Military Review

Aviation against tanks (part of 3)

68
Aviation against tanks (part of 3)



After the war, the USSR continued to work on new armored attack aircraft. Simultaneously with the creation of fighters and front-line bombers with turbojet engines, the design of attack aircraft with piston engines was carried out. In comparison with the Il-10 and Il-10М that were already in service, the designed attack aircraft should have more security, increased firepower and better forward-down view. One of the main drawbacks of the Il-2 and Il-10 attack aircraft was the large, unseen dead zone created by the engine hood, which in turn made the targeted bombing of pinpoint targets difficult.

20 November 1948, the first flight of an experienced attack aircraft Il-20. The aircraft had a very unusual appearance, the cockpit was located above the M-47 liquid-cooled piston engine with a nominal horsepower 2300. Between the pilot and the shooter, in whose possession there was a turret with a 23-mm gun, was placed the main fuel tank, covered with double 8 mm armor.


The layout of the attack aircraft Il-20


The cockpit and arrow, engine, cooling system, fuel and oil tank were located inside the armored box. The total weight of the metal and transparent armor was more than 2000 kg. Compared to IL-10, the thickness of metal armor increased on average by 46%, and transparent - by 59%. The armor mounted on the IL-20 protected not only from the 12,7-mm caliber armor-piercing bullets fired from the 300 meters, but also to a large extent from the 20-mm projectiles. The front of the cabin began immediately after the trim of the screw bush. The long frontal armored glass 100 mm thick, set at an angle of 70 °, provided an excellent forward-down view of the 37 ° sector, and when diving at 40-45 °, the pilot could see targets almost directly under the plane. Thus, on the IL-20 was eliminated one of the main drawbacks that exist in the design of armed attack aircraft.


IL-20


According to the project IL-20 was supposed to have very powerful weapons. The bomb load reached 700 kg (according to other 1190 kg data). The offensive weapon in the first version included two wing guns of the 23 mm caliber for firing forward and two 23-mm guns mounted in the fuselage at an angle of 22 ° - for firing at a strafing flight. Under the wing, the suspension of four 132-mm TRS-132 rocket launchers launched from the ORO-132 tubular "guns" was provided for.


ORO-132


When designing the TPC-82 and TPC-132 missiles traditional for the Soviet 82 and 132-mm calibers, an attempt was made to reduce drag in the aircraft and to improve the accuracy of fire due to the rotation of the shells on the trajectory. The speed of rotation of the TRS-132 reached 204 rev / sec. At the same time, the accuracy of shooting really increased, but it was still not enough to confidently hit a single tank. In terms of their amazing characteristics, TRS-82 and TRS-132 were approximately at the level of PC-82 and ROFS-132.

The second version of weapons designed to combat tanks, consisted of a 45-mm gun NS-45, two 23-mm guns and six RS. Things did not come to the construction and testing of the prototype with a 45 mm cannon, but it can be assumed that, thanks to a much better overview and more favorable conditions for aiming, the accuracy of large-caliber fire aviation guns mounted on the IL-20, could be significantly better than on the IL-2 with two NS-37.

The aircraft with a take-off weight of 9500 kg at the ground accelerated to the speed of 450 km / h, at the height of 3000 m - 515 km / h. In general, this was quite enough for the anti-tank aircraft and attack aircraft, acting in the interests of direct aviation support. However, the military, spellbound by the high speeds of jet planes, considered these characteristics insufficiently high and the work on the IL-20 turned down. Among the shortcomings of the IL-20 was uncomfortable access to the engine, which was the result of its unusual layout.

The transition of combat aircraft to jet engines and the experience of air battles in Korea predetermined the creation of a domestic attack aircraft with turbojet engines. In April, the 1954 of the year successfully completed state tests of the Il-40 attack aircraft, and in October, the 1955 of the improved version of the IL-40П.


IL-40P


An assault plane with a normal take-off weight of 16600 kg, equipped with two turbojet TRD engines RD-9В with a nominal thrust of 2150 kgf, on tests showed the maximum speed of 993 km / h, which was not much less than the speed of the MiG-15 fighter. Normal bomb load - 1000 kg (in overload 1400 kg). In the four internal bomb compartments could be placed bombs weighing up to 100 kg or fragmentation and anti-tank bombs. Combat radius - 400 km. The offensive armament consisted of four X-NUMX-mm AM-23 guns with a total rate of fire of 23 rpm and eight launchers for the TPC-5200. The rear hemisphere was protected by one remote-controlled 132-mm gun. During the shooting at ground targets, the IL-23 was more stable in control than the IL-40M, which had a positive effect on the accuracy of the fire. Simultaneous firing of all four guns did not affect the piloting of the aircraft, the recoil when shooting was small.

Training air battles with the MiG-15bis and MiG-17F fighters demonstrated that the IL-40 is not an easy opponent in aerial combat. Firing on it is difficult due to the large horizontal and vertical velocities of the IL-40, their wide range. Thanks to the effective air brakes of the attack aircraft, the attacking fighters jumped forward and were themselves hit by powerful offensive weapons. It was also not worth to discount the fire capabilities of the defensive remote-controlled turret. All this gave good chances to survive when meeting with enemy fighters. The armor protection of the crew and vital components and assemblies approximately corresponded to the level of protection of the IL-10M, which in turn was more perfect than on the IL-2. The significantly higher flight speed of the IL-40, compared with piston attack aircraft, made it possible to quickly leave the zone of anti-aircraft fire. In addition, the twin-engine aircraft could continue flying if one turbojet engine failed.

In combat capabilities, the IL-40 was significantly superior to the IL-10M piston attack aircraft, which was in service with the Air Force at that time. IL-40 could develop a greater maximum speed of horizontal flight, climb rate, altitude, had a greater range of speeds, won by bomb load and power weapons. It would seem that with such characteristics a rocket attack aircraft had a cloudless future, but different times came, and the top military-political leadership relied on the missiles, burying many promising aviation projects.

As of 1 on January 1955, the Soviet Soviet Air Force had 19 assault air regiments armed with 1700 piston attack planes IL-10 and IL-10M and 130 jet fighter-bombers MiG-15bis. In a report presented in April 1956 by Secretary of Defense Marshal G.K. Zhukov, a groundless conclusion was made about the low effectiveness of attack aircraft on the battlefield in a modern war, and in fact it was proposed to abolish attack aircraft. At the same time, the tasks of direct aviation support for the troops were proposed to be entrusted to fighter aircraft and front-line bombers. The proposal of the Minister of Defense found warm support from the leadership of the country, and soon an order was issued, according to which, the assault aviation was abolished, and all available attack aircraft were to be written off. In parallel with the liquidation of assault aviation, the decision to establish the serial production of the jet IL-40 was canceled and all design work on promising attack aircraft was discontinued.

After the elimination of assault aviation as a class and the disposal of existing piston attack aircraft for scrap and the abandonment of serial construction, which had no analogue of the Il-40 jet attack aircraft, this niche was occupied by jet fighters MiG-15bis and MiG-17F. These aircraft had quite powerful cannon weapons and a good view from the cockpit, but did not fully meet the requirements for direct aviation support aircraft. Moreover, in the role of tank destroyers, first-generation jet fighters with a weight of 200-250 kg rocket-bomb load were ineffective. In 60-s, to increase the shock capabilities of the MiG-17F, they were equipped with NAR UB-16 units with 57-mm NAR C-5 units. In the 1960, the C-5K (KARS-57) unguided missile with the 130 mm armor penetration was adopted.

At the beginning of the 60-x to replace the MiG-17F in the fighter-bombing regiments began to arrive Su-7B. Supersonic aircraft with one engine AL-7F-1 with nominal thrust 6800 kgf, without external hangers at high altitude accelerated to 2120 km / h. The maximum combat load of the Su-7B was 2000 kg.


Link Su-7B in flight


30-mm HP-30 guns with 70 rounds of ammunition per barrel could be used against armored vehicles. Their total rate of fire was about 1800 shots / min, that is, for one second, a barrage of 30 shells could be fired on the target. HP-30 was an effective means of defeating lightly armored vehicles, in a number of armed conflicts of them it was possible to incite medium tanks. With a carrier speed of 200 m / s, an armor-piercing projectile with a mass of 390 g, ejected from the gun barrel with a speed of 890 m / s, at the meeting angle 60 ° could penetrate 25 mm armor. The anti-tank weapons of fighter-bombers also included one-time bomb cassettes equipped with PTAB and NAR C-3K and C-5K.

