A-29 Super Tucano and AT-6 Wolverine hit the final of the tender for light attack aircraft for the USAF

79
The United States Air Force reached the final of the program Light Attack, also known as OA-X. According to the portal flightglobal.com, the US military command has named two finalists of the tender, in the framework of which the army will receive new light strike aircraft.

According to Heather Wilson, spokesman for the US Air Force, A-29 Super Tucano and AT-6 Wolverine aircraft were selected for the final testing phase. Thus, the Textron Scorpion and Air Tractor AT-802L Longsword aircraft dropped out of competition. The final stage of the A-29 Super Tucano and AT-6 Wolverine tests will take place from May to July at the Davis-Monten Air Force Base (Arizona).



A-29 Super Tucano and AT-6 Wolverine hit the final of the tender for light attack aircraft for the USAF

Light attack AT-6 Wolverine


To date, the US Air Force has only one aircraft directly supporting infantry on the battlefield - A-10 Thunderbolt. 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.


Light attack aircraft Embraer A-29 Super Tucano


Super Tucano is a light turboprop attack aircraft produced by Embraer, a Brazilian company (the first prototype took off in the 1999 year). Initially, the Super Tucano was designed as a training aircraft, but was subsequently modified and became combat.

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

The US Air Force says that the new aircraft will allow efficient and cost-effective use Aviation in conflicts with low intensity. If the flight hour of the F-35 fighter is estimated at $ 42, then for light attack aircraft this amount will be less than $ 000, reports "Warspot"
79 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    5 February 2018 10: 42
    Why are these machines needed recourse
    1. +12
      5 February 2018 10: 43
      Quote: Sergey ui
      Why are these machines needed recourse

      what... for war
      1. +5
        5 February 2018 10: 44
        For which, World War II?
        1. +15
          5 February 2018 10: 47
          Quote: Sergey ui
          For which, World War II?

          Papuans bomb smile
          1. +11
            5 February 2018 11: 38
            Quote: Black
            Papuans bomb

            good Those who will not send an answer ... The article clearly says
            use aviation in low-intensity conflicts at minimal cost
            Low intensity is when you do what you want with the Papuans, and the Papuans do what they can ....
            1. +4
              5 February 2018 15: 53
              Quote: Zoldat_A
              Low intensity is when you do what you want with the Papuans, and the Papuans do what they can ....

              Papuans most likely - that they can ...
              1. +8
                5 February 2018 16: 28
                Quote: svp67
                Quote: Zoldat_A
                Low intensity is when you do what you want with the Papuans, and the Papuans do what they can ....

                Papuans most likely - that they can ...

                Then - what will the instructors teach ... recourse We did something. And you would have seen with what desire and diligence the Vietnamese are studying! But it was bad with Africa ... Teach - do not teach ... fool
        2. +16
          5 February 2018 11: 04
          A different approach. That is, if you take for example the Su-25 (here the recent tragedy demonstrates perfectly) - it works on visuals. That is, the pilot looks for the target with his eyes, enters it, attacks, leaves. Search for a target, approach, attack and exit = it is vulnerable to MZA and MANPADS, because without an aiming station, one cannot see anything with 3-4km.

          Americans are leaning towards a different concept. There is an ultra-resource plane flight with a cheap flying hour. It has an excellent optical-electronic multi-mode circular viewing station with an individual person (operator). So it can be located in the area of ​​accumulation of forces and means of the broads, in relative safety (it will not get MANPADS, MZA only if Allah deigns). In this case, the aircraft is a platform for guided weapons (bombs / missiles) of the adult type, that is, about the same as that suspended under the F-16 / F-35 on an attack mission.

          Such an aircraft, being outside the zone of destruction by forces and means of non-army units (i.e., anti-aircraft artillery without centralized posts, MANPADS), can conduct reconnaissance and strike attacks against identified targets.

