A-10 vs SU-25 Which is Better?

[@SAarumDoK]

Pretty sure the Su-25 is used by many countries other than the Ukrainians. You also forgot that the main user is still the Russian Federation.

[@HayilAl-Qadhaafi-ws9of]

And many nations in Africa, Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

[@incbluesail3080]

This guy is so foolish that he doesn't know its a Russian jet. He must be American he keeps the true away from what is trying to present to us. Please better give lies to Americans cause they are ignorant

[@living-wellon-less5669]

Ukraine had 17 SU-25's at the beginning of the war, what they have now is a question mark!

[@foshizzlfizzl]

​@@living-wellon-less5669I think there were more, because Ukraine lowered their amount in official reports. But today I guess there are only a few left. Ukraine didn't manage to build anything new for the military.. Over 90% is still from the sooo bad Soviet Union that not only created Ukraine as a state but also gave it Weapons and ammunition for decades.

[@algabo9200]

@@foshizzlfizzl думаю, ещё услышите про союз, мы пошутили 😉

[@twinshobbytwinshobby3863]

Both planes are unique, but the Su-25 can land and take off even from the field.

[@cavemanbum]

4:49-4:59 - "The A-10's primary weapon is the GAU-8 howitzer...which can fire up to 4,000 revolutions per minute." Huh? You guys need to work on your scripts. 🙄

[@caesarsalad1170]

Seriously how dumb do you have to be to call a 30mm gun a howitzer?

[@malenimarkosm4383]

A10 uses prohibited uranium weapons

[@ricklehurst]

Lol @ 'howitzer'!

[@ojiuchechukwujamesnjoku5622]

A 30mm canon is now a howitzer?

[@PNT-Garage]

Disappointed that redundancy wasn't mentioned. The A-10 was designed with primary, secondary AND tertiary systems that are required to keep it in the air long enough to return home. This system alone was one of the main reasons why A-10s returned home on two separate occasions after taking a direct hit by a SAM. The engines on the A-10 were designed and placed on the airframe for reasons completely missed by the creators here - 1st, they are designed to ingest shrapnel from damage, and restart. This was again seen to be key in the A-10 that took a SAM to the wing in the first Gulf War. It shut itself down and was able to restart. But if the engine did catch fire, and it couldn't be extinguished, they are on pylons to be able to burn away without damaging the rear control surfaces. I'll also add that the designers took all the small details into account, say, with the landing gear. In case of full hydraulic and electical failure, all 3 landing gear can be manually released from their up-locks and they are designed to lower and lock in place through the force of the slip stream. Further to that, they are split (mains and nose) so the pilot can drop the mains first - if they don't deploy, then the nose wheel isn't deployed (think ... avoiding landing on a pogo stick stuck on your nose). If the gear can't come down, the mains are designed that even in a belly landing with the mains fully retracted, the wheels protrude from the nacells to add cushioning to plane, in order to minimize damage and expedited repairs. Finally, just that, damage and repairs - the A-10 was designed to be able to be broken down in modules, to expedite field repairs and make them easier to be fixed up and put back on the line. Why these specific points? Because these are all design featurs that the Frogfoot lacks. Just my 2 cents from a guy who loved having these birds as CAS when we were playing around in the desert. Biased? Absolutely! Thankful? Even more so.

[@phihelix8777]

One tough bird.

[@PNT-Garage]

@@phihelix8777 mmm-hmmm

[@alanjameson8664]

Yes, you beat me to it. The A-10 has complete duplicate hydraulic systems, and if both of those are damaged, it can be flown manually.

[@seryiled]

​@@alanjameson8664😂😂😂Ну вы удивили! Су25 генарала Рудского с телеграфным столбом в двигателе приземлился в Афганистане, а так согласен, обе машины живучи как тараканы.

[@СеняГорбунков-щ9ц]

И Росиия вас уделает!

[@dodgingrain3695]

You do know that 4cm is 40mm right? That gives the A-10 better armor thickness for pilot protection. Also the A-10's gun isn't a howitzer, its a rotary cannon.

[@PegroProX440]

and it fires 3000 revolutions per minute? I think he means 3000 rounds per minute. so much false information.

[@Bassam.E]

Really?! We toke it down in Baghdad with ww2 kanon s60 with one shoot

[@TsarOfRuss]

yet you couldnt defeat Taliban ??? i think its better if you shut up

[@infantrynealstanley]

@@Bassam.Eno you didn’t

[@Mark-EFMB-Combat-Medic]

For arguments sake, Lets say you or "we", "..toke it down...", "...with WW2 kanon s60...:, :...with one shoot...". I don't recall anyone suggesting that the A10 or any other military machine is 100% unstoppable and can never be destroyed. Good luck with your line of thinking. @@Bassam.E

[@IceWarrior341]

The A-10 Warthog is in use by the US Air Force, not the US Army.

