Military Review

The United States began replacing the A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft

155
The US Congress officially launched the process of replacing the legendary assault aircraft A-10 Warthog. According to the magazine Popular Mechanics, lawmakers voted to allocate the first tranche of $ 400 million for the purchase of new light aircraft support under the OA-X program.


Today, the United States Air Force has only one infantry direct support aircraft - A-10 Thunderbolt, also known as the Warthog (Warthog). These aircraft have already repeatedly extended the term of combat service, and some of them will remain in the US Air Force until 2022 year. Since an equivalent replacement for the well-armored and well-armed A-10 attack aircraft was not developed, the US Department of Defense plans to use a light strike aircraft instead.

The United States began replacing the A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft

Attack plane A-10 Thunderbolt II.


Four vehicles claim the “position” of the US Air Force combat support aircraft: Textron Scorpion, Embraer A-29 Super Tucano, Air Tractor AT-802L Longsword and Beechcraft AT-6 Wolverine. The US Air Force has already conducted the first stage of testing these aircraft in August of this year and even offered to use the Beechcraft AT-6 Wolverine and Embraer A-29 Super Tucano in real combat conditions in an experimental manner. In total, the United States Air Force plans to purchase about 300 light aircraft worth up to $ 1,2 billion.


Light attack Textron Scorpion.


The military department has yet to decide on the final bidder for the purchase. At the same time, the purchase of new combat aircraft should take place next year, since the first stage of financing will start in fiscal 2018. The US Air Force indicates that the new aircraft will allow for effective use Aviation in conflicts with low intensity at minimal cost. So, if the flight hour of the F-35 fighter is estimated at $ 42, then for Textron Scorpion this amount will be only $ 000, reports "Warspot"
155 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The_lancet
    The_lancet 10 November 2017 18: 14 New
    23
    Handsome! The embodiment of firepower and survival.

    1. PalBor
      PalBor 10 November 2017 18: 26 New
      25
      Yes! Let them fly! And when they begin to fall in packs - let them fly! You don’t need to prepare a shift - let them delight our air defense! Save on missiles!
      Something I got from Vitali ... Although winked
      1. Pirogov
        Pirogov 10 November 2017 18: 32 New
        20
        Quote: PalBor
        Something I got from Vitali ... Although

        It is not good to take his bread from Vitalik.)
        1. PalBor
          PalBor 11 November 2017 08: 41 New
          +4
          Quote: Pirogov
          Quote: PalBor
          Something I got from Vitali ... Although

          It is not good to take his bread from Vitalik.)

          The bread is not good. But the hazel grouse in sherry ...
      2. NEXUS
        NEXUS 10 November 2017 18: 40 New
        14
        Quote: PalBor
        And when they begin to fall in packs - let them fly!

        The car is interesting, and in this matter we are far behind mattresses. I think a new attack aircraft will appear no earlier than 25 years old. Although they promise to plan something by the year 20.
        In 2012, it became known that Russia decided to work on a promising ground attack aircraft (PSSh). Later it became known that the development of the designation received the designation "Hornet-EP". Information about what the new aircraft will be is contradictory, but it was reported that the Hornet will have a stealth effect. That is, the use of "stealth technology" implies that missiles and bombs will have to hide inside the fuselage or in special underwing containers. Apparently, this winged car will be well armored. The attack aircraft will receive the most modern radar, sighting and navigation equipment and the latest communications equipment. He will be able to use the entire range of tactical weapons, including long-range high-precision missiles, which will significantly reduce losses. It is planned that the aircraft will be adapted to work not only from concrete, but also from unpaved runways. In 2020, the PShS should begin to arrive in the Air Force, gradually replacing the Su-25SM. In the more distant future, the Hornets will operate in conjunction with heavy strike drones, also developed by Sukhoi.
        1. newcomer
          newcomer 10 November 2017 18: 58 New
          +8
          Yes, that's just with the filing of our ex-com. VKS Bondareva decided to push the project “Hornet”, make a new attack aircraft on the SU34 glider. that's just I personally have a bunch of questions.
          1. NIKNN
            NIKNN 10 November 2017 19: 12 New
            13
            Quote: newbie
            make a new attack aircraft on the SU34 glider

            Utopia. With such a price and the complexity of production, making a battlefield plane ... is not commonplace to provide the right amount, an attack aircraft is needed in considerable numbers.
            1. newcomer
              newcomer 10 November 2017 19: 22 New
              +6
              why is utopia? they will do it. but it’s costly to make an attack aircraft out of a full-fledged bomber. although again, the Yankees have one concept for using technology, we have a different one. on this and I say that a lot of questions arose, because it did not say why, how and why.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 10 November 2017 19: 59 New
                +6
                And what do you mean by the term "attack aircraft"?
                On the modern battlefield, such aircraft are too vulnerable. Up to one-time use. Well, as a platform for the "long arm" of the Su-34 is quite suitable. Hang in the waiting area a few tens of kilometers from the contact line and work on target designation from external sources. Ideally, in the "shot-forgot" mode, the missile will either hover, or the target will illuminate from the ground or UAV.
                Then in the first place will be the time of "hanging" and the combat load.
                1. newcomer
                  newcomer 10 November 2017 20: 08 New
                  +8
                  damn, but what can be understood by the definition of a ground attack aircraft? a machine to support the infantry, your hovering and barging do not roll here, maybe you meant a helicopter. just the same, it will be necessary to make a lot of changes in order to settle the SU34, which was created as a fighter bomber, from the glider. In general, a lot of time, money, it would be better if the Hornet started to do, because the SU25 resource ends at 25m.
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 10 November 2017 20: 15 New
                    +1
                    Quote: newbie
                    damn, but what can be understood by the definition of a ground attack aircraft? an infantry support vehicle, your hovering and barging are not rolled here,

                    Just exactly the same they "roll". Because over the battlefield, where in the near future mortar mines and artillery shells will already begin to be shot down, there is no place for aircraft with crew. Disposable pilots will turn out that the infantry will not be able to help for the simple reason that they will be shot down even before this help.

                    Quote: newbie
                    maybe you meant a helicopter

                    And helicopters too. It’s just that they have a lower maximum speed by default, and therefore the distance from the waiting area to the likely launch areas should be less.
                    1. newcomer
                      newcomer 10 November 2017 20: 22 New
                      +5
                      with the requirements that you put forward, the attack aircraft is not the right machine at all. all your requirements are fully satisfied with the SU24 / 34.
                      1. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 10 November 2017 20: 28 New
                        +1
                        Quote: newbie
                        all your requirements are fully satisfied with the SU24 / 34.

                        Is not a fact. Ideally, they should become some kind of "leader" for reconnaissance UAVs (what the Americans are doing with the Apaches right now). That is, special equipment for the control line, information and telemetry with several UAVs. Which will be engaged in reconnaissance / additional reconnaissance of targets, and, if necessary, in illuminating them either with laser or radar
                      2. newcomer
                        newcomer 10 November 2017 20: 43 New
                        +7
                        Shovels, in the end you got lost. In conjunction with MI28, or KA 50, both bombers and fighters with strike capabilities of the MIG29 / SU30 / 35 can work, this is called a tip, or an ambush attack. if you want to work in tandem with a UAV, or a helicopter, where to put your desired supersonic? in general, decide how you really want to.
                      3. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 10 November 2017 21: 08 New
                        +1
                        Quote: newbie
                        Shovels, in the end you got lost. In conjunction with MI28, or KA 50, both bombers and fighters with strike capabilities of the MIG29 / SU30 / 35 can work, this is called a tip, or an ambush attack. if you want to work in tandem with a UAV, or a helicopter, where to put your desired supersonic?

