Military Review

US Air Force still found money for new wings for Warthogs

154
The USAF solved the problem of extending the life of the A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft at least until the 2030 year. The US Department of Defense allocated 103 million dollars to restart the production line for the new Warthogs wings, reports "Warspot" with reference to the portal defensenews.com


US Air Force still found money for new wings for Warthogs


We remind you that more than two thirds of the existing fleet of A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft were found unsuitable for flying due to the large wear of the wings. In the Pentagon, the contract for the supply of new wings was categorized as "unfunded".

As part of the military budget for the 2018 fiscal year, the US Department of Defense allocated $ 103 million to restart the line, which will produce new wings. Already this year, the United States Air Force will receive the first four sets, which will extend the life of the A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft.

The A-10 Thunderbolt II entered service in the 1977 year, and due to its specific look, was nicknamed the Warthog (Warthog). The powerful armament of these attack aircraft made them highly demanded to support ground operations. At the service of the US Air Force remains about 170 attack aircraft A-10, of which 109 units need to be replaced wing.
Photos used:
http://wallpaperstop.net/
154 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 210ox
    210ox 24 March 2018 17: 44
    +1
    They also have money for new UAVs ..
    1. Safevi
      Safevi 24 March 2018 18: 14
      +10
      One of the most efficient aircraft! The power is amazing!
      1. Thrall
        Thrall 24 March 2018 18: 23
        +3
        Wings, legs ... The main thing is the tail! smile
        1. Thunderbolt
          Thunderbolt 25 March 2018 01: 13
          +6
          Quote: Thrall
          Wings, legs ... The main thing is the tail!

          And what else can the deputy politician report about the foreign capitalist strike aviation complex? ........ and the carcasses of the soldiers laughed, forgetting which pate makes this attack aircraft from the enemy .......
          1. Hammerlock
            Hammerlock 25 March 2018 05: 47
            +3
            you are also bulk carcass
            1. Thunderbolt
              Thunderbolt 25 March 2018 16: 07
              +1
              Quote: Hammerlock
              you are also bulk carcass

              Does this somehow make the A-10 killer effect worse when working on the enemy? An article about the enemy attack aircraft, and not about politics and Soviet cartoons. The damage from the work of the A-10 in our infantry and armored vehicles can not be doubted (he deals full fire with his killer strike defeat at ALL volley area!). And considering that he also carries long-range weapons of ground-based enemy’s destruction, it makes us think that he can also act from the second echelon, without being exposed to the enemy’s MLA and near air defense.
              1. Dart
                Dart 25 March 2018 22: 17
                0
                So kiss him in z..d! fellow
      2. keeper03
        keeper03 24 March 2018 21: 03
        +1
        Not frail they have high-explosive high-explosive popcorn! wassat
      3. Hammerlock
        Hammerlock 25 March 2018 05: 46
        +3
        such a "miracle" to bring down a pleasure
      4. Yaro Polk
        Yaro Polk 25 March 2018 06: 54
        +1

        It was necessary not to call him a Warthog, but a "fart" laughing
        1. Cop
          Cop 25 March 2018 09: 45
          +1
          Su-25 Rook vs. A-10 Thunderbolt / Su-25 Rook vs. A-10 Thunderbolt

          I think, if you ask the militants who were hit by this and that aircraft, then they would agree with Mr. Tolboev and would also choose the Su-25.
      5. Yaro Polk
        Yaro Polk 25 March 2018 06: 55
        0
        Light target for MANPADS)
        1. ALEXXX1983
          ALEXXX1983 25 March 2018 18: 36
          +1
          Quote: Yaro Polk
          Easy target for MANPADS

          Not very, at least heavier than Su 25.
          He has infrared radiation from the engines in the lower hemisphere is partially covered by the tail.
    2. SRC P-15
      SRC P-15 24 March 2018 18: 15
      +2
      As part of the military budget for fiscal year 2018, the US Department of Defense allocated $ 103 million to restart the line, which will produce new wings.

      Yeah, and make these wings shooting: in case of an airplane malfunction, you can shoot the wings and lower them by parachute! And the “warthog” itself ...., to hell with it - the main thing is the wings! wassat
    3. Chertt
      Chertt 24 March 2018 19: 03
      +5
      Quote: 210ox
      They also have money for new UAVs.

      With a defense budget of 1.3 trillion, that's enough for everything. In general, I am happy for the enemy. A-10 cool device
  2. Vladimirets
    Vladimirets 24 March 2018 17: 44
    +14
    Stealth is stealth, and the old horse does not spoil the furrow.
    1. 210ox
      210ox 24 March 2018 17: 47
      +5
      Under certain conditions, using an old attack aircraft is more effective than a sophisticated UAV
      Quote: Vladimirets
      Stealth is stealth, and the old horse does not spoil the furrow.
      1. ul_vitalii
        ul_vitalii 24 March 2018 17: 56
        +9
        Well, if single-engine pistons are adopted in some countries, then this is generally a luxury, and it has proven itself in combat conditions.
        1. NordOst16
          NordOst16 24 March 2018 18: 12
          0
          Yes, for example, the same states)))
        2. Grigory_45
          Grigory_45 24 March 2018 22: 08
          0
          Quote: ul_vitalii
          then this is generally a luxury

          and in the literal sense of the word. No wonder only two countries of the world are armed with a specialized jet attack aircraft - Russia (USSR) and the States. The rest are either satisfied with fighter-bombers, UBS, or generally helicopters. Not everyone can afford to maintain a fleet, although not very expensive, but specialized machines.
          1. ALEXXX1983
            ALEXXX1983 25 March 2018 18: 42
            0
            Quote: Gregory_45
            Quote: ul_vitalii
            then this is generally a luxury

            and in the literal sense of the word. No wonder only two countries of the world are armed with a specialized jet attack aircraft - Russia (USSR) and the States. The rest are either satisfied with fighter-bombers, UBS, or generally helicopters. Not everyone can afford to maintain a fleet, although not very expensive, but specialized machines.

            How are two ?! And then who are these? Not a country?

            Azerbaijan - 33 Su-25 and 3 Su-25UB as of 2017
            Angola - 8 Su-25 and 2 Su-25UB as of 2016: 430
            Armenia - 13 Su-25 and 2 Su-25UBK as of 2017: 200
            Belarus - 12 Su-25K / Su-25UBK as of 2017
            Bulgaria - 10 Su-25K and 4 Su-25UBK as of 2017: 98
            Gambia - 1 Su-25 as of 2008
            Democratic Republic of the Congo - 4 Su-25 as of 2016
            Iraq - 6 Su-25 / Su-25K and 1 Su-25UBK as of 2016
            Iran - 7 Su-25K and 3 Su-25UBK as of 2016
            Kazakhstan - 12 Su-25 and 2 Su-25UB as of 2017
            DPRK - 34 Su-25 / Su-25UBK as of 2016
            Côte d'Ivoire - 2 Su-25 as of 2016
            Niger - 2 Su-25 as of 2016
            Peru - 10 Su-25A and 8 Su-25UB as of 2016
            Turkmenistan - 12 Su-25MK as of 2017
            Uzbekistan - 20 Su-25 / Su-25BM as of 2017
            Ukraine - 31 Su-25 / Su-25UB as of 2017
            Sudan - 9 Su-25 and 2 Su-25UB as of 2016
            Chad - 8 Su-25 and 2 Su-25UB as of 2016
            Equatorial Guinea - 4 Su-25 as of 2016
            Eritrea - 2 Su-25 and 2 Su-25UB as of 2016
            Ethiopia - 4 Su-25 as of 2009
      2. Setrac
        Setrac 24 March 2018 19: 27
        +1
        Quote: 210ox
        Under certain conditions, using an old attack aircraft is more effective than a sophisticated UAV

        I would even say - in most cases.
      3. Falcond
        Falcond 25 March 2018 00: 28
        +1
        Under certain conditions, using an old attack aircraft is more effective than a sophisticated UAV

