SouthernCRJ From Argentina, joined Sep 2001, 180 posts, RR: 3 Reply 1, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 9570 times:
Your question seems to be very simple, but really it isn't.
First of all, I want to say that the Su-25 isn't the soviet couterpart to the A-10; it's more an attack version of the Bae Hawk than the thunderbolt counterpart. The real rival of the A-10 was the IL-102.
Here I will put some "facts" of each a/c so you can form yourself your own opinion:
-The Su-25 has a much greater speed than the A-10 due to the use of turbojets instead of turbofans (975 vs 682 km/h)
-The Su-25 can use diesel fuel for its jets
-The frogfoot has an amazing perfomance in muddy unprepaded airstrips
-The smaller size of Su-25 and its greater speed gives it a higher chance to remain undetected by enemy (but in the case of be detected, the A-10 has better chance to survive because of its well separated engines and its IR shielding give)
-Su-25 has a maximum load capacity of 4400 kg vs 7200 of the thunderbolt
-The Su-25 has a maximum range while carrying the maximum combat load plus two drop tanks of 400 nm (750 km) at low level or 675 nm (1250 km) at altitude (vs 2000 km of the A-10)
YKA From Netherlands, joined Sep 2001, 766 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 9553 times:
-The A-10 carries 6300 pounds more of ordanance while offering the same combat radius.
-Both planes have a relatively same MTOW(the A10's is MTOW is 8000 punds higher).
-The A-10s GE engine burns alot less fuel thanks its high-bypass turbofan design while offering the same thrust as the outdated turbojets on the SU-25.
-The A-10's anit-tank 30mm cannon with its depleated uranium bullets causes more destruction then the one on the SU-25.
-The A-10 cant take extreme damage and still remain aloft thanks to its heavy armour, widely spaced, high mounted engines and unique tail configuration(half the tail can get blown off). The pilot is better protected thanks to heavy armour around the cockpit and bulletproof canopy. The A-10 also has self sealing fuel tanks.
All in all, the A-10 is a supperior aircraft in every respect.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29513 posts, RR: 59 Reply 3, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 9544 times:
The A-10 can also use Diesel fuel. It is a Kerosene just like Jet Fuel So that isn't an issue.
The Turbofan engines on the A-10 present a cooler exhaust then the straight jets on the SU-25. This will make it harder for an IR missle to track onto it. As well mounting the engines where they are on the A-10 also shield them from observation from the ground.
Oddly enough the Northrop A-9 which lost the contest to the A-10 featured almost the exact same configuration that the SU-25 has.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 20 Reply 5, posted (12 years 1 month 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 9496 times:
The S-25 was designed for completely different missions.
While the A-10 was designed primarilly as a close-support aircraft for destroying armoured formations in Germany, the Su-25 was designed primarilly as a light bomber to attack (semi) fixed targets like depots and field-headquarters.
Soviet strategy relied far more heavily on groundbased forces to engage the NATO armies in Europe, after a decapitating strike using aircraft and ballistic missiles on NATO command&control facilities and depot and transport facilities. This dictated a fast general strikeaircraft.
NATO strategy on the other hand relied on aircraft and helicopters to quickly help out groundforces that could not survive on their own. Groundforces do not move quickly enough for that, and NATO knew it did not have enough groundforces to hold back a concerted WarPac assault without massive airsupport (or massive use of nuclear weapons). Therefore, a dedicated tankkiller was needed.
MiG31 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (12 years 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 9443 times:
Su-25 IS the counter-part of A-10 and as a matter of fact a much better one, since it has no analogies in the world. While carrying the same amount of weapons it is smaller, lighter (9500kg vs. A-10's 11321kg.) and that is the mass of an emty a/c.
It has a bigger radius.
Su-25 = 1250km.
A-10 = 463-1000
Su-25 is faster (М=0.82) then A-10 (834km/h).
And you may disagree with me on this one, but Su-25 looks a hell of a lot better...
MiG31 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (12 years 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 9411 times:
YKA says: Lets just admit tha the Forgfoot sucks.
Listen up! You freshman F*UCK!!! I suggest that you be quiet unless you have something to say that is not complete BS!!! I will NOT, I repeat NOT tolerate comments like this about Russian a/c. Have you ever at least seen anything other than a Boeing 737 or flew one???
I suggest deletion of this retarded comment by YKA!!!
MiG31 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (12 years 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 9390 times:
Ok, my previous comment, right above this one is no longer relevant because the retarded comment, which I was quoting has been rightly deleted. So do not pay attention to it.
I am sorry for the language I used but I just hate when some little kids who go to something like www.boeing.com read it all and then think they're the greatest a/c experts in the world and start critising machines that they have no clue about...