                        At something you can not understand. There are, for example, three reinforced motorized rifle brigades that go along their routes in marching or pre-battle order. Both GPZ and side camp outposts can run into the enemy. And from that moment the stopwatch starts to work. And the longer the plane will fly from the waiting area to the launch point, the more infantry and anti-tankers will die, which will ensure the deployment of the brigade in combat formation ...
                        What "ambushes" can we talk about here?
                      4. Vlad.by
                        Vlad.by 10 November 2017 23: 33 New
                        +2
                        With the modern and near future development of electronic warfare, guided and homing ammunition will be suitable only in "conflicts of low intensity", in other words, in the persecution of the Papuans. What makes Warthog and Rook good is the ability to break through a backdoor air defense from artillery, mobile SPRAK and MANPADS and deliver accurate and powerful strikes against both area targets and point targets. UAVs and barrage of ammunition will not be able to do this by definition. Helicopters have a significantly longer reaction time, and the mass of the combat load is much less.
                        In the future, a big war needs armored attack aircraft. And for the Papuans, Bronco with SuperTukano or the development of IL10 will also fit.
                        Or modifications of salvo systems with increased range and developed reconnaissance capabilities.
                2. Vlad.by
                  Vlad.by 10 November 2017 23: 16 New
                  +1
                  Then why the attack aircraft? to hang a dozen barrage of ammunition, which on command will plow every target found in the region - it will be much cheaper.
                  Only here are the targets far from the front line and it’s harder and harder to detect.
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 11 November 2017 00: 35 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Vlad.by
                    With the modern and near future development of electronic warfare, guided and homing ammunition will be suitable only in "conflicts of low intensity", in other words, in the persecution of the Papuans.

                    Tell me how you are going to "suppress electronic warfare", for example, an inertial control system. Or the "laser path" Or lidar, which the same French are already using for self-aiming combat elements. And most importantly, tell me how you are going to protect this same electronic warfare. Americans are already experiencing ammunition pointing at the ZhPS jammer.

                    Quote: Vlad.by
                    What makes a Warthog and a Rook good - a breakthrough ability

                    Near-zero ability. This means that there are no “powerful blows" for which there are much more adequate means.



                    Quote: Vlad.by
                    to hang a dozen barrage of ammunition, which on command will plow every target found in the region - it will be much cheaper.

                    I don’t think so. Such ammunition will cost like a plane. Or there will be so many of them that all savings lose their meaning. And, by the way, EW affects them much more strongly. It is much simpler to provide a “aircraft-UAV” communication (that is, in direct visibility conditions) than in the “ground-UAV” version

                    Quote: Vlad.by
                    need armored attack aircraft.

                    There is a problem. Or they will not be able to fly because of the weight, or the reservation will be insufficient. The same British StarStrike can be used for light armored vehicles. Three penetrators, similar to BOPS automatic guns, but at a speed of 4 mach ... armor should be tank.
                    1. Vlad.by
                      Vlad.by 11 November 2017 15: 36 New
                      +1
                      Inertial in salvo ammunition? No less budget. Otherwise, effectively covering the area target will not work. And why should it if the same Hurricane covers a hectare of 80 km. range
                      There is no protection from the laser path and lidar, except for protection from reconnaissance. To prevent the detection of targets with the help of electronic warfare, then there will be no hits on them.
                      The beauty of an armored attack aircraft is that it itself can carry out reconnaissance and additional reconnaissance, and make a decision to strike, and strike, including against an area target.
                      It is impossible to solve all these problems in a complex by any other means. Although the risk is much greater and the price of loss is higher. In war as in war.
                      1. Vlad.by
                        Vlad.by 11 November 2017 15: 39 New
                        0
                        By the way, about the protection of the electronic warfare itself - but do we have air defense? and systems like Mercury too?
                3. Settlement Oparyshev
                  Settlement Oparyshev 10 November 2017 23: 30 New
                  0
                  Your attack aircraft is called a Chinese-style balloon. A bold idea.
                4. okko077
                  okko077 11 November 2017 02: 39 New
                  +1
                  Shovels, to remove a few dozen, even the Coalition and the MLRS are enough ... And the SU-34 will not hang around 10 with its EPR without suspensions ... Only there is no target designation from external sources .... And you are not Do you know why they are not in a hurry with the SU-57? There are no systems in which it can work and use its unique properties, nobody needs it yet, our capabilities of modern information systems have not grown to it, or rather they do not exist - these systems .....
                5. dzuar saubarag
                  dzuar saubarag 11 November 2017 11: 06 New
                  0
                  About the platform for a long arm ... I always wondered why they didn’t return to the idea of ​​using airships. Now such a thing can hang out of reach for bearded air defense, and send them parcels - it’s a good thing with load-carrying capacity, and generally ...
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 11 November 2017 11: 18 New
                    +1
                    Quote: dzuar saubarag
                    I always wondered why they didn’t return to the idea of ​​using airships.

                    Why not come back? Active development is underway. True, so far on the intelligence profile. And airships, including stratospheric (France), and tethered balloons.

                    So far, as far as I understand, the development of these systems is hampered by the complexity of transferring such aircraft to new theater, as well as the complexity of deploying ground-based infrastructure. They also need a hangar for maintenance. One mooring mast can not do.
                6. VALERIK_097
                  VALERIK_097 11 November 2017 13: 24 New
                  0
                  The use of Su-34 from the ground (unpaved runways) is not an option.
                  Their bolt can. We are not.
            2. tchoni
              tchoni 11 November 2017 06: 30 New
              +1
              Quote: NIKNN
              Utopia. With such a price and the complexity of production, making a battlefield plane ... is not commonplace to provide the right amount, an attack aircraft is needed in considerable numbers.

              Well, why? A good half of the price of an airplane is its electronic filling. The armored capsule and protection of the main elements on the Su-34 already exist. Moreover, if you believe the open press, it’s even more serious than on the Su-25. Down with the radar. Engines are simpler. Down with the pressurized cabin. Rear hemisphere radar. Here, you see, and save half the price. (and a third of the price is bread) But in the end - a powerful machine with a combat load like that of a warthog, a wide range of guided weapons, an excellent electronic warfare station, and even stealth elements (this, again, according to the open press) . Yes, the price is higher than that of the same "varkhog" but the effectiveness is the same higher. And as for the number - so it is necessary to change only somewhere 200 boards. That is how many rooks are now in service.
              Another thing is that the inhabitants of Tan want a little different. Apparently, they want to find some kind of universal, cheap machine capable of low-intensity conflict: the first is to replace the warhog, the second is to replace army helicopters, the third is to significantly complement the ganships fleet in patrol tasks, and the fourth to be Affordable in price and complexity not only for the United States, but also for the native population from among the allies. Such is the difference between the doctrines of direct aviation support.
              I say, besides Su 34, the Yak-130 also applies to the post of a new attack aircraft of the Russian Air Force both in manned and unmanned versions ...
          2. sivuch
            sivuch 11 November 2017 10: 01 New
            +2
            If you recall the story, then you can recall other projects - for example, pr.101. But to remake the Su-34 in an attack aircraft, it just does not go into any gates
            1. tchoni
              tchoni 11 November 2017 12: 23 New
              0
              Quote: sivuch
              . But to remake the Su-34 in an attack aircraft, it just doesn’t climb into any gates

              This is for you? In the meantime, they remade the moment23 in a not bad at that time fighter-bomber mig27 ...
              1. sivuch
                sivuch 13 November 2017 15: 36 New
                +1
                An attack aircraft (if we mean the same thing) by definition should be relatively simple and cheap, both in manufacture and in operation, relatively small, with low signatures and good visibility, first of all, front-down.
        2. Pirogov
          Pirogov 10 November 2017 18: 59 New
          +7
          Quote: NEXUS
          The car is interesting, and in this matter we are far behind mattresses. I think a new attack aircraft will appear no earlier than 25 years old. Although they promise to plan something by the year 20.

