Military Review

Light turboprop attack aircraft: the experience of Vietnam

107

During the fighting in Southeast Asia, it became clear that the supersonic fighter-bombers, created for the "big war", are poorly suited for destroying small targets in the jungle. Due to the high flight speed and poor visibility, the pilots of supersonic fighter-bombers could not confidently identify the target and provide the required bombing accuracy. On several occasions there have been cases when turbojet combat aircraft inflicted unintentional strikes on American or South Vietnamese units or, due to the proximity of the combat formations of the opposing sides, were unable to provide effective aviation support.


Soon the American command came to the conclusion that in order to destroy point targets in a jungle war, a relatively light combat aircraft is needed that meets the following requirements:
- maximum speed up to 800 km / h, and working speed no more than 300 km / h. Otherwise, the pilot will experience a lack of time to recognize the target and aim;
- special attention should be paid to providing forward-downward visibility. It was also desirable to have a second crew member on board to increase situational awareness;
- a light attack aircraft must have armor protection for the cockpit, fuel tanks and the most important parts from the rifle weapons;
- an anti-insurgency combat aircraft must carry a wide range of aviation weapons, operate day and night, which requires a set of optoelectronic and radar overhead and embedded systems;
- to perform typical patrol and reconnaissance missions, the minimum mass of the combat load must be in the range of 227-454 kg, and when departing for the provision of direct air support at the request of ground forces - at least 908 kg;
- provided for the ability to operate from poorly prepared unpaved airfields. For this, a light attack aircraft must have good take-off and landing characteristics, as well as be easy to maintain and repair.

The understanding of the value of light turboprop combat aircraft did not come immediately. Until the early 1970s, piston fighters and attack aircraft created during the Second World War or shortly after its end were widely used in local conflicts to strike ground targets. However, as the "Mustangs" and "Corsairs" were decommissioned, the combat squadrons received jet fighters that had a much higher rate of climb, altitude and flight speed, but at the same time they were not very suitable for dealing with moving point targets.

The first American reconnaissance and strike turboprop combat aircraft was the twin-engine OV-1 Mohawk, created by Grumman. This vehicle was adopted by the American army aviation in 1959 and was originally intended only for reconnaissance and artillery fire adjustment, and therefore there were no weapons suspension assemblies. The Mohawk was serially built from 1959 to 1970, a total of 380 aircraft were produced.


OV-1 Mohawk

The appearance of this aircraft was influenced by three main criteria: ensuring good visibility, high protection of the crew and main systems, good takeoff and landing characteristics. The pilot and observer were located in ejection seats, which ensured leaving the aircraft at zero altitude and a speed of 185 km / h. The crew had a double control set, which greatly facilitated pilot training and increased the chances of a successful landing in the event of a pilot's death or injury. The Mohawk, which was a turboprop midwing with a two-seater cockpit and a three-keel tail, could carry a very diverse reconnaissance and search equipment: day and night cameras, side-looking radar, passive infrared stations and radio systems designed to detect working radio stations and radars.

Aircraft of the OV-1A modification were equipped with a Textron Lycoming T53-L-701 theater with a power of 1005 hp. each. The OV-1D modification was equipped with 1400 hp engines. The maximum takeoff weight was 8214 kg. The maximum flight speed was relatively low - 491 km / h. Cruising speed - 330 km / h. At the same time, the "Mohawk" had excellent maneuverability, and for takeoff it needed a runway no more than 400 m long. With outboard fuel tanks, the aircraft could stay in the air for 4,5 hours. Particular attention has been paid to providing excellent visibility from the cockpit.

From the very beginning, the Mohauk's security was good. The glazing of the cockpit was made with 25-mm bulletproof glasses, from below the pilots, sitting shoulder to shoulder, were protected by 6,4-mm armor made of light alloy, in addition to armored backs, the pilots were covered by sheets of aluminum armor in front and behind. Such armor protection protected the crew from being hit by small arms fire. The nacelles were located above the wing, due to which the elements of the wing structure partly protected the engines from fragments of anti-aircraft shells and bullets when fired from below. After the appearance of the Strela-2 MANPADS in Vietnam, it turned out that the wing shields the thermal radiation of the engines well, making it difficult to capture the thermal homing head. The fuel tanks were sealed and filled with neutral gas, which made it possible to confidently hold single shots with 12,7-14,5-mm bullets.

Light turboprop attack aircraft: the experience of Vietnam

OV-1s made their first combat missions in Vietnam in 1962. A year later, the results of combat use were summed up, showing that the Mohawk is excellent for counterinsurgency operations. Sufficiently high speed, low noise level and modern reconnaissance equipment contributed to the successful implementation of search and reconnaissance flights. The maximum number of Mohaukes simultaneously deployed in Vietnam reached 80 units, and they were used mainly over the territory of South Vietnam. Unlike other types of aircraft, "Mohawks" were not transferred to the South Vietnamese allies, remaining in service only with US Army Air Squadrons.


It soon became clear that when carrying out reconnaissance missions there was a need to destroy the identified targets. To do this, six suspension nodes were installed on the initially unarmed aircraft, on which, in addition to suspended fuel tanks, 500-pound (227-kg) bombs, napalm tanks, blocks with 70 and 127-mm NAR, as well as SUU containers could be placed -12 with 7,62 mm M134 Minigun machine guns. After one Mohawk was shot down by a North Vietnamese MiG-1969 in 17, AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles were suspended on planes flying on the Ho Chi Minh Trail for self-defense. Maximum payload mass - 1678 kg. However, taking into account the suspension of additional fuel tanks and reconnaissance equipment, the weight of bombs and missiles in most combat missions was half that.


Preparing the OV-1 Mohawk for a combat mission

However, the main threat to the "Mohauk" was not a small number of North Vietnamese fighters, but anti-aircraft artillery and large-caliber machine guns. Before US forces left Vietnam, 63 OV-1s were lost. According to American data, 25 aircraft were shot down by air defense systems, another one burned up on the ground after shelling an air base. The rest of the OV-1s were lost for "non-combat reasons". However, there is reason to believe that a significant part of the 36 cars that crashed in flight accidents were damaged by anti-aircraft fire.


Nevertheless, the effectiveness of the OV-1 Mohawk reconnaissance and strike aircraft turned out to be quite high. They operated successfully both day and night. Combat missions in pairs were carried out quite often. At the same time, the leading aircraft carried equipment that allowed detecting vehicles and crowded places in the jungle, and the wingman struck at the detected targets.


NAR launch with OV-1 Mohawk

Interaction with combat helicopters was also very successful, which destroyed targets identified using a thermal imaging station or side-looking radar. Due to their ability to stay in the air for several hours, the Mohawks were on duty, patrolling in the vicinity of forward fortified bases, escorting transport convoys and acting on the call of ground units. OV-1 Mohawk participated in rescue operations for downed American pilots, corrected artillery fire, provided close air support, and hunted for sampans and trucks.

After the end of the Vietnam War, the Mohawks who remained in the ranks were oriented exclusively towards solving reconnaissance tasks and electronic warfare, for which they were equipped with new equipment. In the 1970s, the Philippine government considered the OV-1 as a possible candidate to replace the AT-28D piston attack aircraft. The Americans were ready to donate two dozen planes, but the Filipinos did not have the money to repair and re-equip them. Subsequently, several cars were transferred to Argentina and Israel. In the US armed forces, the operation of all modifications of the OV-1 Mohawk ended in the mid-1990s.

The modified version, known as the Model 134R with a tandem crew arrangement, was created to participate in the LARA competition (Light Armed Reconnaissance Aircraft) for a light anti-guerrilla aircraft. But the winner in 1964 was the North American NA-300 project. This aircraft was later designated OV-10 Bronco.

In addition to Mohawk and Bronco, several more prototypes participated in the competition. In parallel with the Bronco, North American offered the YAT-28E anti-insurgency attack aircraft based on the well-proven piston training T-28A Trojan. The armed version of the Troyan was often used to fight partisans.


YAT-28E

The experienced YAT-28E turboprop attack aircraft was equipped with a Lycoming ЕТ-55L-9 engine with a capacity of 2445 hp. with a four-bladed propeller. In total, three T-28A, taken from storage, were converted into this version. The use of stored aircraft gliders made it possible to significantly reduce costs. The flight speed of an attack aircraft with a turboprop exceeded 600 km / h. However, the main focus was on increasing the combat load. Together with a pair of large-caliber machine guns, up to 12 kg of bombs, NAR blocks and incendiary tanks could be placed on 2730 underwing hardpoints. In general, the aircraft turned out to be not bad, but in the end the military preferred light attack aircraft of special construction with a better forward and downward view.

Due to poor visibility, the military also rejected the Turbo Mustang III proposed by Cavalier Aircraft Corp. This machine was a symbiosis of the P-51D piston fighter airframe with the Rolls-Royce RB.53 Dart turboprop engine with a capacity of 1760 hp.


Turbo mustang III

The aircraft had a maximum take-off weight of 6350 kg and could accelerate to 869 km / h without external hardpoints. In each plane there were three 12,7-mm machine guns, and on six external nodes it was possible to hang bombs, napalm tanks and missiles with a total mass of up to 2268 kg. The most vulnerable components and the cockpit were covered with ceramic armor. Although, compared to the original piston Mustang, flight data and combat load increased significantly, and operating costs, on the contrary, decreased, it was not possible to interest potential buyers.

Lockheed proposed a project for a multipurpose aircraft CL 760. The machine with a maximum takeoff weight of 3600 kg was to receive two turboprop engines with a capacity of 715 hp. A load weighing up to 1133 kg was placed on five suspension nodes. In this case, four of the five pylons were placed on the wing console. The bow provided for the installation of machine guns.


CL 760 layout

The CL 760 aircraft looked too futuristic, and things did not progress beyond the construction of a full-size model. In addition, the layout of the combat load raised many questions. To maintain controllability, the bombs from the console pylons had to be dropped in pairs, which was not always justified.

