A-10 Thunderbolt II: attack aircraft built around aircraft cannon

138
The A-10 Thunderbolt II is an American single-seat twin-engine attack aircraft, created by Fairchild-Republic. His main specialization was the fight against ground targets, primarily with tanks and other enemy armored vehicles. This aircraft is familiar to almost all fans aviation and has a recognizable and well-remembered appearance. It received its name Thunderbolt II in honor of the famous American fighter-bomber of the Second World War P-47 Thunderbolt.

The A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft was the first American Air Force aircraft specially designed for direct air support of ground forces on the battlefield. This is a fairly simple, robust and efficient jet aircraft. After being adopted by the US Air Force, the car was treated as a “ugly duckling” for a long time, which was due to both its limited use and not the most common appearance for which the aircraft even received the unofficial nickname Warthog - warthog. The car was criticized for quite a long time, the American Air Force even thought about getting rid of it in favor of the A-16, a modification of the F-16 fighter, but the unexpectedly successful combat use of the A-10 Thunderbolt II during the first Gulf War put an end to the debate the fate of attack aircraft.






It was during the Gulf War in 1991 that the combat debut of the A-10 attack aircraft took place. In total, 144 aircraft of this type took part in the operation, they made a total of 8100 sorties, losing 7 machines (on average, one attack aircraft lost on 1350 sorties). To the surprise of many outside observers, the seemingly unsound subsonic aircraft was able to become one of the “heroes” of this war, along with the stealth F-117 stealth aircraft and the F-15 fighter. According to the US military, Thunderbolts were able to destroy more than a thousand Iraqi tanks (more than any other aircraft of the US Air Force), up to two thousand units of other military equipment and 1200 artillery systems of all kinds.

History This machine began at a time when the US Air Force began to suffer significant losses from the Soviet air defense systems supplied to Vietnam - small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery and large-caliber machine guns. Under such conditions, it became increasingly difficult for them to support ground troops. Imagining what might happen if American planes are opposed not by a weak Vietnamese air defense system, but by Soviet anti-aircraft gunners or air defenses of the countries of the socialist bloc, the American military set off to create an armored attack aircraft. The design and construction stage of prototypes was completed relatively quickly and already 10 May 1972, the first attack aircraft of the Fairchild-Republic company A-10 rose into the sky, only 20 days ahead of the competitor Northrop A-9.




The aircraft was produced serially from 1975 to 1984 a year, all 715 aircraft were assembled, the cost of one machine was 18,8 million dollars. The plane still remains in service with the US Air Force. On 2015, the 283 of the A-10C aircraft remained in service for the year. A-10C is an updated attack aircraft model equipped with modern digital equipment capable of carrying the entire set of high-precision weapons with a laser targeting system. The first A-10C attack aircraft entered service with the US Air Force in 2006 year.


Attack aircraft design

Structurally, the single-seat attack aircraft A-10 Thunderbolt II is a low-wing aircraft with a trapezoidal wing and two-tail vertical tail. The fuselage of a combat aircraft of a simple semi-monocoque type was made mainly of aluminum alloys, which were highly resistant to defoliants (a mixture of defoliants and herbicides was the infamous Agent Orange), widely used by Americans in Vietnam. The fuselage of the aircraft is distinguished by a rather high survivability: it should not have collapsed when two diametrically opposed side members were damaged, as well as two adjacent skin panels.




The three-lower low wing consisted of a rectangular center section, in which were the fuel tanks, and two trapezoidal consoles. The simplicity of the attack wing design was achieved using a large number of straight spars, identical ribs and plating, which was produced by stamping. In the places of changing the thickness of the skin along the wing span, the designers have foreseen the use of direct joints with overlap. The wing tips of the A-10 Thunderbolt II were bent downward, which increased the cruising range by 8%. The wing itself was distinguished by a large relative curvature and thickness, which ensured the optimum lift value at low flight speeds.

The pilot and critical control systems of the attack aircraft are reliably protected by 1.5 inch titanium armor, which is able to withstand the hit of 37-mm projectiles. At the same time, the pilot’s armored cabin was made in the form of a “bath” assembled with titanium bronelista screws. The bulletproof glass of the cockpit is able to withstand a 23-mm projectile hit by such a ZSU as the Shilka.

At the ends of the central part of the wing of the aircraft, fairings were installed to accommodate the main landing gear retractable forward. Niches of the fairings of the racks after their cleaning are not closed by the guards, so the wheels of the chassis slightly protrude outward, which makes an emergency landing of the attack aircraft safer. The tail of the aircraft was designed by designers so that, with the loss of one keel or even one of the halves of the stabilizer A-10 Thunderbolt II could continue its flight.




New and interesting for combat aircraft was the installation of the engines, which were placed in separate gondolas on the sides of the tail section of the attack aircraft. The advantages of such a layout could include reducing the radar and thermal visibility of engines, reducing the likelihood of foreign objects from the runway and gunpowder gases entering the air intake when firing from an artillery installation. Also, a similar layout of the power plant allowed servicing the attack aircraft and armament suspensions with the engines running and provided convenience during its operation and replacement. In addition, the central part of the A-10 attack aircraft remained free to accommodate fuel tanks near the aircraft's center of gravity, which made it possible to dispense with the fuel transfer system to provide the necessary centering of the aircraft.

The advantage of this arrangement was the increased survivability of the attack aircraft. Confirmation of this was obtained in combat conditions. In 1999, from air bases located in Italy, the A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft took part in a NATO military operation against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. As part of this operation, the US military did not recognize a single loss of A-10 attack aircraft. At the same time, 2 in May 1999, at the airport in Skopje (Macedonia), was made an emergency landing by one of the attack aircraft of this type. The aircraft sat on one engine, the second engine was completely shot off, and later it was shown on Yugoslav television.




The high maneuverability of the attack aircraft at low altitudes gave the car a good chance of dodging missiles and attacking enemy fighters. Good maneuverability combined with a cockpit view and relatively low airspeed allowed the aircraft to hit even relatively small targets from one approach. An artillery system fired at targets such as a tank from a height of 100-150 meters from a distance of 1800 meters; unarmored targets could be fired from a distance of 3000-3600 meters.


The gun around which the aircraft was built

In 1970, the US military finally decided on the main artillery caliber for the new attack aircraft. As artillery weapons, it was decided to use the heavy-duty 30-mm seven-barreled gun GAU-8 / A Avenger (Avenger) of General Electric. The initial velocity of shells fired from it is 1067 m / s, and the rate of fire reaches 4000 rounds per minute. After the 75-mm artillery gun, which was installed on American aircraft during the Second World War, the GAU-8 / A became the most powerful aviation artillery system developed in the United States. When it was created, the designers took into account the successful experience of using Israeli military aircraft 30-mm DEFA cannons against Arab armored vehicles during the 1967 war of the year.