          And what about the Su-25SM3? That cheap and you will not earn much on it?
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 10 November 2017 20: 03 New
            +1
            Quote: Pirogov
            And what about the Su-25SM3?

            Everybody.
            Low combat load, crew of one person, very weak reconnaissance capabilities, subsonic speed, relatively short flight time at full load
            1. newcomer
              newcomer 10 November 2017 20: 11 New
              14
              Why attack aircraft supersonic?
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 10 November 2017 20: 18 New
                0
                Quote: newbie
                Why attack aircraft supersonic?

                To control a larger front or larger area
                1. newcomer
                  newcomer 10 November 2017 20: 26 New
                  +9
                  Listen, I’ll ask you your own question: what do you mean by the concept of attack aircraft? him to work directly on the battlefield, and you with supersonic. this is not a scout for you.
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 10 November 2017 20: 35 New
                    0
                    Quote: newbie
                    him to work directly on the battlefield

                    He has nothing to do "directly above the battlefield." Generally. Either the enemy will fail (now the same Americans in this regard have “taken up the mind”) Or their own artillery will “land”. Decentralization of artillery guns and their high rate of fire greatly increases the likelihood of an aircraft and a projectile meeting.
                    1. newcomer
                      newcomer 10 November 2017 20: 48 New
                      +9
                      ay look less towards the Yankees. Do you see what dragonflies they take in attack aircraft? listen stop already. after all, if in your opinion he has nothing to do over the battlefield, then this is no longer an attack aircraft. I repeat, determine your requirements for technology.
                      1. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 10 November 2017 20: 51 New
                        0
                        Quote: newbie
                        after all, if in your opinion he has nothing to do over the battlefield, then this is no longer an attack aircraft.

                        So we don’t need "attack aircraft" because of their futility
                      2. newcomer
                        newcomer 10 November 2017 21: 00 New
                        +5
                        Shovels, I probably write in Turkish. let’s go on the other side. SU25 in general must be transferred under the command of the ground forces, which would be at hand.
                      3. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 10 November 2017 22: 09 New
                        +1
                        Quote: newbie
                        let’s go on the other side. SU25 in general must be transferred under the command of the ground forces, which would be at hand.

                        What for?
                        Here explain to me why you need a plane that is likely to be shot down in a unit without having completed its task?
                        I’ll hint. Systems already exist that allow conventional self-propelled artillery to shoot down flying artillery shells, mines and RS multiple launch rocket systems. German "SmartKamp" from "Rheinmetal" You yourself understand that she needs a plane or a helicopter for one tooth.
                        I'm not talking about specialized anti-aircraft missile, anti-aircraft artillery and, in the future, laser systems. Even ordinary field artillery can bring down such attack aircraft as you think.
                        So why are they needed?
                    2. Pirogov
                      Pirogov 10 November 2017 20: 48 New
                      +4
                      Quote: Spade
                      He has nothing to do "directly above the battlefield." Generally. Either the enemy will fail (now the same Americans in this regard have “taken up the mind”) Or their own artillery will “land”. Decentralization of artillery guns and their high rate of fire greatly increases the likelihood of an aircraft and a projectile meeting.

                      The height of the combat use of SU 25 with a maximum combat load: '5000 m. Shovels Are you by any chance out of proportion with the production of SU 34?
                      1. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 10 November 2017 20: 54 New
                        0
                        Quote: Pirogov
                        The height of the combat use of SU 25 with a maximum combat load: '5000 m

                        And what will it be from a height of 3 km. to do? Train enemy anti-aircraft gunners?
                      2. newcomer
                        newcomer 11 November 2017 00: 38 New
                        +6
                        Shovels, and you are a desperate person. state that attack aircraft are not needed at all. nice man, well, you generally went too far with lasers and art. shot. lasers maybe in 15 years, artillery shot down SU25 ?! it’s time for us, our colleague to rest, already.
                2. Piramidon
                  Piramidon 11 November 2017 11: 10 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Spade
                  Quote: newbie
                  Why attack aircraft supersonic?

                  To control a larger front or larger area

                  The Su-25 was specially made subsonic, because from experience, the faster Su-7s and MiG-27s did not have time to notice and identify anything on the battlefield, they simply skipped it to no avail.
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 11 November 2017 11: 53 New
                    0
                    Quote: Piramidon
                    The Su-25 was specially made subsonic, because from experience, the faster Su-7 and MiG-27 did not have time to notice and identify anything on the battlefield

                    Since then, reconnaissance systems have stepped very far forward. Dear, if the self-aiming combat element of the new French “smart” manages not only to detect the target, but to scan it with lidar and recognize it ... I think that a supersonic airplane has much more time
                    1. Piramidon
                      Piramidon 11 November 2017 14: 00 New
                      +2
                      Quote: Spade
                      if the self-aiming combat element of the new French “smart” manages not only to detect the target, but to scan it with lidar and recognize it ... I think that a supersonic airplane has much more time

                      Do we already have analogues to throw the Su-25 into a landfill?
                      1. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 11 November 2017 14: 23 New
                        0
                        Quote: Piramidon
                        Do we already have analogues to throw the Su-25 into a landfill?

                        The real case of life. Bamut, two "Rooks" in the air, an attempt at target designation. The purpose is not understood. We decided to slap this house from MT-12 high explosive. The gap, a cloud of orange dust, do not see. Again. Again they do not see. They fired at the shooting, as OPTADN had problems with the ammunition at that moment. Destroyed by artillery. However, the militants left in the process. Then they went to look, lying in the basement, but no corpses, no blood, nothing.
                        That is, the plane is essentially useless. There would be another crew member, perhaps he would have seen. You can stuff the Su-25 with modern reconnaissance equipment, which will allow you to get by with one pilot. But at the same time, there will be no weight left for armament, if we take into account the amount of fuel that needs to be "raised" for the aircraft's long duty in the air.

                        Question: Why is such a plane needed?
            2. Pirogov
              Pirogov 10 November 2017 20: 42 New
              +4
              Quote: Spade
              Everybody.
              Low combat load, crew of one person, very weak reconnaissance capabilities, subsonic speed, relatively short flight time at full load

              Then the YAK 130 adopted by you is also not needed, let them immediately study at SU 30 and SU 35 Su 34? As for the SU 25, it does not need supersonic speed; it is a front-line attack aircraft, which has many advantages, for example: the SU 25 is not expensive and the service is also not expensive, has good survivability, and the combat load of 4400 kg is quite sufficient for the front-line soldier, but why long range I do not understand the flight of SU 25 if it performs completely different tasks than the same SU 34.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 10 November 2017 20: 57 New
                0
                Quote: Pirogov
                Then adopted by the Yak 130

                Uh ... Isn't this a combat trainer?
                Quote: Pirogov
                SU 25 is not expensive and service is also not expensive

                But the pilot is very expensive. And therefore, its one-time use hurts an overhead thing. I think it’s cheaper to "gasp" Iskander
                1. Pirogov
                  Pirogov 10 November 2017 21: 15 New
                  +4
                  Quote: Spade
                  Uh ... Isn't this a combat trainer?

                  Carefully read the commentary, where I wrote in Russian in my own words: Then the adopted YAK 130 is also not needed in your opinion, let them immediately study at SU 30 and SU 35 Su 34?

