Yep, thats what u end up with, when u start of with a ******* design that consist of Navy, Marines and USAF requirements. Poor F-35 indeed.

It’s the aircraft the American military wants – I don’t suppose they are complaining?

We are not comparing assigned role, but available capability. Su-25 is capable of SEAD. IF needed, and no other aircraft is available, Su-25 can do it. And by definition of SEAD, it can not only survive, but also take out Tor/Tunguska or similar systems from distance.

For example both Su-25 and A-10 are capable of carrying A/G munitions on outermost pylons. Should I ignore this capability as well, simply because it isnt used in real life?

Yes, I agree. Any strike aircraft can carry out a so-called SEAD or DEAD mission using whatever munitions they have at their disposal. In operation Desert Storm in 1991 the air war was begun with SEAD missions against the Iraqi radar network – performed not by the USAF, USN or RAF – but by the US army with their AH-64s.

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.

Well then we don’t disagree. But if a stand-off launch range is ‘KEY’ to an attacking aircraft’s survival it would make such slow and heavily armoured types like A-10 and Su-25 fairly irrelevant – no wonder the USAF have been trying to get rid of the A-10 for years.

A-10/Su-25, are CAS aircraft, they are expected to operate right within range of enemy SHORADS.

Wrong. These aircraft would not survive most modern air defence systems like you mentioned (Tor-M, Tunguska), not a chance.

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.

Why have you got this fixation on the idea of the Su-25 carrying out SEAD? I don’t think this is the assigned role of the Su-25 in RuAF service and they are unlikely to be equiped for the task. Su-24 and Su-34 are Russian SEAD attackers.

IMO the A-10 is far superior do to design, the armor tub for the pilot, redundant systems and control surfaces. Also the way the wing protects the inlet of the engines.

I think you will find that the Su-25 has all of those as well – well except, perhaps, the the “magic all-protecting wing” bit.

Thanks Deino.

I know it is comprehensively different (glass cockpit, composites, new engines… etc) but it really is amazing testimony to the soundness of Tupolevs basic design, which also first flew in the same month as the first B-52 prototype, all the way back in 1952.

This must be some type of record for a military aircraft, surely.

The C-130 (1954)?

I love Russia. And a Su-25SM no less!

For a moment, I thought it was the Eastern Ukrainian separatists’ “Novo Rossiya” latest edition to their air force – fresh from a museum….

You guys actually think Russia could/should buy KC-390?

Pass the pipe, you got some good stuff in there.

Why not? They bought Mistral ships from the French, and a lot of other equipment too. Why go through the whole trouble and expense of developing a new type when they produce an off-the-shelf type from abroad for the price of a licence fee?