Comments by "" (@TheArklyte) on "Putin’s Su-25 ‘frogfoot’ aircraft: Russian ‘flying tanks’ rain missiles on Ukraine forces" video.

You do realize that both Harrier II and A-10 of whatever version was last were retired and replaced by F-35? And that this news is old enough to go to school:\ I know you have shitty internet, but come on.
3
MiG-27>this expendable coffin. USSR already produced best ground pounder soviet army needed. The fact that Russia continues to produce cheap expendable strike aircraft like Su-25 instead of high performance one like MiG-27 tells too much about both situation in the military and priorities of the government. Like as if US decided not to abandon A-10 and Harrier II in favor of F-35 or if China decided to bring A-5 into service. Which neither of them did because they have functional economies and military. So yeah, continue praising flying coffin. And learn at least about a few other famous soviet aircraft!
3
MiG-27. Nuff said. It was, is and likely will remain best ground pounder designed and produced in USSR and inherited by Russia. Specifically designed to RETAIN supersonic capability and yet deliver precision firepower. Proved to be too complicated and expensive. And Su-25 is known in Russia as "flying coffin". Because it's what it was designed for - being expendable piece of shit. Make sure that the last person who saw MiG-27 dies before you start preaching to Su-25/39 or whatever they'll call it next. Because we remember aircraft that it'll never be able to replace:P
2
@funneharfaller4336 There is no point in "modifying" Su-25. It was expendable crappy plane and everyone knows it. Want good ground pounder? Bring MiG-27 back!
1
@teemuvesala9575 охуенные история, паря, а теперь все же вернёмся к реальности. A-10 never was spherical example of CAS in vacuum. The role of CAS in US military and navy structure in era of A-10 was filled by 3 dedicated CAS planes each having their own niche: A-10, Harrier and Corsair II. A-10 was never independent or best in this trio. In USSR we have abolished the role of pure attack aircraft after IL-40, basically IL-10 with jet engines. After that the multirole attack aircraft filled the role. Su-7/17/22. But then we decided that, hey, we can make precision weapons too, so why not make an attack plane DESIGNED for them? For that role MIG-27 was designed. Yes, it used MiG-23 as basis. Same as Corsair II was also based on fighter craft. Of course you didn't know that either. MiG-27 was designed to work in duo with heavier bomber/striker plane Su-25 with which it shared the engine and several types of avionics. While MiG-23 covered them. All was well. Except our economy. So first they started to simplify MiG-27. And that's when the technical requirements for Su-25 appeared. Remember what they stated? Simple, cheap, easy to maintain armoured aircraft that can be used by low skilled(referred to as medium skilled in document, lol) pilots from dirt airstrips near the frontline. Woopsie, we're back to IL-2 with jets category:D So of course first submitted design was IL-102, refined project of one of IL-40 variants. It didn't sit well, so they chose single pilot Su-25 instead. What the problem? It's piece of manure. MiG-27 was capable of supersonic flight, it was all weather capable, it was designed for precision weapons, it had GREATER operational range then his "bigger brother" Su-24. USSR fell over and yet it was MiG-27 that was butchered. Sukhou design bureau belched out an abomination called Su-39 and promised that they'd make all Su-25 like it, all weather and ideal for precision armaments. It'll be just as good as MiG-27(ignoring everything that made MiG-27 good). Guess how many Su-39 was ever made? 4. Guess how many NEW MiG-27 were scrapped? Hundreds. And in the end we're left with cheap and expendable piece of crap because it was DESIGNED to be cheap and expendable piece of crap, that stopped being cheap and easy to maintain due to corruption and internal lobbies and never had gotten anywhere near promised capabilities. But at least it's advertised in internet as cool, right? That makes up for what it is, right? I'm fully aware what a PoS Su-25 is so by extrapolating its situation and history to A-10 and F-35 I have to tell you to go screw yourself and learn what close air support even means. Spoiler alert: it's NOT about plane getting close to attack enemy combatants with autocannons and unguided munitions, it's called this way because attack happens CLOSE to your own troops. Precision weapons remove the need for aircraft to get close itself while filling the CAS role. That's the lowest of the basics and you don't know even that. Congrats, you've played yourself. Прежде, чем называть кого-то дурачком, прочитай хоть одну(1!) книгу по теме. А потом пались своим незнанием:))
1