Military Review

Ilyushin's last attack aircraft. Jet IL-40

191
Il-40P attack aircraft

By the end of World War II, a significant number of Ilyushin's piston attack aircraft remained in service - both the Il-2 and the more advanced Il-10. The latter managed to take an insignificant part in the final battles in Europe, as well as in the defeat of the Kwantung Army during the Soviet-Japanese War. These aircraft remained in service after the end of World War II until the mid-1950s. Il-10 attack aircraft even managed to fight in the skies of Korea. Then it became finally clear that the piston machines were morally and physically outdated.


The appearance of the Il-40 attack aircraft


Transition to reactive aviation, which began after the end of World War II, became inevitable by the early 1950s. Taking this into account, as well as studying the experience of the Korean war, it became obvious that the future of military aviation belongs to jet aircraft. The experience of the war showed that Il-10 piston attack aircraft are vulnerable against modern artillery anti-aircraft systems, as well as enemy jet fighters. There is a need to create a new attack aircraft with much higher flight performance. Quality growth could only be achieved through the use of new jet engines.

This is how the idea of ​​creating a jet attack aircraft was born in the Ilyushin Design Bureau. The first options were presented to the Air Force back in 1949, but were rejected. Already in the early 1950s, work on the creation of a jet attack aircraft, designated Il-40, continued in the design bureau on its own initiative. Design studies and sketch developments, carried out on the initiative and under the direct supervision of Sergei Vladimirovich Ilyushin, showed that a new attack aircraft can be built using two relatively small but powerful AM-5 turbojet engines designed by Mikulin. The same engines were planned to be installed on Yak-25 interceptors and MiG-19 fighters.

The draft design of the Il-40 attack aircraft was prepared in 1950-1951 for the AM-5 engines, which by that time had been well mastered by the Soviet industry. By February 1, 1952, when the Council of Ministers of the USSR signed a decree on the creation of a new jet attack aircraft Il-40, Ilyushin's design bureau already had a good start on the future combat vehicle.


The last Soviet piston attack aircraft Il-10M

Directly the tactical and technical requirements from the Air Force for the new Il-40 attack aircraft were prepared and transferred to the chief designer of the aircraft on February 26, 1952. The military wanted to get at their disposal a car that could reach a speed of 850 km / h at an altitude of 1000 meters, carry powerful artillery, missile and bomb weapons and take off from strips no more than 750 meters long. The aircraft crew was to be composed of two people: a pilot and a radio operator. Two AM-5F turbojet engines were chosen as the power plant. The defense of the draft design of the Il-40 attack aircraft took place just 20 days after the formal issuance of the task, less than a year later the rollout of the first aircraft took place. And on March 7, 1953, the first flight of the new attack aircraft took place, the aircraft was piloted by the famous Soviet test pilot Vladimir Kokkinaki.

Design features of the Il-40


In a way, the Il-40 was a classic attack aircraft, but with new jet engines. Like the Il-10, the crew of two was housed inside the airframe in a well-armored protective capsule. The new Soviet attack aircraft was designed according to a normal aerodynamic configuration and was an all-metal low-wing aircraft with a swept wing and a tricycle landing gear.

It can be noted that the aircraft booking scheme was traditional for the Ilyushin Design Bureau. The basis of the fuselage of the Il-40 attack aircraft was the power armored hull, which included the cockpit, part of the electrical and radio equipment and six fuel tanks with a total capacity of 4285 liters. Aircraft body armor was differentiated. In the front hemisphere, the pilot was most strongly protected (protection against 20 mm armor-piercing shells). Protection was provided by a 10-mm cockpit armor partition and a 124-mm frontal armored glass in a fixed canopy of the canopy, the side armored glasses were thinner - 68 mm. The longitudinal armor of the armored hull was supposed to cope with 20-mm shrapnel shells from aircraft cannons and ground fire from 12,7-mm machine guns. Both engines of the attack aircraft were also armored. The total weight of the armor reached 1918 kg, which is a lot, considering that the empty weight of the Il-40 aircraft was 12 190 kg.

Stormtrooper IL-40

The large relative thickness of the wing of the new attack aircraft made it possible to place in it, in addition to the chassis, four small bomb bays, in each of which it was possible to hang a 100 kg bomb. The normal bomb load was exactly 400 kg. In the reloading version, the aircraft could carry up to 1000 kg of bombs. In addition to the bomb bays in the wing, the attack aircraft had four beam holders, on which one could hang either two bombs weighing up to 500 kg, or unguided rockets, or outboard fuel tanks.

The highlight of the aircraft and its main problem was its powerful cannon armament. The designers planned to arm the attack aircraft with six 23-mm automatic cannons at once, placed in the nose of the glider (three on the sides). During the tests, it turned out that when firing, propellant gases entered the air intakes of the engines, which led to problems with the stability of their operation and even to the stop of the engines. Also, bright flashes of shots blinded the pilot. Ilyushin suggested changing this effect due to a different arrangement of the air intakes of the engines and guns (the number was reduced to 4, one more was at the disposal of the radio operator), which was implemented on the Il-40P aircraft.


