Aviation against tanks (part of 15)

In the late 60s, the basis of tactical strike power aviation The U.S. Air Force compiled F-100, F-105, and F-4 supersonic fighter bombers, optimized for delivering tactical nuclear weapons and delivering conventional ammunition strikes at large stationary targets: defense units, bridges, weapons and fuels and lubricants storage facilities, headquarters, communication centers and airfields. The anti-tank capabilities of supersonic combat aircraft were very limited, and were reduced to defeat tanks in crowded places or on a march using cluster bombs with cumulative submunitions.

In the second half of the 60-x began a qualitative strengthening of Soviet tank power. By that time, the USSR had already surpassed all NATO countries in the number of tanks in Europe. This separation became even more noticeable when T-62 began to arrive with tank 115-mm smooth-bore guns in tank divisions, stationing in the ZGV. Even more worrying about the NATO generals was the information about the adoption of the new generation T-64 tanks with multi-layered frontal armor in the USSR and the world's first tracked BMP-1, capable of operating in the same battle formation with tanks. Simultaneously with the T-62, the first self-propelled Shilka ZSU-23-4 self-propelled ZSU-1965-75 self-propelled units entered the air defense units of the Ground Forces. In the same year, in 1967, in the air defense units of the army-front command, the Krug mobile air defense system began to force out the CA-1968 medium-range air defense system. The air defense of tank and motorized rifle divisions of the Soviet Army was to be provided by the Cube medium-range air defense missile system, which was put into service in the 1 year. The main elements of the “Circle” and “Cuba” were placed on a tracked chassis. In 23, the Strela-4 short-range mobile air defense system was put into service, which were used in conjunction with the ZSU-1971-XNUMX. In XNUMX, deliveries of the Osa air defense system began on a floating transporter. Thus, the Soviet first echelon tank and motorized rifle divisions, simultaneously with the rearmament of new tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, received an anti-aircraft umbrella consisting of mobile ZSU and air defense missile systems, capable of accompanying troops on the march and providing air defense over the battlefield, being in the second echelon.

Naturally, the Americans, who led in the North Atlantic alliance, could not accept this state of affairs. Indeed, besides numerical, the armies of the countries of the Eastern bloc could get a qualitative superiority. What was fraught with the defeat of NATO forces in Europe in the event of a conflict with the limited use of tactical nuclear weapons? weapons. In the 50-s, nuclear weapons were considered by the American armed forces as a universal means of warfare, which could also solve tactical tasks on the battlefield. However, about a decade and a half later, there was some revision of views on the role of tactical nuclear weapons. This was largely due to the saturation of the missile and aviation units of the Soviet Army with tactical nuclear weapons. After achieving an exemplary nuclear parity with the United States, and setting on combat duty with a significant number of ICBMs with a high degree of readiness for launching with the USSR Strategic Missile Forces, too active an exchange of tactical nuclear charges could lead to a large-scale nuclear conflict using the entire strategic arsenal. Therefore, the Americans put forward the concept of "limited nuclear war", which implied the use of a relatively small number of tactical charges in a limited area. Tactical nuclear bombs, missiles and land mines were considered as the last trump card capable of stopping the advance of the Soviet tank armies. But even in this case, even a few dozen relatively low-power nuclear explosions in the densely populated Western Europe inevitably led to extremely undesirable consequences that could affect many more decades. Even if NATO forces managed to repel the onslaught of the armies of the Warsaw Pact countries with the help of tactical nuclear weapons and this would not lead to the growth of a global conflict, Europeans would have to rake radioactive ruins for a long time, and many territories would simply become unsuitable for life.

Due to the need to counter Soviet tanks, the United States and the leading NATO countries were actively developing anti-tank weapons, and aviation had a special role to play in this. By the end of 60's, it became clear that combat helicopters armed with guided anti-tank missiles could become effective tank destroyers, but we'll talk about this in the next part of the review.

Among tactical aircraft, subsonic attack aircraft had the greatest anti-tank potential. Unlike the USSR, in the United States in the post-war period they did not abandon the creation of jet attack aircraft. But the light-armored subsonic A-4 Skyhawk and A-7 Corsair II attack aircraft, which had the ability to successfully destroy stationary and moving targets, were very vulnerable to modern front-line air defense systems. As a result, American generals, having comprehended the experience of combat use of attack aircraft in the Middle East and Vietnam, came to the conclusion that it was necessary to create a well-protected high-maneuverable combat aircraft capable of operating at low altitudes over the battlefield and in the near rear of the enemy. The US Air Force Command has developed a vision of an armored attack aircraft, conceptually close to the Soviet Il-2 and the German Hs 129 - relatively simple aircraft with heavy armor and powerful built-in guns. The priority task of the new attack aircraft was to be the fight against tanks and other small-sized moving targets on the battlefield. To do this, the attack aircraft had to have high maneuverability at low altitudes. The maneuverability characteristics also had to provide the possibility of evading fighter and anti-aircraft missiles from attacks. Due to the relatively low flight speed, maneuverability and good visibility from the cockpit, the attack pilot could be able to independently search for small targets and hit them from the first approach. According to preliminary calculations, shooting from a promising 27-35-mm caliber aircraft gun at a tank-like target, with an altitude of 100-200 m, could be effective from a distance of 1500-2000 m.

To develop a promising high-defensive attack aircraft, the US military has embarked on the AH program (eng. Experimental), an experimental attack aircraft. According to the preliminary requirements, the attack aircraft had to be armed with a fast-fire 30-mm gun, reach a maximum speed of 650-800 km / h, carry a weight of at least 7300 kg on external hangers and have a 460 km combat radius. Initially, the projects of turboprop aircraft were considered on a par with jet aircraft, but after the Air Force raised the speed characteristics to 740 km / h, they were eliminated. After researching the submitted projects, YA-9A by Northrop and YA-10A from Fairchild Republic were approved for construction.

At the end of May 1972, an experienced attack aircraft YA-9А first flew into the air. It was a top-winged monoplane equipped with two Lycoming engines YF102-LD-100 with a 32,1 knob. An airplane with a maximum take-off weight of 18600 kg in horizontal flight developed a speed of 837 km / h. The combat load placed on ten suspension nodes - 7260 kg. Combat radius of action - 460 km. On the serial attack aircraft, the cabin was supposed to be a titanium capsule, but on two copies built for testing, it was made of duralumin, and the weight of the armor was simulated with the help of ballast. The tests of the YA-9A and YA-10A body armor took place at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. There, armor elements were fired from Soviet machine guns of the 12,7-14,5-mm and 23-mm anti-aircraft guns.

YA-9A during test flight

In comparison with the competitor YA-10А, the attack aircraft YA-9А had better maneuverability and maximum flight speed. The security level of the two cars was about the same. However, in January, 1973 was awarded YA-10А. According to the generals of the US Air Force, this machine, as having better fuel efficiency and more technological and easier to maintain, was more suitable for adoption. But the maximum speed of the YA-10А was noticeably lower than that of the YA-9А. On serial A-10A, ground speed is limited to 706 km / h. The cruising speed is 560 km / h. In fact, the speed characteristics of the jet attack aircraft put into service at the beginning of the 70-x did not differ from the piston fighter-bombers used at the final stage of World War II.

The first flight of the prototype YA-10 took place on 10 on May 1972 of the year. Already 15 February 1975, began testing the first machine from the pre-production batch. In September, for the first time a standard weapon was installed on А-10А - 30-mm air gun GAU-8 / А Avenger. Prior to that, the aircraft flew with M20 61 mm cannons.

30-mm gun GAU-8 / A Avenger

A number of aviation publications say that the A-10A attack aircraft was built around a seven-barreled cannon with a rotating block of barrels. The gun and its systems occupied half of the aircraft’s fuselage. Since the GAU-8 / A is installed in the center of the fuselage, the nose landing gear had to be shifted slightly to the side. It is believed that the GAU-30 / A Avenger (Eng. Avenger) 8-mm gun from General Electric became the most powerful American post-war aviation artillery system. Aviation 30-mm seven-barreled artillery system is not only very powerful, but also technically very advanced. The perfection of the GAU-8 / A can be judged by the ratio of the mass of the ammunition to the mass of the entire cannon. For the artillery installation of the A-10A attack aircraft, this value is 32%. Part of the weight of the ammunition was reduced by using aluminum sleeves instead of steel or brass.

The weight of the GAU-8 / A gun is 281 kg. At the same time, the mass of the gun installation with a drum on 1350 shells is 1830 kg. Rate of fire - 4200 rds / min. The initial velocity of an armor-piercing projectile with a mass of 425 g is 1070 m / s. The shells used in the GAU-8 / A, are equipped with plastic leading belts, which allows not only to reduce barrel wear, but also to increase the initial speed. On combat fighters, the rate of fire of the gun was limited to 3900 rounds per minute, and the ammunition usually does not exceed the 1100 projectiles. The queue duration is limited to one to two seconds, while the gun has time to "spit out" in the direction of the target 65-130 shells. Resource block trunks is 21 000 shots - that is, the entire resource at a rate of 3900 rounds / min can be spent for five and a half minutes of shooting. In practice, of course, the gun is not able to conduct long continuous fire. Artillery firing mode at the maximum allowed tempo - 10 two-second bursts with cooling for 60-80 seconds.

Loading 30-mm shells into A-10A attack aircraft

PGU-14 / B shells with a depleted uranium core are used to destroy armored targets. Also in the ammunition include PGU-13 / B fragmentation shells weighing 360 g. Usually there are four armor-piercing guns for a fragmentation gun, which reflects the anti-tank orientation of the attack aircraft.