        Under certain conditions, it's cheaper.
    2. Dezinto
      Dezinto 24 March 2018 17: 54
      +4
      Well, really, they succeeded in this device. Tenacious and cuts through the tanks with a gun.
      1. PalBor
        PalBor 24 March 2018 20: 10
        +2
        Well, yes. "Junkers" also "sawed" Soviet tanks. And where are those "Junkers", and where is that Reich?
      2. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 24 March 2018 22: 50
        +6
        Quote: DEZINTO
        Tenacious and saws through cannon tanks

        in fact, the effectiveness of the gun around which the aircraft was built turned out to be almost near-zero. In Iraq, the A-10 was shot by several hundred thousand shells (where? In the desert), most of the armored vehicles were burned by ATGMs
        1. MaximSylvestr
          MaximSylvestr 26 March 2018 18: 11
          0
          If my memory serves me, then for one soldier killed during the Second World War, there were 15000 spent cartridges. So hundreds of thousands of shells from this gun into the desert are normal.
          1. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 26 March 2018 20: 03
            0
            Quote: MaximSylvestr
            If my memory serves me, then for one soldier killed during the Second World War, there were 15000 spent cartridges. So hundreds of thousands of shells from this gun into the desert are fine

            haha okay - shoot milk? And do not compare infantry units that often lead suppression fire, and not to defeat, and indeed it’s psychologically difficult to shoot at a person - this makes a very small percentage, the rest just shoot towards the enemy. And it’s also very clever to compare WWII times and current times, in which aiming systems have stepped far ahead compared to a simple optical sight (this is about technology)
            If you tell the customer that for the destruction of a tank, the consumption of ammunition of 15 thousand is the norm (yeah, 15 BC Thunderbolt to defeat one tank!), He will send you very far and forever - without options. What prevents thinking before writing nonsense?
            1. Monar
              Monar 26 March 2018 21: 40
              0
              I don’t know why my two posts were attributed to some Maxim Sylvester .... But this is a site problem.
              But your argument about spending and shooting milk .... Sorry.
              Shoot the target. And although aiming systems have developed very strongly in comparison with the Second World War, this fundamentally does not change anything.
              And "suppression fire" is not only for infantry units.
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 26 March 2018 22: 07
                0
                Quote: Monar
                And "suppression fire" is not only for infantry units

                yeah, shoot the tank for the suppression from the guns of the attack aircraft)) The tank will get scared and leave) Question: Will the tank even notice if the aircraft will lay shells at it in a hundred meters?
                I see this epic picture right - Thunderbolt circling in the sky and watering the terrain in front of tanks from a cannon, firing laughing
                In any case, shooting so many shells is extremely inefficient and abnormal. It’s easier to use up a rocket.
                Ship ZAK missiles are shot down by a couple of bursts of a total of five hundred shells - this is by the way that
                Quote: Monar
                And although aiming systems have developed very strongly in comparison with the Second World War, this fundamentally does not change anything
                During WWII, no one dreamed of such
                1. Monar
                  Monar 26 March 2018 22: 28
                  0
                  Yes. That's it. The tank will get scared and leave. You imagine the condition of the tankers when they fall under the second volley of such a cannon. Even without breaking through the armor.
                  And, mind you, the accuracy of the destruction of such weapons, with all the success of guidance systems, depends primarily on the pilot. But no one has changed people over the past 100500 years. )
                  But about the fact that 1000 rounds for this gun is more expensive than one modern ATGM I really doubt it.
                  1. Grigory_45
                    Grigory_45 27 March 2018 10: 27
                    0
                    Quote: Monar
                    That's it. The tank will get scared and leave. You imagine the condition of the tankers when they fall under the second volley of such a cannon. Even without breaking through the armor.
                    And, mind you, the accuracy of the destruction of such weapons, with all the success of the guidance systems, depends primarily on the pilot

                    I’ll even comment on this nonsense. For I’m afraid it won’t hurt)
      3. keks shmeks
        keks shmeks 25 March 2018 05: 46
        +2
        Before "quailing" a tank with a cannon, it needs to enter the MANPADS destruction zone, which is very dangerous.
      4. MaximSylvestr
        MaximSylvestr 26 March 2018 18: 07
        0
        Is it possible to see at least one photo of a tank sawn by this device?
    3. san4es
      san4es 24 March 2018 18: 04
      +6
      Quote: Vladimirets
      ... the old horse does not spoil the furrow.

      ... If only the "alien field" did not plow:
    4. axxmanm
      axxmanm 24 March 2018 19: 05
      0
      Quote: Vladimirets
      Stealth is stealth, and the old horse does not spoil the furrow.

      and a warthog, unlike an old horse, can still plow deeply.
  3. Andrey K
    Andrey K 24 March 2018 17: 44
    +15
    ... The US Air Force has solved the problem of extending the life of the A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft until at least 2030 ...

    It’s about the super great defense budget of the United States - to talk about greatness in the information space and do business is not the same thing. Patch, pound that which riveted in the fat years of the Cold War.
    Here and in our VO there are many experts who poked a finger at our Rooks.
    These are two workhorses - directly working on the battlefield.
    Neither the geldings nor ours have anything to replace them yet.
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 24 March 2018 17: 48
      +10
      Quote: Andrey K
      This is by the way about the super great defense budget - patch, shake

      Well, we, too, are not in a hurry to write off the old Grach, although there is talk about the development of the PSSh (perspective attack aircraft) ....
      1. Andrey K
        Andrey K 24 March 2018 17: 51
        +6
        Quote: NEXUS
        ... Well, we, too, are not in a hurry to write off the old Grach ...

        Andrey, I’m talking about the same yes
      2. NordOst16
        NordOst16 24 March 2018 18: 14
        0
        Is su34 not this attack aircraft (well, if we ignore the 5th generation)?
        1. Vladimirets
          Vladimirets 24 March 2018 18: 34
          +5
          Quote: NordOst16
          Is su34 not this attack aircraft

          So it's IB. what
          Quote: NordOst16
          (well, if we ignore the 5th generation)

          And not at all the 5th. request
          1. NordOst16
            NordOst16 24 March 2018 19: 12
            0
            I mean that su34, in theory, should go instead of su25.
            1. Grigory_45
              Grigory_45 24 March 2018 22: 42
              +7
              Quote: NordOst16
              I mean that su34, in theory, instead of su25 should have gone

              Surround) The Su-34 is by no means an acceptable replacement for the Rook (although such conversations are said, yes). Too big, too expensive. Still, the Su-34 is a bomber, although, in case of emergency, it can act as an attack aircraft. But this by no means makes him a good attack aircraft.
        2. Andrey K
          Andrey K 24 March 2018 18: 34
          +7
          Quote: NordOst16
          ... Is su34 not this attack aircraft (well, if we disengage from the 5th generation)? ...

          If we disengage, then this is a completely different class of aircraft.
          The Su-34 is a front-line bomber, not a ground attack aircraft.
        3. helmi8
          helmi8 24 March 2018 18: 39
          +1
          Quote: NordOst16
          Is su34 not this attack aircraft (well, if we ignore the 5th generation)?

          It is ... But the attack is different. And it is precisely during actions directly in the database zone, when the low altitude and speed, and that the Su-25 small arms are working on the plane, will be more effective than the Su-34 due to its armor protection. I don’t know how the Su-34 is survivable, but Grach proved itself to be the best here too.
          1. helmi8
            helmi8 24 March 2018 18: 46
            +1
            Continuing the theme ... Many types of our planes and helicopters initially have such modernization prospects that it makes no sense to invent the best instead of the good. A lot of examples. Another thing is when the mission of the aircraft changes and other tasks are set to fulfill ...
        4. NEXUS
          NEXUS 24 March 2018 18: 45
          +6
          Quote: NordOst16
          Is su34 not this attack aircraft (well, if we ignore the 5th generation)?

          No, it's not. Expensive. The 34th is capable of performing assault functions, but it is wasteful, expensive and stupid. There was a project based on the SU-34 to create a cheaper version for assault missions, but ... it turned out to be expensive too.
          Now, in general, work is underway in three directions: the first, on the basis of the SU-25, to create a deeply upgraded version called SU-39. The second, to create a cheap version for the attack on the basis of the SU-34. And the third is the creation of a completely new attack aircraft, the program on which is called PSH.
          1. Andrey K
            Andrey K 24 March 2018 19: 05
            +6
            Quote: NEXUS
            ... Now, in general, work is underway in three directions ...

            Andrey, I will add one more instance - the Yak-130.
            At one time, there was talk of using it as a light attack aircraft yes
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 24 March 2018 19: 09
              +11
              Quote: Andrey K
              Andrey, I will add one more instance - the Yak-130

              Yak-130 as an attack aircraft is not good at all from the word. Hang armor on him and he will get heavier, which will inevitably affect his flight characteristics. At the same time, having engines not far apart from each other, and even below, makes the issue of Yak-130 survival very controversial.
              1. Andrey K
                Andrey K 24 March 2018 19: 15
                +5
                Quote: NEXUS
                ... makes the survival issue of the Yak-130 very controversial ...

                Perhaps that’s why everything remains at the level of conversations, although the machine is even nothing. A standing replacement for the Czech L-39 "Albatros" good
                Although, the same Syrian Air Force, do not hesitate to use them as attack aircraft:
                1. Thunderbolt
                  Thunderbolt 25 March 2018 01: 45
                  0
                  [/ Quote]
                  Quote: Andrey K
                  [quote = NEXUS] ... makes the survival issue of the Yak-130 very controversial ...

