Author Topic: Russia Tests 'World's Most Powerful Non-Nuclear Bomb' (Read 1977 times)

bj229r · « **Reply #45 on:** September 16, 2007, 09:32:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
Yeah. Compare Su-25 and A-10 concepts. A-10 is a dumb plane with expensive smart weapons, Su-25 is a smart plane with any weapons, dumb OR smart.

In Grozny 1995 they managed to place a FAB-250 into a sewage well, blowing up Chechen "government" bunker.

Now they are fitting Su-24 frontline bombers with a bombing control system that can put a dumb FAB in a bull's eye from several kilometers. Lipetsk Combat Application Center already trains the crews.

Bah, can't compare A-10 and the 25...A10 is just a low-tech plane wrapped around a VERY cool gun...also takes damage well

Boroda · « **Reply #46 on:** September 17, 2007, 03:11:03 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by bj229r
Bah, can't compare A-10 and the 25...A10 is just a low-tech plane wrapped around a VERY cool gun...also takes damage well

They are both from one class, "shturmovik", close ground support. Just two different approaches to one task.

Estel · « **Reply #47 on:** September 17, 2007, 06:55:27 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
They are both from one class, "shturmovik", close ground support. Just two different approaches to one task.

You are not correct at all. Yes, both planes are for CAS. But while A-10 is a flying multy-weapon platform, Su-25 is a cheap version to deliver free-fall munitions. We can compare only Su-25T and A-10. "T" version, with new TV-guidance system, came close to A-10. But still not available for some options due to lack of normal radar. But if to compare them in combat surviveability, here, Su-25 is on the first place, without any doubts.

expat · « **Reply #48 on:** September 20, 2007, 04:18:05 PM »

estel
u state that the su is no good cos of a lack of radar...please tell me where the radar is on the a10?as far as i know they both radarless

Wolfala · « **Reply #49 on:** September 20, 2007, 06:10:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by expat
estel
u state that the su is no good cos of a lack of radar...please tell me where the radar is on the a10?as far as i know they both radarless

I believe he's referring to the lack of a FLIR capability for all weather attack (day/night/reduced visibility). This is not the same capability as having a Laser Rangefinder & Marked Target Seeker - which it does incorporate.

Angus · « **Reply #50 on:** September 21, 2007, 02:09:52 AM »

"Anything non-nuke with that much power will be especially appealing to terrorists too."

It's a bit bulky....

Estel · « **Reply #51 on:** September 21, 2007, 06:36:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wolfala
I believe he's referring to the lack of a FLIR capability for all weather attack (day/night/reduced visibility). This is not the same capability as having a Laser Rangefinder & Marked Target Seeker - which it does incorporate.

Exactly. Really, Su-25T have some kind of LLTV. But it's capabilities are not so greate as it could be. And it's made as an external block. I don't remember, is FLIR on A-10 incorporated or no.

Angus · « **Reply #52 on:** September 21, 2007, 08:39:01 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
I had a friend who argued that this was a bad thing. This creates a distancing from the fear of even associating with bad people.

For example, you have a terrorist roaming the streets of baghdad. American forces spot him, drop a 10 pound smart munition bomb, which promptly takes off his head, and only his head. Not too scary.

But then you have the other method. The terrorist is hiding in a building. We drop a 5k pound bomb, and take out several city blocks. Several city blocks no longer exist for merely being near the guy.

The first situation allows terrorism to exist. The second one goes to the root of the support of terrorism, and will soon exterminate it.

Not sure how your friends head works, but it seems to be in the ballpark of the Nazis of old as well as the terrorists of new.
Blasting down entire habitats of people as a selection vs just the naughty guy leaves you automatically with bloodstained hands and a lot of hatred towards you. Blood of women, infants and innocents alike.
There is a point being the nice guy, just not easy.

Neubob · « **Reply #53 on:** September 21, 2007, 08:46:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus

There is a point being the nice guy, just not easy.

In a war?

Are you kidding?

You think the Allies had any mercy at all when they were bombing Berlin, or Tokyo? You think the Russians gave a **** about the Nazi's women and children after the Nazis did what they did?

It's kill or be killed. Either that or don't bother raising your stick in the first place.

Angus · « **Reply #54 on:** September 21, 2007, 11:59:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Neubob
In a war?

Are you kidding?

You think the Allies had any mercy at all when they were bombing Berlin, or Tokyo? You think the Russians gave a **** about the Nazi's women and children after the Nazis did what they did?

It's kill or be killed. Either that or don't bother raising your stick in the first place.

Who were the allies fighting? What were their losses while at it?
Nothing compareable to i.e. the fights the USA is doing today I'm afraid.
WW2 ended in a total war. Pancaking Berlin was one thing. Pancaking Dresden was one thing. Setting Hamburg as well as Tokyo ablaze was one thing.
Bear in mind that it was a return, since the Axis started the methods already in September 1939.
From the high command view on the W-allied side, looking into their information, the Nazis had to be stopped. Precision bombing had been applied, but with insufficint effects. The Nazis themselves had however demonstrated how area bombing could buckle a nation.
Had they mercy? Well, for the Germans as folks, not much. It was a "Me or You" situation.
As for the Russians, they were not a part of the Geneva convention, so from day one in the eastern front, the Germans treated the Russians as a butcher does his cattle. They got it in return, - well, the Geneva convention works both ways.
So, - raising sticks, or not, - or having one, - all makes a difference. In war, we do indeed have a demonstration of victors who behaved better than the conquered ones, which actually started the fight with absolute brutality.
That is history, and to honour the slain we should learn from it.

Sixpence · « **Reply #55 on:** September 21, 2007, 01:00:06 PM »

These russians crack me up. They can spend money to get a flag to the bottom of the arctic ocean, but they can't rescue men trapped in a sub. Glad to see russia still has it's priorities in order.

john9001 · « **Reply #56 on:** September 21, 2007, 01:04:24 PM »

yeah, but the Russians invented everything, or was that the Germans, i keep forgetting.

Boroda · « **Reply #57 on:** September 21, 2007, 01:36:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sixpence
These russians crack me up. They can spend money to get a flag to the bottom of the arctic ocean, but they can't rescue men trapped in a sub. Glad to see russia still has it's priorities in order.

I have to remind you that no submarine crews were ever rescued from below 70m. And Kursk crew was all killed instantly except the rear compartment, where they lasted for about 3 hours in cold water and 10atm air full of smoke... I think Superman was busy at that time, wasn't he?

Angus · « **Reply #58 on:** September 22, 2007, 11:31:38 AM »

However you Russkies learned that afterwards. You did however decline the fastest help available. (Norway?)
Was it shyness, pride or arrogance, - or just not enough sense of realism?

Boroda · « **Reply #59 on:** September 22, 2007, 05:42:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
However you Russkies learned that afterwards. You did however decline the fastest help available. (Norway?)
Was it shyness, pride or arrogance, - or just not enough sense of realism?

How Norwegians could help? Do they have Viking Necromancing corps?

Back in 1988 it was silly to refuse from Norvegian assistance when Komsomolets sunk... But in case of Kursk - no one could help. It was quite obvious.

You can dig my posts from 7 years ago here, I tried to stay optimistic, but I didn't understand the scale of destruction, everyone thought that rear compartments were not flooded and didn't take any significant amount of smoke....