Stormtrooper IL-40


However, in addition to this shortcoming, the new aircraft made a good impression on the military. During state tests, the Il-40 attack aircraft with a normal take-off weight of 16 kg (200 kg of bomb load and full cannon ammunition) was able to reach a speed of 400 km / h near the ground, and at an altitude of 910 meters it accelerated to 1000 km / h. The tactical range of the attack aircraft in the reloading version was estimated at 950 km. At the same time, military pilots recorded the ease of piloting the new car. It was noted that the flight crew, which are already familiar with jet aircraft, including the MiG-270 and Il-17, will be able to master the technique of piloting the Il-28 in any meteorological conditions without any problems.

IL-40P "Flying shotgun"


The second prototype of the new attack aircraft was the Il-40-2, designated Il-40P. The car was remembered by many for its unusual appearance. The twin air intake in the nose of the aircraft made the car look like a double-barreled shotgun. In the modern American press, the plane is even called a "flying shotgun". This is true both considering the appearance of the aircraft and taking into account its combat capabilities. Still, the attack aircraft was armed with four 23-mm automatic aircraft cannons at once. An onboard salvo of such a "flying shotgun" could demoralize any enemy, especially if he could be caught during a march in marching columns.

Externally, the IL-40P differed markedly from the first prototype. Major improvements have affected the nose of the fuselage. The designers extended the separate side air intakes of the engines forward and replaced them with one large frontal air intake with two diverging air channels, which gave the aircraft a characteristic and recognizable appearance. The new layout made it possible to completely eliminate the influence of cannon firing on the operation of the engines. The bow cannon mount of four 23 mm TKB-495A was moved to the lower surface of the attack aircraft fuselage behind the front landing gear compartment. All four automatic aircraft cannons were placed on a special carriage.

The aircraft also featured more powerful RD-9V engines with a thrust of 2600 kgf in normal flight and 3250 kgf in afterburner. At the request of the military, the designers also placed a mirror periscope on the movable part of the canopy of the Il-40P attack aircraft, which made it possible to improve the view of the upper hemisphere. The rest of the aircraft design has not undergone significant changes.


Il-40P attack aircraft

The improvements made had a positive effect on the bomb load, which in the normal version increased to 1000 kg, in the reloading version the attack aircraft could take on board up to 1400 kg of bombs. The transfer of the front landing gear a little forward and the general increase in the base of the chassis had a positive effect on the stability of the attack aircraft movement around the airfield. In general, all the changes made were quite successful, so the aircraft was recommended for serial production and adoption. The first serial batch of 40 aircraft was to be built at the 168th aircraft plant in Rostov-on-Don.

The fate of the project


In total, two prototypes of the Il-40 and five serial attack aircraft were built. The vehicle was implemented in two main versions - Il-40-1 and Il-40-2. The second prototype, distinguished by its unusual appearance due to modified air intakes, also received the designation Il-40P. At the end of 1955, after the completion of a series of state tests, it was decided to accept the Il-40P attack aircraft into service and begin its serial production. By the spring of 1956, at the flight test station of the 168th aircraft building plant in Rostov-on-Don, the process of airfield preparation of the first five serial Il-40P attack aircraft was being completed, but already on April 13 of the same year, by the decision of the government of the USSR, the Il-40P was removed from service. and all work on this machine was stopped. A week later, assault aviation was also abolished in the Soviet Air Force, which was replaced by fighter-bomber aviation.

It is curious that in the summer of 1956, the new aircraft was shown in Kubinka to the delegation of the American Air Force, which arrived in Moscow to celebrate the Air fleet... For what purpose the American military was shown an aircraft that was not going to be produced is not very clear. According to the aviation encyclopedia "Corner of the Sky", the guests themselves appreciated the presented attack aircraft quite high.


Changes in the Soviet military doctrine and the rate on missile weapons put an end to the new attack aircraft. The military took into account the fact that the effectiveness of military air defense is constantly growing. The capabilities of air defense are increasing, which will lead to unreasonably large losses of Il-40P attack aircraft, even though the armor is quite powerful. Front-line aviation and fighter-bombers, which would operate outside the reach of ground forces, were supposed to solve the tasks of supporting troops on the battlefield.

It is worth noting that at the time of testing the new Il-40 attack aircraft in the United States, the Hawk military air defense system was actually being tested, as well as the new Sidewinder air missile missile system, which made it possible to hit the attack aircraft before it could use its weapons. At the same time, as subsequent events showed, the attack aircraft was really not suitable for participation in the hypothetical Third World War, but it could show itself well in local conflicts and conflicts of a low degree of intensity. In the future, the decision to completely abandon assault aircraft was also recognized as erroneous.
Author:
191 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Free wind
    Free wind 2 January 2021 05: 23
    +12
    Happy New Year everyone !!! All the best to you !!! Can anyone explain to me not reasonable than an airplane with the same armament. flying 600 km per hour, and at an altitude of 5-10 km, worse than a helicopter. The plane can walk on adversaries at low level, but the helicopter will never reach the speed and ceiling of the same Stuka, or IL-2
    1. Avior
      Avior 2 January 2021 11: 00
      +8
      At a speed of 600 km per hour, it is inconvenient to shoot, the target is in the field of view for too little time.
      Especially from a height of 10 km
      1. Alesi13
        Alesi13 2 January 2021 17: 40
        -2
        Just from 10 km, it will be in sight for enough time, attack aircraft fly a little lower
        1. Avior
          Avior 2 January 2021 17: 46
          +2
          From 10 km it can be inconvenient to see it, it is difficult to see from afar
          1. ycuce234-san
            ycuce234-san 2 January 2021 19: 44
            -2
            Quote: Avior
            From 10 km it can be inconvenient to see it, it is difficult to see from afar



