@MiniMattBrackel1996 Bullshit. There is improved version of Su-25CM in serial production and new russian attack plane Su-29 under testing. Thunderbolt is crap if compare to it.
@MiniMattBrackel1996 They are not directly comparable having only vaguely overlapping tasks.
The A-10 is larger and heavier, Su-25 is faster and more agile. In a duel situation, excluding the pilot factor, the Su-25 would win based on its performance alone (speed, climb, turn rate). As for ground-attack the A-10 is better for having a notably larger payload and range. Su-39 keeps the agility of Su-25 and adds in the load capability of the A-10 (still slightly less i think).
They're both good. I enjoy flying the SU-25T is in Lock On Flaming Cliffs 2, very advanced aerodynamic flight & damage modeling, and of course DCS A-10c which pretty much models every dial, switch, computer and subsystem. I'd definitely go with the A-10c in terms of survivability, maneuvering, weapon load & selection, Litening AT targeting pod. The su-25t is really fun to fly, but if the sim is any indication of the real thing, it feels like a flying concrete slab when fully loaded, hard to fly
A-10 has more cannon rounds than Su25, though can carry less loaded weight(unguided rockets) than Su. Which means A-10 can destroy bigger numbers of armor vehicles than Su in one mission. But Su25 has lots of rocket pods which makes him effective also against enemy infantry units; and has higher speed than a10 which adds points for survival. Each has plus and minus
OE CSM, NO SE SUPONE QUE ESTE ESPACIO ES PARA QUE NOSOTROS LOS PERUANOS Y ESOS MARICONES DE xD OPINEN, ENTONCES QUE HACEN COMENTANDO TODOS ESOS GRINGOS WUEBONES. AH.
The A-10 is the better plane for what it was made to do. The A-10 is still in use and EU and France wanted USA to use it in Lybia. The A-10 handels well at low altitudes and is the world best tank buster and close support aircraft.
A 10 is higly sophisticated fragile jet for pussy american wars against weak countries, but Su 25 is tough, strong, cheap and very lethal aircraft for long and exausting wars. This is tyipical example of USA imperialistic and Soviet self defensive polytics.
Su-25 is a pathetic russian inferior wannabe A-10 .......
Get the fuck out of youtube russians with your piece of shit weapons ........most views NATO weapons , nobody is interesting in your fucking junk i am going to flag your fucking videos .
Its disgusting there are videos with inferior russian garbage .
@ViciousCritique i think a-10 nose is too heavy to fly with 1 engine if its shot because of gatling.but su-25 is heavy armored than a10 anyway price is much better also if u use same missiles in both planes what's the difference anyway missiles do the job.
@coljet2001 Why do you say that? because of national pride? Russia has a history of making aircraft with more power than the US. The SU25 can carry 80 rockets... get a good aiming system and that's as good as any tank busting plane.
@PlaneAU Come on man, the A-10 is more sophisticated, more powerful, and above all it way more superior to the SU-25. The fucking A-10 has a 21 foot long gatling gun that fires bullets the size of a 1 liter milk carton, even though Battlefield 3 doesn't accurately present it, the fucking gun can rip a T-90 to shreds if it wants to.
@ncdefenceman you dumbass the a-10 is not more sophisticated then the su-25 or in this matter a TM. su-25 has 10 hardpionts, +1 for fuel tanks, or flir pod, its has 2 MDF displays most a-10 have one 1 or none. they both have the same size diamater gun (30mm). the TM can can swivel its two barrels at a 70 degree angle downwards. plus withs its nose targeting system it can fire at great distances with unbelivable accuracy. the plane is also better in speed, turnrate and armor.
@Starr8492DS A-10 has 11 Hard Points fuck stick. It fires a 30x173mm round. Frog foot fires a 30x165mm. Frog foot fires at 3000 RPM A-10 fires at 4200. Frog foot also tends to carry 250 rounds A-10 carries 1000+. A-10 also has a larger radius.The aircraft is designed to fly with one engine, one tail, one elevator, and half of one wing missing. I'm 99 percent sure that this cannot be said for the Frog foot. And as for range the A-10s guns maximum is over 8000 feet. whats the frogs?
@AllahdinTheGreat XD you know nothing about the frogfoot do you su-25 have took so much damage and broght the pilot home. even one time with disabled ailrons. ect. an aircraft that cant even go past 450 can not fly with one wing thats inpossable it like an old ww2 plane.it gun range is 3.5 km. and if the forgfoot is a equip with ataka missles or s-8-80mm 40 rockets per pod it can destory well over 30 abrams. can the a-10 take 30 mm hits to the fuel tanks and cockpit NO
@AllahdinTheGreat can the a-10 take off from grass feilds and unperpared runways. can it run on vodka NO even do one man with a RPG that drank 100 litter of vodka can knock more tank then an a-10. can it run on disale, korsin, and any type of fuel that can be found NO. those the a-10 fly as good as the frogfoot NO.
@clearyxxx yes most jet engines can run on any liquid that burns. even vodka, russian engines are jest beter disigned to use any fuel source with beter maintainants hours then other engines. 2000 hours with basic jet fuel, 1000 with disale, gas. and 500 to 250 with vodka and others
@Starr8492DS Yah I can see it now, they fill all their planes with vodka. That would be an expensive war! And since Russia is full of alcoholics that would make for some jittery withdrawing pilots.
@AllahdinTheGreat This is so poorly brought.Su25 flies 850-1,400km/h mach,A10 flies 700km/h.Gsch 2 30 fires up to 6km effective 3,5km-4km.A10 gatling has realy short barrels it fires only maximum 4km effective 2km.Su25 maximum range 2000km Su39 2300km, A10 1200km range.Su25K 4,6tones,Su39 5,2 tones,Su25TM 6,5tones A10 7,5 tones weapons load.Su25 Titaniumalloy,GFK,bor and ceramic plates armor,A10 Titaniumalloy and GFK.I would choose the Su25TM.The survivability is legendary.
@Talshet where did you get ANY of this information??? ferry range: A-10=4150km, Su-25=2500km max takeoff weight: A-10=50000lbs, Su-25= 45000lbs service ceiling: A-10=45000ft, Su-25=23000ft maximum speed: A-10=439mph, Su-25=590mph cannon range: THE SAME cannon ammunition: A-10=1200r, Su-25=250r wing loading: A-10=99lb/ft2, Su-25=112lb/ft2(this means the A-10 is more maneuverable) T/W ratio: A-10=0.36, Su-25=0.51 hardpoints: 11 for both price: A-10=$11.8million, Su-25=$11million A-10=superior!!!
@hotpocketpoison altitude:A10 13km height Su25 13km,A10 4200km range,Su25 2500km range,A10 22tones max TO weight, Su25 21,5tones max TO weight.A10 710km/h maximum Su25 Mach1,board canon is only the small part of weaponary.A10 30x173mm Su25 30x165mm,Su25 is more maneuvrable in high speed also in low speed, A10 is only maneuvrable in low speed,(low speed is more vulnerable than high speed)Su 25 is more advanced in any catagorie the only hard points are range and maybe canon rounds
@Talshet the Su-25 can not fly at the same altitude as the A-10. the Su-25 is limited to 23000ft, this is what has led to so many being shot down my MANPAD launchers. also the A-10 is FAR more maneuverable at any speed, its empennage is located directly behind the engines, so the trust from the engines actually pushes the control surfaces harder than just normal airflow would, it is like a primitive form of thrust vectoring. the Su-25 does not have this feature, AND has a higher wing loading.
