A-10 vs. Su-25/39

A better question is the replacement for the A-10, is it up to the job?

As for the original focus of the poll: the two aircraft are probably not really suitable for direct comparison ( the Ilyushin plane referred to woudl have been nearer the mark); but for a good and detailed almost point-to-point comparison, try here: aeroweb.lucia.it...
this also tells you what the Su-39 actually was (the tank-buster variant)


[Edited on 22-9-2003 by Estragon]

Fulcrum,

are you Russian?

Originally posted by Estragon
On the desirability of the A-10, does anyone recall the rumpus a few months back over attempts to "mothball" the aircraft?
a "live" link herewww.pogo.org...

Estragon,

I hadn't heard this latest one, but this has been going on since the late '80's at least. The A10 has been politically problematic. The Air Force brass has NEVER liked it because it's uglier than owl-poop as far as they're concerned, but they won't let the army have it.

Some day some honyock with enough mouth, clout and buddies will get this awesome plane replaced and the best we can hope for is that the replacement is a copy of the A10 with "prettier lines"...

poppycock.

I have no idea what your talking about

Originally posted by THENEO
Fulcrum,

are you Russian?

With posts like these, we do need the 'aircraft chit chat'.

And no, im not from Russia.

It is just that Su-25 is better in all the ways, exept cannons rate of fire.. but still its cannon is much more accurate.

And Su-25 has massive amounts more battle experience than A-10.

Not that the A-10 isnt a good plane, it is just not as good as the best, Su-25.


Su-25, best of the best.

a video of the downed a-10 wreck in yugoslavia:
www.serbnews.com...

Anyone knows where the SU-25's are stationed? I live about 40km away from the russian border, so I could probably go and take a look at them

Cast my vote... Hands down, I would have to vote for the A-10. There just doesn't seem to be any material for the Soviet counterpart in regards to survival... it seems to rely too heavily on sensors and equiptment.
Besides, any plane that can be half-blown apart and still make it to base should be the winner.
Now, if the vote was between the Apache and the Hind, I'd go Hind.

Originally posted by Outtis
Anyone knows where the SU-25's are stationed? I live about 40km away from the russian border, so I could probably go and take a look at them

Su-25 CURRENT OPERATORS

Unit
Base
Equipment

Russia (Air Force)

16th OShAP
Taganrog
Su-25

18th GvOShAP
Galenki
Su-25

237th GvTsPAT
Kubinka
Su-25

368th OShAP
Budyennovsk
Su-25

461st OShAP
Krasnodar
Su-25

899th OShAP
Buturlinovka
Su-25

968th IISAP
Lipetsk
Su-25

Unident OShAP
Olovyannaya
Su-25

Unident OShAP
Chernigovka
Su-25

Krasnodar Higher Military Aviation School
Krasnodar
Su-25

Russia (Naval Aviation)

279th KIAP
Severomorsk
Su-25UTG, UBP

Angola

Unident unit
Saurimo
Su-25, UB

Armenia

121st ShAE
Kumayari
Su-25

Azerbaijan

Unident unit
Kyurdamir
Su-25

Belarus

206th ShAB
Lida
Su-25

Bulgaria

22nd Shturmova Aviobasa
Bezmer/Yambol
Su-25K, UBK

Czech Republic

322 Taktica Letka
Namest
Su-25K, UBK

Georgia (Republic)

Unident unit
Kopitnari
Su-25

Georgia (Abkhazia)

Unident unit
unknown base
Su-25

Iraq (Some of these were found by 'coalition forces' buried in sand.)

Unident unit1
unknown base
Su-25

Kazakhstan

Unident unit
unknown base
Su-25

Korea (North)

Unident unit
unknown base
Su-25

Peru

Grupo 11
Vitor
Su-25UB

Slovak Republic

33/2 Letka
Malacky-Kuchyna
Su-25K, UBK

Turkmenistan

56 BRS
Kizyl-Arvat
Su-252

Ukraine

299th OShAP
Saki
Su-25, UTG

452nd OShAP
Chortkov
Su-25

Uzbekistan

59th APIB
Chirchik
Su-25

Notes: OshAP is Otdel'nyi Shturmovoy Aviatsion'nyi Polk (Independent Stormovik Aviation Regiment); KIAP is Korabel'nyi Istrebitel'nyi Aviatsion'nyi Polk (Shipborne Fighter Aviation Regiment); APIB is Aviatsion'nyi Polk Istrebetelei-Bombardirovchikov (Aviation Fighter-Bomber Regiment); ShAB is Shturmovoy Aviatsion'nyi Baza (Stormovik Aviation Base); BRS is Basis Reserv Samolety (Base for Reserve Aircraft). Gv prefix indicates Gvardiya (Guards)

1 Probably not in service. Seven survivors fled to Iran in 1991

2 In storage



Hope that helps!