            The telescope must be onboard. Astronavigation in aviation has long been used, and the stratospheric observatory of infrared astronomy SOFIA (http://www.sofia.usra.edu/) has been conducting observation during flights for a decade. It is strange that in that era the simplest aviation telescopes were really not used in military practice - they would have been appropriate in many applications, such as aerial photo reconnaissance ...
          2. Alesi13
            Alesi13 2 January 2021 20: 16
            0
            Maybe only I answered about time
    2. English tarantas
      English tarantas 2 January 2021 11: 36
      +5
      He's worse in terms of fighting technique. The helicopter is better because, having put on a lot of ATGM and NAR, it can circle over one place for a long time to look for small, hardly noticeable targets. The plane can walk over the area several times, but it will not be able to hover over the place and "pick" infantry or "scattered" tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers. Also, if the plane detects a threat in the form of anti-aircraft weapons, it will have to fly to the side and it may run into other anti-aircraft weapons, and the helicopter can hover behind some kind of mound or even sit down without leaving the square of its task. And the plane is also more expensive.
      1. Eug
        Eug 2 January 2021 12: 10
        +3
        And how much closer to the combat zone can helicopters be based ... even if they take off with a takeoff, the takeoff is relatively short and cannot be compared with the required runway length.
        1. English tarantas
          English tarantas 2 January 2021 15: 48
          +2
          In general, helicopters can be refueled in rotation at a distance from the database, the same as tanks are serviced, the main thing is that they did not finish shooting. And instead of airbases, at worst, you can find a bigger clearing, drive a truck with technicians and a fuel tanker there.
          1. Eug
            Eug 2 January 2021 19: 48
            +1
            So I'm talking about the same thing, for helicopters "jump airfield" is much easier to equip.
      2. zoland
        zoland 2 January 2021 22: 47
        -8
        But how, the Israeli F-16 hung hiding behind the Il-20 in Syria
        1. andreykolesov123
          andreykolesov123 3 January 2021 13: 09
          0
          Quote: zoland
          But how, the Israeli F-16 hung hiding behind the Il-20 in Syria

          no way, the IL-20 F-16 would not have covered it. The rocket explodes next to the plane and if the F-16 were next to Il, it would definitely be shot down.
      3. Intruder
        Intruder 3 January 2021 19: 47
        +3
        The helicopter is better because, having attached a lot of ATGM and NAR, it can circle over one place for a long time to look for small, hardly noticeable targets.
        and is a very good target at low altitude and at low horizontal speed, the more the rate of climb at low altitude for a helicopter is lower than for an attack aircraft, therefore light attack aircraft and anti-guerrilla aircraft are so in demand against all beards in various low-tension conflicts, and the cost of they are not very high, with a flying hour, but there are many ATGMs and NARs, they do not always need them, it is better to carry an extended ammunition load for a pair of large-barrel barrel in flight, against brick walls with clay zingans and all kinds of gantrucks ...
        1. English tarantas
          English tarantas 3 January 2021 20: 24
          0
          and is a very good target at low altitude and low horizontal speed

          I wrote about the advantages of a helicopter. This is so, I do not argue helicopters get lost even from RPGs. Therefore, all sorts of turboprop and piston aircraft are still in demand, they are used when the threat to catch an ATGM or a small-caliber burst is high, as well as in cases when the helicopter is expensive, the aircraft still has a larger radius with less flight time and, in general, a simple aircraft is cheaper than a full-fledged shock helicopter.
          Although, again, you can hang guns on the plane and even managed to put full-caliber guns in World War II, but shooting at low level or pressing the trigger while hovering are two different things.
          1. Intruder
            Intruder 3 January 2021 22: 42
            +1
            but shooting at low level or pressing the trigger while hovering are two different things.
            I agree, this is the advantage :) provided that the gun stabilizer is on the turntable, but this pribluda is not installed on everyone, more precisely on a smaller number of production models, so gunship (light and heavy versions ...) and more convenient, with more possible high consumption of ammunition for one hit ground target, even simpler MD 500, with two GAU-2 containers, outperform any more advanced Cobra versions with NARs and URs, and their bow combat modules with large caliber ...
  2. Stena
    Stena 2 January 2021 05: 35
    +21
    If my memory serves me, in 1982 the IL-102 attack aircraft was released - also jet. It is similar to the American A-10, so the SU-25 has been favored. That is, the IL-40 is not the last attack aircraft ...
    1. ximkim
      ximkim 2 January 2021 06: 38
      +17
      ... So he remained experimental. And then they let him go for scrap.
    2. Eug
      Eug 2 January 2021 09: 14
      +9
      It was in a different "weight category" than the Su-25. The military chose the lighter one.
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 2 January 2021 11: 03
        +3
        Quote: Eug
        He was in a different "weight category" than the Su-25