[@airtexaco]

It does take away from the credibility of the video..

[@kevinjheath]

That raised my eyebrows too, but not as much as when they gave the Frogfoot the edge in maneuverability...

[@Mark-EFMB-Combat-Medic]

When I was stationed in West Germany in the early eighties (US Army), we had A10's supporting our heavy artillery training scenarios in Graff. I guess they were Airforce pilots rather than Army warrant officers which I assumed was the case? It was nice to know they were operating close to us though, because they are badass. 1/94th FA MLRS

[@purdyboi8078]

@@Mark-EFMB-Combat-MedicThank you!

[@alexnderrrthewoke4479]

Was. Now they are retired

[@thedodgybeaver4896]

To truly compare these air craft we would need to see A-10 's performance in a pier on pier battle, as can currently be seen with the Su-25.

[@likemostthings]

interesting point. Though I stll think the A-10 is by far the better of the two

[@evilleader1991]

@@likemostthings Su-25 has proven track record, A-10 has only been used in uncontested air space and killin farmers with AKs.

[@Milo-id9qd]

@@likemostthings It depends on full air control, if you don't have that, SU-25 is better (faster and can use rougher runways) though the SU-25 pays for it with range.

[@Russian-Sevastopol.]

@@likemostthings You're just A FOOL, that's all.

[@Hdhshsbssjsjsj]

@@likemostthings thats what you think.

[@stankovich7990]

SU-25 has fought in a real war. A-10 fought goat herders with no air defense to speak of. There you go.

[@isayagain]

U mean after collation/usa knocked out air defenses in both gulf wars?

[@TgamerBio5529]

🤖

[@itinensanzen]

​@@isayagain US never fought against a peer enemy with strong air defenses. Just off horizon missile strikes from afar. After the deployment of the S400 and and the encounter with a SU-35 in Syria, the F35 incursions were banned from syrian skies.

[@DOI_ARTS]

You smoking weed, Warthog had been used in the Gulf War and Iraqis are not goat herders, Frog foot failed in Ukraine

[@godzillaeatsushi4979]

You been smoking crack. Su25 never see any war between it crushes as soon as it took off

[@heyfitzpablum]

Both are good aircraft, but they have slightly different mission focus. A-10 is more for loiter and close air support for infantry. Su-25 is used more for Attack Missions and not loiter/support. Each aircraft excels at it's primary mission, FWIW the Su-25 is a lot cheaper to manufacture and support in combat.

[@zurabavaliani8101]

A stick is also a good weapon if used right, SU 25 is the cheapest variant of the soviet military, it does the job in the worst possible way, and it is built for mass and without any regard for the pilot's life as people were plentiful in the USSR.

[@jurajkovacik2430]

@@zurabavaliani8101 I bet you are somewhere from central or eastern europe from people that hate russians...

[@69columbus]

At this point, preference become subjective. They each equally have pros snd and cons. I prefer the SU-25. My opionion is based on the fact that the A-10s always operated in theatres clean of any useful threat (they come in after waves of US/multinational airforces completely removed any threat they might face) In iraq for example they're most famously known for completely destroying a huge retreating convoy of iraqi soldiers and civilians in mixed civillian and military cars and trucks. The A10s literally faced zero opposition. The SU25s never have that luxury.

[@jdluntjr76226]

We use different approaches - I like ours - clear the skies of your opponents

[@eighthelement]

​@@jdluntjr76226 It is about the aa defense, not about the skies. A-10 is great for crushing rebellions and conquering shitholes - it is unusable for World War 3 against Russia or China.

[@hot2warm]

@@jdluntjr76226 A-10 have never faced a near peer or peer adversary. There won't be any clear skies under such a scenario.

[@penskepc2374]

Thats totally untrue. People seem too think that Saddam was the equivalent to African warlord simply because he got decimated so quickly. He had one of the most advanced and largest militaries on earth during the first Gulf war.

[@jdluntjr76226]

@@hot2warm The US Air Fotce is the best in the world both in quality and quantity - it has no peers- and so called SAMs that our potential adversaries use can and have been spooked by US systems - the skies will clear much quicker than thus think

[@stuuuporman]

The A-10 was not designed for dog fights. It excels in really close ground support as it can carry a larger varied payload and can stay on station longer as it does the mashed potatoes on the enemy.

[@Vultross]

I saw an interview involving F-16 and F-18 pilots who were asked about dogfighting the A-10. The consensus was, "Oh, Hell no!" I think that video is still here on KZbin somewhere.

