US Air Force seeks replacement for Warthog

80
The US Air Force is looking for a replacement for the infantry’s immediate support on the battlefield - A-10 Thunderbolt. According to the portal businessinsider.com, currently, four cars immediately claim the "position" of a US Air Force combat support aircraft under the Light Attack program, also known as OA-X.

To date, the United States Air Force has only one aircraft directly supporting infantry on the battlefield - A-10 Thunderbolt, also known as Warthog. These aircraft have repeatedly extended the life of the military service, and some of them will remain in the US Air Force until 2022 year. Since an equivalent replacement for the well-armored and well-armed A-10 attack aircraft was not developed, the US Department of Defense plans to use a light strike aircraft instead.

Initially, the US Air Force planned to purchase light strike aircraft with turboprop engines, but later a model with a jet engine entered the list of applicants. Four aircraft take part in the tests that began: Textron Scorpion, Embraer A-29 Super Tucano, Air Tractor AT-802L Longsword and Beechcraft AT-6 Wolverine. According to the results of tests that will last until August 31, the US Air Force will evaluate the capabilities of each of the aircraft, their cost and the production capabilities of development companies. It is planned to purchase about 300 light attack aircraft.

Scorpion made its first flight in December 2013 of the year, is a dual-use aircraft and can be used to attack ground targets or train pilots. The length of the aircraft is 13,3 m, the wingspan is 14,4 m, the maximum take-off weight is 9,6 t, while up to 2,8 t of ammunition can be placed at six points of suspension. The attack aircraft reaches speeds of up to 833 km / h, the range is 4400 km.



The Super Tucano is a lightweight turboprop attack aircraft produced by Embraer, a Brazilian company (the first prototype took off in the 1999 year). Initially, the Super Tucano was designed as a training aircraft, but was subsequently finalized and became operational. The pilot's cockpit is protected by Kevlar armor.

US Air Force seeks replacement for Warthog


AT-802 is a series of agricultural aircraft manufactured by the American company Air Tractor. Later, based on this model, shock modifications were created, including the AT-802U, a light attack aircraft that had already been purchased by the armies of Colombia and the United Arab Emirates. AT-802L Longsword is a new AT-802 assault aircraft.



AT-6 Wolverine is a continuation of the line of light attack aircraft, which already includes models T-6A and T-6B. AT-6 was developed by Hawker Beechcraft as part of the LAS (Light Air Support) program of the US Air Force based on the Texan II training aircraft.

  • http://www.businessinsider.com/
Our news channels

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

80 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +12
    11 August 2017 14: 20
    Instead of a full-fledged attack aircraft, some UB airplanes, is there really no money?
    1. +1
      11 August 2017 14: 24
      Quote: _Ugene_
      Instead of a full-fledged attack aircraft, some UB airplanes, is there really no money?

      Well, the F-35 doesn’t roll, but there are no others ... The Pentagon is considering replacing the A-10 with F-35 fighter aircraft and Beechcraft AT-6 Wolverine or Embraer A-29 Super Tucano light attack aircraft, but this is all “in favor of the poor”
    2. +7
      11 August 2017 14: 43
      Quote: _Ugene_
      Instead of a full-fledged attack aircraft, some UB airplanes, is there really no money?

      AT-6 Wolverine
      1. 0
        11 August 2017 18: 48
        Quote: san4es
        AT-6 Wolverine

        The United States had before the Warthog Troyan which the Vietnamese had beaten with the DShK, now again they are making some kind of crap.
        1. +4
          11 August 2017 19: 34
          ... There was no "clean" attack aircraft.