Intense competition for the Bronco was the Model 48 Charger from Convair. This machine was a double-girder monoplane, the nose of which was made of fiberglass, and the main part of the airframe was made of aluminum alloys. The aircraft was powered by two Pratt & Whitney Canada T74-CP-8/10 engines with a total power of 1300 hp. The two-seater cockpit was protected by polymer and aluminum armor. The maximum takeoff weight was 4800 kg.


Model 48 Charger

The prototype of the Convair light attack aircraft made its first flight on November 25, 1964. On tests, he demonstrated high flight data and fully met the requirements of the LARA competition. On a number of criteria, the aircraft was superior to competitors. The Model 48 Charger had very high maneuverability, handled well at low altitude and demonstrated excellent take-off and landing characteristics. For takeoff and landing, a runway no more than 200 m long was required.The maximum flight speed was 513 km / h. Combat load - 910 kg. Four rifle-caliber machine guns were installed in the bow of the cockpit.


Model 48 Charger prototype with aircraft weapons

However, during the 196 test flight, the only Model 48 Charger built by Convair crashed due to pilot error. Since the fighting in Vietnam revealed an urgent need for a light anti-guerrilla attack aircraft, the NA-300 aircraft from North American was declared the winner.

Externally, the NA-300 (the future Bronco) and the Model 48 Charger had a lot in common. Both machines were made on a double-girder scheme, with a short fuselage between the beams and two turboprop engines on planes. The flight test program involved seven NA-300 prototypes. One of them crashed while studying the behavior of an aircraft in flight at low speed on one engine and flaps and spoilers extended on one console.

In 1966, the NA-300 was declared the winner of the LARA competition, after which it received the "serial" designation OV-10A Bronco. The Air Force ordered 109 aircraft, with the Marine Corps ordering another 76. Serial production of OV-10A aircraft began in June 1967.


OV-10A Bronco

The Bronco was the first turboprop combat aircraft specially designed for counterinsurgency missions. Given that the attack aircraft was supposed to operate at low altitude under enemy fire, special attention was paid to increasing the resistance to combat damage. The hydraulics were used only to retract and extend the flaps, landing gear and steering the front wheel. Therefore, damage to the hydraulic system did not significantly affect the aircraft's ability to stay in the air. The observer pilot also had controls at his disposal, which made it possible to take control in the event of a pilot injury. Ejection seats were installed in the cockpit, which made it possible to rescue in the speed range from 0 to 370 km / h. Front, rear and bottom, the cockpit was covered with armor that could hold rifle bullets. The front and rear armored partitions, as well as the armor plate installed between the pilot and observer seats, were made of steel 9,5 mm thick. The crew was protected from fire from below by 12,7 mm aluminum armor. The front part of the cockpit canopy is made of bulletproof glass. The total mass of the armor is 159 kg. All fuel tanks are protected and can withstand single large-caliber bullets. The space between the walls of the tanks and the wing skin was filled with a fire-fighting agent. At the same time, due to limitations on the mass of armor, the side glazing of the cockpit did not provide protection against bullets and shrapnel. In this regard, about half of the losses of all aircraft occurred due to the defeat of the pilots through the unarmored glazing of the cockpit canopy.

The Bronco was equipped with two Garrett T76-G turbofan engines with a capacity of 715 hp, which ensured the maximum flight speed without external suspensions - 452 km / h. The minimum speed is about 100 km / h. Maximum takeoff weight - 6552 kg. Combat radius of action with a maximum combat load - 367 km. Takeoff / run length - 230 m. On seven suspension nodes, weapons with a total weight of up to 1633 kg could be placed. Built-in armament - 4 machine guns of 7,62 mm caliber with 500 rounds of ammunition per barrel.

Combat trials of the Bronco in Vietnam began in June 1968, when OV-10A of the USMC VMO-2 squadron arrived at Da Nang airbase. Pilots of naval aviation, air force and army aviation also flew on turboprop attack aircraft in Southeast Asia. The Air Force mainly used the OV-10A as air gunners and in search and rescue operations. The crews searched for targets, after which they "marked" their NAR, the warhead of which was equipped with white phosphorus. When bursting, such rockets produced a clearly visible white smoke, and also had a strong incendiary effect. The main blow to the target was delivered by F-100 Super Saber or F-105 Thunderchief fighter-bombers. The ability to fly at a relatively low speed made it possible to escort transport-combat helicopters and isolate the landing zone when rescuing downed American pilots. "Bronco" was used very intensively, which was facilitated by the ability to be based on poorly prepared airfields and a short preparation time for a second flight. For two and a half months since the beginning of the combat use of the OV-10A, 503 sorties were carried out, 107 of them were for ground attack.


Army aviation pilots initially performed reconnaissance flights and adjustments of artillery fire in unarmed vehicles, which replaced the piston O-1A Bird Dogs in this role. The observer pilots really liked the aircraft with a protected cockpit and the ability to fly with one engine running. Soon, NAR units and suspended containers with six-barrel 10-mm "miniguns" appeared on the army OV-7,62A. This was due to the fact that spotter aircraft crews often spotted small enemy groups, single vehicles and boats.

The actions of the VAL-4 "Black Ponies" squadron of the US Navy gained great popularity. The main arena for the Black Ponies was the Mekong Delta. Turboprop "Bronco" were used to search for Viet Cong detachments, and also covered American combat boats from the air.


During armed reconnaissance, OV-10A usually operated in pairs. If necessary, they were promptly supported by aircraft on duty at the airfield on high alert. The attack aircraft were able to appear over the target 15 minutes after receiving the application. Such a result was difficult to achieve with jet combat aircraft. In this case, the "Super Sabers" or "Thunderchiefs" were forced to conduct patrols in the air with outboard fuel tanks and a minimum combat load, which was very costly. Helicopters could compete with turboprop attack aircraft, but in any case, the Bronco, due to its higher flight speed, reached its target faster. The aircraft was inferior in maneuverability and accuracy of fire to a helicopter, but these shortcomings were fully compensated for by the greater mass of the combat load and less vulnerability to small arms fire.


NAR launch from OV-10A squadron VAL-4 "Black Ponies"

During combat missions, the OV-10A demonstrated high efficiency and good combat survivability. There are cases when turboprop attack aircraft, due to their high maneuverability, successfully evaded attacks from North Vietnamese fighters. Based on the experience of combat use, combat survivability was found to be quite satisfactory. The design of the aircraft, with the exception of the side glazing of the cockpit, turned out to be resistant to fire from small arms. Fatal damage was usually inflicted by bullets from large-caliber machine guns and shells from rapid-fire small-caliber anti-aircraft guns. There is no reliable information about the defeat of the OV-10A by anti-aircraft missiles. The overall ratio in Indochina of downed aircraft to the number of combat damage requiring serious repair was 1 to 38, while about half of the losses were caused by the incapacitation of the crew, which was hit through the side unarmored fragments of the cockpit canopy. Taking into account the intensity of the use, the losses turned out to be quite sensitive: the Air Force lost 64 Bronco, the Navy - 7 and the KMP - 10.


Despite a number of shortcomings, the OV-10A Bronco has long become the standard of the anti-guerrilla attack aircraft. After the end of the Vietnam War, his combat biography continued and was very eventful. Subsequently, "Bronco" enjoyed some success in the foreign market, export modifications were created for foreign customers. But this will be discussed in the next part of the review, dedicated to turboprop combat aircraft.

Talking about the light combat turboprop aircraft used by the Americans in Southeast Asia, it would be wrong not to mention the "miniganships" created on the basis of the Pilatus PC-6 Porter and HST-550 Stallion general-purpose aircraft. These vehicles, with a relatively small size, had a good carrying capacity and could be based on unpaved airfields with short runways.


AU-23A

An armed aircraft based on the Pilatus PC-6 Porter, known as the AU-23A Peacemaker, was created by Fairchild as part of the South Vietnamese Air Force's rearmament program for modern aircraft adapted for warfare in the jungle. The Peacemaker was armed with a 20mm triple-barreled cannon mounted on the left in the doorway, with 500 rounds of ammunition. Machine-gun containers, 113- and 227-kg bombs, napalm tanks and NAR blocks could be suspended on five pylons. The crew consisted of three people: two pilots and a gunner. The aircraft is capable of carrying six passengers, five infantry with weapons, one wounded on a stretcher, or three seated wounded and one orderly.

The AU-23A was equipped with a Garrett TPE331-1-101F turbofan with a capacity of 650 hp. The maximum takeoff weight was 2767 kg, the maximum flight speed was 274 km / h. Cruising - 239 km / h. The plane could stay in the air for more than 4,5 hours.


The combat tests of the "Peacemaker" lasted from the beginning of January to the end of June 1971. Three aircraft took part in them. During the tests, the following tasks were practiced: escorting helicopters, direct air support, defending forward military bases and delivering supplies to them, evacuating the wounded, armed reconnaissance and surveillance, countering the penetration of guerrillas into protected areas. Crews from the 4400th US Air Force Special Operations Squadron flew 94 sorties. At the same time, 198 bombs were dropped and more than 3000 20-mm shells were used up.

Although there were no aircraft losses during the combat tests, based on their results, a conclusion was issued that the Peacemaker, due to its high vulnerability, was unsuitable for use as an attack aircraft. The almost complete absence of booking a combat aircraft, made on the basis of a purely civilian vehicle, without any protection of vital systems made the AU-23A very sensitive to fire from weapons of 7,62 mm caliber. In addition, in the course of combat use, cracks appeared in the rudder on all vehicles, and one vehicle crashed due to engine failure. After that, all delivered were returned to the Fairchild factory for revision.

Despite the negative feedback from combat pilots and recommendations not to use the aircraft in combat conditions without serious modernization, the Air Force command decided to continue the program. "Peacemaker" could be good as a night "gunship", but for this it was required to install special equipment on it, allowing it to fly and confidently search for targets in the dark. Although this was not done, a total of 35 AU-23A light attack aircraft were built for the US Air Force. But on June 30, 1972, the 4400th Special Operations Squadron delivered its Peacekeepers to the Davis Montan storage base in Arizona. The aircraft were not in storage for long. As part of military assistance, 13 vehicles were transferred to Thailand in the same year. In the Royal Thai Air Force, "Peacekeepers" were called for, they were mainly used to patrol the borders and did not often engage in armed clashes.


