Less maneuverable is a serious disadvantage for both flexibility and puts you at risk of being painted. Maybe that is why so many get shot down.

Yep, thats how I imagine the design was intended. It can dump its payload and depart the combat area quicly. A10 was more of a direct CAS aircraft, while the Su25 has a strike capability (and SEAD even in later versions)

_________________

I would agree, generally the F18 and F-16 fill the strike role which the Su-25 does also. The A-10 fills a very specific CAS role

I think you can still buy surplus F4's...faster than both and carries more (almost double the Su25)...

Great for trimming hedges around the yard too...

Source for Su25 being less manueverable?

No, it was created for both BAI and CAS roles within the Air-Land battle concept, where the depth of defense woule be created by the indepth strikes of aviation assets.

_________________

We need more missilez code for the missilez god.
Praslovan:
"Tactical Ikalugin inbound on this position in 10... 9..."

Wing Loading

SU25: 584kg/m^2
A10: 482kg/m^2

With which load?

p.s. using WiKi and one value to determine manueverability is sort of strange

_________________

We need more missilez code for the missilez god.
Praslovan:
"Tactical Ikalugin inbound on this position in 10... 9..."

I quickly checked empty/loaded/maxload and on average, the A10 is has 25-30% lower loading across the board. Remember, the Su25 is designed more for shoot and scoot. In a area where the A10 doesn't enjoy air superiority, I bet it wished it had the Su25's speed.

Can't have everything...

Hm but it compares Su25TM with A10A, I think it is not a good one because TM has a larger empty weight.

_________________

We need more missilez code for the missilez god.
Praslovan:
"Tactical Ikalugin inbound on this position in 10... 9..."

...and larger is worse...

I assume that the all the variants are close enough that this (simple) analysis holds true...