          Su-25 even SM3 this can not. He must look for goals with his eyes, relying on high survivability to enter the enemy’s counteraction zone.
          1. 0
            5 February 2018 11: 34
            For these purposes (to bomb the Papuans), it would be better if the drone came up. The Americans have some great designs. It remains to reduce the cost, simplify. Make the same toucan drone
          2. +4
            5 February 2018 12: 54
            that is why instead of the Su-25 you need a two-seater lifting IL-102.
            Such a replacement had to be made back in the 80s, but better late than never.
          3. +2
            5 February 2018 16: 42
            That is how the A-10s are already operating, 5-10 km above the field where MANPADS and anti-aircraft guns are not available. There, armor and speed are not needed. And our old-fashioned people are forced to work by eye. The downed Su-25 was only a matter of time.
          4. 0
            6 February 2018 00: 56
            Well, when they adopt this waxwing, then it will be possible to say how much the US concept is adequate. Whatever the Su-25 was “not like that,” the percentage of its losses in Syria is negligible. One side for several hundred sorties. How much have the Rooks done there?
            In addition, what you described is not a ground attack aircraft, it is a light bomber.
      2. +3
        5 February 2018 10: 49
        An even more budgetary option is to use the Japanese experience with the Americans:
      3. +4
        5 February 2018 10: 50
        illegal immigrants to drive! Hi hi
    2. +7
      5 February 2018 10: 46
      Well it's written right there:
      Quote: Sergey ui
      It will allow to use aviation efficiently and at minimal cost in conflicts with low intensity. If the flight hour of the F-35 fighter is estimated at $ 42, then for light attack aircraft this amount will be less than $ 000
      1. 0
        5 February 2018 12: 15
        We have used the SU-25 efficiently and at minimal cost.
    3. +7
      5 February 2018 10: 48
      Quote: Sergey ui
      Why are these machines needed

      Mainly to fight all sorts of rebels.
      Development Prospects for the Third World Air Force
      "Toucan Class" (clickable) hi
      1. +7
        5 February 2018 12: 49
        Quote: Bongo
        Mainly to fight all sorts of rebels.

        Serega hello.
        Not only. A variant of the Iraq war is also suitable when all enemy air defenses are crushed. Why drive F-35 or F-18, if you can send this attack aircraft, which will do everything no worse and for less money?
        1. +4
          5 February 2018 14: 24
          Quote: NEXUS
          Serega hello.

          Hi Andrew!
          Quote: NEXUS
          Not only. A variant of the Iraq war is also suitable when all enemy air defenses are crushed. Why drive F-35 or F-18, if you can send this attack aircraft, which will do everything no worse and for less money?

          Of course you are right! But it is unlikely in the US "Super Tukano" will be adopted in significant quantities. Most likely, the A-29 or T-6 percussion variant will be used in special forces support squadrons. But in the "developing countries" such attack aircraft can become the main striking force. The cost of their operation is many times lower than that of modern combat helicopters, not to mention jet fighters.
    4. +2
      5 February 2018 10: 59
      Quote: Sergey ui
      Why are these machines needed recourse

      After suppressing the enemy’s air defense, such aircraft can fight the partisans indefinitely, only I thought they would give this role to drones.
      1. +2
        5 February 2018 14: 03
        Quote: figvam
        .. After the suppression of enemy air defense, such aircraft can be ...

        It seems to me that the Americans neither know their history nor study a stranger. All the years of the Afghan war, the DShK factor was present, and the spirits more than once proved that they were excellent shooters.
        Although let those who will fly these planes worry about it. As I understand it, they will be settled on AFB Davis Montan, exactly instead of A-10, well, there’s an airplane cemetery nearby ..
    5. +2
      5 February 2018 11: 00
      Why are these machines needed

      Congress allocated $ 700 billion, it is necessary to shove it somewhere ...
    6. +5
      5 February 2018 11: 05
      Why are these machines needed
      The other day we discussed this topic. For the fight against terrorists, in particular in Syria, Afghanistan. The Americans felt that it was economically viable and practical.
    7. +7
      5 February 2018 11: 57
      Quote: Sergey ui
      Why are these machines needed recourse

      The attack aircraft does not need supersonic. And therefore, a turboprop cheap airplane that can be riveted by the thousands will come down. The flight hour of such an aircraft is incomparably cheaper than that of the F-35, F-18, etc., while it is also inexpensive to maintain. And training pilots on such an attack aircraft will be much cheaper and faster than on the same F-35.
      1. ZVO
        +6
        5 February 2018 12: 16
        Quote: NEXUS
        The attack aircraft does not need supersonic.


