Posted on 09/29/2020 10:36:33 AM PDT by NorseViking
A Su-25 jet of the Armenian Air Force was shot down by a Turkish F-16 fighter in the airspace of the Republic of Armenia, Spokesperson for the Armenian Defense Ministry Shushan Stepanyan informs.
F-16 fighter jets belonging to the Air Force of the Republic of Turkey took off from Ganja Airport of the Republic of Azerbaijan at 10:30 am today and were assisting SU-25 fighters and Turkish-made Bayraktar UAVs in the missile strikes on Vardenis, Mets Masrik, Sotk regions of the Vardenis region of Armenia.
During this period, the air defense units were performing fire support tasks for the air defense units of the RA Armed Forces.
During the air-to-air battles the F-16 multifunctional fighter of the Air Force of the Republic of Turkey struck the SU-25 jet of the Armenian Air Force in the airspace of the Republic of Armenia.
The pilot was killed in the attack.
The F-16 was at 60km depth and 8200 altitude, she said.
On Tuesday, Armenia’s Defense Ministry said a passenger bus had been hit by an Azerbaijani drone in the eastern Armenian city of Vardenis. There were no reports of casualties.
(Excerpt) Read more at en.armradio.am ...
tougher than all the soibois put together
Frogfoot worse than any jet.
With A/A missiles and a gun that can reach over 9,000 feet- the A-10 is a formatable A/A platform, Very respected by other fighters—they stay away and don’t want a fight with the Hog. A-10 is able to maintain/regain energy a lot better than the Frogfoot.
Frogfoot *is* a jet.
The A-10 is formidable up close, sure. It’s surprised some fighters at close range at Red Flag.
But when the fighter is salvoing AMRAAMs or Vympels at the ground attack aircraft beyond the range of the normal missiles on it, it doesn’t matter if it’s an Su-25 or A-10, it’s rather screwed. The A-10 was never upgraded to carry AMRAAM or Sparrow and the longest ranged missile it carries is the Sidewinder, which falls far short of what a proper fighter carries.
think it was drugs that killed Keith Whitley.
Alcohol poisoning
I’m very familiar with the case
Lorrie is beautiful but difficult
Untamable
I thought Kershaw could handle her
He’s pretty alpha
But nope
She does seem to adore the boy she had with Whitley
My rib and I saw him perform at The Wheel on south side of lower Broadway here shoot.....ten years ago maybe longer even when we used to do that ...
He sounds a lot like his dad
the new eagle will be paired with an F-232 or F-35. the new model carries almost 20 air to air missiles and will shoot at the targets that the stealth birds find
Without the AWACS sitting way back, the stealth birds will have to reveal themselves by radiating (using their radar in transmit mode in this case). On the modern electronic battlefield, if you radiate, you die.
Keep in mind that in exercises, when the F-22 is deprived of AWACS support and has to find its own target, SU-30MKIs will kill them.
From that I know A-10 can’t sustain speed flying at 45 degree roll. Su-25 is much more agile and capable to perform difficult aerobatics. It is much faster.
These two can’t be compared straight. The only thing common is a mission.
The upsides of Su-25 is that it is capable to operate from a very short runway. Or without a runway from dirt.
You don’t need specialized equipment to arm it.
You can fuel it with regular gas or diesel fuel.
A pilot in Su-25 is much better protected. The way A-10’s armor is composed it is more likely to become a source of secondary shrapnel upon hit with something really tough.
The upsides of A-10 is better cockpit visibility, larger payload and longer loiter time. A big gun also.
The latter is questionable advantage in NSW scenarios.
A-10 lacks radar, I am not sure if it even has a laser illuminator on-board for smart weapons.
The A-10 can also operate on a short runway or from dirt/grass fields, as that was one of the original design specs. The USAF doesn’t operate it that way these days, but it can - the high mount engines were done that way to prevent FOD ingestion in such conditions, for example. It’s also faster to swap out engines and return the plane to service.
The A-10 got an synthetic aperture radar system with the C model upgrades, to go along with its already retrofitted SNIPER and LITENING pods, which provide laser designator services.
Retired pilots of the SU-25 and A-10 that got shot at have actually discussed the armor scheme and opinions vary - some pilots of one think the other is better, some think the one they had was better.
I voted for Fred in the NH primary.
I liked Fred.
I stand corrected of avionics. They are still too different for direct comparison.
Similar role, different approaches, neither aircraft is good air-to-air beyond extremely short range and neither one is a serious challenge to a fighter standing off and firing medium range missiles at it.
Thank you for your perspective. I’ll offer mine:
I’ll offer what I know about the A-10: It can indeed maintain airspeed and altitude in a simple 45-deg turn.
Full loaded it can do it. Frogfoot cannot.
A-10/SU-25 can be compared side-by-side.
Frogfoot max speed slight advantage the Hog but loses airspeed and energy faster than the Hog.