@Talshet also the max takeoff weight for the A-10 is 25 tones, the Su-25 is 22.5 tones, so the A-10 is capable of carrying larger, more effective bombs.
@hotpocketpoison Su25 6,5tones payload of weapons, A10 7-7,5tones payload weapons just 500-1000kg diffrence.The weaponary of KS-CH weapons of russians are more powerfull each missile has twice big dexan warhead than usa has.
@Talshet that is still over 1000kg more weapons the A-10 can carry, that could mean many more destroyed tanks/bunkers/vehicles(considering the SDB has the ability to destroy any tank on earth, penetrate over 6ft of reinforced concrete and only weighs 129kg...that is A LOT more bombs). also russian bombs are no more powerful than their american counterparts of the same weight class(other than the FOAB).
@hotpocketpoison Just for example about weaponary,the most american used bomb is Mark82 227-259kg warhead 90kg.Russian FAB-250 weight 250kg and warhead from version to version 99-137kg.FAB-500 (500-528kg) warhead 191-221kg,usa biggest bombs are 1tone bombs russian have 9tone bombs with 4300kg warhead.And i dont even compare russian bombs with what usa has.Russians have most powerful,they have FAEs from 3kg-2.5t bombs,usa dont have such things.OFAB250 has twice power than FAB250.
@Talshet the size of the warhead has nothing to do with how effective the bomb is. the US has never put emphasis on large bombs that cause massive damage over an extremely large area, modern russian(and American)deployment doctrines make this kind of bomb useless, and a complete waste of materials. the US has spent its time developing small, guided, multipurpose munitions(specifically the GBU-39 SDB)which can be carried in extremely large numbers and are totally unmatched anywhere in the world.
@hotpocketpoison You just failed.USA is the most user of "collateral damage bombs" like Cluster Bombs.DaisyCutter and other bombs wich are very large also in use and was used against Vietnam civilians.And yes the size of a bomb is the main important thing to "how effective a bomb can be" the FAB9000 was redesigned for the FOAB weights but less.And small bombs like cluster bombs known for the ineffectivness to destroy only "foreign troops" big bombs designed to destroy structures
@Talshet completely false in todays battlefield. in vietnam NVA deployment doctrines were susceptible to such bombs, also laser guided bombs were in very limited service. however if you look at modern wars such as desert storm you will find the US used mostly 2000lb and 1000lb JDAMS against structures and 500lb Mavericks against armored vehicles. and no, the size of the bomb does NOT matter because US deployment doctrine spreads its troops as far out as possible, protecting them from area bombs.
@hotpocketpoison You completly dont understand,even what you said.You said the size or weight have nothing to do with the power of bombs.But you are false it has lot to do with size and weight.cause HE bombs are not based on Monroe Effekt.If you need to destroy big structures like Airfields you need big bombs and nothing is better than FAE to destroy structures with one strike.The size and weight is the most important for the strengh of a bomb.15kgFAE>10kgFAE.
@Talshet stop hearing only what you want to hear, i never said DAMAGE is not based on size i said EFFECTIVENESS is not based on size. if you have many small, spread out infantry clusters then there is no point in having massive bombs that will have the same effect on the small clusters, because once the bomb gets past the effective size to destroy said cluster you are just blowing up dirt. it would be a complete waste of resources. and if we are talking about tanks then the SDB is the most-
@Talshet -effective weapon in the world against them the A-10 can carry 32 SDB under its wings and another 3 2000lb JDAMS under the fuselage. the SDB is guided and can glide for over 60 miles and hit a target with a CEP of 5-8 meters...which means that is up to 32 destroyed tanks from over 60 miles away, the russians have NOTHING anywhere NEAR that effective.
@hotpocketpoison JDAM like Mark80 series are absolutly similar to KAB-500 series both are laser/TV guided bombs and can carried 4 on Su25 and still 192 D-pots of 122mm unguided missiles and 4 LGM/ATGM and 4 A2A missiles.SDB is an old shema witch is used in S-3 and S-5 pots from "unguided systeme" wich only set the guidance systeme in final phase about 1km infront of target and can guide themself 500-750m in 120°azimuth.KAB-500K/RK can fly 17km before it guided into target,con..
@Talshet S-25 un/guided missile from 10-18km ranges Laser/TV/radar guided versions 160-187kg warhead HEFI doing the same job and still costs about same as GBU-39IL.Also russians use BETAB/RBK and PLAB-100/150/250/500/1500 to explain whats the purpose,its penetrating Betons,Bunkers and Mountain complexes from 1,5m-17m Beton/bunkers penetration some versions have tungsten nose and some have 2phase penetrator,before it hits bunker its firing a tungsten high weight arrow to creat a canal.
@Talshet where are you getting at with your statements? when it comes to how effective the bomb is NO bomb ON EARTH is as effective as the SDB, it can glide for 60 miles(110km)and hit a target the size of a small car with near 100% accuracy. no russian bombs can match its lethality, and the fact that 32 can be carried by the A-10(35 if you count under the fuselage, however these could also be used for 2000lb JDAMs)makes the A-10 the most lethal attack aircraft on the planet by leaps and bounds.
@hotpocketpoison Trust me nowdays there are close to nothing where analogs doesnt exist.The only known analogs wich doesnt exist are like Ka-50,Comanche,HEFI-Gtracing ammonition wich was totaly dangerous to own shooter.And some other things.But like Munitions there are analogs,the most Missiles,Bombs,unguided or guided,Mines,AP/AT were designed back in the 1940s.Nowdays M18 claymore or MON50/90 are just copies of german AP mines with same function.Sweden has AA-mine prototype.
Why? Because we are America and if our military is not the best, we can get something better like that. In the military, we don't mess around and we don't like to be upstaged
@RockRebel1998 The SU-34 doesn't really compare to either of these fighters. These are single-seat, subsonic pure attack aircraft, especially the A-10. They were built to fly low and slow, carry a big gun and survive in a hostile environment.
The Su-34 would be more comparable to the F-15 strike eagle. Both of them are two-seater, supersonic multi-role fighters.
su-25 caries a twin barreled GSh-30-2 with 250 30mm rounds and fire rate of 3000 rpm , a-10 has a 7 barreled Gau-8 with 1,300 30 mm rounds and 4200 rpm.
@vfIskullangel Well yes...We all know no country can defeat the US airforce...but we all know Russian forces beat American forces on the ground...when a war between the US and Russia erupts the US will win the air but Russia the ground, since they can easily mass-produce reliable and cheap weapons and tanks while the US makes more expensive, comfortable, high-tech weapons..But we all learned from the Germans...High-tech doenst help on the ground...Cheap and lots of does.
@unrealassasination Once again look at the service records of both countrys. America has done far more than what Russia has done over the last 40 years. Russia has been at war with countries the size of Rhode island. Just because Russia can produce cheap inexpensive weapons doesn't mean they will win, Cheap doesn't mean edge. If that was the case than China would be godlike.
@unrealassasination the reason germany lost is because it had more than 3 country's attacking it at once, they would have fucked any country over if it was just them vs 1 country because of all there well made guns/tanks
@GOWnH3best strategy wins quantity my friend, any war can be won with the proper strategies...this doesnt applies only if a country is outnumbered. in Germany case, Nazi forces wasnt outnumbered, but allied strategies were better.