Su-25TM cockpit.

I would take the A-10 for safety sake. I would much rather be sitting in the bathtub then anywhere else up there during combat .

Whoever said the Air force was not sharing these is a bit off, though. There are quite a few Warthogs stationed at Bradley airport north of Hartford, CT for the national guard. They fly over my house every once in a while...

Whole 'flying bathtub' concept, and close support attack plane 'thing' is Soviet..

Remember IL-2 'Sturmovik'?

World most build plane..

ww2 ground attacker..


IL-2M 1942..

Su-25 is as 'survival' as A-10.

Besides more than 1200 of Su-25 has been build, but only some 400 of A-10s..

Here more about survival of Su-25.

All vital controls are protected by armor. Flying controls are actuated via 40 mm diameter titanium rods that are proof against 12.7 mm strikes, and the pitch control rods are duplicated.

Even if it were better than the A-10 in attack capability (which it might have an edge with all those smaller caliber cannons) it could not survive a hot environment as well.
Is this a guestimate? My guess is that Su-25 would not have to spend the same amount of time in "hot environment" due to its higher speed. It has a reasonable protection, in some respects even better than A-10 (pilot's rear armor). It might do well and in fact it did OK in Afghanistan. 23 Su-25 were lost over nine years of conflict, with loss rate of one a/c per 2,800 hrs of operational flying. Someone got to look up in "Gulf War Air Debrief" (or whatever the name is) and check the numbers for A-10. I would not try to draw a deep conclusion out of these numbers, because of the difference in nature of anti-air warfare in these conflicts, but taking into consideration that both VVS and Allied AF enjoyed complete air supremacy, it is worth to check. One particular Su-25 (actually preproduction T-8-15 or Blue 15) flown by Colonel Alexander V. Rutskoj was damaged by AAA and two (!) AIM-9L Sidewinders launched by Pakistani F-16s. Both times the aircraft brought pilot back to base. It was "refurbished" in Tbilisi and after receiving new paint job and bort number Blue 301 it was displayed in Paris in 1989. It was further modified for the weapon trials which included S-240 and S-25 330 mm unguided rockets. This aircraft currently on display at Khodynka Museum.

Here are few more stories highlighting Su-25 roughness:

-Major Rubalov's Su-25 was hit in the engine which surged and flooded an engine bay with fuel, the cockpit was shattered, buster controls are gone and major's face covered with blood. None of the dials in the cockpit worked and his wingman guided him to the final approach. After belly landing, major rushed away from the Su-25 fearing that plane going to explode. After figuring that this is not going to happen, he got back to the aircraft and cut the engine.

-Another Su-25 was on fire which burned out most of the wiring and 95% of horizontal tail controls. In few moments before the landing, fire short cut the gear release wires and Su-25 made "conventional" landing.

-Lieutenant Golubtsov's Su-25 lost half of its rudder along with breaks. After landing his a/c ended up off runaway and rolled into adjacent mine field. He was forced to wait in the cockpit till mine squad cleared his way out.

-One Su-25 brought a missile in the engine which failed to detonate. (SAM?)

-Rutskoi's Su-25 was hit by AAA (ZGU) when a missile (Blowpipe) hit right engine (head on - it "turned off" the engine though the intake). Second AAA finally managed to shot it down. This is a second Frogfoot he flew (not the preproduction T-8-15 Blue 15 which was damaged twice). Rutskoi spent some time as Pakistani POW and was shortly exchanged.

Alexander Rutskoi.. future vice-president of Russian federation.


This pic shows damaged Su-25.


Su-25 destroyed in Afganistan while in-ground, by 'rocket'.