Uncontrolled 160-mm cumulative fragmentation missiles C-3K were specifically designed to enhance the anti-tank capabilities of the Su-7B. With a mass of 23,5 kg, the C-3K rocket projectile carried a kg-shaped cumulative fragmentation warhead with 7,3 mm armor penetration. Usually, two APU-300U launchers with 14 guides each were suspended under a fighter-bomber. The C-7K rockets had good firing accuracy: at the 3 km distance, more than half of the rockets fit into a circle with a diameter of 2 m.


Su-7B with suspended NAR C-3K


The C-3K missiles have proven themselves well during the Arab-Israeli wars, where Su-7B was used. But these NARs had a number of significant drawbacks. The placement of the herringbone missiles on the APU-14U created a large frontal resistance, and the planes with suspended launchers had significant speed and maneuver limitations. To defeat the armor C-3K had excess power, at the same time, insufficient to destroy the field fortifications. In addition, fourteen albeit sufficiently powerful unguided rockets was clearly not enough to effectively fight against tanks with their massive use. The fragmentation effect of C-3K was weak. With the explosion of the warhead formed a lot of light fragments. But lightweight high-speed debris quickly lost speed and penetrating power, which made them ineffective in dealing with manpower, not to mention the technology where weak striking elements could not penetrate the body of the car, aircraft trim and ignite the contents. NAR C-3K did not enjoy popularity in combat regiments, and their use was limited.


Set of weapons fighter-bomber Su-7BM


In this respect, the 57-mm NAR C-5KO with cumulative fragmentation warheads with the armor penetration of 170 mm looked much more advantageous. When crushing 11 steel rings with cuts formed up to 220 fragments weighing 2 gram. The number of 57-mm missiles with folding plumage in the UB-16 units on the Su-7BM was more than four times more than the C-3K on two APU-14Us. Accordingly, the lesion area was significantly higher. Although C-5 compared to C-3K had a less powerful warhead, they provided a sufficiently damaging effect on most targets, including armored vehicles in open positions, parking lots and in field-type shelters.

The targeting range of the NAR C-5 launch was 1500 m. Uncontrolled missiles were launched from a dive, and the current distance to the target, which served as the basis for solving the aiming task, was set automatically according to a barometric altimeter and pitch angle or manually by a pilot.

In practice, the launches were carried out, as a rule, from one set and worked out mode - a gentle dive with a speed of 800-900 km / h with a flight altitude of at least 400 m. The approach could be a low-altitude approach with a “jump” - a slide for attack and dive on the target.

Naturally, with such a speed of flight and the range of the launch of the NAR, there could be no talk of fighting against individual tanks. Even on a well-known test site, the likelihood of a successful attack from the first approach on small targets did not exceed 0,1-0,2. The strikes, as a rule, took place on clusters of enemy equipment in places of concentration, or columns on the march. The attack of tanks deployed in battle formations was a very difficult affair and often of little success.

However, Su-7B, with proper use, has proven itself very well in local conflicts. Thus, during the next Indo-Pakistani war of 1971, the Indian Su-7BMK distinguished themselves during the attack on clusters of armored vehicles. In two weeks of fighting, Indian pilots of the Sushchek destroyed about 150 tanks. In 1973, the Syrian fighter-bombers using PTB-250 bombed cassettes and C-2,5K and C-3K missiles caused Israeli Israeli tank divisions with sensitive losses. Not bad and 5-mm "beater". HP-30 proved to be effective. weapons not only against lightly armored vehicles: in some cases, their shells destroyed medium tanks M48 and M51HV.

In 60-70-ies, in parallel with the MiG-17F and Su-7B aircraft, MiG-21ПФ / ПФМ fighters were transferred to the fighter-bombing regiments. The MiG-21PF strike armament consisted of two UB-16-57 units of 16 C-5M or C-5K shells and 50 to 500 caliber bombs. In addition, the suspension of two heavy missiles C-24 was provided.



A relatively small combat load, an excessively high speed of going into the attack with a poor view from the cockpit of the existing fighter-bomber of the time forced to turn to the idea of ​​an attack aircraft based on the IL-28 front-line bomber. In accordance with the project, the modified bomber was supposed to have the same depth of hostilities as the Su-7B, but exceed it in the number of weapons in 2-3 times. Due to the direct wing of relatively large elongation and lower flight speed, the conditions for searching for targets on the battlefield and aiming should have become better than those of a single-engine jet fighter-bomber with a large sweep wing. The advantage of the aircraft was a good overview of the cabin crew members and the possibility of combat work from unpaved airfields.


IL-28Sh


IL-28Sh with underwing pylons for the suspension of various weapons, intended for actions from low altitudes on clusters of equipment and enemy manpower, as well as on single armored combat vehicles in combat formations. 6 pylons were mounted under each wing of the aircraft on which they could accommodate: 12 units UB-16-57, suspended gun nacelles, bombs and bomb cassettes.


Pylons weapons IL-28Sh


For ground targets, it was also possible to use two 23-mm gun HP-23, mounted on the sides of the bottom of the fuselage. The experience of fighting in local conflicts has shown that when the side-shooters leave the attack using the aft defensive Il-K6 installation with two HP-23 cannons, it can effectively suppress anti-aircraft fire.

The IL-28Sh tests began in the 1967 year. Numerous external suspension assemblies significantly increased the drag of the aircraft. Fuel consumption on the ground has increased by 30-40%. The combat range with a load of twelve UB-16 amounted to 300 km. According to the test pilots, the assault version of the bomber was quite suitable for the destruction of mobile small-sized targets. But the aircraft did not launch into mass production. In IL-28Sh a number of bombers were redone, happily avoiding cutting into metal during the defeat of the front aviation Khrushchev. Re-equipment was carried out during the overhaul in the factory. IL-28Sh with NAR blocks acted mainly in the bomber air regiments deployed in the Far East.

In general, the combat effectiveness of the supersonic Su-7B compared with the MiG-15bis and MiG-17F has increased significantly. But the increase in combat effectiveness of the new fighter-bombers was accompanied by an increase in take-off mass and a deterioration in the take-off and landing characteristics. The maneuverability of the aircraft at the heights characteristic of actions for the direct aviation support of the ground forces also left much to be desired. In this regard, in 1965, the creation of the Su-7B modification with a variable sweep wing began.



The new aircraft turned only the outer parts of the wing, located behind the main landing gear. This layout has improved takeoff and landing characteristics and improved handling at low altitudes. A relatively inexpensive upgrade turned the Su-7B into a multi-mode aircraft. The supersonic fighter-bomber, designated Su-17, was produced in large series from 1969 to 1990 year. The machine was exported under the designations Su-20 and Su-22.


Su-17 of early modification with UB-16 and UB-32 units on the territory of an aircraft factory in Komsomolsk-on-Amur

The first Su-17 had an engine and avionics, similar to the Su-7BM. In the future, due to the installation of a more powerful TRDF engine AL-17F21 and new electronic equipment, the capabilities of the aircraft increased significantly. Following the Su-3M, modifications of the Su-17М17, Su-2М17 and Su-3М17 followed.


Sioux 17M3


The latest, most advanced model entered the tests in the 1982 year. Given that the Su-17М4 was mainly intended for strikes against ground targets, there was a rejection of an adjustable cone-shaped air intake. The cone was fixed at a position optimal for transonic low-altitude flight. The maximum speed at the height of the limited value 1,75M.


Sioux 17M4


Externally, the Su-17М4 differed little from the earlier models, but in terms of its capabilities it was a much more advanced machine, equipped with the PrNK-54 airborne aim-and-navigation computing system. Compared with the Su-7BM, the weight of the maximum combat load has doubled. Although the armament included a wide range of guided bombs and missiles, they were primarily intended for the destruction of pinpoint stationary critical targets and the anti-tank capabilities of the fighter-bomber did not grow much. As before, PTAB was intended to fight tanks in one-time bomb cassettes of RBC-250 or RBC-500 and NAR.