@putoshit the overwhelming assault was basically the beginning of the allies strategy, Germany was winning until america and Russia started attacking, i was just trying to explain to this guy how its quality over quantity
@GOWnH3best I've often wondered how such a small country could cause so much destruction. when you factor in how many german soldiers died in the campaign for russia one wonders if america didnt get involved what would have happened. what a bunder on hitlers part. well, I'm glad he did quite frankly but if he didnt tie up so much man and maetrial with russiah, things might have gotten hairy for our british friends.
@GOWnH3best You do realize the the US is not Germany I hope. Russia had a population twice as large as Germany, so it could use mass quantities of of troops against them. The US currently has over twice the population of Russia, how could Russia zerg us with hordes of cheaply equipped troops?
You need to realize the the US has quantity AND quality.
@unrealassasination sorry dude.. but if we have air superiority then planes like the A-10 can eat up ur ground forces.. if anyone has air superiority it means u pretty muck lost the war.. the reason the germans lost was because america had air superiority.. end of story
@filip92belgrade You have it backwards. The SU-25 is the smaller, faster and more nimble plane while the A-10 is bigger and much more heavily armored and durable. The A-10 is likely the most durable plane ever built.
@Elthenar a10 Length: (16.26 m) Wingspan: (17.53 m) Height: (4.47 m) Wing area: (47.0 m²) Airfoil: NACA 6716 root, NACA 6713 tip Empty weight: (11,321 kg) Loaded weight: (13,782 kg) On CAS mission: (21,361 kg) On anti-armor mission: (19,083 kg) Max takeoff weight: (23,000 kg) su25 Length: 15.33 m Wingspan: 14.36 m Height: 4.80 m Wing area: 30.1 m² Empty weight: 10,740 kg Loaded weight: 16,990 kg Max takeoff weight: 20,500 kg
@filip92belgrade You apparently know nothing about the A-10. It not only can but has returned to base with an engine completely blown off. There was an incident where an A-10 lost an engine AND suffered from total hydraulic failure and STILL returned to base and flew again. It can return to base with an engine, tail or most of a wing missing.
@filip92belgrade how could a su 25 fly with one engine blown off like an A10 su 25 engines are completely integrated into its fuselage thats why A10 engines are positioned like that
@Elthenar su25 Maximum speed: 950 km/h Combat radius: 375 km Ferry range: 2,500 km Service ceiling: 10,000 m Rate of climb: 58 m/s Wing loading: 584 kg/m² a10 Never exceed speed 833 km/h at 1,500 m with 18 Mk 82 bombs Maximum speed: 706 km/h at sea level, clean Cruise speed: 560 km/h Stall speed: 220 km/h Combat radius: 460 km-467km Ferry range: (4,150 km) with ( 90 km/h) headwinds, Service ceiling:(13,700 m) Rate of climb:(30 m/s) Wing loading: (482 kg/m²)
ah come on! the a-10 lacks a good maneuverability, speed and a good armour compared with the su-25! for god's sake, an old wwll fighter plane in a dogfight with the a-10 would win so damn easily although it doesn't have any air-to-air missiles!
@TwistedComplex omg!!! learn english you stinky pile of ignorance! I was referring to any combat plane from wwll that doesn't have any air-to-air missiles! not the a-10! stupid kid! omg!
@ACDoubleEdge Look what have protection su 25 and in what conditions can work this plane , you change your opinion ;) a 10 grate too but su 25 is insane
The A-10C is better because its much more stable, Uses Depleted Uranium Rounds, Can use Terrain Masking, has better Missles as they can go Thermal, GPS, Laser guided. and since the engines are farther apart both of them getting blown out is much more unlikely. and the A-10C has a better HOTAS and MFCD's. the Su-25 has its advantages in Speed and Thrust to weight ratio but thats about it. you cant even think about landing a SU-25T is unideal conditions in the A-10C there is no unideal conditions
They both have titanium armour.... an A-10 is flyable with bits missing.. Su-25s have both engines located next to each other and a number have been shot down in combat. Generally a single hit will take down a Su-25; while some A-10s have gone down from single hits, most of the time they are hit they make it back.
Was a translator for the USAF in Japan during the 1990s - so I knew a few A-10 pilots - none would swap for a Su-25,
@AlphaPegasii I've been spending time in DCS:KA50 and DCS:A10C. I know both aircraft aren't from the same period but the difference in controls in the A-10C (intuitive dual MFCD with great HOTAS integration) is way beyond the controls in the KA-50. Moreover, the targetting pod on the Hog is way superior to the old Shkval. That said, I enjoy flying both of them. I wonder what the Ka-52 is like :D
The YA-9 which competed with the A-10 in the 1970s was very similar to the Su-25. It was rejected because it was not as survivable as the A-10 - and it too would have had titanium armor.
"the A-10 engine location at the tail is less conventional, but offers greater survivability in the case of a hit on the engine area. The double tail of the A-10 also hides the engine infrared and noise signature, and incorporates redundancy in case one of the tails is shot away."
wich one is better depends on upgrades. the best su-25 ever is our made (Georgian) su-25km scorpion that can carry both Russian and NATO ammunitions, uses guided (laser guided, GPS guided, TV guided) and unguided ammos. I don't think it's inferior...
@TATARSTAN59500 P.S. The pic you saw is from a A-10 flown by a female pilot.The specific plane was in a mission somewhere in the Middle East (don't remember where,either Iraq or Afghanistan).It was to provide CAS, and it got hit by pretty much every weapon in the Taliban inventory,except from rockets.She could have ejected,since the plane's systems were pretty badly damaged,but she kept flying and safely landed it.
@gtamodman122 su-25 have more range, more bomb load, and have same load bomb maneuvrability, but is build same with jet fighter styl , and more speed max
@TATARSTAN59500 First off,let me say something that you ought to remember.The cannon of a CAS aircraft is its heart and soul.It's the princib\ple weapon it uses.It can be used to destroy anything,from personnel to tanks and buildings.So,as you undrstand,the A-10's gun is WAY too important.The Su-25 has a Gsh-30-2,a very good gun,but only 250 rounds, if I remember correctly.This isn't a good load, is it?
And the A-10 is superior to the Su-25 in the range and bomb load.
@TATARSTAN59500 that's not called an opinion.That's called reality.The A-10 is far better than the Su-25 and its variants.Some of the letest Su-25 variants are significantly improved,but the A-10 is still better.
@TATARSTAN59500 look,this is getting dumb.I don't understand why you can't accept the fact that the A-10 is better.The only advantage the Su-25 probably has is its overall performance.The A-10 is MUCH more efficient.It's not my dream or whatever.The A-10's better,get over it.
It seems like comparing these planes is kind of pointless. They both blow up tanks. Im sure if one didnt work, Russia or the US wouldnt friggen use it.
Study more. The A-10 has come back with damage that would destroy most aircraft, and it survived. Also, a good many aircraft now have their pilots in titanium tubs. The A-10 dosnt use the steel rods like the Frogfoot, because it doesnt need to. The A-10 uses redundant systems. Thats how it survives over the battlefield.
@TATARSTAN59500 I don't know if you used Google translator, but for the sake of the conversation,if you did,let me know where you come from so as to reply to your language.
Anyway,on-topic:Titanium Armour?Cockpti only,I assume.As for the Su-25SM3:I know what was shown in MAKS 2011 ;) it's a good modernization,fairly good but not good enough to technologically match the A-10.
Now,regarding the action in Chechenya:Please show me a source that confirms that.
A-10 controls are triple redundant (two hydraulic systems + one wire).
