Military Review

Naval aviation is mastering the Hephaestus system

77

Su-24 and Su-30SM Black Sea fleet


Several years ago, the aerospace forces began widespread adoption aviation specialized computing subsystem SVP-24 "Gefest". Soon, all its advantages were shown during the Syrian operation. Now such equipment is received by aircraft of the naval aviation. This year the pilots from the Black Sea were the first to start mastering the modernized equipment.

Introduction of new items


The first reports of work on the implementation of the Hephaestus subsystem in naval aviation appeared in 2017. Then it was said about the re-equipment of Su-33 carrier-based fighters using the SVP-24-33 equipment. It was also noted at that time that in the near future, "land" front-line bombers Su-24M will receive similar devices.

At the beginning of 2018, the chief of aviation of the Navy, Major General Igor Kozhin, in an interview with Krasnaya Zvezda, said that the modernization of the Su-24M and Su-33 aircraft with the help of Hephaestus had significantly increased their ability to defeat ground targets. However, at that time, there was no information about the re-equipment of the naval Su-24M.

The situation with the SVP-24 for naval aviation has become clear only now. On July 13, Major General Kozhin spoke about the Navy's plans to develop air groupings. Among other things, he noted that the flight personnel of the Black Sea Fleet had successfully mastered the new sighting systems installed on their aircraft. At the same time, no specific types of equipment, equipment or military units were named.

On July 20, Izvestia, citing its sources in the Defense Ministry, disclosed details of the current rearmament. According to them, we are talking about the modernization of Su-24M bombers using the SVP-24 subsystem. This technique belongs to the 43rd Separate Naval Assault Sevastopol Aviation Regiment, based in the Crimea. Modernization work was completed at the beginning of the year, and then the pilots began to master the new equipment.


Not only Black Sea


At present, the 43rd Omshap is the only part of the naval aviation that has Su-24M aircraft with Hephaestus. In the near future, the regiment will have to test the upgraded equipment as part of a major exercise. In September, the Black Sea pilots will take part in the Kavkaz-2020 maneuvers, and the Su-24M will not be left without work.

It is reported about preparations for the modernization of the equipment of two more fleets - the Baltic and the Northern. As part of the Baltic Fleet's naval aviation, Su-24M aircraft serve in the 4th separate Guards Marine Attack Aviation Regiment, recreated in 2017. Together with them, the regiment operates modern Su-30SM fighters delivered in recent years.

Also, the bombers of the 98th Separate Guards Mixed Aviation Regiment of the 45th Army of the Air Force and Air Defense of the Northern Fleet will be upgraded. This regiment has two squadrons on Su-24M bombers and Su-24MR reconnaissance aircraft. Their modernization will also lead to understandable consequences.

According to The Military Balance 2020, 41 Su-24M bomber and 12 Su-24MR reconnaissance aircraft serve in the naval aviation of the Russian Navy. Taking into account the achieved successes in the re-equipment and modernization of the Aerospace Forces aircraft, it can be assumed that in the coming years a complete renewal of the fleet of naval Su-24M / Rs will be carried out with all the desired capabilities.

"Hephaestus" over the sea


Like the Air Force / Aerospace Forces several years earlier, the naval aviation is making the transition to modern on-board equipment that increases the combat qualities of equipment. So far, she lags behind her "land" colleagues, but the situation is gradually changing for the better.


Su-24M at the Northern Fleet naval aviation exercise, January 2020

According to known data, to date, the SVP-24 Hephaestus subsystem has received a number of Su-33 carrier-based fighters. Last year it was reported about the beginning of modernization of Tu-142M patrol aircraft, also providing for the installation of Hephaestus. The first of the updated Su-24Ms returned to service a few months ago. Of all the compatible types, only the Su-25UTG has not yet received such equipment - however, the decision to start modernization (or abandon it) can be made at any time.

The exact number of modernized "naval" aircraft has not yet been announced. At the same time, the technical features of the SVP-24 and the capabilities of the Navy make it possible for several years to update all available compatible aircraft in the amount of several dozen.

Marine benefits


The specialized computing subsystem "Hephaestus" is designed to improve the efficiency of the use of unguided air-to-surface weapons. Devices from its composition receive data from a number of sensors and devices, generate data for use weapons and provide dumping / firing at the optimum time. Due to this, bombs or rockets show the highest possible accuracy.

