A10 Warthog vs SU25 Frogfoot - Flying Tank Comparison

A10 Warthog vs SU25 Frogfoot - Flying Tank Comparison
► Subscribe to Grid 88: goo.gl/UYzU9H
A10 Warthog vs SU25 Frogfoot - Flying Tank Comparison
At the height of the Cold War, the world's two superpowers created a new pair of battlefield aircraft, similar in both power and purpose. One is the America’s A10 Thunderbolt, known as warthog, and other SU25 also known as Frog-foot. Both aircraft were designed for the sole purpose of dedicated close air support. These tank busters remined highly effective in various battlefields since their inception. Today we’ll be pitting America’s A10 warthog against SU25 frog-foot in this video and try to determine which aircraft is better.
1. Overview
SU25 is quite a bit smaller than the A10, but has a top speed of 606mph - that is over 167mph faster than the A10. Both aircraft can carry wide array of bombs, rockets, missiles, pods and fuel tanks under their wings, but A10 can take-off with almost 7,451Ib more weapons load than its equivalent. The 30mm cannon on SU25 is significantly less impressive due to limited rounds than A10, but it still packs a killer punch. SU25 is smaller and faster, making it more difficult target. Both aircraft are heavily armored and considered safest and most feared close air support jets in the world.
2. Performance
A10 is powered by 2 turbofan engines generating 18,130 pounds of thrust combined. The engines allow the aircraft to reach at maximum speed of 439mph. With ferry range of 2,580mi, the aircraft has combat radius of 290mi. A10 weighs around 24,959Ib and can take-off with maximum weight of 50,000Ib. With climb rate of 6,000ft/min, the aircraft can reach at maximum altitude of 45,000ft.
On the other hand, major driver of SU25 performance is its two engines. The engines are capable of generating around 19,860 pounds of thrust. These are meant to drive the jet to maximum speed of 606mph. With the maximum range of 620mi, the aircraft can combat within the radius of 470mi. The frog-foot weighs around 21,605Ib and can take-off with maximum weight of 42,549Ib. With climb rate of 11,400 ft/min, the jet can reach at maximum altitude of 23,000ft.
3. Armor & Survivability
Survivability is an essential attribute of any successful ground attack aircraft. A10 excels in this category due to its heavy armor. For example, the engines are located a bit higher on the rear fuselage…
In contrast SU25 is comparatively smaller and faster jet, which makes it a difficult target from ground fire, however it is less of a problem for guided missiles. Frog-foot is able to reach supersonic speeds when flown clean, the airframe can withstand 6.5 Gs…
4. Radar & Avionics
A10 is equipped with improved communications, inertial navigation systems, night vision, fire control, weapons delivery systems and target penetration aids. The head-up display indicates air speed, altitude and dive angle on the windscreen. Pave Penny laser-tracking pods…
Similarly, SU25 has an integral laser system for ranging, tracking and targeting with HUD designation. In terms of pods the aircraft has infrared and optical systems for both day & night time operations…
5. Firepower
The A10 has 11 hardpoints including 8 pylon stations under both wings, while remining 3 are fitted under the fuselage with a total payload capacity of 16,000 lb. A10 can carry up to 10 Maverick air-to-surface missiles…
In contrast, the frog-foot is fitted with 11 hard points capable of carrying various rocket PODs, bombs and missiles. Bomb load outs include a variety of general purpose munitions, cluster bombs and other special purpose weaponry…
Watch full video for detailed Conclusion.
FOLLOW us on Social Media:
► Facebook: thegrid88
► Twitter: grid_88
► Become a Patreon
/ factsbox99
Playlists
► Military, Army, Navy & Air force
• Military
►US Army
• Playlist
► SUBSCRIBE so you never miss another video: goo.gl/UYzU9H
Credits
1) “The Descent” Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
creativecommons...
2) US Department of Defense
3) Минобороны России
creativecommons...
The appearance of US DOD visual information does not imply or constitute their respective endorsements. All footage and images are owned by their respective owners.

[@sue08401]

Answer is - Not a single grunt would want either of them firing on them

[@armadillo3454]

facts

[@pieterniemandt1733]

Or an APC group. I mean would also not want to see either of them. These planes can cause maximum air to ground attacks. They are like downsized Fortress bomers. But can do more harm. Flying tanks. But l wonder what are their air to air abilities. Do they need a few F16s around when the Mig 21 or older come accross it. I'm going to look for answer right now.

[@artmathias9725]

Dammit, you beat me to it. It also happened to be the first comment under Grid 88's.

[@pieterniemandt1733]

Got it. A10 is an excellent dogfighter at close range and because it turn 5 times sharper than a fighter, the fighter jet will always be staring down the barrel of a 30mm. But fighters use long range radar guided missiles that can take the A10 down.

[@codexjerry1156]

Its hard to argue with this assessment.

[@westsidetrucker7943]

reasons to like the Frogfoot: Lots of fascinating facts Reasons to like the A10: BRRRRRRT WHIIIIIIIIIIIIIR

[@glennhuinda9783]

Frogfoot boasts on 4x4 rocket packs if the mission wants to use that kind of mod. 20 pcs 80mm rockets each packs.

[@jetskusintrosfin8037]

@@glennhuinda9783 lol su25 no brrt Lol laser, tv guided weapons dependant on weather, su25 no MWS and no LWS

[@s4dg]

Frogfoot: BUT I'M FASTER AND MORE MANEUVERABLE! A-10: HAHA GUN GO BRRRR--------------------------------------------------WHIIIIR

[@jetskusintrosfin8037]

Technologial gap = su25 bad

[@iplaygames8090]

@@jetskusintrosfin8037 i think su 25 is more advanced tbh. A 10 is like the B bombers can carry lot of munition and hard to shoot down.

[@ErnestJay88]

in simple sentence : A-10 is a flying minigun, SU-25 is a flying rocket launcher.

[@user-mc3if9xs7w]

eh

[@vanderwallstronghold8905]

"mini"

[@DannY-xj8ci]

@@vanderwallstronghold8905yep there's nothing mini about the GAU 8 Avenger

[@Pygmyz06]

@@vanderwallstronghold8905 yah technically.. in the military (at least the US military), calling your personal firearm a “gun” is discouraged to the point that it’s practically considered blasphemy. You’re either referring to your rifle (the big firearm) or your sidearm (your small pistol) - and you’d damn well better refer to them that way, or you’ll get chewed out by practically everyone. Side note, both may also be referred to as your weapon. But never your “gun.” If you use the word “gun” to refer to something you’re carrying on your person, you’d better be referring to your penis. As far as the military is concerned, guns are mounted weapons. Aircraft and Navy ships carry guns. They’re generally very big and very heavy. The “mini” in “minigun” refers to the fact that it’s on the smaller end of the spectrum in comparison to other vehicle-mounted weapons - rather than being small in comparison to what civilians tend to call “guns” (small arms like rifles and pistols).

[@vanderwallstronghold8905]

@@Pygmyz06 Yes I know all of this but the point is that the GAU-8 Avenger is not a minigun. It's a gatling cannon.

[@billthecat7536]

Let's put it this way: if you've pissed off either of these pilots, you're about to have a bad day!

[@abimbolawaheed8621]

My best comment

[@davidvasquez08]

Agreed Though most likely to end your day quickly

[@SeanCampbell_iRacing]

Honestly, if these two planes combined F R O G H O G

[@guyvalentine7258]

That is absolutely hilarious. THANKS for the laugh.😂🤣😜👍👋🖖🇺🇸

[@manuvirajkhare]

Yes. That's called the Unholy Spawn.

[@soldatradev7285]

I'll die the day that comes out. There is nowhere safe then😂😂

[@jamesvangorder9599]

or...WARTFOOT

[@SeanCampbell_iRacing]

@@jamesvangorder9599i think WartFrog would work better but yeah

[@loafofcheese3335]

Frog foot pilots: Yeah my plane is fast and has a lot of ways to kill my targets A-10 pilots: hehe plane *BRRRRRRRRT*

[@maxwellrechkemmer8696]

Plane go brrrrrrrt

[@generalpershingm2656]

Tank go:

[@apple222sickly]

Both go BRRRRRT so...

[@cleopatravii2385]

You definitely don’t know anything about Frogfoot🤦‍♂️😁

[@loafofcheese3335]

The more comments I get on this post the more I wonder if people can take a joke

[@moonshredder5181]

P-47D Thunderbolt: a plane for its engine A-10 Thunderbolt: a plane for its gun

[@stefanoiaconissi2727]

F-14 Tomcat: a plane for its missile

[@actualyoungfarmer1078]

A10 engineers logic: “we need a gun that shoots armour penetrating rounds at a high fire rate.” Su25 engineers logic: “Hey comrades, have you ever thought what it would look like if the fireworks came from the sky to the ground?”

[@NeZnayuTi]

Su-25 ? more like, flying Katyusha BM-8

[@99Yeti]

As I say again a 10 carries more rockets and has apkws

[@John-mf6ky]

Katyusha punching the air rn

[@elo_9420]

Au-25: a plane with guns A-10: a gun with wings

[@signa-tune2823]

Makes sense

[@yourbigfan1777]

Su*

[@tboda2621]

@@signa-tune2823 But, can the su25 do the cobra? A Ha!!! There is its weakness! No airshow chick magnetism.

[@tboda2621]

Btw, FROGFOOT? DAMN!

[@BurntBalls]

Su 25: pew pew A 10: brrrrrrrrrrrrrrt

[@Blido]

Hearing the BRRRRRRRT is a huge morale booster. So I would rather be supported by A-10 :)

[@varunkoganti9067]

You don't know about the gun pods on the su 25 do you? They're auto tracking.