        Il, the military were not going to choose, precisely because of its peculiar design, it lost to the Su-25 in all characteristics.
        What kind of radio operator, on a modern attack aircraft, could there be.
        1. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U 2 January 2021 11: 32
          +9
          Quote: bober1982
          What kind of radio operator, on a modern attack aircraft, could there be
          I remember somewhere that the presence of a rear firing point was assessed positively, according to Afgan's experience, they say that when leaving the attack plane at the Su-25 it was not enough to press the "catch-up" shelling.
          1. Sergey Sfiedu
            Sergey Sfiedu 2 January 2021 18: 04
            +1
            Well, so far, there were no guided weapons on the attack aircraft. Now attack aircraft fly high and MZA and even MANPADS do not get them.
            1. Vladimir_2U
              Vladimir_2U 2 January 2021 19: 49
              +4
              Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
              Now attack aircraft fly high and MZA and even MANPADS do not get them
              In terms of tactics, these are no longer attack aircraft.
              1. Sergey Sfiedu
                Sergey Sfiedu 2 January 2021 20: 51
                +4
                Of course. In the narrow sense of the word. But the meaning of words changes over time. However, in the past, we referred to "attack aircraft" as such machines as the A-5 Vidzhelent, A-6 Intruder, F / A-18 Hornet. And even the Su-24 (T-6) was born with the proud name "attack aircraft".
                1. Vladimir_2U
                  Vladimir_2U 3 January 2021 07: 56
                  +1
                  Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
                  However, in the past, we referred to "attack aircraft" as such machines as the A-5 Vidzhelent, A-6 Intruder, F / A-18 Hornet
                  Well, in general, the letter "A" in the designation of a combat aircraft was not just introduced, and directly by the Americans, and by no means by us.
                  1. Alf
                    Alf 3 January 2021 09: 01
                    0
                    Quote: Vladimir_2U
                    Well, in general, the letter "A" in the designation of a combat aircraft was not just introduced, and directly by the Americans, and by no means by us.

                    "A" - "Attack" - strike, that is, an aircraft designed to strike.
                    1. Vladimir_2U
                      Vladimir_2U 3 January 2021 09: 35
                      0
                      Namely, "Thunderbolt-2" is designated by this letter: A-10.
          2. garri-lin
            garri-lin 2 January 2021 19: 10
            0
            How do you imagine that? What would be the efficiency?
            1. Vladimir_2U
              Vladimir_2U 2 January 2021 19: 48
              +5
              Quote: garri-lin
              How do you imagine that? What would be the efficiency?
              I have no idea, I just remember:
              The advantages of the two-seat scheme were especially clearly demonstrated by the military action in Afghanistan. There, single-seat combat aircraft participating in assault operations against ground targets were hit by portable anti-aircraft missile systems, which fired after them. And the outdated Il-28 bombers with a stern gun mount, after leaving the attack, destroyed the MANPADS operators who were preparing to launch missiles with the fire of the rear gun. In practice, the Il-28 aircraft did not suffer losses from this modern air defense system for ground forces.

              http://www.airwar.ru/enc/attack/il40.html
              1. Alf
                Alf 2 January 2021 20: 29
                +4
                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                Quote: garri-lin
                How do you imagine that? What would be the efficiency?
                I have no idea, I just remember:
                The advantages of the two-seat scheme were especially clearly demonstrated by the military action in Afghanistan. There, single-seat combat aircraft participating in assault operations against ground targets were hit by portable anti-aircraft missile systems, which fired after them. And the outdated Il-28 bombers with a stern gun mount, after leaving the attack, destroyed the MANPADS operators who were preparing to launch missiles with the fire of the rear gun. In practice, the Il-28 aircraft did not suffer losses from this modern air defense system for ground forces.

                http://www.airwar.ru/enc/attack/il40.html

                When a couple of trunks hit you from a flying side, you somehow don't want to climb out from behind a stone in order to catch the "gratitude".
              2. garri-lin
                garri-lin 2 January 2021 21: 12
                0
                Rave. It is practically impossible to detect the MANPADS operator before launch. If there is a trained fighter and not an amateur.
                1. Alf
                  Alf 2 January 2021 21: 41
                  +1
                  Quote: garri-lin
                  Rave. It is practically impossible to detect the MANPADS operator before launch. If there is a trained fighter and not an amateur.

                  You know better, the pilots and helicopter pilots were probably all stupid ...
                  1. garri-lin
                    garri-lin 2 January 2021 22: 29
                    -1
                    Did you fly in a light airplane? Paragliding? From a couple of hundred meters in height, it is difficult to see a person if he does not counter against the background of the earth. And then there was a couple of seconds for detection, aiming and shooting. And it makes no sense to suppress after a missile launch.
                    1. Vladimir_2U
                      Vladimir_2U 3 January 2021 07: 24
                      +1
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      Did you fly in a light airplane? Paragliding? From a couple of hundred meters in height, it is difficult to see a person if he does not counter against the background of the earth.
                      An experienced pilot is immediately visible, yes.
                      How many soldiers were killed? And the hell knows how much. They fall, but you killed him or he fell out of fear, you do not know. Once I dived and looked through the window - a soldier was lying at the gate and, without taking aim, was shooting at the plane. In, I think, bastard! On the second call, I specially fired at this gate, where he was lying.