30-mm projectile gun GAU-8 / A near the rifle cartridge

According to American data, an armor-piercing projectile at a distance of 500 m normal pierces 69 mm armor, and at a distance 1000 m - 38 mm. During tests conducted in 1974 at the test site near the Nellis airbase, 30-mm cannons were able to successfully hit the M48 and T-62 tanks as targets. The latter were captured by Israel during the Doomsday War in 1973. The Soviet tank was successfully hit from above and into the board at a distance of less than 1200 m, hitting projectiles caused a fire and an explosion of the ammunition. At the same time, the accuracy of shooting turned out to be quite high: at a range of 1200 and about 60% of shells hit the tank.

Separately, I want to stay on the shells with a core of U-238. There is a widespread opinion among the inhabitants about the high radioactivity of this isotope, which is absolutely not true. The radioactivity of the U-238 is approximately 28 times less than that of the weapon U-235. Given that U-238 has not only high density, but also pyrophoric and has a high incendiary effect when penetrating armor - this makes it a very suitable material for the manufacture of cores of armor piercing shells.

МХNUMX BTR, shot at a range of 113-mm gun GAU-30 / A

But, despite the low radioactivity, armored vehicles, shot at landfills with shells with uranium cores, are subject to special disposal or storage at protected sites. This is due to the fact that the uranium dust formed during the interaction of the core with the armor is very toxic. In addition, the U-238 itself, though weak, is still radioactive. And it radiates "alpha particles". Alpha radiation is delayed by a normal cotton cloth, but dust particles are extremely dangerous if they enter the body when they inhale contaminated air, or with food or water. In this regard, the use of shells with uranium cores on landfills is prohibited in a number of US states.

The arrival of serial attack aircraft in combat squadrons began in March1976. The serial A-10A received the official name Thunderbolt II in honor of the famous WWII fighter-bomber P-47 Thunderbolt. Unofficially, the plane is known in the US Air Force as a Warthog (English Warthog - African species of wild pig). The first squadron, A-10A, reached combat readiness in October 1977.

A-10A

By the time of its creation, the A-10A had no analogues and was significantly superior to other combat aircraft in terms of security. The total weight of the Thunderbolt II armor was 1309 kg. The cockpit's armor reliably protected the pilot from being hit by anti-aircraft ammunition of the 14,5-23-mm caliber. Vital design elements were covered with less important. A feature of the A-10A was the layout of the engines in separate gondolas on the sides of the rear fuselage. The advantage of this scheme is to reduce the likelihood of foreign objects in the air intakes from the runway and powder gases when firing from a gun. Also managed to reduce the thermal visibility of engines. Such a layout of the power plant will improve the ease of maintenance of attack aircraft and armament suspension when the engines are running and provides ease of operation and replacement of the power plant. Attack engines are spaced apart from each other by a distance sufficient to rule out a single 57-mm fragmentation projectile or a MANPADS missile. In this case, the central part of the attack aircraft remained free to accommodate fuel tanks near the aircraft's center of gravity. In the case of a forced landing on the “belly”, partially protruding chassis pneumatics should have softened the impact on the ground. The tail of the attack aircraft is designed in such a way that when one keel or even one of the halves of the stabilizer is shot, it can maintain controllability. Such means of countering anti-aircraft missiles, such as assault rifles for shooting dipole reflectors and heat traps, were not forgotten either. For the warning of radar exposure, an AN / ALR-46 station was installed on the aircraft.

In addition to high security, Thunderbort II has a very significant impact potential. An aircraft with a maximum take-off weight of 23 000 kg on eleven weapon armament nodes can carry a load of 7260 kg.

The attack aircraft’s arsenal is quite impressive: for example, on seven suspension nodes, you can place 907 kg of free-fall or guided bombs. There are also variants of combat equipment, consisting of twelve 454-kg bombs, twenty-eight 227-kg bombs. In addition, the use of 70-127-mm caliber NAR units, napalm tanks and overhead nacelles with SUN-20 / A 23-mm cannons is foreseen. After adopting the attack aircraft, along with the GAU-30 / A Avenger 8-mm cannon, its main anti-tank weapons were the Rockeye Mk.20 cluster bombs, equipped with cumulative submunitions.

However, in the conditions of a powerful front-to-air defense, the defeat of armored vehicles with onboard cannon fire and free-fall bomb cassettes could be too risky even for a very well-protected aircraft. For this reason, the AGM-10 Maverickk missile was introduced into the A-65A armament. This rocket, or more correctly, a family of rockets, differing from each other in the guidance system, engine and warhead mass, was developed by Hughes Missile Systems based on the outdated AIM-4 Falcon air combat rocket. The official decision on the adoption of the AGM-65A was signed on 30 August 1972.

Suspension AGM-65 Maverick on attack aircraft A-10

On the first modification of the AGM-65A, a television pointing head was used. With a starting mass of about 210 kg, the weight of the cumulative warhead was 57 kg. The maximum flight speed of the rocket is about 300 m / s, the launch range is up to 22 km. However, detecting and capturing a small target at such a distance proved impossible. When striking from low altitudes, which is typical for attack aircraft, the range of capture of small targets was 4-6 km. In order to increase the capture range, on the AGM-65 modification, the television head's field of view was reduced from 5 to 2,5 °. However, as shown by the experience of real fighting, it did not help much. With the narrowing of the field of view, the pilots had difficulty finding the target, since it was carried out by means of the homing head of the rocket itself, and the image from the homing vessel is transmitted to the sighting indicator in the pilot's cabin.

During the process of combat use of the rocket, the aircraft is very limited in maneuver. The pilot, observing the target visually, pilots the plane so that its image appears on the screen, while, as a rule, the plane is introduced into a gentle dive at a relatively low speed. After detecting the target on the screen, with a joystick scan of the GOS, the pilot imposes an electronic mark of the sight on the target image and presses the “Escort” button. As a result, the GOS is transferred to the target tracking mode. After reaching the allowed range, the rocket is launched and the aircraft is taken out of the dive. The accuracy of the missile pointing is 2-2,5 m, but only under good visibility conditions.

On landfills, under ideal conditions and in the absence of anti-aircraft countermeasures, on average 75-80% missiles hit the target. But at night, in conditions of high dustiness or with all sorts of meteorological phenomena, the effectiveness of the use of missiles sharply decreased or was impossible at all. In this regard, the representatives of the Air Force expressed a desire to get a rocket, operating on the principle of "fired and forgotten." In 1986, the AGM-65D came into service with a thermal imaging cooled homing head. At the same time, thermal imaging seeker is designed as a removable module, which makes it possible to replace it with other types of guidance systems. The rocket mass increased by 10 kg, but the combat unit remained the same. It is believed that the use of IC GOS allowed to double the target acquisition range and remove restrictions on maneuvering after launch. However, in practice it turned out that it is possible to hit targets with sufficiently contrasting thermal effects. This is primarily related to technology with engines turned on or not having time to cool. At the same time, in some cases, the rocket independently redirected to powerful sources of thermal radiation: objects heated by the sun, water bodies and sheets of metal, reflecting the sun's rays, sources of open fire. As a result, the efficiency of IC GOS was not as high as desired. The AGM-65D modification missiles were mainly used at night, when the influence of interference is minimal. It was noted that thermal homing heads work well in the absence of extraneous flare in the form of burning armored vehicles, exploding shells, tracer bullets and lighting rockets.

Currently, the "Maveriki" modifications of A, B and D are removed from service due to low efficiency. They were replaced with improved AGM-65Е / F / G / N / J / K missiles. The UR AGM-65E is equipped with a laser receiver, the pointing accuracy of this missile is high, but it needs external illumination. Its weight is increased to 293 kg, and the weight of the penetrating warhead is 136 kg. The AGM-65E missile is primarily intended for the destruction of various fortifications and engineering structures. The same warheads are carried by AGM-65F and G modifications with advanced IR GOS. But they are mainly used in naval aviation to combat surface targets. The AGM-65H, J and K models are equipped with optoelectronic guidance systems based on a CCD array. Their starting weight ranges from 210 to 360 kg, and the mass of warheads from 57 to 136 kg.

Iraqi T-72, destroyed as a result of a direct hit AGM-65 Maverick missiles

In general, "Maverick" has proven itself to be quite an effective means of dealing with armored vehicles. According to American data, only in the initial period of Operation Desert Storm, these missiles launched from A-10 attack aircraft struck about 70 units of Iraqi armored vehicles. However, overlays also happened, as during the battle for Ras al-Khafji, the launch of the UR AGM-65 with illumination from an external source of target designation destroyed the US KMP LAV-25 armored personnel carrier adopted for the Iraqi BTR-60. As a result of a rocket attack, seven marines were killed.

Start UR AGM-65 Maverick from attack aircraft A-10

In Iraq, Maveriki was primarily used for early modifications, whose life cycle was close to completion. Although the anti-tank A-10 is capable of taking the 6 AGM-65 in an anti-tank configuration, the heavy tank attack rocket is excessively powerful and expensive. Since during the creation of the AGM-65 an attempt was made to get a missile suitable both for fighting tanks and for hitting stationary highly protected targets, it turned out to be rather large and heavy. If the cost of the first models of "Maverick" was approximately $ 20 thousand, then the late modifications cost the US budget more than $ 110 thousand per unit. At the same time, the cost of Soviet-made T-55 and T-62 tanks in the global arms market, depending on the technical condition of the vehicles and the transparency of the transaction, ranges from 50 to 100 thousand dollars. Thus, it is not economically feasible to use missiles to combat armored vehicles that cost more than the goal itself. With good performance and operational characteristics and combat properties, “Maverick” as an anti-tank weapon is not suitable for the criterion of “cost-effectiveness”. In this regard, the remaining missiles of the latest modifications are mainly designed to destroy surface and important ground targets.

