Which is tougher A10 or Su-25 (genuine question)?

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 8,850

TBH I have never seen/heard Su-25 on wild weasel role.
Peruvian Su-25UBK in SEAD role carrying Kh-58U missiles
[ATTACH=CONFIG]235580[/ATTACH]
Attachments

Member for

10 years 11 months

Posts: 2,040

i admit, i came into this thread thinking it would be the a-10 because i was long under the impression the su25 was more influenced by the alphajet rather than a-9.
but the new info here makes me unsure.

in the ukraine conflict at least, 7 su-25s were shot at, 2 survived and made it back.
I would consider it more useful as the rebels are better equipped with more modern russian manpads than the georgians.

Member for

18 years 2 months

Posts: 2,814


However as the topic is survivability; I believe Su-25 has one clear advantage over A-10 in terms of payload: RWR equipped Su-25s can carry Kh-25MP but A-10 doesn't have its own anti-radar missiles. On paper, a SPS-141 and Kh-25MP equipped Su-25 can fight againist KUB SAMs that shot them down. A-10 has no real means to do so without getting support from other aircraft.

That's a strange way of looking at the survivability of an aircraft - I don't think Tu-160s or B-2s carry anti-radar missiles either, nor do most Su-27s or MiG-31.

Member for

12 years 1 month

Posts: 621

@ yama

Kh-25 & 29 are in the same range

Sure, but how much they were/are used? Even in Russian service it doesn't seem like Su-25 carries them all that often (something like 100+ expended during Afghanistan war IIRC). Also, Maverick is fire & forget, Kh-25 was not, or at least the Cold war era variants were not.

i admit, i came into this thread thinking it would be the a-10 because i was long under the impression the su25 was more influenced by the alphajet rather than a-9.
but the new info here makes me unsure.

Neither Alpha Jet or YA-9 influenced Su-25 one bit - the configuration is simply very orthodox and convenient and replicated many many times.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 805

Neither Alpha Jet or YA-9 influenced Su-25 one bit - the configuration is simply very orthodox and convenient and replicated many many times.

Su-25 might have been influenced by the Il-40, which led to the Frogfoot's failed competitor the Il-102.[ATTACH=CONFIG]235598[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]235599[/ATTACH]

Attachments

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 805

I know these types of jets don't have fuel in the wings for safety, but what about using wingtip tanks? Should be far enough from everything and not pose a fire hazard.

Member for

11 years 6 months

Posts: 932

That's a strange way of looking at the survivability of an aircraft - I don't think Tu-160s or B-2s carry anti-radar missiles either, nor do most Su-27s or MiG-31.

If you look at it this way any payload has nothing to do with survivability.. However the post was strictly about payloads, and some others "considered" PGMs are an advantage of A-10 in (terms of survivability), so that it would be further away from the SAM threat and not get shot down. I agree to that perspective; I believe munitions that can deal with the enemy better, quicker, or further away from the enemy is a KEY part of survivability.

A-10/Su-25, are CAS aircraft, they are expected to operate right within range of enemy SHORADS. For a pre-planned attack againist a tank brigade that is protected by numerous Tor-Ms, Tunguskas etc, sole ability of carrying Kh-25MP, Kh-58U and Kh-31P (on newer variants), improves survival chance more than anything; armor, PGMs, maneuverability, DAS etc. In fact a pair of anti-radiation missiles can improve survival chance from close-to-zero to very-high.

Judging past examples, I can confidently say Georgian BUK/KUB had little means of shooting down an Su-25, should the presence of those SAMs were foreseen and/or discovered, well-prepared Su-25s could also have done a SEAD while going into Georgia. (Perhaps they did, and only the ones they missed caused problems. We'll never know for sure) Thinking about Iraq, I can't say the same for A-10; it had little means of fighting back the SAMs that shot them down. How is this irrelevant to survivability? I find it strange that you find this idea strange.

Your Tu-160/B-2 Su-27 MiG-31 example is nonsense to say the least. a) none of these aircraft is expected to operate under constant threat of getting shot by variety of SAMs, b) their mission has no direct relation to SAMs. If you are expecting Russians would oparate Tu-160 within eye-sight of enemy SAMs, that is a strange idea too.