The 30-mm seven-barreled air gun of the Gatling scheme with a rotating block of barrels was specially created for the A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft, becoming its calling card. The GAU-8 / A is one of the most powerful aircraft guns of this caliber in the world. The weight of the gun is 281 kg, the weight of the entire gun installation - 1830 kg (including the ammunition supply system, a drum with full ammunition). The diameter of the cartridge box is 86 cm, length - 182 cm.

During the tests, which were conducted at the Nellis air base, located in Nevada, 24 launched an A-10A attack aircraft on 15 target types, 7 of which were destroyed, and the rest were incapacitated. The pilots fired from a cannon with a pace of 2100 vist / min and 4200 vist / min at a distance of 1800 meters. It should be noted that these tests were conducted in field conditions. The pilots studied the terrain in detail, the armored vehicles were still, the weather was perfect. And, of course, there was no opposition to the pilots of attack aircraft — neither passive (setting up smoke screens), nor, especially, fire.


GAU-8 / A next to the car Volkswagen Beetle


The 30-mm GAU-8 / A aircraft cannon is located along the longitudinal axis of the attack aircraft, it is offset to its left side by an 0,3 meter. The gun works on the principle of Gatling, has a hydraulic external drive and a spineless ammunition supply system. A used drum magazine holds 1350 cartridges. The sleeve of the used cartridges was made not of steel, but of aluminum, which made it possible to increase the ammunition load of the artillery unit by 30% for a given mass. 30-mm projectiles have plastic leading belts that help extend the life of the barrels. Initially, the gun’s firing rate could be switched from 2100 to 4200 shots per minute, but later the maximum rate of fire was limited to 3900 shots per minute. In practice, the duration of firing from GAU-8 / A is limited to one or two-second volleys, this is necessary to prevent overheating of barrels, overruns of projectiles, as well as to extend the service life of barrels. The break for cooling the artillery system is about a minute. The life of the barrel unit is 21 thousand shots. Each shooting cycle begins with the promotion of a block of trunks from two hydraulic actuators that are powered by the attacker's hydraulic system.

The shells-free feed system was chosen specifically to reduce the weight of the installation. The spent cartridges are not thrown out; the cartridges are assembled back into the drum in order not to damage the casing of the aircraft during firing. The ammunition supply system is similar to that on the M61 Vulcan, however, it has a more modern design, which effectively saves weight. The constructive perfection of the aviation artillery system GAU-8 / A Avenger can be judged by the value of such an important characteristic as the mass fraction of projectiles in the mass of the whole cannon installation. For GAU-8 / A, this value is 32% (for example, the М61А1 cannon has just 19%). Such indicators have been achieved through the introduction of aluminum sleeves instead of steel and brass.




GAU-8 / A firing mode at the maximum allowed rate - 10 two-second bursts with minute air cooling between them. Already during the operation of the A-10 attack aircraft, it was found that during the firing of a seven-barreled air cannon, the powder gases are sucked into the attack aircraft engine, as a result of which unburned powder particles are deposited on the blades of the compressor and the engine fan. The accumulation of unburned powder particles after each 1000 shots are performed reduces the aircraft engine thrust by 1%. The overall reduction in thrust with engines has reached 10%, which increased the likelihood of stalling from the blades of the compressor and engines. In order for the engines not to stall when firing from an artillery installation, special ignition devices were built into them in 1981, which ignite unburned powder particles. As a result of these measures, the problem of the accumulation of particles of gunpowder was solved.

The artillery unit is powered by PGU-14 / B armor-piercing sub-caliber shells (425 projectile mass grams) and high-explosive fragmentation shells PGU-13 / B (grams 360 projectile mass). Standard Thunderbolt attack aircraft are 1100 30-mm projectiles in the following order - for one high-explosive fragmentation projectile PGU-13 / B there is an 4 armor-piercing projectile PGU-14 / B with a core of depleted uranium. Accuracy of the seven-barreled aviation 30-mm gun GAU-8 / A is characterized by the following indicators: 5 milliradian (mrad), 80% - this means that when shooting at 1220 meters 80% of all projectiles fall into a circle with 6,1 radius of meter. For example, for the M61 “Vulkan” air cannon, this indicator is 8 mrad.




Flight performance of A-10 Thunderbolt II:

Overall dimensions: length - 16,25 m, height - 4,47 m, wing span - 17,53 m, wing area - 47 m2.
Empty weight - 11 321 kg.
Maximum take-off weight - 23 000 kg.
The power plant - 2 TRDD General Electric TF34-GE-100 kong 2x40,32.
The maximum allowable speed is 833 km / h.
Maximum ground speed is 706 km / h.
Cruising speed - 560 km / h.
Practical ceiling - 13 700 m.
Combat radius of action - 460 km.
Ferry range - 4150 km.
Armament:
Gun-gun: 30-mm seven-barreled gun GAU-8 / A Avenger, ammunition 1350 cartridges 30 x173 mm.
Suspension points: 11 armament suspension units (8 under the wing, 3 under the fuselage), maximum combat load 7260 kg.
Crew - 1 man.












Information sources:
http://www.airwar.ru/weapon/guns/gau8a.html
http://www.anaga.ru/a-10-thundebolt-ii.html
http://shvp.livejournal.com/132878.html
http://pro-samolet.ru/blog-pro-samolet/534-twin-attack-a-10-thunderbolt
http://thechive.com/2016/08/25/the-plane-built-around-one-gun-42-hq-photos (фото)
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

138 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +30
    2 September 2016 15: 24
    Yes, a smart attack aircraft: a large bomb load, a powerful gun, good booking, a protected engine location from attacks in the front hemisphere. I was very happy when the news came that all attack aircraft would be decommissioned. Only events in / in Ukraine and the return of the Crimea extended the life of these attack aircraft, which were urgently transferred to the Baltic countries for intimidation)
    1. +1
      2 September 2016 20: 09
      The author writes:
      GAU-8 / A firing mode at the maximum permissible pace - 10 two-second bursts with minute air cooling between them


      Well, I don’t know ... in many videos I saw, the pilot gives two consecutive queues with a second interval.
      1. +1
        3 September 2016 16: 23
        volley by the second. So much for two seconds with a break per minute)
      2. +1
        5 September 2016 03: 29
        The first volley is short-sighting, the second is already a more authentic lineup.
        1. 0
          6 September 2016 07: 28
          The first volley is short-sighting, the second is already more authentic
          . I read this for a long time lol
          1. 0
            7 September 2016 00: 17
            What's the problem? This is a practice on the A-10, better giggle at yourself.
    2. +24
      2 September 2016 20: 18
      "Big bomb load" and often he carries bombs? has long been a bearer of mavericks, etc.
      "The most powerful gun" against whom to use it now?
      "good booking" shilka as disassembled a10 and disassemble.
      "protected location of the engine from attacks in the front hemisphere" from top-front attacks, the engines are not protected in any way. from the word at all. most likely you meant the lower hemisphere.
      "who were urgently transferred to the Baltic countries to intimidate" who is to be intimidated by? Balts? Yes, those, damn it, shit worse than these pocket dogs from everything. and to frighten the Russian Federation with bolts is somehow silly.
      1. +8
        2 September 2016 21: 40
        Quote: DrVintorez

        "good booking"


        NU in local wars against unarmed Bedouins - nothing like that.
        But when "shilki" / "tunguska" come into play, even more so "carapace" or MANPADS like "Verba" - paragraph catenku!
        1. +23
          3 September 2016 10: 09
          But when "shilki" / "tunguska" come into play, even more so "carapace" or MANPADS like "Verba" - paragraph catenku!

