The A-10 Warthog we're getting rid of? That A-10 Warthog?
The Russian Stormovik was known to be extremely tough and difficult to shoot down.
Maybe we took the idea for the Warthog from it.
I dont know. I am no expert but it does not look as rugged ascthe a 10.
First the engine inlets are on the bottom and could get junk in them on remote run ways.
Second the wings dont look as large. Seems to me it would need a faster speed to remain stable in flight. Also less wing damage on smaller wings has a bigger impact on that slower speed by reducing wing lift.
Third the a 10’s front gun is bad ass. And it seems to point down some what. Which means a lower attack angle. This translates to less notice to the enemy that there is incoming air support.
But I am not any kind of air power expert.
“The Russian Su-25 Frogfoot is a low-flying tank-like plane”
Duhhh, where’s the turret?
Like some other posters mentioned: In ground attack, a gun is usually the easiest way to take out a target (not including big items like bridges or tough bunkers), and this is still true even in the era of guided bombs being universal on U.S. aircraft, and probably somewhat common with Russian planes. The A-10’s cannon has about 2-3X the rate of fire, 44% more muzzle energy, and holds about 5X the ammo. The A-10s straight wing is also easier to fly and more efficient at the lower speeds of ground attack. So the SU-25 and other swept-wing jets can do the job, it’s just harder to pick out objects in the ground when you are flying faster and can’t simply point your nose at the target and hose it down with the world’s largest Gatling gun. So the A-10 is more efficient at the job.
Gee, the SU-25 looks very much like the Northrup A-9, the aircraft that lost out to the A-10:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Northrop_A-9A_at_touchdown.jpg
