Iraq's 2nd hand Russian fighters - in service in 3-4 days?
Discussion
Just seen the footage of the Sukhoi jets arriving in the back of heavy transports looking like giant Airfix kits.
Will they really be in service in the next 3-4 days as claimed in the interview on BBC News?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-280772...
Will they really be in service in the next 3-4 days as claimed in the interview on BBC News?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-280772...
In some ways, yes. The SU-25 is a relatively low tech aircraft without radar and any sophisticated tracking or sighting systems. It is a simple and rugged aircraft designed for operations out of forward airfields and can run on a variety of fuels - including diesel.
It's ideal for what the Iraqis want to do - bomb the s
t out of Isis.
The Soviets built them as an answer to the American A-10.
It's ideal for what the Iraqis want to do - bomb the s
t out of Isis.The Soviets built them as an answer to the American A-10.
Eric Mc said:
They aren't fighters.
Why does every military combat aircraft these days get referred to as a "fighter jet"?
They are Sukhoi SU-25 Frogfoots (Frogfeet?) - which are ground attack aircraft i.e. bombers, not fighters.
Because the press has not updated it's ideas since 1939 and insists on categorising combat aircraft as either fighters or bombers. They are either small and are therefore fighters or big and therefore bombers. The same reason the F117 is called a stealth fighter when it's actually a bomber.Why does every military combat aircraft these days get referred to as a "fighter jet"?
They are Sukhoi SU-25 Frogfoots (Frogfeet?) - which are ground attack aircraft i.e. bombers, not fighters.
The BBC just called them fighter jets, jet aircraft for fighting. I doubt most readers care whether they're fighters or bombers, I think it's that the Russians have sent aircraft for fighting to Iraq that is the point of the story. The exact role of the military aircraft isn't really that important to 90% of the readers.
el stovey said:
The BBC just called them fighter jets, jet aircraft for fighting. I doubt most readers care whether they're fighters or bombers, I think it's that the Russians have sent aircraft for fighting to Iraq that is the point of the story. The exact role of the military aircraft isn't really that important to 90% of the readers.
Well in that case a B52 is a fighter jet. There is no excuse for poor reporting regardless of what the readership cares. News is for disseminating facts. In this case the fault is probably down to the media studies graduate who knows little about anything but thinks 'fighter' sounds exciting.el stovey said:
The BBC just called them fighter jets, jet aircraft for fighting. I doubt most readers care whether they're fighters or bombers, I think it's that the Russians have sent aircraft for fighting to Iraq that is the point of the story. The exact role of the military aircraft isn't really that important to 90% of the readers.
Describing the news accurately should be the standard approach for any professional news service - especially one read, listened to and watched by millions.Perhaps having standards and being accurate doesn't matter any more.
Perhaps you are right, if the nation couldn't care less - maybe the national broadcaster should adopt the same attitude. A dumbed down news service for a dumbed down nation.
For all we know, most of the news is sloppily put together, checked and reported.
It's the same with the term Battleship used by the press. Technically not wrong as warships big and small are built to take part in battles, but a Battleship is (was) a very specific kind of ship, as is an aircraft carrier, cruiser,mine warfare ship, frigate, destroyer et al.
You don't see the term Fighter Bomber used much now. I guess that's what the UK's F35s will be though.
You don't see the term Fighter Bomber used much now. I guess that's what the UK's F35s will be though.
In the modern era, quite a few aircraft are multi-role in that they can double up as interceptors (fighters) and ground attack aircraft (bombers). The Phantom is a great example of this as is the F-16.
However,. the SU-25 is very much a bomber/ground attack aircraft with no interceptor (fighter) capability of any significance.
In aviation terms, the word "fighter" has always been used to describe an aircraft who's primary role is to intercept and shoot down other aircraft - even if, versions of the "fighter" aircraft also on occasions carried bombs (such as the Hurricane , Typhoon and Thunderbolt in WW2).
However,. the SU-25 is very much a bomber/ground attack aircraft with no interceptor (fighter) capability of any significance.
In aviation terms, the word "fighter" has always been used to describe an aircraft who's primary role is to intercept and shoot down other aircraft - even if, versions of the "fighter" aircraft also on occasions carried bombs (such as the Hurricane , Typhoon and Thunderbolt in WW2).
It won't be a precision strike using these that's for sure, but for blasting a convoy of Toyota Hilux's off the road or laying some thousand pounders near a bunch of bad guys these can do the job and often bring the pilot home as well. Much will depend on what you ask the plane/pilot to do for you.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff