Military Review

Aviation against tanks (part of 4)

117

Despite the low efficiency of supersonic fighter-bombers in direct aviation support for ground units and actions against tanksUntil the early 70s, the Air Force leadership did not see the need for a low-speed armored attack aircraft. Work on the creation of such an aircraft began on the initiative of the command of the Ground Forces.


The Ministry of Aviation Industry of the USSR issued 1969 of the year in March for official design assignment for an attack aircraft. After that, for a long time it was not possible to agree on the characteristics of the machine. Air Force representatives wanted to get a plane with a high maximum speed, and the customer in the person of the Ground Forces wanted to have a machine that was highly vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire and could precisely “pick out” well-protected firing points and fight single tanks on the battlefield. It is clear that the designers could not meet such conflicting requirements, and they did not immediately come to a compromise. The competition was attended by the Sukhoi Design Bureau with the T-8 project (Su-25), the Ilyushin Design Bureau (Il-42), the Yakovlev Design Bureau (Yak-25ЛШ), and the Mikoyan OKB - MiG-21ЛШ. At the same time during the competition, it was decided to stop work on the IL-42 and Yak-25ЛШ.

The MiG-21LSH was created on the basis of the MiG-21 fighter, but as a result, there was little left of him in the new aircraft, the attack aircraft basically had to be re-designed. Initially, MiG designers planned to turn a simple and reliable MiG-21 fighter into a MiG-21Sh attack plane in the shortest possible way. It was supposed to get by with “little blood” - to install on the MiG-21 a new wing of increased area with additional weapon suspension points and a new aiming and navigation equipment. However, calculations and estimates have shown that it is unlikely that it will be possible to solve the problem in this way, with achievement of the required efficiency. It was decided to significantly upgrade the construction of the "twenty-first", to pay more attention to issues of survivability and weapons.

An attack aircraft was designed with a short, strongly sloping front fuselage, which gave a good overview. The layout of the aircraft has changed significantly; according to the MiG-21Sh project, the tailless model should have a low-lying, lively wing of a large area, side air intakes, a powerless, economical engine. Cab reservations provided protection against small-arms fire. weapons and splinters. The armament included a built-in 23-mm gun GSH-23, bombs and a NAR with a total weight of up to 3 t, at nine external points of suspension.


Model MiG-21Sh


But before the construction of a flying prototype, it never came. By that time, the main modernization potential of the MiG-21 was exhausted and the creation of a new attack aircraft based on it was considered unpromising. In addition, the Design Bureau was overloaded with orders on fighter topics and could not allocate enough resources to quickly create a promising armored combat aircraft.

The OKB, under the leadership of P.O. Sukhoi, presented a completely new project T-8, which has been developed in a proactive manner for a year. Thanks to the use of the original layout and a number of new technical solutions, smaller than its competitors in size and weight, this project won the competition. After that, together with the customer, the parameters of the future attack aircraft were refined. Great difficulties arose in negotiating the maximum speed. The military agreed that in terms of detecting and hitting small ground targets, subsonic operating speed is optimal. But at the same time, arguing the need to break through the enemy’s front-line air defense, they wanted to have an attack aircraft with a maximum flight speed near the ground of at least 1200 km / h. At the same time, the developers indicated that the aircraft operating over the battlefield or up to 50 km behind the front line does not overcome the air defense zone, but resides in it. And in connection with this, it was proposed to limit the maximum speed at the ground to 850 km / h. As a result, the agreed maximum ground speed, recorded in the tactical and technical requirements, was 1000 km / h.

The first flight of the attack aircraft prototype took place on February 22 1975. After the first flight of the T-8-1, test pilot V.S. Ilyushin stated that the aircraft was very heavy in roll control. Another significant disadvantage of the T-8-1 was its low thrust-to-hand ratio. The transverse control problem was solved after the boosters were installed in the aileron control channel. And an acceptable thrust-to-weight ratio was obtained by adapting the unformatted version of the Р13F-300 turbojet engine with a maximum load of 4100 kgf. Engine modified for installation on attack aircraft known as P-95Sh. The design of the engine was enhanced compared with the prototype previously used on the MiG-21, Su-15 and Yak-28 fighters.

Aviation against tanks (part of 4)

T-8-10


State assault trials began in June 1978. Before the state tests, the aiming-navigation complex of the aircraft underwent a significant modernization. On the T-8-10 instance, the equipment used on the Su-17MZ fighter-bomber was mounted, including the ASP-17БЦ-8 sight and the Klen-PS laser rangefinder. This made it possible to use the most advanced at the time guided aircraft weapons. The built-in artillery armament was represented by the GS-30-2 air gun with a rate of fire of up to 3000 rpm. Compared to the GSH-23, the weight of a second salvo increased more than 3 times.



In terms of anti-tank potential, only the Il-25Sh could compare with the Su-28 of the existing Soviet combat aircraft, but the attack aircraft, converted from a front bomber, did not carry such impressive protection and did not build them much. On eight Su-25 nodes, UB-32 units with 256 57-mm NAR C-5 or B-8 with 160 80-mm C-8 could be suspended. An attack aircraft could sow anti-tank bombs over a large area with the help of eight RBC-500 and RBC-250.


RBC-500 layout


One-time bomb cassette RBK-500 mass 427 kg contains 268 combat elements PTAB-1М with armor penetration to 200 mm. This is more than enough to destroy tanks and armored vehicles on top. Improved RBC-500U PTAB mass 520 kg, has 352 cumulative elements.


PTAB-2,5KO


One-time bomb cassette RBK-250 PTAB-2,5М, weight 248 kg contains 42 PTAB-2,5М or PTAB-2,5KO. When two bomb cartridges are opened at a height of 180 m, anti-tank bombs are scattered over an area of ​​2 ha. PTAB-2,5M mass 2,8 kg was loaded with 450 g BB TG-50. When hit at an angle 30 °, the thickness of the pierced armor is 120 mm.

The arsenal of the Su-25 includes RBC-500 SPBE-D equipped with 15 self-targeting anti-tank combat elements with infrared guidance SPBE-D. For guidance used a separate command module.



Each striking element weighing 14,9 kg is equipped with three small parachutes with a speed of descent 15-17 m / s. After the ejection of the striking elements, the IR coordinator is released with inclined rectangular wings, which provide rotation at a speed of 6-9 rpm. The coordinator scans with a viewing angle of 30 °. When a target is detected, the detonation point of the striking element is determined using an onboard computer.



The target is hit with a copper impact core weighing 1 kg, accelerated to a speed of 2000 m / s. The thickness of the pierced armor at an angle of 30 ° to the normal is 70 mm. The bomb cassette equipped with self-targeting combat elements is used in the 400-5000 m altitude range at a carrier speed of 500-1900 km / h. Simultaneously, one RBC-500 SPBE-D can be hit up to 6 tanks.

In addition to one-time bomb cassettes, anti-tank ammunition on the Su-25 can be fitted out at KMGU (a universal container for small loads). In contrast to the RBC-120 and RBC-500, suspended containers with small submunitions are not discharged with the normal use of weapons, although in an emergency situation there is the possibility of forced dumping. Submunitions that do not have hanging ears are placed in a container in special blocks - BKF (container blocks for front aviation).


KMGU-2


The container consists of a cylindrical body with rear stabilizers and contains 8 BKF with bombs or mines. KMGU electroautomatic equipment provides ammunition discharge in series at intervals: 0,05, 0,2, 1,0 and 1,5. The use of aircraft weapons from KMGU is carried out at a speed of 500-110 km / h, in the height range 30-1000 m. The mass of an empty container 170 kg, curb - 525 kg.

In the literature devoted to anti-aircraft aviation weapons, anti-tank mines are rarely mentioned. At the same time, the minefields, quickly placed on the battlefield, can be even more effective than the air strike inflicted by the PTAB or the NAR on the battle formations of enemy tanks. The fire impact during an air raid is very short-lived, and mine-laying hampers the actions of tanks on a site for a long period.

In our country, in the composition of the aviation system of mining "Aldan-2" used anti-tank cluster mines cumulative combined action PTM-3. The mine with a non-contact magnetic fuse weighing 4,9 kg contains 1,8 kg of explosive TGA-40 (an alloy containing 40% TNT and 60% hexogen). The mine is non-recoverable, the time of self-destruction is 16-24 h. When the tank is hit by a mine PTM-3 explodes the caterpillar. With the explosion under the bottom of the tank, the bottom penetration occurs, the crew is damaged, components and assemblies are damaged.

Serial production of attack aircraft under the designation Su-25 began at the aircraft factory in Tbilisi. In many ways, this was a forced decision; before this, the MiG-21 of various modifications was assembled at the Tbilisi Aviation Plant. Representatives of the military acceptance team and the OKB employees had to make no small effort to achieve an acceptable quality of attack aircraft being built in Georgia. The build quality and finish of the first cars was so low that some of them were later shot at the test site to determine the vulnerability to various anti-aircraft weapons.


Su-25


According to data published in open sources, the cockpit is covered with welded titanium armor capable of withstanding the impact of 12,7-mm armor piercing bullets. Frontal armored glass 55 mm thick provides protection from small arms fire. In general, the Su-25 is a fairly protected combat aircraft. 7,2% normal take-off weight or 1050 kg is accounted for by systems and elements of combat survivability. Weight of armor - 595 kg. Vital systems are duplicated and screened less important. The engines are housed in special engine nacelles at the interface between the wing and the fuselage. At the end of the 80-x, attack aircraft began installing more advanced P-195 engines with a load of up to 4500 kgf. The P-195 engine is able to withstand a direct hit of an 23-mm projectile and maintain performance with numerous combat damage from smaller-caliber weapons.

The aircraft demonstrated high combat survivability during the hostilities in Afghanistan. On average, the downed Su-25, 80-90 had combat damage. There are cases when attack aircraft returned to the airfield with 150 holes or with an engine destroyed by a direct hit by a MANPADS missile.



An attack aircraft with a maximum take-off weight of 17600 kg, on 10 suspension points can carry a combat load weighing up to 4400 kg. With a normal 1400 kg combat load, the operational overload is + 6,5g. Maximum speed with a normal combat load 950 km / h.

After winning the Su-25 competition, the Ilyushin Design Bureau did not accept the defeat and the work on the creation of an armored attack aircraft continued in a proactive manner. In this case, the groundwork for the Il-40 jet attack aircraft buried at the end of 50 by Khrushchev was used. The project of the modernized IL-42 did not fully meet modern requirements, and the military preferred the Su-25, which was designed from scratch.


IL-102


Compared with the IL-42, the new two-seater IL-102 attack aircraft had a modified shape of the front fuselage with a better forward-down view, new, more powerful engines and improved armament. The most notable difference between the Il-102 and the Su-25 was the presence of a second cockpit for the shooter and a mobile defensive installation with 23-mm GSH-23. It was assumed that a highly maneuverable armored attack aircraft equipped with electronic warfare equipment, infrared traps and a defensive installation would be weakly vulnerable even when meeting with enemy fighters. In addition, not without reason, it was believed that the side shooters with the help of the fodder 23-mm gun would be able to suppress anti-aircraft guns and MANPADS when leaving the attack. On tests, the minimum radius of the IL-102 turn was only 400 m. For comparison, the turn radius of the Su-25 with a normal combat load is 680 m, while the empty one is about 500 m.



Armament IL-102 was very powerful. Two 30-mm GSH-301 guns with 500 rounds of ammunition and liquid-cooled guns were mounted in the ventral removable swinging carriage, which locks in two positions. At the site of a removable gun carriage, bombs weighing up to 500 kg or additional fuel tanks could be hung. A load of up to 7200 kg could be placed on the sixteen suspension nodes and in the six internal bomb compartments. Three internal bomb compartments were in the wing consoles, bombs weighing up to 250 kg could be placed there.


The first flight of IL-102


The first flight of the Il-102 attack aircraft took place 25 September 1982 of the year. The plane was actually tested illegally, as Minister of Defense D.F. Ustinov categorically banned the chief designer G.V. Novozhilov "engage in amateur." Over the two years of testing, the IL-102 performed more than 250 flights and proved itself to be positive, showing high reliability and improved design. With two engines I-88 (unformatted version RD-33) with 5380 kgf, the aircraft showed a maximum speed of 950 km / h. With a maximum take-off mass of 22000 kg, the combat radius with the maximum combat load was 300 km. Ferry range - 3000 km.

IL-102 was frankly late, although it exceeded the Su-25 in combat load and had large internal volumes, which in the future made it possible to mount various equipment without any problems. But in conditions when the Su-25 was built in series and positively established itself in Afghanistan, the leadership of the USSR Ministry of Defense did not see the need for parallel adoption of an attack aircraft with similar characteristics.

With all the advantages of the Su-25, in its arsenal were mainly uncontrolled anti-tank weapons. In addition, he was able to act mainly during the day, and only visually visible goals. As is known, in the armed forces of technologically advanced countries, tanks and motorized infantry are fighting under the umbrella of a military air defense: mobile self-propelled anti-aircraft systems, short-range anti-aircraft missile systems and MANPADS. Under these conditions, Su-25 body armor does not guarantee invulnerability. Therefore, it was quite logical to equip the attack aircraft with long-range ATGMs and a modern optoelectronic system ensuring the search and destruction of point targets, beyond the limits of the action of military air defense weapons. The modified Su-25T attack aircraft were supposed to be equipped with PrNK-56 equipment with a television channel 23-x multiple magnification. The main anti-tank caliber attack aircraft was supposed to be a new ATGM "Whirlwind", developed in the Tula Instrument Design Bureau.

The calculations showed that for sure defeat from above modern tanks of the type M1 Abrams and Leopard-2, an aircraft gun of at least 45-mm caliber, with high-speed projectiles, with a core of dense solid material is required. However, later the installation of the 45-mm guns was refused, and the old 30-mm GSH-30-2 remained on the plane. The formal reason was the assertion that the 45-mm gun has a relatively low efficiency when firing at promising samples of armored vehicles and the need to get close to the tank at close range. In fact, the Ministry of Defense did not want to expand the already very wide range of aviation ammunition, while the military was supported by officials of the Ministry of Industry responsible for the release of new projectiles.

Since the placement of an additional highly voluminous avionics required additional space, Su-25Т decided to build on the basis of the Sparky Su-25UT. Based on operating and combat experience, the airframe and aircraft systems of the upgraded attack aircraft made a number of significant changes in line with the increased requirements for survivability and operational manufacturability. This approach to the design of the Su-25T provided a high constructive and technological continuity with the two-seater combat training Su-25UB.

In place of the cockpit of the second pilot is a compartment for electronic equipment, and under the electronic units an additional soft fuel tank. Compared to the Su-25, the Su-25T is outwardly distinguished by a bulky gargrotom behind the cockpit, the nose of the aircraft has become longer and wider. The gun installation was moved under the fuel tank and shifted from the axis of the aircraft to the right by 273 mm. The volumes obtained were used for the installation of the new Squall optical sighting system. Automated sighting system "Squall" provides the use of all types of aircraft armament attack aircraft day and night, including air targets. Navigation, flight and sight information on all flight modes of the aircraft is displayed by the information display system on the windshield. The solution of the problems of using all types of weapons, as well as the navigation of the aircraft is carried out by the central computer.


Sioux 25T


The middle part of the fuselage and the engine air intakes are completely identical to the Su-25UB. To compensate for the increased fuel consumption in the rear fuselage is an additional soft fuel tank. Engine nacelles were revised to install new, more powerful P-195 engines. Increasing the aircraft's thrust ratio was required to maintain flight data at the level of the Su-25, since the maximum take-off weight of the Su-25T increased by almost 2 tons. The wing of the Su-25T is completely borrowed from the Su-25UB. In the containers of the brake plates installed new antenna system EW "Gardenia."

Under each wing there are five armament suspension units, including 4 girder BDZ-25 holders, providing suspension and use of all types of bomber, unguided and guided armament, as well as suspended fuel tanks, and one pylon holder for installing a launch device for a rocket air-to-air P-60M. On the nodes of the suspension nearest to the fuselage side, bombs weighing up to 1000 kg can be placed.



The maximum weight of the combat load remained the same as on the Su-25. The main anti-tank weapon Su-25T are 16 ATGM "Whirlwind". The complex allows firing single rockets and a volley of two missiles. The high supersonic speed of the ATGM (near 600 m / s) makes it possible to hit several targets in one run and reduces the time the wearer is in the zone of the military air defense. The laser-beam targeting system of an anti-tank guided missile at a target, in combination with an automated tracking system, allows to obtain very high firing accuracy, which practically does not depend on the range. At a distance of 8 km, the probability of a rocket hitting a tank moving at a speed of 15-20 km / h is 80%. In addition to point ground and sea targets, the Vortex ATGM can be used against low-level and relatively slow air targets, such as helicopters or military transport aircraft.


ATGM "Whirlwind" near TPK


An ATGM with a mass of 45 kg (weight with TPK 59 kg) capable of hitting targets during the day at a distance of up to 10 km. The range of effective use at night does not exceed 6 km. Cumulative fragmentation warhead weighing 8 kg according to advertising data breaks 800 mm homogeneous armor. In addition to the "Whirlwind" ATGM, the Su-25T can carry the entire range of anti-tank weapons previously used on the Su-25, including two detachable mobile guns SPPU-687 with 30-mm air cannon GSH-1-30.

The tests of the Su-25T were delayed due to the high complexity of the avionics and the need to pair it with guided weapons. Only for 1990, the aircraft was prepared for launch into mass production at the Tbilisi Aviation Production Association. From 1991, the transition to the serial production of attack aircraft with advanced anti-tank weapons was planned, with the gradual curtailment of the production of Su-25. However, the reduction of military spending, and later the collapse of the USSR put an end to these plans. Until the end of 1991, it was possible to build and fly around the entire 8 Su-25T. At the factory, the reserve still remained on 12 attack aircraft that are in varying degrees of readiness. Apparently, part of the Su-25T remaining in Georgia managed to finish.

According to media reports 4 Su-25T fought in 1999 in the North Caucasus. The attackers made about 30 combat missions, during which they fired precision guided missile positions with guided aviation munitions. But the combat use of Su-25T in Chechnya was limited due to the small stock of guided weapons. Several aircraft modified to the level of Su-25TK were delivered to Ethiopia at the end of 1999. These machines were actively used during the Ethiopian-Eritrean war. During the attack of the 20 XDUMX mobile squadron medium-range airborne positions in May 2000, an anti-aircraft missile exploded next to one of the Su-25ТК, but the attack aircraft withstood the strike, and despite the damage safely reached the base.

A further development option for the Su-25T was the Su-25TM. But the task of fighting tanks for Su-25TM is not a priority. Compared to the Su-25, the mass of armor on the Su-25TM was reduced by 153 kg, but at the same time, the fire protection was improved on the basis of the combat damage analysis. The design of the central part of the fuselage, the fuel system mains and the thrust control system have also been intensified.


Su25TM


The new attack aircraft was to become a multi-purpose vehicle, capable of effectively fighting enemy tactical and transport aircraft and destroying warships in the coastal zone. In order to expand the functionality of the designed attack aircraft, an overhead radar "Spear-25" of three-centimeter range with a slot antenna array with a diameter of 500 mm and a weight of 90 kg was introduced into the avionics.


Radar "Spear-25" suspended under the attack aircraft Su-25TM


Suspended radar station container type "Spear-25" provides all-weather use of weapons, mapping areas, detection and pre-targeting in various modes, significantly expanding the range of combat tasks Su-25TM. Thanks to the use of radar, it became possible to use anti-ship missiles X-31А and X-35. Su-25TM is capable of carrying four anti-ship missiles. Air targets with EPR 5 m² can be detected on a collision course at a distance of up to 55 km, on catch-up courses - 27 km. The radar simultaneously accompanies up to 10 and provides the use of missiles for two air targets. In the improved version of the Kopyo-M station, the range of detection of airborne targets "head-on" is 85 km, followed by 40 km. A convoy of armored vehicles can be detected at a distance of 20-25 km. At the same time, the weight of the upgraded station increased to 115 kg.

The Su-25TM anti-tank weapons remain the same as on the Su-25T. The upgraded optoelectronic station Shkval-M is placed in the forward part of the fuselage, the image from which is fed to a television monitor. When approaching the target, at a distance of 10-12 km OEPS begins to work in scan mode. Depending on the height of the flight, a strip of terrain width from 500 m to 2 km is viewed. The equipment "Squall-M" allows you to recognize the tank at a distance of 8-10 km. The target identified by the pilot is taken to auto-follow by a television machine with image memorization, and during spatial maneuvers, the target is kept on tracking, while simultaneously determining the distance. This ensures not only the use of guided weapons, but the accuracy of unguided weapons of destruction increases several times.

The tests of the Su-25TM, which received the “export” designation of the Su-39, began in the 1995 year. Serial production of modernized attack aircraft was supposed to be organized at an aircraft factory in Ulan-Ude, where Su-25UB’s “Sparky” were built before. In various domestic sources indicated that the total was built 4 prototype.

In addition to expanding combat capabilities, the installation of the radar on the attack aircraft had a number of significant drawbacks. Considerable weight and dimensions allow to place it only in the outboard container, which significantly reduces the attack load of the attack aircraft. The station has a high power consumption on the tests worked reliably. The detection range of air and ground targets and low resolution do not correspond to modern conditions.

Instead of building new Su-25ТМ (Su-39), the leadership of the Defense Ministry of the Russian Federation chose to order overhaul and modernization of the front-line Su-25 having a sufficiently high residual life on the glider. For a number of reasons listed above, it was decided to abandon the overhead container radar. The upgraded attack aircraft received the designation Su-25CM. Its combat capabilities have been enhanced through the use of the new 56CM Bars sighting and navigation system. The complex is controlled by a digital computer Digital Center-90. It includes a multifunctional color indicator, satellite and near-navigation equipment, an electronic reconnaissance station, an aircraft responder, a weapon control system, an on-board system for collecting, processing and recording flight information and a number of other systems. From the old avionics on the attack aircraft remained only a laser sight-rangefinder "Klen-PS".

Due to the transition to a new, lighter avionics, it was possible to reduce the weight of the onboard equipment by approximately 300 kg. This allowed the use of mass reserve to improve the security of the Su-25CM. On the upgraded attack aircraft, thanks to the introduction of the built-in onboard equipment control system, labor costs were significantly reduced when preparing the aircraft for re-departure. But the anti-tank capabilities of the Su-25CM after the modernization have not changed much. Representatives of the Russian Aerospace Forces voiced information that the Su-25CM could be in operation for another 15-20 years. However, the updated BREO modernized attack aircraft practically did not contribute to an increase in anti-tank potential.

Relatively recently, information appeared about the new modification of the attack aircraft - Su-25CM3. This machine is also not endowed with special anti-tank properties like Su-25T / TM. The major improvements to the avionics were made in the direction of increasing the capabilities of anti-aircraft and anti-aircraft combat weapons. Su-25MX3 received a new electronic warfare system Vitebsk, which includes a radar monitoring system, ultraviolet direction-finding equipment for missile launches, as well as a powerful multi-frequency jammer. According to officially not confirmed information, the electronic countermeasures system includes not only an irradiation warning station, but also a laser facility for blinding infrared-guided missiles, in addition to heat traps.

According to the Military Balance 2016 data, last year there were: 40 Su-25, 150 upgraded Su-25СМ / СМ3 and 15 Sparok Su-25UB with the RF AJS. Apparently, this is data taking into account machines that are “in storage” and in the process of modernization. But among the two hundred attackers available, the anti-Su-25T / TM is not officially listed.

In the middle of the 90-ies, in the course of “reforming and optimizing” the armed forces, under the pretext of low efficiency and the struggle to improve flight safety, fighter-bomber aircraft were eliminated. I must say that even at the beginning of the 80-s, the leadership of the USSR Ministry of Defense set a course for equipping the air force with twin-engine machines. This was supposed to reduce the number of flight accidents and increase combat survivability. Under this pretext, all Su-17 and MiG-27 were sent to “storage”, and the air regiments equipped with them were disbanded. Impact functions were assigned to the Su-24M front-line bombers, the Su-25 attack planes and the MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters. Especially "good" in the role of the anti-tank machine looked heavy fighter Su-27 with blocks of the NAR.

During the Second Chechen War, it turned out that the Su-24M bombers are not optimal for carrying out a number of tactical tasks; moreover, these aircraft require thorough and very time-consuming service and place high demands on the qualifications of pilots. At the same time, the Su-25 attack planes, simple and relatively inexpensive to operate, do not have the capability of daily and all-weather use, and also have a number of restrictions on the use of guided weapons. Here, the Russian generals, confronted with the fierce resistance of Chechen gangster formations, recalled the Su-17М4 and MiG-27К / M, which, with acceptable operating costs, could deliver pinpoint strikes with guided bombs and missiles. However, it soon became clear that after several years of “storage” in the open air, fighter-bombers, which are formally in stock, are only suitable for scrap metal. Although in flight test centers and at an aircraft factory in Komsomolsk-on-Amur, where they were properly cared for, the training Su-17UM was decommissioned only recently.

In the past few years, with the filing of the leadership of the Russian Aerospace Force of the Russian Federation, the media have been spreading statements that front-line bombers Su-34 can replace all other strike aircraft of front-line aviation. Such statements, of course, are slyness designed to disguise the losses suffered by our military aircraft in the years of "rising from its knees." Su-34 is certainly a wonderful aircraft, capable of effectively destroying targeted critical objects with controlled weapons and striking area targets with free-fall bombs. The front-line bomber of the new generation Su-34, if necessary, can successfully conduct a defensive air battle. But his anti-tank capabilities remained at about the level of the old Su-24M.

To be continued ...

Based on:
http://saper.isnet.ru/mines/ptm-3.html
http://www.airwar.ru/weapon/ab/kmgu.html
http://army.lv/ru/su-25/primenenie/482/144
http://foto-i-mir.ru/kopie-25-maks-2003/
http://www.redov.ru/transport_i_aviacija/shturmoviki_i_istrebiteli_bombardirovshiki/p25.php
Author:
Articles from this series:
Aviation against tanks (part of 1)
Aviation against tanks (part of 2)
Aviation against tanks (part of 3)
117 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Soho
    Soho 12 October 2017 05: 52
    +4
    Su-25 is an excellent attack aircraft. At 87m, being part of OKSVA, he was a direct witness to their work.
  2. andrewkor
    andrewkor 12 October 2017 06: 16
    +2
    So, will they revive the production of Su-25 (39) or come up with some kind of wunderwafel?
    1. Bongo
      12 October 2017 07: 09
      +8
      Quote: andrewkor
      So, will they revive the production of Su-25 (39) or come up with some kind of wunderwafel?

      Currently, there is no talk of resuming serial construction of the Su-25 even with the updated avionics. And it’s hardly rational. In my purely amateurish opinion, it would be much more rational to develop a multifunctional combat aircraft with an economical theater of operations with a pushing propeller and armored cabin protecting it from 14,5-23-mm caliber memory. Such an aircraft with a thrust-weight ratio of about 350 W / kg, normal take-off weight of 6-7 t and combat load of 1000-1500 kg, could operate in the depths of enemy defense 300-400 km. And develop a speed of up to 700 km / h. It could be effective not only in anti-terrorist operations, but also provided that it was equipped with modern avionics and weapons, it could successfully destroy tanks and fight helicopters.
      1. Rus2012
        Rus2012 12 October 2017 11: 05
        0
        Quote: Bongo
        Such an aircraft with a thrust ratio of about 350 W / kg, normal take-off weight of 6-7 t and combat load of 1000-1500 kg, could act in the depths of the enemy’s defense 300-400 km. And develop a speed of up to 700 km / h. It could be effective not only in anti-terrorist operations, but also provided that it was equipped with modern avionics and weapons, it could successfully destroy tanks and fight helicopters.

        And how will it act on a theater of war with saturated air defense and FA means?
        Is it not otherwise necessary to conquer the "domination and isolation" of the war zone from the enemy air forces and air defense? To put it bluntly, the task is very, very time-consuming and difficult ...;))))))))))))))
        1. Bongo
          12 October 2017 11: 07
          +4
          And what is the tactics of the Su-25 and what front-line air defense systems are there in the American army?
          1. Rus2012
            Rus2012 12 October 2017 18: 42
            0
            Quote: Bongo
            And what is the tactics of the Su-25 and what front-line air defense systems are there in the American army?

            ... are you asking me? :))))
            Let's say from MANPADS and further - MZA and higher ...
            1. Bongo
              13 October 2017 03: 31
              +3
              Quote: Rus2012
              Let's say from MANPADS and further - MZA and higher ...

              US Air Defense Forces and the United States Naval Forces are based on the FIM-92 Stinger. They don’t have Mza now. MIM-104 Patriot are relatively few in number and are mainly used in object defense. The main means of air defense in the United States are fighters.
          2. sivuch
            sivuch 12 October 2017 19: 35
            +3
            Sergey, I will have it somewhere in the fourth part. (If any)
            1. Bongo
              13 October 2017 03: 31
              +2
              Quote: sivuch
              Sergey, I will have it somewhere in the fourth part. (If any)

              Throw it on the mail, I can help than.
          3. DimerVladimer
            DimerVladimer 18 October 2017 15: 51
            0
            Quote: Bongo
            And what is the tactics of the Su-25 and what front-line air defense systems are there in the American army?


            Let's see the statistics of the losses of the Su-25 Ukrainian Air Force

            July 16, 2014 - Confirmed information about the loss of the Su-25 attack aircraft. The Ministry of Defense of Ukraine accused the fighter of the Russian Air Force in this [21]. Russian Defense Ministry has denied these allegations. [22] The pilot was ejected and evacuated to a safe place.

            July 23, 2014 - The ATO press center reported about two Su-25s shot down near the village of Dmitrovka, the pilots managed to eject [23] [24].

            August 29, 2014 - SU-25 of the Air Force of Ukraine was shot down in the Donetsk region during a combat mission. The pilot catapulted.

            Besides:

            July 16, 2014 - Su-25 attack aircraft, tail number 41 “blue” was damaged by a hit from MANPADS. The plane made an emergency landing in a controlled area by the Ukrainian military, the damage is insignificant and needs to be repaired.
            Total 4 aircraft shot down, one damaged + one crashed while landing at the airport of Donetsk.
            After helicopters, this is the largest aviation loss in this local military conflict.

            Undoubtedly, when counteracting serious air defense with the use of air defense systems and fighter aircraft, the losses of Su-25, A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft will be much higher.

            The problem of survival over the battlefield exposes the concept of a specialized attack aircraft to great doubt.
      2. Curious
        Curious 12 October 2017 11: 16
        +4
        In 1982-1983, in the Design Bureau of the Moscow Aviation Institute, under the leadership of Kazimir Zhidovetsky, work was underway on the project of just such a light attack aircraft "Photon".
        More than twenty different layouts have been worked out. One of the first options of "Photon"
        had a traditional aerodynamic design, a direct wing and a turbo-propeller engine TVD-10B located in the bow.
        1. Curious
          Curious 12 October 2017 11: 21
          +4

          The collapse of the USSR in 1991 led to the fact that work on the topic was stopped.
          The last option looked like this.

          For more details, see http://www.airwar.ru/enc/xplane/foton.html
      3. rubin6286
        rubin6286 13 October 2017 02: 29
        0
        Dreams, dreams, where is your sweetness?

        You did not set all the parameters for your attack aircraft. Let's try to find the missing ones.
        On combat vehicles, the mass of fuel in the internal tanks is about a third of the mass of an empty aircraft. You have it 0,3X7000 = 2100 kg. Then the weight of the equipped aircraft will be equal to 7000 + 2100 = 9100 kg.
        Knowing the weight of the bomb load and considering the weight of the armor similar to the Su-25, we get the normal take-off weight of your attack aircraft 9100 + 2100 = 11200 kg.

        N beats Is the specific power of the engine, and the power of the theater is N calculated = N beats. X P take-off, where P is the normal take-off weight of the aircraft.
        Knowing that 1 kW = 1,36 hp when calculating engine power and
        1 h.p. = 0,74 kW when calculating engine power, we get that
        in your case, N calculated = 0,35x 11200 = 3920 kW = 5297,3 hp
        In fact, the engine thrust should be about 15% higher than calculated. Then the thrust of the aircraft of your attack aircraft will be approximately 6100 hp
        Is it a lot or a little ?. For comparison: the initial power of the largest theater in Russia NK-12 installed on the Tu-95 is 14800 hp. Let's try to choose the closest power theater for your attack aircraft:

        1. Turboprop aircraft engine TV7-117C.
        Developer: Design Bureau V.Ya. Klimova. Installed on the IL-114.
        TTH:

        Length, mm: 2136
        Outer Diameter mm: 940
        Weight, kg: 530
        Power, hp
        emergency mode: 2800
        - take-off mode: 2500
        -max continuous mode: 2000
        cruising mode: 1800
        Conclusion: Weak

        2. AI-20
        Developer: Ivchenko-Progress
        Manufacturer: Motor Sich, PMZ
        Year of development: 1958
        Application: An-12, An-32, Be-12, IL-18, IL-20, IL-22, IL-38
        Power from 4 thousand hp up to 5180 hp It is not produced in Russia.
        Conclusion: Weak

        All other turboprop production made both before 1980, and after it, had a capacity below 5 thousand hp and most of them were produced in Ukraine.

