Su-25 Frogfoot Vs. A-10 Warthog

Petey · Post by **Petey** » 2007-08-25 00:54

I'm having an argument with my friend over which bomber is stronger, the Frogfoot or the Warthog. To me, I think its the Frogfoot because of all of those rockets it comes with, but idk. Which one was designed to be better???
And what are the advantages and disadvantages for each one???

Thanks

TexLax · Post by **TexLax** » 2007-08-25 01:34

Petey wrote:I'm having an argument with my friend over which bomber is stronger, the Frogfoot or the Warthog. To me, I think its the Frogfoot because of all of those rockets it comes with, but idk. Which one was designed to be better???
And what are the advantages and disadvantages for each one???

Thanks

afaik, the A-10 has a rather large cannon, and has several load outs (rockets, clusterbombs, etc.) it can fly with missing pieces of the wings. and the A-10 looks better imo.

(your talking about real life right?)

3===SPECTER===3 · Post by **3===SPECTER===3** » 2007-08-25 01:38

in game, the A-10 IMO is better.... buts its just sexy

Ironcomatose · Post by **Ironcomatose** » 2007-08-25 01:53

I dont know much about the frogfoot but the A-10 can hold up to like 20,000 pounds of weapons. This includes anti tank missiles, dumb bombs, rockets, cluster bombs, laser guided bombs, incendiary bombs, anti air missiles, and last but not least its 30mm GAU-8/A Avenger gatling gun with 1,350 rounds. THATS A rather large GUN!! That gun can kill any tank known today with a 3 or 4 second burst!!

So with that in mind i would also like to say that i have had sex with an A-10 and its good....

You decide.

EDIT: oh and in game i say they are the same but just based on looks and the fact that the A-10 is American I'd pick the A-10.

El_Vikingo · Post by **El_Vikingo** » 2007-08-25 02:07

ironcomatose wrote: So with that in mind i would also like to say that i have had sex with an A-10 and its good.... You decide.

Well I hope you used protection, cause those bullets are big!

Leo · Post by **Leo** » 2007-08-25 02:11

In RL, the A-10 beats the Su-25, the Su-29 is a closer match.

TexLax · Post by **TexLax** » 2007-08-25 02:18

El_Vikingo wrote:Well I hope you used protection, cause those bullets are big!

lol

Post by **Outlawz7** » 2007-08-25 02:49

btw, people, the F word is a warning now..enjoy your R-MOD PMs

Tweaky · Post by **Tweaky** » 2007-08-25 02:55

Leo wrote:In RL, the A-10 beats the Su-25, the Su-29 is a closer match.

I'd agree to this.

The A-10 in reallife has all the hitech weapon systems really. The Frogfoot doesn't even have a HUD... and still old-school navigation equipment

. (PR makes an exception with a hud, unfortuneately)

As for in PR. The A-10 is far better than the Frogfoot in many areas. They both have the same amount of bombs (2), guided missiles (4), and AA missiles (2), so no differences there.

But the amount of rockets versus cannon bullets is a big difference. The Frogfoot as 128 rockets which are GREAT for infantry because of the huge splash damage they have, however since they are left-right unloading, they are not 100% accurate in your crosshairs. When trying to kill armor, you usually have to unload a lot of rockets to get a kill, and your gun ammo which is limited can only help so much. Thus you run out of rockets and gun ammo quickly, and usually have to make a 2nd pass on your target (NOT GOOD).

As for the A-10, the 15 some-odd rockets is just there for the last remaining kills if you need to finish off a smoking tank or something (or get some infantry). The A-10 cannon is far superior than the rockets when killing armor, no question about that. You can do one full dive/pass on a heavy armor tank and kill it with your cannon, easily. And with 1500 rounds, you can stay up quite long using the gun after you've run out of all the other heavy rounds. A-10 can stay up much longer in my opinion, and has a much better role at killing armor (heh, what its made to do!). I love the A-10, and the SU25 is fun too if I so happen to be on MEC side. But I'd take the A-10 over the SU25 any day.

I've stayed in the air longer using only the gun left as ammo, and it is a life saver (for me and other teammates). Especially when your teammates tell you migs are in the air and they need to shoot them down before you can safely land on the runway --- Meanwhile you can continue to give support with just your cannon and help the team.

swiftdraw · Post by **swiftdraw** » 2007-08-25 02:59

It's the SU-39, not 29. 29 is a piston powered aerobatics planes

Personally, I'd give the -39 the edge in RL as it has the ability to go super-sonic, very comparable turn radius, and about as tough as the A-10. The ability to hit and outrun the Warthog gives it the advantage imo.

In game, nothing touches the GAU-8 Avenger!

Flanker15 · Post by **Flanker15** » 2007-08-25 04:06

The Su-25 can out run (by quite alot) and maneuver the A-10 in RL and it's cannon is only slightly less impressive (it has a slightly lower ROF). The A-10 can user more advanced weapons such as optical guided missiles though (the SU-25 has a laser guidence system but lacks optical). However the A-10 and SU-25 fill different roles in real life, the SU-25 is excellent at engaging ground targets with rocket salvos and bombs while the A-10 is better at precision hits against armored units. The SU-25T (39) is less maneuverable (but still much faster than the A-10) but has much more advanced avionics and weapons such as optical guided bombs and missiles.
It is designed as a precision anti-tank plane much like the A-10. Since speed is crucial to CAS survivability both SU-25 models are better than the A-10 with their turbo-jet engines.

TexLax · Post by **TexLax** » 2007-08-25 07:47

Flanker15 wrote:The Su-25 can out run (by quite alot) and maneuver the A-10 in RL and it's cannon is only slightly less impressive (it has a slightly lower ROF). The A-10 can user more advanced weapons such as optical guided missiles though (the SU-25 has a laser guidence system but lacks optical). However the A-10 and SU-25 fill different roles in real life, the SU-25 is excellent at engaging ground targets with rocket salvos and bombs while the A-10 is better at precision hits against armored units. The SU-25T (39) is less maneuverable (but still much faster than the A-10) but has much more advanced avionics and weapons such as optical guided bombs and missiles.
It is designed as a precision anti-tank plane much like the A-10. Since speed is crucial to CAS survivability both SU-25 models are better than the A-10 with their turbo-jet engines.

lets try and see the su-25 fly without wings...

Hardtman · Post by **Hardtman** » 2007-08-25 07:50

Flanker15 wrote:The Su-25 can out run (by quite alot) and maneuver the A-10 in RL and it's cannon is only slightly less impressive (it has a slightly lower ROF).

Well, I think it is not the higher ROF that make the GAU-8 more impressive than the Frogfots gun, it's the 7 mm more calibre-wise. Besides, the GAU-8 has a muzzle length of around 3 metres (?),resulting in a muzzle velocity between 900 and 1500 m/s, depending on which kind of ammunitionis used. So I'd say that the GAU-8 is a league for itself.

chudley · Post by **chudley** » 2007-08-25 09:16

I am not a plane expert but do know that trhe Frogfoot cannot out maneuvre an A10, they have cross section wings and can turn very quickly to get back onto tankbusting. The Frogfoot may be a lot faster in the air.

As for the SU39? eh it is indeed SU29 it isnt really designed for killing tanks but is a multi role aircraft and a few years ago it was the most up to date aircraft to be produced in russia. It was the one that practically hovered before crashing at Farnborough

ops:

What you have to remember is that the frogfoot and A10 are not fighter aircraft but ground attack aircraft so have very little defence against other aircraft.

As I said at the start no expert so feel free to correct the bits that are wrong

Last bit , hasn't the A10 got a titanium cockpit as well?

Ironcomatose · Post by **Ironcomatose** » 2007-08-25 09:42

chudley wrote:I am not a plane expert but do know that trhe Frogfoot cannot out maneuvre an A10, they have cross section wings and can turn very quickly to get back onto tankbusting. The Frogfoot may be a lot faster in the air.

As for the SU39? eh it is indeed SU29 it isnt really designed for killing tanks but is a multi role aircraft and a few years ago it was the most up to date aircraft to be produced in russia. It was the one that practically hovered before crashing at Farnborough ops:

What you have to remember is that the frogfoot and A10 are not fighter aircraft but ground attack aircraft so have very little defence against other aircraft.

As I said at the start no expert so feel free to correct the bits that are wrong

Last bit , hasn't the A10 got a titanium cockpit as well?

Yea the entire cockpit is made of titanium to protect the pilot. Also the engines were deliberately placed behind and above the wings to make them more safe from ground fire. The same reason is why the A-10 has two engines that operate independently from each other.

Tweaky · Post by **Tweaky** » 2007-08-25 09:48

It is NOT an SU39 or SU29.

If you want a comparison, look at these pictures. It is an SU25, clearly.

SU25
SU29
SU39 (though it has similarities, it is an entirely different plane (newer), and different design)

The supersonic jet you are thinking of is the SU24 Fencer (similar to the Mig 31 Foxhound). The Su25 (that is in PR) is NOT a supersonic jet.

I don't know where some of you are getting ideas that the Frogfoot 'isnt' an SU-25.... lol.

Chudley, I think you are mistaken with the MIG29, which is not the plane in discussion here. This thread is about 2 bombers (the A-10, and SU-25). The MIG29 is in PR, but it is used as a fighter role... in PR.

nidpants · Post by **nidpants** » 2007-08-25 11:40

In PR, the A-10 is far superior. Those 30mm bullets can tear up tanks much easier than the rockets. The Frogfoot's biggest advantage IMO is that its guided missiles are VERY easy to accurately fire without guidance

IRL? The SU-25 project isn't nearly as advanced as the A-10, nor is it produced nearly in the same quantity, so I doubt the Russians are going to be rushing (get it?! lolol) to export their most advanced CAS gunship to the Middle East for a while.

Everlastin · Post by **Everlastin** » 2007-08-25 14:25

Hey guys how r ya!

anyways about the A-10's Gun, Well heres a video on the A-10. A Gun test.
Thought maybe some of u guys might wanna see This thing purrrr lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRMOubordzI

TexLax · Post by **TexLax** » 2007-08-25 16:38

nidpants wrote:In PR, the A-10 is far superior. Those 30mm bullets can tear up tanks much easier than the rockets. The Frogfoot's biggest advantage IMO is that its guided missiles are VERY easy to accurately fire without guidance IRL? The SU-25 project isn't nearly as advanced as the A-10, nor is it produced nearly in the same quantity, so I doubt the Russians are going to be rushing (get it?! lolol) to export their most advanced CAS gunship to the Middle East for a while.

A-10's aren't manufatured anymore, haven't been for a long time.

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2007-08-25 20:02

Hardtman wrote:Well, I think it is not the higher ROF that make the GAU-8 more impressive than the Frogfots gun, it's the 7 mm more calibre-wise. Besides, the GAU-8 has a muzzle length of around 3 metres (?),resulting in a muzzle velocity between 900 and 1500 m/s, depending on which kind of ammunitionis used. So I'd say that the GAU-8 is a league for itself.

The Frogfoot has a 30mm cannon, too, Hardtman; two of them, since the GSH-30-2 is a twin barreled weapon. They fire the same ammunition as the 2A42 cannon on the BMP-2/BTR-90 and 2A38M cannons on the 2S6M Tunguska, 30 x 165mm. For comparative purposes, the GAU-8 Avenger's cartridges are 30 x 173mm; the Bushmaster II on the Marines' EFV uses this ammunition as well.

The advantage to the GAU-8 Avenger is the high rate of fire, and the fact that the magazine for the weapon holds a thousand more rounds than the magazine on the Su-25 family if aircraft.