SVP-24 is designed as a set of products for installation on an existing aircraft. No major overhaul of technology is required. The installation of equipment can be carried out both at a repair plant simultaneously with the restoration of equipment, and in the conditions of a technical part. In the latter case, all procedures take only a few days.

When used on the Su-24M, the SVP-24 subsystem increases the accuracy of the ASP application up to three times. Such capabilities have been repeatedly confirmed in the conditions of landfills, and then were tested in Syria. "Hephaestus" in practice made it possible to solve the same combat missions faster and with less expenditure of weapons, and relatively cheap unguided.


The tasks of naval aviation include the defeat of various surface or ground targets using the entire available range of ASPs. Thus, the Su-24M bombers must use guided and unguided missiles and bombs against coastal structures, equipment, ships and watercraft. Some of these tasks are effectively solved by unguided weapons, and "Hephaestus" increases the likelihood of defeat with minimal consumption.

Su-33 fighters are also capable of attacking coastal or surface targets. In their case, the SVP-24 fully justifies itself. Of greatest interest is the installation of Hephaestus on Tu-142M anti-submarine aircraft. The operation of such machines is also associated with the discharge of the payload, however, in their case, these are radio hydrobucks, explosive sound sources and anti-submarine bombs or mines. The high accuracy of dropping buoys or bombs is of great importance for the effective solution of combat missions - and the use of SVP-24 is also fully justified.

Ways of modernization


Recent ones news on the modernization of the Su-24M from the Black Sea Fleet and the expected renewal of the equipment of other fleets are fully consistent with the general strategy for the development of combat aviation of the Russian armed forces. In the interests of the Aerospace Forces and the Navy, purchases and deliveries of completely new aircraft of modern models are carried out, and in parallel, the existing equipment is being modernized.