                  Yak 130 combat training aircraft / attack aircraft. And here I am for Iskander! )
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 10 November 2017 21: 43 New
                    0
                    Something I do not get into your logic at all. What kind of side is the Yak 130? Or did you decide that the Yak-130 exclusively trains pilots for attack aircraft? The developers seem to consider it to be an imitator of "any fighter"
                    1. Pirogov
                      Pirogov 10 November 2017 22: 54 New
                      +3
                      Quote: Spade
                      Something I do not get into your logic at all. What kind of side is the Yak 130? Or did you decide that the Yak-130 exclusively trains pilots for attack aircraft? The developers seem to consider it to be an imitator of "any fighter"

                      And from the side that, according to your logic, since we like supersonic fighters, you don’t need a plane like the Yak 130 combat trainer / attack aircraft, but for example, the SR-10 will go for study, but to fight only on super expensive and high-speed .What I disagree with should be a low-cost attack aircraft and while it’s better we simply do not have SU 25, and I just gave an example as a UC, and there’s not enough budget for your requests.
                      1. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 10 November 2017 23: 29 New
                        0
                        Quote: Pirogov
                        And from the side, according to your logic, since you like supersonic fighters, we don’t need a plane like the Yak 130 combat trainer / attack aircraft

                        As an attack aircraft, he really is not needed. As a training aircraft, it is quite suitable.
                        Something I don’t get it at all ... In general, this training the plane here from which side? "Do you eat soup, and therefore you do not need glasses"?

                        Quote: Pirogov
                        must be an inexpensive attack aircraft

                        Why is it needed? Here you are a couple here "need, need, need" ... And not a single argument.
                        With regard to the "budget is not enough" - one expensive one can replace several inexpensive ones, which will significantly save this very budget. Just due to higher speed, greater protection against air defense, a longer "arm" and a larger combat load.
                        Well, for local wars and "stabilization operations", solutions based on light military transport aircraft with similar functionality are enough for the eyes. And in the "big war" they can be used in the rear to combat DRG. Because by default it is possible to put more, and at the same time more advanced intelligence equipment. From direction finders and radars to multisectral surveillance systems.
                2. Piramidon
                  Piramidon 11 November 2017 11: 17 New
                  +3
                  Quote: Spade
                  I think it’s cheaper to "gasp" Iskander

                  If for every tank, pickup truck or bunker, the Iskander "crave" - ​​this is unlikely to cost less.
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 11 November 2017 11: 54 New
                    0
                    Quote: Piramidon
                    If for every tank or bunker the Iskander “crave” - this is unlikely to cost less.

                    Do you think that losing several attack aircraft with pilots in an attempt to destroy this tank or bunker is cheaper?
                    1. Piramidon
                      Piramidon 11 November 2017 12: 38 New
                      +4
                      Quote: Spade
                      Do you think that losing several attack aircraft with pilots in an attempt to destroy this tank or bunker is cheaper?

                      Well, then, in your opinion, do you need to completely abandon manned aircraft and rivet more missiles? I remember one such Soviet leader, thanks to whom thousands of planes were cut, the work of the design bureau was curtailed, and then we caught up with the "potential enemy" in the field of aviation.
                      By the way, the Il-28, which N.S. mercilessly cut, could very well (with some modifications) act as an attack aircraft
                      1. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 11 November 2017 13: 00 New
                        0
                        Quote: Piramidon
                        Well, then, in your opinion, you need to completely abandon manned aircraft

                        No. You just need to give her the opportunity to act in relative safety. "Long arm", protection systems, external target designation.
                        And from the same "Starblast", which I mentioned above, no armor can save. Therefore, directly above the battlefield, no manned aircraft have a place.
                        Manned aircraft, and even helicopters, must simultaneously become both air command posts that control the destruction of targets, and “weapon platforms” that carry enough ammunition to carry out this task.
                        - They are more mobile than ground-based complexes of a similar purpose. And they can quickly create an advantage in the threatened direction. (Just compare the time for the flight of several airplanes / helicopters from the area of ​​duty in the air to the area of ​​combat use and the transfer of the same promising ground-based Hermes based on KamAZ).
                        - They are more resistant to the use of REP tools. After all, this is almost direct visibility, up to laser communication can be applied.
                        - They are more protected from serif by means of RTR and subsequent damage compared to ground-based complexes.
                        However, ground can not be abandoned. They are round-the-clock and all-weather, on duty they do not spend resources and fuel, they have less time for readiness to open fire.

                        It is simply necessary to integrate air and ground systems.
                3. Mih1974
                  Mih1974 12 November 2017 07: 40 New
                  +2
                  I don’t understand what are you arguing about? Let's remember that already now MLRS rockets and artillery began to shoot very far, then the question really arises - did the attack aircraft surrender to hell? Yes, they are "cheaper per hour", but only if they were not shot down, yes they are cheaper than the "axes" and "callibers", but much more expensive after they were shot down and especially killed the pilot. And if the pilot is killed on camera with extreme cruelty and shown in your country, then the "price" of such a "cheap" aircraft rises to sky-high heights.
                  Now we are living in an era of scrapping the old concept of battle, its very principle is completely changing. Already now the UAVs carry the mosk, and then it will only get worse. Here and there they are trying to make "cheap" UAV bombs according to the principle - one soldier brought, fired, aimed, destroyed an important target. And obviously soon this disgrace will reach condition. And few people think about how to remake an ordinary car for a Shihad mobile without a person (on a radio control, like a toy), but this will obviously be done easily and cheaply.
                  The Americans also saw, and possibly our "network-centric warfare", that is, so that each platoon commander could in real time order support (and preferably artillery, without aviation) indicating the exact position of the enemy. That is, the pilot will no longer be needed for "target selection". Those who see the superiority of attack aircraft over UAVs (such as a "hunter") indicate "expensive guided missiles" as an argument, but I have written more than once that in the near future developers will get a "bright idea" to combine UAVs and Hephaestus - here you have cheap delivery of cast iron Moreover, such a UAV + Hephaestus system will cover a huge mass of combat missions good including - perfectly resists electronic warfare. While there is a stable GLONASS signal - such a system is guaranteed to deliver "gifts" to their destination.
                  By the way, I want to remind you what kipesh was after the Turks shot down our plane, had the UAV "dried up" on the spot, and the Turks wouldn’t shoot it down (there is no PR effect) and we wouldn’t get to the pre-war (and I would have radioactive desert from the Turks would leave, it’s painfully good reason to give them an end repeat ).
            3. Evgeniy667b
              Evgeniy667b 12 November 2017 12: 40 New
              +1
              You might think A-10 in supersonic !? And what is bad then IL-10 with modern avionics?
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 12 November 2017 13: 44 New
                0
                Quote: Evgeniy667b
                You might think A-10 in supersonic !?

                No. But he is being removed from service, right?
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. newcomer
            newcomer 10 November 2017 21: 45 New
            +6
            Shovels, the cover on the march, and so on, that you wrote is the task of both army aviation and attack aircraft.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 10 November 2017 21: 58 New
              0
              Quote: newbie
              and attack aircraft.

              How can a downed plane cover something there?
        3. 210ox
          210ox 10 November 2017 19: 39 New
          +1
          It has an interesting layout. It’s actually a flying multi-barrel cannon. And the plane is reliable.
          Quote: NEXUS
          Quote: PalBor
          And when they begin to fall in packs - let them fly!

          The car is interesting, and in this matter we are far behind mattresses. I think a new attack aircraft will appear no earlier than 25 years old. Although they promise to plan something by the year 20.
          In 2012, it became known that Russia decided to work on a promising ground attack aircraft (PSSh). Later it became known that the development of the designation received the designation "Hornet-EP". Information about what the new aircraft will be is contradictory, but it was reported that the Hornet will have a stealth effect. That is, the use of "stealth technology" implies that missiles and bombs will have to hide inside the fuselage or in special underwing containers. Apparently, this winged car will be well armored. The attack aircraft will receive the most modern radar, sighting and navigation equipment and the latest communications equipment. He will be able to use the entire range of tactical weapons, including long-range high-precision missiles, which will significantly reduce losses. It is planned that the aircraft will be adapted to work not only from concrete, but also from unpaved runways. In 2020, the PShS should begin to arrive in the Air Force, gradually replacing the Su-25SM. In the more distant future, the Hornets will operate in conjunction with heavy strike drones, also developed by Sukhoi.
          1. Piramidon
            Piramidon 11 November 2017 12: 49 New
            0
            Quote: 210ox
            It has an interesting layout. It’s actually a flying multi-barrel cannon. And the plane is reliable.