The AU-23A demonstrated high reliability, were cheap and easy to operate. In the absence of anti-aircraft countermeasures, the AU-23A was well suited for routine patrol flights, and, given the fact that this small aircraft carried quite powerful weapons, if necessary, it could provide fire support to ground forces. To make up for losses as a result of flight accidents and replace machines that were out of service due to resource depletion, until 1977, Thailand received another 21 aircraft of this type. It is not known whether Thai AU-23A are still taking off, but in March 2019, one Peacemaker made an emergency landing in the Khlong Hoi Hong area.

The light turboprop attack aircraft Helio AU-24A Stallion in its flight data and externally differed little from the AU-23A Peacemaker. Given that the Stallion appeared later than the Peacemaker, it was clear that it suffers from the same main drawback - the lack of armor and special technical solutions that increase resistance to combat damage, which made it very vulnerable above the battlefield in the daytime. time.


AU-24A on trial

United Aircraft PT6A-27 turboprop engine with 680 hp provided speed without external suspensions up to 348 km / h. The cruising flight speed was 260 km / h. Maximum takeoff weight - 2313 kg. The flight range without outboard tanks is 715 km. For the takeoff run, 200 meters were enough, the run length was 260 m.


AU-24A with 227 kg bombs suspended

Small arms consisted of a three-barreled XM-197 cannon mounted on the left side. There were also four underwing and one ventral suspension unit for weapons, on which NAR blocks and bombs weighing up to 227 kg could be placed.


The AU-24A was tested in combat conditions in April-May 1972. In June, all built aircraft went to the storage base. Between January and November 1972, 15 of the 18 Stallions were transferred to the Khmer Air Force. The aircraft were stationed at Pochentong airbase near Phnom Penh.


In the first phase, AU-24A in Cambodia was used to escort river convoys. In the final months of the civil war, turboprop Stallions attacked Khmer Rouge positions north of Phnom Penh. The attack aircraft mainly operated at night, which made it possible to avoid combat losses. The AU-24A crews have achieved good results. They managed to destroy up to 500 enemy soldiers, two dozen trucks and several launchers of Chinese-made Type 63 MLRS. However, the combat activities of the Stallions in Cambodia were constrained by a lack of aviation ammunition. Shortly before the fall of the Khmer Republic, in mid-April 1975, three AU-24A flew to Thailand. The Khmer Rouge got 9 "mini-gunships". By the time Vietnamese troops invaded the country, one turboprop attack aircraft was in good working order.

In the mid-1970s, research continued in the United States on the creation of turboprop combat aircraft. In 1979, the US Department of Defense allocated $ 11,9 million to Piper for a turboprop attack aircraft project that continued the Turbo Mustang III line.


PA-48 Enforcer

Although the PA-48 Enforcer outwardly very much resembled the slightly enlarged Mustang, in fact it was a new aircraft. The design of the tail section of the fuselage underwent changes, new spars were used in the wing. The total vertical tail area increased by 9% and the stabilizer area by 35,8%. The aircraft was equipped with a booster aileron control system similar to that used on the Lockheed T-33 Shooting Star trainer. The Enfoncer was powered by a Lycoming YT55-L-9 turboprop engine with 2445 hp. Although the PA-48 had significant power reserves, the top speed was limited to 650 km / h. Cruising speed - 407 km / h. Combat radius of action - up to 700 km.


Six points of suspension could accommodate a load with a total weight of up to 2580 kg. Including containers with 30mm cannons, unguided rockets, napalm tanks and bombs. In the future, the attack aircraft was supposed to arm the AGM-114 Hellfire ATGM and the AIM-9 Sidewinder UR. In addition to destroying ground targets, the turboprop attack aircraft was supposed to be used to combat helicopters.


Two PA-48s in 1983 and 1984 were tested at the flight test center at Edwards AFB. Prototypes showed good results, but orders from the Air Force did not follow. Apparently, the fact was that there was no free space for this aircraft in the US Air Force. The A-10 Thunderbolt II jet attack aircraft was intended for the “big war,” and the OV-10A Bronco and A-37 Dragonfly firmly occupied the anti-guerrilla niche.

To be continued ...
Author:
107 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 28 September 2020 18: 14 New
    10
    Thank you, thank you - I learned a lot! I look forward to continuing!
  2. Ded_Mazay
    Ded_Mazay 28 September 2020 18: 40 New
    -17 qualifying.
    Here you look at them - freaks, like a selection. "Nose", "humpback", "tadpoles" - it seems that the designer directly competed in the extravagance of the appearance of their cars.
    Unless the enforcer is out of the ordinary.
    1. Bongo
      29 September 2020 00: 45 New
      14
      Quote: Ded_Mazay
      Here you look at them - freaks, like a selection. "Nose", "humpback", "tadpoles" - it seems that the designer directly competed in the extravagance of the appearance of their cars.
      Unless the enforcer is out of the ordinary.

      The appearance of these machines is primarily associated with the need to provide a good overview, which is extremely important for a counter-guerrilla aircraft. One of the reasons why the PA-48 Enforcer was never accepted into service was that, according to this criterion, it was much inferior to the OV-10 and A-37.
      1. Mister X
        Mister X 29 September 2020 08: 19 New
        10
        hi
        An excellent article written by a competent person!
        However, as usual.
        There was a question:
        - Why is there General Dynamics + Convair on board the Model 48 Charger?
        1. Bongo
          29 September 2020 12: 22 New
          +7
          Quote: Mister X
          hi
          An excellent article written by a competent person!
          However, as usual.
          There was a question:
          - Why is there General Dynamics + Convair on board the Model 48 Charger?

          Convair was bought by General Dynamics in 1953.
      2. Ded_Mazay
        Ded_Mazay 29 September 2020 15: 04 New
        -6
        This is all understandable, but it does not in any way change the fact that they are "freaks".
        By the way, Douglas Skyrider, even though he does not fit into the framework of the article, being a piston attack aircraft, turned out to be quite a successful machine, although in terms of review it is inferior to any of the above.
    2. Viktor Sergeev
      Viktor Sergeev 29 September 2020 07: 33 New
      +6
      The plane is not a dancer; functionality is important to it. They are not ugly, but beautiful in their own way.
  3. OgnennyiKotik
    OgnennyiKotik 28 September 2020 18: 43 New
    -4
    Two PA-48s in 1983 and 1984 were tested at the flight test center at Edwards AFB. Prototypes showed good results, but orders from the Air Force did not follow. Apparently, the fact was that there was no free space for this aircraft in the US Air Force. The A-10 Thunderbolt II jet attack aircraft was intended for the “big war,” and the OV-10A Bronco and A-37 Dragonfly firmly occupied the anti-guerrilla niche.

    The MQ-1 Predator took off for the first time in 1994. The MQ-9 and MQ-1 actually replaced light attack aircraft in their army.
    1. Bongo
      29 September 2020 00: 47 New
      +7
      Quote: OgnennyiKotik
      The MQ-1 Predator took off for the first time in 1994. The MQ-9 and MQ-1 actually replaced light attack aircraft in their army.

      Modern attack drones are great for tracking down the leaders of militants, but they are not yet able to replace manned aircraft in terms of striking power and flexibility.
      1. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik 29 September 2020 01: 37 New
        -4
        Quote: Bongo
        Modern attack drones


        Standing in service, more precisely, specifically light attack aircraft in developed armies that have to fight guerrilla / terrorist / irregular units, they replaced. The conflicts in Syria / Libya with the Turks have clearly shown this. So far, the UAV cannot replace manned aircraft, but it will take away the main strike missions, the reconnaissance ones have already been taken away.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 29 September 2020 09: 54 New
          +6
          Quote: OgnennyiKotik
          Standing in service, more precisely, specifically light attack aircraft in developed armies, which have to fight guerrilla / terrorist / irregular units, they replaced.

          Cessna AC-208B Combat Caravan. Huge raid, huge amount of wasted ammunition.

          Quote: OgnennyiKotik
          The conflicts in Syria / Libya with the Turks have clearly shown this.

          Especially the actions of the Israelis to destroy the UAV control centers.

          Quote: OgnennyiKotik
          the intelligence officers have already taken it.

          Again, the shouts about "death of tanks" were once again premature.
          And the Americans are returning to the concept of a reconnaissance helicopter, reducing the role of UAVs to ensuring the combat operation of attack helicopters.
          1. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik 29 September 2020 10: 02 New
            -1
            Quote: Spade
            Cessna AC-208B Combat Caravan

            I mean modern armies, Iraq will not be allowed to create a normal army.
            Quote: Spade
            And the Americans are returning to the concept of a reconnaissance helicopter, reducing the role of UAVs to ensuring the combat operation of attack helicopters.

            One Army has dozens of concepts for the use of UAVs of all classes. Extreme creation of a separate class for overcoming air defense. Naturally, it must interact with helicopters.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 29 September 2020 10: 08 New
              +5
              Quote: OgnennyiKotik
              I mean modern armies, Iraq will not be allowed to create a normal army.

              And the Americans' main "workhorse" was "Apache"

              Quote: OgnennyiKotik
              One Army has dozens of concepts

              Let's discuss reality, not concepts.
              Army aviation never received any drone strike. RQ-7 Shadow only, one company per AA brigade.
        2. Bongo
          29 September 2020 12: 30 New
          +7
          Quote: OgnennyiKotik
          Standing in service, more precisely, specifically light attack aircraft in developed armies, which have to fight guerrilla / terrorist / irregular units, they replaced.

          Well, not quite. No. You may not be aware, but several Bronco were involved in a campaign against ISIS. In addition, as mentioned above, drones are not able to compete with manned aircraft in terms of combat load.
          Quote: OgnennyiKotik
          The conflicts in Syria / Libya with the Turks have clearly shown this. So far, the UAV cannot replace manned aircraft, but it will take away the main strike missions, the reconnaissance ones have already been taken away.