        In order for the aircraft to go into production, the engine must be successfully produced and operated for at least 5 years.

        So far, there is no such theater in Russia.

        In addition, the installation of a theater of war on a combat aircraft makes it difficult to pilot and maneuver, because these engines are prone to a delayed reaction on the control stick and are not capable of quickly changing the operating mode when changing the engine speed.

        In a word, you understand which of you is an aircraft designer.
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 14 October 2017 13: 44
          +2
          Nevertheless, there were amusing projects to equip the Su-25 theater of operations, or even two theater of operations within the framework of the “special period” aircraft project, when it was assumed that the economic space of the USSR would be destroyed and there would be 4 autonomous regions that would need to somehow assemble aircraft for continuation of the database.
      4. EvilLion
        EvilLion 14 October 2017 13: 40
        0
        Yes, grandfather Il-Xnumx. How do you plan to protect it even from 2 fire, not to mention MANPADS.
      5. NIKNN
        NIKNN 15 October 2017 21: 02
        +3
        Quote: Bongo
        Currently, there is no talk of resuming serial construction of the Su-25 even with the updated avionics. And it’s hardly rational.

        Hello, Sergey! hi Most likely hardly rational, however
        In my purely amateurish opinion, it would be much more rational to develop a multi-functional combat aircraft with an economical theater of operations with a pushing propeller and armored cabin protecting it from 14,5-23-mm caliber memory. Such an aircraft with a thrust-weight ratio of about 350 W / kg, a normal take-off weight of 6-7 tons and a combat load of 1000-1500 kg, could operate in the depths of enemy defense of 300-400 km. And develop a speed of up to 700 km / h. It could be effective not only in anti-terrorist operations, but also provided that it was equipped with modern avionics and weapons, it could successfully destroy tanks and fight helicopters.
        Does not meet the requirements multifunctional On these characteristics, the maximum aircraft with some kind of narrow task. You won’t even be able to imprison a purely anti-tank one, you just have to push one avionics into it .... They pushed it onto the Dryer with enormous difficulty ...
        It is most advisable to create a PAK SHA project ... :) taking into account all the necessary needs of the military ... But as in the song "... where is the money Lucy ...". In my personal opinion, it’s better to invent a half-plane, it’s better to extend the 25x resource and still finish at least up to the Su-25TM ... for the first time, but maybe they will give birth to something ... I don't accept the options for the 130 and something nearby ....
        Well, like that ... hi
  3. Amurets
    Amurets 12 October 2017 07: 07
    +3
    Sergei. Thank. It’s hard to add anything.
    1. Bongo
      12 October 2017 07: 12
      +6
      Quote: Amurets
      Sergei. Thank. It’s hard to add anything.

      This is my purely personal view, in addition, I am not a great specialist in this field. It is a pity the ancient (vaf) began to appear very rarely. Without people like him, VO looks pale.
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 12 October 2017 07: 16
        +7
        Quote: Bongo
        It is a pity the ancient (vaf) began to appear very rarely. Without people like him, VO looks pale.

        Not just him. Many are already gone, and some very rarely appear. It seems to me that VO loses a lot from this.
  4. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 12 October 2017 07: 58
    +1
    It seems to me that the ATGM is asking for a Su-25 Wing. You can do this without such complicated versions as the Su-39 ...
    1. Bongo
      12 October 2017 09: 50
      +4
      Quote: Zaurbek
      It seems to me that the ATGM is asking for under the Su-25 Wing. You can do this without complicated versions like Su-39 ..

      Probably possible, but for this it is necessary to revive the mass production of the Su-25, the design of which began in the 1969 year. Is there any reason? In my opinion it is easier to create a new car.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 14 October 2017 11: 34
        0
        You can make the car easier than the Su-39, introduce a second crew member, for a more convenient search for targets, Introduce an overhead container and anti-tank systems ... the problem is only with replacing the engines, probably the diameter of the engine is small for more modern engines. And so it’s quite basic to use the Su-25 spark (it was, by the way, produced on the territory of the RSFSR) .. At the time they wanted to upgrade the A-10 on this principle, but spared the money.
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 14 October 2017 13: 46
        0
        But it will not essentially carry anything new in itself, unless you want to build a new MiG-27 with armor, supersonic sound and a large gun.
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 16 October 2017 14: 34
          0
          You can’t imagine anything new there, only more advanced anti-tank systems and integration into a common data exchange system, a protective complex like President C and a second person for the convenience of finding targets and working with them ... The next stage is armored UAVs, but the general principles of protection and weapons will stay.
  5. oldav
    oldav 12 October 2017 08: 10
    +2
    It turns out the newest su-25 1991 onwards?
    1. Bongo
      12 October 2017 09: 49
      +4
      Quote: oldav
      It turns out the newest su-25 1991 onwards?

      The bulk of the Su-25 attack aircraft built in the USSR.
      1. oldav
        oldav 12 October 2017 09: 55
        +2
        In the Georgian SSR. Was there production in the Russian Federation?
        1. Bongo
          12 October 2017 10: 01
          +5
          Quote: oldav
          Was there production in the Russian Federation?

          In the 1986 year in Ulan-Uda, the production of the Su-25UB and Su-25UTG pairs began. Several Su-25TMs (Su-39) were also built there. Now the plant is completely redesigned for the construction of Mi-8 / Mi-17 helicopters.
  6. igordok
    igordok 12 October 2017 08: 22
    +4
    Thanks for the series of articles. I hope the concept of aviation will include helicopters.
    1. Bongo
      12 October 2017 09: 47
      +4
      Quote: igordok
      Thanks for the series of articles. I hope the concept of aviation will include helicopters.

      Certainly. yes
  7. oldav
    oldav 12 October 2017 09: 56
    +2
    Such aircraft as the Su-25 and A-10 are likely to replace drones. And these machines will last another 10 for years.
    1. Bongo
      12 October 2017 10: 18
      +6
      Quote: oldav
      Such aircraft as the Su-25 and A-10 are likely to replace drones. And these machines will last another 10 for years.

      For the foreseeable future, drones are not able to completely replace manned combat aircraft. No. Not one reconnaissance-strike UAV today can not be compared in terms of the range of combat characteristics even with a light turboprop attack aircraft. Drones are a very effective tool for special operations, they have their own niche, and it is absolutely pointless to oppose them to other military aircraft.
      1. oldav
        oldav 12 October 2017 10: 52
        +1
        And why then no one wants to engage in the development and serial production of such machines? The United States has ceased to produce a-10 in 84, squeezing everything out of it that is possible but do not plan to produce it again. We have the same.
        1. Bongo
          12 October 2017 11: 02
          +7
          Quote: oldav
          And why then no one wants to engage in the development and serial production of such machines? The United States has ceased to produce a-10 in 84, squeezing everything out of it that is possible but do not plan to produce it again. We have the same.

          You are not quite right. No. A-10, like Su-25 were created for a great war. In the United States, they have taken the path of creating the universal F-35, but of course it is not a full-fledged replacement for the A-10. Therefore, great interest is shown in the subsonic Textron AirLand Scorpion and turboprop impact machines. Due to the lack of money, our Su-25TM didn’t bring us to mind, but at the same time, the Su-34 has a well-protected armored cabin. A shock version is being developed based on the Yak-130 TCB.
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 14 October 2017 15: 40
            0
            There will be no shock Yak-130, and no one does it, enough to carry this nonsense.
      2. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 13 October 2017 00: 31
        0
        Why is it impossible to launch the F-16 without a pilot with partially remote, partially autonomous control against tanks? He will be able to fly remarkably at extremely low altitude on a map of the area (like the Kyrgyz Republic) and hit tanks with missiles just like with a pilot inside.
        And no cab reservations are needed. Like the cabs themselves.
        You can argue with an unmanned fighter: when they will. But the drummers? - very soon.
        1. Bongo
          13 October 2017 03: 35
          +2
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Why is it impossible to launch the F-16 without a pilot with partially remote, partially autonomous control against tanks? He will be able to fly remarkably at extremely low altitude on a map of the area (like the Kyrgyz Republic) and hit tanks with missiles just like with a pilot inside.

          And control lines in the conditions of electronic countermeasures how will they function? In addition, unlike the pilot sitting in the cockpit, the UAV operator acts with a certain delay and has no all-round view from the cockpit.
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 13 October 2017 14: 32
            +1
            Typically, F-16s clean up tanks in one pass (the second is fraught with falling under an awakened air defense). So drones can. No need to turn your heads: the goals are roughly distributed in advance. The general picture is held by the command aircraft / s.
            Offline mode is possible. As soon as the "picture-tank" hits the sight, a rocket flies. Gone - half of the tanks are gone, someone was shot down, there is no family to grieve.
            Our Apaches will no longer buy, UAVs are more efficient. And when the F-35 will carry out general control, which attack aircraft, what armor?
            1. Bongo
              14 October 2017 02: 13
              +3
              Quote: voyaka uh
              Usually F-16 clean up tanks in one pass (the second is fraught with falling under an awakened air defense).

              What specialized anti tank weapons on the F-16?
              Quote: voyaka uh
              Offline mode is possible. As soon as the "picture-tank" hits the sight, a rocket flies. Gone - half of the tanks are gone, someone was shot down, there is no family to grieve.

              So you are going to fight with a technologically powerful opponent or with Hesballah? Do you know the statistics of losses of American UAVs in Afghanistan? But we are talking about relatively light and slow devices.
              Quote: voyaka uh
              Our Apaches will no longer buy, UAVs are more efficient.

              Against small arms rebels in a "low-intensity conflict." yes Israel simply did not have any worthy opponents with a common land border. But does this mean that the Israeli experience is thoughtlessly projected to other countries? No.
              1. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 14 October 2017 13: 08
                0
                "Does this mean that the Israeli experience is thoughtlessly projected to other countries?" ////

                I think yes. Israel loves all sorts of innovations. Usually they look strange and wasteful, but over the years they become standard in the world. And this fully applies to air strikes on the ground, including complex targets: tanks, underground targets and air defense. And if Israel does not even think closely about manned attack aircraft, then this is worth considering.
                You mentioned Hezbollah. You know that the most difficult goal for the Air Force is not a tank, but an off-road motorcycle racing along a path among trees. If the F-16 pilot managed to get into the motorcycle with a rocket (by no means always), then getting into the tank is a toy.
                1. EvilLion
                  EvilLion 14 October 2017 15: 46
                  +2
                  In Israel they don’t think - nobody should think ... In Israel they hammer from planes on motorcycles - everyone should do it. Israel is the navel of the earth. When you’re being weaned of God's chosenness ...
                  1. voyaka uh
                    voyaka uh 14 October 2017 19: 11
                    +2
                    "Israel - the navel of the Earth" ///:

                    Thank you, of course, for such a high praise, fellow but we don’t think so.
                    Since Israel (due to circumstances) had a wealth of 65 years of experience precisely in tactical strike aircraft, I set forth some considerations. But you will surely lead them through the filters of your keen analytical mind. And your conclusions about the future of anti-tank strike aircraft, as always, will amaze us with depth. good
            2. DimerVladimer
              DimerVladimer 18 October 2017 16: 04
              +1
              Quote: voyaka uh
              Typically, F-16s clean up tanks in one pass (the second is fraught with falling under an awakened air defense). So drones can. No need to turn your heads: the goals are roughly distributed in advance. The general picture is held by the command aircraft / s.
              Offline mode is possible. As soon as the "picture-tank" hits the sight, a rocket flies. Gone - half of the tanks are gone, someone was shot down, there is no family to grieve.
              Our Apaches will no longer buy, UAVs are more efficient. And when the F-35 will carry out general control, which attack aircraft, what armor?