In terms of the timing and pace of rearmament and modernization, naval aviation is still inferior to the VKS. In particular, the introduction of Hephaestus began with a delay of several years, and so far we are talking only about one regiment. However, the necessary processes are up and running. In the foreseeable future, the naval aviation of the Navy will be armed with several samples of aviation equipment for various purposes, but with similar capabilities for using air-to-surface weapons.
Author:
Photos used:
Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
77 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Tugarin
    Tugarin 21 July 2020 05: 28 New
    16
    There are not so many aircraft of the indicated types in the ranks. But apparently the installation of "Hephaestus" is not expensive and really makes sense.
    1. Bez 310
      Bez 310 21 July 2020 07: 24 New
      -6
      Su-24 aircraft are old, they are not needed in MA, and the Hephaestus installation
      on them - money down the drain, or someone in the pocket.
  2. Thrifty
    Thrifty 21 July 2020 05: 30 New
    +2
    I will delicately keep silent about the fact that the adversary has such systems totally on all aviation. ..That's the question, how far we lag behind the same states in this direction. ...
    1. Errr
      Errr 21 July 2020 06: 20 New
      +5
      Quote: Thrifty
      I will delicately keep silent about the fact that the adversary has such systems totally on all aviation.
      This is unlikely. If the "partners" had something like that "in all aviation", then they would not need to write JDAM.
      Quote: Thrifty
      The question is how far we lag behind the same states in this direction.
      Depends on the point of view. You can, of course, equip every bomb with brains, or you can equip one good brain with ammunition. The second is much more rational.
      1. ares1988
        ares1988 21 July 2020 08: 40 New
        12
        Hephaestus is not a miracle worker. It cannot replace guided ammunition. With the help of Hephaestus, you can simply more accurately hit targets with previously known coordinates with an unguided weapon. This, in turn, shortens the list of goals, when working for which Hephaestus increases efficiency. In addition, Hephaestus, obviously, will not be able to compensate for any impact on the unguided munition after its separation from the carrier (wind, for example). Those. it's just a good aiming system, and nothing more. And certainly not a replacement for guided weapons.
        1. Errr
          Errr 21 July 2020 13: 54 New
          10
          In some ways, you are certainly right. "Hephaestus" really isn't a miracle worker. But JDAM is not omnipotent either. Each of them has its own niche.
          Next you write:
          Quote: ares1988
          ... any impact on the unguided ammunition after its separation from the carrier (wind, for example), Hephaestus, obviously, will also not be able to compensate. Those. it's just a good aiming system and nothing more.
          I cannot agree with this statement due to the fact that in reality the SVP-24 is not "just a good aiming system", but an aiming and navigation complex - a specialized computing subsystem with a wider range of tasks to be solved. It can be said that this project is rooted in the Soviet reusable orbital spacecraft "Buran", namely in its automatic navigation system, which allowed the Soviet shuttle to make an automatic landing on the GDP for the first time in the world even in very strong winds. You can write a lot here, but if you have a quarter of an hour of free time, better listen to Alexander Nikolaevich Panin, chief designer of Gefest and T CJSC (in the video below).T.zh. there is a good article on the topic "Hephaestus" on http://www.инжипром.рф/index.php/new-edition/195-gefest.
          1. ares1988
            ares1988 21 July 2020 14: 16 New
            +1
            Thank you, I went to study.
          2. ares1988
            ares1988 21 July 2020 15: 03 New
            +7
            Thanks, interesting. The essence of the work of Hephaestus (the person below gives a link to LJ): "The idea of ​​the device is brilliant on the one hand, but on the other is simple, like everything ingenious. In fact, the SVP-24 is not exactly an aiming system. Or rather, including Prior to SVP-24, any modernization of aiming systems went along the line of more accurate positioning TARGETS. Developers from the company "GEFEST & T" pushed off from the opposite: from the positioning of the ammunition carrier and dozens of physical and technical parameters of the environment and the aircraft itself. positioning GLONASS, the positioning of the target and the carrier is combined. That is, the aircraft is brought to the desired point and is actually bombing under computer control. " Judging by the article and the video, in addition, the system has a number of additional buns (the most important, perhaps, is getting the control center directly, first-hand, so to speak). To me, all of this is something that very much reminds me of the smart Track Point sight for assault rifles.
            PS and JDAM is certainly not omnipotent, any weapon can smear and misfire.
            But if we compare, on the one hand, guided bombs with INS / GPS guidance, and "dumb" bombs with an intelligent sighting system, on the other hand, it will turn out: both are designed to destroy stationary targets. To work with them on moving targets - very good. complicated. The former will be more accurate. The latter are cheaper.
            1. Errr
              Errr 21 July 2020 16: 03 New
              +1
              Moving targets, even with guidance exclusively by INS / GPS (INS / GLONASS), is not even difficult to work - it is almost impossible. Here, in order to achieve a 100% result at the terminal site, an additional active radar or optical system (IR, UV, visible part of the spectrum - for specific application conditions) is simply necessary. You can, of course, in one way or another "highlight" the goal from the side, but this is not always possible.
              1. ares1988
                ares1988 21 July 2020 16: 55 New
                +1
                I agree with you in everything.
                I didn’t write “impossible” for one reason: the HVP projectile being developed by the Americans is intended (as they plan) to destroy, including surface (ie large, but mobile) targets. At the same time: "The development of HVP shots has been carried out since the beginning of the 2010s by the British company BAE Systems. It is known that the new projectile is equipped with a rotating tail, thanks to which its flight is controlled. The built-in computer system is responsible for the control of the tail. GPS. All electronics in the projectile are filled with a durable compound, thanks to which it is able to withstand colossal overloads at the time of the shot. "
                Well, that is logical: the presence of GPS and the absence of other guidance systems, given the load when fired.
                So, it turns out that somehow they are planning a projectile with GPS to aim at a moving target. How? It is not clear, the most interesting. Although, maybe I'm just pulling the owl slightly on the globe here ...
                1. Errr
                  Errr 21 July 2020 20: 24 New
                  +1
                  Looked at the BAE Systems website for information on HVP. I did not find absolutely any hints of correcting the latter using GPS. Indeed, all this looks like, if not like an owl on a globe, then, in any case, like a duck - quite definitely. You can see for yourself at https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/hyper-velocity-projectile-hvp.
        2. 5-9
          5-9 21 July 2020 18: 05 New
          +1
          A guided weapon that can only be used by previously known coordinates like JDAM is quite a replacement ...
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 22 July 2020 15: 01 New
      +1
      "the foe has such systems totally on all aviation" ////
      ----
      Stood from 1942 to the 90s approximately. Since then, there has been a transition to
      guided ammunition. Free-fall bombs are no longer used.
      For precision ammunition, suspended or built-in fuselage is used
      targeting containers targeting pod or otherwise sniper pod