          Don't exaggerate and oversimplify. No. UAVs are not capable of solving all the tasks of hitting ground targets. They are mainly used for reconnaissance and target designation, but in the same Syria, most of the ground targets were hit by manned aircraft. The example of recent events in Libya is not very indicative. This is a very specific theater of operations in uncharacteristic conditions. In addition, we should not forget that only the United States and China are capable of controlling drones located anywhere in the world, outside the very limited coverage area of ​​ground stations.
          1. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik 29 September 2020 13: 19 New
            -1
            Quote: Bongo
            several Bronco were involved in the campaign against ISIS.

            Surprised, I thought they were written off much earlier.
            Quote: Bongo
            In addition, as mentioned above, drones are not able to compete with manned aircraft in terms of combat load.

            Partially true for the UAVs in service. Predator B payload is 1,3 tons, combat is understandably lower, but Predator C payload is 2,9 tons. Fuel tanker Mq-25 with a fuel capacity of 6,8 tons. The United States is in no hurry to buy full-fledged attack drones, deciding what to choose. In 23-24, the tests of many unmanned systems will end, they will already decide what exactly to start up in the series. They have nowhere to rush, no one has a UAV with the characteristics of a Predator B (MQ-9).

            Quote: Bongo
            UAVs are not capable of solving all the tasks of hitting ground targets.

            I do not say everything, basic. The pilots will remain "intellectual tasks".
            Quote: Bongo
            outside the very limited coverage area of ​​ground stations, only the United States and China are capable of.

            No one really needs more. The area of ​​interest is the whole land only with them. The rest have regional conflicts. The same Idlib is 80 km deep, Chechnya is 170 km from north to south, Karabakh is somewhere 100-120 km deep. Bayraktar TB2 maximum control range 200 km.
            For regional conflicts there is enough, for full-fledged wars. But they are not planned in the near future.
            1. zyablik.olga
              zyablik.olga 29 September 2020 14: 00 New
              +7
              Quote: OgnennyiKotik
              Partially true for UAVs in service. Predator B payload is 1,3 tons, combat is understandably lower, but Predator C payload is 2,9 tons.

              Excuse me, but with what payload do Reapers usually take off on missions?
              Quote: OgnennyiKotik
              Fuel tanker Mq-25 with a fuel capacity of 6,8 tons.

              Are we discussing percussion machines or tankers?
          2. Lopatov
            Lopatov 29 September 2020 13: 58 New
            +4
            Quote: Bongo
            You may not be aware, but several Bronco's have been involved in the campaign against ISIS.

            Why Is America Using These Antique Planes to Fight ISIS?
            https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-is-america-using-these-antique-planes-to-fight-isis
          3. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 29 September 2020 15: 08 New
            +9
            Quote: Bongo
            You may not be aware, but several Bronco's have been involved in the campaign against ISIS.

            They also turned out to be the cheapest of all aircraft in terms of the cost of a flight hour:
            1. Bongo
              29 September 2020 15: 23 New
              +9
              Well, you can’t do that ... belay I wanted to post this picture in the third part of the review. request
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 29 September 2020 15: 24 New
                +5
                Quote: Bongo
                Well, you can’t do that ... belay I wanted to post this picture in the third part of the review. request

                * sincerely sprinkles ashes on his head. And you can't take it down now - after the answer.

                Sometimes it's bad to have a good memory ... sad
                1. Bongo
                  29 September 2020 15: 26 New
                  +5
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  * sincerely sprinkles ashes on his head. And you can't take it down now - after the answer.

                  Come on, what now. I'll just give you the cost of a flight hour.
            2. Sergey Sfiedu
              Sergey Sfiedu 1 October 2020 18: 17 New
              0
              Here is one more confirmation that the flight hour of the B-1 costs, quite decently, less than the flight hour of the B-52.
  4. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 28 September 2020 19: 23 New
    +2
    Soon, NAR units and suspended containers with six-barreled 10-mm "miniguns" appeared on the army OV-7,62A. This was due to the fact that spotter aircraft crews often spotted small enemy groups, single vehicles and boats.

    Army soldiers armed the plane? Call the BBC urgently! smile
    EMNIP, there was an agreement between the army and the air force: Izya does not lend money, and the bank does not sell seeds armed aircraft - Air Force, attack helicopters - armies.
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 28 September 2020 19: 52 New
      +7
      In this case, the aircraft was operated by the United States Army. The author wrote quite rightly. In service with the Air Force, Navy, KMP OV-10A did not arrive.
      1. Bongo
        29 September 2020 00: 51 New
        +3
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        In this case, the aircraft was operated by the United States Army. The author wrote quite rightly. In service with the Air Force, Navy, KMP OV-10A did not arrive.

        You probably confuse with the OV-1 Mohawk? OV-10A was used by the Air Force, Navy, KMP.
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 29 September 2020 01: 21 New
          +3
          Yes, I mean the OV-1 Mohawk. Thanks for the tweak. OV-1 only went to the Army, OV-10A to all types of troops, except for the Army.
    2. Bongo
      29 September 2020 00: 50 New
      +4
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Army soldiers armed the plane? Call the BBC urgently! smile
      EMNIP, there was an agreement between the army and the Air Force: Izya does not lend money, and the bank does not sell seeds for armed aircraft - for the Air Force, attack helicopters for the army.

      There was such an agreement, but the need to support ground units with fire forced the OV-1 Mohawk to be armed, which were originally used only for observing and adjusting artillery fire.
    3. Lopatov
      Lopatov 29 September 2020 10: 01 New
      +4
      Quote: Alexey RA
      armed aircraft - Air Force, attack helicopters - armies.

      Everything is somewhat more complicated there. The presence of weapons did not formally make these "scouts" shock or "attack aircraft", because their main function was to direct air strikes and artillery.

      And the weapons in accordance with the concept of "armed reconnaissance" were intended to suppress and prohibit the movement of the enemy in anticipation of an induced strike. And also the quick implementation of a part of the received intelligence in those moments when the call of the "big brother" is inappropriate.

      A perfectly reasonable concept, but the Army had to retreat. For politics.
  5. Razvedka_Boem
    Razvedka_Boem 28 September 2020 20: 05 New
    +6
    Finally..)
    A very interesting topic, we look forward to continuing!
  6. Shiden
    Shiden 28 September 2020 20: 30 New
    +1
    And why did the author forget the A-1 "SCRIDER" because it was used from the beginning to the end of the Vietnam War. And it would probably be correct to call this aircraft the first US anti-guerrilla aircraft.
  7. bars1
    bars1 28 September 2020 20: 41 New
    +7
    Quote: Shiden
    Why did the author forget A-1 "SCRIDER"

    Probably because the A-1 was equipped with a piston engine, and the article is devoted to the owners of the theater. In general, the A-1 was created as a carrier-based attack aircraft for striking warships (and not as an anti-partisan one), by 1964. hopelessly outdated (mainly in terms of LTH) and was used as a counter-partisan for the reasons indicated at the beginning of this article
  8. Potter
    Potter 28 September 2020 20: 43 New
    +7
    Thanks! Very interesting stuff. Turboprop attack aircraft were designed and built in the form of prototypes in the USSR, but did not go into series.
    1. ltc35
      ltc35 28 September 2020 21: 29 New
      +2
      I would like to know about our experiments with turboprop attack aircraft. That's a space, that's a space. Maybe there were, but I haven't heard of them.
      1. Crimean partisan 1974
        Crimean partisan 1974 29 September 2020 08: 03 New
        +2
        I would like to know about our experiments with turboprop attack aircraft ....... well, there was simply no need for that ..... even when the Soviets first encountered guerrilla warfare in Afghanistan ... there were plenty of shock assets. ... if it is necessary to specifically grind the area, then the Su-7B and Su-25 did it quickly and tightly, if there were any point measures, then the Mi-24 and the Ganship version of the Mi-8, which was studded with all different caliber on the sides and on the ramp, like that a long time ago I watched a video of the test (in my opinion, the dock series "Red Stars) where they showed tests of a twin aircraft NS-45 (45 mm) from the Mi-8 ramp ... so any anti-guerrilla aircraft hardly did anything more than turntables and jet stormtroopers
        1. Bongo
          29 September 2020 12: 35 New
          +5
          Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
          I would like to know about our experiments with turboprop attack aircraft ... well, it just wasn't necessary ...

          Hello Friend!
          Volodya, let's start with the fact that there were no suitable theaters in the USSR. In addition, we were preparing for a big war, and there was no place in military doctrine for turboprop attack aircraft. No.
          Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
          if it is necessary to specifically grind the area, then the Su-7B and Su-25 did it quickly and tightly, if there were any targeted measures, then the Mi-24 and the Ganship version of the Mi-8, which was studded with all different caliber on the sides and on the ramp, as it was a long time ago for a long time I watched a video of the test (in my opinion, the dock series "Red Stars) where they showed tests of the twin aircraft NS-45 (45 mm) from the Mi-8 ramp ... so all sorts of anti-guerrilla aircraft hardly did anything more than turntables and jet attack aircraft

          Have you heard about the "cost-effectiveness" criterion? Of course, with a certain skill, you can hammer in boot nails with a sledgehammer, but a small hammer is much better for this. In terms of fuel efficiency and combat survivability, a specialized anti-guerrilla turboprop attack aircraft will be preferable to any turntable.
          1. Crimean partisan 1974
            Crimean partisan 1974 29 September 2020 14: 55 New
            +3
            Hello my friend!!!! I read the article in a choked state, along the way the next article will be about anti-guerrilla reagents of the A-37 type. hook and about the A-6 Intruder ... all the same legendary attack aircraft ..... plusar article. I didn't know that the mustangs were in the attack aircraft. okay there Skyhawks. Venjis and screw Corsairs. and here is the mustang
            ....... in military doctrine there was no place for turboprop attack aircraft ..... I mentioned this
            ........ Have you heard about the "cost-effectiveness" criterion? .... sure. yet, in the light of the latest technical incidents, but in the years of stagnation, the Union did not bother especially about the criterion of cost. to friends with a socialist orientation, everything was for free, in contrast to the dastardly Western bourgeoisie who sold about a hundred Bronks and other light assault troops to Latin America and East Asia
            1. Bongo
              29 September 2020 15: 21 New
              +6
              Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
              along the way, the next article will be about anti-guerrilla reagents of the A-37 type. hook on about the A-6 Intruder ... still a legendary attack aircraft ...

