Just another day in DCS? Oh wait:
4 Likes
I’ve got to say, the SU-25 looks damn fierce next to the A-10. Although I vastly prefer the shape of the rook compared to the hog.
Both are formidable aircraft. To me, the Frogfoot has Russian ruggedness to it, while the Hawg is unique. Certainly not your average pointy-nosed US jet.
The Hog has a reputation for being a rugged bullet sponge, but you should see some of the abuse a Frogfoot has taken, and returned home with. It’s Frog isn’t a push over either.
2 Likes
For the longest time in DCS I didn’t even know the Su-25 had a nose cone. 
3 Likes
I’ve always thought they were comparable aircraft.
Why is it US and allied Aircraft always get exotic names like Viper or Raptor though but Russian Aircraft unfathomable silly names like Frogfoot or Faggot? I’ve always wondered about that 
Great pics near blind.
Btw: Did you ever look up all the bases we know from DCSW in Google Maps? Half of them have craters all over the runways and look VERY abandoned.
Any idea when all of that happened and where they are now flying from?
NATO gives the Russian aircraft those names.
Adding off this. Russians don’t actually name their aircraft officially. They might give it a nickname like Sturmovic for the IL-2, Balalaika for the MiG-21, or Grach for the Su-25, but all of these are informal.
Names we associate with them are assigned by NATO. NATO for their part picks names that intentionally bizarre as part of a doctrine that stipulates the name should be easy to say over the radio, descriptive of the aircraft’s role, and uncommon so that they would be unambiguous in the name they describe. Nobody is going to willingly name the aircraft they just poured five years of their life building something like Fishbed.
Fighters and attack aircraft receive names beginning in F (Flanker, Fishbed, Fulcrum, Etc.) Bombers in B (Bull, Bison, Badger, Backfire, etc.), Cargo aircraft in C (Cub, Candid, etc.). One exception I know to this rule is the Su-24 (Fencer), which should be a bomber, but apocryphally is supposedly given an F designation because it’s nearest NATO equivalent, the F-111 has a fighter designation.
Also of note, Russian pilots supposedly refer to the MiG-29 as the fulcrum themselves because on hearing the NATO designation, they felt it a fitting title for it’s capabilities and role.
3 Likes
yeah there is a system to the way NATO names russian equipment. To add on what was said before propellor based planes have names with only a single syllabus ( Barge, Bear, Box ) while jet-based planes have two ( backfire, Badger, Blinder ). Not only planes have these systems. other examples are SAMs ( Guideline, Goa, Gainful ). Air-to-Surface missiles ( Kitchen, Karen, Krypton ) and Helicopters ( Hind, Havoc, Hip ).
Also, the NATO reporting name for the MiG-15 is Fagot, not Faggot 
1 Like
I knew it was NATO behind it, but I still think the names chosen were a bit childish at times. Oh yes and despite my often spelling mistakes, knew it was Fagot too
Its still a stupid name and I’m sure the roots behind the silly names go deeper than NATO designations.
Who’s to say the Russians have not countered with the silly NATO warplane name game too.
Can you imagine Russians referring to an F-16 as a gayship, or an A10 as a fagotfinder … do you see where I’m coming from? Its just childish and even the more so because it apparently comes from NATO from mature supposedly serious people about our future.
If Nato had to use B, C and F letters from the Alphabet more mutually respectfully I’d love to know who actuality came up with the designation Fagot, Fishbed and Frogfoot for the letter F and what was he smoking? because I can think of a thousand more respectful ways to use the letter F than that.
Lets not kid ourselves, it was a grudgingly dig by someone, but we’ll probably never know now.
There is bizarre and then their is Python
I agree though, these are the Western NATO designations and we’re stuck with it, I’m not trying to change the names, just thought it was uber odd NATO stooped so low.
But if Nato did give these aircraft their names, then who decided our Western Aircraft should have such exotic names? … its an endless list.
Lets see, not many obscure NATO designations here … and this is just off the top of my head
Tomcats
Eagles
Vipers
Talons
Phantoms
Lightnings
Hornets
Raptors
Black Widows
Mustangs
Thunderbolts
All exotic names and there are a bunch more.
Most of the US Fighters start with the letter F, but NATO never chose to designate the F-15 Frumpycakes … or worse I will not print here
So c’mon, at least for a while there was some daft internal naming convention going on by NATO and it was extremely biased towards our side for exotic names and silly derogatory names for the other side
I think your overthinking things here. Western aircraft generally have names because they’re designed and built by commercial companies, and it’s easier to brand and sell something with a catchy name.
Russians don’t name their aircraft for a number of reasons, but I’d imagine the chief one is because until twenty years ago, the Russian procurement system consisted of government requirements being met by government run design bureaus and then passed of to an entirely independent factory complex. There is no need to lobby the Politburo to build more Su-25s because they did not build the Su-25, nor did they own any rights to it. Manufacturing and design were two completely different processes in the Soviet Union. Any nicknames were generally assigned on an entirely adhoc basis once operationally deployed, generally on a basis of distinguishing physical or performance characteristics of the aircraft.
I’ve never heard of Russians assigning official callsigns for NATO aircraft. I get the distinct impression they don’t care.
The point of the NATO naming system isn’t to create a derogatory name, it’s to create a unique name within an existing frame work that can be easily pronounced by the multitude of different accented versions of English spoken through out the alliance. You’re misattributing malice where there is only bureaucratic literary gymnastics.
Also NATO has no say in naming member nation hardware, that’s totally up to the manufacturer and the government purchasing it.
2 Likes
they do it for missiles as well, and to be honest going by coolness factor, other than sidewinder, the names we have given russkie missiles are pretty cool, but it is all to serve the same purpose, give us a way to reference what we are talking about without having to talk in the alphabet soup of R-27 vs R-24 vs AA-10 vs AA-7, it can be much easier to say Alamo or Apex, Archer or Aphid, Adder or Amos etc.
There are no emotions involved in making NATO reporting names, it just has to be a name that works. In my opinion there are some pretty cool NATO names for some equipment as well: Gladiator, Gauntlet, Gargoyle, Grizzley, Greyhound, Foxhound, Foxbat, Fang, Butcher, Beast, Sinner, Hoplite, Satan to name just a few. Sure sounds more deadly than frogfoot or fishbed!