Comments by "afcgeo" (@afcgeo882) on "Grid 88" channel.

  1. Sylling Boy You’re not too bright, are you? Do you measure naval ships by their operating altitude? 1. The A-10 is far more maneuverable. 2. Speed is not needed to fight ground targets. 3. Climb rate is not needed to fight ground targets. 4. Loiter time is greater for the A-10. 5. Visibility is better from the A-10. 6. Survivability is better for the A-10. 7. Armament is better on the A-10. Those are the aspects needed for a successful ground attack. Thrust, climb, top speed and altitude are needed for fighter aircraft, not attack aircraft.
    8
  2. glenn huinda For YOU it’s more heavily armed? Well... for science, the A-10 carries far more actual armament than the Sukhoi. The SU-25 has a 4400kg payload capacity. The A-10 has a 7260kg payload capacity (not including the cannon). The SU-25 has 8 under wing pylons while the A-10 has 11. Facts matter more than your feels.
    6
  3. Sylling Boy Back up a source for visibility? Get into the cockpit and judge for yourself! I’ve been in both! Without that, look at videos and notice the shape of the canopies and the relative sitting position of the pilot. It’s VERY easy to see that the sight lines out of a Hog are superior. LIFT, not engine thrust is what adds to an aircraft’s maneuverability. Forward motion is NOT maneuverability. Lift can be had with wing and surface area rather than speed. The faster a plane has to fly, the less tight the turning radius is. Thus, a slow aircraft can always out turn a fast one. In fact, that’s why the A-10 performs its role (air to ground attack) so well. It can simply out maneuver anything on the ground and attack multiple targets faster, including purely visually. That’s why it has straight wings, turbofan engines and a less than aerodynamic shape. It was built to go in after air superiority has already been established and SAMs have been extinguished, to attack infantry, armor and logistical ground targets and provide CAS. It does not need to defend itself against enemy fighters, go fast or climb quickly. No reason to. It needs to turn on a dime, deliver massive firepower onto the ground, loiter a long time, and survive small caliber fire from the ground. That’s its role. The Sukhoi has the same role, but it simply wasn’t built to fulfill it as well. It was a compromise between a fighter and an attack aircraft. USAF believes the A-10 is old (it is), requires a lot of maintenance (it does) and that its role can now be achieved by multi-role networks of F-22s and F-35s. To some degree, it can. The O/A-10’s observation role can be done with technology while its ground attack role can be partially achieved by fighter-bombers, the way the F-16 and F-18 have, but only partially. That’s why USAF hasn’t retired it. The actual combat studies show that it can do things no other aircraft can and that those things matter in actual combat. STOP TROLLING!
    5
  4. A grunt would prefer nothing at all fires on them.
    4
  5. I Play Games Speed isn’t advancement. Through avionics and targeting system upgrades, the A-10 has stayed far ahead of the Frogfoot in terms of technology.
    4
  6. Yes, you would. Different scenarios exist for different aircraft, now that even B-52s are tasked with CAS. That’s why TACPs exist.
    2
  7. Sylling Boy I don’t think you understand much about airplanes. Speed isn’t maneuverability. Neither is power. In fact, they’re most often opposites. Maneuverability is how quickly an aircraft can change direction of flight. You also don’t understand the difference between an attack aircraft and a fighter aircraft. You’re embarrassing yourself with your comments. You use internet as your source? I wish you would use an education instead. My source is my Air Force career. Any other questions?
    2
  8. Sylling Boy It is, absolutely, cheaper to build and operate. That’s true of any Russian aircraft. The problem is that it wasn’t made in large quantities and the manufacture stopped in February 2017, so no, you won’t see it in mass quantities. Despite it being cheaper, it failed to sell outside of the CIS. The things about aircraft prices are: can countries afford them and are they more lethal for the price. The A-10 is absolutely more lethal, because (not despite) of being slower and more maneuverable. The United States easily afforded them. It was more than proven in combat, unlike the SU.
    2
  9. United Navy Hey dumbass, the USAF never said it’s obsolete and I never flew either. Never claimed to have flown either. I served in the US Air Force, not the Russian Air Force.
    2
  10. glenn huinda The A-10 carries guided or unguided Hydra-70 2.75 inch rockets in pods, if needed.
    2
  11.  @simoncunningham3740  It did. The Sukhoi has 8 under wing pylons.
    2
  12. Sylling Boy I don’t care that you’re half German. I was born and raised in Russia. I know its history very well. Clearly better than you. This conversation is about two aircraft, not WW2 or Russia. Also, you need to stop being a fan boy. Especially over Russia. It’s not what you think it’s like.
    1