        Hundreds of "local generals" are now indignant ...
        They always shouted that they needed to reach the enemy very quickly ...
        Take off and fly ... And preferably on 3 Machs.

        And you know what you swung at ... The idea of ​​a constant presence in the air ... wink
        1. +7
          5 February 2018 12: 22
          Quote: ZVO
          And you know what you swung at ... The idea of ​​a constant presence in the air ...

          The attack aircraft works at low altitudes an occult over the battlefield. In its creation, priority is not given to speed, but survivability, simplicity, thrust-to-weight ratio ... and Warthog and Grach are not supersonic, but tenacious and protected by armor.
          Due to this application, the losses of attack aircraft are high. And therefore, pilot training should be simple and as short as possible in time. In other words, the attack aircraft should be simple and trouble-free as a Kalashnikov assault rifle.
          1. +1
            5 February 2018 12: 32
            Quote: NEXUS
            Due to this application, the losses of attack aircraft are high. And therefore, pilot training should be simple and as short as possible in time. In other words, the attack aircraft should be simple and trouble-free as a Kalashnikov assault rifle.




            And the little ones -kamikaze should fly on them .... you don’t want to fly yourself into such a battle? ... how old, interestingly, are you old enough to write such heresy
            1. +7
              5 February 2018 12: 38
              Quote: Town Hall
              And the little ones -kamikaze should fly on them .... you don’t want to fly yourself into such a battle? ... how old, interestingly, are you old enough to write such heresy

              Dear. Heresy write you all the way. How much I read your pearls, how much I marvel at your ignorance. In this case, you play the role of a troll very mediocre.
              At least you would look for self-education, how attack aircraft are used and didn’t amuse people with outright illiteracy.
      2. +5
        5 February 2018 15: 04
        Quote: NEXUS
        The attack aircraft does not need supersonic. And therefore, a turboprop cheap airplane that can be riveted by the thousands will come down.

        Actually, after the war in Afghanistan and on the basis of the experience gained, the USSR worked out options for creating the so-called Doomsday attack aircraft with Sukhoi Design Bureau. Here is an article on this topic:
        https://bmpd.livejournal.com/673750.html
        For well-known reasons, from the beginning of the 90s, of course, these ideas were forgotten. And the Americans, having gained their experience in the "liberation" wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, made roughly the same conclusions as the USSR.
    8. The comment was deleted.
  2. +1
    5 February 2018 10: 43
    A-29 Super Tucano and AT-6 Wolverine aircraft selected for the final testing phase

    ... Scorpion in reserve?
    1. +4
      5 February 2018 10: 51
      turboprops are more convenient for a number of reasons
    2. avt
      +1
      5 February 2018 11: 31
      Quote: san4es
      ... Scorpion in reserve?

      Judging by
      According to Heather Wilson, spokesman for the US Air Force, A-29 Super Tucano and AT-6 Wolverine aircraft were selected for the final testing phase.
      in a condom. wassat Does it make sense? If a new concept is adopted, then by its “cost-effectiveness” it loses to the two in it. And as in practice it will be ... wait and see.
  3. 0
    5 February 2018 10: 44
    Light attack aircraft will be on the battlefield an easy prey for modern MANPADS, which the mattresses themselves supply to barmels of various stripes, and they can deliver MANPADS to their comrades in all corners of our planet.
    1. +5
      5 February 2018 10: 51
      I don’t think that Americans are so stupid. And where did you get the idea that they are easier to bring down? They are inferior to the A10, perhaps only in thrust-weight ratio and armor protection, and maneuverability remains at the level, if not better.
    2. +8
      5 February 2018 10: 58
      He throws you GBU-3 with 82km - try to shoot him. They just change the concept a little. Why drive F-16 or F-35 with a pair of designated GBUs and 1005000 dollar departure prices. If the same can make a light attack aircraft. Also being outside the zone of PZKR and MZA. It’s just a platform for guided weapons + an excellent multi-mode surveillance system with a dedicated operator.