However, the new 80-mm cumulative fragmentation of the NAR C-8KO and C-8COM had increased armor penetration and good fragmentation effect up to 420-450 mm. Cumulative fragmentation 3,6 kg of warhead contains 900 g of the explosive Gekfol-5. The range of the C-8KOM 1300 – 4000 rocket launch. M. The speed range of the aircraft carrier during combat use of the NAR C-8 of all types 160 – 330 m / s. The missiles were launched from the X-NUMX-charging launchers of the B-20M. Thanks to the introduction of the digital calculator and the Klen-PS laser rangefinder-target indicator into the Su-8М17 avionics avionics, the accuracy of NAR application has increased significantly.

According to Western data, as of January 1, 1991 of the USSR Air Force Su-17 of all modifications was equipped with 32 fighter-bomber, 12 reconnaissance regiments, one separate reconnaissance squadron and four training regiments. Su-17, despite the somewhat archaic design by the standards of the middle 80-s, embodied the optimal combination by the criterion of cost-effectiveness, which led to its widespread and long-term operation. The Soviet fighter bombers were not inferior in their percussion capabilities to similar Western machines, often surpassing them in flight data, but, like their foreign counterparts, they could not effectively fight with individual tanks on the battlefield.

Almost simultaneously with the adoption of the Su-17 on the basis of a front-line fighter with a variable geometry wing MiG-23, its attack version MiG-23B was developed and launched into a series. The impact modification of the "twenty-third" had a characteristic nose. In addition to the lack of radar, partial reservation of the cockpit, modified front end and the installation of special target equipment, according to the airframe, the aircraft differed little from the MiG-23С fighter, which has been in mass production since the beginning of 1970. To improve the forward-down view and the installation of the ASP-17 sight, the front part of the aircraft, devoid of radar, was skewed down 18 °. A good review contributed to the ease of orientation and search for goals. For a glance down there was a small heel. The pilots flying the MiG-21 and Su-7B, apart from the nose, could not be clearly seen and, in order to look around, sometimes they had to carry out the semi-halfback, turning the plane over.



An airplane with a normal take-off weight of 16470 kg, equipped with the same AL-21F3 engine, as the later modifications of the Su-17 near the ground could accelerate to 1350 km / h. The maximum speed at a height without external suspensions was 1800 km / h. It is difficult to say what led the command of the armed forces, adopting two different types of fighter-bomber with close combat characteristics. MiG-23B had no special advantages over the Su-17, except for a better view from the cockpit. Moreover, the military rightly pointed out such shortcomings as a lower combat load per 1 per ton, more difficult piloting, worse runway characteristics, and time-consuming ground handling. In addition, just like the front-line fighter MiG-23, the shock MiG-23B with access to high angles of attack easily fell into a tailspin, which was very difficult to remove from.


MiG-23B


Since the weight of the MiG-23B combat load was less than that of the Su-17М, the number of anti-tank bombs in single-shot bombs dropped. In addition, on the MiG-23B installed double-barreled ventillary gun GSH-23L with 200 ammunition ammunition. With a small net weight in 50 kg, the GSH-23L had a rate of fire of up to 3200 rds / min and 10 kg with a second salvo. The GSH-23L was very effective against airborne and lightly armored targets, its 182 g armor-piercing projectiles fired at an initial speed of about 700 m / s, at a distance of 800 meters along the normal, pierced armor with a thickness of up to 15 mm. That was enough to destroy the armored personnel carrier and infantry fighting vehicles, but the armor of heavy and medium tanks from the GSH-23L was impossible to break through.

In 1973, an improved MiG-23BN with a more economical Р29Б-300 engine was presented for testing. Despite the fact that the MiG-23BN for export deliveries was built before the 1985 year, it was in many ways an interim solution, which did not satisfy both the creators and the customer. The military wanted to get a plane with increased combat effectiveness, superior to similar in purpose products of the Sukhoi Design Bureau. In this regard, work began on a radical increase in the combat characteristics of the MiG-23B.

Modernization implied changes in three directions: constructive improvements of the aircraft in order to improve flight and operational characteristics, the introduction of new target equipment and the reinforcement of weapons. The new aircraft received the designation MiG-27. Adjustable air intakes, inherited from the shock versions of fighter variants, were replaced with lightweight unregulated ones on the MiG-27, which resulted in weight savings of about 300 kg. For the sake of increasing the weight of the combat load on the new machine, the maximum speed and altitude were somewhat reduced.

Wishing to outperform the competitors of the Su-17 family, the designers relied on a new high-performance aiming and navigation system, which has repeatedly expanded the possibilities for using guided weapons. In addition, the 23-mm gun was subject to replacement. Her place was taken by the six-barreled 30-mm GSH-6-30, which has a high rate of fire and a large weight of a second salvo. The transition to 30-mm caliber, already used on the Su-7B and Su-17, provided a twofold increase in the mass of the projectile, and the increased ballistics gave not only good armor penetration and power of impact on various targets, but also significantly improved the accuracy of shooting. The GSH-6-30 on the MiG-27 was placed in the ventral niche that was not closed by the fairing, which ensured ease of maintenance and good cooling with an incoming air flow.


GSH-6-30 to MiG-27


However, installing such a powerful weapon with a rate of fire of up to 5100 rds / min caused a number of problems. Often, when firing with the most powerful recoil, electronic devices were knocked out, the entire structure of the aircraft was loosened, the front landing gear flaps were jarred, which threatened to jam them. Replacing the landing lights became common after the shooting. It has been empirically established that firing a burst of no more than 40 shells is relatively safe. In this case, in tenths of a second, the gun sent a volley at the 16-kg target. When using the PrNK-23 automated aiming and navigation system, it was possible to achieve very good firing accuracy, and the fire power of the GSH-6-30 made it possible to hit tanks with sufficiently high efficiency. At the same time, the reliability of very sophisticated equipment installed on the MiG-27 left much to be desired.


Optical windows of the laser-television sighting system "Kaira-23"


The most advanced modification in the MiG-27 family was the MiG-27K with the Kaira-23 laser-television sighting system. This machine had in many ways unsurpassed so far in our Air Force capabilities for the use of guided aviation weapons. But at the same time, the unique equipment was very expensive, which caused the relative small number of MiG-27. Thus, the MiG-27K was built only 197 machines, and the MiG-27M, which was inferior in its capabilities "Kayra" - 162 aircraft. In addition, the 27 MiG-304BM was upgraded to the level of the MiG-23D. All the upgraded MiG-27 were well-suited for the destruction of pinpoint critical targets, but using them to fight tanks on the battlefield can be compared to nailing a microscope.

In general, Su-17 (export Su-20 and Su-22), MiG-23BN and MiG-27 have proven themselves well in armed conflicts that occurred at the end of the 20 century. In addition to the destruction of various stationary objects, fighter-bombers were involved in strikes against clusters of armored vehicles. Thus, in 1982, during the fighting in Lebanon, Su-22M and MiG-23BN made 42 combat sorties. According to Syrian data, they destroyed and seriously damaged up to 80 tanks and armored vehicles. NAR C-5KO, bomb cassettes from PTAB and FAB-100 bombs were used against Israeli armored vehicles.

In the course of air strikes, the more advanced Su-22M proved better than the MiG-23BN. Having lost 7 Su-22M and 14 MiG-23BN, the Syrians managed to stop the advance of Israeli tanks along the highway to Damascus. Most of the strike aircraft was shot down by Israeli fighters. The main reason for the heavy losses of fighter - bomber was the pattern tactic of actions, planning miscalculations and the low tactical and flight training of Syrian pilots.

In the course of one of the bloodiest conflicts of the end of 20 of the century - the seven-year Iran-Iraq war, the Iraqi Air Force actively used: MiG-23BN, Su-20 and Su-22. In some cases, Iraqi fighter-bombers effectively stormed the Iranian tank columns, but they themselves often suffered considerable losses from anti-aircraft artillery, the Hok air defense system and Iranian fighters.

Simultaneously with the purchase of supersonic fighter-bombers, many countries kept in service the subsonic MiG-17 and Hunter fighter aircraft. It would seem that hopelessly outdated aircraft, inferior in weight to combat load and flight speed, should have quickly disappeared from the scene, but this did not happen, and flying curiosities in a number of states were in operation until the beginning of the 21 century. And this was explained not only by the poverty of these countries, some of them in parallel bought very modern combat aircraft.