          Not a bigger "paragraph" than for the Su-25! A vehicle with very powerful artillery weapons and a combat load of 7258 kg, versus 4400 for the Su-25.
          By the way, Iraq had good air defense, and the A-10 attack aircraft lost quite a bit - 7 vehicles for 8100 sorties, very good performance.
          1. +10
            3 September 2016 10: 55
            Quote: Bayonet
            But when "shilki" / "tunguska" come into play, even more so "carapace" or MANPADS like "Verba" - paragraph catenku!

            Not a bigger "paragraph" than for the Su-25!


            ... and what does the Su-25 have to do with it? O5 diversion from the topic according to the "manual"

            7 shot down - from the ancient air defense of the ground, after "cleansing" and air supremacy? According to other military experts, THIS IS A LOT!
            1. +7
              3 September 2016 20: 49
              and what does the Su-25?


              Well, they are like classmates. In any case, for the tasks being solved.
            2. +2
              5 September 2016 03: 32
              [quote7-shot down - from the ancient air defense of the SV, after "cleansing" and air supremacy? According to other military experts, THIS IS A LOT!] [/ Quote]

              But how many Rooks have been lost in Chechnya, Afghanistan, Georgia, and from what? Really from a powerful anti-aircraft defense?))
          2. +8
            3 September 2016 15: 27
            Very poor. Incomparably weaker than not only the Soviet air defense of the NE, but also, for example, the Syrian
            Unfortunately, all the time I have to remind it
            1. +5
              5 September 2016 03: 41
              This is about the "weak Iraqi air defense" and an excellent demonstration of the buzz of the wild boar.

          3. +2
            3 January 2017 00: 20
            Iraq didn’t have good anti-aircraft defense - from the word ATTENTION - it would have been anti-aircraft defense - thunderbolts and Apaches would not have been so much interested in so many Iraqi armored vehicles. All air defense was destroyed or muffled even before the start of attacks by attack aircraft. In general, air defense systems in the hands of such great warriors as all kinds of citizens from the Gulf countries cause one laugh.
            I don’t understand the point of selling the S300 to Iran if they really do not learn how to use it and unleash the full potential of the complex.
        2. +4
          3 September 2016 11: 20
          The plane is protected from MANPADS and light SAM systems, plus missile range is higher than the radius of military air defense.
          1. +4
            3 September 2016 13: 51
            have you forgotten that military air defense is not limited to MANPADS and "light ZRAK"?
            1. +3
              3 September 2016 17: 48
              Part will be destroyed by fighters (PRR range 110 km), part of the OTR, the remaining will not be able to cover everything.
          2. +3
            3 September 2016 15: 41
            The usual Mavericks were allowed from ranges of about 6 km. From MANPADS, yes, it is protected, moreover it is geared specifically for protection against MANPADS, but from ZAK, it’s not very.
        3. +28
          3 September 2016 11: 30
          Great reliable car. As for the "shilka" and "Tunguska", then they can easily fill up the "Su-25". You should never blame good technique and always speak objectively. No matter which country this technique belongs to
      2. +6
        2 September 2016 23: 05
        Here it was made in the front of Shilka, but in general the capsule was able to withstand the 57mm shell of our ZSU 57-2!
        1. +6
          3 September 2016 13: 54
          headquarters ??? withstand hit 57mm ??? What is it like? Do you mean to withstand fragments from a 57 mm shell?
    3. +4
      2 September 2016 23: 02
      This analg to our Rooks !!! Those are also quite ancient but still effective aircraft. For a large fire load, the battlefield plane will always remain relevant
      1. +18
        3 September 2016 09: 40
        If a 57 mm projectile hits the plane, the consoles will fall off and the protection will not save, and the pilot will "glue the fins" from the kinetic impact. A capsule with bolts, ours refused this simple fastening technology because the bolt, when it hits the capsule armor, is a continuation of the projectile. About thermal and radar signature, on the F-117, the pilot's helmet gave an illumination on the radar from 51 km, so the glazing of the lantern there with ash thread to extinguish the radar radiation. And the ears of the Cheburashka are specific, guaranteed exposure. Thermal signature HA-HA-HA, it is of course reduced by afterburners of powder particles. The question is, what is the power of the afterburners to ensure the destruction of powder particles? From this question it follows what kind of protection against powder gases are we talking about, what is the plus of this arrangement of engines? Ammunition suspension? The SU-25 has no problem doing this with the engines running.
        After that, the conclusion: the article is clearly advertising or from advertising booklets. Half of the advantages described in it are doubtful.
        1. +16
          3 September 2016 11: 26
          Around the time of perestroika, I don’t remember in one of the model magazines there was an article that was very similar to this one. On the one hand, if a person likes a particular plane, how much you don’t point out to him its shortcomings, you won’t convince, on the other hand, we look at what sources were taken for the article. Well, to be honest, I really like the A-10 Thunderbolt-2 in terms of appearance. At one time, when I collected the models at 1:72, I had it. When I switched to 48, I bought it together with Su- 25. I'm not going to praise or blaspheme the equipment that is produced in the camp of our "partners". But the plane is really interesting, and the fate is no less interesting than that of the Su-25. After all, after the Cold War they were going to remove it from service. variants of its modification. Already just about that the two-seater version of the A-10B, which was never launched into series. So as not to say, but our "partners" have and have had very interesting and worthy samples of aircraft. I really like the R-51 Mustang which, F-4 F antom which I don’t even want to discuss. in the 80s, when prefabricated plastic models were very much in short supply, and for a bag with a Novovsky phantom, people laid out 50 (Soviet) rubles without a conversation, and from the foreign Hasegawa the phantom was about 200 rubles from me the entire line of Phantoms was not on the shelf. It's just that without politics, the plane itself is just a miracle, though it's very bad that this miracle was adapted for the destruction of people. And I would like it to be effective and what kind of aircraft would be better proved at Aviadarts ... hi
          1. +1
            15 September 2016 15: 30
            kozhedub on la-7 for 2min 2 mustangs failed
    4. +5
      3 September 2016 10: 09
      A warthog will not live even a couple of minutes with our air defense system. No armor will save you from being hit by a 30 mm Tunguska projectile or a Osa missile. The armor only protects well against MANPADS missiles. The same applies to our Su-25.
    5. +13
      3 September 2016 11: 34
      With a full ammunition guns about nothing bomb load and the speech could not go !!! Only one of the two was chosen! The article does not have this, as does the airplane’s layout, it is clear that a cannon with a drum takes up 60 percent of the entire fuselage.
      Stormtrooper of one war! Where he showed himself "gorgeous" by shooting motionless and defenseless targets as at a training ground.
      And how many problems with smoke when shooting? Nozzles on the nose blew smoke down to somehow remove it from the flashlight and engines. By the way, it has not been written about the fact that after several sorties with firing, the plane had to be sorted out almost completely because of terrible returns in the literal sense ...
      1. +5
        3 September 2016 12: 50
        Quote: code54
        With a full ammunition guns about nothing bomb load and the speech could not go !!! Only one of the two was chosen!
        Stormtrooper of one war! Where he showed himself "gorgeous" by shooting motionless and defenseless targets as at a training ground.
        By the way, it has not been written about the fact that after several sorties with firing, the plane had to be sorted out almost completely because of terrible returns in the literal sense ...