      Number 5 on the photo
  3. tlauicol
    tlauicol 21 July 2020 06: 01 New
    -1
    21st century in the yard ... well.
    1. Firelake
      Firelake 21 July 2020 09: 40 New
      +1
      E-efficiency. /sarcasm/
  4. avia12005
    avia12005 21 July 2020 07: 07 New
    +8
    The naval aviation should receive the Su-34 - an aircraft that is most suitable for performing missions over the sea and strikes against naval targets. Flight range, payload, "flexible" architecture, allowing an unlimited number of upgrades, finally, comfortable working conditions for the crew and reduced requirements for airfield basing, this is what is needed.
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 21 July 2020 08: 05 New
      +2
      this was originally proposed and the Su-34 was then called the Su-32FN Fighter-Navy
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 21 July 2020 09: 10 New
        -2
        This is a joke?
        I don't remember using "imported"
        letters in the names of our aircraft.
        The Su-34 is needed in MA, in a missile-carrying version.
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 21 July 2020 10: 09 New
          +4
          Reality...
          Maybe you just don't remember how the Su-34 was conceived? I have a book here, for example, Ilyin is in the second half of the 90s. "Fighter-bombers". There is a Su-34, ugh, then Bish Su-32FN is already there and described. Moreover, it is presented there as a multipurpose naval aircraft, with the possibility of suspension, as I recall, a compartment between the engines for storing torpedoes and the RGAB. Yes, this is a paper project, but it was.
          1. Bez 310
            Bez 310 21 July 2020 12: 24 New
            +1
            Quote: Cyril G ...
            Su-32FN

            This is the name of the export version (SU-32FN, which meant Su-32 Fighter Navy - naval fighter), in our Army "import" letters are not used.
            In general, it doesn't matter ...
            1. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 21 July 2020 12: 27 New
              0
              It doesn't matter, it was about something completely different.
              1. Bez 310
                Bez 310 21 July 2020 12: 29 New
                +1
                Yes, this Su-32 in a missile-bomb version, with decent
                missiles, could do well on the seas.
                Anti-submarine attempts are nonsense.
                1. Cyril G ...
                  Cyril G ... 21 July 2020 12: 32 New
                  0
                  Quote: Bez 310
                  Anti-submarine attempts are nonsense.

                  Klimov estimated it differently ...
                  Quote: Bez 310
                  Su-32 in missile-bomb version, with decent
                  missiles, could do well on the seas.

                  The solution would be great, but the command of the Navy, uh well, came out as usual.
                  1. Bez 310
                    Bez 310 21 July 2020 12: 33 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Cyril G ...
                    Klimov estimated it differently ...

                    And what, this "Klimov" served in anti-submarine aviation?
                    1. Cyril G ...
                      Cyril G ... 21 July 2020 12: 35 New
                      0
                      Why ask a rhetorical question when you know the answer?
                      1. Bez 310
                        Bez 310 21 July 2020 12: 37 New
                        0
                        I do not know who Klimov is, I did not delve into the personalities here.
  5. zyablik.olga
    zyablik.olga 21 July 2020 09: 40 New
    +1
    Maybe I don't understand why, but why is Hephaestus needed on single-seat Su-33s, which are mainly intended for air defense of a ship's formation? request
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 21 July 2020 10: 17 New
      +3
      In reality, as it turned out, the decks should be able to bomb. Gunboat policy in action ..

      There is even an anecdote about Putin on this topic. Back in the 15th, when they started the operation in Syria, a meeting was held, and then Putin, looking at the shining gold black uniforms of sailors, take an interest and what do we have with our one and only aircraft carrier! The admirals had paralysis, and at first they began to mumble what they say was being repaired. Putin is said to have answered. tidy up the aircraft carrier as you want, but so that he took part in the operation in Syria. Then the admirals hesitated and uttered. So we have planes of the wrong system. After that, the president said and asked if the admirals were pressing their shoulder straps !!? This is how Hephaestus appeared on the Su-33.
  6. bober1982
    bober1982 21 July 2020 10: 29 New
    0
    Quote: ares1988
    With the help of Hephaestus, you can simply more accurately hit targets with previously known coordinates with an unguided weapon. Which, in turn, shortens the list of goals, when working on which Hephaestus increases efficiency

