A-10 vs. Su-25/39

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

Originally posted by THENEO
Fulcrum,

are you Russian?

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

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

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

Here are few more stories highlighting Su-25 roughness:

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Outtis
Which plane do you prefer?
I'd go for the sukhoi one..

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