Since the composition of the avionics at the first serial A-10A was quite simple, the possibilities for air strikes in the dark and in bad weather conditions were limited. The first step was the upgrade of the attack aircraft with the ASN-141 navigation inertial system and the APN-19 radio altimeter. In connection with the continuous improvement of the Soviet air defense, the outdated warning equipment for radar exposure AN / ALR-46 in the process of upgrading attack aircraft was replaced by radio intelligence stations AN / ALR-64 or AN / ALR-69.

At the end of 70, Fairchild Republic, on its own initiative, attempted to create an all-daily and all-weather version of A-10N / AW (English Night / Adverse Weather). The aircraft installed a Westinghouse WX-50 radar and an AN / AAR-42 thermal imaging system, combined with a laser range finder target indicator in the ventral container. A navigator-operator was introduced to the crew for servicing detection and armament equipment. In addition to searching for targets and using weapons at night, the equipment could carry out mapping and made it possible to fly around the terrain at an extremely low altitude. However, the Air Force commanders, who considered the A-10 a “lame duck”, preferred to spend the taxpayers' money on expanding the shock capabilities of the supersonic F-15 and F-16. In the middle of 80-x on the "Thunderbolt" II tried to install optoelectronic navigation and sighting container system LANTIRN. However, for financial reasons, the equipment of the single-seat attack aircraft was abandoned with a complex and expensive system.

Already in the second half of the 80-x among high-ranking military and in the US Congress began to hear voices about the need to abandon sluggish attack aircraft on the grounds that the continuously improving air defense system of the Eastern bloc countries gives little chance of survival for the Warthog, even taking into account his armor. A-10's reputation was largely saved by the operation against Iraq, which began in January of 1991. In the specific conditions of the desert, with a suppressed centralized air defense system, attack aircraft showed themselves well. They not only destroyed Iraqi armored vehicles and bombed defense units, but also hunted for OTP P-17 launchers.

"Thunderbolts" acted quite effectively, although other reports of American pilots can be compared with the "achievements" of Hans-Ulrich Rudel. So, the pilots of the A-10 pair stated that during one sortie they destroyed the enemy’s 23 tank and damaged the 10. In total, according to American data, Thunderbolts destroyed more than 1000 Iraqi tanks, 2000 other units of military equipment and 1200 artillery pieces. Most likely, these data are overestimated several times, but, nevertheless, the A-10 has become one of the most effective combat aircraft used in this armed conflict.

The tail of the A-10, which was damaged as a result of hitting the warhead of the Igla-1 missile

A total of 144 Thunderbolts took part in the operation, which carried out more than 8000 sorties. At the same time, the 7 attack aircraft were shot down and 15 suffered serious damage.

In 1999, the American “Warthogs” hunted down Serbian armored vehicles over Kosovo during a NATO military operation against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Although the Americans declared many dozens of destroyed Serbian tanks, in reality, the success of attack aircraft in the Balkans was modest. During the sortie at one of the Thunderbolts, the engine was shot off, but the plane managed to return safely to its airfield.

Since 2001, armored attack aircraft have been used against the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Bagram aerodrome in 60 km north-west of Kabul became a permanent base for Thunderbolts. Due to the lack of enemy armored vehicles, attack aircraft were used as aircraft of direct aviation support, acting at the request of the forces of the international coalition and for air patrols. During the sorties in Afghanistan, the A-10 repeatedly returned with holes from small arms and 12,7-14,5-mm caliber anti-aircraft guns, but had no losses. With low-altitude bombing, 227-kg aerial bombs with braking parachutes showed good results.

In March, 2003, the United States once again invaded Iraq. A total of 60 stormtroopers participated in Operation Freedom for Iraq. This time, too, was not without loss: April 7 was shot down by one A-10 near Baghdad International Airport. Another aircraft returned with numerous holes in the wing and fuselage, with a damaged engine and a failed hydraulic system.

Cases when the Thunderbolts struck their troops were widely publicized. So, during the battle for Nasiriy 23 March, due to uncoordinated actions of the pilot and the ground-based aircraft carrier, an air strike was inflicted on the Marine Corps. According to official data, one American died in the incident, but in reality the losses could have been greater. On that day, 18 US troops died in the fighting. In just five days, the A-10 pair mistakenly hit four British armored vehicles. In this case, one Englishman was killed. The A-10 attack aircraft continued to be used in Iraq after the main phase of the hostilities ended and with the beginning of the guerrilla war.

Although Thunderbolt II had a high impact potential, the leadership of the US Department of Defense for a long time could not decide on the future of this machine. Many US senior military favored the strike version of the F-16 Fighting Falcon fighter. The A-16 supersonic attack aircraft project presented by General Dynamics, at the end of 70, promised unification with the fighter fleet. Cockpit security was planned to increase due to the use of Kevlar armor. The main anti-tank weapons A-16 were supposed to be cumulative cluster bombs, the NAR and Maverick guided missiles. The use of a suspended 30-mm cannon, the ammunition of which included armor-piercing shells with a uranium core, was also envisaged. However, critics of the project pointed to insufficient combat survivability of the attack aircraft, created on the basis of a single-engine light fighter, and as a result the project was not implemented.

After the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR, numerous Soviet tank armies no longer threatened the countries of Western Europe, and it seemed to many that the A-10, like many other cold war relics, would soon retire. However, the attack aircraft was in demand in numerous wars unleashed by the United States, and at the beginning of the 21-th century, practical work began on its modernization. To increase the combat capabilities of 356 "Thunderbolts" allocated $ 500 million. The first upgraded attack aircraft A-10С flew in January 2005 of the year. Repairs and upgrades to the A-10C level were carried out in the 309 Group of Maintenance and Repair of the United States Air Force at Davis Montana Air Base in Arizona.

Satellite image of Google Earth: A-10C attack aircraft on the aircraft landing of Davis-Montan airbase

In addition to enhancing the design and replacement of wing elements, the aircraft’s avionics were significantly updated. Older dial instruments and a CRT screen replaced two multifunctional 14-cm color displays. The control of the aircraft and the use of weapons was simplified by introducing an integrated digital system and controls that allow you to control all the equipment without removing your hands from the control stick of the aircraft. This allowed the pilot to raise awareness of the situational situation - now he does not need to constantly look at the instruments or be distracted by the manipulation of various switches.

A-10

During the modernization, the attack aircraft received a new multiplex digital bus for exchanging data, providing communication between the on-board computer and the armament, thanks to which it became possible to use modern suspended containers for reconnaissance and target designation such as Litening II and Sniper XR. To suppress ground-based radars on the A-10C, the station of active jamming AN / ALQ-131 Block II may be suspended.

AN / ALQ-131 jamming station under the A-10С wing

Modern aim-navigation equipment and communication systems have significantly increased the shock capabilities of the upgraded attack aircraft, which was confirmed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Pilots A-10C were able to quickly find and identify targets and strike with greater accuracy. Thanks to this, Thunderbolt’s capabilities have significantly expanded in terms of using it as an aircraft of direct aviation support and during search and rescue operations.

According to the Military Balance, 2016 had an 281 A-10C in the USAF last year. In all, 1975 to 1984 year was built 715 stormtroopers. The A-10 attack aircraft was interested in the military of US allies, this aircraft was particularly relevant for the NATO countries during the Cold War. But in the case of the acquisition of a highly specialized anti-tank attack aircraft due to budgetary constraints, we would have had to sacrifice fighters and reduce our own programs to create promising combat aircraft. In 80-90-ies, the US government discussed the sale of used attack aircraft to Middle Eastern oil monarchies. But Israel sharply opposed this, and the congress did not approve the deal.

At the moment, the future of A-10C in the USA is again questionable: out of the 281, the 109 machines in the Air Force need to be replaced with wing components and other urgent repairs. Unless emergency measures are taken, then in 2018-2019, these machines will not be able to lift into the air. Earlier, the US Senate Committee on Armed Forces agreed to allocate more than $ 100 million for current and urgent repair of A-10C attack aircraft, but the contractor had difficulties with the implementation of the contract. The fact is that the production of wing and glider elements that need replacing has long been discontinued.

Google Earth satellite image: A-7 and A-10 attack aircraft stored at the Davis-Montana airbase. There is a significant difference in size between the Corsair II and the Thunderbolt II

Partially, the lack of new repair kits can be temporarily covered by parsing the attack aircraft stored at Davis-Montan, however, this measure will not help maintain A-10C’s long-term readiness, especially since the number of A-10 mothballed in Davis-Montan which you can remove the necessary parts does not exceed three dozen.

Compared with the times of confrontation between the two superpowers, at present the US military is paying much less attention to the fight against armored vehicles. In the near future is not supposed to create a specialized anti-aircraft aircraft. Moreover, in the light of the fight against "international terrorism", the US Air Force command suggests adopting a relatively light and poorly protected aircraft with direct aviation support such as the A-29 Super Tucano turboprop or Textron AirLand Scorpion twin-engine jet with a level of protection from light weapons .