    A somewhat confused thought, why is it more accurate to hit only unguided ammunition? And, it is not entirely clear how the list of goals is reduced, as you put it.
    On the Su-24M, an outdated sighting system is being modified to the Su-24M2, as in the Aerospace Forces, only.
    1. ares1988
      ares1988 21 July 2020 10: 55 New
      +6
      Because Hephaestus has no effect on the use of guided munitions, for example, with a semi-active laser guidance system. His task, roughly: timely release / drop unguided ammunition. Therefore, if the target is stationary and the wind does not interfere, then everything will be ok. If the target moves, changes its trajectory, initial data is incorrectly determined, etc. - A "dumb" bomb itself in flight will not be able to fix this, of course. Therefore, it turns out: bombing the camp of conditional terrorists is a suitable task for Hephaestus. Bombing the ship - obviously not.
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 21 July 2020 11: 16 New
        0
        Quote: ares1988
        Its task, roughly: timely release / drop unguided ammunition

        The task of timely dropping an aerial bomb was solved by academician Vladimir Petrovich Vetchinkin, long before Hephaestus, this is not a problem - the level of a cadet at a navigational school.
        1. ares1988
          ares1988 21 July 2020 11: 24 New
          +3
          In this case, any pilot from any aircraft with any free-fall bomb must always hit the target.
          1. bober1982
            bober1982 21 July 2020 11: 32 New
            -4
            It should be, it was (almost)
            "Every bomb, missile - right on target, from the first run"
            And, about Hephaestus did not hear, and did not know.
            1. ares1988
              ares1988 21 July 2020 11: 36 New
              +3
              If so, then why is Hephaestus needed then, and how was he able to (estimated) at times improve the accuracy of using unguided weapons, which was excellent before him?
              1. bober1982
                bober1982 21 July 2020 12: 02 New
                -2
                Quote: ares1988
                If so, then why is Hephaestus needed then, and how was he able to (estimated) at times improve the accuracy of using unguided weapons, which was excellent before him?

                No Hephaestus can significantly improve the accuracy of bombing, this very accuracy was high even without it, using conventional optical sights.
                The level of technology is now different - the work of the crew is greatly simplified, the reliability of the onboard equipment is increased, and the accuracy of combat use is also increased, but not many times, of course, but insignificantly.
                1. Narak-zempo
                  Narak-zempo 21 July 2020 12: 30 New
                  +5
                  Quote: bober1982
                  this very accuracy and without it was high, with the use of conventional optical sights

                  Right. The usual sight, according to the table, set the lead depending on the height and speed - and throw it. Even in the First World War, they learned this. Guaranteed to get you right through the window to the adversary in a circle with a radius of some 500 meters.
                  It is not clear only why, having such an ingeniously simple solution, the entire history of strike aviation, they were wise with sights, invented some complex mechanisms, for some reason combined the sight with an autopilot, made monstrous devices like "Norden" costing half an aircraft (and at the same time tried their best to create guided bombs, because even such clever scopes did not help much, sir). It's simple, you see the goal - throw it, you won't miss.
                  1. bober1982
                    bober1982 21 July 2020 12: 38 New
                    -6
                    Quote: Narak-zempo
                    It's simple, you see the goal - throw it, you won't miss.

                    That's what I'm talking about. If only the "bast shoe" sits behind the sight, then - yes, no bomb ballistics and aiming theory will help, and even Hephaestus.
                    Throughout the past century, the best minds of mankind have considered the trajectory of the bomb.
                    1. ares1988
                      ares1988 21 July 2020 13: 28 New
                      +1
                      I seem to get it. This is such a thin banter.
                    2. Narak-zempo
                      Narak-zempo 21 July 2020 16: 11 New
                      +5
                      Quote: bober1982
                      That's what I'm talking about. If only the "bast shoe" sits behind the sight, then - yes, no bomb ballistics and aiming theory will help, and even Hephaestus.
                      Throughout the past century, the best minds of mankind have considered the trajectory of the bomb.

