Flying Tanks: USA’s A-10 vs Russia’s SU-25

In the brutal arena of close air support, two purpose-built war machines dominate the battlefield skies – America’s A-10 Thunderbolt II and Russia’s Su-25 Frogfoot. Often referred to as “flying tanks,” these legendary aircraft are designed to deliver devastation directly to enemy ground forces while surviving punishing combat conditions. In this article, we will examine the two aircraft across their historical roles, design priorities, armament, performance, and survivability.

A Tale of Two Titans: Born from Battlefield Lessons

Both the A-10 and Su-25 emerged from hard-earned military lessons. The A-10, also known as the “Warthog,” was born in 1972 as a response to the shortcomings revealed during the Vietnam War. U.S. aircraft like the F-4 Phantom and A-1 Skyraider struggled in ground attack roles. The Air Force needed something tough, low-flying, and lethal – and the A-10 delivered.

Meanwhile, the Soviet Union began producing the Su-25 in 1978 after learning similar lessons from its conflicts, particularly the war in Afghanistan. Earlier aircraft like the Su-17 and MiG-23BN proved far too vulnerable to ground fire. The answer was a rugged, twin-engine jet built for survivability and close support – enter the Frogfoot.

Battle-Ready by Design: Armor, Engines, and Survival

Design choices reflect each aircraft’s core philosophy. The A-10 was engineered around its signature 30mm GAU-8/A Avenger cannon. Its engines are uniquely mounted above the fuselage, partly shielded from ground fire by the tailplane. Titanium armor, nicknamed the “bathtub”, surrounds the pilot, offering excellent protection.

The Su-25 follows a different route. Though smaller and lighter than the A-10 (at 19.3 tons vs. 22.7 tons), it carries 1.2 tons of titanium armor with cockpit protection that is arguably superior in some areas. Its engines are more conventionally mounted but heavily shielded inside the fuselage, with an added layer of titanium plating. In terms of engineering, the A-10 emphasizes brute force and durability, while the Su-25 leans on agility and structural compartmentalization.

Speed vs. Stamina: A Tradeoff in Performance

When it comes to flight performance, the Su-25 edges out the A-10 in raw speed – 590 mph versus the A-10’s 437 mph. The Frogfoot also requires less than half the runway length to take off, just 656 yards compared to 1,312 for the Warthog, and it can operate from unpaved runways or even aircraft carriers.

But the A-10 shines in range, boasting 640 miles of operational flight compared to the Su-25’s 307.5 miles. That extra range is no small detail in extended missions, especially over large operational theaters like Iraq or Afghanistan. The A-10 also carries more fuel and can loiter longer, critical when providing persistent air support.

Payload Capacity: Warthog Wins Big

One of the most defining differences lies in payload capacity. The A-10 can haul nearly 8 tons of weaponry, nearly double the Su-25’s 4.4-ton payload. The A-10’s 11 hardpoints can be loaded with everything from cluster bombs to AGM-65 Maverick missiles and AIM-9 Sidewinders for air defense.

Though the Su-25 also has 11 hardpoints and similar weapons options, including guided missiles like the Kh-25 and Kh-29, it simply doesn’t carry as much. This limits the duration and diversity of the Frogfoot’s attacks per sortie. If we’re talking raw firepower and mission flexibility, the A-10 clearly takes the crown.

Cannons That Roar: GAU-8 vs. GSh-30-2

Of course, you can’t talk about these aircraft without talking about their cannons. The A-10’s 30mm GAU-8 is infamous, it’s the largest rotary cannon ever fitted to an aircraft. It fires up to 4,000 rounds per minute and uses depleted uranium armor-piercing shells that can shred tanks in seconds.

The Su-25 counters with its GSh-30-2 twin-barrel 30mm cannon. While lighter and with a slightly lower rate of fire (3,000 rpm), it is still a deadly weapon. It lacks the same tank-busting reputation, but in combat against infantry and soft targets, it’s more than sufficient. However, in this department, the A-10’s iconic “BRRRRT” is hard to beat.

Survivability and Combat Record

Both aircraft have proven themselves in war. The A-10 has suffered remarkably few losses, despite extensive combat deployments. No A-10s were reportedly lost to enemy fire during 18 years in Afghanistan or during operations against ISIS in Syria.

The Su-25 has also seen heavy use, including in Ukraine, Chechnya, Syria, and Afghanistan. It has been shot down more frequently – 22 losses reported during the Soviet-Afghan War alone, but that may reflect its exposure in riskier theaters with higher anti-aircraft threat levels.

What’s notable here is that while both are built for punishment, the A-10 seems to survive damage better in practice. Its redundant systems and tough airframe are legendary – pilots have returned to base with one engine, no hydraulics, and massive damage.

Real-World Use and Evolution

The A-10 has never had a true replacement in the U.S. arsenal, despite numerous attempts. Its low cost, durability, and unmatched effectiveness against tanks and infantry have kept it in service far longer than expected. Recent upgrades to avionics and targeting systems have ensured its relevance even as newer jets enter the fleet.

The Su-25, too, has evolved. The modern Su-25SM version includes better avionics, laser-guided weapons, and improved survivability features. However, it remains a more traditional strike aircraft with fewer digital upgrades compared to Western platforms.

A Matter of Doctrine and Priorities

Here’s where national military doctrines play a big role. The A-10 was designed for NATO’s Cold War strategy of halting Soviet armor in Europe. Its design emphasizes prolonged engagement and resilience. The Su-25, on the other hand, was created for faster, more direct attack missions over shorter ranges.

The Frogfoot was never meant to loiter as long or fly as far. Instead, its mission set relies on speed, quick strikes, and simpler logistics. The design reflects the Soviet preference for quantity and ruggedness over cutting-edge tech.

The Ukraine Conflict: A Modern Test

The current war in Ukraine has brought the Su-25 into global view again. Ukrainian forces have used it extensively in ground-attack roles, often flying at extremely low altitudes to avoid detection. This makes them vulnerable to modern MANPADS (man-portable air defense systems), and several have been lost as a result.

While we don’t want to speculate too deeply, it’s reasonable to wonder how an A-10 might fare in that environment. Its survivability features, longer loiter time, and superior stand-off weaponry could arguably offer better protection for pilots and ground troops alike.

Final Verdict: It Depends on the Mission

So which is better? That question is best left open-ended. The A-10 is unmatched in raw firepower, protection, and range. The Su-25 excels in maneuverability, speed, and adaptability from rugged conditions. Both are flying tanks in their own right, but their effectiveness ultimately depends on the terrain, the enemy, and the mission.

From our perspective, if you’re facing a mechanized enemy in wide-open battlefields like those in Iraq or Central Europe, the A-10 is your warplane. If you’re operating in tight, rugged conditions where speed and quick strikes are paramount, the Su-25 shines.

A Legacy of Thunder and Steel

Whether it’s the Warthog’s terrifying cannon or the Frogfoot’s agile ferocity, these two aircraft symbolize the enduring need for close air support in modern warfare. It is clear that both jets deserve their place in the pantheon of military aviation. Each has carved out a legacy – of power, of perseverance, and of never leaving ground troops behind.

In the end, perhaps it’s not about which aircraft is better, but which one answers the call when soldiers on the ground are in desperate need of fire from the sky.

Would you rather hear the “BRRRRT” of the A-10 or see the shadow of a Frogfoot swooping overhead? That’s a question only the battlefield can answer.