        ... Duc couch dealers something do not care!
        There is a picture, yu-tube shows, they think that he always flies!

        No wonder the Yankees were going to write them off ...
        Of course against unarmed (without air defense) barmaley, the thing is convenient, to drive through the desert and through caves.
        For this there are even lighter and more economical "anti-partisan" aircraft - OV-10 Bronco ...

        If there is adequate air defense and air supremacy, all attack aircraft become almost helpless ... Near. an example of this is the Ukrainian Su-25 on LDNR ...

        "Anti-guerrilla" budget turboprop attack aircraft North American Rockwell OV-10 Bronco. It looks no less frightening ...
        1. +5
          3 September 2016 23: 49
          He has a big advantage over the SU-25.

          Practical ceiling - 13 700 m.


          You can reliably go beyond the reach of any MANPADS, perhaps even arrows ....

          + large maximum take-off weight - accordingly, any guidance equipment can be shoved more
    6. +10
      3 September 2016 18: 19
      Test pilot, Hero of Russia Magomed Tolboev compared the capabilities of the Russian attack aircraft Su-25 and the American A-10 Thunderbolt.

      1. +2
        4 September 2016 22: 08
        Q.E.D. All.
      2. 0
        22 November 2019 18: 55
        False test comrade says.
        https://youtu.be/ISx2hmwC9go?t=405
    7. +4
      5 September 2016 14: 00
      this is not a ground attack aircraft, but an aircraft for the unpunished shooting of ground targets in the absence of any sane air defense. No one can even afford to plan such a situation, except for the United States. Even IL-2 (not the first single option) and he drove for the air defense of the 2nd shooter. If you compare the a10 with the su-25, you will see how different the car is in this aspect.
      And so, there are many who can make a simple and very dangerous device, which at low speed can choose who and what to treat from above.
      For example, ju-87B
  2. +15
    2 September 2016 15: 26
    The gun, of course, is a monstrous one, but if the creators were limited to the analogue of the GSh-2-30 (figuratively), then they would save a couple of tons of flying weight. At a firing range of 1800m, it’s very dangerous to fly up to tank columns and entrenched infantry, especially in urban areas, where the roofs have a very convenient location for MANPADS operators.
    The appearance of the A-10 forced the USSR to transfer anti-aircraft artillery from 23mm to 30mm.
    1. 0
      2 September 2016 16: 13
      it is very dangerous to fly up to tank columns and entrenched infantry, especially in urban areas, where the roofs have a very convenient location for MANPADS operators.
      https://youtu.be/xxaIj4ygkJ0 С 4.40 видно что бывает с крышей. Отчего то не ставится видео, имя файла вдруг стало "небезопасно или недопустимо к загрузке".
      1. +4
        2 September 2016 16: 19
        And you look at the statistics of the downed Su-25 in Donbas. Shoot a lonely roof a lot of courage is not necessary. Or do you think the A-10 is much stronger or shoots worse on the roofs?
        1. 0
          2 September 2016 16: 30
          Or do you think the A-10 is much stronger or shoots worse on the roofs?
          Yes, I don’t think anything, I just suggested an interesting video.
      2. +9
        2 September 2016 20: 15


        Here is a good video with great sound - and no dumb music

        By the way, who knows - at 0.30 what are these gaps on the ground before the line - some kind of squibs, or what?
        1. +9
          2 September 2016 20: 52
          And by the way, somehow the author did not open the topic of sticking of powder particles on the blades -
          In order to prevent engines from stalling when firing from an artillery mount, special ignition devices were built into them in 1981,

          This is not limited to:
          Also, to ensure a more complete combustion of the propellant composition inside the trunks (to prevent burning of powder gases in front of the aircraft), potassium nitrate is added to it. This additive is either introduced into the propellant composition, or in a separate plastic bag is inserted into the cartridge.
          And plus the obligatory washing of the engine after every 2600-3000 shots with soapy water to remove soot from the blades of the fan and compressor

          And here are a couple of pictures:

          Gun scheme


          And photos from the Assortment of outboard weapons
        2. +9
          3 September 2016 08: 01
          Here is a good video with great sound - and no dumb music


          Looking at this video, there is a desire to be on the same side with this plane, and not its opponent.
        3. 0
          4 September 2016 09: 49
          Quote: psiho117
          By the way, who knows - at 0.30 what are these gaps on the ground before the line - some kind of squibs, or what?


          So like shells flew faster than the sound of the shots. So it seems that there are explosions before the shot go
          1. 0
            6 September 2016 12: 49
            No, well I'm not really a fool bully
            watch the video at 0.30
            There are two solitary hits, either the bursts of the squibs on the ground, somewhere in one and a half seconds. in front of the line.

            Unclear sad
      3. +4
        3 September 2016 09: 09
        Quote: novobranets
        https://youtu.be/xxaIj4ygkJ0

        1. 0
          3 September 2016 23: 17
          An excellent cannon just for the columns - the Shahanmobiles
          1. 0
            6 September 2016 00: 33
            The A-10 turns tanks into metal, although it is even more likely to destroy it, because its shells are breaking through the roof. Except perhaps for Merkava, due to its specific shape of the roof of the tower and the latest versions of Leo2 with enhanced roof protection.
          2. 0
            6 September 2016 00: 33
            The A-10 turns tanks into metal, although it is even more likely to destroy it, because its shells are breaking through the roof. Except perhaps for Merkava, due to its specific shape of the roof of the tower and the latest versions of Leo2 with enhanced roof protection.
      4. 0
        5 September 2016 14: 01
        if the attack aircraft is forced to be distracted by the roof during the mission, this is a small victory for the one whose soul it flew.
  3. +3
    2 September 2016 15: 31
    and I like! kind of tank
  4. +14
    2 September 2016 15: 50
    30 mm shells have plastic lead belts that help extend barrel life

    and we just started doing it! what did they wait for so long, didn’t they know?
    I would not want this thing to work for me, MIG-29 in her tail!
    1. +4
      2 September 2016 15: 58
      Probably it is worth asking a question differently - what is the price of a charge, a trunk, maintainability, are there any necessary and other issues. Where the waste flies when shooting.
  5. 0
    2 September 2016 15: 50
    Specialists .... what is the mass of a volley?
    1. +3
      2 September 2016 16: 02
      Projectile weight + rate of fire per second. GSH-2-30 is not much behind in this regard. The rate of fire is lower, but the weight of the projectile is greater. At the same time, resource and accuracy are lower.
      1. +4
        2 September 2016 20: 36
        Quote: Zaurbek
        Projectile weight + rate of fire per second. GSH-2-30 is not much behind in this regard. The rate of fire is lower, but the weight of the projectile is greater. At the same time, resource and accuracy are lower.