T8-3 airframe damage resistance testbed. (under fire!!!)

Both are good at their appointed tasks....
But of the two, I would take the A-10 Warthog over its counterpart.


regards
seekerof

Interesting point about the Su-25's hot environment capabilities.

FULCRUM, I do agree that the A-10 may be better suited for bush-type warfare than the Air Force's other, "prettier" aircraft. It's also certainly more cost-effective than, say, a dedicated F-16. I've always loved the A-10, even though in this day and age it's not really suited to this type of warfare. The A-10 really comes into its own as a battlefield support weapon, and as a result it should really belong to the Army.

However, there really aren't enough tanks in the modern war to justify the A-10 and its big gun. Precision penetration strikes in multiple areas is the name of the game, something the A-10 is ill-suited to.

I have a couple of comments about the A-10 vs SU-25

The A-10 has had one air to air kill. (Iraqi helicopter = swiss cheese in Gulf War 1). I don't know if the Russian jet ever got any.

The pilot bathtub in the A-10 won't do you any good if you hit the 30MM ammo drum located about 3 ft behind the pilots butt. The plane was designed to fly with the outer wing missing all the way to the wheel well though.

I think the A-10 was designed for only one reason and that was to attack tanks. The plane is designed that it could lose one engine or even one wing and still fly. The bottom of the plane is heavily plated and this plane can take one heck of a pounding. I don't think the Su25/39 would be able to withstand the beating the A-10 can.

In afghanistan after mujahadeen recieved more then a thousand stinger missiles from the US only 4 SU-25s were lost to them and there were the early versions. after modifications like chaff dispensers and armored plate that separates the 2 engines were made no more loses weres sustained from stinger missiles. Most hits from stinger missiles were sustained on the engine nacelle area where the exhaust plume was hottest. Many SU-25s were badly damaged but still all managed to get back to base on one engine. Some even survived hits from AIM-9L Sidewinders. Modern SU-25 derivatives have been upgraded even further from the experience in Afghanistan to be able to survive battle damage.

From what I've seen in the links provided and from what I knew before hand The two protection systems while both effective have different emphisis. Both protection systems have the original ideas in world war II, the allied bombers, the B-17 in particular had a very good reputation for losing chunks of plane and still making it all the way back to england, in short the plane was designed in a way that isolated damage with redundent strength. The Il-2 is the obvious contender for the russian design concept which was more of an over all protection scheme making hits less likly(through size and chaff) or non-damaging through heavy armour. Now it should be pointed out that while these planes do focus on one protection sheme or the other the 30 years or so after WWII allowed them to learn a little from eachother, especially in the Russian case after their experiences in afganistan. For this reason I prefer the Su-25/39 as it can afford to lose plane parts but it's going to make the enemy work harder to take those parts off, while the A-10..... not so much, just look at the fans so big and begging to be hit. As for weapon load-out I think they're about on-par, they both carry a lot for their size. The A-10s weapon may be more powerful and faster firing then the Su-25s, however given the Su-25s faster speed and shorter range less focus on the canon seems appropriate for the plane as it will be spending much of it's more limited time using missiles, bombs or rockets. Also the fact that the Su-25s weapon comes out more accurate may well put it above the A-10 weapon for usefulness in context. Flying characteristics go to the Su-25 easily, as nice as it is to have long range it's not a suitable counter to better speed and agility, especially when the slower and less agile plane is a big guy. Su-25 also has some operational benifits in being better at airspace penetration due to it being more difficult to detect, making it a suitable alternative to a fighter/bomber strike. It's smaller unit size makes it easier to disperse to more targets and it's unprepared runway characteristics are nothing short of phenomenal.

Originally posted by Outtis
Which plane do you prefer?

I'd go for the sukhoi one..

A-10 no doubt. The plane that lost the AX comp. looked alot like the Su-25.

The Su-25 did not fare all that well in Afganistan, because of thier fuel tanks. Mods have been made and it is an extreemly capable aircraft.

Originally posted by Amur_Tiger
...while the A-10..... not so much, just look at the fans so big and begging to be hit.

Think again.
Engines are there because wing and tail mask them from most common hit angles of MANPADs!

And it works:



And engine's casing isn't made of tinfoil.


www.globalsecurity.org...