Summary: The Su-25 "Frogfoot," Russia's counterpart to the US A-10 Warthog, has faced mixed results in combat over its decades-long service. Designed for close air support, the Su-25 has struggled against advanced air defenses, notably in Afghanistan and recently in Ukraine, where significant losses have reduced its fleet.

-Despite its intended role, operational limitations have relegated the Su-25 to act more like long-range artillery rather than engaging in its primary close air support function.

-While Russia continues to invest in the Su-25, its effectiveness in modern combat scenarios remains questioned, contrasting with the more successful operational history of the A-10.

Su-25 vs. A-10: Assessing Russia's 'Frogfoot' in the Shadows of the US 'Warthog

The Su-25 “Frogfoot” was the Soviet Union’s answer to the United States Air Force’s A-10 Warthog. Both have been described by their proponents as heavily armored, slow-moving, “flying tanks.”

These warbirds were designed to loiter over a battlefield for protracted period of time and unleash hell from above upon entrenched enemy ground forces. While the overall service record of Russia’s A-10 has been acceptable, there are some clear cases where it has failed to live up to the decades-long, stellar performance of its American rival.

The Frogfoot has seen combat in multiple wars over the last 40 years. 

Notably, the Su-25 first saw action supporting Soviet Red Army units fighting in the Soviet-Afghan War that raged throughout the 1980s. It protected Soviet troops. Yet, it failed where, under similar conditions decades later, the A-10 Warthog would succeed. That’s because the Su-25, while it is a “flying tank” akin to the A-10, is not as potent or protected as the A-10 is from enemy counterattack.

Su-25 Weapons Package

The Su-25 Frogfoot carries a variety of weapons. It can fire air-to-air missiles and air-to-ground missiles. According to Airforce-Technology, the Su-25 fields Kh-23, Kh-25ML, and KH-29I air-to-ground missiles. In terms of its air-to-air weapons, the Su-25 can attack with R-3S and R-60 missiles. This warbird can also carry 57mm S-5 rockets, 80mm S-8 rockets, S-24 240mm guided rockets, and S-25 330mm guided rockets.

Laser-guided munitions, incendiary bombs, and cluster bombs also compliment the weapons package on the Frogfoot. 

Then there’s the 30mm AO-17A twin-barrel gun with 250 rounds of ammunition. This alone makes the Su-25 a subpar wannabe of the A-10 Warthog. After all, the A-10 is most known for its Gatling Gun which can spray upwards of 1,350 rounds at an enemy target. The Su-25 has a measly 250 rounds. 

Both the A-10 and Su-25 have a titanium “bathtub-style” armored cockpit. Yet, the Su-25 is lighter than its A-10 rival. While the Frogfoot can move faster because of its slightly lighter armor than the A-10, it means that the Su-25 can be shot down far easier than the A-10 can.

For example, the US-backed, Stinger-wielding Mujahideen fighters made minced meat out of the Su-25 repeatedly during the hellish Soviet-Afghan War. The A-10 track record in the 20-year-long US War in Afghanistan, meanwhile, is one of unmitigated success. The Taliban and al Qaeda fighters the Americans were up against in Afghanistan were as significant of a threat to American warplanes and warfighters as the Mujahideen were to the Soviets during their ill-fated war in Afghanistan in the 1980s. 

Russia exports the Su-25. It saw fierce action in the Iran-Iraq War (also waged throughout the 1980s). From there, the Su-25 was deployed by Georgia’s Air Force in the Abkhazia War. 

The “Frogfoot” had a better performance record there. 

A Mixed Record

Russia’s “flying tank” has since been used in Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine. Much as with its experience in the 1980s in Afghanistan, because of US supplied man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) and short-range air defenses (SHORAD), the Su-25 is again having difficulty. In fact, Ukraine made quite a show earlier in the war of shooting down a Russian Air Force Su-25 and then capturing the pilot and parading him on their national television programs as war booty. 

Since December 2022, it has been assessed that the Russian Su-25 fleet has been reduced by 20 percent from its prewar level in the war with Ukraine. Entering the war with about 70 Su-25s in the Russian Air Force, Ukraine downed or seriously damaged 25 of these birds. In 2023, Ukrainian forces increased to about 30. 

Since 2023, the Russian Air Force has deployed these warbirds in a more “risk-averse” way. Whereas these planes were designed to loiter above very dangerous battlespaces, to avoid losing or damaging many more of these planes, Russia has used the Su-25 as a glorified long-range artillery platform supporting Russia’s Army.

While this is a function of the Su-25. Serving as a long-range artillery platform was not its primary function. And it isn’t even what makes this bird unique. Just as with the American A-10, what makes this plane great (on paper) is its ability to provide dangerous, close-in air support (CAS) to Russian infantry forces in combat on the ground below. 

Long-range artillery strikes do not achieve this objective. That means that Russian infantry, fighting in tight battlefields, lack the saving-grace CAS capabilities the Su-25, like the US A-10, is designed to provide.

Russia Won’t Kill Their Su-25 But the Pentagon Wants to Kill the A-10

Many have used the Russian CAS experience in Ukraine with their failing Su-25 as evidence to suggest that the Americans should finally drop their own CAS warbird, the A-10. But the Su-25, frankly, was nowhere near as good at CAS operations as the A-10 has proven itself to be. 

Despite the problems and new limitations that Russia has imposed upon the Su-25 to better protect them from advanced ground defenses, such as MANPADS, Moscow insists that it will continue investing in the Su-25 for decades to come.

Yet, the Pentagon has repeatedly tried to kill the A-10 Warthog, even though its success rate and prestige are far greater than those of the Su-25 Frogfoot. 

About the Author: 

Brandon J. Weichert, a National Interest national security analyst, is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, the Asia Times, and The-Pipeline. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His next book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine, is due October 22 from Encounter Books. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

All images are Creative Commons.