SU-25

I don't know about the A-10's current avionics package, but for most of its history the Su-25 was actually objectively better than the A-10. From the start, it had objectively better avionics (pulled the system off of the Su-17), and Russian upgrades over the years seem to have consistently improved its standoff abilities.

Obviously, it's still verging on obsolescence, but the newest Russian upgrade package is making it look far more viable in a modern environment than the A-10.

>Redpill me on this sexy beast of a jet
It's used to kill Allahu Akbar sandniggers as we speak.

Makes sense, why would the USAF bother spending anything on something it hates and wants to get rid of? Making it better will only increase its operational life

Attached: DZcYALiX4AA_YWH.jpg (1200x811, 151K)

>its basically a one use salvo
Well, no. Just because it wasn't built around a gun doesn't mean it's there solely for one salvo. The overblown role of the gun in A-10 skews your perception of how few bullets realistically need to be fired to fuck up an APC or an IFV.

The latest upgrade looks formidable as fuck.

Attached: su-25sm (4).jpg (1500x1013, 1.07M)

IIRC the big thing about the post-2000 Frogfoots is that they pretty much took the systems and missiles designed for the Ka-50 and slapped it on the Su-25.

But bigger gun is better. More BRRRRRRRRRRRT.

It's closer to an A-6 IMO.

True, and the GSh-30-2 is a very effective gun for it, not as effective as the Gau-8 but on the other hand it is a much smaller and lighter unit too.
One could also argue that the weight is better spent for carrying external stores then 30mm ammo, the A-10s rarely fly with max ammo load for the cannon either.

Still 250 rounds at 2000+ RPM is going to go quickly.
Then there is also the fact that at at any practical ranges for use against ground targets you are going to have a area of effect rather than firing a 5-10 round burst then reassess target like with helicopter carried weapons for example.

I would put the A-6 as more of a tactical bomber then a ground support aircraft, even if it can of course perform in that role if needed.

My personal opinion?
It is made for combat.
Rugged can take a beating and come back home.
Can take off from pretty much anywhere.
Will run on pretty much anything (it can fly on diesel fuel)
Has good weapon load.
Can perform other duties too.
Overall a solid all around plane. It just needs air cover against gen4-5 fighters.

Attached: FB_IMG_1469515517320.jpg (480x325, 13K)

and manpads or any other sort of semi decent air defense system.

Also i got some literature on it. Could take some photos and post them along with a general translation.

Its a piece of trash that had 62% loss rates in Afghanistan and can't carry much, isn't nearly as survivable as the A10, poor range/loiter ability, poor gun.

Well it can mount AA to defend itself. For a CAS mission with threat of enemy aircraft they can mount 2-4 Igla launchers or bigger long range missiles at reduced ground pound effectiveness. Most common loadout is 8x 57mm rocket pods (that is a lot of rackets).

You do know the planes tested in Afghanistan were literary prototypes pushed into combat. They proved so popular with the troops they overstayed their suposed testing time. Also they made upgrades according to the data they got. (Mainly engine protection).

how can sand niggers down a jet when they only got stingers at the end of the war?

where did you get that statistic?

It looks the same to me.

These things got pwned in Afghanistan. But I like the design and history of them.

A modern Il-2, only more reliable and actually made to last longer then 10 hours.

>Well it can mount AA to defend itself.
Except it wont even know there is a enemy fighter in the area until a BVR missile goes active after it in most cases.

because they don't have a good substitute and the one they intended to replace the warthog doesn't do that good of a job

assuming its radar guided.

>BLLLLLLLLLLLLLYYYYYYYYYAAAATT

fix'd