[@hellrock]

somewhere out there there's an a-10 with f-16 and f-22 kill marks 😎

[@finlaywatson9319]

I mean atleast the SU-25 doesn't have 10 friendly fire kills and make the allies mashed potatoes lol but if the su-25 has I don't think Russia would say so idk

[@warfootage7890]

Every A10 missions was performed in unchallenged air space...... By US airforce

[@sav6873]

You forgot about the gulf wars

[@itinensanzen]

​@@sav6873 Unchallenged air space. Facts. 5 planes and 3 rusty old SAM batteries are not exactly a "peer enemy". 😂😂😂

[@unclescar5616]

I'd argue that's exactly where it should be. It's an air to ground weapon. Placing in challenged airspace where it may face interceptors is bring a knife to a gun fight.

[@sav6873]

@@itinensanzen yet the a-10s russian equivalent seems to take more losses in situations like this?

[@jayspik6498]

Exactly, no A-10 shot down by bearded sheep herders with pitchforks and sandals.. That’s not much of a comparison if you ask me.. Put the A-10 in Ukraine 🇺🇦 today and you’d understand why it’s not fit for purpose against a real peer combatant with inexhaustible air defenses and man pads.. They’d all get shot down.. The SU-25 is the better machine, I don’t care what anyone says.. You can’t possibly compare the two with respect of the combat environment they’ve been in.. Wait till they send the F-16 In Ukraine you’ll understand what, unfit for purpose means when they all get shot down..

[@sirsmeal3192]

They are both good. I prefer the larger combat radius of the A-10, but the short take-off and landing of the Su-25.

[@sergeykvit1126]

А 10 воевал только с пастухами

[@jamiemezs9891]

​@@sergeykvit1126 And the 25 fight muslims goat Herders your point.😊

[@rosieroblox4874]

For sure su25 is better in a real combat than warthog, warthog was used against poor and weak countries like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan..

[@patrick02491]

😂😂

[@speelangs7161]

A10 in Vietnam? ahhahaha You should read after commenting.

[@right584]

It wasn't deployed in Vietnam Actually it wasn't even made yet

[@dmcjewagner]

If we are talking close support the a10 has more hardware to put on target, and can stay in the area longer. If you can't afford to have a dedicated close air support the versatility of the su25 might be handy. If I'm on the ground needing multiple targets hit over a longer time period I am going to hope it's an a10 that's overhead. I have been buzzed over on a hilltop of a10s in civilian life, they didn't realize we were there, they were over and gone before we heard them. That didn't lesson the fear factor once the noise caught up. Had about 50 city kids with me on an outdoor adventure. The a10s flew back over and wagged thier wings. Some of those kids remarked it was the best day ever.

[@deven6518]

Longer period of time in a real war = shot down. Get in quick, hit them hard and haul ass out of there like God himself commanded you to Rtb is how you stay alive.

[@AdamBechtol]

neat :p

[@KurtBoulter]

The Su-25 Frogfoot is NOT in use in the Ukrainian air force at this time, the Russian Airforce was using it for ground attack in the early days of the liberation of Russian territories, but has changed tactics, and has opted for the vastly cheaper drone attacks, rockets and artillery, without putting human lives on the line in air to ground attacks.

[@Lone_Star_Proud]

"Liberation of Russian territories?!?" If you mean the invasion of a sovereign nation's territories you would be correct.

[@KurtBoulter]

@@Lone_Star_Proud I no you don't want to accept a democratic election, which happened in the break away territories of Donetsk and Lugansk in the Donbass Regions of Ukraine, who voted to be absorbed back into Russia, but this is the reality of what happened, all because the Ukraine, illegal government, installed by the US, after a coup, against a Democratically elected president, after which they started to shell and murder civilians in the regions mentioned, then that is you ignorance, that is all. You obviously support your Nazi brothers who are running Ukraine at present, or have not actually researched this tragedy before making your ignorant comment?

[@scothf1273]

Its still being used in the ukrainian air force, its being used right now in the counter offensive.

[@KurtBoulter]

@@scothf1273 I have not seen any footage of any Ukrainian air force of army use of the frogfoot, ONLY the Russian military, or are the Ukrainian military silent on their wins? lol.

[@eckman69]

"Liberation of Russian territories"? Is this a typo?

[@JohnSmith-rr1oc]

The SU25 hands down. In undefended airspace such as Afghanistan and to a lesser extent Iraq, the A10 excelled. Over Ukraine, it would get murdered. It’s too slow and doesn’t manoeuvre quick enough. There would be S300/400, BUKS, Verb’s/Igla’s , ZSU 23’s and Pantsir’s chewing it’s arse off. The Americans have never fought in such a hostile air environment. This is not Vietnam, with SA-2 telegraph poles being fired at you.