                      A. Drabkin. "I fought on IL-2"
                      1. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 3 January 2021 08: 19
                        -2
                        You do not distinguish between attacks with stable flight, aiming and other delights. And the exit from the attack with a set of speed, maneuvers and other measures necessary to reduce the likelihood of defeat? Are you comparing the Il 2, which went to the heads of the heads and the jet attack aircraft, which has a higher speed? Well, a lot of other non-contrast factors. The repertoire has not changed.
                      2. Vladimir_2U
                        Vladimir_2U 3 January 2021 09: 33
                        +1
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        You do not distinguish between attack with stable flight, aiming and other delights

                        You are not able to remember your own scribbles
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Did you fly in a light airplane? Paragliding? It is difficult to see a person from a couple of hundred meters in height if he does not counter against the background of the earth
                        and compare with other people's arguments:
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Once I dived and looked through the window - a soldier was lying at the gate and, without taking aim, was shooting at the plane.
                        What else is there about a paraglider with an attack?
                      3. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 3 January 2021 09: 46
                        0
                        Dumb as usual. From what height did the Il 2 attack aircraft work? From what altitude do jet attack aircraft work? Hire a pleasure plane and try to examine a person from a height during the military attack of a jet attack aircraft. Try this while sitting facing back. You will discover a lot of new things. It's almost impossible. And if a person is masked, it will become impossible in principle. To make it clearer, google at what altitude the jet attack aircraft exits the attack and begins an anti-aircraft maneuver.
                      4. Vladimir_2U
                        Vladimir_2U 3 January 2021 09: 54
                        0
                        It's all the same to the rear firing point for the attack aircraft and its usefulness in modern conditions, but this is your approach:
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Did you fly in a light airplane? Paragliding? It is difficult to see a person from a couple of hundred meters in height if he does not counter against the background of the earth
                        followed by evasion on:
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        You do not distinguish between attacks with stable flight, aiming and other delights. And the exit from the attack with a set of speed, maneuvers and other measures necessary to reduce the likelihood of defeat?
                        ... I just poke your nose into this stupidity of yours.
                      5. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 3 January 2021 10: 20
                        +1
                        Where did you see the discrepancy here? Or will the gunner's view improve from the continuous maneuvering of the aircraft?
            2. lelik613
              lelik613 19 February 2021 08: 22
              0
              Preventive fire on everything that moves and does not move ...
              1. garri-lin
                garri-lin 19 February 2021 11: 20
                0
                A couple hundred bullets for a few square kilometers? Well, let the rectangle be 200 by 500 meters at a low altitude. No good.
  3. Alf
    Alf 2 January 2021 20: 27
    +1
    Quote: Vladimir_2U
    Quote: bober1982
    What kind of radio operator, on a modern attack aircraft, could there be
    I remember somewhere that the presence of a rear firing point was assessed positively, according to Afgan's experience, they say that when leaving the attack plane at the Su-25 it was not enough to press the "catch-up" shelling.

    On MI-8 in Afghanistan, the doors of the cargo hatch were removed and the PKM was installed, the flight technician was firing from it, just so that they would not be "thanked" after.
    1. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 2 January 2021 20: 56
      0
      At a minimum, there was work on equipping the Su-17m3 / 4 and Su-25 with SPPU-22 removable mobile cannon mounts for firing backwards when exiting an attack at a conventional aiming mark. Whether this was actually used - I have not heard.
      1. Alf
        Alf 2 January 2021 20: 58
        +1
        Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
        At least there was work

        There were, but who should shoot them? To the pilot during withdrawal and dive and antiaircraft maneuver? Or, after all, is it better when a separate person was sitting on the machine gun?
        1. Sergey Sfiedu
          Sergey Sfiedu 2 January 2021 21: 03
          0
          Well, the last quarter of the 20th century, though. There was a PRNK, with the appropriate setting, everything worked automatically. And the individual is the extra weight, even from the experience of WWII it became clear that maneuverability protects better than the rear firing point gunner.
          1. Alf
            Alf 2 January 2021 21: 06
            +1
            Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
            Even from WWII experience, it became clear that maneuverability protects better than the rear firing point gunner.

            You tell the pilots of IL-28 and Eights in Afghanistan, they didn't know that ...
            1. Sergey Sfiedu
              Sergey Sfiedu 2 January 2021 21: 09
              0
              The Il-28e in Afghanistan did not fly for attack, and the Mi-8 is still a transport helicopter, not an attack helicopter. And even the "Crocodile" - transport and combat, overweight, and therefore clumsy.
              1. Alf
                Alf 2 January 2021 21: 18
                0
                Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
                Il-28e in Afghanistan just did not fly for attack,