        And where did you get that? I don’t argue, both guns are good,
        but the American has significantly higher both the volley weight (two-second at a pace of 4200 versus a second at a pace of 3000), and the number of explosives in a HE shell - 56 g versus 48,5 g.
        And the superiority of the uranium BOPS over the steel tubes of BT and BR is generally transcendental.
        1. +6
          2 September 2016 21: 00
          Damn, and this version of the site is moderating the word "blunt"

          Guys, this looks especially ridiculous in discussing the shape of a bullet or projectile, for example.
          1. +1
            2 September 2016 23: 32
            This is even funnier in a Warthog discussion wink
        2. 0
          5 September 2016 10: 03
          Confused American shells 30x117mm (Apache) and 30x175mm (A-10), and our 30x165mm (Su-25)
    2. +4
      2 September 2016 23: 27
      3900 divided by 30 it turns out 130 shells per volley for simplicity we multiply by the mass of armor-piercing 360 grams. It will be approximately 47 kilograms.
  6. +7
    2 September 2016 17: 47
    the plane is interesting, I was personally admired by the layout of the engines - you can’t get into them from the ground: they are covered in front by the wing, and behind by the stabilizer.
    however, there is a question about the effectiveness of the "warthog" against Soviet troops on the march or in attack / defense (ie, directly during the attack). Small-caliber artillery has always been in service with the SA, and a burst from the "shilka" dismantled even such an armored thing as the A10.
    1. +2
      6 September 2016 08: 50
      What is in the USSR, what today, on the march or in the deployed state is military air defense (and this is not only ground-based means). He will not be allowed to make any jokes. His only opportunity is to launch missiles at a great distance. And then if in the vicinity there is no instant-31.
    2. 0
      6 September 2016 08: 50
      What is in the USSR, what today, on the march or in the deployed state is military air defense (and this is not only ground-based means). He will not be allowed to make any jokes. His only opportunity is to launch missiles at a great distance. And then if in the vicinity there is no instant-31 (although he is everywhere nearby).
  7. +3
    2 September 2016 17: 55
    And how often did he hit the armored vehicles - is there statistics on tanks, armored personnel carriers? According to the results, 38 and 69 mm per 1000 and 500 m of armor penetration of the gun, apparently, is enough to destroy the main tanks. Guided weapons, probably, were not needed.
  8. +3
    2 September 2016 18: 03
    A good car, albeit an enemy one. Interesting design.
  9. +3
    2 September 2016 18: 18
    In the first photo (when viewed from the front), a column of evil "Cheburators" lol
    But seriously, I was always impressed by the sound of his cannon: all, without exception, Gatlings of all calibers do not have the rumble of individual shots, but this fool just has some absolutely prohibitively frightening roar (like a completely fucking starving or heartburn stereotypical dragon).
    From SW. hi
    PS
    I still do not fully understand the principle of operation of powder "afterburners" ... recourse
    1. +3
      2 September 2016 21: 05
      I still do not fully understand the principle of operation of powder "afterburners".

      According to the description - there is apparently just a voltage supply to the blades, the blades are heated - and voila. At least, I made the following conclusion from the phrase in their description: "The electric circuit of the ignition devices is switched on simultaneously with pressing the firing button and remains switched on for 30 seconds after the firing is stopped.
      1. +3
        2 September 2016 21: 54
        Quote: psiho117
        According to the description - apparently there is just a supply of voltage to the blades, the blades are heated - and voila. At least I made such a conclusion from the phrase in their description: "The electric circuit of the ignition devices is switched on simultaneously with pressing the firing button and remains switched on for 30 seconds after the firing is stopped.

        highlighted only means the inclusion of igniters (sometimes just spark plugs) in the combustion chamber in standby mode when firing, in order to exclude combustion stall and provide "pickup and oncoming ignition of the fuel-air mixture" if a stall due to propellant gases did occur. ..
  10. +14
    2 September 2016 18: 28
    Essentially a powerful machine, but built under American combat technology. The first is the suppression of radar detection systems, the second is the suppression of anti-aircraft defense, and now the A-10 Thunderbolt enters the scene. To drive the Indians in the desert than they actually did in the desert of Iraq.
    1. +2
      2 September 2016 20: 10
      in that frenzied dump "NATO-Warsaw Pact" that could have happened, and for which this aircraft was created, it could (WOULD!) play its role.
      1. +3
        2 September 2016 21: 49
        Quote: DrVintorez
        in that frenzied dump "NATO-Warsaw Pact" that could have happened, and for which this aircraft was created, it could (WOULD!) play its role.

        ... after the attacks of the pioneer leaders and tactical nuclear weapons and the seizure of air supremacy by the Soviet Air Force - NO!
  11. +3
    2 September 2016 18: 30
    ... "in the NATO military operation against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" ...
    Is this just a mistake or a wrong translation of the source? Sergey, I always read your articles, I didn’t notice such neglect before - the SFRY was never Union, only Socialist ...
    1. +2
      5 September 2016 11: 39
      After the collapse of the SFRY, which consisted of 6 republics, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) was formed as part of Serbia and Montenegro. It was also unofficially called "Little Yugoslavia". Other former republics of the SFRY declared that this union had no right to be called Yugoslavia, it no longer existed.
      Three advantages are incomprehensible. Those who set them up should be ashamed, they do not know the well-known facts of recent history.))
      1. 0
        30 October 2016 07: 43
        Sergey, I'm sorry ...
        indeed, googled, relied only on their knowledge, they were too narrow.
        and ashamed of me.
  12. +3
    2 September 2016 18: 59
    His cannon is simply monstrous, and our 30 mm GSh on the Su 25 is really much weaker? I have never admired "Warthog", there is something flawed in him. Yes, and he is big, prey for the "Shell" wassat
    1. +9
      2 September 2016 20: 05
      look at the date of birth a10 and the date of birth of the shell. no need to compare weapons from different eras. better compare the a10 and the awl. The shilka is more than successful in dealing with thunderbolts2. when the first mavericks appeared in service with the thunderbolts, ours responded with a Tunguska with a missile defense system. and do not forget, all this (shilka, tunguska, MANPADS) is something that is capable of shooting on the move. but there was / is still a circle, a cube, a beech, s300v capable of accompanying tank units on the march. from the stories of my grandfather, and I believe him, after 7 minutes from the moment the dangerous target was spotted (a group of attack aircraft, fighter-bombers, the start of a pershing-type ballista), the c300v complex managed to turn from the traveling position and was ready to repel the attack. 300v was able to accompany tank columns on the march - tracked platforms provided the necessary cross-country ability.
      1. 0
        2 September 2016 22: 20
        And still provide, with 300 B4 for example.
    2. +1
      3 September 2016 18: 22
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Yes, and he is big, prey for the "Shell" wassat


      already posted -
      No wonder the Yankees were going to write off.