In addition to the A-80 attack aircraft in the United States, the 10s considered light F-16A Block 15 and Block 25 fighter jets as the main anti-aircraft aircraft. The composition of the weapons of these modifications in addition to anti-tank cassettes included guided missiles AGM-65 Maveric.

However, faced with the high cost of heavy "Maverick", the US Air Force chose to deal with enemy armored vehicles with more affordable means. In the course of the Gulf War, the 1000-pound and 500-pound cassettes CBU-89 and CBU-78 Gator with anti-tank and anti-personnel mines became one of the most effective types of weapons that constrained Iraqi armored vehicles. The CBU-89 bomb cassette contains 72 anti-bottom mines with a BLU-91 / B and 22 magnetic fuse BLU-92 / B anti-personnel mines, and CBU-78 45 anti-tank and 15 anti-personnel mines. Mine set-ups are possible at carrier speeds up to 1300 km / h. Using 6 cassettes CBU-89, you can put a minefield of length 650 m and width 220 m. Only in 1991, American aircraft dropped 1105 CBU-89 in Iraq.

Fighter F-16 with two CBU-89 cassettes

Another effective aviation anti-tank ammunition is the 420 kg cluster bomb bomb CBU-97, equipped with ten cylindrical submunitions BLU-108 / B. After ejection from the cassette, the cylinder goes down on a parachute. Each submunition contains four disc-shaped self-aiming striking elements with a diameter of 13. After the optimum height above the ground has been reached, the submunition is unwound using a jet engine, after which the disks fly apart in different directions within a radius of 150 m, moving in a spiral and conducting a search for the target using laser and infrared sensors . If a target is found, it is defeated from above using a “shock core”. Each bomb is equipped with sensors that independently determine the optimal height of the disclosure. The use of CBU-97 is possible in the height range 60 - 6100 m and at the speed of the carrier 46 -1200 km / h.

Cluster Bomb Model CBU-97

The further development of the CBU-97 cassette anti-tank bomb was the CBU-105. It is almost completely analogous to the CBU-97, except for the presence of a flight adjustment system in submunitions.

CBU-97 operating principle

Bearers cluster bombs with antitank mines and munitions samopritselivayushimisya is not only attack A-10, which can be hung up bomb 10 454-kg cassettes, as well as F-16S / D, F-15E, deck AV-8B, F / A 18, the promising F-35 and the “strategists” of the B-1B and B-52H. In European NATO countries, the Tornado IDS, Eurofighter Typhoon, Mirage 2000D and Rafale fighter-bombers arsenal also includes various anti-tank bombs.



To be continued ...

Based on:
http://www.airvectors.net/avusmtb_2.html
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/a-x-2016.htm
https://www.amazon.com/10-Warthog-Action-Aircraft-No/dp/0897476204
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a-10/
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/gau-8.htm
http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/ANALQ131/Pages/default.aspx
http://www.militaryparitet.com/teletype/data/ic_teletype/1639/
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/blu-108.htm
https://defencyclopedia.com/2015/06/12/cbu-105-sensor-fuzed-weapon-usafs-ultimate-tank-buster/
The Military Balance 2016

Comments

[shuravi]

Truly so:
The trouble is, if the cobbler starts the cakes,
A stitching boots patisserie ...

About this photo:



There is one damage from a collision with some object. As for the holes in the fuselage, they have the same attitude to bullet, or fragmentation damage as parachutists to ballet.
In fact, these so-called combat damage caused by a special, and not even a firearm. Most likely a plumbing tool type punch.
Americans never miss a chance to advertise their weapons. And since the car is still under cancellation, then why not embellish it.

[KKND]

Quote: shuravi

Americans never miss a chance to advertise their weapons. And since the car is still under cancellation, then why not embellish it.

Yeah, Americans are such "stupid people" that even a "fake" can’t do normally. Where are they to shuravi, who saw through one photo of them.

[gromoboj]

If you look, the following things raise questions.
1. A very heap of hits. Only in one area of ​​the fuselage, although of a different caliber, they never even hit the wing. Such scattering from a distance of a kilometer will not get.
2. There are no holes from below, but are present from above.

[KKND]

Quote: gromoboj

If you look, the following things raise questions.

another expert: "the Americans were not on the moon !!! 1111"
You on Ren-tv.

[opus]

Quote: shuravi

About this photo:

This is the LA Capt. Campbell (captain Kim Campbell)

in 2003, the warthog was successfully returned from a short aviation mission near Baghdad. Her A-10 of 75-th fighter squadron was attacked by ground fire, badly damaged: vertical starboard stabilizer, horizontal stabilizer, stern of the fuselage and the engine. After the attack, the plane became uncontrollable - yawing, disruption at the peak and so on. After trying several ways to regain control, she applied a backup mechanical flight control system and, with some help from her slave, she landed on an air base.

Many have seen this. and everything is documented

From 1: 02 video report of the incident

Quote: shuravi

In fact, these so-called combat damage caused by a special, and not even a firearm. Most likely a plumbing tool type punch.

Yes Yes

and this
"grinder" (trace something fresh, "chisel, sledge hammer and American mother

and this is a hacksaw and nippers

?


after 1: 25 good shots

Quote: shuravi

There is one damage from a collision with some object.

We must ask questions:

- What is the damage? (a place)
What is in front of the stabilizer?
-The flight direction of the aircraft (well, not astern ahead), and, accordingly, the movement of air flow
- what was damaged:
"It has been a great deal of effort,"

will understand

Quote: shuravi

from colliding with some object

these damages and nonsense will not write.

Quote: shuravi

As for the holes on the fuselage, they have the same ratio of bullet or fragmentation damage as paratroopers to ballet.

Holes, holes, terminology used by women and Dmitry Olegich (instead of the term "holes"), therefore, "I am plagued by vague doubts" about the fact that you distinguish the bullet from

Quote: shuravi

punch-type fitting tools.

Quote: shuravi

The trouble is, if the cobbler starts the cakes,

that's for sure

[shuravi]

Boy, I understand your teenage ardor and desire to argue with adults, but you have no knowledge or experience for this yet.
You can write yourself in a notebook.
- holes are made during the manufacture or repair of AT
- holes, the result of exposure to weapons
- holes, that's all, including imitation of combat damage

And I brought holes. Both in Afghanistan and in Chechnya. This is how it looks:

[opus]

Quote: shuravi

Youngster

This is a sign of complex impotence, so easily to me ( ) on the "boy".
Shl. I'm too afraid to call my younger

Quote: shuravi

no experience you not yet.

Why are you seriously dreaming that I'm a sour beer with you on brotherhood?
oh ovis, ovis ...

Quote: shuravi

- holes, that's all, including imitation of combat damage

Donut Hole (Steady Expression)
Into any hole it will flash (disct.)
Hole in your favorite jeans
Hole in the hole

Well

essno.

Quote: shuravi

And I brought holes. And in Afghanistan, and in Chechnya.

my eldest, cousin, who was burning in the same Afghan (and he never will say about it)
always said

Having musk in your pocket doesn’t scream about it - the smell of musk speaks for itself.

Quote: shuravi

This is how it looks like:

Duc, let me quietly (via PM) at the IS in MOO SVVA "Afganvet" and take an interest.
still moonshine drink soon.

[shuravi]

Quote: opus

This is a sign of complex impotence, so easily to me ( ) on the "boy".
Shl. I'm too afraid to call my younger

Now, when you light up your person, then another conversation will be. And opus, he is opus.

Why are you seriously dreaming that I'm a sour beer with you on brotherhood?
oh ovis, ovis ...

You are not aware of the essence of the issue, of course.

Quote: shuravi

- holes, that's all, including imitation of combat damage

Donut Hole (Steady Expression)
Into any hole it will flash (disct.)
Hole in your favorite jeans
Hole in the hole

Well

essno.

And then why are you outraged if all your thoughts are only about holes? Which is very characteristic of adolescents.

my eldest, cousin, who was burning in the same Afghan (and he never will say about it)
always said

Having musk in your pocket doesn’t scream about it - the smell of musk speaks for itself.

Well-known wording: I’m not a pilot myself, but here’s my matchmaker, brother, godfather, brother-in-law (emphasize the necessary, and then rub any garbage).

Duc, let me quietly (via PM) at the IS in MOO SVVA "Afganvet" and take an interest.
still moonshine drink soon.

Alas, Afghanvet has long been involved in nothing more than organizing drinking.
By the way, here is a photo of fragmentation holes (shell explosion in the barrel).

[Amurets]

Quote: shuravi

Now, when you light up your person, then another conversation will be. And opus, he is opus.

Shuravi. They do not dare you, and when you write practical thoughts, they argue with you and may agree or disagree, but they never offend. I read a lot of answers to your comments, but I didn’t notice anywhere to insult you. So behave accordingly, And opus apparently out of modesty does not write about its work. Take a look at his profile, in the profiles of a number of forum users, and then you can understand where you can argue on the merits, and where you just keep silent or give reasonable arguments. By the way, here's a link to opusa's works published only on this site.

[Bongo]

Quote: opus

This is the LA Capt. Campbell (captain Kim Campbell)

Hi, hello! I did not mention his rank and name, so as not to disperse. And to argue with this "professional" - do not respect yourself.

[opus]

Quote: Bongo

And with this "professional" to argue - do not respect yourself.

Seryog .... Prvt.
And I did not know that.
/ Need to warn /
Now in the "boys" and run.

Quote: Bongo

pathology.