              Volodya, this time the cycle will be devoted only to anti-guerrilla turboprop attack aircraft. Any "Pilatus", "Toucan", their combat use, as well as the prospects for the development of turboprop combat aviation.
              Look, I’ve dropped pictures from extreme fishing for you.
              1. Crimean partisan 1974
                Crimean partisan 1974 29 September 2020 15: 23 New
                +3
                Any "Pilatus", "Toucans", their combat use, as well as the prospects for the development of turboprop combat aviation ....... we will wait ....... I will dive into the agent
                1. Bongo
                  29 September 2020 15: 28 New
                  +4
                  Hello from Olya! wink
                  She completely relaxed, refused to process caviar on Sunday. I had to distribute.
                  1. Crimean partisan 1974
                    Crimean partisan 1974 29 September 2020 16: 58 New
                    +4
                    SPS Vlamirovich ..... and Sergeevna urgently for unwillingness to clean the caviar .... this ... put it in a corner .... Sergeevna the same warm greetings ... I am gathering nuts for a present. even bastards do not fall. but you don't even want to peel the peel with your hands, as in the joke ---- in Africa there is hunger, there is no wind; bananas do not fall from the sky
                    1. zyablik.olga
                      zyablik.olga 30 September 2020 00: 53 New
                      +4
                      Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                      SPS Vlamirovich ..... and Sergeevna urgently for unwillingness to clean the caviar .... this ... put it in a corner .... Sergeevna the same warm greetings ... I am gathering nuts for a present. even bastards do not fall. but you don't even want to peel the peel with your hands, as in the joke ---- in Africa there is hunger, there is no wind; bananas do not fall from the sky

                      Volodya, I have already prepared three liters. Considering that we don't eat very salty foods, where else? Seryozha's excitement has once again woken up, he is fishing without measure. Some crucians, not counting chum salmon, caught about a hundred. belay Why so much?
  9. Potter
    Potter 28 September 2020 21: 02 New
    +5
    However, the Soviet Tu-91 is not a counter-partisan aircraft at all, it is a shipborne torpedo bomber / attack aircraft with a mass of up to 14 tons and a speed of 900 km / h. The plane destroyed Khrushchev, as did many developments in the mid-1950s.
    1. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 1 October 2020 18: 47 New
      0
      Most likely he did the right thing to ruin him. His speed was not 900, but 760 km-h (at the ground - 672 km-h), there was no locator, there were no guided missiles. As a basic anti-ship aircraft for the late 50s - 60s, it was frankly weak, and we did not need deck and anti-guerrilla aircraft at that time.
  10. Ingvar 72
    Ingvar 72 28 September 2020 21: 06 New
    +3
    Seryoga is as always on top! good
    1. Bongo
      29 September 2020 00: 53 New
      +7
      Quote: Ingvar 72
      Seryoga is as always on top!

      Igor, hello! Thanks for the kind words! drinks
      This topic is very interesting to me myself. There will be at least two more parts.
      1. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik 29 September 2020 01: 40 New
        +1
        Thanks for the article, it's nice to see quality work.
  11. Petrograd
    Petrograd 28 September 2020 21: 48 New
    0
    I7I wonder if our old Il-2 would have pulled such an application in such a conflict, for example, in Chechnya?
    1. Dangerous
      Dangerous 28 September 2020 22: 28 New
      +5
      Of course not. The author describes the events of the 60s - 70s, then there was no anti-tank missile system, unlike the fighting in Chechnya. And for the Zu-23-2, such a relatively slow target is an excellent target.
      1. Bongo
        29 September 2020 12: 37 New
        +3
        Quote: Dangerous
        Of course not. The author describes the events of the 60s - 70s, then there was no anti-tank missile system, unlike the fighting in Chechnya. And for the Zu-23-2, such a relatively slow target is an excellent target.

        In fairness, it should be said that at the final stage of the war in Indochina, the Vietcong had Strela-2M MANPADS, 14,5 mm ZGU and ZU-23 at their disposal.
      2. Crimean partisan 1974
        Crimean partisan 1974 30 September 2020 07: 58 New
        0
        then there was still no anti-aircraft gun, ..... oh well. then, Strela 2 and Strela-2M were tested in combat conditions. and even a formidable feature of the C-75, which for air slugs was a real domocles sword
        1. Bongo
          30 September 2020 10: 33 New
          +1
          Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
          and even a formidable feature of the C-75, which for air slugs was a real domocles sword

          Volodya, have you read my cycle about air defense of Vietnam? How many Bronco and Mohawks were shot down by the air defense system?
          And please do not confuse the CA-75M with the C-75.
          1. Crimean partisan 1974
            Crimean partisan 1974 30 September 2020 13: 02 New
            -1
            Volodya, have you read my cycle about air defense of Vietnam? How many "Bronco" and "Mohauk" were shot down by the air defense system? ....... read. but Seryoga, there in that war they fired from everything possible. go figure out who was shot down from what, the darkness is impenetrable, ... there is only the total number of losses and that's it ... they won't even figure out who shot down the lame goblin in Yugoslavia ... some argue that the S-75, others that S-125, and the pilot of the downed 117 claims that at first a MiG-29 flew by, and then what happened ... and then you ask such questions ... how many of whom and what were shot down in Vietnam ...
            And please do not confuse the CA-75M with the C-75 ... well, here, too, the devil will break his leg which of the numerous versions was in Vietnam, the C-75 probably surpassed only the S-300 in diversity
            1. Bongo
              30 September 2020 13: 11 New
              +2
              Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
              Seryoga, there in that war they fired from what they could. go figure out who was shot down from what, the darkness is impenetrable, ... there is only the total number of losses and that's it ...

              The Vietnamese were big dreamers, but they did not pretend to shoot down the Bronco air defense system.
              Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
              well, here, too, the devil will break his leg which of the numerous versions was in Vietnam, the S-75 probably surpassed only the S-300 in diversity

              No, I have not surpassed ... No. There were much more modifications of "seventy-five" than "three hundred". It is absolutely reliably known that the outdated by that time SA-75M "Dvina" air defense system fought against American aviation in Vietnam, with the SNR operating in the 10-cm frequency range.
  12. gsev
    gsev 28 September 2020 22: 04 New
    +6
    In the USSR, designer Kazimir Mikhailovich Zhidovetsky designed a light attack aircraft to fight Afghan partisans. However, the problem with the aircraft engine, the unpreparedness of the military for an unusual project, difficulties with testing too original equipment, and then the collapse of the USSR buried the production of this aircraft at the MAI experimental plant. The works of the outstanding Russian designer were awarded the State Prize only after his death.
  13. Pavel57
    Pavel57 28 September 2020 23: 08 New
    +4
    Quote: Potter
    However, the Soviet Tu-91 is not a counter-partisan aircraft at all, it is a shipborne torpedo bomber / attack aircraft with a mass of up to 14 tons and a speed of 900 km / h. The plane destroyed Khrushchev, as did many developments in the mid-1950s.

    It turns out that not a single document has survived to prove that the Tu-91 was a ship's aircraft.
  14. ycuce234-san
    ycuce234-san 29 September 2020 03: 25 New
    -2
    The military also rejected the Turbo Mustang III due to poor visibility


    Antiguerrilla aircraft have some unhealthy criterion of visual visibility. But this is not salvation from a serious "opponent" in the form of an enemy fighter and an appropriate support and protection is needed. And such an aircraft is used mainly in poor visibility, at night, in tropical rain and fog.

    It is more logical not to worry about the visual visibility of pilots at all, but to use aviation night television systems and, in general, rely on instruments as much as possible. The Americans, who are always leading in aeronautical cameras, apparently have the strongest inertia of thinking - they say, they never had unpretentious airplanes of such complex electronic equipment - which means they should not have it ironically.
    A modern apparatus of this purpose should be a stealth aircraft, but not designed to camouflage from air defense radars on the ground, but to protect against radars of airplanes and helicopters flying above it; well, he should also be able to fly at ultra-low altitude at night and fly quietly - and this will require highly unstable aerodynamic schemes for high maneuverability and computer control. Their next generations will more likely be similar to sports and record flight aircraft and will no longer be made of metal but of carbon fiber and fiberglass.
    1. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 29 September 2020 05: 40 New
      +6
      Quote: ycuce234-san
      Antiguerrilla aircraft have some unhealthy criterion of visual visibility. But this is not salvation from a serious "opponent" in the form of an enemy fighter and an appropriate support and protection is needed.

      Are you confusing anything? Anti-guerrilla aircraft are designed to act against all sorts of insurgents that do not have an organized air defense system. Where did they get the fighters?
      Quote: ycuce234-san
      It is more logical not to worry about the visual visibility of pilots at all, but to use aviation night television systems and, in general, rely on instruments as much as possible. The Americans, who are always leading in aeronautical cameras, apparently have the strongest inertia of thinking - they say, they never had unpretentious airplanes of such complex electronic equipment - which means they should not have it ironically.

      Modern anti-insurgency aircraft are equipped with sophisticated sighting and surveillance systems and guided weapons. I am sure that the author will tell us about them in the next parts of the cycle.
      1. ycuce234-san
        ycuce234-san 29 September 2020 12: 56 New
        -2
        Anti-guerrilla aircraft are designed to act against all sorts of insurgents that do not have an organized air defense system. Where did they get the fighters?