Member for

18 years 7 months

Posts: 1,344

[ATTACH=CONFIG]235601[/ATTACH]

translation
translation

the potential impact
sweep wing, min.
wing extension
detection range
firing range air - ground
thrust-weight ratio
thrust vector
cruising speed
maximum speed
the number of suspensions
RCS
overload
combat load, max.
distance flight
superiority over the Su-24

defensive capabilities
sweep wing, min.
wing extension
wing loading, normal
relative weight "means to enhance survivability"
thrust-weight ratio
thrust vector
overload
RCS
maximum speed
firing range air - ground
superiority over the Su-24

efficiency / cost

generation

Attachments

Member for

15 years 2 months

Posts: 2,619

The fact that one missile does not bring down an armed twin engine fighter is not a new phenomena.

Battle hardened settlers were faced with same dilemma in the 18th century.

A-10 seems to have 1/3 RCS of SU-25.

Attachments

Member for

11 years 6 months

Posts: 932

Su-25 doesn't use a gattling gun, Gsh-30-2 is a gast gun. GAU-8 weigh ~3 times as much as GSh-30-2, and A-10 carries ammunition for ~3 times long firing time. Simply put, A-10 is built around GAU-8, Su-25's design doesn't prioritize a gun and have it in the lightest way possible.

I don't think anyone can know anything about RCS of Su-25 or A-10, but I don't think A-10's RCS will be smaller, when it has two huge fans faces in the open and a much more complicated shaping, and a larger airframe.

Member for

15 years 2 months

Posts: 2,619

Su-25 doesn't use a gattling gun, Gsh-30-2 is a gast gun. GAU-8 weigh ~3 times as much as GSh-30-2, and A-10 carries ammunition for ~3 times long firing time. Simply put, A-10 is built around GAU-8, Su-25's design doesn't prioritize a gun and have it in the lightest way possible.

I don't think anyone can know anything about RCS of Su-25 or A-10, but I don't think A-10's RCS will be smaller, when it has two huge fans faces in the open and a much more complicated shaping, and a larger airframe.

It is still 3000 rpm gun; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gryazev-Shipunov_GSh-30-2

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 2,271

I know these types of jets don't have fuel in the wings for safety, but what about using wingtip tanks? Should be far enough from everything and not pose a fire hazard.

Not quite true for the A-10, it carries fuel in the inner area of the wings, about up to where the landing gear is located.

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 8,850

Su-25 doesn't use a gattling gun, Gsh-30-2 is a gast gun. GAU-8 weigh ~3 times as much as GSh-30-2, and A-10 carries ammunition for ~3 times long firing time. Simply put, A-10 is built around GAU-8, Su-25's design doesn't prioritize a gun and have it in the lightest way possible.

I don't think anyone can know anything about RCS of Su-25 or A-10, but I don't think A-10's RCS will be smaller, when it has two huge fans faces in the open and a much more complicated shaping, and a larger airframe.


I personally have never understood the fuss about the GAU-8/A. People get carried away by its enormous proportions completely forgeting that sheer size and weight are negative parameters, not positive. IMO, this cannon is way too heavy, too complex and too maintenance intensive for what it delivers.

Contrary to popular beliefs, the GAU-8/A is not necessarily more powerful than GSh-2-30. While its final firing rate is higher (4,200 rpm compared to 3,000 rpm), the spool up time of 0.55s effectively reduces this figure, especially with short bursts. In the first second of firing, both cannons are able to deliver almost exactly fifty 30mm rounds. GAU-8/A also suffers from inferior circular accuracy, typical for Gatling type guns. This results in reduced kill probability which needs to be compensated by higher number of shots fired to achieve the same result.

Another issue is the sheer number of used parts where the monstrous GAU-8/A requires two separate hydromotors and rather complex gearing mechanism while the GSh is internal gas operated - sort of twin-barrel Kalashnikov. The GAU-8/A also has its virtues, though, the sheer number of barrels (seven) resuls in greatly reduced barrel wear (esp. thermal stress), The barrels on the GSh need to be renewed more often.

All in all, both guns are capable to deliver roughly the same kinetic performance. The GSh-2-30 weighs 105 kg.. the GAU-8/A without ammo drum, feeding mechanism and two hydromotors makes it up to 280 kg. On top of that, the GSh requires roughly half the number of rounds for the same Pk which makes it a much more versatile system.