      The approach is quite pragmatic by the way.
      1. 0
        5 February 2018 11: 32
        So there are cannon complexes) and it’s not enough to drop one bomb and run away, you must first find the target and there already homemade large-caliber machine-gun air defense will build and fire at these birds
        1. +3
          5 February 2018 11: 49
          The topic is not disclosed! By what characteristics, in your opinion, will these aircraft be more accessible for air defense (it doesn’t matter, artillery or missiles, even a boomerang) than the A10?
          1. 0
            5 February 2018 12: 02
            Speed ​​characteristics and a set of weapons in one article already indicated that such aircraft have no possibility to install the radar
            1. +1
              5 February 2018 12: 17
              Quote: Vadim Kurbatov
              Speed ​​characteristics and a set of weapons in one article already indicated that such aircraft have no possibility to install the radar

              Do not write nonsense No. Above in the comments there are active links to detailed articles about these cars.
            2. ZVO
              +3
              5 February 2018 12: 24
              Quote: Vadim Kurbatov
              Speed ​​characteristics and a set of weapons in one article already indicated that such aircraft have no possibility to install the radar


              But aren’t modern opto-electronic detection and guidance tools the most important thing for a modern attack aircraft?
              Many radars installed on A-10 and Su-25?
              1. +2
                5 February 2018 14: 19
                Quote: ZVO
                But aren’t modern opto-electronic detection and guidance tools the most important thing for a modern attack aircraft?
                Many radars installed on A-10 and Su-25?

                And are they needed there? Although for the Su-39 radar created.
                Nevertheless, the ability to install radar in the outboard container on А-29 is available.
            3. +3
              5 February 2018 12: 37
              The subsonic speeds on these attack aircraft, as well as on the top ten, and the set of weapons to repel an air defense attack are more likely indirectly than directly. Moreover, the Americans will use these birds over the territories for a long time “ironed” and potentially incapable of any effective resistance. The radar is unlikely to detect an aborigine acting from the shelter, but optics and infrared complexes, even on an external sling, even on the fuselage, may well. By the way, even in the photos presented in the article, these complexes can be seen.
      2. 0
        5 February 2018 13: 14
        and how much is guided ammunition? and will not save on matches? and then .... did the US decide to save? ..... the richest country on the planet decided to save ....... there is definitely a catch .....
        1. 0
          5 February 2018 22: 44
          Quote: NEOZ
          the richest country on the planet decided to save ....... there is definitely a catch .....


          The fact of the matter is that rich people know how to count money.
    3. +3
      5 February 2018 11: 11
      Quote: Thought Giant
      Light attack aircraft will be on the battlefield of easy prey modern MANPADS

      Sorry, in the comments above there are active links to publications that have reliable statistics on the combat use of A-29 aircraft. However, who cares? Obviously, people never in the hands of MANPADS who do not hold and consider them super-weapon. No.
  4. +6
    5 February 2018 10: 44
    US Air Force more and more inclined to think about the cheapening of "wars with the Papuans"
  5. +2
    5 February 2018 10: 54
    if it goes on like this, you’ll have to start producing silt 2 again in Samara and sell it to fenders
  6. +1
    5 February 2018 10: 55
    Good idea, what can I say!
  7. +3
    5 February 2018 11: 09
    Until the first shot down. Are there two more inside? Two pilots killed or captured by partisans / militants -
    the worst nightmare of command.
    It won’t work ...
    1. +4
      5 February 2018 11: 33
      Until the first shot down. Are there two more inside?


      While boasting that more than 150 aircraft 18 thousand hours in fighting(?) Departures flew - not a single shot down.
      True, everything in South America and in Africa. I don’t recall real mixes like Syria and Afghanistan there. But perhaps he will be able to take on some helicopter functions. At least escort of columns. It will go down, pass, climb higher and wait until needed.
      1. avt
        +3
        5 February 2018 11: 38
        Quote: dauria
        True, everything in South America and in Africa. I don’t recall real mixes like Syria and Afghanistan there.

        If you recall Bout’s landing for the type of attempt to sell MANPADS to the Colombians, there really is nothing to get these miracles from the Latinos. Unlike the Soviet era, where such “welding” sparkled in the mountains from the MZA, the Kerch Bridge is resting.
        1. +12
          5 February 2018 11: 57
          Something seems to me that for MANPADS with IR, a turboprop pepelats is not such an easy target .....
          1. +2
            5 February 2018 14: 19
            Salve dear
            Quote: NN52
            Something seems to me that for MANPADS with IR, a turboprop pepelats is not such an easy target .....