      Here is the latest experience with its analogues - Su-25:
      - in LDNR - Ukrainian SU-25 did not have success, they were beaten by MANPADS and from ZAU
      - in Syria, due to the presence of Stingers, ZAU - Su-25 were used only as bombers - they threw FAB500 from 5 km or launched "air-to-surface". The work of NURSs or ATGMs has now gone to the strike army aviation.

      Because of this, the commander-in-chief of the Russian Aerospace Forces, Colonel-General Viktor Bondarev, the "attack aircraft" himself, by the way, said - "The Su-34 aircraft in the future will replace not only the Su-24 bombers, but also the Su-25 attack aircraft, giving the basis for a universal line of bomber and ground attack aircraft "...
      And this is no accident, they say - the Su-25, "hung" at the last demand (SVP-24, SOLT-25, "Vitebsk") at a cost is not much less than the Su-34 (only the modernization of the existing Su-25 - costs 300 million, the cost of the new Su-34 is under a billion).
      So, it turns out that for high-intensity conflicts with an approximately comparable enemy (having air defense of the ground forces) - "attack aircraft" such as Bolt and Rook - if they did not sing their song, then for them only a narrow application remained ...

      That cannot be said about the quality of "anti-guerrilla" aviation. Although there may be more budget options in the form of light turboprop attack aircraft ...
    3. +3
      3 September 2016 23: 21
      Yes, and it is big, prey for the "Shell" - In Syria, these Shells were 50 pieces and that none of them intercepted a single US or Israeli fighter in 4 years of hostilities.
      1. +1
        3 September 2016 23: 29
        Is Israel or the US using the A-10 there? In the territory controlled by the ATS? or are F-16s operating from a great distance suddenly and with the support of all that is possible?
  13. Mwg
    +2
    2 September 2016 19: 39
    Good to say. They know how to do when there is nothing to saw)))
  14. +1
    2 September 2016 20: 35
    Like the Su-25, the plane is for a big war. In local conflicts, he has nothing to do.
  15. +3
    2 September 2016 20: 36
    Nice plane. It is impossible to understand these "exceptional", beautiful cars - to call them a warthog! I agree with uskrabut, I would not want this thing to work for me!
    1. +4
      2 September 2016 21: 08
      It is impossible to understand these "exceptional", beautiful cars - to call them a warthog!

      There is a version that the warthog was called for his terrible "Brrrrrt", and not for the look bully
      1. +2
        3 September 2016 02: 35
        by the way about
        happy brrrt
        - cleanly, in order to neigh, twist high frequencies on the speakers and applaud fake players with FOX news (9th second)


        fabulous débil (spanish)
        1. +1
          3 September 2016 03: 08
          Oh you fuck! this is an illumination)) the person responsible for the graphics did not stint on flashes wassat
          1. +4
            3 September 2016 07: 33
            I mean this is a video about "Russian cluster bombs" with a thunderbolt voice acting
            Specially in Syria, a tape recorder is attached to each cassette with the sound of the gun of this corncrack of the middle of the last century. This, according to FOX news, is such a tricky tactic among Russians (aliens advised, of course, where would they be without them :-)
            This "masterpiece" was translated into Russian by the hardworking Buratina
  16. +1
    2 September 2016 20: 48
    I read somewhere that he can carry either only ammunition for guns, or only devices under the wing, but he can’t pull it all together.
    1. +2
      3 September 2016 11: 39
      A game simulator has been released, even in Russian localization there is. By the way, quite accurate, does not forgive mistakes.
      PS A-10C from Eagle Dynamics, we call it "A10C Battle for the Caucasus", translated by "1C-SoftKlab". 2011.
  17. +1
    2 September 2016 21: 23
    Quote: psiho117
    GSH-2-30 is not much behind

    GSH-6-30 (9A-621) on the MIG-27 (30mm 6 barrels) of all the closest to GAU-8 / A, but GSH-2-30?
  18. +4
    2 September 2016 22: 51
    Of course, no doubt, but the machine is good, to be honest one of my favorites in the history of world military aviation
  19. 0
    2 September 2016 22: 52
    Well ... just wanted to write husbands goats, duck blocked
  20. +2
    2 September 2016 23: 37
    good car
  21. +10
    3 September 2016 00: 53
    Quote: Engineer
    ... events in \ in Ukraine and the return of Crimea extended the life of these attack aircraft, which were urgently deployed to the Baltic countries for intimidation)

    Well, it's you in vain, even before Ukraine, the warriors did not want to write it off, but there was nothing to replace it with.
    And in the Baltic states, I think they are the Baltic states and are frightening. This is of course a headache, but it is treated with armor, Tunguska and other pleasures of Russian air defense.
  22. +5
    3 September 2016 02: 01
    According to the US military, the Thunderbolts were able to destroy more than a thousand Iraqi tanks (more than any other US Air Force aircraft), up to two thousand units of other military equipment and 1200 artillery installations of all kinds.
    According to the initial data. In the future, the sturgeon had to be cut
    And I have very deep doubts that the fuselage is able to withstand the impact of a 37mm armor-piercing projectile. Could there be fragments of the 37mm OF?
    1. ICT
      0
      3 September 2016 07: 31
      (C)

      1309 kg of armor reliably protected the pilot and vital structural elements from the effects of small arms and ensured survivability when shells hit the caliber 20-23 mm.
      ..

      they say something like this, inside the feselage is collected like a bath of titanium sheets
    2. +2
      3 September 2016 11: 33
      Not the fuselage, but the pilot’s armored capsule. And judging by the low losses in Iraq, it seems to be true.
  23. 0
    3 September 2016 11: 36
    I got the impression that looking at our "unkillable" IL-2, the Americans wanted something similar. Understandable at another level.
    1. +2
      3 September 2016 13: 03
      Quote: Andrey77
      I got the impression that looking at our "unkillable" IL-2, the Americans wanted something similar. Understandable at another level.

      ... ohhh, Ila has so many contradictions that you don't know which is more: "pluses" or "minuses".
      A massive squadron strike on columns or squares - YES!
      A hit on tank columns with PTAB 2,5-1,5 cartridges at the beginning of use - YES!

