The morning fog still clings to the valley floor when the pair of jets appears — not streaking overhead like interceptors, but hugging the terrain at treetop level, engines screaming, wings loaded with rockets and bombs. A burst of cannon fire tears into the hillside. The jets pull up sharply, bank hard, and vanish behind the ridgeline before the defenders can react. This is the Sukhoi Su-25 doing what it was born to do: flying low, flying slow enough to aim, and absorbing punishment that would shatter any other aircraft.

For more than four decades, the Su-25 Grach — NATO reporting name “Frogfoot” — has been the Soviet Union’s and Russia’s answer to a question every air force must face: who flies into the worst fire on the battlefield? The answer, from Afghanistan to Chechnya to Ukraine, has always been the same unglamorous, battle-scarred workhorse.

Born in the Fire of Afghanistan

The Su-25 was conceived in the late 1960s when Soviet doctrine still treated close air support as an afterthought. Designer Vladimir Ilyushin — son of the legendary Sergei Ilyushin who created the Il-2 Shturmovik of World War II fame — championed a dedicated ground-attack jet built around survivability rather than speed. The design philosophy was brutally simple: protect the pilot, carry heavy ordnance, operate from rough forward airstrips, and absorb battle damage that would bring down any conventional fighter.

The aircraft’s true baptism came in 1981 when the first Su-25s deployed to Afghanistan. The mountainous terrain and determined Mujahideen fighters with increasingly sophisticated anti-aircraft weapons provided the ultimate proving ground. Soviet pilots quickly discovered what the designers had hoped — the Frogfoot could take a beating and keep flying.

“undefined”

Aviation historian, author of Su-25 Frogfoot Units in Combat — On average, each aircraft performed 360 sorties a year, and by the end of the war, nearly 50 Su-25s were deployed at Afghan airbases, carrying out a total of 60,000 sorties.

The Afghan campaign shaped the Su-25 in ways no engineering simulation ever could. Pilots developed tactics that exploited the aircraft’s strengths: diving attacks from mountain passes, “star” formations that circled targets from multiple angles, and low-level approaches that used terrain masking to defeat radar-guided weapons. When shoulder-launched missiles became a growing threat, the aircraft received upgraded exhaust suppressors and chaff/flare dispensers.

The Titanium Bathtub: Engineering for Survival

At the heart of the Su-25’s legendary survivability is its cockpit armour — a welded titanium alloy “bathtub” that encases the pilot on all sides. Weighing roughly 595 kilograms, this armoured capsule can withstand hits from 12.7 mm heavy machine gun rounds and fragments from 23 mm anti-aircraft shells. The windscreen is a 65 mm thick armoured glass panel capable of stopping a 20 mm round.

But the protection extends far beyond the cockpit. The aircraft’s fuel tanks are filled with reticulated polyurethane foam that prevents explosions and are pressurised with inert gas. Critical hydraulic lines are duplicated, the flight control system features mechanical backup, and the twin R-195 turbojets are spaced apart and shielded from each other by a structural beam — a hit that destroys one engine leaves the other intact. The landing gear is designed to absorb rough-field landings, and the aircraft can operate from unpaved strips as short as 600 metres.

“undefined”

Ukrainian aviation analyst — The Su-25 flies at low altitudes to avoid detection by radar means, and as it approaches the line of combat, it presses even closer to the ground so that no radar devices detect it.

From Chechnya to Georgia: The Frogfoot in Post-Soviet Wars

When the Soviet Union collapsed, the Su-25 fleet scattered across successor states. Russia retained the largest share and promptly sent them into the brutal Chechen Wars of the 1990s and early 2000s. In the rugged Caucasus mountains, the Frogfoot proved its worth again — delivering precision strikes in terrain where guided missiles were often defeated by countermeasures or terrain masking.

Georgia operated its own fleet of Su-25s and used them during the 2008 South Ossetia conflict — ironically, both sides flew the same aircraft type against each other. Georgian Su-25s struck Russian military columns before being driven from the sky by superior Russian air defences.

The aircraft saw extensive action across Africa as well — from Sudan to Ivory Coast, Ethiopian and Eritrean Su-25s clashed in the Horn of Africa, while Malian aircraft flew with Russian mercenary pilots. The Frogfoot’s simplicity and ruggedness made it ideally suited for air forces with limited maintenance infrastructure.

Ukraine: The Frogfoot’s Longest War

Since 2022, the Su-25 has found itself in its most sustained combat deployment yet — on both sides of the front line. Ukrainian Su-25s fly hair-raising low-level sorties to deliver unguided rockets against entrenched Russian positions, while Russian Frogfoots do the same in the opposite direction. Both sides have lost numerous aircraft to man-portable air defence systems (MANPADS), but both continue flying them because nothing else in their inventories can do the same job.

The conflict has produced remarkable footage of Su-25s limping home with engines on fire, control surfaces shredded, and fuselages riddled with holes — testament to the aircraft’s extraordinary damage tolerance. Ukrainian pilots in particular have earned a fierce reputation for pushing the aircraft to its absolute limits, flying at altitudes of 10 to 15 metres to avoid missile lock.

The Soviet A-10: A Comparison Worth Making

The comparison with the American A-10 Thunderbolt II is inevitable, and not entirely unfair. Both aircraft were designed around the same core philosophy: protect the pilot, carry lots of weapons, fly low and slow enough to actually hit targets with precision, and survive ground fire that would destroy any other aircraft. Both feature twin engines spaced apart for redundancy, armoured cockpits, and multiple redundant systems.

Where they diverge is revealing. The A-10 was built around its 30 mm GAU-8 Avenger rotary cannon — the gun came first, and the aircraft was designed around it. The Su-25 carries a twin-barrel GSh-30-2 cannon that is effective but secondary to its bomb and rocket load. The A-10 is larger, slower, and carries more fuel, giving it better loiter time. The Su-25 is faster, more compact, and can operate from shorter, rougher strips.

Both aircraft have faced repeated retirement threats from their respective air forces, and both have stubbornly survived because no replacement can do exactly what they do. The A-10 remains in USAF service into the 2030s; the Su-25, now in its upgraded Su-25SM3 variant with modern navigation and targeting systems, shows no sign of leaving Russian service either.

Legacy of the Frogfoot

The Su-25 will never win a beauty contest. It is not fast, not stealthy, not sophisticated. But it does something that no amount of technology has been able to automate or replace: it puts a pilot over the battlefield at low altitude, delivers ordnance with precision, absorbs punishment, and brings that pilot home. In an era of hypersonic missiles and stealth fighters, the ugly, stubborn Frogfoot remains a reminder that some jobs in warfare still require an aircraft that can take a bullet and keep flying.

More than 1,000 airframes built, over 20 operators worldwide, and combat service spanning from the mountains of Afghanistan to the fields of Ukraine — the Su-25’s story is far from over. As long as ground troops need air support in contested environments, the Frogfoot will have a job to do.

Sources: Sukhoi Su-25 Wikipedia, Alexander Mladenov — Su-25 Frogfoot Units in Combat (Osprey Combat Aircraft No. 109), The Aviation Geek Club, The Aviationist, GlobalSecurity.org, National Interest