          A-1 Skyraider
          deck dive bomber / torpedo bomber, attack aircraft
          Skyrader "was originally created as a single-deck dive bomber / torpedo bomber with a long flight range. The order for the aircraft arrived in July 1944.
          Modifications
          XBT2D-1: prototype aircraft for the US Navy.
          AD-1: first production version. Engine Wright R-3350 (2500 hp).
          AD-1Q: two-seat aircraft electronic countermeasures.
          AD-1U: version with electronic countermeasures, adapted for towing targets. I had no weapons and water
          AD-2: version with a more powerful Wright R-3350-26W engine (3,020 hp). I got the chassis flaps and increased fuel supply.
          AD-2D: An informal designation for the remote-controlled AD-2 for collecting radioactive material in the atmosphere after nuclear testing.
          AD-2Q: two-seat aircraft electronic countermeasures.
          AD-3: version with reinforced fuselage, elongated chassis shock absorbers, redesigned propeller and cockpit light.
          AD-3N: triple night attack aircraft.
          AD-3Q: aircraft electronic countermeasures.
          AD-3QU: target towing.
          AD-3W: early warning aircraft.
          AD-4: version with the R-3350-26WA engine (2,700 hp), a reinforced landing hook, a new radar and a flashlight, more powerful weapons and other changes.
          AD-4B: nuclear weapon carrier.
          AD-4L: A variant designed specifically for use in winter conditions at the Korean theater of operations.
          AD-4N: triple night attack aircraft.
          AD-4NA: modification of the AD-4N without equipment for flying at night. Intended for use in Korea.
          AD-4NL: Modification of the AD-4N.
          AD-4Q: two-seat aircraft electronic countermeasures.
          AD-4W: three-seater early warning radar.
          (Wiki ...) hi
      2. 0
        11 August 2017 19: 53
        And this Wolverine has no knives coming out of the wings, well then it's not Wolverine
        1. 0
          14 August 2017 02: 21
          there one high-precision rocket costs more than this Volverin ..
    3. Maz
      +2
      11 August 2017 16: 06
      Look how much you need to give the Su-34 from the gentleman’s shoulder, for ye, they’ll fly.
  2. +1
    11 August 2017 14: 21
    So how much can an old man be tormented? I earned a pension!
    1. +19
      11 August 2017 14: 32
      Let them torment! Until they begin to fall.
      To the barracks ... am
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. +1
      11 August 2017 14: 50
      "The old horse will not spoil the furrow" wink ...
      1. +17
        11 August 2017 16: 54
        Quote: Brylevsky
        "The old horse will not spoil the furrow" wink ...

        Then let's fight at PO-2. He certainly could not ruin anything.
        1. +4
          11 August 2017 17: 26
          I was kidding. Here it must be understood that they will fight against us. This Warthog is the killer of our armored vehicles. During wars in the Persian Gulf, he effectively destroyed Iraqi armored vehicles, which were mainly Soviet ... His gun is very serious and it does its job perfectly. In my opinion, let the Americans soon replace it with agricultural aircraft, where this six-barrel “wunderwafer” will not be.
          1. +15
            11 August 2017 19: 00
            "wunderwaffles"?
            1. +1
              11 August 2017 19: 55
              laughing This refers to the generally accepted distortion from the German "wunderwaffe" - "miracle - weapons." The Warthog gun is very good. No one can argue with this fact.
              1. +2
                12 August 2017 00: 23
                That's just most of the armored vehicles were hit / destroyed by the Mavericks. And not gatling
          2. Alf
            0
            11 August 2017 20: 25
            Quote: Brylevsky
            During the Gulf War, he effectively destroyed Iraqi armored vehicles, which were mainly Soviet ..

            Particularly well destroyed Soviet (Iraqi) equipment that moment that she did not resist.
            1. 0
              11 August 2017 22: 40
              And how can armored vehicles resist a plane? smile
              1. 0
                11 August 2017 23: 00
                Quote: voyaka uh
                And how can armored vehicles resist a plane?

