Uh, Raptor? F-22 has next to no strike capability, putting it in CAS role would be similar to the early F-4's, only somewhat worse because it's low speed performance is ****. F-15 isn't much better in strike department either. F-16 is a decent enough multirole fighter, but it lacks the strike capability of even a late model F-4, much less a dedicated strike aircraft such as Su-25.
Concerning missiles, I'd like you to show me cold hard numbers showing that AGM-65 is better than any Russian missile produced. Keep in mind that Russians specialize in missiles more than any country in the world - they never did put as much trust in airplanes as western powers, preferring to rely on artillery instead, and the natural step up from concept of artillery is the concept of a missile - resulting in Red Army being the only army in the world where missiles are a separate branch of service.
GAU-8 30mm cannon goes through steel armor well enough, but it completely fails against concrete and viscous targets such as sand - to punch through concrete with DU shells, you need to fire a long burst at the same spot, which is physically impossible for an aircraft. Maverick missile carries too weak a warhead to penetrate thick reinforce concrete.
Su-25 and A-10 have similar protection, but Su-25 is quite a bit smaller, faster, and more maneuverable, making it overall a harder target - it's advantage in speed over A-10 is overwhelming, having discharged it's payload it can go transonic for hauling ass out of hot areas - and unlike A-10, it was designed not in a greenhouse, but right in the warzone, entering combat as early as pre-production prototype stage, in one of the hardest areas imaginable. Keep in mind, that fighting in Afghanistan wasn't picking off tanks and trucks in a wide open flat desert enjoying complete air superiority and near complete absense of ground-based antiair - the enemy employed a very large amount of 12.7mm and 14.5mm AAMG's, 23mm ZGU AAA's, as well as Strela-2M, Red Eye, Blowpipe and Stinger missiles, and had extremely good cover - can you imagine flying a CAS aircraft against enemy positions hidden in
caves and in the bottom of gorges, demanding attack runs similar to Luke Skywalker's death star canyon run?
As for "russian planes having a bad record", if a pilot inflicts friendly fire, it's the pilot's fault, not the planes. Again, indentifying camouflaged and fortified targets in mountains, without any defined frontline, often in complete darkness at night, is nowhere as easy as shooting tanks in a desert.
The "this technology is obsolete because we got better, cooler, more expensive stuff now" attitude is extremely dangerous (to you, not to your enemy), as has been shown in many cases. Classic example: omission of cannons on early F-4's.
And if you call Su-27 a flying debris pile, I'm not even going to argue with you because it's pointless and you won't listen to any facts.
those same guidance systems your dissin, are helping bombers that are physically older than their pilots do missions that SOMEONES aircraft seemed to fail at previously
Not exactly the same missions - US troops haven't even set foot on Afghanistan soil yet, and the bombing missions have kept themselves to wide open areas such as cities. If you try to use B-52's to bomb targets in mountains, your targets will kill themselves by laughing at you, even if you use nukes.
AC-130 Spectre is nice when target is completely undefended, but place an AAA gun or two in the area and it's toast. Way too slow and vulnerable.