                      Obviously, the concept of dispersion of circular probable deviation is not close to you.
                      KVO ammunition, like Marxism, has three sources and three components laughing
                      1. Errors in determining data at the aiming stage.
                      2. The impact of the external environment (wind, different temperatures and, therefore, the density of air masses).
                      3. Imperfection of the ammunition itself, deviations in mass and aerodynamic parameters from the calculated ones.
                      With the second, everything is clear, we cannot track and take into account the state of the atmosphere along the entire flight path of the bomb.
                      With the third - questions to the manufacturer and to those who carry out loading and suspension. Well, so as not to kick the stabilizers and all that.
                      This means that an increase in accuracy can be achieved by reducing errors in the generation of data for shooting (bombing). And this is, firstly, the creation of algorithms for calculating the trajectory, taking into account the maximum number of parameters affecting it, and secondly, the most accurate determination of these parameters. Moreover, it is desirable that all this be automated, then the result of the bombing will be less dependent on the "bast shoes" in the cockpit.
                      1. bober1982
                        bober1982 21 July 2020 17: 33 New
                        -2
                        You are, judging by the commentary, an artilleryman.
                      2. Narak-zempo
                        Narak-zempo 21 July 2020 22: 56 New
                        +3
                        Quote: bober1982
                        You are, judging by the commentary, an artilleryman.

                        I am a biologist, I have no military education, I only approached artillery pieces in a museum.
                      3. bober1982
                        bober1982 22 July 2020 04: 44 New
                        -4
                        Quote: Narak-zempo
                        I am a biologist, I have no military education, I approached artillery guns only in a museum

                        I have the most vague ideas about biology, very vague, at the level of the school curriculum, and what I knew I forgot.
                        It would be very immodest for me, to put it mildly, to enter into a professional discussion with a biologist on any biological issues.
                        The fact that bombs and bombers you saw only in museums can be determined very quickly from your comments.
                  2. vprnik
                    vprnik 22 July 2020 15: 58 New
                    0
                    The goal of the command is to make any "bast shoe" flying on its first sortie hit, for this and hefest. For a real professional, these sighting systems for furniture, he will get it anyway - "three fingers from the edge of the lamp ...".)))
                  3. bober1982
                    bober1982 22 July 2020 18: 24 New
                    -1
                    Quote: vprnik
                    For a real professional, these sighting systems for furniture, he will get it anyway - "three fingers from the edge of the lamp ...".)))

                    A true professional must know the ballistics of an aerial bomb, the theory of aiming, the target area, the target itself, be assembled during the attack, and interact competently in the crew.
                    Well, Hephaestus will help. Then ... will get there, the command will be happy.
            2. ares1988
              ares1988 21 July 2020 13: 32 New
              +1
              I'll be brief: hi
              1. bober1982
                bober1982 21 July 2020 13: 48 New
                -3
                And, my compliments to you, by the way, and there is no banter about the accuracy of the bombing.
                After all, the article says that the "sailors" on the Su-24M are being brought up to the standards of the Su-24M2 VKS.
                Until recently, the 43rd regiment flew on "simple" Su-24s, how was this possible when the Su-24 was long ago decommissioned from the Air Force, and in general how the Su-24 itself became a naval attack aircraft is a complicated story. But now, in my opinion, the naval Su-24Ms have also begun to be modernized competently, in the sense that it is too early to write off the plane, it cannot be killed, either with Hephaestus or without it.
                1. ares1988
                  ares1988 21 July 2020 14: 30 New
                  +1
                  Quote: bober1982
                  there is no banter about the accuracy of the bombing

                  Could you have some statistics to compare the bombing accuracy of the SU-24 unguided bombs with and without Hephaestus? I would very much like to see "Every bomb, rocket - right on target, from the first approach" in those days when "they did not hear about Hephaestus, and did not know."
                2. bober1982
                  bober1982 21 July 2020 14: 40 New
                  0
                  Quote: ares1988
                  "Every bomb, missile - right on target, from the first run"

                  By the way, it is better not to leave for the second call, for a very simple reason - this second call simply cannot be. But, by the way.
                  Quote: ares1988
                  I would very much like to see "Every bomb, rocket - right on target, from the first approach" in those days when "they did not hear about Hephaestus and did not know"

                  Such statistics - no, there was not and cannot be (frankly), unless, of course, this issue is approached formally, but I will say more, there is no such statistics, and it cannot be, with Hephaestus
                3. ares1988
                  ares1988 21 July 2020 15: 09 New
                  +1
                  Well, of course. And where, then, do the KVO indicators for different types of weapons come from? And on what basis are standards for pilots formed? But how does the same Ministry of Defense compare the new weapon system with the old one, to replace which it was developed? Here the developers of Hephaestus say that the accuracy has been improved by 3 times (http: //www.enghipprom.rf/index.php/new-edition/195-gefest).
                4. bober1982
                  bober1982 21 July 2020 15: 15 New
                  +1
                  Quote: ares1988
                  And on what basis are standards for pilots formed?