A-10, while slower was made to be down in the dirt, and probably is better suited to it than the Su-25, and will probably be able to maneuver harder, with better wing loading.
A-10 engines are "vulnerable", but are armored and protected by both the wing, and vertical/horizontal stabilizers, which also help to shield IR. The Su-25s engines are much more vulnerable being on the bottom, right where ground fire can hit them.
@mobius1aic A-10's main landing gear are partially exposed to make landings possible with a failed hydraulics system (therefore no main landing gear down).
I don't think there are any stories that really show the Su-25 taking the damage the A-10 has in combat and still survived, including losing half a wing. Dual vertical stabilizers are pretty handy when you lose one, or it shields your engine from an IR AAM, or shrapnel.
@Scoutrussp7 Don't even talk to me about education kid. You're walking into a battle that I personally guarantee you will lose at. Do yourself a favor and don't reply to me kid.
@Scoutrussp7 The name is based off of a cartoon that I was a partner in creating. See how nice it is to know things? You are throwing stones, and living in a glass house. You should just walk away from it.
a-10 is the last shit in the world
KingJuLiO18 5 days ago
A-10 Thunderbolt II by far. Su-25 Frogfoot wouldn't stand a chance.
MiniMattBrackel1996 6 days ago
@MiniMattBrackel1996 Bullshit. There is improved version of Su-25CM in serial production and new russian attack plane Su-29 under testing. Thunderbolt is crap if compare to it.
AlexanderTch 3 days ago
@AlexanderTch You have no idea what you are talking about. The Su-29 is not a Russian attack plane but a turboprop training.
The Su-34 is replacing the Su-24's and Su-25's.
franknbeans4761 2 days ago
@MiniMattBrackel1996 They are not directly comparable having only vaguely overlapping tasks.
The A-10 is larger and heavier, Su-25 is faster and more agile. In a duel situation, excluding the pilot factor, the Su-25 would win based on its performance alone (speed, climb, turn rate). As for ground-attack the A-10 is better for having a notably larger payload and range. Su-39 keeps the agility of Su-25 and adds in the load capability of the A-10 (still slightly less i think).
Buuub08 1 day ago
автор ты долбаёдина!!!
netypiteylitki 2 weeks ago
@netypiteylitki просто интересно почему?
MrHellexe 1 week ago
why americans that love to compare their tech with russian with the photos? =)
just you wait until they meet in the real fight.
Talsedoom 2 weeks ago
@Talsedoom This shitty video was not made by an "American". Video description is obvioulsy spanish...
th3lunchb0x 1 week ago
@Talsedoom under what circumstance do you see that happening?
powerone1 6 days ago
They're both good. I enjoy flying the SU-25T is in Lock On Flaming Cliffs 2, very advanced aerodynamic flight & damage modeling, and of course DCS A-10c which pretty much models every dial, switch, computer and subsystem. I'd definitely go with the A-10c in terms of survivability, maneuvering, weapon load & selection, Litening AT targeting pod. The su-25t is really fun to fly, but if the sim is any indication of the real thing, it feels like a flying concrete slab when fully loaded, hard to fly
nexusdawn 2 weeks ago
They are both great planes....
zerocker45 2 weeks ago
A-10 has more cannon rounds than Su25, though can carry less loaded weight(unguided rockets) than Su. Which means A-10 can destroy bigger numbers of armor vehicles than Su in one mission. But Su25 has lots of rocket pods which makes him effective also against enemy infantry units; and has higher speed than a10 which adds points for survival. Each has plus and minus
MesserHai 3 weeks ago
No Need to Talk when i comes To a War beetween Russia and Usa the Russians will Blow u all to Mars ; )
lenaozbugutu 4 weeks ago
OE CSM, NO SE SUPONE QUE ESTE ESPACIO ES PARA QUE NOSOTROS LOS PERUANOS Y ESOS MARICONES DE xD OPINEN, ENTONCES QUE HACEN COMENTANDO TODOS ESOS GRINGOS WUEBONES. AH.
ThePachuchito 4 weeks ago
@ZVERCO666 Your a fucking retard, the a-10 can get shot to shit and your saying it's fragile. Just shut the fuck up.
tonygogap 1 month ago
@Starr8492DS The A-10 is designed to fly with or one engine, a missing tail, elivator, and half a wing.
tonygogap 1 month ago
The A-10 is the better plane for what it was made to do. The A-10 is still in use and EU and France wanted USA to use it in Lybia. The A-10 handels well at low altitudes and is the world best tank buster and close support aircraft.
pbgw123456 1 month ago
А10 A shit American
STARMOSrus 1 month ago 2
To me I think the A-10 has a larger weapons payload however the su-25 is sleeker and maneuvers amazingly better than the bigger bomber-like A-10
thatguyovrthr1 1 month ago
Realy qualifing videos where only pictures shown without any information, statics or combat effecience and confirmed battles.
This must be 14 year old video.
Talshet 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A 10 is higly sophisticated fragile jet for pussy american wars against weak countries, but Su 25 is tough, strong, cheap and very lethal aircraft for long and exausting wars. This is tyipical example of USA imperialistic and Soviet self defensive polytics.
ZVERCO666 2 months ago
Comment removed
ZVERCO666 2 months ago
Su-25 is a pathetic russian inferior wannabe A-10 .......
Get the fuck out of youtube russians with your piece of shit weapons ........most views NATO weapons , nobody is interesting in your fucking junk i am going to flag your fucking videos .
Its disgusting there are videos with inferior russian garbage .
ViciousCritique 2 months ago
@ViciousCritique its funny how stupid you are. flaging dosnt do anything and thats why the su-27 gen beats the all mighty 5 gen f-35 right.
Starr8492DS 1 month ago
A-10's kick ass and the most reconized feature is the 30mm gatlin gun, but i do understand the SU-25 frogfoot sucks dick
TheBeastweet21 2 months ago
su25 is just better (especially modernized one), but a10 is good too
RealNarod28 2 months ago
A-10 all the way
bman2010ifi 2 months ago
the A-10 looks bad ass but the SU-25 is
jonathanaviles1 2 months ago
su-25 looks like a trainer jet
flybri74 2 months ago
su-25 is poorly engineered piece of shit .
A-10 is all what Su-25 wants to be .....
ViciousCritique 2 months ago
@ViciousCritique i think a-10 nose is too heavy to fly with 1 engine if its shot because of gatling.but su-25 is heavy armored than a10 anyway price is much better also if u use same missiles in both planes what's the difference anyway missiles do the job.
ASSIMPORTER 2 months ago
@ASSIMPORTER
A-10 is made to fly with one engine, been done in battle. su-25 is junk.
coljet2001 2 months ago
@coljet2001 Why do you say that? because of national pride? Russia has a history of making aircraft with more power than the US. The SU25 can carry 80 rockets... get a good aiming system and that's as good as any tank busting plane.
PlaneAU 2 months ago
@ViciousCritique A10 is more sophisticated. Su25 is not a piece of shit, it has a lot more 'raw' power.
PlaneAU 2 months ago
@PlaneAU Come on man, the A-10 is more sophisticated, more powerful, and above all it way more superior to the SU-25. The fucking A-10 has a 21 foot long gatling gun that fires bullets the size of a 1 liter milk carton, even though Battlefield 3 doesn't accurately present it, the fucking gun can rip a T-90 to shreds if it wants to.
ncdefenceman 2 months ago
@ncdefenceman you dumbass the a-10 is not more sophisticated then the su-25 or in this matter a TM. su-25 has 10 hardpionts, +1 for fuel tanks, or flir pod, its has 2 MDF displays most a-10 have one 1 or none. they both have the same size diamater gun (30mm). the TM can can swivel its two barrels at a 70 degree angle downwards. plus withs its nose targeting system it can fire at great distances with unbelivable accuracy. the plane is also better in speed, turnrate and armor.