                  Perhaps that’s why everything remains at the level of conversations, although the machine is even nothing. A standing replacement for the Czech L-39 "Albatros" good
                  Although, the same Syrian Air Force, do not hesitate to use them as attack aircraft:
                  I can upload the video of the militants as they do with the elks, you will not like it., So your thesis is incorrect
                  1. NEXUS
                    NEXUS 25 March 2018 02: 16
                    +9
                    Quote: Thunderbolt
                    But why are you fussing again! At least compare the OLS35 in range with the parameters of American missiles))))

                    Dear, what’s the range of American missiles here? I talked about detecting a fighter in passive mode. Where did you go?
                    By the way, our missiles have a longer range and then what? Do you think that the same F-35 will see our SU-35 faster than our pilot it? So take a look at the radar parameters of both, add to this the approach speed (if everything goes on the opposite courses) and calm down. And if the American came to the tail, then the big question is whether he will stay there or not, given his maneuverability.
                    And if you recall that there are such aircraft as the A-50U, then the question of who the first to see is generally very controversial. You will learn to read it thoughtfully, and then sparkle humorously.
                    1. Thunderbolt
                      Thunderbolt 25 March 2018 16: 31
                      +1
                      Quote: NEXUS
                      Dear, what’s the range of American missiles here? I talked about detecting a fighter in passive mode. Where did you go?

                      I’m not respected to you, but the range of the rockets despite the fact that before scribbling your posts, you should at least think about tactics and building the front of the enemy’s attack (knowledge of the technical characteristics of the armament of fighters, submarines, rifles and everything else (with all that you are enchanting about “shine” (in your opinion only), and a sophisticated commentator only smiles at your childishness and narrow-mindedness or answers sarcastically (like me), because you don’t have the strength to endure all this nonsense ....--- So, we’ll finish and end, because you ABSOLUTELY have no idea about the tactical construction of the NATO air group, its echelon of reconnaissance and attack. For f-35, they began to fumble here by comparing the parameters with the Su-35 (by the way, Su, not SU, as you write everywhere , thereby offending someone))) So, if you knew what a fully deployed echelon of NATO East Kazakhstan would look like, you would immediately put your performance characteristics and parameters in the very place where you belong, Mr. Cardboard Generalissimo
                      1. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 25 March 2018 16: 58
                        +5
                        Quote: Thunderbolt
                        I’m not respected to you, but the range of the missiles, despite the fact that before you write your own posts

                        I absolutely agree with this. You are definitely not respected.
                        As for your writings, then ...
                        Quote: Thunderbolt
                        the place where you have the place, mister cardboard generalissimo

                        Well, you understand ..
                        And about your sophistication ... well, yes ... I can directly see how your own portrait is hanging in the room for which you are praying.
                        You are boring, uneducated and, moreover, you don’t even know how to answer questions. I already spoke about thoughtful reading above ... this is not yours, not yours.
                        For this, I beg you, bypass my, as you say, "little posts" of the seventh road. You are not interesting to me either as a person or as an intelligent person.
                        All the best to you, expert generalissimo.
                    2. Thunderbolt
                      Thunderbolt 25 March 2018 18: 08
                      0
                      NEXUS,
                      NEXUS,
                      NEXUS,
                      NEXUS,
                      Well, you understand ..
                      And about your sophistication ... well, yes ... I can directly see how your own portrait is hanging in the room for which you are praying.
                      You are boring, uneducated and, moreover, you don’t even know how to answer questions. I already spoke about thoughtful reading above ... this is not yours, not yours.
                      For this, I beg you, bypass my, as you say, "little posts" of the seventh road. You are not interesting to me either as a person or as an intelligent person.
                      All the best to you, expert generalissimo.
                      Reply Quote Complaint NEXUS
                      In short, Corporal Nexus, I proposed an idea against your mythical TTX. The layout is clear, the NATO air wing is advancing, let's say the zone 200 (Moscow) is the strongest zone, the rest are generally one-legged tears. Well, I’m asking you, captain (or how many friends there clicked) the number D is the distance for detection, reaction, and attack --- knowing this data it is very stupid to trust in an OLS-ku. If a comrade who has even served him understands this, then he will shut up, but where there !!! expert "not a single flock or single target even seen on the radar, and the radar was seen only in the picture on the Internet, so I boldly call you a holographic nightingale and wait for yours
                  2. Andrey K
                    Andrey K 25 March 2018 10: 52
                    +7
                    Quote: Thunderbolt
                    ... I can upload the video of the militants as they do with the Elks, you will not like it., So your thesis is incorrect ...

                    Interesting conclusions, the main thing is logical - "You will not like it, so your thesis is incorrect" belay
                    What is my thesis wrong? What are the Syrians L-39 using? So use, to the fullest yes
                    Then so as not to be unfounded, post a video of the militants with the execution of the Jordanian pilot F-16 negative
                    There the plane on TTX is not at all equal to Czech UBS request
                    1. Thunderbolt
                      Thunderbolt 25 March 2018 16: 12
                      0
                      Quote: Andrey K
                      What is my thesis wrong? What are the Syrians L-39 using? So use, to the fullest

                      It’s not true that an Elka training aircraft and it is unacceptable to use it for fire destruction is permissible only in war, when all means run out, but also TO .... look into the eyes of those generals who send defenseless training aircraft with suspension practically for slaughter Therefore, you can sing the hymns of courage of Syrian pilots, but the Elk storming the enemy’s anti-aircraft artillery is nonsense and hopelessness.
                      1. Andrey K
                        Andrey K 25 March 2018 16: 41
                        +4
                        Quote: Thunderbolt
                        ... I’m not sure that an Elka training aircraft and it is unacceptable to use it for fire destruction is permissible only in war, when all means are running out, but also TO .... look into the eyes of those generals who send defenseless training almost to slaughter planes with a suspension of shells. Therefore, you can sing the hymns of courage of the Syrian pilots, but Elka storming the enemy’s anti-aircraft artillery is nonsense and hopelessness ...

                        So I did not argue that this is good. I dare to copy what I have already said: "Although, the same Syrian Air Force, do not hesitate to use them as attack aircraft." I ascertained the fact of their use as attack aircraft.
                        ... Elka storming enemy anti-aircraft artillery is nonsense and hopelessness ...

                        I do not argue with that.
          2. NordOst16
            NordOst16 24 March 2018 19: 23
            0
            Su-39 - which is anti-tank?
            A cheap version of the su-34, hmm, is it worth it? Is it possible to remove the radar, but castration by avionics, but, as for me, it is somehow very radical. Better on the su25 radar station.
            And PSG, it seems to me, is a very distant prospect. It seems to me that there will be enough existing dryers, and the T50 should be produced, and both this and the other are unlikely to be pulled by our budget in serious numbers.
            And yes, here even the Americans decided to purchase pipe propeller aircraft. Maybe we should buy a hundred or two attack aircraft in order to bomb the homeless
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 24 March 2018 19: 30
              +5
              Quote: NordOst16
              And PSG, it seems to me, is a very distant prospect.

              To make it more clear to you, the PAK DA, PAK TA, PAK DP (long-range interceptor) and PSS programs started almost at the same time. And based on the dates for the same PAK FA, as well as on the work (which is being confirmed) on the PAK DP, I can assume that the PSG will appear no later than 20-22. In defense of my words, it partially says that Rooks are being upgraded to version SU-25CM3 and are not in a hurry to accept anything new to replace it (at least the same SU-39, which was developed under the Union).
              1. NordOst16
                NordOst16 24 March 2018 19: 39
                +1
                As for me it is wastefully strong. For our budget is unlikely to pull 4 aircraft of the 5th generation (well, if they are not built like strongholds))).
                I hope that at least 1000-1500 t50 are riveted. Pak and they’re unlikely to be sawing because the Tu160 is again allowed into the series. Pak dp is completely deaf about him, I heard about you for the first time.
                I’ll wang that they will only have time to rivet T50 up to 30x. The main thing is to destroy the air defense and not let the enemy aviation go for a walk, and there will be enough old equipment
                1. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 24 March 2018 19: 51
                  +5
                  Quote: NordOst16
                  As for me it's wasteful

                  This is the natural evolution of weapons ...
                  Quote: NordOst16
                  For our budget is unlikely to pull 4 aircraft of the 5th generation (well, if they are not built like strongholds))).

                  It's not about generations, but about efficiency. An example ... let's take IL-2, and imagine that it is used in Syria ... the question is, how effective will this attack aircraft be in a modern war and how long will it be survivable?
                  Quote: NordOst16
                  I hope that at least 1000-1500 t50 are riveted.