[@jdluntjr76226]

S300s and S400s would be wiped out in days

[@JohnSmith-rr1oc]

@@jdluntjr76226 By what?

[@Sitzenleben]

The problem with what you said is it the A-10 would never be used by the US Military all on its own in a situation like ukraine. One must consider how it would it is deployed not simply how good is. This has been the problem in the Ukrainian war for the Russians. It’s not their Military hardware that matters but their tactics. Look up how many SU 25s have been shot down in Ukraine because of lack of air support for that machine

[@jimmiller5600]

Airframes matter. But so do their avionics, weapons, targeting & comms. The A-10 has benefited from mostly "regular" updates. That makes the A-10 a survivor (especially since it exists within an environment of air superiority).

[@N0B0DY_SP3C14L]

The SU-25's cannon is cute, but nothing can really f*** with the GAU-8. When that thing cuts loose, it's game over for anything in front of it. It is no exaggeration to say that every time the warthog grunts, the gates of hell are opened for a moment. If you hear the grunt, you weren't the target this time. Is the A-10 a superior machine to the SU-25? If we are looking at it in terms of how much punishment it can dish out or take, then I'd say yes. It is a more highly developed machine, with far more sophisticated targeting, navigation, countermeasures, force integration, and can fight harder, longer, day or night. The SU-25 takes the more Russian approach, cheaper, more crude, but still fairly effective, and more easily produced/replaced if destroyed. I wouldn't want either coming after me, but if I had to choose, I'd be more afraid of the A-10, not just because of the aircraft itself, but because of everything that it works with to do its job. My $0.02

[@joserafaelgarciamorales8724]

Both aircraft are very impressive and powerful but I rather have peace on Earth 🌎🌍 and enjoy life to your fullest.

[@MrZlocktar]

One is legend for BRRRRT, and the other became a legend for it's extreme wide use all over the globe. One of them only faced insurgents, terrorists, or third world countries and the other has a use in real modern warfare. You decide which is better. As for personal opinion, i judge by experience of planes. Su-25 has enormous experience in comparison to A-10. A-10 hasn't been tested to it's limits yet.

[@MizMite2002]

Su 25 see`s combat. A10 only attacks defenceless nations for its history. SU25 battle tested.

[@danielnout77]

Well said! Kudos!

[@keithe.bilitsky833]

That A-10 can really ruin someone's day

[@kurt44mg42]

Only if you're an Afghan goatherder armed with a rusty Lee Enfield bolt-action rifle.

[@designbam780]

Forget to mention PRICE! Which one is more affordable. And availability. Which one comes with no political strings attached.

[@rodman7224]

That would be the Su 25 with no conditions attached unlike all US military equipment

[@gazof-the-north1980]

The A-10 is the Only Gun in the world to have an airplane bolted to it!

[@husargusar1229]

C 130 Hecules

[@colewalters5336]

So you say the su 25 has thicker armor at 25mm than the a10 at 4cm which is actually 40mm. How does that math work?

[@Arrbalest]

Что тяжелее? Килограмм пуха или килограмм гвоздей? Я думаю тут речь о качестве материала.

[@ligmasurvivor5600]

nope he said the su25 carried more armor around the plane in general, he also admitted that su25 actually had LESS armor

[@ligmasurvivor5600]

@@Arrbalest both planes use titanium armor so there's no difference in material

[@picandvideo]

The ultimate worthiness is to send A10 to Ukraine for live action. SU25 did it.

[@steveburke7675]

...BOTH are very vulnerable in a modern MANPAD era.

[@caesarsalad1170]

Shhh the A-10 circle jerkers will go insane

[@motonegros]

What's the cost difference?

[@dualdanman816]

It depends on the mission! But if I had to choose I would go for the A 10❤

[@ronniefarnsworth6465]

Lol , A-10 in Every way !!! Semper Fi

[@ANDREA57ITA]

It sucks​@@ronniefarnsworth6465

[@bulletproofpepper2]

A-10 warthog is being upgraded again and rewinged to upgrade the weapons it can carry. It will can control two ultimate-wingman UAV after upgrading. The brake throughs UAV’s for dogfighting and refueling are game changing.

[@seryiled]

Главное не лезть на нём в зону эшилонированой системы ПВО. Не уязвимых самолётов не бывает.