Starr8492DS 2 months ago
@Starr8492DS A-10 has 11 Hard Points fuck stick. It fires a 30x173mm round. Frog foot fires a 30x165mm. Frog foot fires at 3000 RPM A-10 fires at 4200. Frog foot also tends to carry 250 rounds A-10 carries 1000+. A-10 also has a larger radius.The aircraft is designed to fly with one engine, one tail, one elevator, and half of one wing missing. I'm 99 percent sure that this cannot be said for the Frog foot. And as for range the A-10s guns maximum is over 8000 feet. whats the frogs?
AllahdinTheGreat 2 months ago
@AllahdinTheGreat XD you know nothing about the frogfoot do you su-25 have took so much damage and broght the pilot home. even one time with disabled ailrons. ect. an aircraft that cant even go past 450 can not fly with one wing thats inpossable it like an old ww2 plane.it gun range is 3.5 km. and if the forgfoot is a equip with ataka missles or s-8-80mm 40 rockets per pod it can destory well over 30 abrams. can the a-10 take 30 mm hits to the fuel tanks and cockpit NO
Starr8492DS 2 months ago
@AllahdinTheGreat can the a-10 take off from grass feilds and unperpared runways. can it run on vodka NO even do one man with a RPG that drank 100 litter of vodka can knock more tank then an a-10. can it run on disale, korsin, and any type of fuel that can be found NO. those the a-10 fly as good as the frogfoot NO.
Starr8492DS 2 months ago
@Starr8492DS
Lol they honestly run on vodka?? I really hope this is true.
clearyxxx 1 month ago
@clearyxxx yes most jet engines can run on any liquid that burns. even vodka, russian engines are jest beter disigned to use any fuel source with beter maintainants hours then other engines. 2000 hours with basic jet fuel, 1000 with disale, gas. and 500 to 250 with vodka and others
Starr8492DS 1 month ago
@Starr8492DS Yah I can see it now, they fill all their planes with vodka. That would be an expensive war! And since Russia is full of alcoholics that would make for some jittery withdrawing pilots.
viper8red 2 weeks ago
@AllahdinTheGreat This is so poorly brought.Su25 flies 850-1,400km/h mach,A10 flies 700km/h.Gsch 2 30 fires up to 6km effective 3,5km-4km.A10 gatling has realy short barrels it fires only maximum 4km effective 2km.Su25 maximum range 2000km Su39 2300km, A10 1200km range.Su25K 4,6tones,Su39 5,2 tones,Su25TM 6,5tones A10 7,5 tones weapons load.Su25 Titaniumalloy,GFK,bor and ceramic plates armor,A10 Titaniumalloy and GFK.I would choose the Su25TM.The survivability is legendary.
Talshet 2 months ago
hotpocketpoison 2 weeks ago
@hotpocketpoison altitude:A10 13km height Su25 13km,A10 4200km range,Su25 2500km range,A10 22tones max TO weight, Su25 21,5tones max TO weight.A10 710km/h maximum Su25 Mach1,board canon is only the small part of weaponary.A10 30x173mm Su25 30x165mm,Su25 is more maneuvrable in high speed also in low speed, A10 is only maneuvrable in low speed,(low speed is more vulnerable than high speed)Su 25 is more advanced in any catagorie the only hard points are range and maybe canon rounds
Talshet 2 weeks ago
@Talshet the Su-25 can not fly at the same altitude as the A-10. the Su-25 is limited to 23000ft, this is what has led to so many being shot down my MANPAD launchers. also the A-10 is FAR more maneuverable at any speed, its empennage is located directly behind the engines, so the trust from the engines actually pushes the control surfaces harder than just normal airflow would, it is like a primitive form of thrust vectoring. the Su-25 does not have this feature, AND has a higher wing loading.
hotpocketpoison 2 weeks ago
@Talshet also the max takeoff weight for the A-10 is 25 tones, the Su-25 is 22.5 tones, so the A-10 is capable of carrying larger, more effective bombs.
hotpocketpoison 2 weeks ago
@hotpocketpoison Su25 6,5tones payload of weapons, A10 7-7,5tones payload weapons just 500-1000kg diffrence.The weaponary of KS-CH weapons of russians are more powerfull each missile has twice big dexan warhead than usa has.
Talshet 2 weeks ago
@Talshet that is still over 1000kg more weapons the A-10 can carry, that could mean many more destroyed tanks/bunkers/vehicles(considering the SDB has the ability to destroy any tank on earth, penetrate over 6ft of reinforced concrete and only weighs 129kg...that is A LOT more bombs). also russian bombs are no more powerful than their american counterparts of the same weight class(other than the FOAB).
hotpocketpoison 2 weeks ago
@hotpocketpoison Just for example about weaponary,the most american used bomb is Mark82 227-259kg warhead 90kg.Russian FAB-250 weight 250kg and warhead from version to version 99-137kg.FAB-500 (500-528kg) warhead 191-221kg,usa biggest bombs are 1tone bombs russian have 9tone bombs with 4300kg warhead.And i dont even compare russian bombs with what usa has.Russians have most powerful,they have FAEs from 3kg-2.5t bombs,usa dont have such things.OFAB250 has twice power than FAB250.
Talshet 2 weeks ago
@Talshet the size of the warhead has nothing to do with how effective the bomb is. the US has never put emphasis on large bombs that cause massive damage over an extremely large area, modern russian(and American)deployment doctrines make this kind of bomb useless, and a complete waste of materials. the US has spent its time developing small, guided, multipurpose munitions(specifically the GBU-39 SDB)which can be carried in extremely large numbers and are totally unmatched anywhere in the world.
hotpocketpoison 2 weeks ago
@hotpocketpoison You just failed.USA is the most user of "collateral damage bombs" like Cluster Bombs.DaisyCutter and other bombs wich are very large also in use and was used against Vietnam civilians.And yes the size of a bomb is the main important thing to "how effective a bomb can be" the FAB9000 was redesigned for the FOAB weights but less.And small bombs like cluster bombs known for the ineffectivness to destroy only "foreign troops" big bombs designed to destroy structures
Talshet 2 weeks ago
@Talshet completely false in todays battlefield. in vietnam NVA deployment doctrines were susceptible to such bombs, also laser guided bombs were in very limited service. however if you look at modern wars such as desert storm you will find the US used mostly 2000lb and 1000lb JDAMS against structures and 500lb Mavericks against armored vehicles. and no, the size of the bomb does NOT matter because US deployment doctrine spreads its troops as far out as possible, protecting them from area bombs.
hotpocketpoison 2 weeks ago
@hotpocketpoison You completly dont understand,even what you said.You said the size or weight have nothing to do with the power of bombs.But you are false it has lot to do with size and weight.cause HE bombs are not based on Monroe Effekt.If you need to destroy big structures like Airfields you need big bombs and nothing is better than FAE to destroy structures with one strike.The size and weight is the most important for the strengh of a bomb.15kgFAE>10kgFAE.