                We worked from a dive canopy.
                And the fighters, too, received how much they got when leaving the target.
              2. Sergey Sfiedu
                Sergey Sfiedu 2 January 2021 21: 29
                +1
                As for the IL-28 - perhaps, but I doubt it. Only Afghans had them, and these guys did not like to take risks. Well, IS and attack aircraft - quite often the positions of MANPADS were not on the object itself, but on the surrounding peaks, here the rear gunner, at best, will inform about the launch. On the plain, perhaps, they would have orchestrated some kind of tactics, like those used by the Allied information security in WWII, but mountains are mountains. It is quite natural that both the IBA and the SHA switched to strikes from an average height. Without SD and KAB, it is less effective, but safer.
              3. Vladimir_2U
                Vladimir_2U 2 January 2021 22: 25
                +2
                Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
                and on the surrounding peaks, here the rear shooter, at best, will report the launch
                See what angle of fire the tail turrets / points have. Almost a hemisphere.
              4. garri-lin
                garri-lin 3 January 2021 08: 25
                +3
                This hemisphere must first be inspected. Find a target. Aim over the aircraft maneuver. Come on and open fire. DShK still on "Firefly" can be seen. In principle, even in the sun. MANPADS with a trained operator just generally unrealistic to see before the start.
        2. kytx
          kytx 3 January 2021 01: 29
          +4
          Whoa whoa easy
          mi8 still flew to attack aircraft in afghan
          I recommend reading "flight log 0057"
          memoir of a flight technician mi8 who fought in afghan
        3. Sergey Sfiedu
          Sergey Sfiedu 3 January 2021 20: 37
          0
          "Even as they flew" - flew, and who argues. For the time being, while the Afghans have not weaned from this stupidity. Everyone should do their own thing. And the Mi-8 is not an assault helicopter after all. He can still shoot at the enemy without anti-aircraft weapons. And if the enemy has PGI and MANPADS, then it's better not to meddle.
        4. kytx
          kytx 4 January 2021 00: 43
          0
          well, there is a modification of shmt
          that is, assault and transport
          I mean, it's officially quite an attack aircraft
          of course a specialized attack helicopter will be better
          but why not?
          in vietnam, americans used huey in three ways
          slick, dastoff and ganship
          gunship pure stormtrooper
          although there was already an aircobra
        5. Sergey Sfiedu
          Sergey Sfiedu 4 January 2021 23: 25
          +1
          CMT was overweight. And "Hugh" was good against partisans exactly until they had DShK and MANPADS.
  • cat Rusich
    cat Rusich 2 January 2021 21: 20
    +1
    Quote: Vladimir_2U
    I remember somewhere that the presence of a rear firing point was assessed positively, according to Afgan's experience, they say that when leaving the attack plane at the Su-25 it was not enough to press the "catch-up" shelling.
    To suppress "catch-up shelling" - the firing point must be done in lower rear hemisphere... As an example
    TBF Avenger
    Grumman TBF Avenger.
    TBF Avenger has 3 crew members - pilot, radio operator, bombardier. Here the bombardier, if necessary, fired from ventral firing point. The firing point on the IL-40 in the upper hemisphere is needed only for defense from above ... Directly in Afghanistan, a machine gun was made on the Mi-8 from behind for the flight mechanic - to suppress the "catch-up fire"
    mi-8 s pkt
    On the Mi-24, an additional machine gun was placed only on the side in the troop compartment.
    mi-24 with a machine gun
    Stormtrooper Defense - maneuver and armor soldier
    1. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 2 January 2021 22: 22
      0
      Quote: cat Rusich
      To suppress the "catch-up fire" - the firing point must be made in the lower rear hemisphere
      If you look closely, the IL-40 has a firing point in the most favorable position for firing back and down. Operator placement is another matter.
  • ecolog
    ecolog 3 January 2021 00: 47
    0
    For this, a firing point is needed in the tail. In a bomber it is still possible, but in an attack aircraft it is difficult.
    1. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 3 January 2021 06: 49
      0
      Quote: ecolog
      For this, a firing point is needed in the tail. In a bomber it is still possible, but in an attack aircraft it is difficult.

      Look at the pictures in the article again. It's not difficult.
  • max702
    max702 3 January 2021 10: 49
    0
    Quote: Vladimir_2U
    Quote: bober1982
    What kind of radio operator, on a modern attack aircraft, could there be
    I remember somewhere that the presence of a rear firing point was assessed positively, according to Afgan's experience, they say that when leaving the attack plane at the Su-25 it was not enough to press the "catch-up" shelling.

    Uh. And how purely physically it was possible to make from the rear firing point? As far as I understand, it was intended to counter enemy aircraft, and not against fire from the ground .. Even climb strictly vertically, the angle of fire would still be minimal .. So this argument is about nothing, it would be okay to have a keen firing point there, yes, but here how?
    1. LastPS
      LastPS 5 January 2021 12: 48
      0
      It can work out. The TU-28 has a turret firing angle of 70 degrees vertically and 45 degrees horizontally, how accurate fire can be fired is, of course, a big question. Petrovich must have a diamond eye and quickly respond to flashes of the DShK, on ​​the other hand, how convenient the place of the shooter was and generally suited for such tasks of history is not known, but if this were a reality, I think we would have heard about this experience, but so this "grandmother said in two".
    2. LastPS
      LastPS 12 January 2021 07: 32
      +1
      In general, I watched here an interview with the pilot of the 23rd Mig, who flew in Afghanistan, and somehow I even got bogged down to ask him this question, because it even sounds like selected game and it is inconvenient to ask such a question. But on the topic - according to him, the calculation of the DShK was so noticeable when firing that the pilots called it welding and perfectly sawed out such calculations.
  • nonsense
    nonsense 2 January 2021 22: 44
    0
    but no! The Il-102 surpassed the Su-25 in payload and at the same time had a shorter run length! Those. could be used from shorter runways.
  • PilotS37
    PilotS37 2 January 2021 19: 52
    +2
    Quote: Eug
    It was in a different "weight category" than the Su-25. The military chose the lighter one.