                  Wow, my friend, you have bent ... the largest series of modern fighters of the 4th generation is the F-16 in the amount of 4500 pieces of various modifications ... for comparison, the SU-27 has been produced a little more than 800 pieces. So if the SU-57 series is in the total number of sides 500, it will be a very good result.
                  1. NordOst16
                    NordOst16 24 March 2018 22: 11
                    +1
                    Well, you know, about IL2, the Americans also wanted a turboprop attack aircraft. For it is quite suitable for bombing on homeless people, and its maintenance is much cheaper. And the wars between the major powers, hmm ... it seems to me that if they do, then only if one side gets a decisive advantage over the other i.e. when the attacking side is confident in its impunity, and in this case nothing will help.

                    Well, if God forbid, they rivet 5 hundred t50, then what else will there be money left for? I think only for generation 4 +++++++++ (add to the required level). It seems to me that the motley park of the 5th generation is extremely expensive. And we still have a fleet that swallows and does not choke on any amount of money.
                    Well this is my humble opinion
                    1. NEXUS
                      NEXUS 24 March 2018 22: 24
                      +6
                      Quote: NordOst16
                      Well, you know, about IL2, the Americans also wanted a turboprop attack aircraft.

                      These are just words ... at the same time, it must be understood that their tactics of using aviation is such that at first all air defense, radar, etc. are destroyed under the foundation ... the example of Iraq is very revealing.
                      Quote: NordOst16
                      And wars between major powers,

                      It is not a matter of the size of the countries, but of the equipment of their armies.
                      Quote: NordOst16
                      I think only for generation 4 +++++++++ (add to the required level)

                      Well, for example, the same US is not in a hurry to write off the needles, but they are very diligently modernizing them. It should be understood that for the next 10 years the main heavy IFIs of our videoconferencing will be the SU-30, and a little after the SU-35. The Su-57 will be further developed for about 5 years, while purchasing it in small batches for the VKS.
                      At the same time, we do not forget that the radars do not stand still, and they are developing and improving very quickly.
                      As I have said more than once, the concept of generations is conditional, which was introduced by zhurnalyugi. There is a concept of a new fighter. And all countries have their own requirements for these very generations, which proceed from their vision of modern air combat.
                      Quote: NordOst16
                      And we still have a fleet that swallows and does not choke on any amount of money.

                      The fleet must be balanced and not the fact that it means it must catch up and overtake the United States quantitatively.The tasks of our fleet and the US fleet are different ... there is logical rationality and reasonableness, but there is a stupid arms race in which we will certainly lose.
                      1. NordOst16
                        NordOst16 24 March 2018 23: 00
                        0
                        But isn’t it a sensible decision to cut out everything that interferes with aviation? I think ours will do the same (although in Georgia we’ve gotten a little broken wings).
                        Under the word large, I had not so much area as their power.
                        Well, about the fact that the T50 will not be the basis of our air forces for a relatively long time - this is clear even from the example of the states. By the way, about the dryers, the Pfars stand on them, doesn’t their effectiveness decrease?
                        Well, speaking of the fleet, I meant that it is very expensive and will require a lot of money (because it’s a complete disaster with him). It never crossed my mind to expand it to the size of the usa or the People's Republic of China
                    2. NEXUS
                      NEXUS 24 March 2018 23: 17
                      +5
                      Quote: NordOst16
                      By the way, about the dryers, the Pfars stand on them, doesn’t their effectiveness decrease?

                      The dispute is inferior to PFAR AFAR has been going on for a very long time ... but for example on the same SU-35 there is an OLS35, with which you can detect the stealth of an adversary. And there is no such system on the Raptor, for example, and on the SU-57 it’s generally OLS50M with increased detection range.
                      At the same time, as I said, the development of the radar does not stand still and I am more than sure that soon on the SU-35 the same Irbis will replace either a new AFAR or ROFAR ... and if it is ROFAR, then all the boasted stealth the technology can be thrown into the trash ... the first tests at the ROFAR stand were already passed last year, and there will be 5 of them in total.
                      You can familiarize yourself with the teachings of the Indians on the SU-30 and mattresses ... On the 30th, not even IRBIS stands, but Bars, and at the same time, everyone (the AFAR mattresses) washed the Americans more than once ...
                      Quote: NordOst16
                      And we still have a fleet that swallows and does not choke on any amount of money.

                      Any fleet is an expensive pleasure, but absolutely necessary ... our borders are washed by three oceans ...
                      1. Thunderbolt
                        Thunderbolt 25 March 2018 01: 56
                        +1
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        ... but for example on the same SU-35 there is an OLS35, with which you can detect stealth adversary

                        But why are you fussing again! At least compare the OLS35 in range with the parameters of American missiles))))
                2. ALEXXX1983
                  ALEXXX1983 25 March 2018 19: 55
                  0
                  Quote: NordOst16
                  I hope that at least 1000-1500 t50 are riveted.

                  In vain hope. It’s good if at least 200 (like f 22) are riveted, otherwise they may well be limited to a hundred.
        5. Falcond
          Falcond 25 March 2018 00: 29
          +1
          Su-34 is a bomber to replace the 24th
      3. KCA
        KCA 24 March 2018 18: 47
        +1
        But we have wear of the airframe, specifically the wings, like the A-10 do not, the OMS and other electronics are changing, the “rook” will be stronger
        1. fa2998
          fa2998 24 March 2018 19: 11
          +2
          Rook probably doesn’t have such a gun as the A-10. How it works, the glider experiences good overloads, vibrations. But the gun is good, unique. Ammunition with a uranium core is developed. And the stock of shells is impressive. hi
    2. 210ox
      210ox 24 March 2018 17: 49
      +4
      Yes, what does the budget have to do with it. The Warthog proved to be a very effective weapon. He shouldn’t meddle where there is serious air defense.
      Quote: Andrey K
      ... The US Air Force has solved the problem of extending the life of the A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft until at least 2030 ...

      This is by the way about the super great defense budget - patch, shake.
      Here and in our VO there are many experts who poked a finger at our Rooks.
      These are two workhorses working directly on the battlefield.
      Neither the geldings nor we have anything to replace them yet.
      1. Andrey K
        Andrey K 24 March 2018 17: 57
        +6
        Quote: 210ox
        ... Yes, what does the budget have to do with it ...

        Dim, budget for everything. State is simply gigantic. They cannot digest as much as they ask for greed.
        Take the "Warthogs", "Abrams", shooter.
        Nothing new, on second-hand devices hang up. This is of course nothing wrong - the technique should work. But then boast of their 700 billion defense budget they do not need. It turns out that either they are eating up everything, or they are trivially plundered. That’s all “greatness”.
        1. Vard
          Vard 24 March 2018 18: 23
          +1
          There are questions about the structure of expenses ... 67% is money to maintain the infrastructure and salary ... Including pensions ... and by the way, the USA spends almost half as much on new weapons as we do ...
        2. NEXUS
          NEXUS 24 March 2018 19: 02
          +8
          Quote: Andrey K
          But then boast of their 700 billion defense budget they do not need

          It must be understood that these 700 lards are spread in a thin layer on the content of 700 bases outside the United States, as well as on the maintenance of a rather small amount of equipment, bases and weapons inside the country.
          1. NordOst16
            NordOst16 24 March 2018 19: 24
            +1
            And the contents of the armada at sea. I think the fleet is eating a lot of dough there.
      2. NordOst16
        NordOst16 24 March 2018 18: 14
        0
        Well, air defense is not their task.
      3. Setrac
        Setrac 24 March 2018 19: 34
        +2
        Quote: 210ox
        Yes, what does the budget have to do with it. The Warthog proved to be a very effective weapon. He shouldn’t meddle where there is serious air defense.

        Of course it is, one attack aircraft will not cope with all the air defense, but in the American Air Force there is more than one warthog and not only a warthog.
      4. Pivot
        Pivot 24 March 2018 22: 17
        +1
        Where there is nothing to make serious air defense for airplanes in general, an example of a conflict with Georgia was air defense so-so, and we lost airplanes normally.
    3. Thunderbolt
      Thunderbolt 25 March 2018 01: 35
      0
      Quote: Andrey K
      This is a word about the super great defense budget of the United States - verbiage

      In no way, if the complex has shown its effectiveness in Iraqi and Afghan companies, then it is advisable to leave this iron in service, although in accordance with the development of missiles, reinforced bombs and missiles are hung on it for remote control of the enemy, with strong air defense, and In this case, the warthog turns out to be an indispensable machine, which, in conditions of enemy counteraction, can hang on a thread like a UAV and can send its missiles and bombs more quickly even than UAVs at the direct request of the infantry.
      1. Andrey K
        Andrey K 25 March 2018 11: 08
        +5
        Quote: Thunderbolt
        ... In no way, if the complex has shown its effectiveness in Iraqi and Afghan companies, then it is advisable to leave this iron in the system, although in accordance with the development of missiles, reinforced bombs and missiles are hung on it ...