            As our specialists in aircraft equipment said: "Tu-95RC is a gun mount for our guns," specialists in photo equipment objected to them: "No, this is a tripod for our aerial cameras" laughing
        4. Partyzan
          Partyzan 10 November 2017 19: 44 New
          +5
          and you want to say the SU-39 is worse?
          1. newcomer
            newcomer 10 November 2017 19: 54 New
            13
            A10_ is a flying 50mm. the air gun, with all that it implies, is by no means an attack aircraft. Our SU is a full-fledged, deserved attack aircraft.
            1. Partyzan
              Partyzan 10 November 2017 20: 07 New
              +5
              Well, if this is a wooden gun, then why compare with a machine gun?
              1. newcomer
                newcomer 10 November 2017 21: 52 New
                +5
                for not having another.
            2. Pan_hrabio
              Pan_hrabio 10 November 2017 20: 09 New
              +1
              30 mm gun. And why is the A-10 not a ground attack aircraft? Armored, tenacious, weapons carries a lot and different. Unless recently, he has mainly used guided missiles instead of a cannon, well, and the time is such that it is suicidal to attack any plane during WWII.
              1. newcomer
                newcomer 10 November 2017 20: 34 New
                +9
                I'm going to try now. the a10 has lower speed, almost helicopter. reservation: panels on bolts, at Drying a titanium whole capsule, more accurate bathtub, in shape. Mushka’s engines are omnivorous. maneuverability at a10 nm, Drying brisk aircraft. dimensions are less for Drying, also affects the survivability. and Sushke’s combat load is quite sufficient; of course, the SU34 can also be converted to a stormtrooper (8t). But why? Does he need so much?
                1. Pan_hrabio
                  Pan_hrabio 10 November 2017 21: 00 New
                  +6
                  The speeds of the Su-25 and A-10 are comparable, with a maximum of 975 and 706 km / h near the ground, respectively. He will not attack at maximum speed anyway, and even more so the A-10 is far from helicopter speed.

                  Booking with the A-10, although bolted, is also quite solid.

                  Moreover, the pilot’s armored car is made in the form of a “bathtub” assembled on screws from titanium armor plates. Bulletproof glass of a cabin lantern is able to withstand a hit of a 23-mm shell of such a ZSU as Shilka.


                  https://topwar.ru/100011-a-10-thunderbolt-ii-shtu
                  rmovik-postroennyy-vokrug-aviacionnoy-pushki.html


                  Plus (as I wrote below) the engines of the A-10 are spaced so that it is problematic to destroy two at once. In addition, the engines are taken out of the fuselage (the fire does not spread) and are covered from the lower hemisphere by the wing planes (complicates the guidance of MANPADS on them). And practice has shown its vitality.

                  As for maneuverability, dimensions and combat load, I will not go deep anymore. These parameters are comparable, where one plane is better, somewhere else a second.

                  In any case, in my opinion, both aircraft are quite successful attack aircraft, the last of the Mohicans worthy of this name.
                  1. newcomer
                    newcomer 10 November 2017 21: 30 New
                    +5
                    Well, Dryers also have engines spaced apart. about speed you do not take max. and compare cruising. as said dvigles Drying omnivorous.
                2. Settlement Oparyshev
                  Settlement Oparyshev 10 November 2017 23: 34 New
                  0
                  Regarding the alteration of the Su34. Apparently seduced by the large carrying capacity of the aircraft. Load more climbing up and homing, and dump it all on the enemy’s head.
          2. NKT
            NKT 10 November 2017 21: 18 New
            0
            The su-39 - specialization tanks, this is a modification of the su-25T
        5. Sanichsan
          Sanichsan 13 November 2017 15: 21 New
          0
          Quote: NEXUS
          The car is interesting, and in this matter we are far behind mattresses.

          specify which of the 5 cars participating in the competition?
          Explain what our catastrophic lag behind the Beechcraft AT-6 Wolverine for example?
      3. xetai9977
        xetai9977 10 November 2017 19: 00 New
        +3
        A very needed plane! In general, many countries are already taking this path. Turkey presented in the winterThe Hurkus-C two-seater aircraft retained the Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-68T turboprop engine used in the basic version of the aircraft, with a take-off power of 1600 hp. with a five-bladed propeller Hartzell HC-B5MA-3, but equipped with six external suspension units, which can carry up to 1500 kg of weapons. The aircraft is equipped with a round-the-clock Aselsan ASEFLIR-300 optoelectronic station, including the use of guided weapons with a laser semi-active guidance system, and will receive a modified avionics system, including data transmission equipment. It is planned to install an airborne defense complex, the cockpit is protected by booking elements.
        1. Pirogov
          Pirogov 10 November 2017 19: 04 New
          +7
          Quote: xetai9977
          A very needed plane! In general, many countries are already taking this path. Turkey presented in the winter

          In order to save money, why not, the Kurds will go to drive.
          1. Partyzan
            Partyzan 10 November 2017 19: 49 New
            +9
            Quote: Pirogov
            In order to save money, why not, the Kurds will go to drive.

            Well, in order to save money, this is the best

            self-drive
            1. You Vlad
              You Vlad 10 November 2017 20: 10 New
              +2
              Quote: Partyzan
              Well, in order to save money, this is the best

              Maybe you don’t need a person to step on a corn? repeat
              1. Partyzan
                Partyzan 10 November 2017 20: 18 New
                +5
                Quote: you Vlad
                Maybe you don’t need a person to step on a corn?

                set +, it’s not for Pirogov’s person, but there weren’t other such self-driving pictures if he accepted it as a cartoon on him - I apologize publicly, he isn’t worthy of such a picture - he’s better, he’s a Slavic, well, he apologized as best he could stones collected hi
                1. You Vlad
                  You Vlad 10 November 2017 20: 21 New
                  +2
                  It’s necessary to understand that it’s very beneficial for some people that we are spread rot each other! As you understand, you know hi
                  1. Partyzan
                    Partyzan 10 November 2017 20: 33 New
                    +5
                    Quote: you Vlad
                    You have to understand that some people are very profitable

                    and this - for some - ears are striped
      4. MadCat
        MadCat 11 November 2017 04: 46 New
        0
        Quote: PalBor
        It’s not necessary to prepare a shift - let them delight our air defense! Save on missiles!
        Something I got from Vitali ... Although winked

        Now Vitale doesn’t see hernalisimus wassat
    2. DMB_95
      DMB_95 10 November 2017 18: 48 New
      16
      Quote: The_Lancet
      Handsome! The embodiment of firepower and survival

      IL - 2 his name .
      1. LiSiCyn
        LiSiCyn 10 November 2017 19: 44 New
        +1
        If, compare with the last three options ... Yes, put a new engine on it ..
      2. Aqr009
        Aqr009 10 November 2017 23: 32 New
        +2
        Then it’s IL-10M. In Korea, he showed himself very well.
    3. svp67
      svp67 10 November 2017 19: 09 New
      +4
      Quote: The_Lancet
      The embodiment of firepower and survival.