    Guys, what are you talking about: the Il-40 is in the 1950s, and the Su-25 made its first flight in 1975.
    Only Mad Max could "choose" between these projects ...
    1. Alf
      Alf 2 January 2021 20: 31
      +2
      Quote: PilotS37
      Quote: Eug
      It was in a different "weight category" than the Su-25. The military chose the lighter one.

      Guys, what are you talking about: the Il-40 is in the 1950s, and the Su-25 made its first flight in 1975.
      Only Mad Max could "choose" between these projects ...

      In this case, we are talking about the IL-102, which has been designed since the 80th year.
  • The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 2 January 2021 10: 21
    +6
    I absolutely agree with you! It was about 102 that I read, as about "the last Ilyushin attack aircraft" twenty years ago!
  • Mister X
    Mister X 2 January 2021 12: 07
    +6
    Quote: Stena
    was released attack aircraft IL-102 - also jet. Similar to the American A-10

    hi
    For an attack aircraft, a good forward-down view is important
    The Il-40 has a rather elongated "nose".
    Il-102 (deep modernization of Il-40) received a modified bow shape with improved forward-downward visibility
    To be fair, it should be noted that the A-10 has an even better visibility.


  • Monar
    Monar 2 January 2021 12: 10
    +6
    And what is there similar? The dviguns are not so, the cockpit is for 2 pilots, I generally keep quiet about the weapons. The approach is completely different.
  • timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa 2 January 2021 20: 50
    +1
    Quite right, it was 102 that was the last Il attack aircraft. And not the IL-40P.
  • Radiator
    Radiator 2 January 2021 06: 12
    +2
    If it were not for the "strong-willed decision" (Khrushchev's) to remove the attack aircraft, perhaps today we would have more perfect descendants of Ilyushin in attack aircraft, and not "rooks."
    1. Andrei Nikolaevich
      Andrei Nikolaevich 2 January 2021 07: 17
      +1
      I would have known the purchase, I would have lived in Sochi ..
    2. PilotS37
      PilotS37 2 January 2021 19: 56
      +2
      Quote: Radiator
      If it were not for the "strong-willed decision" (Khrushchev's) to remove the attack aircraft, perhaps today we would have more perfect descendants of Ilyushin in attack aircraft, and not "rooks."

      And what is bad for you "live" Rook against the background of a hypothetical attack aircraft from Ilyushin? - The first is, flies, fights, and the second does not (who knows how he would behave in Afghanistan and Syria ...).
      1. Radiator
        Radiator 3 January 2021 01: 17
        -2
        Yes, not bad, I'm talking about an alternative history) One thing is bad - Sukikh's monopoly in everything.
        1. PilotS37
          PilotS37 4 January 2021 14: 02
          -1
          Quote: Radiator
          Yes, not bad, I'm talking about an alternative history) One thing is bad - Sukikh's monopoly in everything.

          "Sukikh's monopoly" arose due to the fact that in the 1990s KB was able to create an effective concern and sold a large number of quite competitive aircraft around the world (especially to China and India). The rest of our design bureaus, at the same time, demonstrated either their incapacity (like the same Mikoyan), or non-competitiveness (like everyone else). Accordingly, the result: there is dry, can do something new, can push through their interests, and the rest are in intensive care with no chance of ever getting out of there ...
          1. Radiator
            Radiator 4 January 2021 18: 24
            0
            https://topwar.ru/178501-poslednij-shturmovik-iljushina-reaktivnyj-il-40.html#comment-id-11113113
          2. Siberian54
            Siberian54 5 January 2021 13: 12
            +2
            "Ilyushin", "Yakovleva" killed EBN for the sake of daughter Tanyusha (permanent residence in Austria) leasing of used Boeing "Sukhoi" who did not have civilian aircraft survived. "Mil" survived at the expense of the UN and Afghan "Kamov" also had a small civilian sector .. "Antonov" was strangled for the sake of politics, one less competitor, easier for the mare ..
            1. fone
              fone 1 February 2021 04: 33
              0
              It's just ridiculous)) Yakovlev's company died out back in the 70s, trying, in contrast to modern PFI projects from MiG and Sukhoi with an integral layout, to propose a scheme of the 40s with engines spaced across the wing. Later, the Yakovlevites disintegrated to such an extent that they sent a landing party from a MiG to their firm, otherwise they would have failed the Yak-41 project.
              1. Siberian54
                Siberian54 1 February 2021 08: 40
                0
                Who knows, maybe at a new stage in the development of avionics, spaced engines will give greater maneuverability, you cannot put eggs in one basket
    3. Alf
      Alf 2 January 2021 20: 34
      +2
      Quote: Radiator
      If not for the "strong-willed decision" (Khrushchev)

      And I destroyed the chapel too? There are many sins on Khrushche, but in this case the military did their best, saying that fighter-bombers, in this case the SU-17, would take over the role of attack aircraft.
      On the other hand, behind a puddle, they also quickly abandoned the Skyraders (who showed themselves well in Korea) and got Thunderstrikes and Super Sabers options. But the war in Korea and Vietnam showed all the erroneousness of this choice - the pilots of jet aircraft simply did not have time to aim, and the Skyraders had the shortest reaction time to requests from ground forces.
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 2 January 2021 20: 51
        +3
        Not Su-17, but Su-7B. The Su-17 was still far away then.
        1. Alf
          Alf 2 January 2021 20: 52
          0
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Not Su-17, but Su-7B. The Su-17 was still far away then.

