GarryB unfortunately the ignorance propagated by these Indians / Asians etc on this forum has taken a toll on you .
The picture/chart you produce just reproduces the ignorance of the western sources during the cold war and does nothing to actually look at the reasons behind why the Su-25 was created and its purpose in the Soviet and now Russian inventory.
My comments are being propagated by ME and therefore is white Anglo Saxon ignorance if you can prove it to be wrong in the first place.
If we scroll down the chart the Soviet invention of a dedicated ground support aircraft called a Shturmovic is ignored... as are all the various aircraft developed afterwards that might not have entered service but were in continuous development but not put in service by a short sighted military who was fixated with shiny supersonic planes like Mig-21s.
They didn't know any better so they call the Su-25 a copy of the A-9 which was the failed contender in the competition that the A-10 finally won.
The amusing thing is that the Il-102 was the direct competition to the Su-25 and was in many ways a very close equivalent to the A-10 in that it was a much larger and more powerful aircraft with 5 ton thrust engines (non afterburning RD-33s from a Mig-29 in fact), but it had two crew and was going to be fitted with a 57mm cannon... its payload was over 7 tons and in many ways was comparable to the A-10 yet is was rather different in that it had a tail gunner and internal bomb positions on the wings.
The Su-25 actually looks rather more like an Il-40 Brawny with its air intakes shortened... and guess what... the Il-40... while looking like a double barrel shotgun... with its engine intakes shortened looks a lot like an A-9 except it was designed in the early 1950s which makes the A-9 look more like a copy of a Soviet aircraft and the Su-25 an evolutionary product... hmmm imagine that.
Next down the list... the most modern variant is hardly the Georgian/Israeli cockpit upgrade... that was nothing but a cosmetic shallow upgrade. The Su-25TM is the best known upgrade with the Su-25SM3 and the new replacement aircraft design on the way should occupy that spot.
Further down the list under lethality on the one side it claims the Su-25 is only able to hit fixed targets, while on the other side of the equation states that the DU rounds of the A-10 are more effective than the 30mm rounds of the Su-25.
Of course you should really be questioning how relevant the enormous 30mm gun that occupies 3/4ths of the A-10s airframe... the plane is pretty much built around the gun and its motor and its ammo bin, really is. Its main claim to fame is a radioactive toxic round that would require extensive clean up measures if it was used anywhere friendly forces had to live after the conflict. The difference in penetration is not actually that significant and when firing HE shells the Soviet gun is a fraction of the size and a fraction of the weight yet fires a round with a similar weight projectile at very similar speeds at a similar firing rate.
The next gen of guided air to ground weapons the Russians will be introducing will make the Frogfoot far more capable even just GLONASS guided bombs.
In terms of survivability... the Su-25 has much better response rates in thrust with its turbojet engines which can be critical in low flying in steep terrain where the slower turning turbofans of the A-10 take a while to accelerate to full thrust. The difference in heat would be irrelevant to a modern SAM as both aircraft would be easy to lock... most don't lock onto engines anymore so the awkward position of the A-10s engines doesn't offer as much of an advantage as you might think. The Frogfoot also has self sealing fuel tanks and can operate on diesel and other fuel types.
Interesting they talk about recent accident history and not full accident history...
In terms of cost effectiveness aviation fuel is the least of the aircrafts problems. The bill for cleaning up firing ranges when DU ammo dwarfs the price of fuel and components... and the Frogfoot is still in production... the increasing cost of parts is not a problem for Russia.
My verdict... smaller, faster, just as safe to fly, speed is life and manouver capability is more use than the ability to carry 7 tons of external stores because if you want to actually survive there is no way you would take off with that weight of ordinance and survive in real combat.
The Su-25 has a much better record of not killing friendly forces too.
The A 10 is head & shoulders above the SU 25 . I can explain in details but Defense IQ already did the research in UK.
What would the British know about CAS? They use possibly the worst aircraft in the world for that mission... the Harrier.
On paper it is an excellent machine and very very capable, but even in the improved American version the AV-8 it is still a missile magnet with its engine nozzles mounted on the sides of its fuselage... with the hot engine nozzles at the rear most aircraft are vulnerable but the Harrier is vulnerable from most angles to IR guided missiles.
Perhaps we should look at the armament comparison for example to see why the chart is a poor comparison.
Under Rockets it mentions basically two types of american rockets... the 70mm rockets and the 127mm Zuni rockets in various types of rocket pod.
For the Su-25 in comparison it mentions four types of rocket... the 57mm rocket, the 80mm rocket, the 240mm rocket, and the S-25 rocket it misidentifies as the 330mm rocket. The 57mm rockets are not widely used anymore, but the 80mm rocket, the 122mm rocket, the 240mm rocket, and the 266mm rockets are still widely used... the latter including a laser guided model.
Under missiles it mentions Maverick and Sidewinder for the A-10, but only mentions Kh-23 AS-7, AS-9, AS-10, AS-14, AA-2, and AA-8. Of course a more realistic list would include AA-2, AA-8, AA-11, AA-10, AA-12, plus AS-7, AS-9, AS-10, AS-11, AS-12, AS-14, AS-17, plus of course air launched versions of the Kh-35 and the laser guided model of the S-25 called the S-25L...
In bombs it is even worse... all those US weapons have Russian equivalents and the Su-25 can use them all, plus it can also use a wide range of other bombs and incendiary tanks and gun pods and towed targets.
There is even a fire fighting bomb that extinguishes fires that the Su-25 can carry.
Cheaper... smaller... lighter... faster... both are CAS, but the A-10 was intended to operate deep behind enemy lines hitting targets of opportunity... mostly armour.
The Su-25 on the other hand was optimised to support infantry operations so it is expected to hit enemy strongpoints... bunkers, firing positions, etc etc.
Against a weak enemy for example COIN ops then both are very useful aircraft, but against a strong enemy the A-10 would not last long deep behind enemy lines. The Su-25 would do better because it operates with friendly forces most of the time in a supporting role and its design isn't so compromised about a huge heavy gun.
Removing that heavy 7 barrel gatling and the motor it uses to fire and all that space freed up could be used for all sorts of useful sensors like those planned for the Commanche... night vision optics and radar equipment.
Replace the gun with two 25mm high velocity cannon from the AV-8 and anti armour performance would not actually be that much different but you would have a lighter smaller better aircraft.