        You take the conversation to "that steppe" request
        What does it have to do with, how much can be hung, and if it weren’t, to enter the air defense coverage area?
        You can dream about anything, but if the latest A-10 was released in 1984, then you will not hang a single super-bomb on it. In materials science there is a concept - metal fatigue !!! States have not produced the A-10 for more than 30 years. What super-bombs are you going to hang on him? Re-read the article again - the geldings pound the old rusty trash. The article explicitly states that:
        ... The U.S. Air Force solved the problem of extending the life of the A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft until at least 2030. The US Department of Defense allocated $ 103 million to restart the production line for the new Warthog wings ...
  4. Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 24 March 2018 17: 55
    +3
    Really understood that fu-35 will not replace him? Smarter chtol ... what
    1. novel66
      novel66 24 March 2018 21: 00
      +1
      GAU-8 / A thing specific in fu-35 stupidly will not fit, and without it an attack aircraft could not be built
      1. san4es
        san4es 24 March 2018 21: 20
        +1
        Quote: novel xnumx
        GAU-8 / A thing specific in fu-35 stupidly does not fit

        hi ... There 25mm GAU-22 is:
        1. 320423
          320423 25 March 2018 02: 16
          0
          So it seemed like there was info about the fact that they can’t do it with GAU-22.
  5. vaaaaadik
    vaaaaadik 24 March 2018 17: 58
    0
    And with our attack aircraft, how are things going with wings? I hope they are also undergoing modernization, since there is no replacement yet
  6. izya top
    izya top 24 March 2018 18: 13
    +1
    when the printing press is already overheating what
  7. san4es
    san4es 24 March 2018 18: 21
    +1
    The powerful armament of these attack aircraft made them extremely popular to support ground operations.
    7x30 mm General Electric GAU-8 / A Avenger air gun
    The weight of the GAU-8 is 281 kg, of the entire cannon mount - 1830 kg (including an ammunition supply system and a drum with full ammunition weighing 933,4 kg). The length of the gun is 2900 mm, the barrel length is 2229 mm.
    Ammunition counts 1350 rounds of caliber 30x173 mm with an aluminum sleeve ..
    The ammunition of the gun consists of cartridges with an armor-piercing subcaliber projectile with a PGU-14 / B depleted uranium core (projectile mass 395 g, initial projectile speed - 1013 m / s), and cartridges with OFZ PGU-13 / B projectile (mass 378 g, initial speed - 1020 m / s). The cartridges alternate in a ratio of four PGU-14 / B to one PGU-13 / B.
    Initially, the gun had a variable rate of 2100/4200 rounds per minute. Later, the maximum rate of fire of 4200 rpm was limited to 3900 rpm. In practice, the duration of the gun’s fire is limited to one or two second salvo (in order to avoid overheating of the barrels and to increase their service life), followed by a minute break for cooling. hi
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 24 March 2018 18: 35
      +2
      Quote: san4es
      7x30 mm General Electric GAU-8 / A Avenger air gun

      The thing, of course, is spectacular. It would be interesting to know its real effectiveness in the database.
      1. sivuch
        sivuch 24 March 2018 18: 46
        +4
        Yes, too much. The Mavericks still worked on tanks, but for other armored vehicles the GSh-30-2 is enough
      2. san4es
        san4es 24 March 2018 19: 14
        +1
        Quote: Vladimirets
        ... still find out its real effectiveness in the database.

        ... Subcaliber uranium, - the tank will not seem enough.
        ... to barmaleys on a moped, (OF) - also bully
        1. Vladimirets
          Vladimirets 24 March 2018 19: 17
          +2
          Quote: san4es
          Sub-caliber uranium - the tank doesn't seem enough

          This is understandable, it is interesting how many military equipment is destroyed by this particular cannon in comparison with AB and SD.
          1. san4es
            san4es 24 March 2018 19: 32
            0
            Quote: Vladimirets
            ... how many military equipment was destroyed by this particular gun ....

            Eh ... Yes ktozh considered? .. And who will check? smile
          2. san4es
            san4es 24 March 2018 19: 43
            +4
            Quote: Vladimirets
            ... how many military equipment was destroyed by this particular cannon.

            ... Although there was a bit, here in VO:
            During Operation Desert Storm, A-10 attack aircraft from the United States Air Force used PGU-14 / B depleted uranium shells. 148 aircraft based in Saudi Arabia, performed 8077 combat missions. XUUMX PGU-783.514 / B 14 and almost 200 thousands of incendiary projectiles were spent. Based on the fact that each PGU-14 projectile contains about 300 of depleted uranium, the US Air Force scattered around the Persian Gulf about 259 tons of OU.
            In theory, in such a quantity it was possible to destroy all the armored vehicles of all the Gulf countries. However, the real success of the shooting was almost zero - and this despite the fact that the targets were heavily outdated tanks. In fact, the gun GAU-8A signed her impotence against the tanks. hi

            https://topwar.ru/38801-bolshie-pushki-amerikance
            v.html
            1. Vladimirets
              Vladimirets 24 March 2018 19: 46
              +2
              Quote: san4es
              However, the real success of the shooting was almost zero - and this despite the fact that the targets were very outdated tanks. In fact, the GAU-8A gun signed for its powerlessness against tanks.

              Well, that's it. smile Thoughts slip through that with all its steepness in modern conditions, such a gun has an efficiency close to zero.
              1. san4es
                san4es 24 March 2018 19: 57
                +3
                Quote: Vladimirets
                ... the gun has an efficiency close to zero.

                ... Well, this is against modern (Russian) tanks;
                The fact is that in 1971 it was discovered that Soviet tanks could be successfully hit when attacked from above with armor-piercing shells of 30 mm caliber ... But, the craftsmen from the Uralvagonkolkhoz did a bit to the tank layout, hung additional screens and armor, and the tank with a 30-mm shell from above stopped breaking through. The use of cores from depleted uranium also did not save the situation - but sharply increased the price of the shell. The economy of the A-10 aircraft rolled in the same direction as the US economy - in the ass. smile .

                ... With other armored vehicles, the question remains open fellow hi
                1. novel66
                  novel66 24 March 2018 21: 07
                  +1
                  Sanya! hi Do not listen to the grunts, cool thing, God forbid everyone!
                  1. san4es
                    san4es 24 March 2018 21: 27
                    0
                    Quote: novel xnumx
                    ... cool thing, God forbid everyone!

                    hi Hello Rom ... "Hurry for yu" - as our counterparts say smile
                    1. Shuttle
                      Shuttle 24 March 2018 23: 07
                      0
                      Quote: san4es
                      Quote: novel xnumx
                      ... cool thing, God forbid everyone!

                      hi Hello Rom ... "Hurry for yu" - as our counterparts say smile

                      At what second to watch the shooting on armored vehicles? For example on the tanks? Eh?
                  2. sabakina
                    sabakina 24 March 2018 21: 58
                    +3
                    Novel hi and I grumbled and I will grumble! rasharit here you know ... And finally, we have the Mosin rifle on entep pepelats!
                    1. novel66
                      novel66 24 March 2018 22: 35
                      0
                      Glory hi air defense means - machine gun maxim, nevertheless
                      1. sabakina
                        sabakina 24 March 2018 22: 46
                        +3
                        Romka, once again. I agree. And yet, we have hearing cats that spit on the entire EW!
                2. Grigory_45
                  Grigory_45 25 March 2018 02: 11
                  0
                  Quote: san4es
                  The use of cores from depleted uranium also did not save the situation - but sharply increased the price of the shell

                  the problem is different. When firing BOPS sharply decreases the resource of the barrel of the gun. In addition, the "bolt" also has other problems when using a gun - suction of powder gases into the engines. The length of the queue was forcibly limited. So imagine - what is it like to get at least a couple of shells at a small target such as a tank (God forbid still moving) from an airplane at a speed of 500-600 km / h in a 1-2-second burst) The break between bursts is about a minute, t. e. in one run - one click on the trigger.
  8. shuravi
    shuravi 24 March 2018 18: 45
    +3
    Quote: sefevi
    One of the most efficient aircraft! The power is amazing!




    During WWII he would have no price. But it is outdated at the time of creation.
    To stick such a powerful gun and ask why? To get into the coverage area of ​​military air defense with ears?
    1. NordOst16
      NordOst16 24 March 2018 19: 27
      +2
      Why is he out of date there? It’s enough for your tasks. And in the area of ​​operation, air defense and su25 will be dismantled
      1. shuravi
        shuravi 24 March 2018 19: 54
        +3
        Quote: NordOst16
        Why is he out of date there? It’s enough for your tasks. And in the area of ​​operation, air defense and su25 will be dismantled



        Do you know the range of the gun? And in comparison with other DIAs?
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 24 March 2018 20: 41
          0
          This attack aircraft will operate only when most of the air defense will be suppressed.
          1. shuravi
            shuravi 24 March 2018 21: 00
            +2
            Quote: Vadim237
            This attack aircraft will operate only when most of the air defense will be suppressed.