[@bradleytruax4255]

The A-10 all day everyday

[@voornaam3191]

You prefer an A-10. Then buy one.The frog is faster, can get to you when that A-10 can't reach you, and let's bet it is a lot cheaper. Talking about cheaper, are you into shooting? Have you ever received the bill for 10,000 30mm rounds? Do you like paying? Is your daddy called Trump, and always paying for your mistakes? Are you a spoilt brat? Perhaps a flying .50 can save you as well, those rounds you can pay yourself. You have an expensive taste for brrrrrt. Don't get yourself into trouble! When you need an A-10, you have screwed up, yourself, you are in the wrong place. Yankee go home! Afghanistan is just one example. When you want brrrrrrrt, buy a drum kit and move those hands. Bet you only move a joystick? Got it? Do not worship guns, you'll get shot, one day. Worship God, the worst that can happen is you getting crucified. Just kidding. Got the message? Stay safe. And yeah, that Gattling is impressive, but so is that Russian plane. Russian airplane machine guns are famous. Ask pilots who know about them. Reliable is a key word. And all airplanes have a slightly different role, there will always be differences. When pilots really need heavier guns, there will be heavier guns, don't worry.

[@spectre_actual6630]

Voor Naam I don’t think he was doubting Russian planes, he was just saying he’s fond of the A-10 cuz of its main cannon (of course it’s expensive for the rounds but it’s quite reliable much like its Russian counterpart). Trust me when I say Russian planes are beautiful as I am quite the fan of the MiG series (MiG-25, 31 specifically❤️) love from Canada

[@Blido]

@@voornaam3191 Y SO SERIOUS? I'm not even from US as you assumed, I live in Poland. And altough i'm bit into shooting and I have nice arsenal of firearms (not only Americans keeps guns at home, imagine that) I don't know much about military aircraft, I just expressed that the iconic sound of the A-10 gatling gives me chills and if it would give me air support it would definitely raise my morale. That's all

[@mojavewanderer7719]

In October of 2001, I was driving on US Highway 95 in Nevada, which is just outside the boundaries of Nellis Air Force Base , and area 51. I happened to look in my rearview mirror, and there was an A10 coming up behind me. He flew about 50 feet over my truck, and the jet wash nearly shook me off the road. The whole thing took maybe 20 seconds. It scared me half to death, but it was awesome!

[@cabourn81]

A money can’t buy experience! Lucky guy.

[@Canopus68]

I had the same thing happen to me. I was driving a 5ton from Kuwait to Bahrain. Two A-10s came up behind us about 25 ft off the deck. It was a hair raising moment. I'm sure they were laughing all the way back to base.

[@anuclearpan4554]

"23 millimeter cannon pods" proceeds to show the su-25 deploying every weapon except for a 23mm cannon pod

[@amir021idm]

lmao

[@allanbernabe38]

A-10 has a Transformer toy. I don't know about SU-25.

[@coolkid7029]

Aww it has 69 likes so I can't like it

[@ajman2210]

Allan Bernabe If anything has a Transformer toy it’s automatically better

[@Echo_4609]

A-10 automatically better now

[@sovetskyskaiyastrigon1750]

It’s and Viper,Viper is the Decepticon-Cobra aligned Decepticon and there’s the red autobot one I forgot his name

[@whydoineedaname11]

that's the best reason for one of them to be better than the other, but I now wish there was a Frogfoot Transformer so they would be equal-but-different again.

[@tylerjohn3414]

Tough call. Also, there is a difference in the doctrine as well. The A-10 is designed for loitering. The Su-25 is designed to offload most of it's ordnance at once target. The A-10 is better at counterinsurgency. The Su-25 is better in a contested environment

[@simonworthington-eyre3525]

Good comment!!

[@HoLeeChit11]

Tyler John The A10 is a gun with a plane wrapped around it, also able to carry missiles and rockets. Probably the closest thing to a flying tank. The SU25 is a plane with various weapons for ground support.

[@Archangel1862]

Tyler John That doesn’t make sense when the A-10 was designed to destroy Russian tank

[@drksideofthewal]

Isn't loitering the more important trait to have for an infantry support plane? Being designed to "offload most of its ordinance on one target" is more of a bomber's purview.

[@wheeleekwazee1641]

A-10 go brrrrrrrrrrt thats my argument

[@frankkpowersjr8357]

All I can say is that the A 10 brought my SON HOME. HE DROVE TRACKER TRAILERS CARRYING ABRAM TANKS

[@imthatguypal_]

I would feel so safe if an A-10 was escorting me, I thank your son for his service 💪🏽

[@brianjones8106]

That same plane probably sent a lot of enemies home in pine boxes too!! Thank you for your son's service!!

[@albertjoseph754]

I agree. As someone on the ground who was in need of close air support, the A-10 did not let us down. The same could not be said when they sent us F-16s or F-18s. Those planes fly to fast to be able to put ordnance on target at danger close.

[@winstonbarker4009]

I thank your son for his services and may God bless you all. Ps I truly love the A-10 warhog it's truly 2nd to none. It's like an avenging angel in the sky like no other

[@winstonbarker4009]

@@albertjoseph754 indeed!!

[@ChukN0rris]

I think that it's safe to say that both of these are capable of absoloutely ruining anyone's day. The Frogfoot will do it faster, but the A-10 will do it in style.

[@JK-uy8yi]

Going to be making a whole lot more pitstops to refuel though.

[@benwatso]

Pretty sure that one gun run with the a10 will either kill enemy or just make them surrender in 4 seconds

[@dysfunctionalorange]

This is a bit late..but faster is worse when doing gun runs or using un guided munitions, you want a slow stable even approach with low stall speed, it’s almost impossible to stall out the a-10 on an attack run, however I highly doubt you could go under 200 mph in the frog foot without stalling, and most likely in the low 200s you’d lose tons of stability and maneuverability, where as the a-10 is right at home. Slower is better in cas, it’s not a fighter jet

[@lennywallace9201]

Russia with 40 colum long line of tanks can be shredded with a10s

[@huckleberryred472]

All that you need to know is the A10 can BRRRRRTTTTT and fly 2600 miles The Su can go Woosh and only fly 620 miles

[@unfunnyironypage9664]

If I was in combat and needed close air support I honestly wouldn't care which one I got it from

[@ninaa4192]

Truth

[@samuelfischman6949]

@@ninaa4192 i'd want the BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT

[@MagiciansApprentice1]

the A-10 got through, the Su-25 was dead on it's runway the week before we went in

[@ebukaobi2098]

@@MagiciansApprentice1 ?

[@jakekaywell5972]

@@MagiciansApprentice1 I'll take "things that didn't happen" for $500.

[@lazersharp0262]

Didnt mention either of the aircrafts turn rates, the A10 has an insane turn rate

[@marcschepers8144]

it did say frogfoot more agile but ive seen the a10 do insane manouvres so i really doubt that. the fast turn was incredible

[@fpena6038]

It's true, the A10 is famous for it's extremely high maneuverability, which is actually factored by its low speed and large wing area (just like the highly maneuverable stunt propeller planes). The Frogfoot's increased speed, wing area, and engine type/position make it impossible for it to match the A10's maneuverability.

[@tylermoore3903]

F Pena if you’ve played dcs, a pretty accurate depiction of both as the su-25 is faster but it’s a pig in the turns it feels really heavy. The a-10 feels light although it is pretty slow it’s easier to control and more direct.

[@specialagentoso2227]

U don’t need to turn when ur going brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrttttt

[@1FastC5ZO6]

@@specialagentoso2227 It's all about the brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrtttttttttttttttt. lol

[@OcotilloTom]

Man how things have changed. As a machine gunner and later a platoon commander in Vietnam during my two tours in Vietnam I could expect a F-4 Phantom, A-4 Skyhawk or an occasional A-1 Sky Raider flown by the South Vietnamese as air support. Tom Boyte. Gy.Sgt. USMC, retired Vietnam 65-66/70-71

[@guyvalentine7258]

What no A-6s or A-7s. I worked on F-4s and C-130s. USAF OCT. 72-76. Udorn AB, Thailand, 6/74-6/75. F-4d's, F-4e's, RF-4c's

[@Kainery]

How do you rate the South Vietnamese troops fighting capability, and compare it to the North and VC? I'm curious.

[@specforged5651]

Thank you for your service!

[@thevoyager87]

Thank you for your service my good man!

[@duartesimoes508]

Tom Boyte and so far as I read, their pilots were awesome!

[@ofekk213]

the Gsh-30-2K (SU-25's gun) uses a lot of tracers and is very loud too. sure, A-10's brrrrt sound is a big moral boost, but SU-25's laser gun is a much bigger moral boost. also, the SU-25t can carry vikhr ATGMs which nullify the A-10's survivability, as if the A-10's survivability didn't mean jack shit already against SHORAD's SAMs...

[@Deltatwo3]

A10 better

[@yzakhd5586]

Broh a10 can carry atgms to

[@ofekk213]

@@yzakhd5586 I meant that the Vikhrs can act both as anti-air and anti-tank. On anti-air mode they have a 10km range and a 20m trigger radius, and they are guided by laser so the A-10 can't do jack shit to fool them off as flares, chaff and ECCM do not work on laser. The A-10's only air-to-air weapon is the AIM-9L or whatever other variant of the sidewinder it uses. While capable, the Vikhrs outrange even the AIM-9X.

[@yzakhd5586]

@@ofekk213 nop vikhr is only agm and can't exced mach2 and i don't think it have a longe burn so its a very bad aa missole

[@ofekk213]

@@yzakhd5586 It has an air-to-air mode.

[@raistlarn]

A-10: You may be faster than me, but I have the high ground.