I'm not a medic, although I liked Dr. Richter

[shuravi]

Quote: Bongo

Quote: opus

This is the LA Capt. Campbell (captain Kim Campbell)

Hi, hello! I did not mention his rank and name, so as not to disperse. And to argue with this "professional" - do not respect yourself.

In order not to spray you say? Or maybe because I am a pro in this matter, without any quotes, unlike you?
http://artofwar.ru/editors/l/lisowoj_w_i/

[Vadim237]

"There is one damage from a collision with some object." Perhaps this item was a birdhouse that flew into your "attic" - while resting, under a tree.

[Bongo]

Quote: shuravi

There is one damage from a collision with some object. As for the holes in the fuselage, they have the same attitude to bullet, or fragmentation damage as parachutists to ballet.

Here you involuntarily recall the catch phrase of our Minister of Foreign Affairs ... there is nothing more to comment on - pathology.

[opus]

Quote: Bongo

Here you involuntarily recall the catch phrase of our Minister of Foreign Affairs

no no no.
Do not get dirty "stupid people fuck" about him.
He still did not debil, since the photo has interesting ones.

maybe what disease? I like drink too much is aggressive

Quote: shuravi

And then why are you outraged if all your thoughts are only about holes?

come on. about holes, I never once remembered; I was weaned this out with 1983 shag.
Shl. Well, at least for "you."
So the sour beer wasn’t beer, otherwise I think I have Alzheimer's in 51 (almost)

Quote: shuravi

Boy A(mine)I understand your teenage ardor

formed.

Quote: shuravi

Well-known wording: I myself am not a pilot, but here is my matchmaker, brother

I’m a “rocket launcher”, brother of the Airborne Forces Schnick (or whatever the current situation in Ukraine — an air mobile), though he is retired, a colonel in the Attachment, so to speak.
But in his youth this “Afghan” was very hot, and NEVER boasted

Quote: shuravi

Am I in this matter a pro without any quotes, unlike you?

Quote: shuravi

Alas, Afghanvet has long been involved in nothing more than organizing drinking.

I’ll probably have to make a photo report and an article on this TV (if TopWar’s merchants print it), what I did with the graves of Afghans and those who died in Finnish / 2MB (WWII) in the Leningrad Region, only one Afghan from Veta, for which

[Bongo]

Quote: opus

Do not get dirty "stupid people fuck" about him.
He still did not debil, since the photo has interesting ones.
maybe what disease?

Unfortunately, there is no filter for fools and frankly sick people.

Quote: opus

But in his youth this “Afghan” was very hot, and NEVER boasted

All people are different, but if a person by himself is not shit, then he is not from it.
The same ancient, how deserved and fighting man, who fought at different times in different "hot spots" and made more than a dozen combat sorties never this did not flaunt.

[zyablik.olga]

Quote: Bongo

All people are different, if a person is not shit, then it is not rushing from him.

Unfortunately, some of them are in abundance ...

Quote: shuravi

In order not to spray you say? Or maybe because I am a pro in this matter, without any quotes, unlike you?

Such a "comment" confirmation of this. What are you "pro" in your own self-promotion?

[KKND]

Great article, but I would like to add.
The concept of "Thunderbolt" is not considered in the complex. The main "anti-tank" weapons of the aircraft were 6 "Mavericks" and a cannon. How can six thousand missiles stop "thousands" of armored vehicles invading Europe? Answer: no way. The super-expensive "Mavericks" were needed to defeat the army air defense, which consisted of much more expensive equipment than the tanks and the missiles themselves ("Shilka", Arrow-1, Arrow -10, "Wasp", etc.) and then, after the destruction of the air defense from the “cannon”: tanks and armored personnel carriers and bmpeshki and trucks, etc. The benefit of shells is a lot. Here he needed armored personnel carriers from 14.5, he could get, and a tank from 12.7.
That's the whole "simple" concept of the aircraft, laid down by the Americans for the war in Europe, as I see it from the couch.
For some reason, the automatic stabilization system of the gun on the A-10 is not lit, which is not on the Su-25. I honestly don’t know how it works, but it is, I hope regular readers will enlighten me.
Also, thanks to the ILS, the aircraft is easier to pilot than the Su-25.
The advantage of expensive “Mavericks” is “intelligence” for the pilot, after launch, and, of course, “shot-forgot” is still better than approaching the target and highlighting it, albeit with the “joystick” CH “Mavericks” “hemorrhoids” are still the same

[Bongo]

Quote: KKND

The super-expensive "Mavericks" were needed to defeat the army air defense, which consisted of much more expensive equipment than the tanks and the missiles themselves (Shilka, Arrow-1, Arrow -10, Wasp, etc.) and then, after the destruction of the air defense from the “cannon”: tanks and armored personnel carriers and bmpeshki and trucks, etc.

Excuse me, but by what signs would they distinguish ZSU from other armored vehicles at a great distance? Despite the fact that the search and escort were conducted through the GOS missiles. And let's compare the launch range of the Wasp and Maverick of the first remote control versions. A-10 will definitely lose.

[KKND]

Quote: Bongo

Excuse me, but by what signs would they distinguish ZSU from other armored vehicles at a great distance? Despite the fact that the search and escort were conducted through the GOS missiles.

So you yourself answered. Through the GOS circuit it is quite possible to determine (there is an increase) if the distance is not too large. And in IR too.

Quote: Bongo

And let's compare the launch range of the Wasp and Maverick of the first remote control versions. A-10 will definitely lose.

Well, it may lose, but not everything is clear.

[Bongo]

Quote: KKND

So you yourself answered. Through the GOS circuit it is quite possible to determine (there is an increase) if the distance is not too large.

Cyril, with the field of view of the GOS “Mayverika” TV 5 degrees, finding a target through it is a very difficult task. As for the ICG, they worked mainly at night, at distances at which the attack aircraft was in the launch zone of MANPADS, not to mention more serious systems.

[KKND]

Quote: Bongo

Cyril, with the field of view of the GOS “Mayverika” TV 5 degrees, finding a target through it is a very difficult task.

Well it is. And how else to let? As you wrote the pilot, with the help of intelligence lays down on the course and desperately with "bastard safe mi" is trying to find the most dangerous among the targets. It is clear that these are not tanks and armored personnel carriers. With Shilka and Wasp, at least a STR can help, and even then you will find FIGs. This is not Su-25 with its television system. And only in A-10C they delivered containers with OLS.
In any case, in your opinion: Using the Mavericks against tanks, it turns out that the Americans are very wasteful.
It is possible, but it makes sense to create such a powerful weapon as a cannon, if you can throw all the Mavericks?
Expensive?
Then a lot of them do not need to be suspended.
The question is what is cheaper than 16 ATGMs with laser guidance or 6 with a television. I have no answer.
Here I’m writing a telephone, I'm sorry, hell is still

[opus]

Quote: KKND

The concept of "Thunderbolt" is not considered in the complex

not a thankful business to write about A-10 WarthogЕ

Cannon for an airplane, or an airplane for a cannon? A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft

A-10 Thunderbolt II: US main attack aircraft

The Deadly A-10 Warthog: Why the US Military Can't Kill the "Flying Tank"

Why the A-10 Warthog Is Such a Badass Plane

...
shorter, shorter

[shuravi]

Quote: KKND

For some reason, the automatic stabilization system of the gun on the A-10 is not lit, which is not on the Su-25. I honestly don’t know how it works, but it is, I hope regular readers will enlighten me.

Stabilization is applicable only to mobile artillery systems, but not to integrated ones.
Rather, inaccuracies in translation.
Accounting for shooting corrections is possible in two ways.
- a movable mark on the sight, through the instructions of which precise aiming is performed
- automatic airplane turn-around to account for corrections after pressing the trigger

[KKND]

Quote: shuravi

Stabilization is applicable only to mobile artillery systems, but not to integrated ones.
Rather, inaccuracies in translation.

Yes, I’ve mixed it up, it turns out the plane stabilizes when firing a gun. What is not on the Su-25.
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-10.htm
It is a pity that Sergei did not mention this in the article, I would like more details.

[ydjin]

There was a strong opponent.

[andrewkor]

With all the advancement of American gunsmiths, they could not make a drive from powder gases!

[KKND]

Quote: andrewkor

With all the advancement of American gunsmiths, they could not make a drive from powder gases!

Ours also failed completely. To start a gas bottle is needed.

[andrewkor]

So this is just for starting, sometimes even squibs are used, but not a permanent hydraulic or electric drive for automation. You yourself wrote: "a gas (!) Balloon is needed."

[opus]

Quote: andrewkor

Ak and could not make the drive from the powder gases!

they did not seem to try.
as M61 Vulcan and 1959 accepted, so they all arranged

[andrewkor]

And for the fact that I didn’t even try to minus them and put them!

[Amurets]

But even in this case, even several dozen relatively low-power nuclear explosions in densely populated Western Europe inevitably led to extremely undesirable consequences that could affect many more decades. Even if NATO forces were able to repel the onslaught of the armies of the Warsaw Pact countries with tactical nuclear weapons and this did not lead to the escalation of the global conflict, Europeans would have to rake up radioactive ruins for a long time, and many territories would simply become unsuitable for life.