      Power, so it's YES. But here is SURVIVAL, the one before our “Rook” is FAR
      1. You Vlad
        You Vlad 10 November 2017 20: 14 New
        +2
        Quote: svp67
        Power, so it's YES. But here is SURVIVAL, the one before our “Rook” is FAR

        Not a fact! I have seen enough pictures in what state a -10 got to the airfield, in short, in a truncated yes
        1. svp67
          svp67 10 November 2017 20: 33 New
          12
          Quote: you Vlad
          Not a fact! I have seen enough pictures in what state a -10 got to the airfield, in short, in a truncated

          In such?



          But in such a "Rook" came back ...





      2. Pan_hrabio
        Pan_hrabio 10 November 2017 20: 25 New
        +2
        Why? The pilot is armored, the engines are spaced so that it is problematic to destroy two at once. Plus, the engines are placed outside the fuselage (the fire does not spread) and are covered from the lower hemisphere by the wing planes (complicates the guidance of MANPADS on them). And practice has shown its vitality.



        1. svp67
          svp67 10 November 2017 20: 45 New
          +1
          Quote: noviczok
          and covered from the lower hemisphere by the planes of the wings (complicates the guidance of MANPADS on them).

          It will not save from MANPADS missiles.
          1. just exp
            just exp 11 November 2017 01: 13 New
            0
            already fell into it from MANPADS, the engine was carried out cleanly, but he flew on one.
      3. opus
        opus 10 November 2017 22: 37 New
        +6
        Quote: svp67
        that to him to our "Rook" FAR

        Quote: svp67
        But in such a "Rook" came back ...

        Is not a fact





        No wonder it is called the American flying AK-47
    4. APASUS
      APASUS 10 November 2017 21: 33 New
      0
      Quote: The_Lancet
      Handsome! The embodiment of firepower and survival.

      Like all military tactics of the Americans, it is based on the complete absence of enemy air defense.
      So, if the flight hour of the F-35 fighter is estimated at $ 42, then for Textron Scorpion this amount will be only $ 000, reports

      Why are these comparisons in favor of a single unit aircraft? A strange enough example to compare
    5. Piramidon
      Piramidon 10 November 2017 21: 40 New
      0
      Quote: The_Lancet
      Handsome! The embodiment of firepower and survival.

      But did he survive where at least some frail anti-aircraft defense counteracted him? Or only against the Papuans with bows and arrows?
    6. Ratmir_Ryazan
      Ratmir_Ryazan 11 November 2017 09: 08 New
      0
      It can only survive where there are no Russian (Soviet) air defense systems, even the simplest and most affordable such as MANPADS ... the United States understood this perfectly, that’s what they write off as unnecessary))) ...
  2. RASKAT
    RASKAT 10 November 2017 18: 15 New
    +7
    In total, the US Air Force plans to purchase about 300 light aircraft worth up to $ 1,2 billion.
    1.2 divided by 300 will get 4 million apiece. Yes, in America, a pair of marine boots is more expensive than this plane. It’s not some kind of divorce, I don’t believe it. Maybe the journalists got it wrong? Or then they say that inflation, etc., etc., will raise the price. Well, how do they know how. request
  3. Al Asad
    Al Asad 10 November 2017 18: 21 New
    0
    Chuck Norris dropped his hands?
  4. svp67
    svp67 10 November 2017 18: 21 New
    +9
    So let's see what they are willing to change the "Warthog"
    "Textron Scorpion" USA
    Wingspan, m 14.43
    Length of aircraft, m 13.26
    Aircraft Height, m ​​4.30
    Wing area, m2
    Weight, kg
    empty 5352 aircraft
    maximum takeoff 9639
    Engine type 2 turbofan engines Honeywell TFE731
    Thrust, kgf 2 x 1800
    Maximum speed, km / h 833
    Cruising speed, km / h 750
    Ferrying range, km 4400
    Practical range, km
    Practical ceiling, m 14000
    Crew, people 2
    Armament: combat load 2800 kg at 6 nodes of the suspension and
    1400 kg internal compartment
    1. svp67
      svp67 10 November 2017 18: 23 New
      +4
      "EMB-314 Super Tucano" Brazil

      Modification EMB-314
      Wingspan, m 11.14
      Length of aircraft, m 10.53
      Aircraft Height, m ​​3.90
      Wing area, m2 19.40
      Weight, kg
      empty 2420 aircraft
      normal takeoff 2890
      maximum takeoff 3210
      538 fuels
      PTB, l 2 x 323
      Engine Type 1 TVD Pratt Whitney PT6A-68/1
      Power, hp 1 x 1600
      Maximum speed, km / h 557
      Cruising speed, km / h 462
      Ferrying range, km 2770
      Practical range, km 1570
      Maximum rate of climb, m / min 900
      Practical ceiling, m 10670
      Max. operational overload 7
      Crew, people 2
      Armament (optional): combat load - up to 1500 kg on 5 knots of suspension
      1. svp67
        svp67 10 November 2017 18: 26 New
        +4
        Air Tractor AT-802L Longsword
        USA

        AT-802U Modification
        Wingspan, m 18.06
        Length of aircraft, m 10.87
        Aircraft Height, m ​​3.50
        Wing area, m2 37.30
        Weight, kg
        empty 2903 aircraft
        maximum takeoff 7257
        Engine Type 1 TVD Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-67F
        Power, hp 1 x 1600
        Maximum speed, km / h 370
        Cruising speed, km / h 300
        Practical range, km 2963
        Practical ceiling, m 7620
        Crew, people 2
        Armament: combat load 4100 kg on 6 knots of suspension
        1. svp67
          svp67 10 November 2017 18: 28 New
          +5
          Beechcraft AT-6 Wolverine
          USA

          Modification AT-6B
          Wingspan, m 10.10
          Length of aircraft, m 10.30
          Aircraft Height, m ​​3.30
          Wing area, m2 16.30
          Weight, kg
          empty 2100 aircraft
          maximum takeoff 2948
          Engine Type 1 TVD Pratt Whitney Canada PT6A-68D
          Power, hp 1 x 1600
          Maximum speed, km / h 585
          Cruising speed, km / h 500
          Ferrying range, km 2779
          Practical range, km 1575
          The maximum rate of climb, m / min
          Practical ceiling, m 7620
          Max. operational load 7
          Crew, people 2
          Armament: two 12.7 mm machine guns
          Combat load - at 6 nodes of the suspension:
          6xBDU-33 caliber 133;
          2xBDU-33, 2x2,7 mm and 2xLAU-68;
          2xMk 82 caliber 226 kg.
          When paired with the MIL-STD-1553 bus, the AIM can include the AIM-9X U-class UI, UAB Payway 2 / Payway 4, JDAM, as well as SDB.2 x PTB
          1. svp67
            svp67 10 November 2017 18: 30 New
            12
            And it becomes clear that the US is looking for a VERY CHEAP aircraft against the "Papuans", no offense, but in the sense that the US adversary should be almost completely EMPTY. From this, I conclude that the US Army will not abandon the A-10 for a long time
            1. NIKNN
              NIKNN 10 November 2017 19: 17 New
              +6
              Quote: svp67
              USA is looking for a VERY CHEAP aircraft