[@popoju9]

he said the SU25 climbs way faster. i was like, "yeah but what's the use, you have a low ceiling. do you just want to get there faster and then what....."

[@michaeljohnmorales7613]

@@popoju9 climbs faster = Kills A10 faster

[@raistlarn]

@@michaeljohnmorales7613 a10 starts higher, and commands the battle. Seriously though I highly doubt we would see these 2 ever fight unless some stupid leaders were to get into a wa...er....well hopefully they won't have to fight anytime soon.

[@dziolex2190]

@@michaeljohnmorales7613 you do realise that these are close air support planes, they are there to destroy land vehicles not air vehicles so your comment doesn't have a logical point

[@spartanx9293]

@@michaeljohnmorales7613 these planes would never fight each other

[@hourdebass7916]

Pentagon: "NO! YOU CAN'T JUST KEEP FLYING AN OLD ATTACK PLANE! YOU HAVE TO HAVE STEALTH! YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO DOGFIGHT!" Air Force: "Lol, A-10 Warthog go Brrrt."

[@sea.biscuit]

Lmao when obama tried to stop a10s

[@thedyingmeme6]

A10: *hysterical BRRRT'ing*

[@thomasbessis2809]

It's the opposite, the air force will try anything to get rid of the A-10, the government wants to keep them in service.

[@sea.biscuit]

@@thomasbessis2809 now that's the case because trump is in office but obama really wanted them gone. also the air force doesnt want to get rid of them lol idk where you got that idea

[@deanarupe73]

@@sea.biscuit Lockheed Martin are the ones wanting to get rid of it. They were proposing a special f35 version to replace the a-10 with. So it's about money government contracts. The a-10 can be made for cheep. It's all about the💰

[@freyawion5337]

'If you hear the BRRRT, it wasn't trying to hit you.'

[@carlson2469]

If you are the target you hear the BBRRRRRT your a ghost

[@Aegirak]

If you’re the enemy, you won’t hear it. If you hear it you are glad you heard it.

[@thatonebruneiankid8824]

If you hear the BRRRRTTT,you get blessed in two ways, First,you get to hear the holy BRRRRTTTT Second,you ain't dyin today

[@sergeantblue6115]

moral boost

[@dusttruction6691]

"Here's a bulletproof bathtub and a 20 foot gun. Make it able to fly manually and make sure the gun can shoot no matter the damage" btw I want them built with either the scariest gun sound or the most relieving one

[@SldOnEmWithDa45]

My base has a static A-10 displayed and it’s surprisingly not that big. It’s actually smaller (in length) than the F-100 displayed next to it. The wings are just long and the engines are massive, but it’s a relatively compact plane believe it or not.

[@conduit64]

Frogfoot: "I'm faster and more maneuverable" Warthog: "Who needs to worry about missiles when you can still safely fly home with only half a plane"

[@Capone80]

a true story

[@GokuBlackThatIsBlack]

*A10 engines are shot to shit* Pilot: Just one more run.

[@ComasGhost]

Wut?

[@user-mc3if9xs7w]

@@ComasGhost a10 can take a lot of shots, possibly shells and still fly back to base pretty much fine. The pilot is also sitting in a giant tub of titanium

[@ComasGhost]

@@user-mc3if9xs7w And who said not? But even in this point (survival) SU 25 is better becuase is faster and smaller making it a difficult target

[@thegreatobiwan9844]

Let’s all be honest We all like the A-10 I don’t need a answer I already know why BRRRRRRRRRT

[@sjakse]

No and yes

[@BurntBalls]

True

[@hitsurapapel1978]

I prefer the frogfoot a bit

[@da_brrrt_mashine2877]

Yes

[@shaneh1872]

BRRRRRRRRT

[@alniedrich1245]

Interesting video. That titanium "bathtub" that protects the pilot can actually withstand a 57mm round. The canopy can take a 23mm. Having worked on the A-10 for 8+ years in Alaska and England, I would point out the Warthog is far more maneuverable than most people give it credit for. When I loaded the A-10 it could only carry the AGM-65 on stations 3&9. We used the LAU-117 single rail launcher. The triple LAU-88 was loaded in a slant 2 configuration as the rail nearest the wheel well if loaded could do damage when fired (per the USAF). When I first loaded the A-10 we did load all three rails on the -88. In England the LAU-117 was the go to configuration. Note, I worked on the "A" model only.

[@catosicarius9047]

Awesome stuff I hope it's true

[@alniedrich1245]

@@catosicarius9047 Very true indeed. Weapons wise I am very well versed on the Warthog. I hold two modest distinctions of loading the first live AGM-65 on an Alaskan Air Command A-10 and being the first USAFE weapons crew chief to be qualified on the AIM-9 on this jet.

[@randybaumery8399]

Al Niedrich --- We had them at Davis Monthan AFB Tucson Arizona. They are EXCELLENT ground attack and close air support aircraft. I would imagine its safe to say that both the Warthhog and the SU-25 excel at ground attack roles and in different ways.

[@clanwaddell5628]

As a civilian, I have always marveled at the A - 10

[@brianjohnson9456]

@@clanwaddell5628 me too! Love the WartHog!!🎯

[@johnabney3530]

My dad flew the A-10 when he returned from Vietnam flying the F-100 and said it was one of his favorites. When he was a squadron commander, he flew his A-10 cross country for my wedding carrying my wedding gift of heirloom silverware. I think my choice is obvious. The hard part was getting over the looks but after time it grows on you lol

[@rodshoaf]

I loved the looks from the get go.. reminds of other planes like the B-15 and B-17

[@johnabney3530]

Rod, after all the sleek cool jets he flew and then he tells me the next one is called the warthog… and then I see AND it’s slow. Yeah, it took me a bit to get a custom but that gun is an absolute beast. He gave me a dummy 30 mm and it’s so much bigger than the 20mm from the F-100 which I thought was huge at the time.. That sold me lol

[@KFLY007]

Damn your dad is lucky to fly A10 It would be an honor to fly one

[@barkmark4479]

A-10 was first built a full decade after the Vietnam war.

[@iamlegion5826]

@@barkmark4479 must be why he flew it after he came home from Vietnam 🙄

[@matsudaindustries2530]

Should include price and operating costs as well

[@alexwilliams1687]

@@NocturnalNomad-TO A-10 is literally designed only for supporting ground troops in broken arrow situations and other combat operations. They may have to change parts but the plane can still make it back safely to continue missions

[@quasimotto8653]

Yes, to a certain extent, but "price" and "operating costs" are relative terms. In other words, the SU-25 may be half the price of the A-10, but I can assure you, the US can much more easily "scrape together" $50 billion to build a new fleet of A-10s than Russia would be able to put $25 billion to build a new fleet of SU-25s. And the US has such a massive, experienced industrial complex (military and otherwise), that the US could easily have 500 new A-10s combat ready before Russia could have 200 SU-25s ready.

[@alexwilliams1687]

@@quasimotto8653 you do realize that F-22's can attack from anywhere right?

[@quasimotto8653]

@@alexwilliams1687 Not sure what in my statement makes you bring up the F-22....did you accidentally put your comment in the wrong thread? I am somewhat aware of the prowess of the F-22 but the A-10 is a very specialized type of combat aircraft; one of the reasons it's so effective at CAS is that it can fly at relatively slow speeds. An F-22 cannot do that; it was not meant to. Small piece of trivia: I've actually put my HAND on a real F-22 while working as an IT contractor in the Lockheed Martin facility in Fort Worth, Texas in the late 90s.

[@JacobVahrSvenningsen]

Exactly. The cost of operating is always the first choice when deciding to buy a tool of war Including the logistics chain Here I believe the frog foot has a smaller, well... logistics footprint and lowest cost of first piece of ordinance in the battle theatre

[@supratiksaha2001]

Grandpa Stuka is proud of both of them.

[@maxfreedom1710]

it's a shame the good guys lost that war

[@trololoev]

@@maxfreedom1710 yea, they can make bunch of soap out of your grandmother. Also IL-2 better.

[@CRAZYHORSE19682003]

@@trololoev They were different aircraft. The IL-2 was a TRUE close support aircraft. The Stuka was a dive bomber.

[@trololoev]

@@CRAZYHORSE19682003 i mean il-2 better as representation "grandfather" of this two planes

[@mojo5148]

@@trololoev Well, Hans Rudel helped in the development of the a10 after flying a Stuka "kanonenvogel" (Stuka with dual 3.7cm At cannons) in ww2. So the Stuka is kinda the grandpa of the A10.

[@shullln]

For a CAS airframe, stall speed is the more important number than top speed.

[@notgonnaduit6315]

Yup the high ceiling is just a perk loiter time is key.

[@PotatoeJoe69]

Indeed, the slower you can go, the longer you can get rounds on target. The A-10 can pull turns at speeds as low as 180 knots. If a SU-25 tried to turn at that speed, it would fall out of the sky like a rock.

[@iphoneupdate]

Not stall speed but high angle of attack capability, an aircraft can stall at any speed but will always stall at the same angle of attack depending on configuration. Reason I prefer the A-10 any day all day.

[@TheBucketSkill]

@@iphoneupdate The way we use A-10 in the middle east vs there SU-25 in Ukraine... I will admit it makes A-10 look like were basically just toying with insurgents. Like playing with food, we just want to hear and see 30mm cannon spin. SU-25 seems to attack like I imagined a ground attack jet is supposed to. It's can slow a down a bit to really take a dump on them and they unload there payloads and use rockets if necessary. It just seems much more effective a way to conduct ground attack. Flying around in circles with the A-10 just for you to be able to fire on target for a few seconds... it's just not as impressive. Plus 99% of times it was used on Taliban. Insurgents with clothes and a rifle. We just buy into our propaganda a bit (it's harmless tbh)

[@hemendraravi4787]

@@PotatoeJoe69 yea but when u got enemies with stingers/shooting at u ,u won't even plan on using ur guns ,maybe for 1 quick pass other than that nope

[@TheMoukis]

The frogfoot’s gun is actually two 30mm barrels fused to one frame. Great omission.