              The concept of an armored attack aircraft (except counterinsurgency) has completely outlived itself.

              You are right - either UAVs with submunitions, or kamikaze UAVs, well, about a swarm of UAVs - I doubt that only very rich countries can afford such a luxury ...
              1. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 18 October 2017 16: 13
                0
                So far, the most advanced anti-tank concept is:
                F-35 from high altitude, at a speed of 0-8 - 0.9 MAX in one pass
                knocks out tanks (including moving ones) with guided missiles.
                Each aircraft must “take” 3-4 tanks.
                I must say right away, I don’t know if it will work. How much. But they will definitely try it.
                Perspective scheme: F-35 "grazes" several strike UAVs, aiming them at the target,
                and finishing off what they did not succeed. This is also “Wishlist”, but technically possible.
                1. DimerVladimer
                  DimerVladimer 18 October 2017 16: 43
                  0
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  So far, the most advanced anti-tank concept is:
                  F-35 from high altitude, at a speed of 0-8 - 0.9 MAX in one pass
                  knocks out tanks (including moving ones) with guided missiles.
                  Each aircraft must “take” 3-4 tanks.
                  I must say right away, I don’t know if it will work. How much. But they will definitely try it.
                  Perspective scheme: F-35 "grazes" several strike UAVs, aiming them at the target,
                  and finishing off what they did not succeed. This is also “Wishlist”, but technically possible.


                  Perhaps a sensible thought, but I do not think that there are times when you can risk a plane like F35 (a plane gaining superiority in the air) to deal with a tank breakthrough.
                  It seems to me that the barrel artillery with adjustable ammunition, the Smerch type MLRS with submunitions and additional reconnaissance UAVs, the US containerized missile systems (I don’t remember the name) and ATGMs are the best way to stop breakouts.

                  And in terms of the use of aviation - the UAV strike stealth - many countries are involved.
                  1. voyaka uh
                    voyaka uh 18 October 2017 16: 53
                    0
                    We do not like MLRS, ATGMs are only long-range ones, and they are only with special forces.
                    Once (in my time) they said: only tanks fight with a tank. Everything else is inefficient, big losses, risks ...

                    Now, along with gaining dominance in the air, there is an opportunity to end the battle with tanks long before they begin to deploy. They bought the F-35 from us just like a drummer (instead of the F-16) with still unprecedented capabilities (they are yet to be verified).
                    And the F-15 remains to protect the sky.
                    1. DimerVladimer
                      DimerVladimer 19 October 2017 08: 49
                      0
                      Quote: voyaka uh
                      Now, along with gaining dominance in the air, there is an opportunity to end the battle with tanks long before they begin to deploy. They bought the F-35 from us just like a drummer (instead of the F-16) with still unprecedented capabilities (they are yet to be verified).


                      Oh yes.
                      F35 in shock version are supplied.
                      It will be interesting to know whether the results of combat use will live up to expectations?
        2. EvilLion
          EvilLion 14 October 2017 15: 44
          +1
          It would have been long since the cabin had been taken out of the F-16, due to this and further along the downward spiral of weight reduction, the car would have been half as much, with the same LTX. But they don’t do this, actually there are drones. But they are all remote-controlled and no one intends to lose them from electronic warfare, because stupid scouts and extremely limited combat.
        3. Setrac
          Setrac 14 October 2017 21: 28
          +2
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Why is it impossible to launch the F-16 without a pilot with partially remote, partially autonomous control against tanks?

          What's the point? How will an unmanned F-16 be better than a manned one?
          1. Bongo
            15 October 2017 02: 42
            +3
            Quote: Setrac
            What's the point? How will an unmanned F-16 be better than a manned one?

            Of course not. It would be better if such planes were built long ago and did not jeopardize the death and capture of pilots. The main difficulty is ensuring a stable broadband high-speed radio channel. However, an unmanned modification of the QF-16 exists and successfully flies, but mainly in the role of an air target. The early F-16A in storage at Davis Montan will be converted at QF-16.
            1. Setrac
              Setrac 15 October 2017 06: 04
              0
              Quote: Bongo
              The main difficulty is ensuring a stable broadband high-speed radio channel.

              Radio-controlled aircraft are not drones, they have a pilot, although he is not on the plane but on the ground.
              And in general, radio control is a dead end, the drone itself must fly and hit the target, if he can not do this without human intervention - then why all this hemorrhoids?
              1. Bongo
                15 October 2017 08: 17
                +2
                Quote: Setrac
                Radio-controlled aircraft are not drones, they have a pilot, although he is not on the plane but on the ground.

                You burn it ... wassat And how do you think the management of actions on the Raptor and the Reaper is carried out. Of course, stability and maintenance of a given direction occurs by autopilot, but they do not use weapons on their own, and they do not fly offline. All key flight parameters and actions are controlled by the operator.
                Quote: Setrac
                And in general, radio control is a dead end, the drone itself must fly and hit the target, if he can not do this without human intervention - then why all this hemorrhoids?


                Exactly the way you put it, “hemorrhoids” is happening, and the US targets QF-4 and QF-16 do not differ fundamentally from reconnaissance-strike UAVs.
                You may be interested in this:Operation "Phantoms" in the US Air Force continues (clickable) hi
                1. Setrac
                  Setrac 15 October 2017 08: 31
                  +1
                  Quote: Bongo
                  And how do you think the management of actions on the Raptor and the Reaper is carried out. Of course, stability and maintenance of a given direction occurs by autopilot, but they do not use weapons on their own, and they do not fly offline.

                  That is, the robot is still piloting and shooting, does the person set the flight direction and target? Here you just need to determine the terminology, if an airplane can fly without radio commands, then it is a radio-controlled airplane, and if it breaks the connection, it continues to fly, even if without a target, then an unmanned aerial vehicle.
                  With the definition of goals for the UAV attack aircraft, I don’t see any problems at all, I flew by glonas at the indicated point, shot at the targets illuminated from the ground and to the base.
                  The meaning of UAVs is that they can be made smaller and cheaper, but more in quantity, to increase the channel, and if an operator needs to be assigned to each UAV, the channel will not change.
                  1. Bongo
                    15 October 2017 08: 55
                    +2
                    Quote: Setrac
                    That is, the robot is still piloting and shooting, does the person set the flight direction and target?

                    A person chooses a course, altitude, goal and gives a command on the use of weapons.
                    Quote: Setrac
                    Here you just need to determine the terminology, if an airplane can fly without radio commands, then it is a radio-controlled airplane, and if it breaks the connection, it continues to fly, even if without a target, then an unmanned aerial vehicle.

                    QF -4 and QF -16 - are classified in the USA precisely as radio-controlled targets. Although they have a significant degree of autonomy, and can independently take off and land.
                    Quote: Setrac
                    With the definition of goals for the UAV attack aircraft, I don’t see any problems at all, I flew by glonas at the indicated point, shot at the targets illuminated from the ground and to the base.

                    If it were so simple ... no one in the foreseeable future is ready to give the choice of targets and weapon control to the robot. In addition, how do you imagine ground-based illumination of targets behind the front line during full-scale hostilities?
                    Quote: Setrac
                    The meaning of UAVs is that they can be made smaller and cheaper, but more in quantity, to increase the channel, and if an operator needs to be assigned to each UAV, the channel will not change.

                    What impact drone is now without an operator? If we talk about massive use, without human intervention, then it is not necessary to increase the “channel” as you say, but to introduce elements of artificial intelligence.
                    1. Setrac
                      Setrac 15 October 2017 14: 46
                      0
                      Quote: Bongo
                      it’s necessary not to increase the “channel” as you say, but to introduce elements of artificial intelligence.

                      One is a consequence of the other. Without the introduction of artificial intelligence, all this crap with UAVs generally makes no sense.
                      Quote: Bongo
                      If it were so simple ... no one in the foreseeable future is ready to give the choice of targets and weapon control to the robot.

                      What choice of goals are you talking about? The objectives will be determined by ground forces. In addition, people are also mistaken and losses from friendly fire are significant.
                      1. Bongo
                        15 October 2017 15: 27
                        +2
                        Quote: Setrac
                        One is a consequence of the other. Without the introduction of artificial intelligence, all this crap with UAVs generally makes no sense.

                        This is a matter of the future, while the operator on the ground controls the main maneuvers of the drone.
                        Quote: Setrac
                        What choice of goals are you talking about? The objectives will be determined by ground forces.

                        stop Unfortunately, you absolutely can not imagine the modern methodology for the use of reconnaissance and strike UAVs. They are in no way an effective means of fire support for ground units. The undoubted advantages of the UAV are lower operating costs and the absence of the risk of death or capture of the pilot in the event of a shot down. At the moment, drones are a tool for hitting point "soft" targets, when acting against a technologically undeveloped enemy. Armed UAVs are used in various kinds of special operations and in anti-terrorist operations. But here, their losses are very significant. According to the US military, as of 2010, more than 70 MQ-1 / RQ-1 Predator was lost. In the same 2010 year, each “Forerunner” cost the US Department of Defense $ 4,03 million. That is, finances saved on relatively low operating costs were used to a large part to purchase new UAVs to replace the lost ones.

                        Attack drones capable of patrolling for a long time proved to be a very successful tool for eliminating al Qaeda leaders, but a small amount of ammunition on board (two Hellfire AGM-114) does not allow destroying multiple targets or hampering the actions of the enemy. In addition, these missiles, due to the insufficient mass of the warhead, are ineffective against caves and solid capital structures. Communication lines and data transmissions of American UAVs were vulnerable to interference and interception of broadcast information. The inability of the drone drone, if necessary, to perform sharp anti-aircraft maneuvers and the maximum lightness of the design makes them very vulnerable even in the case of minor damage.
  8. maximghost
    maximghost 12 October 2017 10: 21
    +3
    And why are the X-23 / 25 / 29 missiles and, accordingly, some of their carriers not considered?
    1. Bongo
      12 October 2017 10: 38
      +3
      Quote: maximghost
      And why are the X-23 / 25 / 29 missiles and, accordingly, some of their carriers not considered?