      But there are enough "minuses" too ... Let's start with the fact that he did not have a "bomber sight" at all and could not deliver accurate strikes from a steep dive ...
      1. +3
        3 September 2016 14: 23
        Yes, leave you alone, "steep dive" - ​​this is a separate type, again quickly enough "released into circulation" - and the bomb sight on Ila was only as practice showed when strikes from low level flight (the main type of combat work of the ShA), there was no sense from it ... There is no need to compare and drive the attack aircraft into the framework of a "front-line bomber" - it has other tasks. Just like the fact that now Su25e are bombed in Syria from the horizon does not mean that this is their main job.
        1. 0
          3 September 2016 14: 47
          Quote: Taoist
          Just like the fact that now Su25e bombing in Syria from the horizon does not mean that this is their main job.

          ... that is why they were mainly taken out, having been replaced by military strike aircraft.
  24. +8
    3 September 2016 12: 27
    The best American plane for a real war .. not for Hollywood and other garbage, namely for banal databases ...
    Not f-15..16 .. in terms of efficiency, the costs / departure were not near, this is like our most belligerent and most effective SU-25 aircraft made on the knee for the balances from other projects .. Alas, these units are not photogenic and for them badly give orders and stars on shoulder straps .. And the infantry Van and Sam the most useful aircraft ..
  25. +3
    3 September 2016 13: 43
    Quote: Bayonet
    But when "shilki" / "tunguska" come into play, even more so "carapace" or MANPADS like "Verba" - paragraph catenku!

    Not a bigger "paragraph" than for the Su-25! A vehicle with very powerful artillery weapons and a combat load of 7258 kg, versus 4400 for the Su-25.
    By the way, Iraq had good air defense, and the A-10 attack aircraft lost quite a bit - 7 vehicles for 8100 sorties, very good performance.

    Iraqi air defense destroyed by the Apaches after crushing interference. Yes, and Iraq did not have good air defense, 90% of the samples of the mid 70's, while they knew how to use it poorly using it as the only train of this air defense, and you can’t do that.
  26. +6
    3 September 2016 14: 20
    The "Bolt" is a really good plane, but just like the 129th Henschel at one time, it is too specialized for a full-fledged "battlefield plane" - as usual, advantages are the essence of continuing disadvantages.
    Created around a gun, it has a fairly limited range of weapons. At the same time, with all the advantages of his cannon, its use is very limited and the power of the projectile is small (while this is de facto 2 tons of potential combat load). The same B8 blocks with C 8KO missiles when firing at armored targets will be more effective and, most importantly, much more versatile ... Again, this super gun determines the dimensions of the vehicle, which, to put it mildly, are huge. And although the survivability of the A 10 is high, its dimensions and layout do not allow for reliable armor protection of vulnerable components and assemblies. And as we remember, the cannon is powered by an aircraft power drive (unlike our "six-barrels" for which an external drive is not needed ... This means that any damage to the hydraulics makes the machine unarmed and disrupts the execution of a combat mission. And so on. 10 is quite a worthy example of assault aviation, although it is more limited in application than the domestic Rook.
  27. +1
    3 September 2016 15: 47
    This A-10A attack aircraft (S / N 80-0258) from Squadron 172, Michigan Air Force Wing, Battle Creek, fired a missile into the starboard engine on April 110, 11 during Operation Iraqi Freedom.






    1. 0
      8 September 2016 17: 44
      Our Su-25 also returned on the same engine after a direct hit from the Stinger
  28. 0
    3 September 2016 16: 25
    The plane is very interesting and necessary. And the gun is powerful ... But! Engines are not protected at all, and some kind of device for burning off particles of powder is a necessary measure that does not add reliability to the engine systems as a whole. Rook is the best by definition.
    1. +2
      3 September 2016 18: 45
      if you even thought a little and looked at the plane, you would see that the engines are perfectly protected from fire from the ground.
  29. +6
    3 September 2016 18: 02
    A good attack aircraft, powerful, protected, tenacious!
    Just do not make him a sword-treasure.
    When the Tunguska was created, it was (along with the AN-64 and the modernized Cobra) one of the two most likely targets. Accordingly, the gun was selected according to its striking ability. And we leave on the conscience of the company representatives the resistance of individual parts to a 30 mm armor-piercing projectile - let the children tell tales about Superman. Where did the 57 mm come from in the comments I don’t understand at all.
    As for the puppy enthusiasm about its vitality, I also do not share. Wikipedia has a photo of getting the “Needle” on the plane - it must be said bluntly that the view of the armored “lightning strike” is unimportant. And given that the "Needle" warhead weight of only 1,3 kg (9K38) and non-contact detonation, then generally worthless.
    And it seems to me, if a pilot were hit by missiles intended for our air defense for the A-10 Tunguska (9 kg warhead), Torah or the old Wasp (15 kg warhead), he would go home (if something would be collected in the desert) in a metal box. As for the "Beech" (50 kg +) you can not even worry.
    This aircraft did not hit Vietnam in time, although it was created in his experience.
    And I think that the Vietnamese anti-aircraft gunners with our 37 mm automatic guns and another FOR would have completely dealt with it - the low-flying high-speed Phantom 2, in any case, was not an overly complicated goal for them.
    Saddam’s air defense did not match the enemy’s technique. And the mood of the fighters and commanders with direct betrayal made it even lower.
  30. 0
    3 September 2016 18: 42
    Forest,
    correctly! everything will be destroyed by ICBMs! that’s why they come up with all kinds of air defense.
  31. +1
    3 September 2016 19: 48
    Some kind of nonsense, I read this article already, and the name is the same, and the pictures, six months or a year ago.
  32. +2
    3 September 2016 20: 00
    Quote: Forest
    The plane is protected from MANPADS and light SAM systems, plus missile range is higher than the radius of military air defense