That's why Americans began to develop neutron weapons. Moreover, the idea of ​​such a weapon came about in the mid-40s of the last century. "Former President of the World Federation of Scientific Workers Professor from Great Britain E. Burop recalled that he first heard about it back in 1944, when as part of a group of English scientists he worked in the USA on “The Manhattan Project.” Work on the creation of neutron weapons was initiated by the need to obtain a powerful military weapon with selective lethality, for use directly on the battlefield. "
"The use of neutron weapons can be especially effective in repelling a massive tank attack. It is known that tank armor at certain distances from the epicenter of an explosion (more than 300-400 m in a nuclear explosion with a power of 1 kt) provides protection for crews from shock waves and Y-radiation. "At the same time, fast neutrons penetrate steel armor without significant attenuation." https://oko-planet.su/politik/politikarm/50581-ne
jtronnoe-weapon.html
According to SAK-75. There are many of them in the SA. He had too many shortcomings: bulkiness, complexity and duration of deployment, liquid fuel in missiles, low passability of the ZIL-150 chassis.
For the rest, I liked the article, Thank you.

[Bongo]

Quote: Amurets

By SAK-75. There are many of them in the SA.

Hi!
But they were in the army and front line. Or do you want to say that the brigades armed "Circle", and then C-300B was more?

[Amurets]

Quote: Bongo

But they were in the army and front line.

Hello, Sergey. I want to say that this SAM in the ground forces of the SA-75 did not like. The reasons I wrote above.

[sivuch]

Sergey, hello
Yes, in total, around 40 brigades were armed with Circles; by 91, part of them had been rearmament on Buki + 2 on С-300В. Plus, the Circles were for most of the VD ally, some also with the brigade, and others with the regimental OSh. So yes, more and much more.

[Bongo]

Quote: sivuch

Yes, in total, around 40 brigades were armed with Circles; by 91, part of them had been rearmament on Buki + 2 on С-300В. Plus, the Circles were for most of the VD ally, some also with the brigade, and others with the regimental OSh. So yes, more and much more.

Hi, Igor!
That is, you want to say that at the same time there were 40 "Krugovsky" brigades in the air defense forces of the SV? At the beginning of the 80 90's, one or two brigades were part of the Air Defense Army. That is, their number can be roughly calculated.

[sivuch]

http://www.vif2ne.org/nvk/forum/arhprint/239456
At 1991 year in the "zone to the Urals" there were the following front-line anti-aircraft missile brigades:
25-I air defense system (PriVVO) 43-I air defense system (PriVVO) 46-I air defense system (OVVO)
133-I ZBD (ZGV)
137-I ZBD (KVO)
Sh-jazrbr (LVO)
147-I ZBD (BVI)
157-I ZBD (ZGV)
163-I ZBD (ZGV)
202-I ZBD (ZGV)
252-I ZBD (ZGV)
296-I zbr (ZakVO
For the 1991 year, the anti-aircraft missile brigades of the army link in the "zone to the Urals" were:
5-I zbrr (MBO, 13-I Guards AK)
18-I ZBR (ZGV, 8-I Guards OA)
29-I SRBD (BVI, 7-I TA)
49-I ZBD (ZGV, 3-I ОА)
53-I ZBR (ZGV, 1-I Guards TA)
55-I ZBD (UGV)
56-I zbrr (BVI, 5-I Guards TA)
59-I zbrr (ZakVO, 7-I Guards OA)
61-I ZBR (ZGV, 2-I Guards TA)
62-I ZRBR (PrikVO, 13-I ОА)
67-I ZBR (ZGV, 20-I Guards OA)
102-I ZRBR (SKVO, 12-th AK)
108-I zbrr (KVO, 1-I Guards OA)
117-I zbr (ZakVO, 4-I ОА)
120-I ZBD (BVI, 28-I OA) *
138-I zbrr (PrikVO, 8-I TA)
140-I ZBD (SGV)
151-Язрбр (ПУрВО)
156-I zbrr (OdVO, 14-I Guards OA)
179-I ZBD (SKVO)
223-I ЗРБР (PrikVO, 38-I О А)
269-I zbrr (KVO, 6-I guards. TA)
271-I ZRBR (LVO, 6-I OA)
295-I zbrr (Appr., 11-I Guards OA)
297-I ZRBR (PUVVO)
In the zone “beyond the Urals”, the Krug air defense missile system was equipped, in particular, with the 2-I air defense system TurkVO **; the brigades of the Krug air defense missile system were also in SAVO *** and the Far East ****.

[Bongo]

Quote: sivuch

http://www.vif2ne.org/nvk/forum/arhprint/239456
At 1991 year in the "zone to the Urals" there were the following front-line anti-aircraft missile brigades:
25-I air defense system (PriVVO) 43-I air defense system (PriVVO) 46-I air defense system (OVVO)
133-I ZBD (ZGV)
137-I ZBD (KVO)
Sh-jazrbr (LVO)
147-I ZBD (BVI)
157-I ZBD (ZGV)
163-I ZBD (ZGV)
202-I ZBD (ZGV)
252-I ZBD (ZGV)
296-I zbr (ZakVO
For the 1991 year, the anti-aircraft missile brigades of the army link in the "zone to the Urals" were:
5-I zbrr (MBO, 13-I Guards AK)
18-I ZBR (ZGV, 8-I Guards OA)
29-I SRBD (BVI, 7-I TA)
49-I ZBD (ZGV, 3-I ОА)
53-I ZBR (ZGV, 1-I Guards TA)
55-I ZBD (UGV)
56-I zbrr (BVI, 5-I Guards TA)
59-I zbrr (ZakVO, 7-I Guards OA)
61-I ZBR (ZGV, 2-I Guards TA)
62-I ZRBR (PrikVO, 13-I ОА)
67-I ZBR (ZGV, 20-I Guards OA)
102-I ZRBR (SKVO, 12-th AK)
108-I zbrr (KVO, 1-I Guards OA)
117-I zbr (ZakVO, 4-I ОА)
120-I ZBD (BVI, 28-I OA) *
138-I zbrr (PrikVO, 8-I TA)
140-I ZBD (SGV)
151-Язрбр (ПУрВО)
156-I zbrr (OdVO, 14-I Guards OA)
179-I ZBD (SKVO)
223-I ЗРБР (PrikVO, 38-I О А)
269-I zbrr (KVO, 6-I guards. TA)
271-I ZRBR (LVO, 6-I OA)
295-I zbrr (Appr., 11-I Guards OA)
297-I ZRBR (PUVVO)
In the zone “beyond the Urals”, the Krug air defense missile system was equipped, in particular, with the 2-I air defense system TurkVO **; the brigades of the Krug air defense missile system were also in SAVO *** and the Far East ****.

It’s hard to say how reliable this data is. But in the 5th Army, with headquarters in Ussuriysk, at the beginning of the 90's there were 2 "Krugovsky" brigades. One way or another, C-75М3 was much larger.

[sivuch]

So these are different departments. I thought you were talking about the shelves with C-75, which were originally in SV. There were few of them.

[Bongo]

Quote: sivuch

So these are different departments. I thought you were talking about the shelves with C-75, which were originally in SV. There were few of them.

You got it right. Of course in the 80 C-75 in the air defense of the NE was not. I compare the total number of C-75 and the "Circle" in service with the collapse of the Union.

[Aviator_]

The Krug air defense missile system is also liquid, although, of course, the mobility of the C-75 is still only slightly better than that of the old purely stationary C-25

[Amurets]

Quote: Aviator_

SAM "Circle" is also liquid

The Krug missile launcher had a ramjet engine. She didn’t need an oxidizing agent and could be transported seasoned. That is the fundamental difference.

[Aviator_]

Naturally, forward flow. But the fuel is liquid, which is what I had in mind. Of course, for the operation, the main hemorrhoids are a liquid oxidizing agent, which is not in the Circle.

[Amurets]

Quote: Aviator_

Of course, for the operation, the main hemorrhoids are a liquid oxidizing agent, which is not in the Circle.

This is what I had in mind. The oxidizer "Melange" AK-20I and fuel "Samin" in addition and self-ignite.

[Bongo]

Quote: Aviator_

Naturally, forward flow. But the fuel is liquid, which is what I had in mind.

Fuel is kerosene. The last Krug Circle air defense systems were written off somewhere in the 2006 year. EMNIP these were two brigades on Sakhalin and in the Russian contingent in Georgia. By that time, the complexes were essentially no longer operational. Due to cracking of rubber tanks, kerosene mercilessly flowed out of missiles, which made their operation unsafe.

[Amurets]

Quote: Bongo

Due to cracking of the rubber tanks, kerosene mercilessly flowed from the missiles, which made their operation unsafe.

Anton (orus) somehow gave that by the end of the operation on the Dzerzhinsky cruiser, the V-753 missiles (naval version of the V-750) also flowed tanks and not the oxidizer tanks, but the fuel tanks. And on the V-750 missiles, the tanks were metal. So that “Tonka” is still disgusting.
"TG-02 (according to GOST 17147-80 or VTU No. EU-66-54 MHP, short for" GIPH-02 Fuel ", also the unclassified name -" Samin product ") - fuel, which is a mixture of technical isomeric xylidines and technical triethylamine in 1: 1 ratio (by weight). It is an easily moving yellow to dark brown oily liquid with a characteristic odor for fatty amines. According to its toxicological characteristics, it belongs to the third hazard class (MPC is 3 mg / m³).
It is used as a component of rocket fuel for rocket engines, paired with oxidizing agents based on nitric acid, which, when contacted, spontaneously ignites.
The composition of the fuel TG-02 was developed in Germany during the Second World War and had the German name - “Tonka-250”. It was used on a number of cruise, anti-aircraft and ballistic missiles, as well as on launch vehicles. Also, mixtures of Tonka-500 were developed (35% octane, 20% benzene, including xylene, 12% xylidine (English) Russian, 10% aniline, 10% methyl vinyl ether (English) Russian. , 8% ethylamine (English), 5% methylamine) and R-Stoff (the latter is often identified with the Tonka-250 fuel, although it contains a different ratio of components - 43% triethylamine and 57% xylidines (weight)). [ 1]"

[DimerVladimer]

Imagine how to store in the arsenal of the ship - the concentration of flammable, toxic and explosive substances.
It’s scary to imagine what happens when not even a missile hits, but fragments enter the ship’s arsenal. Although on
Photographed in TAVKR KIEV (2016) - of course there are completely different missiles.
This is a basalt P-500 mockup (Navy URAV Index: 4K80)

[Amurets]

Quote: DimerVladimer

Imagine how to store in the arsenal of the ship - the concentration of flammable, toxic and explosive substances.