                Shoot it?
              2. The comment was deleted.
            2. +1
              12 August 2017 00: 25
              Air defense of the Iraques, of course, was frail. But the loss, nevertheless inflicted .2 warthog was shot down S-10 in one day.
              1. 0
                12 August 2017 12: 41
                losses still inflicted
                And what percentage, do not tell?
                1. +1
                  12 August 2017 19: 58
                  It seems to be already answered below. The percentages were small, in which there was nothing strange. You only take into account 2 things -
                  1. Iraqi Air Defense SV differed from the Soviet. As a cart with nags from a jeep
                  2. Sometimes air defense fulfilled its task by its existence. For example, when operations to rescue downed crews were canceled for fear of loss.
                  If it’s interesting. There’s an article by Palomarchuk, wings broken by a storm. There, all the losses are described in detail and fairly objectively, without fervent patriotism on either side.
                  1. 0
                    12 August 2017 21: 38
                    The interest was small
                    that’s the whole conversation. a lot of sorties and a negligible percentage of hits.
                    There is something to be proud of.
                    1. +1
                      12 August 2017 22: 54
                      In my opinion, you just do not read the answers. Firstly, the matter is not only in these percentages, and secondly, for such a weak air defense, as Iraqi, this is just a large percentage.
  3. 0
    11 August 2017 14: 21
    But what about Fe-35? it was also positioned as a replacement for all F 16, F 15, A 10 at once
    1. +2
      11 August 2017 14: 28
      Fe-35 fighter bomber, not attack aircraft
      1. 0
        11 August 2017 15: 01
        Well, I know that .., but the F-35 was supposed to replace all these types of aircraft at once
        1. +1
          11 August 2017 15: 21
          no attack aircraft he never
          1. 0
            11 August 2017 15: 28
            no one argues with this))) in general, you have a cognitive dissonance. They tell you one thing, you're talking about another. I'm talking about Thomas, it's about Yeryoma.
            1. +1
              11 August 2017 15: 33
              as you say, the main thing is not to be nervous.
              I meant that none of the US military was seriously going to use an expensive fighter-bomber as meat (attack aircraft)
    2. +4
      11 August 2017 15: 41
      Because they are not looking for a replacement for the A-10, but a cheap anti-Poirish airplane.
    3. 0
      11 August 2017 22: 45
      The F-35 was planned as a replacement for the F-16 in the Air Force (F-35A), a replacement for the Harrier in the Marine Corps
      (F-35B) and the replacement of the F-18 in the fleet (F-35C).
      The first two replacements are already being made, the third will begin in 2018.
  4. +3
    11 August 2017 14: 25
    And we have a Su-37! And nothing needs to be replaced. And as a light attack aircraft - the Yak-130. Although wow light, 3 tons of combat load! The famous IL-2 took 400 kg normally.
    1. +4
      11 August 2017 14: 28
      colleague, you probably meant SU39.
    2. +4
      11 August 2017 14: 36
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      And we have a Su-37! And nothing needs to be replaced. And as a light attack aircraft - the Yak-130. Although wow light, 3 tons of combat load! The famous IL-2 took 400 kg normally.

      For reference:
      Tactical and technical characteristics of the Su-39:
      Dimensions: wingspan - 14,36 m., Length of the fighter - 15,06 m., Height - 5,2 m.
      Wing area - 30,1 square. m
      Aircraft normal take-off weight - 16 950 kg., Maximum take-off - 21 500 kg.
      Fuel supply - 4890 l.
      Engine type - two TRD P-195 (W), unforced thrust - 2x4 500 kgf.
      Maximum ground speed is 950 km / h.
      The radius of action at an altitude is 1050 km, and on the ground, 650 km.
      Ferrying range - 2 500 km.
      Practical ceiling - 12 000 m.
      Crew - 1 man.
      Armament: one double-barreled 30-mm gun GSH-30
      Combat load: normal 2 830 kg, maximum 4 400 kg on 11 suspension units.
    3. mvg
      +1
      11 August 2017 16: 12
      Sometimes you need to tie .... well, at least for a couple of days .... Rare iti.ot
  5. +5
    11 August 2017 14: 25
    why there, let them take our maize. at such a pace, soon the Yankees will be able to shoot down the Aki in WWII with a rifle, or with an automatic machine. laughing
    1. +8
      11 August 2017 14: 57
      Quote: newbie
      ... so what there, let them take our corn. laughing

      ... will cost Air Tractor

      ... An-2 ourselves need soldier
      1. +4
        11 August 2017 15: 21
        Do not worry colleague. they will not receive a lame mare from us. it's me, thoughts out loud. not so far today a maize flutter flew over me, the sensations are indescribable, this is a legend of our civil aviation industry.
      2. +4
        11 August 2017 19: 23
        Quote: san4es
        Will cost Air Tractor

        This is Disney's "Dusty Polypole" ???? Instead of Thunderbolt ???? Campaign cartoons "Disney" great power)))))))
        1. +4
          11 August 2017 20: 12
          Quote: tomket
          ... "Disney" is a great power)))))))

          ...And there is:

          Disney Bomb (officially Disney Bomb, officially the “4500-pound concrete-piercing / missile bomb”) is a two-ton anti-bunker bomb with an accelerator rocket developed by Royal Navy in collaboration with the US Air Force during World War II. The nickname is related to the propaganda film made by Disney Studios.