                  The average combat use score of a 1st class pilot is at least 4,7 (with or without Hephaestus)
                  This is documented in the flight book of every 1st class pilot.
                  Quote: ares1988
                  Here the developers of Hephaestus say that the accuracy is improved 3 times

                  You can fucking be.
                5. ares1988
                  ares1988 21 July 2020 15: 28 New
                  0
                  OK. I'm not a pilot. But. The same motorized riflemen have control firing. Should (roughly) knock out so many points at such and such a target from such a distance.
                  Do pilots have "test bombings"? I understand that you can cling to the terms now, but I hope I managed to convey the essence of the issue.
                6. Kasym
                  Kasym 21 July 2020 23: 20 New
                  +2
                  Dmitry, pilots have such a concept as the class qualifications of a Military Pilot. In ascending order: Grade 3; Grade 2; Class 1 and sniper pilot (class 1 military pilot who has increased flight time on all types of aircraft (helicopters) and has completed a certain number of flights for combat use in a row with an "excellent" grade. Class qualifications are awarded by order of the Ministry of Defense. ). hi
  7. d4rkmesa
    d4rkmesa 23 August 2020 11: 16 New
    0
    "It is guaranteed that you will get right into the foe's window in a circle with a radius of some 500 meters" - Maybe "Hephaestus" is still "more accurate" by an order of magnitude?
    1. Narak-zempo
      Narak-zempo 23 August 2020 16: 11 New
      +1
      Quote: d4rkmesa
      "It is guaranteed that you will get right into the foe's window in a circle with a radius of some 500 meters" - Maybe "Hephaestus" is still "more accurate" by an order of magnitude?

      Read carefully. About 500 meters was written in response to a comrade, who believed that for accurate bombing, a simple sight was enough.
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 21 July 2020 15: 44 New
    +3
    Quote: ares1988
    any free-fall bomb from any plane must always hit the target.

    Honestly, given the principle of the scope, "assumptions"
    adopted during its development, it is possible to hit the target with a bomb only
    accidentally.
    But before the skill of Soviet navigators was limitless, and
    I myself saw a bomb entering the target ship's pipe.
  • NIKN
    NIKN 21 July 2020 11: 30 New
    +3
    Yes, moving targets until today for SVP-24 were "difficult" (to say the least) target. From the article I did not understand what changes were made to the SVP-24 in terms of adaptation to use in naval aviation, but it seems to me the whole meaning of the title of the article
    naval aviation masters the system "Hephaestus"
    hints that the SVP-24 was improved for these purposes. For the ordinary one has been working without problems for a long time and not only on the Su-24. I think the point is in expanding the capabilities of this equipment. Well (personally, my wishes or guesses), for example, an algorithm for accounting for the speed and direction of the target has been added, possibly with some channel for determining these parameters. Well, these are personal fantasies, but no one canceled the work on ground targets for naval aviation, so that the installation is justified.
    In general, thanks to Serdyukov and not only, the path of the excellent SVP-24 system in our aviation was incredibly thorny, and only for this, under Stalin, the accidents would have been at least halved.
    https://yurasumy.livejournal.com/701928.html Тут в кратце об этом.
    1. ares1988
      ares1988 21 July 2020 11: 50 New
      +4
      I wanted to give you a link to the same LJ. There the principle of operation is described extremely succinctly. I fully agree that moving targets are difficult for Hephaestus. Again, the further the target is, the greater the miss. inevitable errors will manifest themselves the further - the more. Again, unlike guided weapons, the same "stupid" bombs dropped from a bomber with Hephaestus have no way to adjust their trajectory during flight. As for the revision for naval aviation, it is clear that I would like to, but nothing hints at this from the article. They could easily have put the same thing that was put on the ground SU-24. The SU-33 was installed. As you yourself have noticed, naval aviation can also work on ground targets.
      1. Errr
        Errr 21 July 2020 14: 13 New
        -1
        Don't forget about the KAB-500S with GLONASS guidance.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 21 July 2020 13: 36 New
      +2
      Quote: NIKNN
      In general, thanks to Serdyukov and not only, the path of the excellent SVP-24 system in our aviation was incredibly thorny, and only for this, under Stalin, the accidents would have been at least halved.