            Wrong. It will be able to act only if most of the air defense forces and means are suppressed, and the work of the system itself is disorganized.
            But even in this case, the problem with the use of guns. Since MANPADS do not suppress.
            1. NordOst16
              NordOst16 25 March 2018 08: 02
              +1
              And how else should they work? So are tanks with infantry, tanks destroy what infantry cannot, and infantry protect tanks from adversaries with anti-tank weapons. So it is there, first air defense is carried out, and then a10 nightmares the land.
              If you follow your logic, then, apparently, along with it, su25 became hopelessly outdated because they also suffer greatly from MANPADS.
            2. Vadim237
              Vadim237 25 March 2018 12: 23
              0
              More than true - the remnants of anti-aircraft defense will be the very ones that will finish off - and they are not afraid of MANPADS.
              1. sivuch
                sivuch 25 March 2018 13: 22
                +2
                Sure ? But what was shot down OA-10 Serial number 77-0197, call sign Nail 51?
        2. novel66
          novel66 24 March 2018 21: 12
          +3
          buddy, so the era of local wars did not end far, and for such a "saw plane" work even before the hell. let it fly, beautiful, infection
          1. shuravi
            shuravi 24 March 2018 21: 21
            +2
            Quote: novel xnumx
            buddy, so the era of local wars did not end far, and for such a "saw plane" work even before the hell. let it fly, beautiful, infection



            Let them beat them out faster.
          2. sabakina
            sabakina 24 March 2018 22: 01
            +4
            Novel, it seems you are poorly versed in beauty.
            1. prodi
              prodi 24 March 2018 22: 15
              0
              the gun is good, it just seems that it was necessary to put it away under the fuselage
              1. sabakina
                sabakina 24 March 2018 22: 18
                +3
                Sorry, I'm not a gynecologist. What did you mean?
            2. novel66
              novel66 24 March 2018 22: 36
              0
              I don’t understand it? duel!
        3. NordOst16
          NordOst16 25 March 2018 01: 27
          0
          Well, the aiming is 1200, and so it hits up to 3km. But not one gun lives an attack aircraft, guided bombs, missiles. A little easier than a rook, while the maximum take-off is more than 2 tons.
          And why did you decide that this attack aircraft is out of date?
          1. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 25 March 2018 01: 57
            +2
            Quote: NordOst16
            Well, the aiming is 1200, and so it hits up to 3km.

            so consider it. In 1,5-1 km it will open fire, in 500 meters to bring the plane. Those. in any case, the airplane is in the zone of destruction not only of the rapid-fire guns of any caliber, but also of machine guns, not to mention MANPADS. If the enemy has no air defense at all - then yes, maybe
            1. NordOst16
              NordOst16 25 March 2018 08: 05
              0
              Well, not only does he live with a gun, there are also air bombs and missiles. And on the infantry of the gun, and at a greater distance, fire can be fired.
              Then, su25 will also suffer from the MANPADS
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 25 March 2018 08: 33
                +3
                Quote: NordOst16
                Well, not only does he live with a gun, there are also air bombs and missiles

                the fact. that the mattresses made the gun almost the main weapon of its attack aircraft. He has it - an anti-tank weapon. He practically has a flying gun. On the Su-25 cannon - exclusively auxiliary weapons.
                Quote: NordOst16
                Then, su25 will also suffer from the MANPADS

                the concept of using the Rook is different - delivering one sudden blow and leaving for the airfield until the enemy regains consciousness and organizes a competent counteraction. It was never assumed that he would hang over the battlefield.
                1. NordOst16
                  NordOst16 25 March 2018 10: 04
                  0
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  the concept of using the Rook is different - delivering one sudden blow and leaving for the airfield until the enemy regains consciousness and organizes a competent counteraction. It was never assumed that he would hang over the battlefield.

                  A sudden strike and reeling is just the job for the bombers (the same Su34) because for some reason the Su25 surrendered, it was precisely its task to provide fire support to the advancing troops. Take a look at the range of the vast majority of its weapons.
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  the fact. that the mattresses made the gun almost the main weapon of its attack aircraft. He has it - an anti-tank weapon. He practically has a flying gun. On the Su-25 cannon - exclusively auxiliary weapons.

                  The gun will not work badly in the infantry, but for the rest there are rockets and bombs.
                  1. Grigory_45
                    Grigory_45 25 March 2018 10: 39
                    +1
                    Quote: NordOst16
                    Sudden bump and reel - this is just the job for the bombers

                    Not at all. An attack aircraft, unlike a bomber, must aim at small and moving targets with high accuracy. The second approach is possible with weak unorganized air defense, and the third approach may not be at all. Therefore - a quick exit to the target area, a quick search for the target, aiming, striking - and retreat. Otherwise you will be shot down.
                    Quote: NordOst16
                    The gun is not bad for the infantry will work

                    in terms of infantry, the GAU-8 is excessively redundant and at the same time not as effective as compared to NAR and cluster bombs. It was set as an anti-tank weapon.
                    1. NordOst16
                      NordOst16 25 March 2018 10: 48
                      0
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      Not at all. An attack aircraft, unlike a bomber, must aim at small and moving targets with high accuracy. The second approach is possible with weak unorganized air defense, and the third approach may not be at all. Therefore - a quick exit to the target area, a quick search for the target, aiming, striking - and retreat. Otherwise you will be shot down.

                      But what kind of weapons can the Su25 have more than 10-15km? And what is their percentage? Quick entry to the target area, search, defeat and retreat - this is just the job for Su34 because it is equipped with radar. Su25 here will be in a losing version, it was just created in order to circle over the battlefield in search of enemy equipment and manpower. For armor protection hints at this role, helicopters are in the same situation. Su34 does not require armor for it, just the same, quickly enters the target area, sheds its combat load and leaves just as quickly.
                      On the other hand, if su25 works as you suggested, then why does it need armor? And if he needs armor for these tasks, then why isn’t it for Su34?
                      1. Grigory_45
                        Grigory_45 25 March 2018 11: 59
                        0
                        The task of the attack aircraft is the direct support of the ground forces, i.e. the defeat of small and moving both point and group targets, previously reconnoitered or by coordinates from the ground (on the guidance of units requesting support). The task of the aircraft is to quickly go into the square, search for the target (additional reconnaissance, with the help of onboard PRNK) and hit it with high accuracy. This involves the use of weapons from low altitudes, shaving flight or hollow dive.
                        Quote: NordOst16
                        why does he need armor?

                        Work at low altitudes implies a greater likelihood of shelling from the ground from MZA and small arms, in addition, the plane is not a helicopter, it is kept in the air exclusively due to translational speed. This helicopter can hover five kilometers and shoot ATGMs, for example. The attack aircraft does not know how to do this - it flies towards the target, because all its weapons are directional, which means that it will somehow enter the enemy’s air defense zone. It is for this that he is booked - to increase survivability in single hits not by too large a caliber. This is by no means a tank, so that for a long time to be under fire - heavy armor and aircraft are incompatible.
                        Quote: NordOst16
                        it was created just to circling the battlefield in search of enemy equipment and manpower

                        for this (for free hunting) the aircraft does not have a powerful reservation and effective means for independent search of targets. The equipment only allows for additional reconnaissance (coordinates) of the identified targets for the use of weapons on them
  9. Kunica
    Kunica 24 March 2018 22: 03
    0
    Well, he storms hard, but how about survivability? Or do you need five to cover it to work quietly?
    1. Pan_hrabio
      Pan_hrabio 24 March 2018 23: 10
      +1
      At least comparable to Su-25. Plus engines are better spaced.
      1. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 25 March 2018 01: 36
        +1
        Quote: noviczok
        At least comparable to the Su-25. Plus engines are better spaced

        no better. Although the engines are spaced apart, there is only air between them, which, as you know, is not a very serious obstacle for fragments. The Rook has an armored partition between the engines, which virtually eliminates the defeat of both engines with one blow.
        In general, the American was created according to a purely mattress concept - for actions in suppressing enemy air defense and with complete dominance of allied aviation in the sky, otherwise he does not survive. An indirect confirmation of this is the large ammunition for the gun and the strong weight of the load, which is unrealistic to shoot in one or two approaches, which the aircraft make when countering from the ground or in the presence of risk of colliding with enemy fighters. Those. it is assumed that it is not an assault strike and departure to its airfield, but that the Bolt will hang over the battlefield, periodically working on request from the ground for identified targets and again leaving the train. Who will let him hang quietly, except for the Papuans with peaks and bows?
        1. cth; fyn
          cth; fyn 25 March 2018 05: 20
          0
          Well, the meaning of this partition, in Syria, they knocked out one engine and it fell into a blur.
          1. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 25 March 2018 08: 36
            +1
            do you always judge by one particular about the general? It is more appropriate to recall Afghanistan
            1. ventel
              ventel 25 March 2018 09: 55
              +1
              And that Rutskoy also came to the spirits in SS25 and didn’t save a bit. In general, Tenderbold 2 was developed to work against tank and mechanized columns of the USSR in Europe.
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 25 March 2018 10: 25
                +1
                Quote: ventel
                And what about Rudtsky

