The A-10 Warthog VERSUS The Su-25 Frogfoot 

Placing your ads I the middle of a sentence is not a great move. 👎

MEGAPROJECT: Human Genome Project

The a-10 is intended for ground support after air superiority has been ascertained which the US always does first. Russia rarely if ever gains air supremacy. The a-10 is in no way intended for a2a combat. For the sake of hypothetical discussion though, growling sidewinder did a few simulated a2a between the two on his channel and The a-10 won all or nearly all the encounters with the frog foot .

I like this MP v MP format.

Hold on. The A10 was sent against Iraqi armored Divisions. Those Divisions had heavy anti-air capability. The Frogfoot has generally not fought in such conditions even against Iran. Russian SU25s avoid major land formations because they would be shot down. The A10 was sent into the thick of them. A10s flew right through Bagdad, some of the most heavily defended skies on the planet ever and most made it home. You didnt even mention that. The SU25 has never been used under those circumstances. Also, the A10 flew many sorties doing CAS for US ground troops. The Frogfoot is not used in that manner. It shows up, drops ordnance then runs. It doesnt stick around. The A10 loiters taking ground fire while providing CAS for ground troops. These planes are not used the same way so comparing them is just stupid. If you used the SU25 the same way it would be easy to compare. The reason the Russians dont use it for CAS or Armor hunting is because the SU25 is not good at either missions. Also, Ukraine wasnt offered A10s and F16s. It was offered either A10s or F16s and they requested F16s. They have SU25s and most importantly, they can produce and acquire munitions for SU25s. Being uncertain as to continued aid packages from the US, Ukraine declined the A10 since they cant maintain or arm it. They did however say it was the A10 was a better plane than the SU25. Ukraine doesnt do CAS and Russian tank convoys are too small to bother with sending a plane to stop them so they have little use for an A10 outside of strike missions. Since they already have the SU25 and armament and maintenance packages for the SU25 they dont have a need for the A10 as much as F16. You didnt even mention that, seems disingenuous.

Funny, but for the record Alex Hollings researched the supposed leaks and was able to prove that none of them were actually leaking classified documents. He was able to find every single piece of information from the leaks on other websites, many in even more complete forms. The reason for them being called "leaks" were that the specific people in question were not personally allowed to post the information. (That is, they were not personally allowed to disseminate the info in the way they tried to, even if the info wasn't classified. )

Not much about the A-10 is classified aside from the secure speech, IFF, and EW systems, which is mostly just frequencies

They're to busy waiting for modern Naval to be added so they can go ham with Type 45 and Arleigh Burke specs

I have, in Ukraine

@@steur5693cool, who and when?

But I've also never heard an unbiased A-10 story

Ukraine

@@ulfasplund3514 I need to find the footage

Probably not wrong, still would be cool to see a mock match up though one day.

@growlingsidewinder says different

Explain to me how the A-10 is anti tank.

Depends on if they have air to air missiles equipped and if they can flare each other's missiles or not. If they're out of missiles and alive, the frogfoot will just energy trap the a10 and kill it. Not much you can do with a weaker engine even if you can turn better. But scenario's like those don't happen.

Pilot skills and training will play a big role. Managing energy, dictating the fight to your aircraft strengths, one circle or two circle.

No one gives a shit about that Soviet trashcan with wings. Lol see

😂

Screw Russia they don’t know anything about brrrt

😂😂

😂😂😂

That would be useful...if Russia HAD an aircraft carrier. I can't think of any of the customers who bought the SU-25, who might have one, either. I guess those were made to be operated from the Admiral Kuznetsov, which hasn't worked properly since the day it was stolen.

Having a tail hook doesn't automatically qualify an aircraft suitable for a carrier, there's many other upgrades needed for that, one most important is seriously beefed up landing gear

@@Potato-pl5cr I didn't say the tail hook was the only thing that made it navalized. My point was that it was not only navalized but that it also had a tail hook so it could use arrestor gear. There are carriers like the British Queen Elizabeth class that don't have arrestors

​​@@ashscott6068yeah being a "naval capable" plane doesn't mean anything when you don't have any really usable aircraft carriers. Also the US has proven before that they can launch planes never meant to take off or land on an aircraft carrier off a carrier. They've had a c-130 land on and take off from a Nimitz before... without a tail hook too!

@@IrishCarney But that's designed to carry F-35B's, so it doesn't need them. Yeah, arrestor gear is a nice-ish compromise, but how many customers of the SU-25 have you heard of ever using arrestor cables anywhere BUT on a carrier? They'd have to be a permanent installation on a runway, and if you have the luxury of that, you have the luxury of making the runway longer.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vfkQ0o2I_60.html

Dude, T-90’s have been getting taken out by T-64’s. How do you think it’ll fair against a modern Abrams?😂

@@devendoffing7004 And Russians recently destroyed a Leopard 2a6 with a T72, stupid argument. Probably the last iteration of the Abrams has the edge due to electronics and systems, but as crude platform I would prefer the t90 due to its smaller dimensions and reliability. The Abrams is anything but wunderwaffe, Blacktail has been roasting the platform for the better part of 13 years with well documented sources.

