A-10 VS Su-25 | Analytical Comparison of A-10 Thunderbolt II and Sukhoi Su-25.

Defense Gazette presents you, An analytical comparison between Sukhoi Su-25 and A-10 Thunderbolt II. Su 25 vs A-10, which flying machine is better?

“Sukhoi Su-25 and A-10 Thunderbolt II”

JOIN US:

● ● Background Music:
Action Time by Biz Baz Studio
Hero Theme (Sting) - MK2
● ● Images:

● ● Voices:
Chat Robot.

[simontempleton]

SU-25 specially considering its cost of production.

[Vladferrum]

Su-25 is better as plane, A-10 have better main gun. That's it.

[jayr.]

You forgot the A-10 capability to use de pleated uranium armor piercing rounds in the gau 8 30mm cannon thus making it the "tank killer".

[MeanLaQueefa]

A10 all the way, but I wouldn’t turn down a SU25, nor be on the receiving end

[stuartblake]

The US also operates the AC130 Spector specifically employed for close air support

[SteaIthyMan]

Wow impressed with the su25. But survivability goes to the a10

[faizsamsudin]

A10 fought against deceptions scorponok... Su25 will prolly hit autobots... 😂😂😂

[suzukirider]

Shows Russia's doctrine making a stake on almost exclusively missiles, while the US army stuck to ever-evolving guns:

A-10 - built around a insanely powerful 7-barrel gatling autocannon to be it's primary weapon, which became iconic. Is extensively armored against incoming autocannon fire up to 23mm. But, missiles and anti-missile defense kind of an afterthought.

Su-25 - built to carry a lot of various missiles, and has guidance systems for those. Also - plenty of countermeasures against incoming missiles, heat-seeking and radar-guided alike. But, the twin-barrel cannon carries few rounds and kind of a last - resort weapon. Not sure about armor, might be armored only against machinegun fire up to 12.7mm. (?)

I think this has to do with the U.S. having a very long history of, and pride in, making firearms. Lots of great weapon companies, and most Americans are at least somewhat familiar with shooting a gun. Most military people, engineers and pilots alike - own multiple guns and shoot them regularly if only for the hell of it. The mentality is such that it seems natural to mount big guns onto aircraft as well.

OTOH, Russians generally do not grow up around guns, and therefore, have less fondness for them. In the post-WW2 era, the dominating opinion was the guns will become increasingly obsolete in favor of various "smart" weapons, such as (self- or remote-guided) missiles. To the point that there were a few Russian interceptors which dropped the cannon entirely - relying exclusively on their missiles. Since then it was re-added but remains a last-resort kind of weapon.

[crazysian]

Both are aircraft designed with a mission in mind; close-air support. Both have their strengths over the other, and both are a bad day for anybody on the receiving end.

[suzukirider]

Called BS when they got to the Su-25's range vs the A-10's. It's combat radius is certainly not 950km, not even with two external tanks. Not with the much less fuel-efficient low-bypass turbofans, it's just impossible.
P.S. the only way Su-25's combat radius would be 950km is it's to be used in a one-way trip. That would be a consideration if these were WW-2 era Japanese aircraft, but Russian pilots do intend to return to base after combat.

[Mightyenas_Revenge]

My question is which will win in an air to air battle.

[nesseihtgnay]

The only thing is the A10 gun will out gun the su 25

[SuburbsDVSRB]

Amerika why kiling Serbian Yugoslavian People 1999