          The missile bomb was 5,3 meters long with a diameter of 280 mm and a mass of 2000 kg. It consisted of three sections. The first - the head - was a penetrating warhead made of especially durable steel with a charge of 230 kg of explosives. The second section of the bomb was an accelerating solid propellant rocket engine, consisting of 19 separate powder bombs from 3-inch unguided missiles. The third section of the bomb included stabilizers and an ignition mechanism, which included all engines simultaneously by a signal from a barometric sensor and powered by a turbogenerator.
        2. +4
          11 August 2017 20: 13
          Quote: tomket
          Campaign cartoons "Disney" great power)))))))

          wink hi
  6. 0
    11 August 2017 14: 35
    AT-802 is a series of agricultural aircraft manufactured by the American company Air Tractor. Later, based on this model, shock modifications were created, including the AT-802U, a light attack aircraft that had already been purchased by the armies of Colombia and the United Arab Emirates. AT-802L Longsword is a new AT-802 assault aircraft.




    and so with whom our licked Su-38
    1. 0
      11 August 2017 14: 52
      Quote: maximNNX
      AT-802 is a series of agricultural aircraft manufactured by the American company Air Tractor. Later, based on this model, shock modifications were created, including the AT-802U, a light attack aircraft that had already been purchased by the armies of Colombia and the United Arab Emirates. AT-802L Longsword is a new AT-802 assault aircraft.
      and so with whom our licked Su-38

      So it was not hiding, moreover, American equipment was also being installed. The aircraft has a tank for chemicals with a volume of 500 liters (the initial design with the M-14P engine is 1050 liters) and is adapted for the installation of spray equipment from the leading countries of the world (according to 1999 data, the installation of spray equipment from TRANSLAND, USA) is planned.
  7. +9
    11 August 2017 14: 38
    Super Tucano in Afghanistan bully
  8. +3
    11 August 2017 14: 39
    Similar material was a little earlier at VO. And considered in detail (and using "numbers" and "pictures").
    Its repetition can be caused by several reasons, among which, as points A and B, one can consider:
    - the real troubles of the US Armed Forces in this segment, because of which again you can again seriously consider all kinds of Bukanirs as combat aircraft;
    - the need for new articles by abstruse authors.
  9. +1
    11 August 2017 14: 44
    In general, of course, logic is present here ... Is such a heavy machine needed for possible current tasks. And 10 is definitely redundant for today. On the other hand, cars are too light - the stock of combat stability is small ... But cheap.
    1. 0
      11 August 2017 19: 02
      Quote: Taoist
      But cheap.

      There was already a cheap Trojan.
  10. +4
    11 August 2017 15: 05
    I look at these candidates for replacement and conclude that the Americans continue to want to spread rot of the Papuans with bows, arrows and reserves of natural resources.
  11. +2
    11 August 2017 15: 20
    Some kind of unequal replacement ... Against the partisans - it suits, but to support ground operations - it is weak. in my opinion. But they know better from the Pentagon hill.
    1. 0
      11 August 2017 15: 42
      This is not a replacement. Just in the article as usual they pump it up.
  12. 0
    11 August 2017 15: 28
    They have been looking for a long time and can’t find the device no more expensive than the Mulen to finish)))))
    Nitsche, find ... Where to get to.
  13. +3
    11 August 2017 15: 46
    The United States is not looking for a replacement for the A-10 attack aircraft, they simply scrapped it due to the extreme vulnerability of aircraft from modern MANPADS when operating at low altitude above the battlefield.

    Instead of attack aircraft as a class of combat aircraft, the United States plans to create a class of light propeller-driven aircraft - controlled weapon platforms, used due to the radio horizon (in the case of enemy air defense) or from a height above 6 km (in the absence of enemy air defense).

    The United States believes it is rational to gradually abandon the F-15, F-16 and F-18 and switch to the simplest rotor-powered platforms, supplemented by stealth F-22 and F-35 to gain air supremacy and shock special operations.