[@steeljawX]

The question posed is about the same as asking, "Which is better; a sledge hammer or an ax?" In which I would answer, "What are you planning on doing with that?" Both are made for similar, but specified roles. From take off to discharge to landing, the Frogfoot is designed to go fast and be able to fight just about any adversary along the way. The Warthog is more of if you've got something a bit further out that you need to harass that's more or less specifically on the ground. It's specialty is not an air-to-air fighter, but it can do that. It has a bigger effect on ground targets. So again, what are you planning on doing with it? Do you need a hostile ground asset taken out just across the front line or do you need to give your ground units some support? This is the problem with comparing two vehicles that are basically in the same role, but from different nations. One's not inherently better than the other, it's more or less that the one belonging to each nation is best for that nation because it was built for that nation specifically. So obviously for Russia the SU-25 is the better of the two and for the USA the A10 is the best aircraft. So it's a semantic argument of which is better that doesn't really matter. I'd rather compare their battle effectiveness as a comparison to which is better than flat stats.

[@emameyer]

how does the statement at 7:58 make sense with the following information?

[@jorgegonzalez-pv8mv]

Obviously a report made by people who know little about the subject. The A-10 not only fought "terrorists", it participated in dozens of missions in the Bosnian and Kosovo War, where 90% of the weapons used in Ukraine today existed. Only one was hit by a Stela 2 missile and of course it was not shot down and landed on its base.

[@right584]

90% ??!! Nah

[@WinstoneSmith]

Experience makes A10 better. Its incredible not one has been shot down ever (much like the Apache)

[@noballsbigshaft4486]

That's not impressive considering they've never fought any major force.

[@WinstoneSmith]

@@noballsbigshaft4486 That's untrue my friend: remember the very same Mujahideen in Afghanistan managed to shot down dozens of Soviet helicopters and SU-25s in the 80s.

[@noballsbigshaft4486]

@@WinstoneSmith That's true. However you said the A-10 has never been shot down, which is also untrue. 6 have been shot down, and 1 had been so damaged they scrapped it. Making 7 total loses.

[@WinstoneSmith]

@@noballsbigshaft4486 Video data is inaccurate yes. Anyway all losses were during conventional war operations, against an army with advance systems. After that not a single loss during decades long conflict in Irak and Afghanistan.

[@worpat8877]

​@@WinstoneSmith, basically you saying that USA is using P2W?

[@robertpella2389]

The A-10 while not a dog fighter still has the Wart hog stomp.

[@louisbabycos106]

The SU 25 has overall better kinematics However if the SU 25 chose to do a low speed turning fight ( which it normally would not do ) the A10 would have the advantage.

[@DOI_ARTS]

Since when did the army has the A10? Only airforce operates it.

[@jonathanrisher8541]

A-10 had been damaged so badly, yet it still manages to fly back to base operationally

[@zde1532]

SU-25 had been through this plenty of times

[@dodoubleg2356]

They both have their merits. However, when my life or the lives of soldiers on the ground are at stake, I'd choose the A-10. 😉✌️

[@jackeboi6289]

Nah. The A-10 was hated for its absurdly high rate of friendly fire. I choose the su-25 to keep my soldiers safe.

[@Eric_Von_Yesselstyn]

@@jackeboi6289 The Russian FrogFoot was absolutely influenced by the American YA-9, look it up... The FrogFoot is a design that works and has a couple of irrelevant advantages over the A-10. The A - 10 is much better in all the areas that matter, END OF STORY. PANB

[@MultiTipsie]

I would state the A10 warthog. There are already lots of SU25's shot down comparing to the warthog. This relatively seen. It also could be that the pilots had better training, but I geuss the warthog can be more efficient due to his longer airtime, slower speed and better survivebility. I saw a video a few months ago were Ukraine pilots were training on A10's I really hope Ukraine will get those too, because they are the perfect airplanes for the kind of warfare in Ukraine.

[@Milo-id9qd]

They operated in unchallenged aerial supremacy. SU-25 would be slightly more survivable than A-10 in those conditions actually (due to being faster and being able to land on more rough runways). The gun is irrelevant, can only be used in COIN operations, against a peer adversary (especially with soviet equipment) if you are in gun range, you are facing MANPADS and SPAAGs (like Tunguska and Pantsir).

[@MultiTipsie]

@@Milo-id9qd Hi Milo, As far as I know, the A10 also can land on unpaved landingstrips or terrain. Avoiding MANPADS is an issue for both I guess and the A10 is especially made to survive such an attack. Maybe they are about the same in those cases.

[@Milo-id9qd]

@@MultiTipsie Good point, but i think the USAF only used it off regular runways. The MANPADS thing ... i was trying to say that the GAU gatling is something for which the plane pays a lot (with the positioning of the engine, internal volume, weight, etc ...) but it doesn't seem to work for anything but COIN.

[@MultiTipsie]

Well to be honest. It was designed especially for this kind of warfare. Against tanks and trenches. So if you say COIN (I had to look it up) and that could be fine with the newer models, but the older, not upgraded ones lack the capable equipment for these kind of missions. And if the Ukraine will receive those, it will be the older models. I think they will serve very good against tanks, tree lined hidden unit and trenches and attack helicopters. But of course, I am far from an expert. I am a retired EW sergeant for more then 20 years now who out of interest follows the war and try to keep up with all the latest developments in my spare time. Even the equipment I worked with is replaced long time ago.