      Because the publication is called "Aviation against tanks". Fortunately, we didn’t reach such insanity as in the USA with the AGM-65 Maverick and X-23 / 25 / 29 SDs on single tanks we did not plan to use.
      1. maximghost
        maximghost 12 October 2017 11: 10
        +1
        Well then, it turns out that you can leave the weapon (although it should not) against the tanks outside the brackets, but about the weapon that you can’t use against the tanks in principle (p-60, X-35).
        1. Bongo
          12 October 2017 11: 13
          +3
          Quote: maximghost
          Well then, it turns out that you can leave the weapon (although it should not) against the tanks outside the brackets, but about the weapon that you can’t use against the tanks in principle (p-60, X-35).

          I mention, talking about the features of the avionics Su-25TM. In addition, one cannot embrace the immense. request
      2. sivuch
        sivuch 12 October 2017 19: 33
        +2
        It was not planned with the A-10 (it was planned with a cannon around which the aircraft was created), but it happened.
      3. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 12 October 2017 21: 04
        0
        Why is Maverick bad?
        1. Bongo
          13 October 2017 03: 37
          +3
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Why is Maverick bad?

          Very good rocket. But to use it on a tank that costs about the same is somehow not too economical.
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 13 October 2017 14: 20
            +1
            Maverick costs 100 thousand dollars, tank: from 2 to 6 million dollars.
            In my opinion, a reasonable price ratio. We beat Spike for 80 thousand at some Hezbollah mortar position of 15 km, and believe that it is profitable: once without dust and noise. And the lesson is learned.
            1. Bongo
              14 October 2017 02: 19
              +2
              Quote: voyaka uh
              Maverick costs 100 thousand dollars, tank: from 2 to 6 million dollars.

              Which tank, Merkava or Abrams? The cost of the upgraded T-55 or T-62 in the arms market is in the range of 60-80 thousand dollars. The T-72 is certainly more expensive, but even the massive use of such expensive missiles is not justified against it. At least the Americans have already given up on this.
              Quote: voyaka uh
              In my opinion, a reasonable price ratio. We beat Spike for 80 thousand at some Hezbollah mortar position in 15 km, and believe that it is profitable: once without dust and noise.

              You again project your rather unique situation on the whole world. Is Hesboll an equal opponent? No. Does Russia, or another emerging market country, have the opportunity to spend an expensive SD to hit every point target in a large-scale conflict? No.
              1. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 14 October 2017 13: 18
                0
                "The cost of the modernized T-55 or T-62 in the arms market is in the range of 60-80 thousand dollars." ////

                The answer is very simple: in Syria. ISIS fighters, using the very T-55, T-62 only 1-2 pieces took the city. And they all ran away! Then, to get them out, all sorts of elite tigers and Russian specialists were required. And no one was able to get into these two old tanks from above: neither the VKS, nor the Syrians. It would take us about ten seconds for these two tanks. Two rockets. Suppose 100 thousand each, but the attack of the militants would have fallen off immediately.
                1. EvilLion
                  EvilLion 14 October 2017 15: 50
                  0
                  And do you think the VKS does not have the X-25, which was beautifully pointed both from the “maple” and from the ground back in Afghanistan? Do not see the contradictions? Or do you think that the VKS are so stupid that they are ready to hammer the target in dozens of sorties, when you can allegedly shoot a large missile once?
              2. DimerVladimer
                DimerVladimer 18 October 2017 16: 17
                0
                Quote: Bongo
                Which tank, Merkava or Abrams? The cost of the upgraded T-55 or T-62 in the arms market is in the range of 60-80 thousand dollars. The T-72 is certainly more expensive, but even the massive use of such expensive missiles is not justified against it. At least the Americans have already given up on this.


                You are wrong - reason in isolation

                The cost of defeat is not determined by the price of the means of destruction and the value of the target - but from the threat created by the target.

                The T-55 in the desert may not be rational, but the T-55 a few kilometers from the defensive position, which can cause significant damage - this is a completely different matter.

                Mortar position, can cause irreparable damage - therefore, to spend 80000 ye on its operational destruction - this is extremely reasonable.
                1. Bongo
                  19 October 2017 15: 40
                  +1
                  Quote: DimerVladimer
                  You are wrong - reason in isolation

                  You sincerely think that you can teach me the basics? No. Want to talk about reality? You are welcome. And it is such that with the help of the AGM-65 Maverick equipped with TGS used with the A-10А and F-16А / В, in the 80-ies, the Americans planned to fight with Soviet armored vehicles. But then they calculated the costs, tears and decided to destroy the tanks by other methods. But the output was a beautiful rocket to destroy point-based ground targets.
            2. EvilLion
              EvilLion 14 October 2017 15: 47
              0
              100 rocket? Big? ATP I neighing. "Whirlwind" may 100k stands.
  9. Taoist
    Taoist 12 October 2017 10: 27
    +2
    When assessing the situation, it should be borne in mind that today at least two different attack aircraft are required for different tasks. A heavy universal fire support aircraft with high security and the ability to carry the entire range of guided weapons (Will it be Su 39 or another car unknown to me). And an easy, "counterguerrilla" attack aircraft with good protection and the ability to strike "sighted" but at the same time cheap and focused mainly on unguided weapons and SPPU.
    1. Bongo
      12 October 2017 10: 42
      +4
      Quote: Taoist
      When assessing the situation, it should be borne in mind that today at least two different attack aircraft are required for different tasks. A heavy universal fire support aircraft with high security and the ability to carry the entire range of guided weapons (Will it be Su 39 or another car unknown to me). And an easy, "counterguerrilla" attack aircraft with good protection and the ability to strike "sighted" but at the same time cheap and focused mainly on unguided weapons and SPPU.

      Not necessarily, it can be a light aircraft with interchangeable containers with perfect optoelectronic systems.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 12 October 2017 12: 44
        0
        Modern partisans are quite well armed and the density of automatic fire makes using this option too risky. Need good armor protection. Moreover, today it is absolutely not necessary armored.
        1. Bongo
          12 October 2017 14: 10
          +3
          Quote: Taoist
          Modern partisans are quite well armed and the density of automatic fire makes using this option too risky. Need good armor protection. Moreover, today it is absolutely not necessary armored.

          Sorry, but in this case, with all due respect, I can not agree with you. No. This model, and this can be seen in the photo, is intended solely for the use of guided weapons, outside the anti-aircraft fire zone.
          1. Taoist
            Taoist 12 October 2017 14: 25
            0
            We then talk about completely different things. Are you going to use guided weapons against the "partisans"? Do not be afraid to go broke? Let's just say - in this case, a weapon is more expensive than its carrier.
            1. Bongo
              12 October 2017 14: 30
              +3
              Quote: Taoist
              We then talk about completely different things. Are you going to use guided weapons against the "partisans"? Do not be afraid to go broke? Let's just say - in this case, a weapon is more expensive than its carrier.

              I have nothing to fear, because I do not pay for the use of guided ammunition and do not buy delivery vehicles. I repeat, once again, I have great respect for your experience and knowledge, but in this case you are mistaken. Currently, there are several counterguerrilla models sharpened exclusively for guided weapons.
  10. sivuch
    sivuch 12 October 2017 19: 30
    +4
    Sergey, why is there nothing about the attack aircraft of a special period (Vol. 101)?
    And as for the Su-25, there was one nuance that the designers initially did not take into account. In the original form, there were 8 AI-2s on the T-25. Then all the masses expectedly went up and the P-95 had to be installed - more powerful, but also with more IR signature. Moreover, the axis of the engine had to be lowered 3 degrees down, as if on purpose, so that anti-aircraft guns MANPADS were more convenient. Already in the future, it was planned to replace the P-95 with the P-195 with a 3-fold reduced IR signature, but this remained in the plans.
    1. Bongo
      13 October 2017 03: 39
      +2
      Quote: sivuch
      Sergey, why isn’t there anything about a special period attack aircraft

      Igor, you can’t grasp the immensity, I tried to write about cars that were at least built in metal and tested. And so with great difficulty it was possible to meet the limit of 10 Word pages.
  11. tchoni
    tchoni 13 October 2017 07: 37
    0
    It seems to me that the author, in his complaints about the lack of anti-aircraft aircraft in the Air Force R f, forgets a little that the fight against tanks is at the mercy of helicopters. We have them armed with as many as three types. Including there are adapted for work in the dark. About the presence of these machines, as in the article
    But there are more than enough cries about the untimely departed Su17 and MiG27
    1. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 13 October 2017 12: 27
      +4
      Quote: tchoni
      It seems to me that the author, in his complaints about the lack of anti-aircraft aircraft in the Air Force R f, forgets a little that the fight against tanks is at the mercy of helicopters.

      Get baptized if something seems to you.
      Quote: tchoni
      We have them armed with as many as three types.

      Do you consider yourself smarter than the author?
      Quote: tchoni
      But there are more than enough cries about the untimely departed Su17 and MiG27

      I did not notice a scream, but I see that spitefulness. Do you justify the destruction of new fighter-bombers, or want to say that this strengthened our defenses? fool
      1. tchoni
        tchoni 13 October 2017 21: 07
        0
        Quote: zyablik.olga
        Get baptized if something seems to you.

        Yes you are a boor, my friend laughing
        Quote: zyablik.olga
        Do you consider yourself smarter than the author?

        Maybe this will happen. The author is the same person and the topic of army helicopter rotational war on fighting tanks is just oriented, and more recently has been omnipotent (we recall the videos about the Mi-28 from YouTube and their nightly actions), bypasses deathly silence. Maybe this is his idea and the whole rotorcraft will appear in part five in all its glory and power - it’s not for me to judge. I reminded the leash that she is.
        Quote: zyablik.olga
        Do you consider yourself smarter than the author?

        Well, suppose they weren’t so new at that time. and judging by the Arab-Israeli wars - it’s not painful then effective. I personally knew the man flying the MiG-23 MLF - I didn’t hear any special regrets about removing the car from the armament.
        Can you still order the MiG21 park to revive? in which neither radar, nor arming nor combat load?
        And, in general, what doesn’t suit you in the existing fleet of bomber attack aircraft?
        Su 24 - systematically and systematically change Su-34 cars are much more universal, able to stand up for themselves in aerial combat and destroy a separate KAB tank ...
        Su-25s are actively looking for a replacement and, I think they will find.
        Or do you really need to shove the pilots in the flying coffins?
        1. Bongo
          14 October 2017 02: 29
          +3
          Quote: tchoni
          Yes you are a boor, my friend

          It seems that you are looking at the book, but you see ... Olya physically cannot be "my friend" ... request The same goes for the rest. You should at least have a look at the comments. Other readers in the correct form asked questions about turntables, to which they received a corresponding answer. But you are smarter than others, aren't you?
          Quote: tchoni
          I personally knew a man flying on MiG-23 MLF

          Did not know... No. Do not fantasize, there was no such serial modification of the "twenty-third."
          Quote: tchoni
          Well, suppose they weren’t so new at that time.