[@Gutenburg100]

Yea this video isn't very good. He mentions the fact the A-10 can take rounds but doesn't mention it has jamming devices and flares to fight off shoulder mounted launchers and SAMs until he gets to the armaments lol. Then goes to the SU-25 and doesn't mention shit about its survivability but mentions hkw it can defeat missiles launched at it. Then the gun omissions and such. Started off good with the 1 to 1 then just got worse lmao.

[@spackle9999]

@@Gutenburg100 And he also says the Frogfoot is more maneuverable?! The Frogfoot handles like a pig.

[@mnztr1]

@@spackle9999 How do you know that?

[@Marktheburrito]

@@spackle9999 With its huge armament load? Hell no, but when its load is all gone it's pretty maneuverable.

[@vixxivix7992]

Yo this new minigun is awesome it even come with a jet attached

[@canbrit4621]

Both have the armoured cockpit... vid makes it sound like only the A10 has it

[@longstrong232]

True

[@bestamerica]

hi C... ' yes look like... not sound... A-10 is better than cheap su-25

[@zaho87]

@@bestamerica They both have their own set of advantages and disadvantages when compared to one another. In a direct fight, the Su-25 has a better anti-air capability. But these planes are not designed for dogfights, close air support is their purpose. Ultimately, both aircraft are equally well suited for their role and are combat proven as reliable and deadly machines. The only way to determine which aircraft is better than the other depends entirely on the skills of the individual pilots in doing their job.

[@laa0fa502]

@@bestamerica I hope you know being cheap is actually an advantage

[@dominatorandwhocaresanyway9617]

@@bestamerica yeah but you can get 2 SU-25s for the price of 1 warthog, they can take off a field, and get the job done. also a veteran pilot in ww2 P-47 thunderbolt can probly strike more targets than anew pilot with modern jet

[@hanssolo3215]

the A10 cannon is an ineffective weapon against armored vehicles?? Um thats wrong

[@dang0s804]

Nope, it's actually right, he's talking about tanks.

[@lunatic_nebula9542]

Nope he is right

[@SilverShamrockNovelties]

The A-10 has 11 hardpoints that carry Bombs, Rockets, and AGMs, so it can kill tanks just as well as anything else in the air. The difference between the two is the A-10 can save its missiles for “tanks” and use the gun to destroy everything else, up to and including any other armored fighting vehicle.

[@troyezell5841]

Depends on the tank. Sadam's tanks did not fare well against A-10 strafing runs. Modern tanks utilize ceramics and other materials that deplete the energy of the 30mm enough to protect the tank from penetration. However, if the A-10 only has 30mm ammo left, the tanks armor is only going to last maybe 2 go around at most. Nevertheless it's war, therefore you don't waist opportunities on chances, you go for the jugular sooner than later.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

@@SilverShamrockNovelties well, the SU25 can use its 30mm for the same task. both guns are not able to penetrate modern MBT since the 80´s, for IFV, APC, etc it is more than enough, only in recent years IFV and APC are getting armor protection able to defeat 30mm cannon ammunition in the frontal arc and those are in most cases modern western IFV and APC like Puma and Boxer

[@grantt1589]

The A-10s Brrt cannon sound affect alone makes it better

[@oddlygamers]

I’d rather have a whole animal than just the foot

[@waynereloaded87]

its the nato code name. Obviously russians dont call it that

[@oddlygamers]

@@waynereloaded87 it’s a joke

[@sommerrachelle8369]

I see what u did there!

[@redacted2713]

I believe the russian call it "Crow" or something like that

[@notalexzander2]

@@redacted2713 the russian name for the Su-25 is Grach, which means Rook (as in the bird). you were pretty close there.

[@burebistta1923]

the whole comment section: lol screw performance I only care about the gun

[@zippyparakeet1074]

In my view, the A-10 is better at counter-insurgency but, in a real war, the Su-25 would be more useful

[@cristobalalvarez5491]

Help me get to 5000 subs without a single video actually the su-25 has a lower range than the a-10 it has 5 times the range

[@zippyparakeet1074]

@@cristobalalvarez5491 I think that range can be extended with mid-air refueling

[@deanarupe73]

@@zippyparakeet1074 But the a-10 has already seen it's fair share of battle and it's still being used. So it's fair to say it's more than proven it's battle prowess.

[@cristobalalvarez5491]

@Hot Dog yes to perform high altitude strikes if needed

[@armadillo3454]

Going to say A-10. Reasons: most missiles these days can go well above and beyond 6.5 G tolerance making all that agility next to worthless. Another reason is that the A-10 can hold chaff and flares as well and has quite a lot of it which the video made it seem like it had none. Finally the last reason which was NOT touched on was attack angle the A-10 can come down much higher than the frog foot and recover much more easily thanks to the shape of its tail which provides more stability at lower speed and altitude that the typical tail of most planes.

[@joebama5504]

Obviously both planes carry flares and chaff. Which plane pulls harder from a dive all depends on weight of each airplane and the speed each plane is going at. I feel that you need a controlled experiment to figure that out. In which both planes dive at the same alt and pull up from the same alt while having the same weight. Also any plane can dive down at any AOA the frog foot is faster since it has a after burner and sloped wings but that probably makes it harder to pull up since your going faster( just assuming) so i would think that the slower u go the easier it is too pull up making the a-10 better at that.

[@jimmieburleigh9549]

A10 can also loiter at lower speed for better ground force protection

[@joebama5504]

@@jimmieburleigh9549 also shorter time between attacks since you dont need to do such a big turn

[@markroberts3363]

I'd be worried if my anti air missile only had 6.5G tolerance, 60's missiles could have up to 30G

[@mhamma6560]

@@joebama5504 A10 hands down is the best CAS platform ever built. The AF is trying to retire it too. A10 is far more maneuverable at slow speeds and has no analog in that realm. The tails being able to utilize the the thrust the way they are allows for some crazy slow bank angles when down low. The 2 may have been built for the same task, but the A10 doesn't have an equal in getting down low and laying waste to ground targets. Its 30mm gun also has no analog on any aircraft -- hell there's no ground based 30mm that come close to it.

[@aeronaut1906]

6:24 "more precise targeting" *misses by 100ft*

[@vanderwallstronghold8905]

Precise, yes. Accurate, no.

[@random-b-i2480]

I can see that you're making "hate" comment right there We're not in a fight saying my thing is better, he's just comparing Lmao these kids

[@james9242]

@@random-b-i2480 what the fuck? He wasn't making a hate comment on the warthog

[@chemislife]

To be fair they never stated what they where using as the base line for saying it had better targeting.

[@aeronaut1906]

@@random-b-i2480 how is that a hate comment? its a joke

[@Tamburello_1994]

Left out the very important fact one can be refueled in-flight, the other cannot. For that reason alone, I'm picking the A-10 Warthog.

[@bestamerica]

hi T... ' yeaa that right A-10 is better than ussr cheap low su-25

[@daerth_4433]

@@bestamerica i mean A10 is famos and good for A10 but if SU25 can kill him in dog fight. But A10 is better for destroying armored threats.SU is better for fast supporg A10 is good for pushing up or defeniding,but he needs to be in air arledy Sorry for my english guys:(

[@reverie314]

@@daerth_4433 youre kind of spitting bullshit at this point, how the fuck does a AIR SUPPORT JET, *DEFEND* or as you said "push up"? explain that. I'm more of a Russian stuff guy but you're honestly saying very dumb stuff SU-25s are also good at destroying armored targets...

[@jnel8630]

@@daerth_4433 tell me this why would a close air support aircraft be engaged in dog fighting? Haha maybe in like some back water country you'd see it but I guarantee you if the A10 was getting buzzed by another plane an F(16,18,22,or 35) would shoot that thing out of the sky so fast! Haha there's not really any point in having it as air support

[@gueigudze1759]

You are saying that fuel is the most important. For ground attack planes the payload is. If A-10 could be RELOADED not refueled in the air this is much more useful. Or you will need more than a 6-hours flight to get to the battlefield. Just imagine the condition of the pilot after 6 hours flight how he will react is he tired? Good luck stay safe.

[@Logarithm906]

6:22 which allows for more precise targetting. *shows a strafe where all the shots miss*

[@xxxxxx5868]

I think that's a user error, not the fault of the aircraft. You can see that the actual grouping of the shots are very accurate.

[@figurativeride2258]

Id say human error,5/6 ordinence were precise but they were aimed badly

[@shellwermir]

shots where done from another sight, flight time - several seconds, unguided missles. while plane moving . This camera in position to confirm hits, not to guide.

[@csme07]

It wouldn’t matter honestly for soft targets and heavy ones would be taken out with ATGM’s

[@stankygeorge]

You noticed that too!

[@notalpharius3861]

SU-25: I have a ton of Missiles and fast engine A-10: I have a Flying Gun.

[@WilluOrNot]

Correction: I AM a Flying Gun!

[@davidbeattie4294]

I have a GAU-8A training round sitting on my desktop. I'm pretty sure I would prefer to have 1350 of the live rounds flying over my head to keep the bad guys away. To say nothing of a vast assortment of battle tested missiles and precision guided bombs all tied to an incredibly tough air-frame. Make mine an A-10.

[@mnztr1]

Which one can get there faster and have ordinance on the enemy faster when you are in the *hit?