Back in 1969, at the large Berezina exercises in Belarus, in which several IBA regiments participated in the MiG-17, MiG-21 and Su-7B, the Air Force leadership drew attention to the fact that during individual attacks it was aimed at hitting decommissioned tanks, set as targets at the test site, only MiG-17 aircraft could. Naturally, the question arose of the ability of supersonic MiG-21 and Su-7B to fight with enemy tanks. For this, a special working group was formed, which included representatives of the aviation design bureau and specialists from the 30 Central Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense, which was responsible for the theoretical substantiation of the construction of military aviation. During the analysis of the submitted materials, experts concluded that the ability to fly off the ground, performing combat maneuvering over the target at speeds of 500-600 km / h, makes subsonic airplanes a more effective weapon for assault strikes. At such speeds, provided there is a good view from the cockpit, there is an opportunity for fire destruction of point targets, and good maneuverability (and not just speed) together with the use of extremely low altitudes become a means of increasing the chances of confronting air defense. It was desirable that the subsonic low-altitude, maneuverable combat aircraft had cockpit armor and powerful offensive weapons. In other words, the leadership of the USSR Ministry of Defense once again came to understand the need to create a well-protected attack aircraft capable of providing direct air support and fighting tanks on the battlefield.

Продолжение следует ...

Based on:
http://armsdata.net/russia/0670.html
http://www.militarypribor.ru/products/av
http://www.razlib.ru/transport_i_aviacija/samolety_mira_1998_03/p7.php
Author:
Articles from this series:
Aviation against tanks (part of 1)
Aviation against tanks (part of 2)
68 comments
Ad

Our projects are looking for authors in the news and analytical departments. Requirements for applicants: literacy, responsibility, efficiency, inexhaustible creative energy, experience in copywriting or journalism, the ability to quickly analyze text and check facts, write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. The work is paid. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Dooplet11
    Dooplet11 11 October 2017 16: 30 New
    +7
    Respect! Thank you for the article.
    In 1973, Syrian fighter-bombers using RBK-250 bombing cartridges equipped with PTAB-2,5 and S-3K and S-5K missiles inflicted sensitive losses on Israeli tank units.

    I learned for the first time that PTAB-2,5 worked effectively in 70's. Thanks a lot.
  2. EvilLion
    EvilLion 11 October 2017 16: 31 New
    +3
    In a report presented in April 1956 by the Minister of Defense, Marshal G.K. Zhukov, the groundless conclusion was made about the low efficiency of attack aircraft on the battlefield in modern warfare


    And where did you get the idea that it is baseless? IL-10 at that time would already have been a target for fighters, and land at a speed of 900 km / h can be seen very conditionally. Maybe the Il-40 would still be doing something, but even the Su-25 is not designed to attack point targets, and the A-10, with its gun, flies much slower than even the first post-war fighter jets. Plus, the growth of engine capabilities over the years, while the parameters of some thread ZU-23-2 have not changed. Su-25 and IL-40 are very different technical levels.
    1. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 11 October 2017 16: 44 New
      11
      Quote: EvilLion
      And where did you get the idea that it is baseless?

      Well, of course, the author is an ignoramus and knows nothing about what he wrote. lol The fact that the post-war experience of using combat aircraft in local wars says that the liquidation of attack aircraft, including old aircraft, was greatly hastened. How many American attack aircraft in Vietnam flew faster than the "hopelessly outdated" IL-10? no
      1. Dooplet11
        Dooplet11 11 October 2017 16: 58 New
        +3
        Well, the word "baseless" is probably superfluous. Zhukov definitely had some reasons and arguments. How true they were, time is the judge.
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 11 October 2017 17: 03 New
        +4
        According to the results of the largest war in the history of mankind, the USSR Minister of Defense, the 4x GSS, of course, the layman did not understand anything in the military realities of those years. Either the author is on topvar.

        In Vietnam, there weren’t much fighters, but from the primitive riflemen a monstrous amount of helicopters and airplanes fell. And yes, even propeller-driven aircraft flew faster than the Il-Xnumx. In general, in the USA back in WWII there was a huge Thunderbolt pitcher, a long-range escort fighter, and later an attack aircraft, with its size and bombs a lot and the defense is not the most fig. But the FW-10 as an attack aircraft proved to be about nothing.
        1. faiver
          faiver 11 October 2017 17: 12 New
          +4
          I don’t understand the assignment of GSS to comrades in stripes - they don’t throw at embrasures, they don’t go to rams, they don’t go to attacks ...
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 11 October 2017 23: 10 New
            +1
            Well, the war does not require brains, yes.
            1. faiver
              faiver 12 October 2017 05: 03 New
              +4
              well, yes - the work of the headquarters and heroism go hand in hand a couple ..., I see a note straight - "... heroically indicated the direction of the offensive on the map ...." hi
          2. verner1967
            verner1967 12 October 2017 21: 24 New
            +2
            Quote: faiver
            I do not quite understand the assignment of the GSS to comrades in stripes

            especially, in connection with the anniversary and another contribution, when there is no war either.
        2. Lopatov
          Lopatov 11 October 2017 17: 52 New
          +5
          If we recall Vietnam, then the screw "Skyrader" there was very, very actively involved. Especially when there was a very frequent need for a local theater of operations in the "surgical" strikes in the immediate vicinity of their troops.
        3. Lopatov
          Lopatov 11 October 2017 18: 10 New
          +8
          Quote: EvilLion
          According to the results of the largest war in the history of mankind, the Minister of Defense of the USSR, 4 GSS, of course, the layman did not understand anything in the military realities of those years.

          He proceeded from incorrect premises.
          The nature of future wars was by no means limited to the total with the active use of nuclear weapons, and missile guided weapons did not become a prodigy.
          1. KKND
            KKND 11 October 2017 19: 53 New
            +4
            Quote: Spade
            He proceeded from incorrect premises.

            I agree! Plus, the “friend” Khrushchev wanted to save on the Army, for which he was criticized by the professional military, often dropping down to the military academy or even obscene language, although Khrushchev was certainly not stupid.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 11 October 2017 19: 59 New
              +6
              Quote: KKND
              Plus, "friend" Khrushchev wanted to save on the Army, for which he was scolded by professional military

              Everything here is also not so simple. "Wishlist" of the then military did not match the economic capabilities of the USSR during the Khrushchev era. And something definitely had to be "cut"
              1. KKND
                KKND 11 October 2017 20: 03 New
                +3
                Shovels, I'm fucking over you belay . One of the few sober people on the site. You should be appointed to the General Staff or the Minister of Defense, maybe things would have gone better in Russia. hi
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 11 October 2017 20: 19 New
                  +7
                  C'mon, it's on the surface.
                  Space for the USSR of the times of Khrushchev was practically unbearable in terms of economy. But the Soviet Union had no other choice, because we could not catch up with and overtake the United States in the field of long-range bomber aviation. Plus a nuclear program.
                  Therefore, "cut."
                  Another thing, Khrushchev was the “top view”, rather a player in the “point” than a player in chess. Because "cut" is not always what you need. Moreover, they “cut” them without counting on the subsequent restoration, as they would have done under the leadership of a person who is able to calculate the situation several moves ahead.
                  1. KKND
                    KKND 11 October 2017 20: 30 New
                    +3
                    Quote: Spade
                    Another thing, Khrushchev was the “top view”, rather a player in the “point” than a player in chess. Because "cut" is not always what you need.

                    I do not want to idealize Khrushchev, everyone makes mistakes, but now it’s easy for us to be “strong back mind”. At least it’s not a “living corpse” Brezhnev in which the “army mafia” had a lot of fun, and then the oil fell and the Soviet citizens “had fun”.
                    1. Aviator_
                      Aviator_ 12 October 2017 22: 24 New
                      +2
                      Brezhnev became a "living corpse" after the 1976 year, and even then not immediately. He spent his first twelve years of rule (1964-1976) with dignity.
              2. KKND
                KKND 11 October 2017 20: 13 New
                +4
                Quote: Spade
                "Wishlist" of the then military did not match the economic capabilities of the USSR during the Khrushchev era.

                "Wishlist" of the military is always the same: "Total and Many." How many do not give them, it will not be enough, I do not blame them. The government’s task is to strictly control the “army mafia” and save without harming the country's defense. By the way, one of the reasons for the collapse of the USSR was the inability of the country's leadership to "save."
        4. Bongo
          12 October 2017 01: 08 New
          +4

          Quote: EvilLion
          In Vietnam, there weren’t much fighters, but from the primitive riflemen a monstrous amount of helicopters and airplanes fell.

