ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ต.ค. 2024
- Hey ladies and gentlemen this just a quick comparison video between the A-10a and Su-25, we look at the philosophical and doctrinal differences in making of these two weapons systems. I hope you enjoy and please add your thoughts on the matter in the comments section.
- เกม
Songs used in the video? Especially the last one?
And yeah - I did knew that A-10 was technically earlier. I would have to check if it was produced in the same numbers, because it had 2 very important features that made it kind of weird to build "too much". 1. It's a flying auto-canon with DU 30 mm ammunition. Which costs a ton. 2. It has magnificent survivability and redundancies.
However Su-25 is much easier to produce and maintain. And as you were saying those rockets - they can be produced by a team of farmers after 2 weeks of training. And don't require some super-special materials. Mavericks probably require Ph.D's to even acknowledge you ;)
Not to mention at that time it would mostly be Su-22, Su-24 and Su-25 in layered offensive. While A-10 would be better, above it it would have F-16 or something similar to support it. And while nice aircraft, they aren't as specialized ground-pounders as Su-24 for example. You'd have to go with dediacted (so bigger) bomber. And Russians also had medium and large bombers.
Hi, the music from "Hostile Encounter" by Jon Bjork. Yes that's the problem with building the best military equipment, they are too expensive, difficult to justify to the electorate and all money/capital spent on weapons is labeled as "sunk cost" by economist, meaning that they have no further use and thus don't generate anymore wealth after their use, because generally they are destroyed after been used. This for something like the AGM-65, not so much the aircraft, which may be recycled at a later date. Cheers, thanks for watching the video and it's good to hear from you again. All the best.