Imagine. A nightmare for firefighters and greens.

[DimerVladimer]

complex mechanisms for extracting from the arsenal, feeding the elevator onto the deck, loading into the container - many complex operations that require the reliability of equipment and operator experience.
This is how it looks on deck.
TAVKR Kiev

[garri-lin]

And you can in more detail about the Russian contingent in Georgia in the 2006 year. Thanks in advance.

[Bongo]

Quote: garri-lin

And you can in more detail about the Russian contingent in Georgia in the 2006 year. Thanks in advance.

The complete withdrawal of personnel and equipment from Russian military bases in Georgia was completed by mid-November 2007.

[opus]

Quote: Amurets

That is the fundamental difference.

but also had restrictions on the angles of attack, that is, on the "maneuverability" / overload

Quote: Aviator_

Of course, for the operation, the main hemorrhoids are liquid oxidizing agents

sometimes there’s fuel and that opa.
In the pair AT + UDMH I do not know sales even

[Amurets]

whose

Quote: opus

but also had restrictions on the angles of attack, that is, on the "maneuverability" / overload

Anton, who would argue, I will not. Each "head" has its own cockroaches. I mean every product has its own troubles.

[DimerVladimer]

SAM ZM8 has a weight of about 2,5 tons, flight speed up to 1000 m / s. Equipped with marching supersonic ramjet, (fuel 270 kg of kerosene), four starting solid propellant boosters. In our laboratory, this lay - almost the same thinned for illustration :)
Well, a very bulky SAM.

[Amurets]

Quote: DimerVladimer

Well, a very bulky SAM.

Still smaller than the B-750 SAM S-75
Type of rocket: two-stage SAM
The first step is a powder launch booster
Second stage - liquid
Guidance System: Radio Command
Missile length: 10600 mm
The diameter of the housing of the first stage: 700 mm
Swing stabilizers:
Minimum target range: 7 km
Maximum range of destruction of targets: 29 - 34 km
Maximum height of target destruction: 25 - 27 km
SAM speed> 3 Mach
Starting weight: 2300 kg
Warhead: high-explosive fragmentation
Warhead weight: 200 kg
Warhead undermining method:
CA-75 (1957) - radio command from a control post;
S-75 (1959) - non-contact radio fuse

or 5V28 SAM S-200
Characterization
C-200A
C-200B
S-200D

The number of channels per target
1
1
1

The number of channels on the rocket
2
2
2

Range, km
17-180
17-240
17-300

Target altitude, km
0.5-40
0.5-40
0.3-40

Rocket length, mm
10600
10800
10800

Caliber rocket (march stage), mm
860
860
860

Rocket launch weight, kg
-
7100
8000

Warhead weight, kg
217
217
217

Probability of hitting the target
0.45-0.98
0.66-0.99
0.72-0.99

[DimerVladimer]

As you say, it is undoubtedly more mobile in operation than the S-75.

Both of them had their drawbacks.

Especially before fixing jambs with a fuel intake system from tanks on the S-75.
When in Vietnam, American pilots went on a dive, in a rocket, with a negative negative pitch, fuel intake devices grabbed the air plug and the engine stalled. According to the results of the application - fixed.
Here is a system in section.

[Amurets]

Quote: DimerVladimer

Especially before fixing jambs with a fuel intake system from tanks on the S-75.

Thank. I did not know such a moment.

[sivuch]

Liquid, but not so filthy. Usual carasin. AT preder , sorry, in the OZK did not have to work

[KKND]

The people, can we get Sergey collecting money for articles? Let him write super-quality articles for material incentive. Type collected 5000 here you have an article about the Circle in 2 weeks. And it’s a pity, he is tearing up, and all sorts of shurov slop him over him.
And let him take the quality of work to a new level.

[sivuch]

Actually, I wrote a hefty monograph about the Circle
Where is the money, Zin?

[KKND]

Quote: sivuch

Where is the money, Zin?

It was necessary to register on kickstarter, there is a principle: in the morning money, in the evening chairs.
Sergey announces the cost of the article (5000 for example) and its topic (SAM Circle, for example), he collected it, he released it, did not collect it (less collected) - he doesn’t release it to readers.
Personally, I am ready to spend about 200 rubles on quality material.
Generally here: https: //www.kickstarter.com/
There are other sites, this one is the most popular.

[sivuch]

I have low performance, so it doesn't suit me.

[Bongo]

Quote: sivuch

Actually, I wrote a hefty monograph about the Circle
Where is the money, Zin?

I immediately remembered about you. By the way, the monograph about "Circle" is written very well!

[Bongo]

Quote: KKND

The people, can we get Sergey collecting money for articles? Let him write super-quality articles for material incentive. Type collected 5000 here's an article about the Circle in 2 weeks.

About the Circle - this is to Igor.

Quote: KKND

And it’s a pity, he is tearing up, and all sorts of shurov slop him over him.

As for this, as they say in the East, the dog barks, and the caravan moves on. If a person is not able to communicate correctly with others, then this is his problem.

[Razvedka_Boem]

Cases were widely publicized when the Thunderbolts attacked their troops

It was said that during the fighting, the pilots took various stimulants designed for the military, and that the "friendly fire" was due to the use of these drugs.

[Lopatov]

Nonsense.
There, it is very easy to make mistakes without stimulants.

[Razvedka_Boem]

The official use of amphetamines in the US Army was banned in 1992 by the then head of the Air Force, General Merrill MacPick: "... if you think you need pills to meet the danger, you are not doing your thing," said the general. Then the widespread use of pills during the first war in Iraq led to the fact that some pilots "hooked" on them - even to the extent that they were engaged in narcologists.

Despite the official ban on the use of these drugs in the United States, the Pentagon, without further publicity, restored the practice of their use during recent military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. As it became known to one of the television companies, the US Air Force "without too much publicity restored the practice" of the use of amphetamines - strong stimulant drugs that help personnel cope with stress. According to representatives of the US military command, the use of such drugs is necessary to combat the fatigue and stress of military personnel taking part in military operations lasting more than eight nine hours.

Due to the possibility of mental addiction, amphetamines cause heated debate among US specialists, especially when it comes to pilots.

In addition, there is another negative circumstance of the use of psychostimulants. Under extreme physical and mental stress, pilots are so inflated with stimulants that in order to fall asleep at all, they need a strong dose of sedative. According to doctors, it is such an alternate use of stimulants and tranquilizers for a long time that can cause unpredictable reactions.

At the same time, according to the US Air Force command, amphetamines are used by pilots on a voluntary basis. Each of those who wish to receive pills in writing confirms that they are informed about the consequences of taking the drugs. However, the command at the same time Jesuit reserves the right to prevent the pilot from flying if he refuses to take drugs. According to the testimonies received by pilots who have to fly over Iraq and Afghanistan, the pilot can be recognized as “unfit for flight” if he does not take these drugs. Thus, the pilots fall under the powerful, but unofficial pressure of the leadership, forcing them to take doping.

However, even unwritten instructions require that the drug is taken only under the supervision of a doctor and only in the appropriate dosage. However, hardly anyone is able to guarantee full and comprehensive control of the use of such drugs in the armed forces, especially in conditions of hostilities and the developed pharmacological industry of the United States.

Regrettably, the use of amphetamines does not guarantee against errors on the battlefield. Sometimes it aggravates the state of the military due to the individual susceptibility of the human body to psychostimulants, which entails a paradoxical reaction. Therefore, in some conditions and in some people, amphetamines develop lethargy, hallucinations and psychoses.

Attention to the widespread use of doping in the US Air Force was attracted by the incident in Afghanistan in April 2002, when the American pilot Harry Schmidt, taking two tablets of this amphetamine (in the local jargon, simply “speed” or “Go Pills”), accidentally bombed in the Kandahar area a column of Canadian allies, leaving 4 people dead and 8 injured. It turned out that under the influence of amphetamine was not only Major Schmidt, but also his partner Umbakh, that is, both pilots F-16 fought in a state of doping intoxication.

Deciding that "they were firing at him from an artillery gun," Schmidt "took measures of self-defense," although he was warned that return fire could not be opened. The bombing of the Canadian contingent by the US Air Force pilots during the night exercises plunged everyone into shock. A scandal erupted. Both pilots were given to the tribunal.