[@iamlegion5826]

@@mnztr1 the one that was called , prepped and lifted off first ... After that it's all about hang time

[@Salty_Balls]

I have a 30mm round on my dresser that my dad got years before I was born. It's brownish, with a silver nose cone that's been flattened somewhat, and weighs about 9 ounces. It has a ring around it at the base, I think it was to engage the rifling lands, that looks like a softer metal like brass or copper. Does this sound like the same round you have? I've never found an exact match to this on Google images.

[@axlas318]

Me: watching this video Also me: stops the video at engine sounds Engine sounds: *dont stops*

[@theholypeanut8193]

YOUR FREE LIVING TRIAL HAS EXPIRED

[@ronaldmartinsr4433]

The one that can stay on scene the longest time to cover troops is the one the infantry prefers, armament means a lot for a pilot to choose from due to its mission, refueling in air is a plus but not if it's out of ammo!

[@idontknowanygoodnames1498]

when you say stay on the scene the longest i hope you don't mean on continuous runs, because that isn't what the su-25 is for, but if you mean the amount of time they can sit and wait for a command then yeah sure, it matters a fair amount, although most runs are planned or have ample time to get from a airbase.

[@cleopatravii2385]

The amount of 5 star generals and military technology experts in the comment section is truly fascinating😑

[@johnnytarerio3186]

It doesn't take that much to be able to say which aircraft are better at what when you have statistics and facts about the aircraft in question.

[@wdaswwqads]

@@johnnytarerio3186 you can't say shit because both sides spread propaganda how better they are than the other

[@johnnytarerio3186]

@@wdaswwqads Yeah but they literally do demonstrations and show off their capabilities to the public, and aircraft like the A-10 are used and seen a lot by everyone from air force to infantry. Obviously with things like absolute top speed they could up or downplay them by small amounts but with top speeds that low do you really think they're bumping them up in this case?

[@multibillionair7910]

nice comparison, not bias at all and pointing out the weakness and strengths of both aircraft

[@HappyBacon777ttv]

They both fulfill the roles that their countries want them to. Personally though, I would pick the A-10. If I want a CAS aircraft, I would want to pick something that can loiter for a longer period of times, while also holding more payload.

[@schizo1382]

but if you have an unexpected armor on the battlefield,and you need support fast with more deadly weapons frogfoot is the what i pick,it has double the climb rate and its faster,so both aircraft have their bonuses,and for the record im not russian i just have bad english sry :/

[@emporernanner]

I think that difference can be chalked up to difference of doctrine, soviet doctrine was informed by the events of the great patriotic war, when air superiority could never be counted on, thus CAS planes needed to be able to get to target and get out quickly, whereas american doctrine is built on having air superiority and thus the long time on objective for CAS is seen as a positive rather factor rather than a weakness. TL:DR soviet equipment is built for fighting near peer nations, american equipment is built for Roflstomping 3rd world countries and insurgent groups.

[@jaquigreenlees]

@@emporernanner I agree with you, but it really means the video is pointless. Which is better? depends on what the conditions are at the battle front. No air superiority? The SU25 is better. With air superiority, the A-10 is. if keeping the aircraft and pilots is a priority. ( which it is ) For real longer time on target close air support, why not a much slower propeller driven aircraft designed and built for the job. With modern materials used in the design right from the start you could get an extremely agile close air support craft that can stay over the front for longer than the A-10 yet not require the air superiority it does.

[@Jonathan-fb1kj]

Around 2014ish I heard their actually doing just that, looking for a prop plane as a replacement for the A-10 CAS wise. No clue if their still going to do that though.

[@jaquigreenlees]

@@Jonathan-fb1kj I think they will need to design from scratch to get what they would want. Which defeats the purpose of ending the A-10 to reduce the number of different aircraft to be supported.

[@auletjohnast03638]

I GOT MY MONEY ON THE A-10 WARHOG.

[@WiliiamNoTell]

Would not want to be in a tank, against either one. Great video! Thanks for sharing.

[@briish85]

The A-10 wouldn’t lose it would come back with missing parts and gunshots

[@UwUchan-kp2ok]

Mostly true

[@joeb578]

Not from missiles

[@Shad0hawK]

@@joeb578 actually the A10 has survived missile hits.

[@momsspaghetti9970]

@@Shad0hawK To be fair the A-10 was hit at a non critical area of the aircraft (shredded half of the tail, half of control surface still intact with both engines) It would have been a different story if it was hit by a missile fired from an aircraft or any of the medium to long range SAMs the soviets gave to the Iraqis.

[@Shad0hawK]

@@momsspaghetti9970 I worked in aviation for over a decade, I personally know no less than 3 A10 pilots. There is no such thing as a "non critical area" on ANY aircraft...

[@broderman5]

The warthog is clearly the better ground pounder while the frogfoot is a better flight model, if I wanted close air support I'd want it from the warthog

[@thecoolestcorgi4991]

Are you guaranteed to have air supremacy? If not, the a 10 might have a lot of problems without extensive escort. Just food for thought.

[@Daniel-jg8ff]

Based on what? The Sukhoi has a superior combatrecord then the A10

[@broderman5]

@@Daniel-jg8ff you can't just say that without backing it up, what are the stats and where is your source?

[@Daniel-jg8ff]

@@broderman5 Just the chare amount of conflicts and that it Saw action already 1981-1989 i Afghanistan, Iran-Iraq, Chechnya, Ukraine, Syria, Macedonia, Africa etc etc

[@cristobalalvarez5491]

Daniel kid the a-10 has proven it self since 1977 till this day it has seen more combat and it’s combat record against the su-25 is superior

[@hasyy151]

The A-10 is the AC-130’s child dont change my mind

[@joelkelly169]

Yup, they crossed the AC-130 with a pissed-off demon straight out of Hell to come up with the A-10

[@theboothy91]

It was once said that a CRAM phalanx and a b-52 had an affair and the a-10 was born

[@juangrnde8637]

*Changes mind*

[@GunsNGames1]

@@theboothy91 that's better

[@fennviktorvich]

Modernised A-1

[@idie2game771]

going with BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT here. just can't get over how amazed i was by them over in the sandbox

[@photosbymaddog]

I heard the Taliban had nather name for that sound "The Devil's Scream!"

[@deltacharlieromeo8252]

Love this channel for giving unbiased content 😍😍

[@Tikii_9]

Cringe.

[@AnandhikaAgusSaputra]

@@Tikii_9 u get lost?

[@Tikii_9]

@@AnandhikaAgusSaputra Simpppp.

[@Tikii_9]

@@Wacksmacked8898 Ok boomer.

[@AnandhikaAgusSaputra]

@@Tikii_9 now youre actig cringe

[@andrewcox4386]

Over-simplifed & uncoordinated assessment. You mention countermeasures for one aircraft in one section and then for the other in a different section. You also fail to consider whether any of the performance aspects are actually relevant for a close support aircraft mainly flying at low level.

[@Asghaad]

id say teh more eggregious oversight is the failure of comparing how SLOW each aircraft can go which is way more important in CAS than top speed.

[@xxsome1randomxx315]

I noticed this too

[@Asghaad]

@Law Dorherty tank busting capability with loiter time? sounds like MQ-9 Reaper ... you know thing with 14hour flight endurance

[@Asghaad]

@Law Dorherty stop thinking the "hacking" means one neckbeard sitting behind laptop... most hacking means abusing backdoors, flaws and mostly human stupidity... Military hardware isnt accesible enough for anyone to figure out flaws and access to the system isnt so open you could attack the human factor. The real threat to drones is blocking the signal with electronic noise so it cant respond to operator input.

[@Asghaad]

@Law Dorherty because you obviously think that in real world its easy peasy to hack into closed network running on military satellite communications that are completely isolated from access ... secondly anyone even attempting to do so would be instantly treated as hostile with all the consequences ... trying to force into that type of network is an act of war ... and you simply CANNOT break military encryption in an actual war, it would take YEARS even if you somehow got access ... and lastly if war ever broke out between any of the nuclear superpowers it would also end that same day ...

[@lukehinkle9614]

I was stationed at Moody AFB a few months ago and loved hearing the A-10 fire its gun. It sounded like they were in my backyard! I am at Osan AB now and we have A-10s, but the firing range is too far to hear the Warthogs firing :(

[@rich3371]

I'll never get over the sound of that gatling gun - beauty to my ears

[@yolandibotha3553]

Me too

[@ceoofbadideas]

A10 be like: it cost $400,000 to fire this gun, for twelve seconds

[@evanwindom3265]

Yeah, but what's the average burst length? Half a second? What does a T-72 cost? If the A-10 kills even a couple of tanks for the price of the ammo, that's a huge ROI.

[@evanwindom3265]

@Marionette Loves Gaming Okay -- you lost me.

[@Detr0y]

@@evanwindom3265 video game reference. Search up "Meet the heavy"

[@sfranger50]

when the su 25 fires its cannon the barrel needs to be replaced. instead of using a super robust rotary cannon the russian's said, we will just replace the barrel of the cannon every time it is used. i'm don't know for sure, but the russian solution may be the better one? anyone have any information on this ?

[@sfranger50]

@ALSO-RAN ! you don't understand anything. It is far more economical to replace the barrel of the Russian cannon every time they fire it than to build and maintain the incredibly complex rotary cannon in the A10.

[@mrkoolaidman5975]

Well I have served in the Army and have been helped by the A10 and have close to being shot at by the SU now I always felt safe as long as a A10 was upstairs....

[@Supermatmike]

i think that it is quite easy to pick the winner... one goes: BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTT the other does not.