          Do not adjust the facts to your conclusions. At VO there were a number of publications devoted to counterguerrilla aviation, where, among other things, statistics were given on the loss of propeller aircraft.
          1. KKND
            KKND 12 October 2017 01: 23 New
            +1
            Sergey, I’m embarrassed to ask, are you here with Lopatov that you have added advantages? repeat
            1. Bongo
              12 October 2017 01: 27 New
              +6
              Quote: KKND
              Sergey, I’m embarrassed to ask, are you here with Lopatov that you have added advantages?

              Do not be shy ... I do not see anything wrong with the fact that we have a common point of view. I did not agree with Lopatov in everything before, but in this case there is a place to be complete unanimity.
              1. KKND
                KKND 12 October 2017 01: 36 New
                +2
                By the way, thanks to you, Lopatov and a couple of people on this site, I was re-educated.
                It used to be a pro-Western. You helped and taught me to respect my country. Though I’m stupid, you can count on me, if that.
                1. Bongo
                  12 October 2017 01: 51 New
                  +6
                  Quote: KKND
                  By the way, thanks to you, Lopatov and a couple of people on this site, I was re-educated.
                  It used to be a pro-Western. You helped and taught me to respect my country. Though I’m stupid, you can count on me, if that.

                  I never set myself the goal of educating someone on the site. I have enough of my children, several wives and a cat. Respect for your country, of course, should be. But unfortunately, a number of VO visitors have a place to have a disease called urea-patriotism, when explicit help from a psychiatrist is required. Of course, this does not apply to you. hi
                  1. KKND
                    KKND 12 October 2017 02: 06 New
                    +3
                    The psychiatrist will not help. These people are ordinary people who are led to uncomplicated propaganda. And our propaganda says that we need to shout cheers. Tomorrow the propaganda course will change, they will instantly change their minds.
                    The problem is not propaganda, and even its quality, the problem is deeper. Everything goes to a bad scenario and I’m afraid I can’t avoid it.
                    1. Bongo
                      12 October 2017 02: 08 New
                      +8
                      Quote: KKND
                      The psychiatrist will not help. These people are ordinary people who are led to uncomplicated propaganda. And our propaganda says that we need to shout cheers. Tomorrow the propaganda course will change, they will instantly change their minds.

                      This is true. The case of the Su-24 shot down by the Turks is a vivid example of this ... negative
        5. zyablik.olga
          zyablik.olga 12 October 2017 01: 42 New
          +5
          Quote: EvilLion
          According to the results of the largest war in the history of mankind, the USSR Minister of Defense, the 4x GSS, of course, the layman did not understand anything in the military realities of those years. Either the author is on topvar.

          We are all human and we can be wrong! As subsequent events showed precisely in this matter, G.K. Zhukov was wrong. And the attack aircraft was revived again.
        6. Pollux
          Pollux 28 May 2018 13: 01 New
          0
          Quote: EvilLion
          According to the results of the largest war in the history of mankind, the USSR Minister of Defense, the 4x GSS, of course, the layman did not understand anything in the military realities of those years. Either the author is on topvar.

          There is such a term - aftertaste.
    2. brn521
      brn521 12 October 2017 14: 25 New
      0
      Quote: EvilLion
      land at a speed of 900 km / h can be seen very conditionally

      The author mentioned a wide range of speeds. The truth is not clear how wide.
      1. NIKNN
        NIKNN 15 October 2017 18: 33 New
        +3
        Quote: brn521
        The author mentioned a wide range of speeds. The truth is not clear how wide.

        Well, here the author just didn’t mention about the heights ... You can clearly see it in super-sound at an altitude of 10000 (though not tanks) ... but at an extremely low speed of 100 and lower it is already problematic ... Well, the speed is 600 meters 900 allows you to see, but work ..., not enough time for a reaction ... hi
  3. Amurets
    Amurets 11 October 2017 16: 50 New
    +3
    Sergei! Thank you, If I saw Su-7 and Su-17 live, then see the IL-40 photo for the first time.
    1. Bongo
      12 October 2017 06: 53 New
      +8
      Quote: Amurets
      Sergei! Thank you, If I saw Su-7 and Su-17 live, then see the IL-40 photo for the first time.

      I have not yet mentioned the Tu-91 turboprop attack aircraft with a maximum speed of 800 km / h and a payload of up to 1500 kg. This machine was originally designed to be based on the deck of aircraft carriers.
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 12 October 2017 06: 57 New
        +3
        Quote: Bongo
        I have not yet mentioned the Tu-91 turboprop attack aircraft with a maximum speed of 800 km / h and a payload of up to 1500 kg.

        Well, about this I read. EMNIP Aircraft carriers of Admiral Kuznetsov. But I only read about IL-40.
  4. Curious
    Curious 11 October 2017 19: 03 New
    +4
    I allow myself to supplement the article, since there are significant gaps.
    To begin with, the Ilyushin Design Bureau at IL-40P did not stop the development of attack aircraft.
    The idea of ​​an armored attack aircraft in the Ilyushin Design Bureau was returned at the end of the 1960s, when, in accordance with the requirements of the Air Force, based on the experience of Vietnam and Middle Eastern conflicts, they were again interested in attack aircraft, a project of the IL-42 aircraft, which is a deep modernization of the IL-40, was proposed. The attack aircraft were supposed to be equipped with two TRDs AM-5F (2x3250 kgf). Its normal take-off weight was 16 480 kg, maximum take-off - 17 470 kg, empty aircraft 12 190 kg, fuel - 4170 kg, armor - 700 kg, maximum bomb load - 1400 kg. According to calculations, the attack aircraft was supposed to reach 997 km / h speed, have a practical 11 600 m ceiling and a practical 1115 km range.
    In the competition of projects of attack aircraft, held in June 1969, participated, also, OKB AS Yakovlev, who presented the project Yak-25LSH, A.I. Mikoyan (MiG-21LSH) and P.O. Dry (Т8). As a result, the competition "passed" T8 and MiG-21ЛШ, and it was decided to stop work on the Yak-25ЛШ and Il-42.
    However, the development of the Ilyushin double attack aircraft was still continued under the direction of G.V. Novozhilova proactively. Compared with the IL-42, the new aircraft, designated IL-102, had a modified form of the forward fuselage with an improved forward-down view, new, more powerful engines, and much more powerful weapons.

    Work on the IL-102 program was rather sluggish: the lack of funds and the "semi-legal" status of the aircraft affected it. The leadership of the Ministry of Defense opposed the Ilyushin attack aircraft, considering its creation an excessive dispersal of forces in the presence of a much more "advanced" T8 (Su-25) program. However, by the beginning of 1982, the construction of the prototype IL-102 was still completed.
    In 1984, the aircraft flew to the airfield LII MAP (Zhukovsky), where it was put on conservation in the hangar of the OKB Design Bureau. Ilyushin. By that time, full-scale mass production of Su-25 attack aircraft had already been deployed, over which IL-102 did not have any significant advantages, except for the presence of a very controversial tactically defensive small arms. In 1986, the program was again tried to "reanimate", but by that time the internal political situation in the country had already changed, and the course was taken to reduce the funding of the defense industry. In addition, a fundamental decision was made on the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan. Under these conditions, IL-102 finally lost any perspective. His "farewell bow" became the Moscow Air Show 1992, where the IL-102 briefly became a "star", after which it finally sank into oblivion.
    In the mid-40s, OKB developed several Tu-2Sh attack aircraft based on the Tu-2C 82 ASh-2FN.
    The chief of the OKB armament brigade A.V. Nadashkevich and the leading engineer S.I. Saveliev in 1944 proposed the use of submachine guns designed by G.S. Shpagin when attacking enemy infantry convoys. For this purpose, a platform was designed on which 88 PPSh assault rifles were fixed (11 rows of 8 trunks each). The whole system is called "PPSh battery." Each machine had a magazine with 71 rounds of 7,62 mm caliber. In the fighting position, the battery was rigidly mounted in the Tu-2 bomb bay. During the attack, the pilot opened the bomber’s flaps and, using a special sight, fired heavily at the enemy. For reloading, the platform with the PPSh fell down on the cables.
    In early February 1946, the PPSh battery, unofficially called the "fire hedgehog," passed flight tests at the training ground. They showed its great effectiveness. However, a powerful flurry of fire was short-lived, and the need to return to the base for reloading machine guns nullified its advantages. Various aircraft guns were tested on them up to a caliber of 76,2 mm.