            Well, after all, to the tricky one .. lol
        2. +3
          5 February 2018 14: 13
          Quote: avt
          .. Latinos really have nothing to get these miracles. In contrast to the Soviet-era Afghanistan, where such a “welding” in the mountains sparkled from the MZA - the Kerch bridge is resting.

          Latinos use these planes to control the Selva, there are no hostilities as such. And of course you are right: no one canceled the DShK, and like a CAS plane, aka battlefield, these propellers will not pull ..
          1. +3
            5 February 2018 14: 28
            Quote: Pete Mitchell
            Latinos use these planes to control the jungle, there is no fighting as such.

            Colombians are also “Latinos”, but there A-29 fought very actively and very effectively.
            1. +2
              5 February 2018 15: 39
              Quote: Bongo
              Colombians are also “Latinos”, but there A-29 fought very actively and very effectively.

              I agree with you, but by and large there are no active fighting going on there. I doubt that for example in Syria the propellers would last. High experience those who will fly them
              1. +2
                5 February 2018 15: 52
                Quote: Pete Mitchell
                I doubt that for example in Syria propellers would hold out. Hi survive those who will fly on them

                You compare the vulnerability of this "propeller" and a combat helicopter. As well as avionics and weapons.
                1. +2
                  5 February 2018 17: 23
                  Quote: Bongo
                  Quote: Pete Mitchell
                  I doubt that for example in Syria propellers would hold out. Hi survive those who will fly on them

                  You compare the vulnerability of this "propeller" and a combat helicopter. As well as avionics and weapons.

                  It seems that the keywords in all this harlot were simplicity and cheapness. Advanced avionics will deal with simplicity and low cost, related systems with low cost. All together, this will lead to weight gain ... Honestly I do not understand the idea. I think that the owners of AFB Davis Montana will also be skeptical: A-10 is an unrivaled car in terms of security and maneuverability, it can remove everything superfluous from it ..
    2. 0
      5 February 2018 11: 39
      It also seems that this is some kind of crazy idea from the Americans. They would work to reduce the cost of drones.
      1. +2
        5 February 2018 17: 28
        Quote: Sergey ui
        would work to reduce the cost of drones.

        Do not prompt laughing
    3. +3
      5 February 2018 11: 46
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Until the first downed.

      In any case, the vulnerability of the A-29 is lower than that of a combat helicopter. And in Israel they are not going to refuse Apache, are they?
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Are there two more inside?

      The pilot may be one. Instead of the second crew member, a protected fuel tank can be installed.
  8. 0
    5 February 2018 11: 48
    And the cost of training the pilot? Or will they put Poles and all kinds of Croats there? As far as IL-2 is armored, and about 50% of aircraft were lost.
    1. +2
      5 February 2018 12: 15
      Quote: igorra
      How much the IL-2 is armored, and about 50% of planes was lost.

      Sorry, are you familiar with the composition of the avionics and weapons A-29? How do you decide that the tactics of their use will be the same as that of IL-2?
    2. ZVO
      +2
      5 February 2018 12: 27
      Quote: igorra
      And the cost of training the pilot? Or will they put Poles and all kinds of Croats there? As far as IL-2 is armored, and about 50% of aircraft were lost.