      Uh-huh ... if you carefully read Yura from Sumy, then this path was especially thorny until 2008, when the "Hefest people" fought with the "dry" ones. But, of course, Serdyukov is to blame. smile
      The funny thing is that contracts for the modernization of the Su-24M according to the "Hefest" version continued to be concluded even despite Popovkin's statement.
    3. Cympak
      Cympak 24 July 2020 00: 26 New
      0
      Serdyukov did not spread rot "Hephaestus". He was spread rot in the Sukhoi Design Bureau, because they made their own modernization of the Su-24M2 "Gusar", which, according to some reviews, had the worst characteristics and a significantly higher price. Typical
      Russian military-industrial feudalism, however. It is a miracle that then "Hephaestus" broke through, and without him the Syrian campaign could have failed.
  • iouris
    iouris 21 July 2020 10: 56 New
    -1
    Stationary aircraft carriers can be bombed from a height of 5000 m.
  • Vlad Malkin
    Vlad Malkin 21 July 2020 11: 39 New
    +3
    By submitting the text, the author is immediately recognized! And naval aviation needs Tu - 22M3M and Su - 34M!
    1. Bez 310
      Bez 310 21 July 2020 13: 52 New
      +2
      Eck you scattered - both this and that ...
      But the naval Su-34 would be very useful.
      Yes, the Fleet will not buy anything, all the money will go to the UDC.
  • tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 21 July 2020 14: 01 New
    0
    Maybe we have bombs of old warehouses filled up. And this is a way to competently dispose of ammunition with the help of Hephaestus. We dispose of something else for the company. My thoughts take place.
    1. iouris
      iouris 22 July 2020 14: 12 New
      0
      Quote: tralflot1832
      My thought takes place.

      "I have a thought - I think it!"
  • bober1982
    bober1982 21 July 2020 17: 37 New
    0
    Quote: ares1988
    Do pilots have "test bombings"?

    Yes, without fail, for obtaining a class qualification, for its confirmation, upon obtaining various admissions and, in some other cases.
    1. Aag
      Aag 21 July 2020 18: 35 New
      0
      Could you comment in more detail on the "threefold increase in bombing accuracy"? (I understand that you disagree with this ... wording). I would like to understand how they count: the air defense system has decreased three times? or speed? The probability of defeat was 0,3 now 0,9? And then I am something ... discordant from such breakthroughs ... hi
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 21 July 2020 19: 05 New
        -1
        Quote: AAG
        Could you comment in more detail on the "threefold increase in bombing accuracy"?

        Are you asking me a question?
        1. Aag
          Aag 22 July 2020 04: 16 New
          0
          Quote: bober1982
          Quote: AAG
          Could you comment in more detail on the "threefold increase in bombing accuracy"?

          Are you asking me a question?

          Yes.
          1. bober1982
            bober1982 22 July 2020 04: 35 New
            -1
            Quote: AAG
            Are you asking me a question?

            Quote: AAG
            Yes.

            But, after all, this question is not the right place, which is why I asked again. You confused the addressee.
    2. iouris
      iouris 22 July 2020 17: 45 New
      0
      The most interesting thing is that the scattering of aerial bombs obeys a normal law, and therefore the result of any bombing (even a "control" one) is accidental. Thus, if the bomb deviated from the aiming center at a distance of X = + 270 m in range and Z = -180 m in the direction, then this may mean that everything is OK (if sigma X = 90 m and sigma Z = 60 m). And whoever did not understand this, then ... will understand.
  • wow
    wow 21 July 2020 17: 39 New
    0
    Those from Izvestia who reveal "some details" need to hammer a nail in their heads ...
  • Koval Sergey
    Koval Sergey 21 July 2020 18: 04 New
    10
    MA itself also needs to be saturated with new.
    1. Max Lebedev
      Max Lebedev 21 July 2020 19: 13 New
      +4
      Yes, Su-30SM performed well in MA
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 21 July 2020 22: 15 New
        -1
        Where was it shown?
        Maybe they can work on ships?
        Or can they guard the PLA while working on the IPL?
        And why are they in MA?
  • Radikal
    Radikal 22 July 2020 18: 20 New
    0
    Naval aviation is mastering the Hephaestus system
    This makes me happy. Another question - and many aircraft remained with the sailors after its (naval aviation) defeat by "their" monsters over the past 30, more than a little years? sad
  • FRoman1984
    FRoman1984 17 September 2020 04: 49 New
    0
    The news seems to be good and not very good. This means that the Su-24 will not be replaced by the Su-30 in the naval aviation for a long time.