[@mehrdadtube1]

They both go BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTT It seems you have not heard the Gryazev Shipunov fire

[@andrewzimmer4015]

I mean I think it meant the one that goes BRRRRRRRRRRRT that was built around a big mfing gun

[@Koshzor]

Well. The other goes woosh-woosh-woosh-woosh. Wouldn't want to be at the receiving end of either of them.

[@jorge2.049]

Based on your comment, it seems you didn't even watched the video. Your opinion is based on the brrrrrrrrrt. Your brrrrrrrtt can't penetrate armored vehicles and it has to get dangerously close to make damage to them. Your opinion is based on the sound it makes😂

[@Pighood]

ahahaaahaahaa

[@CShivery]

The Frogfoot is 60% as effective as the Warthog, but at 1/5 the price. That's the difference.

[@atomicskull6405]

That's the same logic behind the AT-29, it's not as effective as am A-10 but it's 1/10 the cost to maintain and operate and it's perfectly fine when you are shooting guys in pickup trucks with AK-47's. It's not supposed to replace the A-10 but to be an option when an A-10 would be overkill.

[@kH088_2]

The problem is the logistics. The Russians are known to sell systems at lower prices and to just about anybody, but they will hold back on parts if your country doesn't vote in Russia's favor in the UN. Also, after the fall of the USSR, certain weapons systems became harder to maintain because the parts were sourced from areas of the USSR that later became independent states (Ukrainian jet engines, Russian air frames and avionics, Belarusian sensors, the plane may have come out of an assembly line near Tiblisi, etc.).

[@jorge2.049]

I like them both, it seems like one can compensate for the other one's missing capabilities and vice versa. And I'm able to see that, because I'm neither US or USSR, so pride doesn't blind me...like some in the comments ⬇️

[@user-xp8wk1zt2p]

Ussr doesnt exist so ofc u aint that

[@Quetzalcoatl_Feathered_Serpent]

I'm US but unlike some people I appreciate all machines and not biased because of my nationality. On that note I like both the Su and the A-10. I would consider them equals. They both do the job very well with little to no differences except for types of weapons with a little difference here or there. If I had to choose my favorite it would still be the A-10 just due to it more unconventional design compared to the more conventional looking frogfoot. However I wouldn't mind one bit flying the Frogfoot. Hmm you know given the age of the Frogfoot. It wouldn't be a bad idea to spirit a few away and suddenly turn up like at Planes of Fame :P

[@haroldwaig2242]

Jorge2.0: It's Great That Others Have A Clearer View Of Things! As A American I Wish The U.S. Gov't. & The Russian Gov't. Would Work Together Sometimes! And Then "MAYBE" There Would Not Be So Much Distrust Of Each Other!!...Politicians In Both Countries "GET OVER IT" Get Over Your Fears!! Of Each Other...Just Because We Believe Differently Doesn't Mean We Can't Trust Each Other A Little Bit? And Work It Out To Each Others Liking. "But Then That Takes Understanding And Willest To Do It! Does It".

[@haroldwaig2242]

Years After USSR Disbanded...Did The U. S. Gov't. Western Europe Attack Russia?...And Take You Over?...Rule You?... "FEAR IS A WEAPON" Is Much Stronger Than Even Death.

[@1copperfly]

@@haroldwaig2242 Good answer

[@CaptCap25]

The best thing about the A-10 is that it’s slow enough to give its targets time to piss their pants

[@joshuacruz732]

LMAO

[@aussiegta8267]

Needs updating. A10 no longer has eth Penny, it uses a TPG, date link systems and has integrated helmet targeting.

[@ofinterest2719]

The A-10's confirmed record is astounding, not only for sheer destruction but for bringing pilot and plane home.

[@johnhardin4358]

Pilots are a strategic asset. Takes a lot of time and money to produce one. Makes sense to reduce the attrition rate.

[@davidsuro986]

@@johnhardin4358 without a doubt, you are correct. Experienced pilots do MUCH better in combat. And, experience costs a lot of investment. It costs somewhere around $10,000 per hour to operate a fighter. My brother has over 5,000 hours of flight time in the a-10. So, we have invested at least $50,000,000 in his training and experience. The a-10 unit cost is about $9,000,000. The pilot is BY FAR the most valuable part of the equation. Our victories in WWII showed how valuable pilot experience was. Our Wildcats, Hellcats, etc. were robust planes that could take a hit and still return to the carrier to land, or at least allow the pilots to ditch in a place they could be fished out of the sea. The Zeroes were faster and more maneuverable, but not survivable due to the lack of self-sealing fuel tanks and lack of protective armor. About a year into the fighting with Japan, our pilots were much more experienced and the Japanese were forced to put green recruits into combat to replace their deceased. Our win rate over the Japanese in WWII continuously climbed throughout the war due to these facts.

[@danallanson5990]

@@davidsuro986 10,000 per hour is not only for the pilot, but also mechanics, parts, fuel, spares, electrical tech, facilities, etc. No one pays a pilot 10,000 per hour, unless its in Roubles or yen.

[@davidsuro986]

@@danallanson5990 I didn't say the pilot makes $10K per hour. I said it costs $10K per hour to operate the plane.

[@Metaretru]

I love how cute SU25 is, like stubby fighter but pack a lot of punch lol

[@marcin.the.gamer.]

Su-25 also proved in Afgjanistan and many more conflicts to be exremally resistant to damage. It is also build to be tough to kill and it was examined in many conflicts. Su-25 is excellent plane

[@brianjones8106]

They both are great planes! I wish we could do things together other than make things to destroy the other?!! I really like Russian built stuff just like American built stuff!

[@campbelldutch75]

Russian people are humans like everyone else! I love them and our governments are crooked !

[@fbi805]

That's what they said about the Hind too and yet over 300 of them were killed by Stinger missiles. If I'm not mistaken 162 SU-25s were also destroyed by Stinger missiles during Russia's invasion of Afghanistan. There are also verified reports of several getting shot down over Syria. The SU-25 maybe considered a decent plane but it isn't hard to kill.

[@typen3k0]

LOL top speed, range, climb rate, and peek maneuverability figures from a clean plane is meaningless. The plane will perform completely different depending the load out on the wings.

[@Holret]

in that case the C-130 Spooky is the better air support aircraft.

[@pooceq]

Very true. Load them both with the same weight and you might find out that there's not much between them in terms of performance. Especially when one has 3.5t more load capacity than he other

[@maxmuller8633]

Any modern aircraft is a devil's executioner

[@jeffkam2153]

Unlike A10, can only carry hydra or zuni rockets, Su25 can carry multiple types of rockets. Su25 is also able to carry quite a few types of missle too. Such as the 9A4172, kh25, kh29t, s25t which can destroy modern MBTs, and bunkers.

[@jeffkam2153]

@Henry Lovejoy tell me how many types of rockets could a10 carry then smart ass. Wt u have mentioned is cannon, bombs and missle but not rocket

[@jeffkam2153]

@Henry Lovejoy did u just misunderstood sth😹 Su25 is ALSO able to carry quite a few types of missle too. Man your English sucks😹 learn comprehension dude

[@jeffkam2153]

@Henry Lovejoy keep denying that you are wrong😹

[@jeffkam2153]

@Henry Lovejoy so? Did my first comment wrong? No. Is your first comment wrong? Yes.

[@jeffkam2153]

@Henry Lovejoy oh my bad tho:( But I'm not a Russian and 12 years old cod kid. I'm 20 rn and playing dcs world.

[@irockz281982]

All I know is that the A10 was still operational against the Terminator Machines! Just saying. It survived Judgement Day.

[@tauruszuma]

The Warthog pilot, " you call that a knife? this is a knife!"

[@trololoev]

warthog take out knife with giant handle but the same blade, because su-25 gun has same firepower but weight only 30 kg.

[@Redwaltz4]

No, it's not the same firepower. The gun for the A-10 has a muzzle velocity of 3324 ft per second. The gun on the Su-25 has a muzzle velocity of 2850 ft per second. The Gau-8a is clearly the better weapon.

[@trololoev]

@@Redwaltz4 on infantry or cars this is more then enough, on armored targets, on targets on big square, on hidden targets or on anti-air targets rocket or bombs much more preferable. And if su-25 has fat and heavy american gun, then he can't take any payloads. So in comparison su-25 has much better gun with slight less firepower. If a-10 today can change the gun on Gsh-30-2 then he change it and take more rockets.

[@Redwaltz4]

@@trololoev If your argument is that the gun weighs less and that allows you to carry more of some other munition, then you've already lost the argument. Certainly utilizing rockets is a valid strategy but it does not make your gun better. If you're going to go that direction, use a couple of 50 cals for anti personnel and light vehicle work and really max out your munitions load.

[@trololoev]

@@Redwaltz4 against cars or peoples Gsh-30-2 as effective as gau-8, but weight i tonn less. So you can or place more rocket or place more armor, or both. because rockets better in any aspect, except cost. They have bigger penetration, bigger area of shrapnel, and also didn't decrease speed of plane. Also size of Gsh-30-2 allow you to have electronics to fire guided weapons.

[@jtjr26]

Both were developed with different ground support doctrines in mind. I would say both can deliver devastating payloads to the battlefield. I do think it's a little funny that some in the USAF want to replace the A-10 with the F-35 as the main ground support platform.

[@Midgert89]

Some people? Lockheed Martin you mean.

[@jtjr26]

@@Midgert89 Yea, and the paid stooges in Air Force procurement.

[@TheLakabanzaichrg]

What was the idea behind the frogfoot?

[@thelorddarthvader7264]

@@TheLakabanzaichrg I might be 5 months late buy it seems the A-10 was meant to penetrate the armor compared the the SU25 which meant to blow the armor up. So it's killing the men inside of the vehicle vs blowing the vehicle up. I would also guess the A-10 would be more effective at killing ground (non-vehicle/armor units) targets due to the gun that it has unlike the SU25.