Talshet 2 weeks ago
@Talshet stop hearing only what you want to hear, i never said DAMAGE is not based on size i said EFFECTIVENESS is not based on size. if you have many small, spread out infantry clusters then there is no point in having massive bombs that will have the same effect on the small clusters, because once the bomb gets past the effective size to destroy said cluster you are just blowing up dirt. it would be a complete waste of resources. and if we are talking about tanks then the SDB is the most-
hotpocketpoison 2 weeks ago
@Talshet -effective weapon in the world against them the A-10 can carry 32 SDB under its wings and another 3 2000lb JDAMS under the fuselage. the SDB is guided and can glide for over 60 miles and hit a target with a CEP of 5-8 meters...which means that is up to 32 destroyed tanks from over 60 miles away, the russians have NOTHING anywhere NEAR that effective.
hotpocketpoison 2 weeks ago
@hotpocketpoison JDAM like Mark80 series are absolutly similar to KAB-500 series both are laser/TV guided bombs and can carried 4 on Su25 and still 192 D-pots of 122mm unguided missiles and 4 LGM/ATGM and 4 A2A missiles.SDB is an old shema witch is used in S-3 and S-5 pots from "unguided systeme" wich only set the guidance systeme in final phase about 1km infront of target and can guide themself 500-750m in 120°azimuth.KAB-500K/RK can fly 17km before it guided into target,con..
Talshet 2 weeks ago
@Talshet S-25 un/guided missile from 10-18km ranges Laser/TV/radar guided versions 160-187kg warhead HEFI doing the same job and still costs about same as GBU-39IL.Also russians use BETAB/RBK and PLAB-100/150/250/500/1500 to explain whats the purpose,its penetrating Betons,Bunkers and Mountain complexes from 1,5m-17m Beton/bunkers penetration some versions have tungsten nose and some have 2phase penetrator,before it hits bunker its firing a tungsten high weight arrow to creat a canal.
Talshet 2 weeks ago
@Talshet where are you getting at with your statements? when it comes to how effective the bomb is NO bomb ON EARTH is as effective as the SDB, it can glide for 60 miles(110km)and hit a target the size of a small car with near 100% accuracy. no russian bombs can match its lethality, and the fact that 32 can be carried by the A-10(35 if you count under the fuselage, however these could also be used for 2000lb JDAMs)makes the A-10 the most lethal attack aircraft on the planet by leaps and bounds.
hotpocketpoison 2 weeks ago
@hotpocketpoison Trust me nowdays there are close to nothing where analogs doesnt exist.The only known analogs wich doesnt exist are like Ka-50,Comanche,HEFI-Gtracing ammonition wich was totaly dangerous to own shooter.And some other things.But like Munitions there are analogs,the most Missiles,Bombs,unguided or guided,Mines,AP/AT were designed back in the 1940s.Nowdays M18 claymore or MON50/90 are just copies of german AP mines with same function.Sweden has AA-mine prototype.
Talshet 2 weeks ago
@Talshet typos, i said 35, i meant 44
hotpocketpoison 2 weeks ago
The a10
Why? Because we are America and if our military is not the best, we can get something better like that. In the military, we don't mess around and we don't like to be upstaged
brainfart22 2 months ago
a-10 is better. the end.
thestout77 2 months ago
USAF dont sells there A10 also there F-22 but Su-25 have been soold to iran north korea enemys of NATO
MetalGearArmA 2 months ago
the only thing why su-25 frogfoot is better against A-10 is because its cheap!but not better...
cowboylionzden 2 months ago
shithouse music
todgar 2 months ago
What about the Su-34?
RockRebel1998 3 months ago
@RockRebel1998 The SU-34 doesn't really compare to either of these fighters. These are single-seat, subsonic pure attack aircraft, especially the A-10. They were built to fly low and slow, carry a big gun and survive in a hostile environment.
The Su-34 would be more comparable to the F-15 strike eagle. Both of them are two-seater, supersonic multi-role fighters.
Elthenar 3 months ago
@Elthenar Im pretty sure the Su-34 has the role of a "bomber" and in its category, its considered the most advanced.
RockRebel1998 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RockRebel1998 Read my post again slowly and see if you can understand it.
Elthenar 3 months ago
The frog foot is one ugly aircraft...
ClarksonsinUSA 3 months ago
@ClarksonsinUSA hahaha agree!!!
cowboylionzden 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
su-25 caries a twin barreled GSh-30-2 with 250 30mm rounds and fire rate of 3000 rpm , a-10 has a 7 barreled Gau-8 with 1,300 30 mm rounds and 4200 rpm.
TheMsdos25 3 months ago
Comment removed
TheMsdos25 3 months ago
Su-25 pwns everything :D
Biakio415 3 months ago
A-10 is a better aircraft. Nuff said.
vfIskullangel 3 months ago
@vfIskullangel bullshit
Roofius2 3 months ago
@Roofius2 Go see service records. Like I said A-10 speaks for itself...
vfIskullangel 3 months ago
@vfIskullangel Well yes...We all know no country can defeat the US airforce...but we all know Russian forces beat American forces on the ground...when a war between the US and Russia erupts the US will win the air but Russia the ground, since they can easily mass-produce reliable and cheap weapons and tanks while the US makes more expensive, comfortable, high-tech weapons..But we all learned from the Germans...High-tech doenst help on the ground...Cheap and lots of does.
unrealassasination 3 months ago
@unrealassasination Once again look at the service records of both countrys. America has done far more than what Russia has done over the last 40 years. Russia has been at war with countries the size of Rhode island. Just because Russia can produce cheap inexpensive weapons doesn't mean they will win, Cheap doesn't mean edge. If that was the case than China would be godlike.
vfIskullangel 3 months ago
@unrealassasination the reason germany lost is because it had more than 3 country's attacking it at once, they would have fucked any country over if it was just them vs 1 country because of all there well made guns/tanks
GOWnH3best 3 months ago
@GOWnH3best strategy wins quantity my friend, any war can be won with the proper strategies...this doesnt applies only if a country is outnumbered. in Germany case, Nazi forces wasnt outnumbered, but allied strategies were better.
putoshit 3 months ago
@putoshit the overwhelming assault was basically the beginning of the allies strategy, Germany was winning until america and Russia started attacking, i was just trying to explain to this guy how its quality over quantity
GOWnH3best 3 months ago
@GOWnH3best I've often wondered how such a small country could cause so much destruction. when you factor in how many german soldiers died in the campaign for russia one wonders if america didnt get involved what would have happened. what a bunder on hitlers part. well, I'm glad he did quite frankly but if he didnt tie up so much man and maetrial with russiah, things might have gotten hairy for our british friends.
glennjridge 3 months ago
@GOWnH3best You do realize the the US is not Germany I hope. Russia had a population twice as large as Germany, so it could use mass quantities of of troops against them. The US currently has over twice the population of Russia, how could Russia zerg us with hordes of cheaply equipped troops?
You need to realize the the US has quantity AND quality.
Elthenar 3 months ago
@unrealassasination sorry dude.. but if we have air superiority then planes like the A-10 can eat up ur ground forces.. if anyone has air superiority it means u pretty muck lost the war.. the reason the germans lost was because america had air superiority.. end of story
flybri74 2 months ago
@vfIskullangel maybe he has better movement, but su25 is more durable and more resistant
filip92belgrade 3 months ago
@filip92belgrade You have it backwards. The SU-25 is the smaller, faster and more nimble plane while the A-10 is bigger and much more heavily armored and durable. The A-10 is likely the most durable plane ever built.
Elthenar 3 months ago
@Elthenar contrary
filip92belgrade 3 months ago
@filip92belgrade care to elaborate?