        Modern insurgents - very different and often even small forces have both air defense (MANPADS) and air support from "sponsors" - even North and South Vietnamese partisans fought each other in the jungle and had air support, albeit in varying degrees and variations. Own rebel aviation in the form of factory drones is now becoming the norm. It's not necessary to chase an attack aircraft with a fighter or a rocket - quickly enough to raise maneuverable and fast drones above you the moment of danger and direct them with a computer so that attack aircraft can crash into them themselves - you get a modern analogue of barrage balloons from WWII and WWII. ...
        1. Bongo
          29 September 2020 13: 04 New
          +5
          Quote: ycuce234-san
          Modern rebels - very different and often even small forces have both air defense (MANPADS) and air support from "sponsors" - even the North and South Vietnamese guerrillas fought each other in the jungle and had air support, albeit in varying degrees and variations.

          Are you saying that turboprop attack aircraft are more vulnerable than helicopters? And can you give an example of ISIS air support or the Taliban movement?
          Quote: ycuce234-san
          Own rebel aviation in the form of factory drones is now becoming the norm. It is not necessary to chase an attack aircraft with a fighter or a rocket - quickly enough to raise the moment of danger above maneuverable and fast drones and direct them with a computer so that attack aircraft can crash into them themselves - you will get a modern analogue of the WWII and WWII barrage balloons.

          I don't discuss frank delirium ... hi
          1. Crimean partisan 1974
            Crimean partisan 1974 30 September 2020 08: 16 New
            -1
            that turboprop attack aircraft are more vulnerable than helicopters? ..... Seryoga call me that I’m putting a penny into the dialogue, but the whirligig has the opportunity to freeze and assess the situation of the attacked object outside the range of asymmetric warfare weapons (small arms, MANPADS, and even grenade launchers) by means of which there is on board, and TV attack aircraft this counter is not a priori, that is, the pilot of the whirligig has an undeniable advantage over the attack aircraft in the time of assessing the situation, and therefore striking is much more effective and with a low probability of losses
            1. Bongo
              30 September 2020 10: 30 New
              +2
              Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
              Seryoga call me that I'm putting a penny into dialogue, but the whirligig has the opportunity to hang up and assess the situation of the attacked object outside the range of asymmetric warfare weapons (small arms, MANPADS, and even grenade launchers) by means of which there is on board, and TV attack aircraft do not have this feature a priori

              Have you seen a lot that the Mi-24 and Mi-28 would hang in a combat situation? Do not confuse fighting with tanks when on board the turntable 4-6 ATGM with counterinsurgency. No.
              Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
              the pilot of the spinner has an undeniable advantage over the attack aircraft in the time of assessing the situation and, therefore, striking is much more effective and with a low probability of losses

              Why's that? The vulnerability of the helicopter, due to its design features, is much higher, and the flight speed is lower.
              1. Crimean partisan 1974
                Crimean partisan 1974 30 September 2020 12: 45 New
                -1
                Have you seen a lot that the Mi-24 and Mi-28 would hang in a combat situation? ...... well, if from my practice, then at the first and second Yalta fires, yes. and not only saw but also corrected the exact discharge of water to the hearths. moreover, the Mi-8 with a 500 liter bucket was much more efficient than the Be-200 and other fire planes, because the bucket from the water was lowered almost under the crowns of pine trees, and the planes sprayed water which, due to the temperature right above the crowns, turned into steam uselessly, then there is a combat spinner can hang, at least the crew has such an option, but the pilot of the attack aircraft does not
                The vulnerability of the helicopter, due to its design features, is much higher, and the flight speed is lower ....... well, at the expense of the speed, the grandmother said for two. for the Bronco it is not higher than 400 km per hour, and for the Mi-24 along the course 340, and the vulnerability is the same, the only difference is that the pilot of the whirligig has the opportunity to assess the situation, and whether he uses this option or not, it is not for the attack aircraft
                1. Bongo
                  30 September 2020 13: 01 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                  what does the Mi-8 with a bucket of 500 liters have

                  Volodya, I'm talking about combat conditions and not about the Mi-8.
                  Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                  for the Bronco it is not higher than 400 km per hour, and for the Mi-24 along the course 340, and the vulnerability is the same, the only difference is that the pilot of the whirligig has the opportunity to assess the situation, and whether he uses this option or not, it is not for the attack aircraft

                  Come on ... don't write about the record performance of the Mi-24, but about the real speed in combat conditions. At a speed of more than 24 km / h on the combatant Mi-300, strong shaking begins and there is no question of the possibility of using weapons at all. In reality, with external suspensions, the speed is no more than 250 km / h, and in most cases it is less.
                  As for the vulnerability. My friend, tell me if there are such vulnerable units on the Bronco as a host beam with a tail rotor, main rotor, swashplate and gearbox?
                  As for the ability to "assess the situation", a hovering helicopter is a very easy target. It's one thing to hang around with a minimum combat load in the form of several ATGMs hiding behind the folds of the terrain, another thing is to "assess the situation" with the NAR units. Let me tell you a little secret, Mi-24s even take off with a running start - on an airplane, and are not capable of hovering in combat conditions.
                  Anyway, the dispute is, by and large, pointless, and you are a little "running ahead of the locomotive." There will be at least two more parts, in which turboprop anti-guerrilla attack aircraft will be compared with combat helicopters.
                  Py.Sy. If you want to quote a comment, press the "Quote" button and select part or all.
                  1. Crimean partisan 1974
                    Crimean partisan 1974 30 September 2020 15: 18 New
                    -1
                    sorry Seryoga I can't use quotes ... it's easier for me. even there is no desire to bother ...
                    you're not talking about the record performance of the Mi-24, write, ..... well, the wax record on the Mi-24 420 km per hour was set
                    My friend, tell me if there are such vulnerable on "Bronco" ... there is, the wing area, and it is larger in size than that of the swivel, it is more difficult to miss than to hit ...
                    "assess the situation", a hovering helicopter is a very easy target ..... if we are talking about guerrilla warfare, then what would be necessary to assess the situation 10 km. and then attack, do the guerrillas have such means at the moment ??? well, I don't know those
                    Let me tell you a little secret, Mi-24s even take off with a running start - on an airplane, and they are not capable of hovering in combat conditions ... well, I don’t know, then how is the attack maneuver performed by the Mi-24 unit like a carousel? It's not me who invented it .... and so I actually wiped out the ganship version of the Mi-8 ....... even more so there is a long-standing article on VO by a certain Victor Markovsky Turntable, Afghanistan. "Eight". very convincing material
                    1. Bongo
                      30 September 2020 15: 53 New
                      +2
                      Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                      .well wax record on Mi-24 420 km per hour was set

                      Man, are you sure? We bet on a bottle of Koktebelsky that record was the speed much lower? wink
                      Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                      I don’t know, then how is the attack maneuver performed by the Mi-24 unit like a carousel?

                      And how did the Il-2 hit the target in the same way? Did you hang out too?
                      In any case, the cost of a flight hour for a combat helicopter and the time it takes to prepare for a combat mission is significantly higher than that of a turboprop attack aircraft. This is an indisputable fact.
                      1. Crimean partisan 1974
                        Crimean partisan 1974 30 September 2020 16: 44 New
                        -1
                        Man, are you sure? We bet on a bottle of Koktebelsky that the record speed was much less? ... well, for what I bought for that I sold
                        "The flying laboratory made its first successful flight in January this year. Now a flight is planned for June, during which the helicopter will accelerate to 450 km / h. In the future, according to the management of the Russian Helicopters holding, it will be able to reach a speed of 500 km / h. . This machine, created on the basis of the Mi-24 helicopter, can go into the series "........" Russian Helicopters "seems to be a serious authority ... so why shall we argue" Russian Helicopters "will sooner win the argument
                        And how did the Il-2 hit the target in the same way? Also hung? ..... and what IL-2 constantly hung at the carousel with its nose to the target? they were mostly knocked down in such a circular whistle, and being constantly with their nose to the target at the target is unlikely to be able to push the binocular, let alone the head
                        the cost of a flight hour of a combat helicopter and the preparation time for a combat mission is significantly higher ... well, don't reveal all your cards, you promised to print about it in the following articles ... so there will be a reason to discuss ...
                      2. Bongo
                        30 September 2020 16: 55 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                        Well, what I bought for what I sold
                        "The flying laboratory made its first successful flight in January this year. Now a flight is planned for June, during which the helicopter will accelerate to 450 km / h. In the future, according to the management of the Russian Helicopters holding, it will be able to reach a speed of 500 km / h. . This machine, created on the basis of the Mi-24 helicopter, can go into production "..

                        Volodya, I'm sorry, but this is nonsense ... wassat Serial Mi-24s exceeding 325 km / h, even in the absence of external suspensions, never accelerated and at such a speed they shook very much. Let's talk about what Yes actually, but can not.
                        Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                        and what IL-2 constantly hung at the carousel with its nose to the target? they were mostly knocked down in such a circular whistle, and being constantly with their nose to the target at the target is unlikely to be able to push the binoculars apart from their heads

                        In fact, it was the same battle carousel, well, of course, the radius of the circle is larger. As for the Mi-24, this technique was used very limitedly, and with a completely suppressed air defense.
                        Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                        you promised to print about this in the following articles ... so there will be a reason to discuss ...


                        Here in the comments, one very clever person posted this picture. In my opinion, it is very indicative. Compare the cost of a flight hour "Bronco" and "Apache".
                      3. Crimean partisan 1974
                        Crimean partisan 1974 30 September 2020 18: 40 New
                        -1
                        Let's talk about what it really is, but cannot ....... yes, in principle, I am also not inclined to records. but in that we have the Mi-24, which can not only beautifully attack targets, but can also land or take people, here the bronco has no such opportunity ...
                        and in general, our dialogues are about nothing ... anti-guerrilla aircraft is simply earning tanga in poor countries ... and you know that since the Russian Empire and to this day we give out assholes, well, that's how it is it didn't work out with commerce
                      4. Bongo
                        1 October 2020 06: 57 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                        we have the Mi-24, which can not only beautifully attack targets, but can also land or pick up people, here the bronco has no such opportunity ...

                        Volodya, this is a myth. Due to the low thrust-to-weight ratio, the Mi-24 was almost never carried. For takeoff and landing, the Mi-24 needs a good platform, which gives the possibility of a takeoff run.
                        Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                        here the bronco has no such possibility ...