    The war in Syria showed the absolute high cost and redundancy of the capabilities of the F-15, F-16, F-18, Su-24, Su-34 and Su-35С to combat slippers armed with MANPADS forces.

    In this regard, and also because of the airfall in the Donbass, the Russian Aerospace Forces have already refused to purchase Su-25.
    1. +3
      11 August 2017 17: 45
      Quote: Operator
      The United States believes it is rational to gradually abandon the F-15, F-16 and F-18 and switch to the simplest rotor-powered platforms, supplemented by stealth F-22 and F-35 to gain air supremacy and shock special operations.

      strange ... not so long ago there was an article that the United States began to re-preserve and modernize the F-18. not like cheating.
      Quote: Operator
      Instead of attack aircraft as a class of combat aircraft, the United States plans to create a class of light propeller-driven aircraft - controlled weapon platforms, used due to the radio horizon (in the case of enemy air defense) or from a height above 6 km (in the absence of enemy air defense).

      this fundamentally contradicts the concept of using F-22 and F-35. in all exercises, these planes are never at the forefront. F-15 and F-18 work there, as cheaper ones. Who will highlight the targets for the F-22 and F-35? light propeller aircraft which is contraindicated in entering the air defense coverage area? somehow not humane in relation to the American pilots ....
      1. 0
        11 August 2017 18: 07
        Quote: SanichSan
        Who will highlight the targets for the F-22 and F-35?

        they can perfectly themselves (and not only themselves) all that needs to be highlighted.
      2. 0
        11 August 2017 19: 43
        All targets for guided weapons on the battlefield will be highlighted by UAVs, and propeller-driven aircraft will play the role of air MLRS with a speed of 600 km per hour.
        1. 0
          12 August 2017 00: 14
          UAV and will become an attack aircraft as a result
          1. 0
            12 August 2017 00: 31
            Something you are only set for hardcore - attack on a low-level flight laughing

            Now there is a much cheaper option - the RUK (reconnaissance-strike complex) from a penny small-sized target-target drone and a cheap but heavy-duty turboprop aircraft - a carrier of guided weapons (manned or non-manned - this is particular).

            Plus network centric - a lot of drones above the battlefield are connected via a network with many platforms of controlled weapons outside the battlefield.
            1. 0
              12 August 2017 08: 57
              in general, I wanted to say this. just too lazy to fence the garden. I completely agree with what you wrote
    2. +2
      11 August 2017 18: 28
      Quote: Operator
      The war in Syria showed the absolute high cost and redundancy of the capabilities of the F-15, F-16, F-18, Su-24, Su-34 and Su-35С to combat slippers armed with MANPADS forces.

      To be honest, I was hoping that in Syria they would finally roll in the combat version of the Yak-130 and, based on the results of such a run-in, they would understand whether such equipment was needed and would be able to perform tasks like the Su-25.
      1. 0
        11 August 2017 19: 47
        The combat training Yak-130 can also be a platform for guided weapons, but the cost of its manufacture and operation will be several times more expensive than a single-rotor aircraft of equal carrying capacity.
        1. +2
          12 August 2017 00: 40
          Quote: Operator
          The combat training Yak-130 can also be a platform for guided weapons, but the cost of its manufacture and operation will be several times more expensive than a single-rotor aircraft of equal carrying capacity.

          At the moment, this is just a training aircraft and no non-combat aircraft. Yes, he can carry weapons, but many can. But to run it in combat conditions - that would be just what you need. And, as I already wrote, it will be possible to find out whether such a concept is viable.

          I do not support the idea of ​​a single-screw turboprop. Against the bearded, this is probably enough. But if something is more serious, I have big doubts about what will stand. But again, without having tested such a system in combat conditions, it is impossible to understand its effectiveness.
    3. +1
      11 August 2017 19: 09
      Quote: Operator
      A-10, they simply write it off as a result of the aircraft’s extreme vulnerability to modern MANPADS when operating at low altitude above the battlefield.

      In Iraq, the Warthog performed well and the losses were one or two cars.
      1. 0
        11 August 2017 19: 50
        In Iraq, air defense was first suppressed, and then the A-10 was launched.