That would be a really interesting video

​@@pierluigiadreani2159damn i'd hate to be in a tank that regularly competes in turret toss competitions because it's autoloader is just primed to pop and cook off. At least the abrams has blow out panels and wet ready racks. That said the crew isn't surviving a very angry, high velocity lawn dart that penetrates, if the spall doesn't kill you, the flash heating will from the sheer kinetic energy transfer at the point of penetration superheating the space. Apfsds rounds are literally the most dangerous modern round because of this fact. They literally microwave the occupants

​​​@@pierluigiadreani2159Probably... You have no idea what you're talking about. Abrams definitely has an advantage in armor, mobility, and firepower. Nothing is invincible, but it's not a contest. Even Russia doesn't debate this whixh is why you're trying a whole new platform. You'd rather be in an Abrams if your life came to it and so would I.

Sure. That's usually only a single sortie, or maybe two, and the A-10 excels in single sortie missions. If you need constant cover for hours on end though, the Su-25 will be more helpful.

I mean if your fighting rebels and militia that's fine, but if your fighting anyone with any form of air defense or manpads an a10 won't even make it near you

@@charlyspor7594 That's what I'm talking about. I wouldn't be pinned down by aircraft, generally a combat aircraft would just take out the ground troops they target so yeah, ground troops would be what I'm referring to when I say pinned down.

@@charlyspor7594we got these neat system in development, decoy drone carried by hard points on aircraft that drop off trigger the Surface to air missiles and make them waste the missiles and the things aren’t fast to reload. Interesting relatively low cost solution

​@@charlyspor7594 combat record proves you wrong already dude...

*THIS!!!!!* as there are too many meatbeaters bruising their genitals over the A-10.

Hint: East vs West

And the A-10 will have an easier time putting rounds on the Frogfoot since its gun points straight forward. Frogfoot gun mounted at a slight downward angle so it doesn't have to have as steep a dive to strafe ground targets but that means it has to pull way more lead (AoA thus bleeding speed) to get rounds on a turning A-10. And even if the A-10 is flying straight and level the SU-25 would have to nose up to point the gun.

In reality a dogfight would come down to pilot skill.

Im happy someone else mentioned DCS because I watch Growling Sidewinder on RU-vid and he does matchups like this all the time. I immediately thought of him when I saw the title of this video I actually thought it was one of his until I saw that it was one of Simon's LOL It does come down to pilot skill, often.

​@@Zarrar2802DCS is a Russian made game...

The brrrrrt is an automatic win in my book.

One of the best informative RU-vidrs

To really piss off the air supremacy crowd, let’s take a quick look at American war performances since the introduction of airpower. WW1: W WW2: W Korea: D Vietnam: L DS: W Afghanistan: L Iraq:L 3:1:3 Even if you pad it with smaller conflicts like the Granada and Nicaragua interventions, you still end up with failing to achieve victory about half the time.

Like the bronco before it. Gone too soon

Helicopters are also vulnerable to MANPADs.

The Warthog, Frogfoot, and all helos are vulnerable to air defense systems. Depending on the environment and the enemies capabilities

So are choppers

the a10 will never be on the battlefield with a f22

They are already used together. Not a formation flight, but air superiority role. F22, f16, f15s fly top cover and have already gained control of the air

What visibility in the A-10? The one where the pilot needs binoculars to identify the targets to shoot at?

The bubble canopy that allows them to se backwards unlike the frogfoot. In a dogfight losing sight on your opponent can be catastrophic.@@zwojack7285

@@zwojack7285it’s elevated pilot position and the design of the canopy grants the pilot way more °s of visibility than the SU-25 is capable of

Indeed its a conflict kf ideologies in the us they make pikots who can decide for them selves and fight using direct visibility while the russian way is to have the pilot be a controll point for a craft which gets orders from mission control and it mostly relies on radar on ground and onboard the plane. More visibility on the a 10 is balanced by more vulnerability and the less visibility on the rook is balanced by a safer pilot

5:25 he talks about the canopy and bathtub, he says it gives them almost 360° view in the warthog

sry to pick on you here but idk i just looked at it and thought "hey you can mount on a dually 2 tires up front as well" if someones arguing with u that they have an 8 wheeled truck and you only have 6...but u cant can you because it would rub while turning and prolly break a whole host of things....so yea i can hold 8 but only carry 6...this applies to what you said

@@notsoseriouslen6374 no hard feelings, but i just wanted to point out that the research was very bad. the first google search result is claiming that it can carry 10 Mavericks and this is just plain wrong. ask any A-10 pilot and/or engineer and they will confirm how many Mavericks can they fit and how many are usually carry. what i wrote in the comment is not my guess/opinion, this is what A-10 pilots and engineers confirmed on many occasions. the A-10 was designed to carry 6xAGM-65s on triple racks on 2 pylons, after real flight testing they found out that the missile on the inner rack, closest to the main gear, causes some burn damage to the wheel when launched, because the wheel is not fully retracted and protected by a landing gear door.