During the investigation of the incident, Schmidt's lawyer accused psychostimulants of everything, which the commanders forced the pilot to take. Despite a formal ban on US Air Force pilots, amphetamines - stimulant drugs have long been the norm. Whether you want it or not, you can’t avoid them. “Those who do not take pills are not allowed to fly,” Schmidt explained at a press conference.

http://www.specnaz.ru/article/?1469

[Nikolaevich I]

As for guided missiles against tanks .... somehow there was a message that the US military was considering the option of arming the A-10 with Hellfire missiles .... apparently, they didn’t "consider" it! A-10 attack aircraft also served as a "motive" to follow when developing "national" projects in some countries, "gravitating" to the United States (Sweden, New Zealand ...)

[Operator]

An anti-tank single-seat jet airplane is the biggest failure of US Army planners: it’s almost impossible to direct ATGMs at a speed of 540-750 km / h, and to fly up to tank units protected by Shilka at a distance of 1200 meters is a guaranteed suicide.

Therefore, the real anti-tank weapon in the NATO armies was and is double-seat helicopters firing ATGMs in hover mode, and, in the case of large-scale military operations, low-power neutron charges detonated in the air at an altitude of 0,5-1 km in order to minimize induced radiation.

A-10 is a means for war with third-rate armies and slippers, no more.

[AlexanderBrv]

True remark! Thunderbolt II is an attack aircraft for the war with the Tereti countries, with weak air defense of the battlefield!

[opus]

Quote: Operator

it’s almost impossible to direct ATGMs to the pilot at 540-750 km / h,

and fly up to the tank units, protected by "Shilki", at a distance of 1200 meters

The range of the Hellfire rocket is 8-11 kilometers, which is further than the Bastion missile system (5 kilometers), which is located on the modernized T-55MV and T-55M. Also, the Svir and Invar missiles armed with the T-72Б and T-72Б3, respectively, are also inferior in flight range (5 kilometers)

Also, the attack aircraft can use AGM-65 "Maverick" missiles, the maximum range of which is 30 kilometers

tank "subunits" flew up, destroyed, flew away, even under the "shilka" ... mmm .. how was it "vacuum consumed"

Quote: Operator

firing ATGMs in hover mode

can a jump?
The actions of a group of helicopters when striking a tank column


Shl. McDonnell Douglas AH-64 Apache has on board the same AGM-114 "Hellfire (up to 11 kilometers launch range).
And to blame ... I would personally prefer on a warthog. at least a chance

Quote: Operator

A-10 is a means for war with third-rate armies and slippers, no more.

Oh well

Quote: AlexanderBrv

it’s an attack aircraft for the war with the “Tereti countries”, with weak air defense of the battlefield!

the strong air defense of the “battlefield” is not infinite, which is material, which is denyuzhku.

[shuravi]

Quote: opus

can a jump?
The actions of a group of helicopters when striking a tank column

Exactly what is starting from the hover mode. Hopping is the use of sites, essentially temporary field heliports.

[Operator]

Before firing the Maverick at 30 km, the A-10 pilot must visually detect the target (tank / infantry fighting vehicle). From the 1970's to the 2000's, such optical devices did not exist from the word at all. Seeing a target in flight through a picture from the GOS "Maverica" ​​with a viewing angle of 5 degrees is fantastic.

And the A-10 pilot still had to manage to pilot the plane as close to the ground as possible, so as not to run into an anti-aircraft missile, and even monitor the airspace so that it would not be shot down by any MiG-21, MiG-23 or MiG-29, which the Warsaw Pact countries had as mud.

Whether it’s an anti-tank helicopter case - it hid behind a vertical obstacle 11 km away from the target, on the command of a reconnaissance helicopter climbed over the obstacle, hovered, shot “Helfire” and was free after 20 seconds.

[sivuch]

Generally speaking, the Thunderbolt designers seemed fixated on defending against missiles with an infrared head. He is really protected from them almost perfectly (although in the Iraqi region 2 boars were shot down by Arrows-10 in one day). But from artillery and rockets with r / com is not too much - a large midsection, low speed. It is good (for the A-10, of course) that the opponents had nothing more serious than Shilka.

[KKND]

On Arrows-10, a dual-mode homing head. IR + photo contrast. And there are few clouds over the desert. Maybe it helped?

Quote: sivuch

although in the Iraqi region 2 boars were shot down by Arrows-10 in one day)

[sivuch]

It is quite possible that Strela-1 had victories, and here they could use f / c

[shuravi]

Quote: Amurets

Quote: shuravi

Now, when you light up your person, then another conversation will be. And opus, he is opus.

Shuravi. They do not dare you, and when you write practical thoughts, they argue with you and may agree or disagree, but they never offend. I read a lot of answers to your comments, but I didn’t notice anywhere to insult you. So behave accordingly, And opus apparently out of modesty does not write about its work. Take a look at his profile, in the profiles of a number of forum users, and then you can understand where you can argue on the merits, and where you just keep silent or give reasonable arguments. By the way, here's a link to opusa's works published only on this site.

Firstly, who took on the role of judges to decide what I say sensibly and what not?
Secondly, I’m not a psychologist from emergency care, because if the next "special" is taken to educate me, I can answer sharply.
Thirdly, from the photo itself, which so excited opusa, but from which he did not say anything sensible:



Why I can’t call these holes combat damage, I’ll explain later.
In the meantime, who thinks differently, let him name what ammunition he could have inherited.

[DimerVladimer]

Quote: shuravi

In the meantime, who thinks differently, let him name what ammunition he could have inherited.

Small-caliber missile - rather MANPADS on a catch-up course. Arrow-2 may very well be.
Judging by the fan of dispersion of fragments - very close to the fuselage exploded sorry not to see the general picture of damage.
By the way - the fact that the plane survived - this suggests that Arrow-2 really is.

The complex was used in Vietnam.
However, the combat use of the complex showed that its effectiveness is insufficient. Many damaged aircraft returned to their bases and were put back into service after repairs lasting only a few hours. This was because the missiles hit the tail of the aircraft, which contained few vital systems and assemblies, and the power of the warhead of the missile was insufficient to create a large area of ​​destruction of the target structure.
In accordance with the Government Decree of September 2, 1968, the Strela-2 complex was modernized

These damages are characteristic of the small-fragmented “shirt” Strela-2 (as a memory design) - fragments of a square section.
The rocket was in our context - as a textbook.
We had a lot of interesting things - even the engine from the FAU-1, FAU-2 :))

[shuravi]

Quote: DimerVladimer

Quote: shuravi

In the meantime, who thinks differently, let him name what ammunition he could have inherited.

Small-caliber missile - rather MANPADS on a catch-up course. Arrow-2 may very well be.
Judging by the fan of dispersion of fragments - very close to the fuselage exploded sorry not to see the general picture of damage.
By the way - the fact that the plane survived - this suggests that Arrow-2 really is.

What do such vast spots of chips paintwork around the so-called "combat damage" say?

[garri-lin]

It seems a little like a rocket. At the closest examination (as far as the quality of the photo allows), it can be seen that the axis of penetration of the skin is close to the perpendicular. This cannot happen from a rocket explosion. The curvature of the skin in the affected area is large. Explicitly more than 100 degrees. Missile fragments in different zones would leave holes of different shapes from round to very elongated oval. But this is not in the photo.

[DimerVladimer]

Its 5 cents - Tanks against aviation :))

The Chinese version of the ZSU-57-2 (in the same place in Tianjin - next to TAVKR Kiev)

[Bongo]

Quote: DimerVladimer

Chinese version ZSU-57-2

I have not heard that ZSU-57-2 was built in China. Most likely a Soviet-made car.

[Amurets]

Quote: Bongo

I have not heard that ZSU-57-2 was built in China. Most likely a Soviet-made car.

Sergei. I have not heard, this does not mean that it was not. Here you are: "Red Dragon" Military equipment and weapons of China. Tanks.

[Bongo]

Quote: Amurets

Sergei. I have not heard, this does not mean that it was not. Here you are: "Red Dragon" Military equipment and weapons of China. Tanks.

Nikolai, this is most likely an experimental car. In the "grooved" reference books (albums) it was not mentioned.

[Amurets]

Quote: Bongo

Ikolay, this is most likely an experimental car. In the "grooved" reference books (albums) it was not mentioned.

Sergei. This installation was carried out by NORINCO for export, but failed, it was simply not bought because of its primitiveness. What they managed to release was in trial operation at the PLA. The source was Iraqi ZSU-57-2, Soviet-made, bought by China in Iraq, already in the 80s. Well now you can imagine the level of its technical equipment.

[KKND]

Nikolay is right, the repeaters could not resist and copied. In the 80s it was very difficult to bring down something with this.

[Amurets]

[quote = Amur] [quote = Bongo] I have not heard that the ZSU-57-2 was built in China. Most likely a Soviet-made car. [/ quote]
Sergei. I have not heard, this does not mean that it was not. Here you are: "Red Dragon" Military equipment and weapons of China. Tanks. This is a continuation: ZSU created on the basis of the Type 69 tank

[novel66]

how did I click this part! finally my favorite (patriots forgive me) warthog! Thank you, thank you, thank you so much to all thanks!

[Alexey Vasilievich I]

I still still can not understand how a 30 mm cannon can be the main means of destruction of TANKs in a modern war ??? All A-10 lovers or children who have played computer games involving this aircraft, admire the roar of its guns, post beautiful video of flares on the ground from shells, etc. etc. BUT, what can GAU-8 / A do, for example, T-72B3 or T-90A?
Unless sweep away all attachments from them. And for the sake of this, the A-10 pilot should take a good chance at his fifth point, circling our tanks
Well, and so, of course, he shoots beautifully, spectacularly, in an American way

[Usher]

Can the Maverick work on a moving target?