[@sys3248]

​@@thelorddarthvader7264it's not. They're inaccurate in those CAS roles where precision is demanded. Lots of reports of friendly fires and 'collateral' when it use it's gun. They drop GBUs and AGMs in its CAS which is now fully supplanted by Drones.

[@BrionWatling]

I spent my time in the Army as Air Defense Patriot and stinger respectively, witnessed many live fires at White Sands, Bittburg, and other places, the destruction from the 30mm. On the A 10 is visible way before the burp, from the C 130 gun ship, you just have to be there, your bones vibrate from the sonic aftermath.

[@yolandibotha3553]

Cool that is true

[@rafterrafter1227]

10:02. "Uranium depleted rounds"? I thought they were... "Depleted Uranium rounds"....

[@lees.4084]

Apparently, anything other than a depleted uranium round is a uranium depleted round....😎

[@KKSuited]

Words are hard.

[@altortugas5979]

You said the A-10’s Gatling gun was ineffective against armor? I don’t think you meant that...

[@Derpy-qg9hn]

Effective against what armour, T-62s that no major nation still used at the time?

[@veshallaes1767]

30MM rounds of either gun are ineffective against MBT developed in the last 40 years. You can't really hope that your enemy will drive some tanks from the second World War to use your gun, that is why they have unguided and guided missiles with HEAT warheads.

[@altortugas5979]

Ves, I don’t think you understand either how tanks distribute their armor or how a strafing run works. An A-10 in a 30 degree dive will penetrate the top armor of even the most modern tanks with its 30mm cannon. The top is where MBT armor is weakest, which is one of the reasons air-to-ground assets like the A-10 and AH-64 are so valuable.

[@veshallaes1767]

@@altortugas5979 I don't think you really know how modern combined arms tactics work. CAS planes are only used in either full air superiority or in combined arms and in the second situation not even the best A-10 Pilot would dare to use 30mm rounds on a tank when he has any for of guided or unguided rockets available, which do a lot more damage. Hitting a moving tank with 30mm rounds is hard and trying to hit the small roof is beyond the capability under full spectrum of enemy plattforms.

[@altortugas5979]

Combined arms tactics? I thought we were talking about tanks developed in the last 40 years... oh, I see what you did there. No, I’m not an expert in tactics. I’m not even an expert on the weapons and the systems that deploy them. So I’m going to defer to what an actual A-10 pilot has to say about the capability and use of their planes. That’s what I linked above. An A-10 CAN kill a tank with its cannon. That’s all this thread was about. I’m sorry if you don’t like it. Facts don’t care.

[@andywest6113]

They are different enough to consider that they are both good at what they do

[@dkerr4077]

Fortunately the narrator elaborated on the fact that the SU 25 is smaller, and faster. I got it finally after the first 10-12 times. So...does that mean the A10 is larger, and slower? I'm so confused.

[@wyvrusgriffion3948]

I think everyone knew it's is slower but it compensate with defense, maneuverability, and endurance. The Frogfoot is a sprint runner light and fast while the Warthog is a marathon runner.

[@drew65sep]

This is an "apples to oranges" type of comparison...meaning it's pretty moot. I wouldn't think the soldier on the ground really gives a sht what platform provides support, so long if they get it.

[@kamraam1464]

Troops in contact definitely care about which platform they are getting support from. They know the A10/Apache crews are specifically trained for CAS, whereas the F16/F18 pilots aren't as specialized.

[@Moadeeb_]

Me: 🤔What does an Angel sound like? A-10: BBBrrrrrrrrrrrtt ! Me: 🥰

[@hunterlindbert2679]

Joins the USAF for the sole purpose of hearing that... maybe even becoming a true angel🤣🤣

[@Mashallah_04]

Frogfoot pilots: My plane is fast and has a lot of weapons Warthog pilots: Haha A-10 go Brrrrrt!!!

[@Chief556.]

Heeheehoo AN/PRC-152 goes: brrrrrrrrrrr

[@PriceTheCourier]

C-RAM and CIWs: *BRRRRRRRRR EXPLODE*

[@carlosguzman4609]

Overused

[@ramonsrgravidez7221]

The effectively and more accomplishes is more important

[@uriamudeltoro5075]

Something about that sound

[@MrMartell77]

The real comparison is in the aircraft's history. We have heard of A-10's taking massive damage and making it home, amounts that would down any other aircraft. Can the Frogfoot do the same?

[@jeebuzcrust]

We won't know until it happens. We know MANPADS can take a Su25 though.

[@batuhancokmar7330]

There are maybe a dozen pictures of Su-25s surviving direct manpads hits back in Afganistan and Georgia.. Both aircraft are equally proven to be survivable to enemy fire. That said, landing after damage is more to do with luck than anything else.. Even an F-18 landed after getting hit by MANPADs once. IMO, "real comparison" is a subjective point on this, because "priorities" of operators also matter.. Russians still use Su-25 (in 2020s) as a true CAS aircraft.. So, most modern Russian Su-25s with MAWS and DIRCM are several times more survivable than current USAF A-10Cs; which saw little upgrades thanks to some officials looking forward to scrapping them. Put same amount of modern tech on to A-10 and it will be just as good if not better.

[@jeebuzcrust]

@@batuhancokmar7330 The A10 has had both DIRCM and the AAR-47 system for quite a while. They also have multiple ECW pods available as well.

[@davidhelmuth5707]

Have seen a A-10 come back with half of one wing only one engine. The rest of the plane looked like Swiss cheese. Did I mention that both hydraulic systems were down! The driver had to switch to manual control and basically wrestle the bird to the ground. That’s survivability! That being said would not bitch if I either one showed up! 😬

[@temich1985]

SU-25 had been known to return from combat when half of the wing panels or tail would be missing and one engine barely working. The flight controls on SU-25 are not made of cables or fly-by-wire but by thick metal bars so it can still fly after being hit. I heard during the Afghan war not a single one was lost but many returned badly damaged. This aircraft was also sent straight to Afghanistan to do its combat trials before it was certified and all that where it performed all its first combat tests but in a real war

[@ssranon]

One important factor that wasn't mentioned in the video is the cockpit. In the A-10 the pilot sits up high and forward under a bubble canopy with a very commanding view of the battlefield. The SU-25 cockpit is more streamlined and recessed like a conventional fighter plane, which gives the plane greater speed, but significantly less all-around pilot visibility. The A-10's superior visibility is a key advantage when the goal is to support troops on the ground.

[@Wienerslinky]

you we could see that during the gulf war.... that extra visibility was a key advantage in all those friendly fire incidents...

[@johndave117]

@@Wienerslinky LMAO 🤣🤣USA BTFO

[@SeraphimSiN]

Gotta say A-10. I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of either of them. 😬

[@jkfreese44]

That’s right. The question posed seems to ignore that part. That SU may one day be a real threat NATO ground ops.

[@fungamegg7339]

The A-10 laughs after or well the gun does at least

[@GeorgeCee]

I play DCS and I fly both aircraft. My mind is open to all aircraft and even though I'm an American, I give every aircraft it's due diligence and don't play favorites just because I'm American. The A10 can't go head to head with a Hind or a KA50 because it's way way too damn slow. The SU25 can fly circles around an Apache every time and take it out. Don't get me wrong, I love the A10 in situations where you have complete Air Superiority, but that usually in not the case in big Multi-Player scenarios. If there are enemy aircraft in the sky, the Frogfoot is way more survivable. SU25 pilots can eject the Air-to Ground weapons and dogfight with the R-60's or R-73's infrared guided missiles & the cannon. The SU-25 is also way more simple and easy to fight with. The A10 is an ideal bomb truck when you have complete air superiority while auto-pilot circle loitering and targeting the targets with Maverick Missiles from high altitude and long range. The only time I really use the GAU8 avenger cannon on the A10 is when all my smart weapons are used up and I have nothing left. You have to get very close and become vulnerable when using that cannon in a contested zone. The SU-25 can fight it's way in and out of a target zone with more authority and power. The A10 just can't do that. It is very handicapped when fighting air to air. The SU-25 is a beast when it comes to unguided rocket attacks and multi missile launches with the Vikr Laser guided anti-tank missiles. I'll take the SU-25 everytime. Even though the A10 has totally superior electronics, I'll take the simplicity and all out performance of the SU-25 Frogfoot. Bottom line for me is the A10 is too Damn slow.

[@Maddog-wm5xi]

What does air to air have anything to do with these aircraft... neither of them were designed to kill other aircraft and their air-to-air missiles are meant as a last line of defense... i can tell you for sure neither of the two aircraft would be operating in an area that the enemy has control of the sky.