    Source - http://www.airwar.ru/enc/attack/il102.html
    1. Curious
      Curious 11 October 2017 19: 12 New
      +5
      Engaged in attack aircraft and Yakovlev. There were options for the vertical attack aircraft Yak-36 and Yak-38.
      Well, the Yak-45 project.

      For those interested - http://www.airwar.ru/enc/attack/yak45.html
    2. Bongo
      12 October 2017 01: 14 New
      +6
      Quote: Curious
      I allow myself to supplement the article, since there are significant gaps.
      To begin with, the Ilyushin Design Bureau at IL-40P did not stop the development of attack aircraft.

      Thanks for the addition, but do not run ahead of the engine ...
      1. Curious
        Curious 12 October 2017 09: 03 New
        0
        Yes, I didn’t run anywhere, I filled the gap between the Il-40 and Su-7B.
  5. venik
    venik 11 October 2017 19: 32 New
    +4
    "... Back in 1969, at the Berezina large-scale exercises in Belarus, in which several IBA regiments participated in the MiG-17, MiG-21 and Su-7B, the Air Force leadership drew attention to the fact that during individual attacks it was aimed only MiG-17 aircraft could hit decommissioned tanks installed as targets at the training ground .... "
    =========
    Well, actually, such infa slipped, but in my opinion it was either 67, or 68 g (too lazy to look) at the Dnepr exercises. Then only an air regiment equipped with MiG-15 “deductible" could effectively hit point targets. Mig-21 and Su-7B - "specifically smeared" ...
    -----
    Well, in general - to the HUGE Respect author ("+") !!! Could - a dozen "+" set! Very good and sensible article !!!

    ===
  6. maximghost
    maximghost 11 October 2017 20: 17 New
    +1
    But what about 38 yaks? Although Yak did not shine, the LTX carried weapons capable of effectively hitting tanks. Also, kmk, the topic of diving in the Second World War is almost not disclosed (it is certainly not very deep, but nonetheless).
    1. Alf
      Alf 11 October 2017 21: 35 New
      +2
      Quote: maximghost
      Although Yak did not shine, the LTX carried weapons capable of effectively hitting tanks.

      Which one? Ura like Yak-38 did not carry?
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 11 October 2017 22: 44 New
        +4
        Not this way. The 38 is a really lightweight assault. And carried almost the entire range of TSA. Including UR X-23. In general, almost all of the available ammunition, including “special items”, could be used. (except laser since there were no container stations.)
        1. Taoist
          Taoist 11 October 2017 22: 59 New
          +1
          I wanted to edit erased by mistake .... In general, carried the Yak 38 UR - quite heavy 23.
          In general, he could carry almost the entire nomenclature of TSA up to the "special task". Only the "laser" was not because there were no containers and the equipment did not fit on board.
          1. maximghost
            maximghost 11 October 2017 23: 37 New
            +1
            By the way, I recently wondered, because on Yak there was a sight similar to the instant-21. So the yak also had a ballistic computer, so the sights were not very primitive?
            And yet, in the net I came across information that 2 X-23s, a delta NG and some kind of electronic warfare station were suspended from a yak. But this is only in one source and without details. Did this electronic warfare station exist in nature at all?
            1. Taoist
              Taoist 12 October 2017 10: 17 New
              +5
              Yes, it not only existed ... your humble servant has drifted them on his hump ... EW station "Lilac" - a regular station on the Yak 38.
              Yak was not at all a primitive plane. You absolutely definitely noted that its aiming systems were identical to the MiG 21 (by the way, aerobatics were similar, which is why in our 3 regiment the squadron was armed with the MiG 21 encore as training machines for pilots, so that Yak’s life would not be burned). Yak had a very decent navigation system with an inertial course-of-sight ... As it was written in the RLE of the machine, "instrumentation provides for piloting and attacking ground and air targets in simple and difficult weather conditions regardless of the time of day" (c)
  7. Taoist
    Taoist 11 October 2017 22: 57 New
    +2
    By the way, the author missed the nomenclature of large-caliber NAR. In general, against armored vehicles (especially tanks), the use of air guns was not particularly considered. The main "anti-tank" weapons of aviation were NAR units (especially B-8) with C-8 KO missiles - whose armor penetration was more than enough for any armored vehicles and even a plane as modest in combat characteristics as the Yak 38 carried up to 4 x blocks (80 missiles ) - the automatic assault rifle allowed the pilot to fire shells in 1, 4, or series ... In combination with the 21 TSA, the fire performance was sufficient to get a guaranteed target hit.
    KMG and UBK with filling from PTAB were also used. Well, for especially protected purposes C-13, C-24, C-25 including those with a thermobaric "filling".
    In general, the post-war history is a very typical example of how, from the IS infatuation, in the end, anyway, they returned to a specialized highly protected aircraft with direct fire support.
    1. Bongo
      12 October 2017 01: 17 New
      +3
      Quote: Taoist
      By the way, the author missed the nomenclature of large-caliber NAR.

      With all due respect... hi And how much is NAR C-13, C-24 and C-25 effective against tanks? request
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 12 October 2017 10: 07 New
        +1
        Well, you probably didn’t read me very carefully ... Especially protected targets are not equal to tanks. Although, according to the experience of firing firing missiles With 13 with a thermobaric warhead against targets in the form of decommissioned armored shells, the effect of hitting such a missile was amazing - it swept away the 2-3 tank at a time ... Well, if we talk about C-24 / C 25 missiles with their high-explosive fragmentation warhead — their power is comparable to high-explosive large-caliber high-explosive batteries — so even with an indirect hit, they are guaranteed to destroy everything within a radius of 20-30 meters. Those. the weapon is not specialized but its power compensates ...
        1. Bongo
          12 October 2017 10: 33 New
          +5
          Quote: Taoist
          Well, you probably didn’t read me very carefully ...

          Although I am not an aviator by profile, I’m not quite wooden, and I have some idea of ​​the characteristics of aviation weapons. The publication is called Aviation Against Tanks. In this regard, in it in chronological order It is precisely strike aircraft and ammunition that have real anti-tank capabilities. You probably know no worse than me when you adopted the NAR S-8. In the 4 part they are mentioned. hi
  8. rubin6286
    rubin6286 12 October 2017 01: 56 New
    +8
    In my opinion, the third part of the article was successful for the author and turned out to be voluminous and interesting. As for the authors of some comments, here, as always, "everyone imagines himself a hero, sitting at home on a pot." N.S. Khrushchev, like Stalin, made many decisions on his own, and in general it ruined him. The famous commander Marshal Zhukov was needed in wartime, but in conditions of peaceful life as Minister of Defense it was extremely difficult for him. He did not know civil life, he avoided the people and did not notice what was happening in the country and society.

    The decision to eliminate attack aircraft was made on the basis of an analysis of the results of military exercises in the country and abroad, which showed the increased power and capabilities of modern air defense and made it impossible for stormtroopers to use the tactics of the past war over the battlefield.

    The development of rocket technology made it possible to re-evaluate the capabilities of many types and arms of service, and in this regard Khrushchev’s decision to “cut” some of them does not look so wrong. As always in our country, in any business there were some “excesses”. With the reduction of the army by 1 million 200 thousand people. Front-line soldiers “made up without retirement”, accounting for up to 60 percent of top and middle-level commanders; the balance between graduates of military schools and those leaving by age and length of service was broken. Factories continued to produce aircraft, which in the troops was converted into targets and shot at firing ranges. Some stupid sabotage was going on and, of course, decisive measures had to be taken. Canada and the USA refused to sell grain to us and in a number of areas there were interruptions in bread, because on the ground, by stupidity, the acreage was given up for corn, which, as it became clear, does not grow everywhere. At the next congress of the CPSU, a program of building and a moral code of the builder of communism was adopted, although in reality before communism it was “like walking to China” and people sang in electric trains, “We caught America by milk, but we didn’t catch America, it’s broken at the bull. "

    Vysotsky said this:

    “Khrushchev Nikita is our good father,
    Under him, we built factories, blast furnaces, thermal power plants,
    When it plowed virgin lands, when it flew to the moon.
    Khrushchev Nikita - our good father!
    But soon for some reason he ... that.
    Then we learned the whole truth about him:
    That he ruined the farm
    What did he award Nasser
    And we would be better off without him at all. ”

    Hardly worth modern youth, absolutely
    “Weak hind mind”, and indeed with some kind of mind and having no life experience, to procrastinate the ravings of modern media about the “living corpse of Brezhnev”, “the merry army mafia”, etc. etc. Brezhnev, unlike Khrushchev, never made sole decisions in the country, especially in military matters.
    In the early 80s, our army was the most powerful in the world. The people were engaged in creative work, the economy worked, military equipment arrived in the army on time and in the right amount. I have an annual raid in 1982 close to 600 hours. For comparison, in 1991, I flew in six months for 6 hours. Brezhnev had a clever Minister of Defense, Marshal Ustinov D.F. This is an industrialist and industrialist, who became the Minister of Ammunition during the war years at age 26. Here is who really knew the country's capabilities. He took measures to increase the money supply of servicemen, improve clothing and food supplies, build, maintain and improve military towns, improve the quality of military equipment and weapons. It was during his tenure that the Yak-38 and Su-25, aircraft-carrying ships, ballistic missiles Satan, Pioneer, Topol, nuclear submarines Akula, T-72 and T-80 tanks, Mi- helicopters were adopted 24.