                Rutskoi he, Rutskoi Alexander Vladimirovich. At least you would not distort the name.
                Quote: ventel
                SU25

                it’s a direct self-propelled gun already some kind) SU - self-propelled gun, Su - Sukhoi Design Bureau aircraft)
                Quote: ventel
                and no regrouping saved

                I talked about the preference of the Rook motor placement scheme over the Thunderbolt scheme (a steel plate is better than air), and not that the plane suddenly became completely invulnerable. By the way, enlighten how Rutskoi was shot down for the first and second time.
                Quote: ventel
                Tenderbold 2 was developed to work against tank and mechanized columns of the USSR in Europe

                I know that. Do you know that tank formations are covered by ZSU and self-propelled air defense systems?
                1. ventel
                  ventel 25 March 2018 15: 47
                  0
                  Sorry, but designers can approach the problem of motor protection in different ways. The thing is that the customer always wants to get a product that is cheap and efficient. And here it seems to me that the Americans came up better than the Soviet colleagues. You look visually where the engines will be replaced faster with A10 or Su25 and this time and in the war they say the most valuable time. Yes, I know how they shot down Rutsky in both cases he used a parachute. You know how much time the armored vehicles spend in battle and how much on the march. But they’re fighting not according to instructions, but according to circumstances.
                  1. Grigory_45
                    Grigory_45 25 March 2018 19: 00
                    0
                    the technical appearance of the product is formed on the basis of the requirements for it. Why did the Thunderbolt turn out like this? Because the military wanted to stick a monster-like gun on it, which itself and the store swept out a significant amount of the fuselage. Elsewhere, you need to place tanks, equipment, etc., not to mention the power elements of the structure. Because the engines hung from the outside. This is not the desire of designers or the customer, but simply nowhere else. Of the minuses of this arrangement, we have:
                    1. The worst survivability of the power plant
                    2. Greater aerodynamic drag (large cross-sectional area)
                    3. A large mass (pylons for mounting engines and amplification in the places of their attachment to the fuselage set are required)
                    Of the benefits:
                    1. ease of maintenance. All.
                    What is more important from the above for a combat aircraft, it is unnecessary to speak.
                    1. prodi
                      prodi 26 March 2018 09: 01
                      0
                      Well, if the engines were placed "on the planes", one keel and high tail?
  10. Shuttle
    Shuttle 24 March 2018 23: 09
    0
    Excellent vehicle delivery of ammunition on the battlefield in a warm and dry season and during daylight hours. That is how the Yankees and fight on it and nothing else.
  11. Old26
    Old26 25 March 2018 00: 58
    0
    Quote: noviczok
    At least comparable to Su-25. Plus engines are better spaced.

    Well, with projects spaced and we had

    1. zoolu350
      zoolu350 25 March 2018 04: 58
      0
      Nice pictures. The look of the promising PAK SHA complex? In my opinion, the upper version is more balanced.
  12. cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 25 March 2018 05: 19
    0
    A good aircraft, while it has no replacement, it is necessary to modernize it during the same major overhaul and operate it. Although he is ugly, but successful.
  13. 23rus
    23rus 25 March 2018 08: 35
    0
    Powerful infection, and the gun is good. smile
  14. Old26
    Old26 25 March 2018 09: 30
    0
    Quote: zoolu350
    Nice pictures. The look of the promising PAK SHA complex? In my opinion, the upper version is more balanced.

    No. These are pictures from the developments of the department (or brigade, I don’t remember anymore) 100-2 Sukhoi Design Bureau on the subject of LAN. The point is that after an exchange of nuclear strikes, most aircraft plants, and most of them, will almost certainly all be destroyed. And in these difficult post-apocalyptic conditions, the region (of course not everyone, but where were the aircraft factories or at least the aircraft factories should have been able to independently produce an inexpensive aircraft to strike at the enemy. This aircraft should have become Easy-to-play attack aircraft.. The head of this topic is Evgeny Grushin. In fact, on the site dedicated to experimental aviation, there are a huge number of real developments of Design Bureau Grushin. It is mainly small aircraft. But part of the resource was devoted to the development of this department.
  15. shuravi
    shuravi 25 March 2018 10: 39
    +1
    Quote: noviczok
    At least comparable to Su-25. Plus engines are better spaced.


    Directly opening. It turns out that in addition to sofa strategists, there are sofa designers. laughing
    Boys (well, only a teenager can quite consider himself smarter than KB specialists), there are two ways to protect engines from damage with one munition:
    1. Engine spacing.
    Thus we get:
    - engine pylons (+ weight)
    - reinforcement of the structure at the pylon mount (+ weight)
    - increase in the area of ​​the keel (keels) (+ weight) (+ drag)
    - increase in the so-called wetted surface (+ drag)
    2. Armored partition between engines.
    Thus we get:
    - armored town (+ weight) well, much smaller than in the first case, especially if you integrate it into the power pack
    - if one of the engines is damaged, there is no moment from the unbalanced thrust of the second (do not worsen the aerodynamics by actions to compensate for the moment)
    - better security of the power plant
    - less wettable surface.

    Why did the Americans go the first way? Yes, because the layout of the aircraft (the use of the internal volumes of the fuselage, the location of the wing with the center section was dictated by the gun.
  16. shuravi
    shuravi 25 March 2018 10: 40
    0
    Quote: cth; fyn
    Well, the meaning of this partition, in Syria, they knocked out one engine and it fell into a blur.


    Are you sure what was shot down, where was the defeat?
  17. NordOst16
    NordOst16 25 March 2018 10: 55
    +1
    Quote: Gregory_45
    I talked about the preference of the Rook motor placement scheme over the Thunderbolt scheme (a steel plate is better than air), and not that the plane suddenly became completely invulnerable. By the way, enlighten how Rutskoi was shot down for the first and second time.

    I think that the engine that will be hit (for example, a MANPADS rocket) will act as a defense for the second. In addition, MANPADS missiles are not so powerful warheads. And if it gets bigger, then the partition will not save.
    Although I agree with you that the su25 looks more reliable circuit.
  18. shuravi
    shuravi 25 March 2018 11: 08
    0
    There are all kinds of hits:

  19. Berkut24
    Berkut24 25 March 2018 11: 18
    +1
    US Department of Defense Allocates $ 103 Million to Restart Production Line for New Warthog Wings

    The $ 1,3 trillion budget was approved by the U.S. House of Representatives before the end of the current fiscal year, which ends September 30.
    Interestingly. Last year, he discussed his project, which shocked not only the Democrats, but also many Republicans. Trump's team decided to cut funding for 16 of the 19 national agencies. Nothing like this has happened in the history of the United States.

    The first to go under the knife is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Its budget will decrease by 31% - from $ 8.2 to $ 5.7 billion. At least 50 federal programs will be suspended. About 3.200 people will lose their jobs. Trump completely cut off funding for all research institutes studying global warming.

    The State Department (DOS) will receive less than 29% of the budget (from $ 38 billion to $ 27.1 billion). This department is really bloated and largely useless. An average American deals in DOS several times in his life - when he receives and extends his passport.

    The Department of Agriculture (USDA) will receive not $ 22.6 billion, but only $ 17.9 billion (-21%). So far, funding cuts for the food stamp program are not expected, but drinking water treatment projects and grants for farmers may disappear. USDA will also curtail aid to children. Poor families with a large number of children will receive significantly less from the state.

    The Department of Labor (DOL) also missed 21% of the annual budget (from $ 12.2 to $ 9.6 billion). Trump will stop funding a number of programs that helped Americans get a job. Free continuing education courses will disappear. Non-profit organizations will stop receiving money for lectures and seminars on business development and job search.

    The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will be cut by 18%. If in 2017 the agency will spend $ 84.1 billion, then in 2018 - only $ 69 billion. Here, Trump intends to curtail almost everything that does not concern Medicare, Medicaid and programs for helping opium addicts.

    Many Republicans believe that HHS may disappear altogether in the future. Medicare and Medicaid will be controlled by separate semi-state structures, and most of the 80 employees will lose their jobs.