[@ligmasurvivor5600]

honestly there would be a need for sead operations first

[@sangtea_fanai]

please tell me who is the real user of Su25??

[@JMJ5070]

I think it's more a question of military doctrine ; more power ? Choose the A-10. More rusticity (multi-fuel, by example) ? Choose the Su-25.

[@wieslawmaciag2142]

One small point . Which aircraft carrier.?

[@johngauntlett4915]

Fairchild Republic needs to step up their game a little bit. Even though the a-10 warthog is one badass plane.

[@frankleespeaking9519]

Fairchild is long gone

[@somdattsable5540]

What terrorists feared the most is the humming sound of gatling gun mounted on the chin of a-10 warthog !!

[@davefellhoelter1343]

What Would A Marine Want? Hmm? Air Craft Carrier Capable, and Short take off landing rough strips? Larger cannon? More ammo?

[@robertwall1419]

The Marines,Navy, & Army Wanted the A-10 - Even did carrier trials I heard after the Air Force tried to get rid of it - it was only after that & congress that they were Forced to keep it! In comparison to the S-25 - you should look into the X-9 - you will be surprised!

[@ice-xv1hi]

Pretty sure that RPM stands for "rounds per minute", not "revolutions per minute". Just sayin'.

[@ColdWarWarriors]

I would say the A1 Skyraider would be the best

[@FloydStandiferIV]

even with their differences, both are equal in my eyes 1 play deserves another.

[@gugulethuzangwa8358]

The price is important too

[@tamabuku]

both are fantastic

[@bigbob1699]

The A10 is the Timex of ground support, takes a licking and keeps on ticking and brings you home. I know grunts who want to marry one. .

[@supeskrim]

5:56 why would an airplane need to be equiped with a bulky Surface to Air Missile (SAM) != Air to Surface Missile (ASM) ?

[@drumpftodd7887]

Is this a real question? Brrrrrrttt...

[@HayilAl-Qadhaafi-ws9of]

Yessssssss

[@ToTheNines87368]

The A-10 was definitely feared by ground forces alright.

[@RobertNicolai-o3c]

I think a Hog always beats a Frog? But seriously the A10 brings more hurt to the enemy with better armour and targeting!

[@worpat8877]

SU has titanium cockpit...

[@wilsonsantiago3095]

@@worpat8877so does the A-10

[@right584]

Depends on the "enemy"

[@Jtr_ceral_killer]

who wrote this script? so many errors or poor wording.

[@frankdamsy9715]

Both aircraft kinda suck. Especially in the context of a near-peer war. Even outside of that context, there are cheaper options that provide more advanced avionics and more accurate air to ground fire (albeit with smaller payloads)

[@ahvjkv]

For example?

[@maryfe8221]

@@ahvjkv tucano

[@maryfe8221]

True

[@ahvjkv]

@@maryfe8221 🤡🤡🤡

[@frankdamsy9715]

@@ahvjkv the various light-attack aircraft who's developed came after the A10/SU25 such as the A29, Sky Warden, or Mwari

[@txvet7738]

The A-10 without a doubt!!

[@DavyRo]

😅😂😅

[@caesarsalad1170]

F-111 you mean

[@brettself]

A great aircraft isn’t enough. Russian pilots just don’t get the stick time in training American pilots do.

[@bavery6957]

Which doesn't have a ground crew that drinks the hydraulic and coolant system fluids to cope with where they are...?

[@mosescyrussolomon-wo6pu]

A10 all the way ! brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr that sound breeds confidence and might . 😂

[@Hellfox777]

The A-10. The frogfoot is an awesome plane, but it doesn't hold a candle to the A-10. The legacies aren't comparable.

[@right584]

Your last statement is right One fought in actual wars Other fought in counter insurgency operations

[@valdemar765]

Су-25 в реальных условиях используется. Коода против него весь арсенал советского и натовского ПВО. Какой арсенал использовался против А10? Сша всегда воюет против тех кто в тапках на голую ногу.

[@HeatMyShorts]

I didn't know the Su25 was Carrier-capable. Cool

[@oscarolie5743]

Never heard of F-111 in ground-attack missions...

[@gino3286]

Are they retiring a10s ? If so that would mean something Obsolete?