    The country had order and discipline, and the people had fun at the holidays, and today the holidays have become ugly: “Day of consent and reconciliation”, “Day of Russia”, “Flag Day”, “Day of National Unity”. The people do not have fun on them and that's it.
    1. Bongo
      12 October 2017 02: 18 New
      +8
      Quote: rubin6286
      In my opinion, the third part of the article was successful for the author and turned out to be voluminous and interesting.
      hi
      Quote: rubin6286
      As for the authors of some comments, here, as always, "everyone imagines himself a hero, sitting at home on a pot." N.S. Khrushchev, like Stalin, made many decisions on his own and, in general, it ruined him. The famous commander Marshal Zhukov was needed in wartime, but in conditions of peaceful life as Minister of Defense it was extremely difficult for him. He did not know civil life, he avoided the people and did not notice what was happening in the country and society.

      yes
      Quote: rubin6286
      The decision to eliminate attack aircraft was made on the basis of an analysis of the results of military exercises in the country and abroad, which showed the increased power and capabilities of modern air defense and made it impossible for stormtroopers to use the tactics of the past war over the battlefield.

      Well, at the beginning of the 60, the air defense capabilities to combat low-altitude goals did not differ much from the 1945 of the year. Moreover, the western military air defense has always been rather weak. In the United States and NATO countries, fighters are still the main means of combating air targets.
      Quote: rubin6286
      Hardly worth modern youth, absolutely
      “Weak hind mind”, and indeed with some kind of mind and having no life experience, to procrastinate the ravings of modern media about the “living corpse of Brezhnev”, “the merry army mafia”, etc. etc. Brezhnev, unlike Khrushchev, never made sole decisions in the country, especially in military matters.

      Well, in fairness, it’s probably worth recognizing that L.I. Brezhnev delved deeper into questions of military development and avoided hasty rash steps. He became the "Living Corpse" in EMNIP in the second half of the 70, and before that he was a very cheerful and active guy.
      Quote: rubin6286
      The country had order and discipline, and the people had fun at the holidays, and today the holidays have become ugly: “Day of consent and reconciliation”, “Day of Russia”, “Flag Day”, “Day of National Unity”. The people do not have fun on them and that's it.

      I remember very well that in 70 the people really lived better every year, and there was a firm confidence in the future. Therefore, they went to the demonstrations as a holiday.
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 12 October 2017 04: 26 New
        +4
        Quote: Bongo
        Well, in the early 60s, the capabilities of air defense to combat low-altitude goals did not differ much from 1945. Moreover, the western military air defense has always been rather weak.

        Here I agree with you completely, but only for object-based air defense.
        In the early 60s in the military air defense appeared ZSU Shilka and Yenisei. Almost simultaneously with the start of mass production of ZSU-57-2 on April 17, 1957, the Council of Ministers adopted Decree N9 426-211 on the development of new quick-firing ZSU "Shilka" and "Yenisei" with radar guidance systems. This was a kind of response to the adoption in service in the United States ZSU M42A1.
        Formally, “Shilka” and “Yenisei” were not competitors, since the first was designed to provide air defense for motorized rifle regiments to engage targets at altitudes up to 1500 m, and the second for air defense of tank regiments and divisions and operated at altitudes up to 3000 m.
        Yenisei did not enter the army for reasons. For self-defense in the ZRDN air defense of the country, ZPUs were used with machine guns DShK or KPV. In our ZRP were ZPU with a DShK machine gun.
        The air defense of the army was a slightly different picture.
        “Almost simultaneously with the start of mass production of ZSU-57-2 on April 17, 1957, the Council of Ministers adopted decree N9 426-211 on the development of new quick-firing ZSU“ Shilka ”and“ Yenisei ”with radar guidance systems. This was a kind of response to the adoption of weapons in the USA ZSU M42A1.

        Formally, “Shilka” and “Yenisei” were not competitors, since the first was developed to provide air defense for motorized rifle regiments for hitting targets at altitudes up to 1500 m, and the second for air defense of tank regiments and divisions and operated at altitudes up to 3000 m. "
        http://www.uhlib.ru/istorija/_shilka_i_drugie_ote
        chestvennye_zenitnye_samohodnye_ustanovki / p5.php
        According to Brezhnev. I will give only a quote and a link to the article.
        The statement that Brezhnev was ill a lot, and in November 1972 suffered a stroke with serious consequences, will later be refuted by academician Chazov: “In his life, [Brezhnev] only once, being the first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Moldova, suffered a myocardial infarction. In 1957 there were small changes in the heart, but they were only focal in nature. Since then, he has not had a heart attack or strokes. ” Brezhnev’s health was excellent.
        But in early 1976 (the exact date is unknown), what happened to be called clinical death (the reversible transitional period from life to death) happened to 69-year-old Brezhnev. The exact reason for this temporary transition of Brezhnev to a different world has remained completely unclear, all its circumstances are unknown. The Secretary-General was then able to return to life, but after that he could not recover, and recover from the disease. Since then, his thinking, speech, facial expressions, and coordination of movements have been disrupted.
        Read in full: http://yablor.ru/blogs/starcheskiy-egoizm-vo-vlas
        ti / 2847472
        1. rubin6286
          rubin6286 12 October 2017 13: 01 New
          -2
          5. For some reason, you confuse military air defense and object. Troops - this is the one that is in the battle formations of the troops and is part of associations, formations and units of the ground forces. These include ZSU "Shilka", "Tunguska", the calculations of heavy machine guns and MANPADS, SAM "Luna" and so on. Object - this is one that is designed to protect stationary objects. In the 60s, the object air defense was 37,76,85 mm in caliber with and without radar guidance, S-75, S-125 air defense systems. Today there is a universal anti-aircraft missile and cannon system “Shell-M”
          1. Amurets
            Amurets 12 October 2017 13: 50 New
            +4
            Quote: rubin6286
            . For some reason, you confuse military air defense and object.

            I am not confusing anything. At that time, 1969-1971, and I served in the country's air defense at the Volkhov S-75 air defense system and in the "BEST" case, I repeat once again, we could take targets at altitudes of 200m and higher, the best. And then if the air defense system was modified and there was a switch 200-3000m. Basically, these improvements were carried out 1968-1971gg. That is why in each ZRDN there were one two ZPUs for self-defense at low altitudes. Then, somewhere in 1970, we began to be allocated for self-defense MANPADS "Strela-2" and then in limited quantities
      2. rubin6286
        rubin6286 12 October 2017 12: 19 New
        +1
        Your statement that the air defense in the West in the 60s did not differ much from what it was in 1945 is simply false and comes from ignorance. There was no information about this in the open press, or to be more precise, at that time we were children (I, too, was no exception) and did not know where to look for it. I will tell you this case:
        In 1961, in a military town near Moscow, the boys and I played “airplanes” - attack aircraft “stormed” ground targets, and fighters covered them. Of course, our "aircraft" was not the same as that sold in stores now, but that is not the point.
        Father, returning from flights, sat on the porch of our DOS and carefully watched us. Later, already at home, he told me something like this:

        “So, son, you can’t fight anymore. Your planes "go" over the target in a circle and hit it diving alternately. The enemy on the battlefield has multi-barreled ZSU "Oerlikon" and "Bofors" which are very accurately aimed at the aircraft by radar and shoot very accurately. Two or three short lines --- that's all. KP, bridges, railroad nodes cover, in addition, anti-aircraft missiles "Hawk" and "Krotal." At low and medium altitudes, they are closer than 30 km to the target attack aircraft. The attack aircraft must approach the target as low as possible (this is the 60s!), Attack the target immediately with one gulp of all its weapons and energetically maneuvering to leave for its airfield. Now it is no longer possible to circle and “hang” - they will bring down. Enemy fighters usually attack on the approach to the target and at the moment the attack aircraft leaves the attack, when it gains altitude or makes a U-turn. Here we are fighting with them in oncoming courses, trying to “tie” them up and prevent them from making a second attack on attack aircraft.