Elthenar 3 months ago
Comment removed
filip92belgrade 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Elthenar a10 Length: (16.26 m) Wingspan: (17.53 m) Height: (4.47 m) Wing area: (47.0 m²) Airfoil: NACA 6716 root, NACA 6713 tip Empty weight: (11,321 kg) Loaded weight: (13,782 kg) On CAS mission: (21,361 kg) On anti-armor mission: (19,083 kg) Max takeoff weight: (23,000 kg) su25 Length: 15.33 m Wingspan: 14.36 m Height: 4.80 m Wing area: 30.1 m² Empty weight: 10,740 kg Loaded weight: 16,990 kg Max takeoff weight: 20,500 kg
filip92belgrade 3 months ago
Comment removed
filip92belgrade 3 months ago
@filip92belgrade You did notice that those numbers support my statement, right?
Elthenar 3 months ago
@Elthenar su25 can return to base with only one engine, and 10 can not
filip92belgrade 3 months ago
@filip92belgrade You apparently know nothing about the A-10. It not only can but has returned to base with an engine completely blown off. There was an incident where an A-10 lost an engine AND suffered from total hydraulic failure and STILL returned to base and flew again. It can return to base with an engine, tail or most of a wing missing.
Elthenar 3 months ago
@filip92belgrade how could a su 25 fly with one engine blown off like an A10 su 25 engines are completely integrated into its fuselage thats why A10 engines are positioned like that
canadachop 2 months ago
@filip92belgrade you're a dumbass
thestout77 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Elthenar su25 Maximum speed: 950 km/h Combat radius: 375 km Ferry range: 2,500 km Service ceiling: 10,000 m Rate of climb: 58 m/s Wing loading: 584 kg/m² a10 Never exceed speed 833 km/h at 1,500 m with 18 Mk 82 bombs Maximum speed: 706 km/h at sea level, clean Cruise speed: 560 km/h Stall speed: 220 km/h Combat radius: 460 km-467km Ferry range: (4,150 km) with ( 90 km/h) headwinds, Service ceiling:(13,700 m) Rate of climb:(30 m/s) Wing loading: (482 kg/m²)
filip92belgrade 3 months ago
Comment removed
filip92belgrade 3 months ago
lets say that 50 t-72s were laid out in a field, and the su 25 and the a 10 had the same chance...
a-10
dogfight?
su 25
tehfortunateson 3 months ago
I've made a video similar to this guy, with actual facts ;) come check it out?
Mattc23q 3 months ago
Wow guys, this all seems very important to you... :)
animationchambers 3 months ago
How is this a comparison? Its just a bunch of pictures and most are repeats.
shooter963 3 months ago
Both ugly, cheap, sturdy specialized sons of bitches :D
KorvettenKapitan83 4 months ago
Su 25 is better definetly ..
karadjordje5 4 months ago 2
ah come on! the a-10 lacks a good maneuverability, speed and a good armour compared with the su-25! for god's sake, an old wwll fighter plane in a dogfight with the a-10 would win so damn easily although it doesn't have any air-to-air missiles!
nymerie 4 months ago
@nymerie the a-10 is built to be slow you dumb fuck
its the best close air support plane because of its loitering times
and jesus fucking christ. no AA missles? are you FUCKING RETARDED? you can fit ANYTHING on to an a-10 you dumb cunt. it has weapon racks for a reason
TwistedComplex 3 months ago
@TwistedComplex omg!!! learn english you stinky pile of ignorance! I was referring to any combat plane from wwll that doesn't have any air-to-air missiles! not the a-10! stupid kid! omg!
nymerie 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nymerie ever heard of run on sentence?
"for god's sake, an old wwll fighter plane in a dogfight with the a-10 would win so damn easily although it doesn't have any air-to-air missiles!"
what the fuck does THAT MEAN?!?!
TwistedComplex 3 months ago
su 25 much better , better armor , better monuvrobility , just flying tank ;)
3dimon3 4 months ago
@3dimon3 The A-10 has titanium armor around the cockpit, it can out turn an f-16, and is a flying tank KILLER. I rest my case.
ACDoubleEdge 3 months ago
@ACDoubleEdge Look what have protection su 25 and in what conditions can work this plane , you change your opinion ;) a 10 grate too but su 25 is insane
3dimon3 3 months ago
The A-10C is better because its much more stable, Uses Depleted Uranium Rounds, Can use Terrain Masking, has better Missles as they can go Thermal, GPS, Laser guided. and since the engines are farther apart both of them getting blown out is much more unlikely. and the A-10C has a better HOTAS and MFCD's. the Su-25 has its advantages in Speed and Thrust to weight ratio but thats about it. you cant even think about landing a SU-25T is unideal conditions in the A-10C there is no unideal conditions
Deadsmile100 4 months ago
Hmm
A-10 is more survivable.... Su-25 probably cheaper... but why compare them? You can't really buy an A-10.... but you could buy a Su-25...
AlphaPegasii 4 months ago
@AlphaPegasii su-25 have titan armor so talk shit
and look early model su-25sm3 he enter in 2007
TATARSTAN59500 4 months ago
@TATARSTAN59500
They both have titanium armour.... an A-10 is flyable with bits missing.. Su-25s have both engines located next to each other and a number have been shot down in combat. Generally a single hit will take down a Su-25; while some A-10s have gone down from single hits, most of the time they are hit they make it back.
Was a translator for the USAF in Japan during the 1990s - so I knew a few A-10 pilots - none would swap for a Su-25,
AlphaPegasii 4 months ago
@AlphaPegasii How many of them had flown an Su-25? ;-)
On point now, I would pick the A-10C over the Su-25T.
joetioeb 4 months ago
@joetioeb
LOL true - I doubt any of them had... and if you know the egos on some pilots....
the A-10C is much more capable...
AlphaPegasii 4 months ago
@AlphaPegasii I've been spending time in DCS:KA50 and DCS:A10C. I know both aircraft aren't from the same period but the difference in controls in the A-10C (intuitive dual MFCD with great HOTAS integration) is way beyond the controls in the KA-50. Moreover, the targetting pod on the Hog is way superior to the old Shkval. That said, I enjoy flying both of them. I wonder what the Ka-52 is like :D
joetioeb 4 months ago
@TATARSTAN59500
The YA-9 which competed with the A-10 in the 1970s was very similar to the Su-25. It was rejected because it was not as survivable as the A-10 - and it too would have had titanium armor.
"the A-10 engine location at the tail is less conventional, but offers greater survivability in the case of a hit on the engine area. The double tail of the A-10 also hides the engine infrared and noise signature, and incorporates redundancy in case one of the tails is shot away."
AlphaPegasii 4 months ago
wich one is better depends on upgrades. the best su-25 ever is our made (Georgian) su-25km scorpion that can carry both Russian and NATO ammunitions, uses guided (laser guided, GPS guided, TV guided) and unguided ammos. I don't think it's inferior...