          Are you sure about that? A significant part of the Su-17 and MiG-27 was younger than 10. These were quite combat-ready vehicles, which are still not adequately replaced by the Air Force. And how can you compare the MiG-21 in terms of capabilities and weaponry with the Su-17M4 or MiG-27K / M? Or just what to write?
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 14 October 2017 15: 32
            +1
            With the MiG-27 and Su-17, the story is generally dark, only a couple of years have passed since the withdrawal to the reserve, and there are no more workers left. The military, by definition, are rare stinginess and thrifty and are ready to keep even trash for decades. For this, conservation procedures and a snowball with rain have been developed, this is not a hindrance. MiG-29 Soviet, apparently, still workers, at least recently sold a small batch to the Serbs. Now they can be replaced with the same MiG-35, add containers only with equipment, although modern radars can give a picture comparable to a b / w photo, but there was no one to bomb.
            1. Bongo
              14 October 2017 15: 37
              +2
              Quote: EvilLion
              With the MiG-27 and Su-17, the story is generally dark, only a couple of years have passed since the withdrawal to the reserve, and there are no more workers left. The military, by definition, are rare stinginess and thrifty and are ready to keep even trash for decades.

              You just have not seen how our aircraft are “stored”. Not only that, in the open air, so also without protection.
              Quote: EvilLion
              MiG-29 Soviet, apparently, still workers, at least recently sold a small batch to the Serbs.

              Ask how many MiG-29 are left in the VKS and why it happened.
              Quote: EvilLion
              Now they can be replaced with the same MiG-35

              Excuse me, and in which IAP did the MiG-35 enter?
              1. EvilLion
                EvilLion 14 October 2017 18: 29
                0
                You just have not seen how our aircraft are “stored”. Not only that, in the open air, so also without protection.


                There are rules for setting up for conservation and storage, but "you saw" I am not interested. Massive, and even more so, widespread violation of these rules in the framework of an ordinary mess at the level of Private Petit, raises questions.

                Ask how many MiG-29 are left in the VKS and why it happened.


                In-1. I know maybe better than you. Because they are sad.
                In-2. They seem not to be sawn, and still fly.

                Excuse me, and in which IAP did the MiG-35 enter?


                And these are questions to the MO, do they need the MiG-35. And you can talk about its need as much as you like, but from a military-economic point of view, it can be completely in any way and more profitable to build exclusively Su-35.
                1. Bongo
                  15 October 2017 01: 53
                  +3
                  I saw it at the storage base in Khurba (liquidated). I also see how Su-27P is stored on Dzemgah.
                  Quote: EvilLion
                  Massive, and even more so, widespread violation of these rules in the framework of an ordinary mess at the level of Private Petit, raises questions.

                  Do you sincerely think that this is the level of competence of “Private Petit”?
                  Quote: EvilLion
                  They seem not to be sawn, and still fly.

                  Very few, the newest ones are those that Algeria returned.
                  Quote: EvilLion
                  And these are questions to the MO, do they need the MiG-35. And you can talk about its need as much as you like, but from a military-economic point of view, it can be completely in any way and more profitable to build exclusively Su-35.

                  I do not talk about the need, because you write:
                  Quote: EvilLion
                  Now they can be replaced with the same MiG-35
                  . It cannot be replaced by what is not. request
                  1. EvilLion
                    EvilLion 15 October 2017 02: 23
                    0
                    Well, you see everything.

                    Do you sincerely think that this is the level of competence of “Private Petit”?


                    Once again, "Private Petya" can stumble when executing an order. Will rot a separate element. The order not to perform conservation procedures can be given by someone much higher. But it has nothing to do with what you “saw” there, you can put the plane on a joke for a week, just covering it, what you could see, you can put it on conservation, these are fundamentally different things.

                    Very few, the newest ones are those that Algeria returned.


                    As far as I know now, if from open sources, there are still Soviet-made flying machines before 120, something in Armenia, something outside the combat units, the rest, apparently, in storage. The Serbs bought 6 cars after the 31 regiment switched to Su-30СМ. Obviously, the devices still have a sufficient resource and we are even trying to earn something from them.

                    It cannot be replaced by what is not.


                    Something tells me that if the MO really needed a light fighter, they would have done it, and hadn’t done the program either to save the design bureau, or the factory, or the market niche in the most popular class.
                    1. Golovan Jack
                      Golovan Jack 15 October 2017 02: 36
                      +8
                      Quote: EvilLion
                      Well, you see everything

                      You should at least look at your opponent’s publications, for starters. The person is really “in the subject”, judging by your speeches, you are a couch, excuse me, a theorist.
                      And yes ... it’s somehow not rude to be rude here.
                      1. Bongo
                        15 October 2017 04: 08
                        +3
                        Quote: Golovan Jack
                        You should at least look at your opponent’s publications, for starters. Man is really "in the subject" ...

                        Thanks, of course! But I control the situation ... hi
                    2. Bongo
                      15 October 2017 02: 53
                      +2
                      Quote: EvilLion
                      Once again, "Private Petya" can stumble when executing an order.

                      Excuse me, but in which regiment did you see the ordinary technical staff of those who are engaged in the power unit? what This approach to "storage" comes from above, because they do not want to allocate money for it. And it’s stupid to “store” airplanes in a humid Far Eastern climate, despite the fact that frosts in Komsomolsk are often lower than -40 in winter. Good storage facilities in Aktyubinsk, Lipetsk and Nizhny. But this is an exception ...
                      Quote: EvilLion
                      As far as I know now, if from open sources, there are still Soviet-made flying machines before 120, something in Armenia, something outside the combat units, the rest, apparently, in storage.

                      In reality, there are about 80 vehicles in combat units, of which in flight condition no more than 70%.
                      Quote: EvilLion
                      Serbs bought 6 cars

                      They were transferred free of charge - i.e. for nothing. However, the Serbs pledged to pay for the repair.
                      Quote: EvilLion
                      Something tells me that if the MO really needed a light fighter, they would have made it, and not a program

                      With this I agree on 100%. yes
        2. zyablik.olga
          zyablik.olga 14 October 2017 04: 30
          +2
          Quote: tchoni
          Maybe this will happen.

          Well, I don’t know, judging by your comments you can’t say that.
          Quote: tchoni
          Can you still order the MiG21 park to revive? in which neither radar, nor arming nor combat load?

          Exaggeration is not necessary, for its time it was a wonderful plane. With such an argument, it is possible to propose a Po-2 to revive.
          1. tchoni
            tchoni 14 October 2017 11: 44
            0
            Quote: zyablik.olga
            With such an argument, Po-2 can be proposed to be revived.

            Lnyi, by the way, coped well with the role of a night bomber and a connected aircraft in the Korean War. Even, they say, they were able to ditch the jet fighter during the "air battle")))) Given the possibility of production at the furniture factory and the slightly modernized slogan "United Russia corn," a terrible force will come out.
    2. Mooh
      Mooh 13 October 2017 18: 31
      +3
      Screaming is not screaming, but combat-ready aircraft rotted. It is a fact.
      They didn’t create anything in return. This is the second fact.
      The attack aircraft and helicopter fighter-bomber can not be replaced. A front-line bomber can partially, but in construction and operation it is much more expensive. This is the third fact.
      1. tchoni
        tchoni 13 October 2017 21: 25
        -2
        Quote: MooH
        quite combat-ready aircraft rotted. It is a fact.

        Oh oh Remember the 90s. What repair, what service, what spare parts? Sir, what are you? we don’t need so many planes and pilots .... Just remember that time and people, ideas that were in our heads - and you will understand that the Air Force leadership could not act differently. It was a choice of two evils. And they did it.
        Quote: MooH
        quite combat-ready aircraft rotted. It is a fact.

        Su-34 - and the radar also has a nomenclature of weapons like air - air like the Su-27 .. And maneuverability in close combat is the same .. And on the ground - it can work perfectly and with a wide range of weapons ... and even the sea .... It’s a little incomprehensible how and when to teach the pilot all these tricks and in what order he should deal with them .... But let this head off the upper headquarters from the Air Force hurt.
        In general, a fighter-bomber sounds something like a grenade launcher-rescue ... Can't you find it?
        Quote: MooH
        quite combat-ready aircraft rotted. It is a fact.

        Why? Vulnerable? - So speed does not save anyone. EW equipment saves. Put it on what you need - and live calmly. And if you are worried about the price, then I have to report to you that a modern fighter is not a cheap thing, and if you add the functions of a bomber to it (in other words, additional sighting equipment), then it will become like a cast-iron bridge at a cost.
        Speaking of fighter-bombers, you mean a supersonic plane with trimmed on-board electronics - the experience of wars in the Middle East has shown that this direction is unfortunately unpromising.
        1. Mooh
          Mooh 14 October 2017 01: 56
          +2
          This is all reasoning. I'm lazy, but you can give a bunch of reasoning that the fighter-bomber is the top of the food chain. And the validity of these considerations will become clear after 30 years, to the end of the career of the F-35.
          And the facts are in the previous koment ;-)
          And about the leadership of the Air Force, I can say one thing. It is not a matter of times, ideas or lack of resources, but shit in the head of a particular chief of a particular storage base. I had a friend in those days, the head of such an object, so he stole normally, but spent most of the stolen goods on the object from which he stole. As a result, despite the lack of funding, the object was kept in almost perfect order. And these (hereinafter unprintable) exchanged IBA for used Mercedes and castle-like cottages in non-prestigious places.
          1. tchoni
            tchoni 14 October 2017 11: 56
            0
            Those. Do you think that the presence of 2-4 thousand aircraft of 3 generations, and not the best, would significantly increase the country's defense capability? Given the absence of real tasks for them? - I doubt it very much. Yes, and it's not normal to have things and not to use.
            Tales about the "honest thieves" I hear all my life - really didn’t. Never.
            And as for the death of the IBA, so the "duckling" in 95 and appeared in the open access. Just after the removal of aircraft 3 generations from service.
            And to solve current problems, the more modern Su-24 was enough.
            1. Mooh
              Mooh 14 October 2017 14: 35
              +2
              Quote: tchoni
              Those. Do you think that the presence of 2-4 thousand aircraft of 3 generations, and not the best, would significantly increase the country's defense capability?

              Yes. I think. At a minimum, they could be sold to Saddam and Gaddafi and help their economy, and not sold in bloom and help the Finnish and Baltic economies. Their maximum could be used in the troops, saving the resource of more needed aircraft and have a serious reserve in case of aggravation of the international situation.
          2. EvilLion
            EvilLion 14 October 2017 15: 38
            +1
            The top of the food chain in the sky is always the plane optimized to destroy other aircraft. Obviously, this is a fighter, not a fighter-bomber. At the same time, in the dimension of Su-35 it is already completely possible to hammer a bolt onto a mass of combat load, it is already huge, and the parameter in aerial combat is of little relevance, but it is out of place for an attack machine and imposes additional. requirements leading to an increase in wing area and strength, and hence the weight of the machine.
        2. EvilLion
          EvilLion 14 October 2017 15: 33
          0
          Speed ​​always saves when it comes to the difference of hundreds of kilometers per hour.
  12. rubin6286
    rubin6286 13 October 2017 13: 06
    +1
    The discussion about the need for one specialized attack aircraft or two different aircraft of a similar purpose is connected with the image of a hawk hovering over the battlefield seeking its prey. On this "led" and you, dear Taoist.