        In general, son, the time of IL-10 has passed. They must be removed from service. “We need a plane that combines the speed of a fighter and the combat power of an average bomber with effective weapons.”
        1. zyablik.olga
          zyablik.olga 12 October 2017 14: 21 New
          +4
          Quote: rubin6286
          Your statement that the air defense in the West in the 60's did not differ much from what it was in the 1945 year is simply false and comes from ignorance.

          It’s funny to read lol That's what laziness and inattention brings to the interlocutor. But you could just go in profile to Bongo. You write the author of many articles, of which more than 300 are published only on Military Review. And about half of the bottom is just devoted to air defense issues. So, to say that Seryozha is poorly informed is at least ridiculous.
          1. rubin6286
            rubin6286 12 October 2017 16: 36 New
            -1
            You carefully read my comments and delve into the Amurts. The attack aircraft over the battlefield deals with military air defense, and not with an object. The part of the air defense in which Amurets served is the object, armed with the S-75 air defense system. Its divisions guarded a stationary object. It does not advance in battle with advancing tankers and motorized rifles, because air defense missiles have a rocket engine that needs to be refueled. It is forbidden to transport them to TZM in the filled state. Who will fuel them on the battlefield under fire? Clear?

            In the past war, military air defense was in its infancy and the ZA was not so much self-propelled as towed. There were no radars on the battlefield. For each shot down aircraft, an average of more than 600 HE shells were spent. In 1960, the situation was already different. During exercises in the Kiev Military District, it was noted that on average 4 to 10 ZSU 57-2 shells were required to destroy a Skyraider attack aircraft.

            By the end of the 60s and the beginning of the 70s, the improvement of air defense continued and since the attack aircraft were forced to move to very low altitudes, a number of air defense systems were equipped with calculations of air defense systems or MANPADS. Amurets wrote about this.
            1. Bongo
              12 October 2017 16: 44 New
              +4
              Quote: rubin6286
              In 1960, the situation was already different. During exercises in the Kiev military district, it was noted that, on average, 4 to 10 ZNU 57-2 shells were required to destroy a Skyraider attack aircraft.

              Well, yes, please compare the effectiveness of the Soviet anti-aircraft guns of the 60's with the German MZA from the Second World War and please remember about their number. In general, you should not teach others the commonplace truths, for the VO people, for the most part, are quite savvy.
            2. Amurets
              Amurets 13 October 2017 10: 11 New
              +2
              Quote: rubin6286
              You carefully read my comments and delve into the Amurts.

              This is you delve into. <<< Quote: Bongo
              Well, in the early 60s, the capabilities of air defense to combat low-altitude goals did not differ much from 1945. Moreover, the western military air defense has always been rather weak.
              Here I agree with you completely, but only for object-based air defense. >>> And further on.
              In the air defense system there were problems in intercepting low-altitude targets, which is what our calculations of ZRDNov during the war in Vietnam and the Middle East encountered. And not only ours. And other countries, including the United States, had the same problems. That was what the conversation was about. Shilki, Yenisei, ZSU-57-2 have already appeared in the military air defense.
    2. KKND
      KKND 12 October 2017 02: 30 New
      +3
      Yes, I am young and stupid, and I know that under Brezhnev the country was better than under Khrushchev. But maybe the answer lies on the surface? Dear oil. All. Probably with the influx of currency and the "living corpse" could rule the country?
      By the way, Brezhnev thought quite well to himself before the stroke and conducted foreign affairs well, and he did nothing stupid inside the country.
      1. rubin6286
        rubin6286 12 October 2017 12: 44 New
        +2
        4. "Fell" the price of oil and what? In Soviet times, did we sell oil to whom? CMEA countries and not for currency but the so-called The “convertible” ruble is a kind of international barter. The thing is different: oil is not enough to produce, it still needs to be refined. It serves as a raw material for many industries. Oil production costs grew every year. It was mined in the harsh conditions of Siberia, from great depths and somehow pumped for processing. These costs made our oil expensive, in comparison with Saudi Arabia and other exporters. The country went for it, but there are no miracles: if you find money for one, then the other will wait. Ultimately, what they call today “social spending” suffered.

        I will repeat to you again that Brezhnev did not take decisions individually. For this, the Politburo of the Central Committee gathered, leading experts in a particular industry were invited, a government decree was adopted, for the implementation of which money was allocated.
    3. andrewkor
      andrewkor 12 October 2017 05: 24 New
      +3
      And Comrade Ustinov really wanted a tank with a gas turbine engine, which is good in itself, but as a result, three different tanks with similar characteristics were adopted by the SA armament, only a superpower could really afford it!
      1. rubin6286
        rubin6286 12 October 2017 13: 05 New
        0
        I am not a tanker and not much, I understand this, but it seems to me that we have one tank with a gas turbine engine - the T-80, which can have several modifications. For example. T-80U, T-80 BV.
        1. Razvedka_Boem
          Razvedka_Boem 12 October 2017 15: 53 New
          +2
          but it seems to me that we have one tank with a gas turbine engine - the T-80

          It was understood that T-64 was added to the diesel T72 and T-80.
      2. iouris
        iouris 13 October 2017 12: 06 New
        0
        Quote: andrewkor
        And also Comrade Ustinov really wanted a tank with a gas turbine engine

        And also Comrade Ustinov advised to remake the tank GTE in the aviation (for the MiG-29).
  9. sivuch
    sivuch 12 October 2017 19: 07 New
    +4
    Sergey, and about Bychka it was possible and in more detail.
    As for the comparison of the Su-17 and the Mig-23BN, the ibashniks on the forums, in my opinion, are still arguing hoarse to what and when is better.
    Yes. And one more nuance why the ShA was canceled - of course, in my opinion, an amateurish opinion. During the Korean War, Americans shot down silt without any problems. Therefore, the military and could want a car. Which somehow can stand up for themselves in the BVB. But no one had any illusions about who would dominate the air.
    1. Bongo
      13 October 2017 03: 25 New
      +3
      Quote: sivuch
      Sergey, and about Bychka it was possible and in more detail.

      Igor, welcome! Have not crossed for a long time hi . About the bull-calf did not mention because it did not fit in volume. request
      Quote: sivuch
      As for the comparison of the Su-17 and the Mig-23BN, the ibashniks on the forums, in my opinion, are still arguing hoarse to what and when is better.

      In my opinion, the Su-17 by the criterion of "cost-effectiveness" is preferable.

      Quote: sivuch
      Yes. And one more nuance why the ShA was canceled - of course, in my opinion, an amateurish opinion. During the Korean War, Americans shot down silt without any problems. Therefore, the military and could want a car. Which somehow can stand up for themselves in the BVB. But no one had any illusions about who would dominate the air.

      Well, during the war, IL-2 was also shot down ... do not forget who was sitting in the cabs of IL-10 in Korea. Piston attack aircraft, if they stood in the defensive circle would be a very difficult goal for the F-84 and F-86. But the flight skills and tactical training of the Chinese and Korean pilots was very low.
      In addition, not only the IL-10 piston was eliminated. IL-40 for that time in its performance characteristics was quite at the level, and had a speed slightly lower than that of the fighters of that time.
  10. exo
    exo 14 October 2017 11: 59 New
    +1
    The IL-40 looks creepy. The review seems to be even worse than that of the IL-10. The only plus, in front of its predecessors, is speed. But, is the attack aircraft needed, a big question. By the way, do you know anything about booking it?
  11. Dekabrev
    Dekabrev 14 October 2017 22: 51 New
    +2
    A very good series of articles! Thanks to the author!
  12. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 18 October 2017 14: 17 New
    +2


    A copy of the Su-17 in the air museum between Rimini and San Marino.

    Impressive aircraft.