    It is not protected from MANPADS. It's just that the plane did not fight against the enemy with any significant number of MANPADS. Otherwise, it would be the same as in Donbas. No jammers will help if each platoon has a "pipe"
  33. +5
    4 September 2016 07: 49
    When you read the reports of the Americans about the destroyed Iraqi equipment, which was basically just abandoned, the tankmen ... attack aircraft ... helicopter pilots ... gunners ... infantry ... we will not forget about the Tomahawks, you understand that the Iraqis did not have so much equipment principle. The reports are akin to the reports of the Nazis about the destroyed Soviet technology during the war ... the main thing is that the numbers are impressive.
    And to lose 7 cars in the sky without counteracting anti-aircraft defense, the top of idiocy ... they were not even ridiculed by MANPADS.
  34. 0
    4 September 2016 09: 32
    And what about the GSH-6-23M, why is it not put on attack aircraft? It seems she is standing on a Su-24 and MiG 31 bomber.
    ship option is.
    1. 0
      5 September 2016 10: 09
      23mm ammunition is weak for armored vehicles and fortifications, and under GSH-6-30 we have no aircraft. You read that the A-10 was built for this gun ... On the MiG-27 there was a GS-6-30 gun with lightweight barrels and a reduced warhead, I did not hear anything about the use, but the aircraft had enough problems during firing.
  35. +2
    4 September 2016 11: 00
    Last year I saw this live. I don’t know how to compare it with Rook. It’s visually bigger in size by a factor of 1.5 for sure.
  36. +2
    4 September 2016 11: 45
    Americans don’t like to talk about real losses ... they disguise themselves as anything ... photo example, MI26 evacuates Chinnuk, according to the Americans, he made an emergency landing ... from an interview with the commander of MI26, he had numerous hits and obviously helped him to fall, as he said ... I fought in Afghanistan ... I, I know that.
  37. +1
    4 September 2016 21: 55
    He is good. But only for the Americans themselves. In their eyes, this GAU 8 / A is "trembling and awe." And in reality - meaningless shit. Which still needs to be conveyed to the goal. Just think, almost two tons only a cannon and ammunition! .. PS Our Rook is much more effective.
    1. +1
      5 September 2016 10: 12
      The development of MANPADS and systems like Tunguzka and Shell almost eliminates the 30mm gun from the arsenal to hit targets. A plane that flies higher does not need such armor, it is better to take extra ammunition .... and the eyes in the form of UAVs will look at targets from a small height.
  38. 0
    5 September 2016 10: 23
    karabas-barabas,
    I see you have a Czech flag?
    So take and see how many Shilok were in the standard division of the PRA before 91, how many air defense systems, radars, MANPADS, etc. Then compare with the army of Iraq, then it will be possible to continue communication
    And I can post as many photos and videos of planes with holes in planes as I like
  39. +1
    5 September 2016 10: 33
    karabas-barabas,
    Is this argument on the principle of self?
    So yes, both in Afghanistan and in Chechnya there was quite competent air defense, and in the first case, even the conditions of the highlands. Have you calculated the amount of air defense per one loss? Without such statistics, all this is talk in favor of the poor.
    And in Georgia, almost all attack aircraft were shot down by friendly fire. Well, everyone knows that the anti-aircraft defense is quite powerful
    1. 0
      5 September 2016 14: 43
      In Afghanistan, the activities of the Su-25 and Mi-24 were very intense. There are statistics in the public domain (Aviation and time). Even without taking into account the mountainous terrain and the appearance of the Stingers, the statistics are pretty decent. according to instructors, the Su-25 was shot down if it hit the target 4 or 5 times (on average), when the standard was 2 times .......
  40. 0
    5 September 2016 11: 57
    Quote: karabas-barabas

    But how many Rooks have been lost in Chechnya, Afghanistan, Georgia, and from what? Really from a powerful anti-aircraft defense?))


    ... is it really hard to guess?
    In Afghanistan, the losses went mainly after the supply of the Stingers. Similarly in Chechnya - with the advent of MANPADS. The memory was added ...
    In Georgia, there was already a bit of air defense (object and military), the supply of Ukrainian ...
    1. 0
      5 September 2016 14: 46
      The activities of our aviation in Georgia are very similar to the actions of Ukraine in the Donbas. The army was in approximately the same condition.
  41. 0
    5 September 2016 12: 02
    Quote: sivuch
    Moreover, it is specifically designed for protection against MANPADS

    ... in what way?
    Especially 2's, 3's channel ...
    1. +1
      5 September 2016 12: 57
      Well, why was it necessary to pack the engines in gondolas and cover them with tail unit from back to bottom? Moreover, the midsection and drugs increased to the delight of air defense systems using all other guidance methods.
      True, it didn’t always help. -2 A-10s were shot down by Stela-10
  42. 0
    5 September 2016 12: 15
    Quote: alexmach
    He has a big advantage over the SU-25.

    Practical ceiling - 13 700 m.


    You can reliably go beyond the reach of any MANPADS, perhaps even arrows ....

    + large maximum take-off weight - accordingly, any guidance equipment can be shoved more


    And inna him such a ceiling? ;))))
    Larger take-off mass - Larger dislocation problems at field airfields and less maneuverability ...

    And for literacy, even the most advanced MANPADS in the world, Verba (RF) does not shoot higher than 4,5
    1. 0
      5 September 2016 14: 35
      You don’t need to shoot a lot of mind, you will not find the target above.
  43. 0
    5 September 2016 14: 09
    Quote: DrVintorez
    the plane is interesting, I was personally admired by the layout of the engines - you can’t get into them from the ground: they are covered in front by the wing, and behind by the stabilizer.
    however, there is a question about the effectiveness of the "warthog" against Soviet troops on the march or in attack / defense (ie, directly during the attack). Small-caliber artillery has always been in service with the SA, and a burst from the "shilka" dismantled even such an armored thing as the A10.

    if the enemy is forced to drag a bunch of MANPADS in battle formations, their calculations, shilka, etc., it means that the warthog has already won a small victory, without even taking off.
    But in fact, if you evaluate the effectiveness of the receiver air defense and MANPADS, it will not be easy to armored vehicles.
    not even on the march, but on the march ... I think that each a10 on average is capable of planting pieces of 4 missiles on a targeted basis until the funds listed above strike him.
    only new generations of machines like TOR are effective against A10. Well, yes, they will give it a light.
    1. 0
      5 September 2016 14: 50
      TOR, Tunguzka M, Carapace without rapid-fire 30mm machine guns, it is impossible to fight targets like A-10 and Apache. Missiles rockets, but the good old guns 2000-5000 rpm will always help
    2. 0
      5 September 2016 15: 45
      It is important to disrupt the attack, even if you do not hit an attack aircraft or force it to rise to a height with which the accuracy of its weapons will be worse and it will fall into the air defense of the BUK type ......
      1. 0
        6 September 2016 12: 50
        This rule still worked in the days of Vietnam, now everything is not so. Now the launch of missiles will be carried out from a distance greater than the air defense of the attacked object. The objective target, covered by Bukami and other s-300s, a10 will not attack. Well, if the pilot is not drunk. The attack will be at the regimental / battalion level - and there is a MANPADS with a tiny range, and Shilka-Tunguska with an even more tiny one.
        1. 0
          6 September 2016 13: 35
          The pilot can operate at low altitudes, out of range. A-10-plane battlefield and it was designed to reflect the hordes of Soviet tanks. Like the Su-25, it must operate in conditions of strong opposition to enemy air defense ........
  44. 0
    7 September 2016 07: 35
    30-mm shells have plastic lead belts ,,,, being a student in the 1980s at lectures V.P. Gryazev said, give us plastic belts, almost 30 years ago, they still are not
  45. 0
    9 November 2018 19: 15
    Yes, an evil car! And tenacious, withstood hit MANPADS needle.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"