                        Is. yes At least, it was envisaged when creating the aircraft. But this, as in the case of "Crocodile" is not used.
                    2. Alexander Vorontsov
                      Alexander Vorontsov 20 November 2020 14: 20 New
                      -1
                      Often, when people refer to the cost of a flight hour, they forget that the presence of one or another aircraft in the Air Force implies regular flying on it and the acquisition of relevant experience by the pilots. Thus, the difference in practice is this - it flies off and bombards training targets or there will be combat use.

                      Although this rule ceases to work in the case of mass sorties, when the intensity of combat use significantly outweighs the raid in peacetime.

                      But the tablet mentions operations against IS, and these operations are very sluggish.
  15. zyablik.olga
    zyablik.olga 29 September 2020 13: 44 New
    +3
    Quote: ycuce234-san
    Own rebel aviation in the form of factory drones is now becoming the norm. It is not necessary to chase an attack aircraft with a fighter or a rocket - quickly enough to raise the moment of danger above maneuverable and fast drones and direct them with a computer so that attack aircraft can crash into them themselves - you will get a modern analogue of the WWII and WWII barrage balloons. ...

    In the past, there was an "expert" at VO who proposed to massively build underground air defense missile systems to reduce vulnerability. When asked how he was going to use radars and guidance stations, the answer was that this is a secondary task that can be easily solved. wassat
    This I mean that you should not get carried away with frank fantasies and suggest ways that have no possibility of practical implementation. The mass application of airborne obstacles from drones is hindered by the fact that a lot of them are required. Moreover, such drones must have a very high rate of climb, which means they will be expensive. No armed formations will use them, just because they prefer to buy really effective air defense systems instead of dubious air "obstructions".
    1. ycuce234-san
      ycuce234-san 29 September 2020 19: 12 New
      -1
      All in. America has about 600 accidents a year due to encounters with birds, which do not have any particular rate of climb and do not at all seek to block the path of the plane. Drones will be used for economic reasons and in addition to MANPADS, since even a small number of such machines in the air will greatly complicate the work of pilots and hamper their actions will facilitate the work of MANPADS operators. Plus, drones are versatile and inexpensive. The drone attack on oil facilities in Saudi Arabia was carried out by unmanned vehicles at a price of $ 300 per unit. (roughly speaking - a monthly salary in the outback) the damage from them is billions of dollars. The rebels are already practicing attacks by unmanned aircraft, let's see how soon they will learn how to counter enemy aircraft with their help.
    2. Crimean partisan 1974
      Crimean partisan 1974 30 September 2020 08: 39 New
      -1
      do not get carried away with outright fantasies and propose ways that have no possibility of practical implementation ........... well, here I Olya fundamentally disagree with you, because we are talking about anti-guerrilla activities on the part of aviation. then everything is simple ... the guerrillas have all means are good and the most important thing for the guerrillas is to inflict possible greater damage on the enemy, and for this they use ingenuity and improvisation, well, as an example, firecrackers with nails wrapped in tape, NAR blocks on jeeps, but here is an example in Yemen, when the AOI helicopter was shot down by an air-to-air R-60 air missile .... the need for invention is cunning. all means are good
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 29 September 2020 09: 06 New
    -3
    MiG-21 approves.
    1. Bongo
      29 September 2020 12: 40 New
      +5
      Quote: EvilLion
      MiG-21 approves.

      Awesome comment! good
      You may not be aware, but during the hostilities in Southeast Asia, the OV-10A turboprop attack aircraft, due to their high maneuverability, have repeatedly successfully evaded attacks from North Vietnamese MiG-21 fighters.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 29 September 2020 17: 02 New
        -4
        When an elephant is running at you, you can dodge, and maybe the elephant will lose sight of you, but only an elephant can win such a fight.
        1. Sergey Sfiedu
          Sergey Sfiedu 29 September 2020 20: 37 New
          +2
          For information - Africans, even tiny pygmies, in the not very distant past, knew how to hunt elephants alone, with the most primitive weapons. Sometimes they died. But more often elephants died. But this is beside the point - these aircraft are intended for use in the absence of the enemy's aviation and serious air defense. If the enemy has aviation and serious air defense, serious aviation is used to destroy them, and only after they have been destroyed, these small airplanes had to take over. However, the same Su-25, which is not very small, and by no means slow-moving, and quite maneuverable and well-armed, was considered unsuitable for use in the European theater of operations in Soviet times due to the enemy's strong fighter aircraft and air defense.
        2. zyablik.olga
          zyablik.olga 30 September 2020 00: 58 New
          +1
          Quote: EvilLion
          When an elephant is running at you, you can dodge, and maybe the elephant will lose sight of you, but only an elephant can win such a fight.

          Even helicopters are equipped with melee air-to-air missiles, and the outcome of air combat can vary. There was a case when an Iraqi combat helicopter shot down an Iranian Phantom.
          As for the "elephants", while making such a statement, you will surely be able to cite statistics on the downing of the Bronco by MiG-21 fighters?
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 29 September 2020 20: 07 New
    +2
    An interesting cluster of combat aircraft. Thanks to the author. And in the Air Force of the USSR and the Russian Federation, they generally did without such boards.
  • Alien From
    Alien From 29 September 2020 22: 18 New
    +1
    Thanks to the author, informative !!!!!)))
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 30 September 2020 11: 46 New
    0
    T-33 Shooting Star. The Enfoncer was powered by a Lycoming YT55-L-9 turboprop engine with 2445 hp. Although the PA-48 had significant power reserves, the top speed was limited to 650 km / h. Cruising speed - 407 km / h. Combat radius of action - up to 700 km.


    Nice apparatus. It is possible to make a "New" Il2500 ...... La-2-5 ..... or Yak-7 on the basis of VK9. Adjusted for ATGM and controlled bombs and VTOL-24 .... it is quite possible to fight in Syria.
    1. Bongo
      30 September 2020 11: 57 New
      +2
      Quote: Zaurbek
      Nice apparatus. It is possible to make a "New" Il2500 ...... La-2-5 ..... or Yak-7 on the basis of VK9. Adjusted for ATGM and controlled bombs and VTOL-24 .... it is quite possible to fight in Syria.

      "Super Tucano" is worse? He's been at war for a long time.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 30 September 2020 12: 24 New
        0
        We do not have a theater of war of about 1000 hp ... and ours like to book ... and ours use less core weapons, but they are lighter than conventional ones.
        1. Bongo
          30 September 2020 12: 28 New
          0
          Quote: Zaurbek
          We do not have a theater of war of about 1000 hp ... and ours like to book ... and ours use less core weapons, but they are lighter than conventional ones.

          Who can argue with that? But the VK-2500 is completely unsuitable for installation on the aircraft you listed. And I don’t believe that we will have such a machine. You can't cut a lot on it.
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 30 September 2020 12: 37 New
            0
            Why doesn't it fit? Such a machine can cost as much as you want ... Take the price of the Mi28NM ... it will be more expensive only due to the airframe, resource and its maintenance. And avionics, weapons ... all the same.
            1. Bongo
              30 September 2020 12: 46 New
              +2
              Quote: Zaurbek
              Why not fit?

              We need a theater with the characteristics of a Pratt & Whitney PT6A. And we have nothing close to it.
              Quote: Zaurbek
              Take the price of Mi28NM ... it will be more expensive only due to the airframe, resource and its maintenance.

              The upgraded Night Hunter is primarily designed against a high-tech enemy in a big war. In terms of avionics and weapons, it is not optimal for actions against insurgents.
              In general, wait for the final part. There I will try to compare the capabilities of turboprop attack aircraft with drones and helicopters.
              1. Zaurbek
                Zaurbek 30 September 2020 12: 50 New
                0
                And what are these characteristics? Modern theater - 950 hp From a series of our theaters TVNo-117, there is a capacity of 1700 hp. up to 2500hp Adjusted for the reservation and our electronics - that's it.
                As for the price, the Tucano costs about the same as the Mi28. And his electronics are very perfect.
                1. Bongo
                  30 September 2020 13: 04 New
                  0
                  Quote: Zaurbek
                  From the series of our TVD TVNo-117 there is a capacity of 1700 hp. up to 2500hp

                  TV3-117 is turboshaft engine. For a number of reasons, it is not suitable for installation on light aircraft. Compare the specific fuel consumption of the VK-2500 and the Pratt & Whitney PT6A series engines.
                  1. Zaurbek
                    Zaurbek 30 September 2020 13: 18 New
                    0
                    Here's a variation for planes .....

                    The TV7-117ST engine incorporates modern design solutions. Power at maximum take-off mode is 3100 hp, at high emergency mode - 3600 hp. The AB112 propeller has increased performance and increased thrust.


                    And the specific consumption also depends on the power ... in the line of promising theaters for airplanes and helicopters of the Russian Federation there is no dimension of exactly 1000hp.


                    The engine range continues to evolve, with new 400-650 hp engines being developed. and 1400-1800 hp. Within the framework of the import substitution program, in cooperation with the UEC enterprises, the production of domestic components for engines has been built.


                    I'm not suggesting to put it in Tucano.
                    1. Bongo
                      30 September 2020 13: 24 New
                      +2
                      Quote: Zaurbek
                      I'm not suggesting to put it in Tucano.

                      We have a suitable plane, and you sincerely believe that our country will create it from scratch? No.
                      1. Zaurbek
                        Zaurbek 30 September 2020 13: 27 New
                        0
                        No ..... but given the large number of local wars .... you can create. And the theme of the theater of operations also slows down the UAV. The most popular western theater of operations on them, also 1000 hp.
  • Alexander Vorontsov
    Alexander Vorontsov 20 November 2020 14: 28 New
    -2
    It was strange to me that the Yak-130 was not used in Syria.
    This could have a positive effect on its potential in the arms market.
    As a result, baptism of fire was practiced in Myanmar.
    1. Bongo
      20 November 2020 14: 36 New
      +1
      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
      It was strange to me that the Yak-130 was not used in Syria.
      This could have a positive effect on its potential in the arms market.
      As a result, baptism of fire was practiced in Myanmar.

