Cool pic of an SU-25 landing or taking off from a flooded road...
- Thread starter bunk22
- Start date
You naysayers are either forgetting, or just simply don't know, that Soviet planes are built like brick craphouses. What they lack in ergonomics and looks, they more than make up for in rugged dependability and ability to take a beating. The Frogfoot, for example, can run on diesel #2 or cooking oil, about as good as it can run on Jet B.
So just because what they're doing doesn't match your ops specs at X regional or Y mainline, doesn't necessarily mean automatic failure. Things are just different in some ways. Their aircraft sure are.
So just because what they're doing doesn't match your ops specs at X regional or Y mainline, doesn't necessarily mean automatic failure. Things are just different in some ways. Their aircraft sure are.
The Frogfoot is somewhat like the A-9, Northrop's competitor to the A-10, in design, with similarities such as armored cockpit and being a stick/rudder simple plane and such. It's a rugged as heck airplane, good at what it does, with pilots who are well trained to employ it and have a similar mindset on killing things air-to-ground, getting down and dirty while doing it. While their tactics and ordnance are different in some ways, the Soviets understood the need to build a rugged plane that could get slow, see targets, and prosecute them, while supporting troops. The Frogfoot is very much one of the better Soviet fighter/attack planes out there for what it does. It's their A-10 (A-9), much like the SU-24 is their F-111, much in design and very much in mission set.
genot
Well-Known Member
I'll say this right now. If I'm ever in @Fencer's part of the country I have about a million things to ask him. The first question being where can we find good borscht around here.
Second would be Gogol, Dostievsky or wrong answer for his favorite 19th century Russian author.
I swear the rest of the 999,998 questions would involve basking in his awesomeness.
Second would be Gogol, Dostievsky or wrong answer for his favorite 19th century Russian author.
I swear the rest of the 999,998 questions would involve basking in his awesomeness.
He and I had some good conversation about strike tactics, warfare, and general USAF vs Soviet Frontal Aviation operations; SU-24 vs F-111/F-117; so much so that we didn't even notice that 3 hours had gone by.
Fencer
Experimentalist
Early Frogfoot had poor navigation equipment. They didn't need one targets were worked visually. It was a workhorse in all regional conflicts. Blue on the map are countries still have them red no more. There was a shortage of pilots for SU-24 in mid 80ies a lot of Frogfooters from A-stan were offered transition to Fencers. Many didn't like it initially, a lot of automation and an extra mouth in the right seat. But after a while things had changed for the better. Better equipment, armament, QOL...
Fencer
Experimentalist
There is no good borscht around here. All ingredients are genetically modified and may explode while cooking...
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
I was vacationing in Peru and saw a pair of armed SU-25's on a low-level. I didn't know that Peru had them and for a moment a "Red Dawn" moment.
There are definitely those who fit this bill.....
z987k
Well-Known Member
Wait? So you mean if it's not in MY opspecs it won't instantly make my airplane explode?
knot4u
Repeat Offender
No offense intended, your quote seems to fit him. Hope you don't mind.
No, none taken at all. He is but one of a good number of other people who fit that bill. Im glad you used it with him; very well deserved.
Quote is from Tommy Gavin's dad from an episode of Rescue Me.
Boris Badenov
This is no laughing matter.
@Fencer
As long as we're having Q&A with the Russian Ironman...the one criticism of Soviet aircraft that I hear consistently is that the engines, well, "left a bit to be desired", particularly from a longevity point of view. I've heard this blamed on inferior metallurgy, but that seems sort of unlikely to this layman, as the Soviets always seemed to be first rate at applied sciences from what I can tell. A) Is it true that your engines ate themselves after a few hundred hours, and, if so, B) Why?
I'll take my answer off the air...
As long as we're having Q&A with the Russian Ironman...the one criticism of Soviet aircraft that I hear consistently is that the engines, well, "left a bit to be desired", particularly from a longevity point of view. I've heard this blamed on inferior metallurgy, but that seems sort of unlikely to this layman, as the Soviets always seemed to be first rate at applied sciences from what I can tell. A) Is it true that your engines ate themselves after a few hundred hours, and, if so, B) Why?
I'll take my answer off the air...
Fencer
Experimentalist
A) Who said so? Or are you referring to a specific incident I mentioned somewhere?
Early Lul'ka engines were different (early 80ies) then in the 90ies they were improved. I am not a tech and don't remember overhaul times but they lasted long. Once a mechanic forgot a good sized wrench while working on infrared visor by refueling probe. Crew missed tucked wrench on preflight. On max afterburner takeoff wrench slid and went straight to the left compressor. Ate the wrench spit couple blades they shut it down and abandoned takeoff. Sukhoi teared off the arrestor cables and stopped in deep mud. Two tanks were called to tow it out. Spent couple days bringing to the pavement it was October. Engine was repaired and serviced at local facility there was no need for factory repairs. Then flew happily ever after.
There was no inferior metallurgy in USSR it's all propaganda.
Probably you know the stories about titanium slabs bought in Russia for cheap and used to machine some fighter parts.
Early Lul'ka engines were different (early 80ies) then in the 90ies they were improved. I am not a tech and don't remember overhaul times but they lasted long. Once a mechanic forgot a good sized wrench while working on infrared visor by refueling probe. Crew missed tucked wrench on preflight. On max afterburner takeoff wrench slid and went straight to the left compressor. Ate the wrench spit couple blades they shut it down and abandoned takeoff. Sukhoi teared off the arrestor cables and stopped in deep mud. Two tanks were called to tow it out. Spent couple days bringing to the pavement it was October. Engine was repaired and serviced at local facility there was no need for factory repairs. Then flew happily ever after.
There was no inferior metallurgy in USSR it's all propaganda.
Probably you know the stories about titanium slabs bought in Russia for cheap and used to machine some fighter parts.
Boris Badenov
This is no laughing matter.
No, it's just some propaganda that I no doubt swallowed whole as a young airplane nerd. I couldn't point to specific source, but I'm sure that I've read in various books aimed towards little airplane nerds that, you know, "Their engines always explode!" etc etc. I halfway suspected what you've said, but figured I should check with someone who actually sat in front of them!
PS. To be fair to the propagandists, I think when I was reading this stuff (say mid to late 80s), they were probably talking about engines at least one generation older than what you were flying around in front of.
Similar threads