I think they should try to only do matchups that are actually up for debate. I don't think anyone seriously believes that a top of the line Patriot is going to lose to an S-400. Maybe an S-500 (big maybe there), but not to an antique. 😂😁😄

@@benrockefeller6334 S-500 doesn't really exist until we see it actually doing something. If it existed, It would have been deployed to stop ruZZian bases in Crimea going boom. If I remember correctly, the head of the company was jailed for lying about the capabilities of the S-400. I mean a lie he told his government, not the ones his government then tell the world. :D It's deffo not much of an argument, when we are currently regularly seeing Patriots intercepting large coordinated missile attacks, at the same time we're seeing S-400 systems being taken out by a single missile or drone.

​@@benrockefeller6334 List S-400 has a larger range and kill radius, the Patriot is designed with other parameters. The S-400 and even the S-300 have far more confirmed shoot downs than any Patriot system.

@@voidtempering8700 Neither of those are really relevant to how good the systems are. The S-400 can see further, but it can't see very well at those ranges when compared to the Patriot. The Patriot having fewer kills is obvious since it hasn't seen much use except in Iraq and Afghanistan, neither of which had air forces that were capable of attacking US forces. The S-400 meanwhile has seen service in practically every post-soviet conflict, typically on both sides. The chances it's had to work, and therefore fail, are far more numerous than the Patriot.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vfkQ0o2I_60.html

Well, comparing them to find out which is worse, is no different than comparing them to find out which is better. They're both kinda useless if you're not fighting unarmed tribesmen.

​@@ashscott6068not even close to being true, both are suitable aircraft. All it is is a pissing contest between 2 countries. Neither are going into battle while the airspace is seriously contested unless absolutely necessary, then they would have escorts

I would generally agree with you I'd like to see a hypothetical battleship vs battleship breakdown, but Yamato vs Bismarck would be...lopsided. Bismarck was more advanced but Yamato could out range and out punch it. (8x15" vs 9x18.1" main guns respectively). Bismarck was designed as a commerce raider as much as a front line warship where Yamato was purpose built to be the core of a battle line. A more viable matchup would be something like Yamato vs Montana (Yamato vs Iowa has been done many times over) or Bismarck vs Roma. Or actually pitting two interwar ships that were built to fight each other like Nagato vs West Virginia (which itself might have actually happened as part of a line battle had the old US BBs been at Leyte rather than Surigao. I also love your second suggestion.

I love the sound it makes as it dives, unmistakable for any other aircraft.

If you're referring to his "A-10: Worse than you think" video, then you need to realize that it was from a specific perspective of objectivity that placed the practical realities of the A-10 against its public perception. That's still an objective perspective, just not one from a comprehensive perspective. Not to mention that the writer for the two videos isn't even the same. Evan was the writer for this one and George was the writer for the other one.

​@@benrockefeller6334 "from a specific perspective of objectivity" yeah nah... objectively the people who "dog" on the a10 generally get things so hilariously wrong it's not even funny. To consider it objective is... well ignorant.

@@jonnybgoode7742 Then tell us, what exactly did they get wrong in their videos? What you've said is so vague and broad that you basically said nothing.

@@benrockefeller6334 no I said they're wrong. Theres nothing vague about it. Anyone who knows better would understand how. These guys repeat the same misinformation.

@@jonnybgoode7742 That's not an argument, it's an appeal to authority. And you didn't even give an example of who would have the 'correct' information. Everything you've said is just vague statements that they are wrong, without citing anything about how they are wrong.

so in conclusion the A-10 has tens of thousands of combat hours where it excels.. and the frogfoot..doesnt.. watchin Ukis take them down with 2nd gen stingers from 20 years ago isnt very impressive..

But A-10 is one better?

Very similar. USSR must have only had spies at Northrop back then...

Multirole failed the last time we did it. The f4 phantom was also a multiservice, multirole aircraft and resulted in many deaths due to being to generalized to be good and specialized missions. F35s can be taken out by a .22 cal rifle if hit at low level in the right spot. High tech isn't survivable at low level, and seriously lack loiter time.

must be a Russian fanboy

I'll Brrrrrrt to to that.

In all honesty they are both equal none is really better fine the a-10 has the 30mm but know gun are almost never used it's missile that are the name of the game and both can carry a lot of missile in addition both aircraft are quite vulnerable in contested airspace the a-10 even more due it's poor maneuverability