              The lobby of the military industrial complex will not miss, well, or this "cheap" plane will cost according to the approved budget cut, Underline whatever applicable.
              1. Partyzan
                Partyzan 10 November 2017 19: 53 New
                +6
                the necessary has already been allocated - the budget is cut
            2. The comment was deleted.
              1. Partyzan
                Partyzan 10 November 2017 19: 57 New
                +5
                you said everything correctly, correct some spelling errors, otherwise it may turn out
                1. Dr. David Livesey
                  Dr. David Livesey 10 November 2017 20: 05 New
                  +2
                  What seems to you obscenities, it is not, I finished philological.
                  1. Partyzan
                    Partyzan 10 November 2017 21: 50 New
                    +4
                    I will not argue, just advised hi
              2. Vadim237
                Vadim237 10 November 2017 23: 41 New
                +3
                Judging by the fact that they are upgrading Abrams - Trophy on a new modification of the tank from battles in the fields, they do not refuse.
        2. LiSiCyn
          LiSiCyn 10 November 2017 18: 59 New
          +7
          I think the IL-2 will be cooler ... Again, when you exit the dive, the shooter can Papuans from the machine gun, water ... laughing
          1. Settlement Oparyshev
            Settlement Oparyshev 10 November 2017 23: 50 New
            0
            Indeed, why not modernize Ilyusha, our Second? Reconfigure a bathtub from a rook, a combination suspension and recessed and mounted under a new tax, a cabin. Terrible Ilyusha will succeed.
  5. Machete
    Machete 10 November 2017 18: 22 New
    0
    1,2 billion?
    Probably 12 billion?
    Yes, and a light aircraft will not replace an armored and tenacious attack aircraft.
    1. okko077
      okko077 10 November 2017 19: 28 New
      +1
      Modern types of military operations do not involve the use of an attack aircraft! Their time is gone, armor does not save at low altitude, but it is not needed at medium ... Attack, as a type of aviation application, is outdated .... The issue of crew protection is a general security issue and does not belong to the attack aircraft ....
      1. Dr. David Livesey
        Dr. David Livesey 10 November 2017 20: 14 New
        0
        Now everyone is talking about modern types of military operations, not trying to realize that no one since 1945 has attempted to seriously enter foreign territory. Americans sank into Vietnam, put 60k selected soldiers (selected from their point of view)
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 10 November 2017 22: 07 New
          0
          Quote: Dr. David Livesey
          Now everyone is talking about modern types of military operations.

          Listed by you is not modern military operations
          Quote: okko077
          Their time is gone, armor does not save at low altitude, and at medium it is not needed ...

          But what about helicopters?
          Quote: okko077
          The issue of crew protection is a general security issue and does not apply to the topic of attack aircraft ....

          And if there is no crew?
  6. san4es
    san4es 10 November 2017 18: 27 New
    +4
    $ 400 million for the purchase of new light support aircraft under the OA-X program

  7. Going
    Going 10 November 2017 18: 40 New
    +7
    In total, the US Air Force plans to purchase about 300 light aircraft worth up to $ 1,2 billion.


    Something the figure is suspiciously small.
  8. PValery53
    PValery53 10 November 2017 18: 56 New
    22
    Russian citizens! The Russian satirist writer, who deservedly exalted the humble and great Russian people over the cheap and worthless and small people of Europe and cowboy (cattle) America, died. Honor to Him, Praise and gratitude for the rise of Russian self-awareness! - Bright memory!
    1. Pirogov
      Pirogov 10 November 2017 19: 10 New
      +5
      Quote: PValery53
      Russian citizens! The Russian satirist writer, who deservedly exalted the humble and great Russian people over the cheap and worthless and small people of Europe and cowboy (cattle) America, died. Honor to Him, Praise and gratitude for the rise of Russian self-awareness! - Bright memory!

      I fully support you. Like liberal bastards, they began to pour mud on him and the body did not cool down, it was time to put all the abominations in place.
    2. Mwg
      Mwg 10 November 2017 19: 18 New
      +3
      I am joining. Zadornov was a Man
    3. Setrac
      Setrac 10 November 2017 22: 16 New
      +8
      Quote: PValery53
      Russian satirist writer dies

      Correction - he was not Russian.
      Quote: PValery53
      Honor to Him, Praise

      Not everyone here professes the religion of witnesses of perky
      Quote: PValery53
      exalted the humble and great Russian people

      Similar phrases:
      * Only Russians could guess to print fake money on a color copier;
      * Only Russian emigrants could guess to breed gasoline with water;
      * Only Russian immigrants eat bay leaf to drive drunk while driving;
      * Only Russians palm off under the guise of miracle drugs all nonsense;
      * Only Russians smack fake souvenirs;
      * Russians are worse than blacks, and the Russian mafia is worse than the American mafia;
      * Civilized Americans suffer greatly from the "Russian plague";
      * The largest number of denunciations in the USA are written in emigrant areas;
      * Only Russians steal car receivers and goods from stores;
      * Only Russians without exception trade in stolen goods.
      1. Irokez
        Irokez 10 November 2017 22: 48 New
        +2
        Quote: Setrac
        Not everyone here professes the religion of witnesses of perky

        Do not confess so shut up. When your time comes (and everyone has it) it will be counted towards you in the sense that nobody will remember you badly or you will get a minimum of negativity, and it damages and hinders the dead souls. You will blame yourself there for this, and hell consists in remorse and awareness of what you have done, and you will not be able to correct the situation except as the next incarnation to Earth for correction. Karma. There is no salvation from the law of karma - only correction. This is just in case to think about the mortal world.
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 10 November 2017 22: 53 New
          +1
          Quote: Irokez
          Do not confess so shut up. When your time will come

          Do you offer me to shut up? Well, you yourself understand where to go?
          Quote: Irokez
          and he dead souls oh how harm and interfere

          It was he who lived such a life, not me. If he harmed me personally - then the dead would be forgiven, but he harmed the whole of our country, all the people, such a posthumous death does not forgive, like Gorbachev, for example, or Khrushchev - there is no forgiveness for them.
          Quote: Irokez
          There is no salvation from the law of karma - only correction.

          Repentance? Repent again? Not tired?
          1. Irokez
            Irokez 11 November 2017 11: 03 New
            +3
            Quote: Setrac
            Repentance? Repent again? Not tired?

            No dear only to be corrected through arms, legs and humiliation. As they say through the head does not get through all the other senses, through sweat and blood. And repentance is only an awareness of the deed and the beginning of a difficult correction.
            1. Setrac
              Setrac 11 November 2017 11: 44 New
              0
              Quote: Irokez
              No dear only to be corrected through arms, legs and humiliation.

              Do not explain the mechanism in more detail? Corrections! And that sounds like some kind of perversion.
      2. Makarov
        Makarov 10 November 2017 23: 16 New
        +4
        I sympathize with all those who do not understand such a thing as satire. I can assume that this is related to mental development and (or) problems of education ...
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 10 November 2017 23: 24 New
          0
          Quote: Makarov
          I sympathize with all those who do not understand such a thing as satire

          Well, of course, there are many satirists in the world, for example: Leonid Gozman, German Gref, Grybauskaite Dahl, Kasparov Harry - athlete-satirist, Makarevich Andrey - singer of the satirical genre, Akhedzhakova Leah - apparently an actress of the satirical genre, Brzezinski Zbigniew - a world-class satirist, and all you will not list.
          Quote: Makarov
          with mental development and (or) parenting problems ...