      The cost of training will be approximately 3-5 times lower.
      Those. not $ 7-10 million - which are the real costs of any modern fighter pilot. And this figure is the same for almost all countries of the world.
      It will be 2-3 million dollars.
      1. +1
        7 February 2018 00: 50
        It's funny how much attention is paid to the cost of learning to fly training by plane! The presence of the second crew member as a flight crew and weapons operator even more simplifies the training of pilots. good Moreover, flying extremely long-range, in extremely difficult conditions, conducting air combat seems to be among the tasks of a light attack aircraft and are not planned ... request The lack of super speeds ... Well ... In general, somehow not for an easy attack aircraft. And not for the attack aircraft at all ...
        Now, consider the "operational" properties of a fair number of fairly well-known attack aircraft. I’ll note right away that I deliberately removed the maximum speed estimate, because in real combat, with the support of troops and counterguerrilla operations, the value of this property, in my opinion, is not great. For the same MANPADS, the difference between 400 km / h and 1000 km / h is a purely philosophical property wassat
        A-6F Intruder II Cruising speed, km / h = 798; The combat load is 8165 kg at 5 nodes of the suspension.
        A-10C Thunderbolt II Cruising speed, km / h = 634; The combat load is normal - 5435 kg or a maximum of -7258 kg (or 6505 with PTB) at 11 nodes of the suspension.
        A-29 (ALX) (= Embraer EMB-315SA) Cruising speed, km / h = 530, Economy speed, km / h = 422; The combat load is 1500 kg at 5 load nodes.
        EMB-314 Super Tucano Cruising speed, km / h = 462; combat load - up to 1500 kg on 5 nodes of the suspension.
        IL-102 Maximum speed = 950 km / h; The combat load is 7200 kg at 16 nodes of the suspension.
        Su-25 Grach Speed: maximum on the ground - 970 km / h; cruising - 750 km / h. Combat load - 4340 kg at 8 (10) suspension units, normal load - 1340 kg
        Textron SCORPION. Cruising speed, km / h = 750; a combat load of 2800 kg at 6 nodes of the suspension and an internal compartment for 1400 kg.

        Type high-speed A-10 A-6 operate at speeds comparable to "toucanoids". At the same time, the basing conditions are seriously more capricious, the cost of operating and training the crew is much more expensive. Instead of a single A-10, it’s quite possible to operate a half-squadron of “toucanoids” located at a “spitting distance” from the combat zone. This proximity and the large number of aircraft makes it possible to completely level out somewhat lower speed, to ensure good interaction with the ground forces, and to drive a heavy attack aircraft for the sake of a couple of KABs is generally worthless.
        When compared with helicopters, there is a noticeably higher speed (by 10-15%, doubled, if that), efficiency, the ability to long patrols at significantly lower overheads ... Somehow ... hi So, argue, do not argue, and the “Tukanoid” definitely has its own niche for a patrol aircraft with the ability to directly support the ground forces. what
  9. 0
    5 February 2018 12: 30
    Compared with the Russian Yak-130 looks liquid. Technologies of the Second World War.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. 0
      7 February 2018 00: 57
      Well, so, and BMP-2 in comparison with the IS-2 or T-10M also does not particularly shine. So what? The question is that “Tukano” is a basic training aircraft, i.e. simpler than him, well, maybe Po-2 or something like "Cessna" request Only military equipment will be more serious. And the Yak-130 is a machine for advanced training, to replace the L-29/39, only much more curriculum in terms of training opportunities for pilots aviation generation "4 + / 5". But a comparison of the “Toucan” with the same “Dolphin” (by the way, also a combat training apparatus) is by no means in favor of the latter. No.
  10. 0
    5 February 2018 15: 09
    Quote: Bongo
    Instead of a second crew member, a protected fuel tank may be installed.

    “Protected” ... are you stuck with the wrong foot today?
    1. +6
      5 February 2018 15: 56
      Quote: Mentat
      “Protected” ... are you stuck with the wrong foot today?

      I don’t know what you usually stand up to, but you probably shouldn’t demonstrate your illiteracy. fool
      Protected tank - a fuel tank with a special shell or layer (protector) that protects fuel from leakage when a tank is hit by bullets, projectiles or fragments. The protective sheath contains rubber, swelling under the action of gasoline or kerosene and tightening the holes formed when the tank is shot below the fuel level.
      Something like this...
      1. 0
        7 February 2018 01: 01
        Well, along the way, for “Mentat” to look at the meaning of an unknown word, if not in the academic dictionary, then at least in Yandex - “specific zapadlo” laughing It is the word "Mentat"! The mind goes through the roof! wassat lol
  11. +2
    5 February 2018 16: 40
    No wonder. AT-6 Wolverine - completely American, spent and flies. A-29 Super Tucano - all key technologies, including engine and avionics, too made in usa, and production is ALREADY localized.
    Textron Scorpion is still more expensive (including flight hour), still raw, and has no special advantages except speed. Air Tractor AT-802L Longsword - in general, a "barn" with wings (the tractor is also in the tractor amerga) - low maneuverability and altitude does not allow to operate outside the area of ​​fire of SAM and MANPADS, in comparison with the A-10 and, moreover, Su-25, the chances of surviving the fire are practically zero.
    1. +1
      7 February 2018 01: 02
      Concise and tasteful good drinks
  12. 0
    5 February 2018 20: 01
    Quote: Bongo
    Quote: Mentat
    “Protected” ... are you stuck with the wrong foot today?