Member for

11 years 6 months

Posts: 932

I personally have never understood the fuss about the GAU-8/A. People get carried away by its enormous proportions completely forgeting that sheer size and weight are negative parameters, not positive. IMO, this cannon is way too heavy, too complex and too maintenance intensive for what it delivers.

I agree 100% on this and rest of your comment, however I still think gun's firepower was not a high priority on Su-25 as it was on A-10. I mean, GSh-6-30 was readily available back then; Now one may argue there is not much difference between GAU-8/A and GSh-30-2, due to former's spool up time and low rate of fire, but GSh-6-30 is another monster. Gas operated so it could spin up very fast, 6000rpm would double the rate of fire, sustain it 3 times as well (barrel count). Plus it was similar in length to GSh-30-2, and only 40 kg heavier. It could fit easily, and extending the airframe by just 24cm would make room for 1000+ 30x165 rounds.

IIRC, Sukhoi considered GSh-6-30 on Su-25 and appearantly didn't like it then GSh-30-2 was designed for Su-25 (and Mi-24P). In fact, this reminds me one important advantage of GSh-30-2, over GSh-6-30 or GAU-8; it was built primarily for reliability and ruggedness, esspecially in dusty environments, so its possibly more reliable than most aircraft guns out there. Its actually quite heavy when compared to other GSh guns: GSh-301 = 45 kg, 1800rpm; GSh-6-30 = 145kg, 6000rpm; GSh-30-2 = 105kg, 3000rpm; all firing the same 30x165mm cartridge at similar muzzle velocity.

All in all, both guns are capable to deliver roughly the same kinetic performance.

On this I have to disagree. While 30x165 projectiles hare slightly heavier than 30x173 (AP rounds: 400g vs 395g, HE-I rounds: 389g vs 378g) GAU-8/A has 13% higher muzzle velocity, equals to 29% higher muzzle energy. This should translate to better armor penetration and better accuracy at longer range. For Russian equivalent, kinetic performance of GAU-8 is more similar to 2A42 gun. Also GAU-8 can fire for several seconds without even worrying about barrel overheating. Those are some clear advantages of GAU-8/A on paper. How important are these in real life? Possibly irrelevant, as aircraft will be moving fast towards its target, zone that GAU-8 can kill the target but a GSh-30-2 can't is really tiny.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 805

Most A-10 kills are not made with the gun anyways. The aircraft was built around the gun which in the 1970s was envisioned as its main weapon. The versatility of the Su-25 is unmatched. It has twin-seat and carrier variants, it's supersonic flying clean and still slow enough to find camouflaged targets. After Stingers were introduced in Afghanistan the majority of missions ended up being preplanned strike packages without having to loiter around. It's a platform that can do it all. Give it turbofans, IFR and a fleet of tankers and it would be hard to beat.

Member for

12 years 1 month

Posts: 621

I personally have never understood the fuss about the GAU-8/A. People get carried away by its enormous proportions completely forgeting that sheer size and weight are negative parameters, not positive. IMO, this cannon is way too heavy, too complex and too maintenance intensive for what it delivers.

I couldn't agree more. A-10 has many design features which are very smart and show that lots of thought went into designing the plane for the role - however, the gun which everyone always keeps gushing about is actually one of the weak points of the entire system. Maybe, maybe if the plane had been doing only anti-tank mission it might have been worth the weight & bulk, but in actual use, nope.

A-10 would have been a better plane if it had just the Su-25's Gast gun, or European-style twin 30mm revolver guns.

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 8,850

I agree 100% on this and rest of your comment, however I still think gun's firepower was not a high priority on Su-25 as it was on A-10.
../..
Possibly irrelevant, as aircraft will be moving fast towards its target, zone that GAU-8 can kill the target but a GSh-30-2 can't is really tiny.

Thanks for the corrections. Just one important add-on - with Su-25SM upgrade, the GSh-2-30 cannon has been updated with modes with reduced rate of fire: 750, 375 and 188 rpm. The amount of ammo carried has been retained (250 rounds). I think now they are happy that the GSh-6-30 was never installed. This monster would have depleted the available ammo stock in less than three seconds.

Member for

10 years 11 months

Posts: 2,040

on a related note
can Georgia still produce Su-25s?

Member for

10 years 11 months

Posts: 2,040

on a related note
can Georgia still produce Su-25s?