    The Department of Commerce (DOC) will lose 16% of the budget (from $ 9.2 to $ 7.8 billion). In addition to international business, the agency was actively engaged in the study of marine resources, meteorology, as well as the protection of coastal areas from hurricanes and floods. It is these programs that will go “under the knife” of Trump.

    The Department of Education (DOE) will receive $ 59 billion instead of the usual $ 68.2 billion (-14%). The main news here is that children's summer camps and kindergartens, as well as after-school classes, will not be funded from the federal budget at all. They will turn into a classic private business. However, private and charter schools will receive half a billion dollars from above.

    The infamous Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), now led by former neurosurgeon Ben Carson, was rumored to have lost half of its usual budget. Trump, however, cut HUD by only 17% - from $ 46.9 billion to $ 40.7 billion.

    The Transport Department (DOT) will lose $ 2.4 billion (-13% of the budget - up to $ 16.2 billion). Trump put an end to the development of railway infrastructure, deprived of subsidies from commercial air carriers, and also froze the construction of unnecessary (in his opinion) automobile infrastructure facilities.

    The Department of the Interior (DOI), which deals mainly with land disputes between Indians, farmers, environmentalists, gas and oil companies, will receive $ 11.6 billion instead of $ 13.2 billion (-12%).

    The Department of Energy (DOE), led by former Texas governor Rick Perry, will receive $ 28 billion instead of $ 29.7 billion (-6%). Almost all research programs for the production of clean and cheap energy will go under the freeze. Only the costs of the Yucca Mountain nuclear fuel storage facility (Nevada) will increase.

    This is due to Trump's plans to increase the number of nuclear warheads in the United States for a potential war with Putin's Russia.

    Small Business Management (SBA), which small business owners themselves have repeatedly called one of the most useless departments in the country's history, will receive $ 2018 billion in 0.8 instead of $ 0.9 billion (-5%). Grants for business development grants, which until recently were almost impossible to obtain, will be cut back. SBA grant programs were created primarily to increase civil servants.

    The Treasury Department, which has been struggling in recent years with the theft of money by international hackers and counterfeiters, will receive $ 12.1 billion instead of the previous $ 12.6 billion (-4%). Reductions will affect dubious research programs for the storage and transfer of money supply.

    Department of Justice (DOJ) funding will also fall by 4% (from $ 28.8 billion to $ 27.7 billion).

    Here, the biggest surprise was Trump's plan to completely stop the construction of new prisons and the repair of existing ones. Human rights activists have already said that the conditions of stay in correctional facilities under the Trump administration will be almost the worst in the history of the United States.

    However, DOJ will receive additional funds to fight hackers, as well as send them to US prisons, as well as the arrest and deportation of illegal immigrants with a criminal past.

    The most effective US agency NASA, which does not cease to amaze humanity with its discoveries, will receive $ 19.1 billion instead of $ 19.2 billion. The reduction will affect only Earth exploration programs. In particular, global warming. Exploration of space and other planets will continue at the same level.

    The budgets of only three state agencies will increase. The first is the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). It will receive $ 78.9 billion instead of $ 74.5 billion (+ 6%). The main goal of the increase is to provide veterans with an exceptional medical service, which will be significantly higher than Medicaid / Medicare treatment.

    Trump once again reminded the Americans of the 2014 scandal, when a number of hospitals deliberately refused veterans service.

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will receive $ 44.1 billion instead of $ 41.3 billion (+ 7%). Additional funds will be used to strengthen the process of deportation of illegal immigrants, the construction of a fence on the border with Mexico, the fight against potential terrorists (special control over Muslims from Middle Eastern countries), as well as an increase in the number of security officials. Part of the funds will be found at the expense of TSA Passenger Security Fee - duties of $ 5.60 for those arriving at American airports.

    The largest budget increase is anticipated at the Department of Defense (DOD). He will receive a record $ 639 billion instead of $ 587 billion (+ 9%). The number of troops will increase, new planes and ships will become more. The combat readiness of the army will be the most effective in American history.

    So, three conclusions should be made from Trump's budget plan.

    First: the effectiveness of environmental protection will return to the indicators of the late 80s - early 90s. If Obama spent too much money on the environment, Trump plans to spend too little. In place of one extreme came another extreme.

    The second conclusion: all non-profit organizations and businesses that existed partially or fully on state grants will be on the verge of closure. It will become impossible to dislodge money from a state (state, county, city) for any socially significant project.

    It will be most difficult for representatives of creative specialties (artists, artists, musicians, etc.). Trump generally deprived them of funding, eliminating all the small agencies in the Arts and Cultural category. Previously, these agencies distributed a billion dollars annually between theaters, museums, studios, galleries, libraries and other creative institutions, but now in the column “financing” the figure is $ 0.00. All cultural objects, as well as cultural representatives, will have to survive at their own expense. In other words, they should turn into successful businessmen or famous, well-earned artists.

    Third conclusion: the reduction of the welfare will be very smooth. If in 2018 problems arise only with preferential housing, then cutting of Medicaid / Medicare, food stamps and other assistance will occur in 2019 - 2020. Therefore, able-bodied "riders" need to start looking for work. According to Trump's plan, the best and most promising work in the coming years will be service in the US Army.

    Moreover, even for such a budget there is not enough money. According to experts, the debts for the fiscal year 2018 of the state machine will increase by 1-1,5 trillion. dollars, which will be more than 100% of military spending. That is, the budget deficit will be at least 25%, in some sectors a recession and a decrease in state support are programmed, and at the same time, Trump's economists for some reason promise economic growth by almost 2,2%.
    Praise be to those designers from the USA who create such military equipment that hourly drinks blood from the trillions of the budget throughout its entire service life!
  20. NordOst16
    NordOst16 25 March 2018 12: 19
    0
    Grigory_45,
    The abundance of Nurs at Su25 hints that it will obviously not work swiftly (airfield-battlefield-airfield). In addition, without a radar, it will be difficult for him to search for targets from a swoop. And the armor just allows him to work for some time at low altitudes under the influence of small arms of the enemy. In addition, they really wanted to put the power on the su25t, but you can’t shoot them quickly.
    1. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 25 March 2018 14: 31
      0
      Quote: NordOst16
      without a radar, it will be difficult for him to search for targets from a snap

      I just said - according to previously explored goals. Self-search is not supposed. Onboard PRNK - for additional reconnaissance of targets that may crawl somewhat until the plane arrives in a given square, and for searching for targets in the battlefield (smoke, etc.)
      Quote: NordOst16
      The abundance of Nurs at Su25 hints that it is clearly not in a swoop (airfield-battlefield-airfield) will work

      Quote: NordOst16
      on su25t they really wanted to put a gun, but you can’t shoot them quickly

      suspended depends solely on the task (type of target, range from the airfield, etc.) and the anticipated counteraction. If an aircraft can take, for example, 16 ATGMs, this does not mean that they must be hung in order by order of 16. XNUMX. The rated load is much more modest than the maximum possible.
  21. Machete
    Machete 25 March 2018 12: 36
    0
    For Ukrainians and Georgians, hundreds of lyamas were allocated for the cut, but they could not find money for their native Air Force. Well ...
  22. ruivit1988
    ruivit1988 25 March 2018 13: 11
    0
    It is curious that they spend almost a trillion on the army. Well, in the meantime, news is heard, then there is not enough money for that. Something is generally rusting ...
  23. sib.ataman
    sib.ataman 25 March 2018 14: 16
    0
    Quote: Vladimirets
    Stealth is stealth, and the old horse does not spoil the furrow.


    Plows and sleeps soundly!
  24. NordOst16
    NordOst16 25 March 2018 14: 52
    0
    Quote: Gregory_45
    suspended depends solely on the task (type of target, range from the airfield, etc.) and the anticipated counteraction. If an aircraft can take, for example, 16 ATGMs, this does not mean that they must be hung in order by order of 16. XNUMX. The rated load is much more modest than the maximum possible.

    But if PTRCs are not equipped with GOS, then using even 6 Ptur is not a very fast process. A su25 basically has to cope with the enemy’s armored vehicles.
    And the su34 will cope with the task of dropping air bombs or launching missiles much more efficiently and faster. At the same time, for this, he will not have to lower the actions of the MANPADS and small arms to the ceiling.
    1. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 25 March 2018 19: 26
      +2
      Quote: NordOst16
      Su25 basically has to deal with enemy armored vehicles.

      apparently you are confused with Thunderbolt. This is the A-10 - anti-tank aircraft.
      Quote: NordOst16
      su34 will cope with the task of dropping air bombs or launching missiles much more efficiently and faster

      shoot from the Su-34 NARamiya, i.e. sending him for an attack is like hammering nails with a microscope.
      1. NordOst16
        NordOst16 25 March 2018 22: 15
        0
        I meant that su25 is a machine that should be above the battlefield for quite some time, and with a swoop su34 it’s better