          So develop, educate, who holds you?
          1. Makarov
            Makarov 11 November 2017 00: 40 New
            +3
            And there are many fools in the world. And traitors. Have you somehow decided how many of the fools are traitors and how many fools are of traitors ... otherwise you still have a more pleasant dialogue and struggle with a smart opponent ...
          2. Makarov
            Makarov 11 November 2017 00: 47 New
            +4
            And yet ... give a link to a video where he says literally: “Russians are worse than blacks, and the Russian mafia is worse than the American mafia” ... or is it easier to retype heresy from pseudo-patriotic resources than to answer for your rotten Babskii bazaar?
            1. Setrac
              Setrac 11 November 2017 11: 45 New
              +1
              Quote: Makarov
              for your rotten babskiy bazaar

              What are you excited about? Breathe deeper, nerve cells do not recover.
              1. Makarov
                Makarov 11 November 2017 16: 40 New
                +2
                Well, everything, in principle, was immediately clear, but to verify your rot should still ...
                1. Setrac
                  Setrac 11 November 2017 17: 05 New
                  0
                  Quote: Makarov
                  but make sure your rot is still

                  As the traffic police who stopped me said "are we violating?"
    4. Settlement Oparyshev
      Settlement Oparyshev 10 November 2017 23: 54 New
      +4
      Zadornov fought to the end. Our man was one hundred percent strong! Eternal Memory to Mikhail!
  9. cost 75
    cost 75 10 November 2017 19: 11 New
    0
    judging by the pictures they can offer il 2)) modernized
  10. Wolka
    Wolka 10 November 2017 19: 13 New
    0
    the Yankees would have taken the Wright brothers' flyer into service, exactly that ...
  11. Bondik05
    Bondik05 10 November 2017 19: 25 New
    0
    Campaign war finally turned into the category of commerce. A familiar scheme is to reduce costs (aircraft cost) to increase profits.
  12. Vitas
    Vitas 10 November 2017 19: 44 New
    +1
    That is, the phrase "From the screw" returns again. It's time for us to think about Yak ...
    1. not main
      not main 10 November 2017 23: 36 New
      0
      Quote: Vitas
      That is, the phrase "From the screw" returns again. It's time for us to think about Yak ...

      Better about Mi-35,28 and Ka-50,52!
    2. Settlement Oparyshev
      Settlement Oparyshev 10 November 2017 23: 55 New
      0
      But will he raise your Yak? Dozens of bumblebees will deliver where necessary?
  13. da Vinci
    da Vinci 10 November 2017 20: 11 New
    0
    Feels like the same yak 130. Like a battlefield attack aircraft no
  14. Misak Hananyan
    Misak Hananyan 10 November 2017 20: 32 New
    +2
  15. XXXIII
    XXXIII 10 November 2017 20: 51 New
    +2
    But what about the versatility of 22 and 35 ?! negative For carpet bombing, it is possible to stamp on the KR, cheaper and more practical ...... laughing
  16. Makarov
    Makarov 10 November 2017 23: 13 New
    0
    Hmm ... first-class device ... but his time is gone
  17. not main
    not main 10 November 2017 23: 24 New
    0
    Lopatov,
    How nice it was on paper, they just forgot about the ravines!
  18. Grim Reaper
    Grim Reaper 10 November 2017 23: 30 New
    +3
    Quote: Setrac
    Quote: PValery53
    Russian satirist writer dies

    Correction - he was not Russian.
    Quote: PValery53
    Honor to Him, Praise

    Not everyone here professes the religion of witnesses of perky
    Quote: PValery53
    exalted the humble and great Russian people

    Similar phrases:
    * Only Russians could guess to print fake money on a color copier;
    * Only Russian emigrants could guess to breed gasoline with water;
    * Only Russian immigrants eat bay leaf to drive drunk while driving;
    * Only Russians palm off under the guise of miracle drugs all nonsense;
    * Only Russians smack fake souvenirs;
    * Russians are worse than blacks, and the Russian mafia is worse than the American mafia;
    * Civilized Americans suffer greatly from the "Russian plague";
    * The largest number of denunciations in the USA are written in emigrant areas;
    * Only Russians steal car receivers and goods from stores;
    * Only Russians without exception trade in stolen goods.

    in order to correctly understand these phrases you need to be born in Soviet times. And live from and to in the USSR / RF. And do not overlap with your non-native flag / anti-Russian grants.
  19. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 10 November 2017 23: 32 New
    +2
    The idea of ​​an attack aircraft in our time is meaningless. Doom the pilot to 100% death?
    Even in an unmanned version, with remote control, there is something to think about ...
    Even attack helicopters die out as a class.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 10 November 2017 23: 37 New
      +2
      All this will replace the drone UAV.
    2. Grim Reaper
      Grim Reaper 10 November 2017 23: 51 New
      +1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      The idea of ​​an attack aircraft in our time is meaningless. Doom the pilot to 100% death?
      Even in an unmanned version, with remote control, there is something to think about ...
      Even attack helicopters die out as a class.

      Who knows how attack aircraft will show themselves in a conflict between equals? In such a massive conflict .....
    3. just exp
      just exp 11 November 2017 01: 16 New
      0
      it depends on what enemy and what he possesses.
      and then in Syria, he showed himself more than good, but should not, if you listen.
  20. Grim Reaper
    Grim Reaper 10 November 2017 23: 48 New
    +1
    Quote: Setrac
    Quote: PValery53
    Russian satirist writer dies

    Correction - he was not Russian.
    Quote: PValery53
    Honor to Him, Praise

    Not everyone here professes the religion of witnesses of perky
    Quote: PValery53
    exalted the humble and great Russian people

    Similar phrases:
    * Only Russians could guess to print fake money on a color copier;
    * Only Russian emigrants could guess to breed gasoline with water;
    * Only Russian immigrants eat bay leaf to drive drunk while driving;
    * Only Russians palm off under the guise of miracle drugs all nonsense;
    * Only Russians smack fake souvenirs;
    * Russians are worse than blacks, and the Russian mafia is worse than the American mafia;
    * Civilized Americans suffer greatly from the "Russian plague";
    * The largest number of denunciations in the USA are written in emigrant areas;
    * Only Russians steal car receivers and goods from stores;
    * Only Russians without exception trade in stolen goods.

    and since such a booze started ... I’m not a special connoisseur of Zadorny, although I watched a huge number of his concerts. But I don’t remember these phrases. Therefore, if it’s not difficult for you, please link.

    "The whole trouble is that we unconditionally believe in the Internet" (c) V.I. Lenin
  21. Grim Reaper
    Grim Reaper 11 November 2017 00: 13 New
    +1
    It seems to me that the distinguished participants in the discussion look a little incorrectly on the topic of the participation of attack aircraft. Each considers one option of conflict. Of course, the Papuans' option of attack aircraft against air defense of developed countries is absolutely insane. And vice versa - extremely won. But now imagine a conflict of approximately equal strength (air force, air defense, ground forces, etc.) So will attack aircraft be needed there? Even with the huge losses? I’m not a bit an expert in aviation, but it would be interesting to know the opinions of knowledgeable people.
    1. Großer feldherr
      Großer feldherr 11 November 2017 01: 50 New
      +1
      And there’s nothing to think here, nobody needs a one-time plane, the time "women still give birth" has irrevocably gone.
      Yes, and there is no need to iron the battle formations of the adversary from a shaving flight by the NURS, an effective high-precision weapon has appeared that is capable of the same task, but without unnecessary risk of losses. This is true for a war with an equal adversary.
      And against the Papuans, it seems to me that we need small drones that can barrage at a minimum speed with a few small (50kg as an option) guided bombs. Costs are minimal. Risks are minimal, efficiency is maximal: the complex will scout itself, highlight and immediately hit the target until it disappears.
      Bearded piss from fear will be crawling out of the hole, at any moment can fly.
      #####
      And yes, I’m not a drop special.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 11 November 2017 23: 28 New
        0
        I totally agree. The stormtroopers' time is gone. You painted everything correctly.
        1) In technological wars they will be immediately knocked down.
        2) In wars "against the Papuans" they are easily replaced by shock UAVs.
  22. STORM 12
    STORM 12 11 November 2017 00: 15 New
    0
    Quote: Vitas
    That is, the phrase "From the screw" returns again. It's time for us to think about Yak ...

    and Tu95
  23. Piramidon
    Piramidon 11 November 2017 14: 30 New
    0
    Question: Why is such a plane needed?

    It’s good that there are no people like you in the Moscow Region. Nikita Sergeevich is resting.
  24. weddu
    weddu 11 November 2017 21: 19 New
    0
    I will add. Russia urgently needs a modernized SU-39, with lots of titanium and avionics, from Ulan-Ude ...