      In its current form, the Yak-130 is only a trainer, and it is not very suitable for use as a strike vehicle.
      1. Alexander Vorontsov
        Alexander Vorontsov 20 November 2020 15: 15 New
        -3
        And what is meant by the word - "little"? What's behind this? Can't he drop 2 bombs?
        1. Bongo
          20 November 2020 15: 18 New
          +1
          Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
          And what is meant by the word - "little"? What's behind this? Can't he drop 2 bombs?

          Two bombs can also be hung under the An-2, but this will not make it an effective combat aircraft. It seems to me that you either do not understand basic things, or you are engaged in trolling.
          1. Alexander Vorontsov
            Alexander Vorontsov 20 November 2020 15: 46 New
            -4
            Quote: Bongo
            can be hung under the An-2

            The AN-2 has no sighting system.
            And Yak is an educationalcombat aircraft.
            He has everything in order to use weapons, which is what the cadets do on him.

            There are a number of countries that cannot afford "efficient" F-35s.
            And there are tasks for the Air Force.
            In Myanmar, they fight very well.

            What "efficiency" do you think is needed to drop 2 bombs on a bungalow? Stealth? An armored cabin?
            1. zyablik.olga
              zyablik.olga 21 November 2020 11: 52 New
              +1
              Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
              The AN-2 has no sighting system.
              And the Yak is a combat training aircraft.
              He has everything in order to use weapons, which is what the cadets do on him.

              Oh, I was very curious, tell us what kind of PRNK on the Yak-130, and how does it differ from the one on the L-39? And maybe we can compare the reconnaissance and sighting equipment of the Yak-130 with the OV-10X or A-29V "Super Tucano"?
              Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
              In Myanmar, they fight very well.

              Directly the Yak-130 TCB, which, apart from "cast iron" and the NAR, can not carry anything, are at war in the whole, inflict effective airstrikes? No. And this despite the fact that the Myanmar Air Force has much more advanced aircraft. Please share the source of information?
              Patriotism is great, but it does not replace knowledge and common sense.
              1. Alexander Vorontsov
                Alexander Vorontsov 21 November 2020 12: 37 New
                -4
                Read this material (for example, this one or you can google it yourself), and if you still have any questions, ask.
                https://www.gazeta.ru/army/2019/11/18/12819470.shtml

                Quote: zyablik.olga
                deliver effective airstrikes?

                It was not by chance that I asked the question, which specific points are implied by "effective"
                Is a cruise missile attack on targets in Syria effective in your opinion?

                Quote: zyablik.olga
                which, in addition to "cast iron" and NAR

                Have you seen with what weapons our aviation in Syria makes 80% of the sorties?
                Cast iron and plank beds ...
                PS
                And once again - it's not about making this plane the basis of our group in Syria and a "war hero".
                Since its export potential was initially considered precisely as a combat training, it could also be "spotted" in Syria.
                And then in his "resume" he would have already had the experience of "real combat operations."
                1. Bongo
                  21 November 2020 15: 28 New
                  +3
                  Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                  Read this material (for example, this one or you can google it yourself), and if you still have any questions, ask.
                  https://www.gazeta.ru/army/2019/11/18/12819470.shtml

                  What was it? what Just about nothing ... negative
                  Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                  It was not by chance that I asked the question, which specific points are implied by "effective"
                  Is a cruise missile attack on targets in Syria effective in your opinion?

                  Are we talking about counterinsurgency vehicles, or are we discussing the effectiveness of the CD?
                  Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                  And once again - it's not about making this plane the basis of our group in Syria and a "war hero".

                  What does SAR have to do with it? An aircraft with a primitive sighting and navigation system and the absence of special measures to increase combat survivability is a priori incapable of being an effective attack aircraft. This, of course, does not mean that such an aircraft cannot be created on the basis of the Yak-130, but the machines that are in the troops are training and training, designed for increased flight training. The fact that they have weapon attachments on which NAR units and free-fall bombs can be placed does not mean that such an aircraft will be able to successfully perform a wide range of combat missions.
                  Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                  Have you seen with what weapons our aviation in Syria makes 80% of the sorties?
                  Cast iron and plank beds ...

                  Exactly. yes NAR used the Su-25 and Su-35S rather limitedly. Both types of combat aircraft were used for a relatively short time. To strike NAR with the Su-35S, in my opinion, is generally beyond logic. Free-falling ones were mainly used with the Su-24M and Su-34 with the SVP-24, which is largely due to the lack of guided ammunition.
                  By the way, you did not answer a single question that Olga asked you:
                  Quote: zyablik.olga
                  Oh, I was very curious, tell me what kind of PRNK on the Yak-130, and how it differs from that on the L-39? And maybe we can compare the reconnaissance and sighting equipment of the Yak-130 with the OV-10X or the A-29V Super Tucano?

                  Quote: zyablik.olga
                  Directly the trainer Yak-130, which apart from "cast iron" and the NAR can not carry anything, are at war in the whole, inflict effective air strikes? no And this despite the fact that the Myanmar Air Force has much more advanced aircraft. Please share the source of information?

                  This is also extremely interesting to me ... wink
                  1. Alexander Vorontsov
                    Alexander Vorontsov 21 November 2020 16: 01 New
                    -3
                    Quote: Bongo
                    Are we talking about counterinsurgency vehicles, or are we discussing the effectiveness of the CD?

                    It is about them. And in order to talk about them, I further consider it necessary to define the criteria of effectiveness, which you refer to regularly.
                    And I just regularly ask you to clarify these criteria.
                    In the first post, I asked you about this indirectly, in the 2nd directly
                    "What do you think is the" efficiency "needed to drop 2 bombs on a bungalow?
                    In the third I repeated
                    "Is a cruise missile attack on targets in Syria effective in your opinion?"
                    1. Toucan
                      Toucan 21 November 2020 16: 56 New
                      +1
                      Continuous demagoguery negative You were asked specific questions, I see that you are not able to answer one of them. negative
                    2. zyablik.olga
                      zyablik.olga 21 November 2020 17: 10 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                      It is about them. And in order to talk about them, I further consider it necessary to define the criteria of effectiveness, which you refer to regularly.
                      And I just regularly ask you to clarify these criteria.
                      In the first post, I asked you about this indirectly, in the 2nd directly
                      "What do you think is the" efficiency "needed to drop 2 bombs on a bungalow?
                      In the third I repeated
                      "Is a cruise missile attack on targets in Syria effective in your opinion?"

                      In my opinion, you are just trying to divert the conversation to the side. Can you answer: what is the PRNK on the Yak-130, and how does it differ from the one on the L-39? And let's compare the reconnaissance and sighting equipment of the Yak-130 with the OV-10X or A-29V "Super Tucano"?
                      And about the effectiveness of the Yak-130 in a strike role in Myanmar, please, in more detail. How many sorties he made, with what combat load, how many and what targets were destroyed. You are responsible for your words, aren't you?
                      Quote: Tucan
                      Continuous demagogy You were asked specific questions, I see that you are not able to answer any of them.

                      Unfortunately, so far, good demagoguery ... request
                      How did you decide that you can ask questions without confirming your voice statements?
                    3. Bongo
                      21 November 2020 17: 20 New
                      +3
                      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                      It is about them. And in order to talk about them, I further consider it necessary to define the criteria of effectiveness, which you refer to regularly.
                      And I just regularly ask you to clarify these criteria.
                      In the first post, I asked you about this indirectly, in the 2nd directly
                      "What do you think is the" efficiency "needed to drop 2 bombs on a bungalow?
                      In the third I repeated
                      "Is a cruise missile attack on targets in Syria effective in your opinion?"

                      Let's do it, you answer the questions that were asked to you directly and without tricks, and after that we continue the dialogue and I answer yours. I would like to remind you that the burden of proof lies with the one who asserts something.
                      1. Alexander Vorontsov
                        Alexander Vorontsov 21 November 2020 17: 34 New
                        -2
                        Quote: Bongo
                        the burden of proof lies with whoever claims something.

                        All true.
                        So you will prove your very first statement, which is the essence of the "question"
                        In its current form, the Yak-130 is only TCB

                        While at the level of definitions
                        Yak-130 (NATO codification: Mitten - "Mitten") - Russian trainingcombat aircraft".

                        Those. you need to prove that he is not able to carry weapons and use them.
                        No hide-and-seek behind the abstract terms "effective" and "wide range of tasks".
                        The essence of our thread is this.
                      2. Bongo
                        21 November 2020 17: 43 New
                        +3
                        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                        So you will prove your very first statement, which is the essence of the "question"

                        This does not require proof, and anyone who knows at least a little in the subject knows. As Olya rightly pointed out, the Yak-130 sighting and navigation system does not differ in functionality from that of the L-39, and is used to train cadets in the use of unguided weapons. At the same time, in terms of security, the Yak-130 is much inferior to the Su-25, whose PNRK is also very outdated, but this machine has a standard laser rangefinder-target designator. With which of this do you disagree?
                        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                        While at the level of definitions

                        Yes, there can be any definitions. Su-30M2 is also called combat training, but in fact it is an export twin.
                        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                        Those. you need to prove that he is not able to carry weapons and use them.

                        I have to prove something to you, despite the fact that you are not able to answer a single directly posed question? No.
                      3. Alexander Vorontsov
                        Alexander Vorontsov 21 November 2020 18: 18 New
                        -3
                        This requires no proof

                        Requires. It's just that it is impossible to prove it by the fact that it is initially not true.
                        He can carry weapons and can use them.
                        Yes, simple. Yes, primitive.
                        But maybe.
                        Or will you say that it cannot?
                        And besides, it can do it cheaper than more technologically advanced aircraft.
                        And this is very different from "training only".
                      4. Bongo
                        21 November 2020 18: 20 New
                        +1
                        How successful is the L-39 in combat in the SAR?
                        In general, as I understand it, you are absolutely far from combat aviation. All the best.