4 of Americans today are rejected from serving in the military because they are Pillsbury Dough Boys, Russia has 10 million young men of military age in physical shape who are just waiting to pick up an AK-74 to fight and defend Mother Russia.

 

Russians have the third best military in the world. That makes them dangerous. But the US is by far the first best military in the world, and we're the only country with the balls to nuke someone. So no, I rest in comfort in my rack at night knowing I'm part of the greatest offensive and defensive front in the world. You can keep living in fear.

 

But you are the one living in fear. Fear of the muslims, fear of the arabs, fear of socialism, of europe, of china, of russia, of progressives, of HRC, of latinos, of blacks - of anything that isn't yourself. Your whole world is based on fear.

It's that fear that makes you write such senseless bravado.

Tell me again what you'll gain with a direct confrontation with a nuclear power like Russia.

This isn't a video game, you know. You can't load a previous save if things go awry.

 

I don't fear anything you just listed. You need to cite your sources when you tell me that "I" am afraid of those hilarious things. I've never once mentioned that.

In the military, we keep our feelings in check. As the brave Reaper unit Sniper I know once told me:

"A reporter asked the sniper what he felt when he shoots a terrorist. The sniper replied "recoil"".

 

I am not impressed. Here, tough men are more of the stoic kind.

You said you were in the military? Really?

Have you checked what an hypersonic missile is? Or return any of my previous points instead of chest-thumping, like: What will you gain with a direct conflict against Russia?