    I don’t know what you usually stand up to, but you probably shouldn’t demonstrate your illiteracy. fool
    Protected tank - a fuel tank with a special shell or layer (protector) that protects fuel from leakage when a tank is hit by bullets, projectiles or fragments. The protective sheath contains rubber, swelling under the action of gasoline or kerosene and tightening the holes formed when the tank is shot below the fuel level.
    Something like this...

    “Demonstrate your literacy” using monstrous neologisms that completely repeat the meaning of existing words of the Russian language is not clear why - this is not worth doing.
    You do not seem to understand what it is about, but literacy is something you can’t boast about.
    1. +2
      5 February 2018 20: 27
      There is something in these planes. given the number of retired pilots who are quite fit for health to serve on such machines. Another very big plus - you do not need huge and vulnerable airfields. a good highway will do. and kerosene and ammunition can be brought up .. I think they can very well help the main aviation nightmare the enemy. and in case of war, losses will be in all arms and on any type of aircraft. War however.
    2. 0
      7 February 2018 01: 11
      Yeah, you still replace the bracket and forceps words with “crown stone” and “raven clamp” for the great celebration of the grammar-nazi laughing and full Slavophilism good You can also replace the FDD not even with a hard drive (the word disk is Greek! Atu it!), But with a flexible-covert memory! GKZ !!! RAM on the ZUSPD (random access memory), the console on the zagulina, the GPU on the median drawing accelerator ... Ufff ... The scope for creativity - not to exhaust ...
      The good store is coming along the canyon to the arena, sighing the fragrant colosemic streams from the fruit and vegetable plantations! laughing good Well, like, a dandy walks along the boulevard to the theater, breathing in the fruit aromas emitted by the flowerbeds into the atmosphere ... soldier
    3. ZVO
      +1
      7 February 2018 10: 04
      Quote: Mentat

      You do not seem to understand what it is about, but literacy is something you can’t boast about.


      You argue with a real aviation specialist, as I understand it, who continues to be part of the Russian Aerospace Forces, which has written many articles about aviation.
      Including using a variety of sources and literature.

      Alas. But you are not in the subject.
  13. 0
    7 February 2018 15: 25
    Quote: Aqela
    Yeah, you still replace the bracket and forceps words with “crown stone” and “raven clip” for the great celebration of the grammar-Nazi laughing and sloppy Slavophilism good. , but on a flexible-collapsible memory!

    Your foolishness or rather antics are unsightly. The appearance of new words in a language is inevitable, because it is alive, but the artificial introduction of foreign objects, not justified by anything, is harm to the native living language. “Protected” from about the same opera as “transparency”. Mutant words.
    1. ZVO
      0
      7 February 2018 20: 29
      Quote: Mentat
      here is the artificial introduction of alien objects, not justified by anything, - harm to the native living language. “Protected” from about the same opera as “transparency”. Mutant words.


      my foe ... Explain to us, an alien. where did you get such a nickname, and why do you use it ...
      And bring him an analogue in Russian ...
  14. 0
    8 February 2018 11: 38
    Quote: ZVO
    Quote: Mentat
    here is the artificial introduction of alien objects, not justified by anything, - harm to the native living language. “Protected” from about the same opera as “transparency”. Mutant words.


    my foe ... Explain to us, an alien. where did you get such a nickname, and why do you use it ...
    And bring him an analogue in Russian ...

    Consider yourself alien? There are reasons, write from abroad?
    Anyone who writes something that doesn’t flatter your (self) opinion on the site, do you have "enemies"? Take then wider, there are many people around who disagree with you on a huge number of issues. According to the above, you live in some very unfriendly universe, and you are unfriendly to the universe. Aren't you upset there? And let's all the same on the "you", fight with your rudeness as much as possible.