Of course they do. It's not an A-10A. The Su-25 has actually modern ground attack capacities.
Russian pilots train to employ their helicopter/aviation rockets like MLRS using lofting trajectories. This isn't a complex calculation, it's similar to the loft bombing techniques of the 1950's, it keeps you out of range of short range AAA, and has been standard operating procedure for WP tactical aviation since the 1970's, with the appearance of the Roland missile. There are similarities with CCRP calculations in fixed-wing aircraft: you provide GPS coordinates of the target, the bombsight provides a flight path, and you follow it until the computer releases the weapons and you hit in the general area of the target.
[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.nva-flieger.de/index.php/taktik/arfk/angriffsverfahren-gefechtsordnung.html[/URL]
[ATTACH=full]707790[/ATTACH]
If A-10 or AH-64 can't do this, I don't know what to say, except that it's somewhat primitive?
I doubt AH-64 can't do this though, or even AH-1S or -Z, as both seem reasonably modern helicopters, and the technique would have been discovered by the Americans in Vietnam or the 1970's as a means of attacking and disrupting armor concentrations as a matter of course. It was probably one of the main methods of attack of the AH-56 and just exists, but isn't trained for, as a employment mode in the fire control computer. In that sense it's a bit like diving rocket attacks, but less dumb, since diving rocket attacks are only useful if the enemy has no functional medium to long-range SAMs.
Lobbing rockets is ultimately the only practical method of employing helicopter multiple rocket launchers in the face of high-tech air defense systems. Direct firing them gets you killed by radar guided AAA while flying high gets you swatted by radar guided missiles.
Precision guided weapons like Vikhr and Hellfire are too precious and few in number to be wasted in such jobs, when they are necessary to curtail heavy armor forces, or destroy high value objects. That America and its allies have forgotten this in their decades of romping around in the Middle East and North Africa against ostensibly mechanized forces, all of which were slightly less dangerous than plastic range targets (you still have a higher chance of dying at the US Army's Fort Irwin than in Desert Storm from enemy fire, statistically speaking), doesn't really diminish its truthfulness.
The U.S. military even has a special casette warhead for the job:
[ATTACH=full]707791[/ATTACH]
This is quite wrong. Aviation is far too complex an activity for literally every single deliberate method of use not being planned for. Both the United States and USSR planned for such methods of employment, as evidenced by development of military technics in their respective societies, but only Russia has seen the sort of wars that demand it.