[@liamsmith2010]

Did this say it has a 30mm GAU-8 "Howitzer"? I'm pretty sure its not called a Howitzer.... an Auto-Cannon maybe.... or just Brrrrt

[@EnderGZ86]

5:42 I think you meant 3,000 rounds per minute (RPM) The agility of the Su-25 means nothing when dealing with fighter jets and the operation form aicraft carriers is irrelevant when the Russian navy only has 1 carrier . The A-10 has a more cleary defined design, I can't comprehend how the F-35 is meant to replace it. That said in current scenarios Su-25 is more relevant than other aircraft and neccessary for ground troops support.

[@specialingu]

speed, stealth, and expectation to not use the gun as much, i guess.

[@joaopaulopeluzio4195]

I would say none, as CAS evolving, the role for heavy close air support planes with big 30mm is becoming obsolete, is much more preferable having an aircraft that has the capability of lauching precise missiles from behind the lines and safely fly away to the base, being capable of repeating it more times with less risk in a smaller time window. Of course, we're talking about a bigger money expense in the short term (since increasing pilot survivability spare a ton of money in longer terms), however, if we are talking about NATO or China, i dont believe it is a problem.

[@cyborg2048]

The Japanese are replacing apaches with loitering munitions for the cas role .

[@itinensanzen]

A guerra na Ucrânia mostrou o contrário. Avioes baratos e de fácil manutencao que podem pousar em pistas despreparadas, usando um budget infinitamente menor que os EUA com eficiência igual ou superior.

[@joaopaulopeluzio4195]

@@itinensanzen Sinto informar, mas isso não existe, aviões sem aviônica avançada não só são alvos fáceis para defesas de ponto (como ocorreu e ocorre na guerra Russo-Ucraniana), como não possuem a mesma precisão, mesma capacidade computacional de sistemas eletrônicos, mesma velocidade de operação e versatilidade em multi-papéis. A idéia de um avião simples e barato ser melhor surgiu com a Flight Mafia, juntamente com a maior piada do meio militar, Pierre Spray e é tão mentirosa e fraca que nenhum ramo militar profissional do planeta adotou essa idéia para a compra de aviões e muito menos as empresas que produzem aeronaves. Durante a produção do F-15, o avião com maior taxa de sucesso em combate ar-ar, com 104 abates para 0 perdas, a Flight Mafia foi veementemente contra, pois o avião era na visão deles: "grande demais, com tecnologia demais e caro demais", o que se provou um erro crasso

[@joaopaulopeluzio4195]

@@cyborg2048 Loitering ammo and high distance launching plataforms are part of the future for both CAS and artillery, maybe even some MBTs

[@cyborg2048]

@@joaopaulopeluzio4195 probably will fill the atgm role for infantry as well.

[@blazini]

Why on earth would you make specific mention of the SU-25 being used by Ukraine in the current conflict when it's a Russian aircraft? Sukhoi is literally in Moscow. Sure Ukraine had mostly Soviet era weapons at the start of the conflict but I'm pretty sure Russia has alot more SU-25s than Ukraine. You should try to suppress your idealism if you want your content taken seriously.

[@Brutaga]

Well said. Totally agree 👍

[@YengPodMingAnalyst]

Which one easy to kill from the air ? Shoulder missiles which one is easy to kill in from the air ?

[@XCougar85X]

This comparrison totally bypasses the sensor and tech suite. The SU-25's are hardly modernised and still largely resost to unguided rockets. The few laser guided weapons it has requite it to fly a pretty straight predictable track to keep the laser on target. Like some even used google maps on a mobile to navigate. The A-10 is a much-much more updated platform, with a vastly superior standoff capability, navigation, RWR system, helmetmounted systems, much better sensors, like it is not even remotely close in that field.

[@pkmishra6763]

Is jaguar used by Indian Army not a ground attack aircraft ??

[@VidAudioJojo]

Revolutions per minute? You must mean rounds per minute.

[@Szarko32c]

Su-25 will fly long after usaf retired A-10, unfortunately. They should restart su25 production.

[@brianmacc1934]

Dont forget , a well trained pilot

[@sub3ero984]

Frogfoot experienced real battles, warhog experience fake battles

[@negativezero3107]

Name them lol, quite the untrue statement.

[@zagrepcanin82]

What about Embraer?

[@guyb7995]

To me the only advantage the SU has is speed. I don't think it comes close to the advanced precision air to ground munitions the A-10 can carry such as laser guided bombs & Mavericks, and they way it can deploy them. Its like a T-72 compared to any M1A1. In Ukraine we have only ever seen it used to deploy unguided munitions such as rocket pods and retarded dumb bombs.

[@FM4AMGV]

Su-25 Can fire the laser guided vhikr missiles, up to 16 in a 8x2 configuration. There were prototype 25t models with fire and forget tv guided missiles. This was considered too expensive in the 90's and cancelled

[@guyb7995]

@@FM4AMGV can it even designate the targets?