    Front-line IL-2 and post-war Su-25 could "soar above the battlefield", possessing a greater degree of protection of the structure and the pilot from fire from the ground. Nevertheless, during the attack there was no 100% probability of hitting a target, the nomenclature of airborne weapons was not as diverse as in the 21st century, but the military air defense of most countries at that time did not guarantee reliable protection against air strikes. EW funds either were not available at all, or they were in their infancy. The main objective of the attack aircraft was the destruction of enemy manpower and equipment on the battlefield and the question of fighting tanks came only when it became clear that the ground forces were the striking force of the tanks and it was necessary to fight them first of all.
    In the post-war years, many films on aviation subjects appeared, where the attack process was shown very effectively. It was interesting and attractive for the audience, but no matter how spectacular the weapon may be, first of all it must be effective. But the effectiveness of the attack aircraft and its weapons has always been much more serious.
    The development of military air defense and electronic warfare systems first reduced the arrival time of attack aircraft over the target, making it impossible to carry out repeated approaches, and the appearance of MANPADS “drove” the attack aircraft to extremely low altitudes. At speed, the pilot no longer has time to visually make out the target, catch it in the sight and use weapons. What to do?
    The first thing that came to mind was to create a weapon that could be used not “hovering” over the target, but by catching it in the sight, while being out of the reach of air defense systems in range or height. The air forces of most countries now have such weapons. Another option was the creation of weapons that would minimize the participation of the pilot in its use. I'm talking about the principle of "shot and forgot." It, too, has already been created and is being used, although it is not without certain disadvantages. The third option was a combination of weapons with the principle of "shot and forgot" with the placement on board aircraft of various means of electronic suppression of enemy air defense - from banal heat traps to special rangefinders, target designators, interference generators and so on. The effectiveness of hitting ground targets increased, but many new problems appeared, related to the noise immunity of the on-board weapons of the machine itself and the secrecy of the appearance of the aircraft over the target and its attack. These problems have not been fully resolved so far and the attack aircraft today does not have a significant advantage over fighter-bombers, multi-function fighters or front-line bombers, with the possible exception of increased crew bronze defense. It is expensive to manufacture and, given the use of modern weapons, it becomes even more expensive. The new weapon is sensitive to shock loads and vibrations and with it the attack aircraft no longer flies from unpaved strips.

    It seems to me that he is still able to take part in local conflicts, but in the coming years the class of attack aircraft will gradually "die out", as it once was in the late 40s of the last century, giving way to new multifunctional vehicles, combat helicopters and drones created to perform specific combat missions.
    Gradually, the press “skips” information about increasing competition with attack aircraft of multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS), artillery and tactical missiles. The nomenclature of these weapons is expanding significantly and becoming more diverse, increasing its range and accuracy of destruction, especially when applied over areas.
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 13 October 2017 15: 58
      +3
      Well, I think you are making premature conclusions. In the same way, conclusions regarding the development of missile and nuclear weapons were made regarding the dying off of the tasks of attack aircraft. As the practice of real combat work shows, not everything (or rather everything) goes beyond the textbook. Of course, modern air defense + electronic warfare makes it possible to completely isolate the battlefield. (Roughly speaking, even flies will not fly), but far from all potential opponents possess such capabilities, and they are unlikely to possess them. But about the increase in the cost of precision weapons you noticed absolutely right. And by the way - drew attention to the fact that 95% of combat missions in the same Syria VKS solve banal free-falling bombs? Moreover, the capabilities of sighting stations have grown so much that the accuracy of their defeat is comparable to the KAB. So of course I don’t dare to prophesy, and it’s quite possible that partly like all of us we absolutize personal experience, but still burying attack aircraft as vehicles provide maximum flexibility in the fire support of units directly above the battlefield and have maximum universalism. Yes, most likely in the end we will go into unmanned vehicles, but this will not happen before they solve the problem of full combat autonomy.
    2. Usher
      Usher 14 October 2017 12: 59
      +1
      MLRS can not fly over 500km to work out and fly away.
  13. Usher
    Usher 14 October 2017 12: 56
    0
    I don’t understand, a normal plane, is it difficult to fasten a camera and a thermal imager? With modern miniaturization of electrical engineering? Put ATGMs, new shells for guns, digitize the engine. And that’s all. Why reinvent the wheel? I'm talking about those who write "does not make sense, etc."
    1. Bongo
      14 October 2017 14: 47
      +2
      Quote: Usher
      I don’t understand, a normal plane, is it difficult to fasten a camera and a thermal imager? With modern miniaturization of electrical engineering? Put ATGMs, new shells for guns, digitize the engine. And that’s all. Why reinvent the wheel? I'm talking about those who write "does not make sense, etc."

      Ask at your leisure how much avionics and armament aircraft Archangel Block 3 Border Patrol Aircraft.
  14. EvilLion
    EvilLion 14 October 2017 15: 22
    0
    MO, most likely, having counted the loot, argues simply. Su-34, of course, is more expensive than Su-25 in everything, but to isolate a Su-34 regiment for a local conflict, or maybe even a MiG-29 / 35, if you just need to bomb something with aiming from medium heights, it will cost stupidly cheaper than doing the creation of a new aircraft, or even drag the development of the Su-25 further. At the same time, the usefulness of Su-25 in a high-intensity conflict seems unobvious, in view of the low combat load, the inability to leave fighters in principle and the requirements for avionics that are not inferior to those of "serious" machines like Su-35, which makes their cost close, if not to the Su-35, then to the MiG-29 options. Well, the destruction of the tanks, then undoubtedly a couple of hundred “leopards” -2 Bundeswehrs cause our navigators with their countless T-72, grenade launchers, and ATGMs, just a zhuuuuuuuuuuuuu panic.
    1. Bongo
      15 October 2017 08: 58
      +1
      Quote: EvilLion
      Well, the destruction of the tanks, then undoubtedly a couple of hundred “leopards” -2 Bundeswehrs cause our navigators with their countless T-72, grenade launchers, and ATGMs, just a zhuuuuuuuuuuuuu panic.

      Of course, tanks are only in the Bundeswehr ... but have you forgotten about the eastern "peace-loving neighbor", as well as about the balance of forces in our Far East?
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 15 October 2017 15: 28
        0
        But it was not in vain that they came up with this type of aircraft: a fighter-bomber.
        You attach sighting containers, electronic warfare and all the bombing dangers - a bomber.
        You remove everything on the ground, leaving only explosive rockets - a fighter. After all, without domination
        there is not much to bomb in the air. All loaded attack aircraft, bombers, helicopters are fixed playfully.
        And such a fighter-bomber in Russia is: Su-30. Slightly “file” avionics, and there will be a universal solution to all fronts.
        1. Bongo
          15 October 2017 15: 33
          +2
          Quote: voyaka uh
          But it was not in vain that they came up with this type of aircraft: a fighter-bomber.
          You attach sighting containers, electronic warfare and all the bombing dangers - a bomber.
          You remove everything on the ground, leaving only explosive rockets - a fighter.

          With all due respect, but you greatly simplify. There are fighters designed to gain air supremacy and capable of striking ground targets. There are drums capable of limited combat with air and conduct a defensive air battle. But no one else with the same success failed to do both.
          Quote: voyaka uh
          And such a fighter-bomber in Russia is: Su-30.

          And what modification of the Su-30 are you talking about?
        2. Gransasso
          Gransasso 15 October 2017 15: 36
          +2
          Quote: voyaka uh
          And such a fighter-bomber in Russia is: Su-30. Slightly “file” avionics, and there will be a universal solution to all fronts.




          There are some reliable data about his real abilities in this regard .. and the effectiveness of the application?
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 15 October 2017 15: 48
            0
            He needs AFAR and hinges: an aiming container and
            container with electronic warfare. And so, the glider and engines are sufficient for air
            fights. And the load is enough to hit the ground.
            Maybe the Su-35 is better, I don’t know.
            But in any case, Russia does not stretch out several types of specialized
            airplanes. Neither financially, nor in the logistics of spare parts, nor in the training of pilots.
            One type is needed, but many planes. By assembling them (and manufacturing parts)
            in parallel at several plants. Which is also important. And then - a pair of penetrated CDs, there is no one type, a couple of others - there is no other type.
            With versatility, it is impossible to bomb production under zero.
            1. Gransasso
              Gransasso 15 October 2017 16: 02
              +2
              Regarding problems because of the "hodgepodge" and the continuation of the offensive on the rake of "unification" of types of equipment, both in aviation, and in tanks, and in the navy .. yes, I practically agree everywhere ...


              As for the impact capabilities of the su-30, you yourself write that there is nothing ... neither a radar ... nor a breo sharpened for these purposes .. nor tactics of application .. there is only a theoretical correspondence of its performance characteristics to this work
  15. iouris
    iouris 14 October 2017 16: 34
    +2
    The state of the Russian Federation does not allow waging a (victorious) war with conventional weapons, even with a not-so-large country, which the USA and NATO stand behind. What is needed is not a plane, but the technology of destroying small targets and armored vehicles during the fighting against terrorist groups. For a stronger opponent, there is a thermonuclear deterrent weapon.
  16. Setrac
    Setrac 15 October 2017 21: 16
    0
    Quote: Bongo
    The undoubted advantages of the UAV are lower operating costs and the absence of the risk of death or capture of the pilot in the event of a shot down.

    All of the above is true, but there is one but. The fact is that we are now copying the Americans, they are strong in aviation and make UAVs, but Russia is strong with its armored fists and we must make unmanned armored vehicles.
    Imagine the Armata platform, only two times smaller and eight times lighter. Put a quadruple machine gun on such a platform, for example Kord, the simplest radar, produce such machines for example ten thousand pieces and distribute them across the territory, all the UAV problem is solved.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 15 October 2017 22: 17
      +1
      UAVs are hit from a height to which not only Kord, but also 35 mm anti-aircraft guns and MANPADS are not reached.
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 15 October 2017 22: 38
        0
        Quote: voyaka uh
        UAVs are hit from a height to which not only Kord, but also 35 mm anti-aircraft guns and MANPADS are not reached.

        Kindergarten around the corner, do not distract me.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 16 October 2017 10: 44
          +2
          The MQ-9 Reaper fires AGM-114 anti-tank missiles. Carries 4 pieces.
          The AGM-114K modification rocket is optimized for
          high-altitude launch specifically for drones. This is a height of 5 km


          Good luck with machine guns! fellow
  17. shuravi
    shuravi 16 October 2017 01: 23
    -1
    Something the author really claimed. By the time of the creation of Su-25, no one already considered the ShA as an anti-tank weapon. This function has already been completely assigned to helicopters
    1. Bongo
      18 October 2017 05: 36
      +2
      Quote: shuravi
      Something the author really claimed. By the time of the creation of Su-25, no one already considered the ShA as an anti-tank weapon.

      Well then, it took me not only me, but also the designers of the Simonov Design Bureau engaged in the Su-25T.
  18. shuravi
    shuravi 18 October 2017 22: 18
    -1
    Quote: Bongo
    Quote: shuravi
    Something the author really claimed. By the time of the creation of Su-25, no one already considered the ShA as an anti-tank weapon.

    Well then, it took me not only me, but also the designers of the Simonov Design Bureau engaged in the Su-25T.



    In general, Sukhoi Design Bureau. And the capabilities of the Su-25T against tanks are very sad. Give him more area goals, or provide target designation.