[@GeorgeCee]

@@Maddog-wm5xi Good points for sure. But, when you're fighting a real adversary in a real war, there is always the possibility of encountering hostile aircraft. The A10 does great against scumbag terrorists with no airforce. If the A10 is fighting against a real enemy with a competent airforce, it needs to be escorted and Protected from hostile aircraft. Different story for the SU-25. The SU25 escorts itself. Imagine fighting the Russians or the Chinese, it would not be possible to achieve total air dominance and the A10 or SU25 would obviously have some encounters with hostile air-to-air platforms in the Battle Space. The A10 just gets shot down because it can't go any faster than 300mph, while the SU-25 can eject it's air-to-ground weapons and fight air-to-air with some authority while being able to fly at Extremely high subsonic with supersonic in a dive and supersonic clean with no weapons. The SU-25 handles more like a fighter jet and the A10 handles more like a truck. Buy a nice Joystick/Hotas system. Download DCS. Take time to learn both aircraft in extreme detail and then Enter some multi-player combat and you will see exactly what I'm talking about. By the way, the Russian R73 infrared guided missile on the SU-25 is a world class beast and is not to be trifled with. The R73 is even better than the Aim-9X IMO. There is no disadvantage and the SU-25 can fight pretty damn well air to air. Not great, but it can fight and kill or at least run away. The A10 is beast bomb truck than can carry more than the SU-25 and can light up way more ground targets in one flight. It's just a slow pig. I guess it all depends where and how you are fighting. Personally, I love flying the A10C, the electronics and computer are top notch, the air to ground weapons are incredible, the targeting system is way better than the SU-25. Even with all of that, the A10 is super slow and it's just a target when trying to dogfight a Hind Helicopter, Su27, Mig29, etc. The SU-25 is more survivable. It can fight other planes and helicopters, it's way faster than the A10 and it can do airshow-like maneuvers for dogfighting close. I'll take the SU-25 Evey time. The SU-25 is also way more simple to start-up and operate. The A10 takes way longer startup, learn and master. Download DCS and try for yourself. Lot's of real pilots in DCS playing on Multiplayer. Go to the Growling Sidewinder server. 😀

[@sotilaskarkuri]

@@Maddog-wm5xi so basically if war was to happen between two superpowers neither of them would be used. now a days jet fighters are so fast that airsuperiority is not from air. its from ground. how do you gain airsuperiority in the enemy territory iof the enemy has SAM sites everywhere? you call in A10 or frogfoot to destroy them. after that you can gain airsuperiority by placing your own SAM sites there

[@ulfenburg7539]

@@sotilaskarkuri you gain air superiority by having total control of the sky not on the ground

[@sotilaskarkuri]

@@ulfenburg7539 but how you gain control of air if you dont get it from ground first

[@bigtony4930]

A-10, hands down. Longer loiter time, heavier carry capacity, better targeting systems and it can be refueled in flight. top Speed does not matter in this situation.

[@Bandit_Sudo]

Well the A-10 relies entirely on allied air superiority and is hardly capable of defending itself from anti-air fire, let alone holding out on its own in the case that it is intercepted. The Su-25 will almost always be seen more often as its objective is to strike the designated targets prior to evacuating from the battlefield as quickly as possible while also being able to deal with an aerial threat when necessary. Sure the A-10 is a fun toy against the insurgents of middle eastern countries you like to bully, but against a nation with an existing air force or an adequate anti-air network, I'd very much take the Frogfoot any day.

[@jaquinhelp7298]

@@Bandit_Sudo actually A-10 can fly in area full of SAM, it was plan that if Fulda gap was breached on cold war. The A-10 squadrons will launch interdiction strikes deep behind enemy lines even without escorts

[@bigtony4930]

@@Bandit_Sudo That's what interdiction squads are for, ruskiboo! Don't cry because we're better :)

[@elpatrico2562]

@@bigtony4930 He's not ruskiboo, he's just reasonable. He didn't say the A-10 was bad, the Frogfoot is just simply better a littlebit in air-to-air combat.

[@poeticque3165]

I agree.

[@springtrappooper9311]

A-10 BRRRRRRRRT su-25 dont BRRRRRRT A-10 wins

[@VoxTheOwl]

No

[@mr.wodsworth1837]

A-10 "Ha you can't BRRRT me" SU-25 (equips HEAT-missles) "Cute"

[@VoxTheOwl]

@@mr.wodsworth1837

[@imrekalman9044]

The GSh-30-2 fires 50 rounds in a second, it sounds BRRRRRRRRT enough to me. The Russians simply prefer non-guided rockets over mass cannon fire, hence the lower amo capacity, 5 seconds only (standard load for most jets).

[@keithbell6104]

@@mr.wodsworth1837 A 10 got missiles too

[@drumsandlego]

A10: I go brrrr. What do you have? Su25: oh, well...i go BLYATATATATATATATATATATA

[@pjotr9507]

it uses more missiles than its gun so it goes like KURVVVVWWWWWHHHHHA and BLYAT at an explosion lol

[@theapachewarrior7337]

I think the BRRRRRRRRRRRRRT gun defines the A-10 from any other CAS plane

[@tovarishhung1967]

Both planes : *designed for ground attack* Almost everyone : "mAkE TheM doGFighT"

[@cadabreon6743]

amogus

[@tovarishhung1967]

@@cadabreon6743 sus

[@raksan4083]

Neither was designed to dogfight but for that the SU-25 has the advantage.with speed and manuervablity and firing range with rockets. and lots of them.But the A-10 is great at what it was designed for and more Ammo to stay on target longer.But there are a lot of different versions of the SU-25.

[@cadabreon6743]

@@tovarishhung1967 😳

[@jplemley8110]

A-10 because its an icon and the damage it can absorb is nearly as equal to what it can dish out!

[@BladeFitAcademy]

The better plane is the one in operation at the moment giving cover to the infantry. It's not really the armorments that make the better plane. It's the squadron that can maintain an operational service on demand for a longer period of time.

[@red94mr28]

No, it's loiter time over contested area

[@BladeFitAcademy]

@@red94mr28 that's definitely part of the formula, but every plane has it's limit. The logistics of maintaining the umbrella of protection at all times is better than one superstar aircraft. The formula includes, maintenance hours per flight hours, availability of weapons on each platform, fuel availability and priority, replacement parts availability, loiter time is a biggie, pilot rotation and fitness. I'm sure I'm missing things. But my point is if a plane has greater loiter time but takes a lot more maintenance hours on the ground at the airbase, there will be gaps in protection more often than with planes with less loiter time and fantastic logistics and availability.

[@red94mr28]

@@BladeFitAcademy "maintaining the umbrella of protection at all times" The two planes being discussed are ground attack and CAS aircraft, not point defense fighters like the Mig-29 or F-16, or air superiority fighters like SU-27 or F-15. The important stats are Mission Capable rate and Sortie rate. In the Gulf war 8,077 sorties flown by the A-10 95/7% Mission Capable rate maintained - (5% higher than peacetime rates) 16.6% Sortie Rate - highest sortie rate of any USAF aircraft during the Gulf War

[@BladeFitAcademy]

@@red94mr28 I think you understand what I'm saying. It's not the plane only that matters it's the constant availability of the plane and weapons that really matters. Sortie rate is just the variable in the formula for figuring out how many are needed to achieve close air support without spotty coverage.

[@red94mr28]

@@BladeFitAcademy I understand what you're saying. Your context for "better plane" is availability which includes various external factors not integral to the aircraft.Separatemaintenance, repair depot, aircraft & pilot housing, runway condition, weather, terrain, ground crew skill, food, sleep, spares, environment, astrological sign of the wing commander and most importantly, name of squadron pet. These have impact, of course, but we're talking "better plane", not rating the military entity and systems in charge of it. Given your rationale, a Piper 172 with a remote controlled, externally mounted Marlin Model 60 Semi-Auto .22 Rifle might surpass all.

[@joehayward2631]

I was a Marine grunt . When in crap you love the A10 sound, the enemy is scared and tries to run. Nothing including the worthless f35 POS can not protect ground units like the A10, I have the greatest respect for the A10 pilots and ground crews,thank you.

[@Zingalamadumi]

Biased for obvious reasons

[@liamfalvey5142]

So, basically, the SU-25 is a jet made for highly effective CAS, while the A-Is basically a flying tank made for highly effective CAS. So the TLDR is: Both. Both is good

[@lifeofaloneguy1024]

best answer here

[@ManuelGarcia-ww7gj]

The two aircraft are pretty much a match.

[@samcdonald888]

I would say development of each plane clearly had different design approaches. BUT…both achieved the same goal and I’d wager they are equally effective in their mission. The difference would come down to pilot skill and training methodology. Even in that regard I would wager they are equals.

[@mmgross144]

Speaking as a former A-7 Corsair jet engine mechanic, I recall tales of Russian troops fearing the Warthog, calling it the Devil Cross. Honestly, before viewing this video I had never heard of the Su-25 Frogfoot, but it does sound impressive. I think the A-10's better weapons, flying ceiling, and armor give it the advantage.

[@Larez121]

In Tom Clancy's i-Red Storm Rising-i the Soviets dreaded the Warthog and called it yup "Devil's Cross"

[@elzorro7of9]

You were a US mechanic and never heard of the Frogfoot? Maybe you fell asleep during that class.

[@matejbenko8268]

Nice fairy tale

[@godra051]

You didn't hear because Russia is not continuously in a war for 2 centuries and they didn't go in so many countries, started so many wars and killing 10s of millions of people, mostly innocent. In Vietnam alone over 2mil civillians killed.

[@ghostpatriot2370]

@@godra051 your point?

[@This_Guy592]

I’m sure the frog foot can crush it’s Adversaries, but you left out how the A-10 warthog can do inflight refueling. That kinda flexibility can be valuable.

[@fennviktorvich]

I guess that's why the range is far bigger in the video

[@gregnuna]

But can it rearm weapons in-air?

[@gregnuna]

Funny Positive Life that’s even more idiotic. More time spent on the battlefield, increases the chances to get shot by ground to air weapons or even get shot down by enemy aircraft, your answer Is EVEN MORE DUMB. STOOPID.

[@gregnuna]

Funny Positive Life it’s not what I think. It’s the American way. GET’er DUN. Decimate the non Americans.

[@tesmith47]

@Funny Positive Life or out of ammo

[@harryhorn5282]

I worked on the A - 10 in the late 70s at Myrtle Beach AFB & later at Bentwaters RAFB in the U K. The one thing I hope that has been improved is the ammo belt. It was made of pure aluminum & broke easily. That would not be good in a combat situation.