[@FM4AMGV]

@@guyb7995 yes, it has a laser to designate. Vhikr missiles ride the source beam from the Su-25, other laser missiles can receive external laser guidance from other sources

[@guyb7995]

@@FM4AMGV looking in to it it seems that its just an aiming point through the HUD the pilot has to keep on target the whole flight of the rocket (very primitive), its not anything like the A10 that can optically/thermally lock on to a target to laze (significantly off the direction the aircraft is heading) and then also release a weapon on it without actually heading towards it.

[@caesarsalad1170]

F-111 was a mistake to replace, almost 4 times faster than the A-10, can carry nearly 2x the amount of bombs/missiles, sure more expensive to maintain, but much more capable. Of course its politics and cost that takes priority.

[@juanfermin8173]

SU 25 is good , but I'll go with the A 10 because of the Big gun and Survivability, Ive seen a 10's returning to base with one engine and full of bullet holes , like Swiss chesse. lol

[@minhminh-wp5lg]

Same with the su25

[@Eric_Von_Yesselstyn]

@@minhminh-wp5lg The Russian FrogFoot was absolutely influenced by the American YA-9, look it up... The FrogFoot is a design that works and has a couple of irrelevant advantages over the A-10. The A - 10 is much better in all the areas that matter, END OF STORY.

[@minhminh-wp5lg]

@@Eric_Von_Yesselstyn which is ?

[@markmilan57]

A10 will stay in the services for decades to come. Without a doubt it is no match against any other such aircraft in the world currently.

[@AdamBechtol]

Oh I thought I saw in another video about them, they were being decommissioned in like 7 years. To be replaced with something else no doubt. Gotta feed the military contractors, tsk tsk.

[@marizajoubert4276]

First you said that the A10's engine is more exposed and vulnerable then you switch again 😂😂. Confusing

[@jedidaddy5215]

My unrealised dream was to be an a 10 pilot. Sucks to live in Australia

[@carsgunsandstuff7524]

I have never seen someone contradict itself more in one video. Well, except for Biden! You contradicted yourself in literally every sentence on this video. Terrible.

[@tunggulsujarwob.archmba7751]

What about super tucano plane?

[@pierressecheslemoal398]

Le Su 25 est largement meilleur en tant qu'avion à mes yeux. L'armement disponible pour l'aéronef n'est pas tout à fait le même sujet.

[@eckman69]

There are some videos of russian SU25 tipstallling after takeoff. Probably poor training but still.

[@javiercisneros9099]

This a good information video,but there’s no room for comparison,the warthog is by far,the best close infantry support in the world,not saying that the su-25 is not a good close infantry support,but is just no way we can compare both aircraft,the fire power of the warthog is unparalleled,is terrifying for the enemy the sound of its machine gun,it’s fire power is unparalleled,,is just no room for comparison..but good information video…

[@likemostthings]

The A-10 is just the best airframe ever built for this purpose.

[@jamesreese1999]

It's not "revolutions per minute", it's "rounds per minute".

[@grantsapain]

Been nearly a year & a half in Ukraine, & Russia still hasn't been able to establish air superiority, despite Ukraine bieng right next door...

[@thanes1343]

only 2 ? what are you on about

[@bozidarralevic3634]

ЅU-25 ❤❤❤👍👍👍

[@robswatkins7884]

So which aircraft is better ?

[@keyser_soze_tus2205]

A-10 Warthog is a BEAST, just ask the Tank troops in Iraq, oh wait you can't the A-10's killed pretty much most of them: 987 Tanks Destroyed 2 Helicopters kills in air to air combat, 510 APC Destroyed, 249 Command Posts Destroyed 11 Frog Missile Launchers Destroyed and the list goes on and on. A-10 Hands down beast the SU-25!

[@worpat8877]

You forgot: Against technologically inferior enemy, airspace was controlled by US, with A 10 flew A LOT OF ESCORT PLANES, and they didn't had advanced AA systems.

[@graemesydney38]

It would come down to specific mission, pilot training, and command and control (tactics and operational conditions).

[@georgiebestmanutd4746]

No contest, A-10 Thunderbolt's Titanium "bath-tub"; the titanium has to be imported from Russia

[@wilsonsantiago3095]

The US also produces that metal 50,000 metric tons a year but it’s mostly imported

[@julwiezdeghorz5089]

A10 flew in Iraq with fighter escorts and directed by AWACS while SU25 Flying in Ukraine with no fighter escorts in a heavily SAM, MANPAD contested area.

[@negativezero3107]

Yes and are getting knocked out of the sky, and the A-10 flew in Iraq with SAM batteries still very active and took hits from them, yet still survived, I feel like most of the people commenting were not alive for the Iraq war haha, they seemed so badly informed.