The A-10 can operate on unimproved surfaces/”dirt” and that is why the engines are higher than all but the top of the rudders.
Triple redundant flight control system (two hydraulic systems to fly the jet if one fail and a manual reversion capability).
It’s redundant system and manual reversion is why Capt Campbell was able to fly the heavily damaged Hog back to safety. Frogfoot can’t do that.
Actually, munition are heavy and the Frogfoot needs bomb-loaders like the Hog.
“Regular” gas AND Diesel, never heard of that.
Frogfoot is not more protective than the A-10. Gulf War battle damaged A-10’s had an 80% survival rate if hit, whereas an F-16 had a 80% loss if hit.
Also, the Hog has a titanium “bathtub” around the cockpit and the Frogfoot pilot protection is weaker.
Spalling is not a factor for the A-10, smaller arms penetrate the Frogfoot.
A-10 has self-sealing fuel tanks and many control surfaces can be swapped with the other side.
No laser designator on the jet, but that technology is old technology and is now replaced with JDAMs and other smart munitions (SDB). The Hog can drop LGBs as part of a buddy-lase delivery.
A-10 carries AIM-9X heaters.
Adversary with heaters against an A-10 has a hard time getting a lock with a heater because of the high by-pass TF34 has a really cool exhaust. Basically, the cool engine exhaust requires an adversary to close to within about A-10 gun range.
Frogfoot is very limited in versatility.
Again, don’t sell the A-10 Gatling gun short. It has a 30mm like no other. 112,600 rpm, 3,400-3,600 FPS exiting the barrel, 10-rounds per barrel per second (7-barrels). That’s 70-rnds per second. However, to save the barrels, there is a limiter that allows about 3,900 rounds per second. Less than a second trigger pull. The old movies of aircraft walking their rounds to a target are no more.
Frogfoot has a gun that is nowhere near the rate and range and accuracy of the Hog’s 30mm.
Oh, and the gun can penetrate up to 1.5” of armor at 8,000’.
Frogfoot is closer to the A-9 that was part of the USAF’s original source-selection for a new CAS aircraft. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YA-9).
A-9 lost.
Oh, point of order. . .what are “difficult aerobatics?”
;-)
“Sidewinder, which falls far short of what a proper fighter carries.”
Say again?
Not what a proper fighter carries. . .what is a proper fighter?
The F-15C and F-15E carries the heater. . .are they not a proper fighter? And the AIM-9X is superb and super reliable and lethal. . .isn’t that a proper A/A weapon?
We design jets to operate BVR BUT we also recognize there is a need to operate within a phone booth. . sometimes you simply can’t avoid the merge and you better have *something* for that fight, and a gun and a heater are perfect for that engagement.
IMHO. . .of course.
A fighter pilot is confident in his jet, the weapons and his skills.
Recall Gulf War I. . .all that state-of-the-art hardware of the Iraqis became scrap metal because while they had some technology, they had no skills. And that was a profound weakness and follows the Soviet model. . .Takeoff to landing you MUST do what the plan said, no deviations. We launch and we know plans are fluid and require fast adaptation and improvisation. We are really good at that. As a Soviet General said, “the Americans publish their doctrine but they don’t follow it.”
You might find this interesting and amusing:
Spoke with an Egyptian Air Force (EAF) pilot that flew against the Israelis. This MiG-21 pilot was trained by the Soviets and the EAF demanded all pilots follow Soviet doctrine, no question, so when he found himself with an Israeli fighter on his butt and the EAF pilot said the Israeli gunned him and he was on fire and losing control he told me he called his base and asked for permission to eject and was denied—not in the plan! The jet fell apart around him and he was court-martialed over his unapproved ejection.
So, bottom line, we fly into combat confident we will win and that is how you fly boldly and with aggression (not foolishness). If you fly into combat scared of your opponent you already lost the battle. You respect all threats but you fear none.
IMHO. . .of course.
A proper air to air fighter carries more than Sidewinders. It carries medium and long range missiles in addition to the short range Sidewinders - and that’s the point. A proper fighter can sit back outside of the range the A-10 can hit and simply sling medium and long range missiles at it.
I guess I misunderstood what you said.
Happens to all of us.
But as I’ve said before, respect all threats but fear none. . .and every fighter prepares for the knife-fight in a phone booth. . .sometimes the merge happens.
Oh. . .when did a radar-guided missile become a proper weapon, and before that, we had no “proper fighters?”
*chuckle
Final thought: an A-10 is a proper fighter because it is flown as a fighter, fly a fighter mission (CAS) and by fighter pilots that have natural aggression.
Cheers,
An aerobatic team Sky Hussars flew Su-25s. In fact the only person I heard of flew both is Mohammed Talboyev. He admired a-10 for low speed maneuverability ‘rivaling crop-duster’ but said Su-25 feels like a race car at regular regimes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.