        In addition, the United States at that time did not have an alternative in the form of numerous reconnaissance and targeting UAVs and cheap guided ammunition.
      2. +2
        12 August 2017 00: 28
        Actually .more
        1. 0
          12 August 2017 11: 21
          Quote: sivuch
          Actually .more

          According to the data that soar on the Internet so one in 2003 and seven in 1991
          One loss for 1350 sorties in 1991, the coalition’s most effective aircraft to destroy armored vehicles
          .
          Quote: Operator
          In Iraq, air defense was first suppressed, and then the A-10 was launched.

          You talked about MANPADS that Warthogs are extremely vulnerable, Do not cut down MANPADS with axes.
          The reason for the write-off is the depreciation of the park and the big problem of creating an assembly line, the plant that built them is no longer as such.
          1. +2
            12 August 2017 19: 51
            I read that during the Storm, a glass was shot down 6. It’s just necessary to keep in mind that there was an abyss between Iraq’s air defense and the Soviet Union, both quantitative and qualitative. And yes, vulnerable .2 A-10s per day, on one sector of the front, where S-10s were at their misfortune.
            1. 0
              13 August 2017 11: 42
              Quote: sivuch
              . And yes, vulnerable .2 A-10s per day, on one sector of the front, where S-10s were at their misfortune.

              The question of efficiency has come up, but you won’t particularly quarrel with it in terms of efficiency.
              1. +1
                13 August 2017 12: 17
                So survivability and efficiency are directly interrelated .1 loss of 1350 warheads is not bad at all, and 1 loss of 13-14, as it would be with the Soviet anti-aircraft defense of the 90th model, does not go into any gates. Moreover, the number of armored vehicles destroyed has decreased in the same proportion.
  14. +1
    11 August 2017 16: 03
    US Department of Defense plans to adopt a light attack aircraft

    Looks not from a good life
  15. +2
    11 August 2017 16: 48
    Judging by the video, “Scorpio”, just like a helicopter, freezes in one place and works on areas, looking for individual targets. I went to technology.
  16. 0
    11 August 2017 16: 58
    IL-2 is back
  17. +2
    11 August 2017 17: 14
    Why is it that they are looking at the screws? A warthog is an excellent machine. Or have you already burned money for modernization? Then only Thunderbolt!
    1. +1
      11 August 2017 18: 13
      The time of the attack aircraft has passed, UAVs and lighter manned platforms with a bunch of electronics and ultra-precision weapons displace them.
      1. +3
        11 August 2017 18: 16
        The time for the attack aircraft has passed. More precisely, it passes. And it is doubtful. I just asked-what they want to switch to screw? Here there are no drones and does not smell.
        1. +1
          11 August 2017 18: 21
          I think they thought it over. Looks like they are planning a series of military operations against countries such as the DPRK, where air defense systems are extremely weak. 300 pieces is not a small figure, which means that new conflicts will be fanned and such means will be needed.
          1. +2
            11 August 2017 18: 26
            The screws have low speed and noiselessness. You are right where there is no air defense. With real databases, such machines have practically no chances. If only an experienced crew is there, but he will not risk himself. On a turboprop engine you can get 300 meters -and don’t hear. 300 pieces, that means the mattresses are up to something again. They won’t get into a hot skirmish, but Duterte can spoil the blood.
  18. 0
    11 August 2017 20: 27
    Yeah. In addition to Scorpio, put the rest of the cars next to the planes of the Second World War in the museum, so most visitors will not see the difference. It is clear that avionics, engines, everything else. But still ... So soon biplanes with wings made of plywood will find application - why not "stealth"? In artillery, it’s interesting that muzzle-loading guns aren’t eyeing yet?
  19. 0
    12 August 2017 05: 46
    They will fly on a propeller-driven aircraft - a shame! As if during World War II! And we ours - SU-25 - SU34 - and in the future, a new attack aircraft based on the Yak-130!
  20. 0
    12 August 2017 13: 07
    A-10 is unique. It can be remembered only with a very similar design.
    All three candidates for replacement are unsuccessful. They are little tenacious when hit, unlike the A-10.
    And suitable only in an unmanned version.

"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)

“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; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"