TheGeoman777 4 months ago
@TheGeoman777 looks last su-25sm3
have totally review new cockpit and adopted new bomb and new R-73 aa missiles
TATARSTAN59500 4 months ago
@TATARSTAN59500 P.S. The pic you saw is from a A-10 flown by a female pilot.The specific plane was in a mission somewhere in the Middle East (don't remember where,either Iraq or Afghanistan).It was to provide CAS, and it got hit by pretty much every weapon in the Taliban inventory,except from rockets.She could have ejected,since the plane's systems were pretty badly damaged,but she kept flying and safely landed it.
gtamodman122 4 months ago
@gtamodman122 su-25 have more range, more bomb load, and have same load bomb maneuvrability, but is build same with jet fighter styl , and more speed max
gun of a-10 is powerful but its no important
TATARSTAN59500 4 months ago
@TATARSTAN59500 First off,let me say something that you ought to remember.The cannon of a CAS aircraft is its heart and soul.It's the princib\ple weapon it uses.It can be used to destroy anything,from personnel to tanks and buildings.So,as you undrstand,the A-10's gun is WAY too important.The Su-25 has a Gsh-30-2,a very good gun,but only 250 rounds, if I remember correctly.This isn't a good load, is it?
And the A-10 is superior to the Su-25 in the range and bomb load.
gtamodman122 4 months ago
@gtamodman122 so no look better 467km for a-10 more than 550km for su-25 with max load bomb
and yes gun is fucking so much better than classic duet gun but titan explosiv bullets caused terrible damage too
TATARSTAN59500 4 months ago
@TATARSTAN59500 and titan explosive bullets=what?Just in case you mean HE rounds,the A-10 carries such ammunition as well.
As for the A-10,where exactly did you get your info from?The A-10's range is superior.Sorry,but it is.
gtamodman122 4 months ago
@gtamodman122 this is your onpinion
TATARSTAN59500 4 months ago
@TATARSTAN59500 that's not called an opinion.That's called reality.The A-10 is far better than the Su-25 and its variants.Some of the letest Su-25 variants are significantly improved,but the A-10 is still better.
gtamodman122 4 months ago
@gtamodman122 yes its your opinion when your compare last model of su-25 and a-10
so............
TATARSTAN59500 4 months ago
@TATARSTAN59500 if you can't get oevr the fact that the US plane has the upper hand here,what can i say...
gtamodman122 4 months ago
@gtamodman122 so when time of war is coming but this is your dream..........
TATARSTAN59500 4 months ago
@TATARSTAN59500 look,this is getting dumb.I don't understand why you can't accept the fact that the A-10 is better.The only advantage the Su-25 probably has is its overall performance.The A-10 is MUCH more efficient.It's not my dream or whatever.The A-10's better,get over it.
gtamodman122 4 months ago
in 2008
in georgia su-25sm escadron no use pactitly gun only frag bomb
and su-25sm3 now is possibly adopted many equipement of su-34
TATARSTAN59500 4 months ago
It seems like comparing these planes is kind of pointless. They both blow up tanks. Im sure if one didnt work, Russia or the US wouldnt friggen use it.
smoraptor 4 months ago
@smoraptor that's a damn good comment lol.
gtamodman122 4 months ago
@gtamodman122 Well thank you sir! =)
smoraptor 4 months ago
comparing these planes is like comparing apples to oranges -_-
zythepsarian 4 months ago
Su-25 it's just flying tank!))) Amazing plane
Kostet91 4 months ago
i like the gun of a-10 but su-25 is nice too
crazyfabio1 4 months ago
Study more. The A-10 has come back with damage that would destroy most aircraft, and it survived. Also, a good many aircraft now have their pilots in titanium tubs. The A-10 dosnt use the steel rods like the Frogfoot, because it doesnt need to. The A-10 uses redundant systems. Thats how it survives over the battlefield.
straecker 4 months ago
@straecker in georgian war in 2008 3 new su-25 sm resist of sa-18 vadomosti official
and no talk su-25 is shit but he proved it your forces in krabagh war and georgian where he destruct more than 300 tanks in 1 week
TATARSTAN59500 4 months ago
Those jets are in ground support tactical capabilities.
casimeromontero 5 months ago
A-10:Superior armament,electronics and more precise firing:
Su-25:Kinda like a CAS Flanker,perhaps better performance,but the A-10's survivability is probably better
gtamodman122 5 months ago
@gtamodman122 hahaha su-25 have titan armor
and looks last su-25sm3 he enter in service in 2007 and have more technology than a-10
and adopted new weapon and last r-73 aa missiles lol you say nothing
and in chechenya many su-25 resist of sa-18 and strela launcher
and i see picture of a-10 when he completly piecing by 12.7mm
TATARSTAN59500 4 months ago
@TATARSTAN59500 I don't know if you used Google translator, but for the sake of the conversation,if you did,let me know where you come from so as to reply to your language.
Anyway,on-topic:Titanium Armour?Cockpti only,I assume.As for the Su-25SM3:I know what was shown in MAKS 2011 ;) it's a good modernization,fairly good but not good enough to technologically match the A-10.
Now,regarding the action in Chechenya:Please show me a source that confirms that.
gtamodman122 4 months ago
Su wins
berzu21 5 months ago
It's hard to compare--the A10 is a slow old plane
hallobaaaby 5 months ago
@hallobaaaby it is slow but maneuverable and has a massive weapons payload
TheMsdos25 4 months ago
@TheMsdos25 You're right--all along the wings! air, ground, anything you want, full menu :D i play this simulator of it and it's great fun!
hallobaaaby 4 months ago
Su-25 is more stable in adverse conditions - like the Russians themselves.
A-10 requires a supportive environment before, but then immediately broke back to the enemy - as the Americans themselves.
allex1814 5 months ago
Su-25 is a beauty, A-10 is freak.
mironboss65 5 months ago
A-10 controls are triple redundant (two hydraulic systems + one wire).
A-10, while slower was made to be down in the dirt, and probably is better suited to it than the Su-25, and will probably be able to maneuver harder, with better wing loading.
A-10 engines are "vulnerable", but are armored and protected by both the wing, and vertical/horizontal stabilizers, which also help to shield IR. The Su-25s engines are much more vulnerable being on the bottom, right where ground fire can hit them.
mobius1aic 5 months ago
@mobius1aic A-10's main landing gear are partially exposed to make landings possible with a failed hydraulics system (therefore no main landing gear down).
I don't think there are any stories that really show the Su-25 taking the damage the A-10 has in combat and still survived, including losing half a wing. Dual vertical stabilizers are pretty handy when you lose one, or it shields your engine from an IR AAM, or shrapnel.
mobius1aic 5 months ago 2
Idiot, this video show how look bether not more xD
eXeeeDs 5 months ago
do you know by who is made A-10 Thunderbolt?
jumsona911 5 months ago
Both are highly unadvanced, and neither are evn useful for dogfighting combat. What is the comparison?
AngrySwampManStudios 5 months ago
@AngrySwampManStudios
this is assault planes, they must not dogfight lol
get some education
Scoutrussp7 5 months ago
@Scoutrussp7 Don't even talk to me about education kid. You're walking into a battle that I personally guarantee you will lose at. Do yourself a favor and don't reply to me kid.
AngrySwampManStudios 5 months ago
@AngrySwampManStudios
As I see the only kid here is you, especially with such nickname lol
Scoutrussp7 5 months ago
@Scoutrussp7 The name is based off of a cartoon that I was a partner in creating. See how nice it is to know things? You are throwing stones, and living in a glass house. You should just walk away from it.
AngrySwampManStudios 5 months ago
I guess youtube will start world war 3
kawasakininjaja 6 months ago
You don't want to compare the A-10 to the SU-25, rather the SU-39.
Scarfacetfs 6 months ago
@Scarfacetfs its actually a good comparison. Su-39 will have to be compared to the new F's
gamergotaids 5 months ago
Jesus I wish I had fucking time to argue about which of two planes is better... On the other hand I recon it's probably a pretty boring existence!
jasonked1 6 months ago