          I'm sorry ... I beg your pardon ... request
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 2 January 2021 23: 30
            +1
            It's not worth it that you ...
            In general, even initially - the MiG-17, and only then the Su-7B.
  • Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 2 January 2021 09: 53
    +6
    The normal bomb load was exactly 400 kg. In the reloading version, the aircraft could carry up to 1000 kg of bombs

    This is not even funny.
    The Il-2 had the same 400 kg, and already in the war this was clearly not enough compared to fighter-bombers performing assault missions in other armies.
    And here is a car with an empty weight of more than 12 tons.
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin 2 January 2021 11: 59
      +2
      Well, as it were, artillery weapons were considered the main one during the attack. The concept is exactly the same as with the warthog.
      1. The eye of the crying
        The eye of the crying 2 January 2021 13: 28
        +1
        Quote: garri-lin
        The concept is exactly the same as with the warthog.


        But Vicki slanders that the A-10 carries 7 tons at 10 points of suspension. Besides the cannon.
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 2 January 2021 14: 48
          +1
          It is strange that the same Vicki mentions a normal load of 6 bombs of 225 kg each.
          1. The eye of the crying
            The eye of the crying 2 January 2021 14: 50
            0
            3 times the normal load of the IL-40.

            This is not to mention the "standard load is 4-6 6 CBU-89" (and the CBU-89 is a 1000-pound bomb).
            1. garri-lin
              garri-lin 2 January 2021 15: 22
              0
              Norm IL 40 1000 kg. Get the plane into series and work with it more tightly 1500 normal load without problems.
              1. The eye of the crying
                The eye of the crying 2 January 2021 15: 23
                +1
                Quote: garri-lin
                Norm IL 40 1000 kg


                The article says 400kg. But I already understood that you are free to handle sources.
                1. garri-lin
                  garri-lin 2 January 2021 18: 18
                  0
                  By the way, yes. In the article, 400 kg in bomb compartments for some reason are indicated as a normal load. A 1000 overload. Although the main ones were supposed to be hanging containers with different funny fillings like PTAB.
          2. Sergey Sfiedu
            Sergey Sfiedu 2 January 2021 18: 13
            +3
            The contemporary of the Il-40, the F-84F, carried 2 tons of bombs, being more maneuverable and smaller. And the A-4 Skyhawk already carried 3,75 tons of bombs. So the abandonment of the Il-40 was logical. The role of the attack aircraft in the Soviet Air Force began to be played by the modernized MiG-17.
            1. garri-lin
              garri-lin 2 January 2021 18: 29
              +1
              Well, remember the Il 102. Already a more realistic car, but also late. The country had no interest. So they didn’t understand that. How much extra weight are elongated air intakes? The engines are frankly weak. The shooter is also a frank anachronism. He could not work adequately on firing points. When leaving the attack.
        2. Alf
          Alf 2 January 2021 20: 41
          0
          Quote: Eye of the Crying
          Quote: garri-lin
          The concept is exactly the same as with the warthog.


          But Vicki slanders that the A-10 carries 7 tons at 10 points of suspension. Besides the cannon.

          Along the vetch and B-17 it carries 7998 kg, but only "to the fence."
          1. The eye of the crying
            The eye of the crying 2 January 2021 21: 08
            0
            Quote: Alf
            Along the vetch and B-17 it carries 7998 kg, but only "to the fence."


            You have your own deeply personal Vicky. In the public domain, the B-17 carries 2300kg.
            1. Alf
              Alf 2 January 2021 21: 15
              0
              Quote: Eye of the Crying
              Quote: Alf
              Along the vetch and B-17 it carries 7998 kg, but only "to the fence."


              You have your own deeply personal Vicky. In the public domain, the B-17 carries 2300kg.


              The whole problem is that the illiterate see exactly the maximum numbers, but forget that they are living in the real world.
              1. The eye of the crying
                The eye of the crying 2 January 2021 21: 30
                0
                Quote: Alf
                The whole problem is that the illiterate see exactly the maximum numbers.


                You saw the maximum number repeat

                Quote: Alf
                but they forget that they live in the real world.


                If you haven't noticed, then the maximum figure is marked as the word "theoretical".
                1. Alf
                  Alf 2 January 2021 21: 42
                  0
                  Quote: Eye of the Crying
                  Quote: Alf
                  The whole problem is that the illiterate see exactly the maximum numbers.


                  You saw the maximum number repeat

                  Quote: Alf
                  but they forget that they live in the real world.


                  If you haven't noticed, then the maximum figure is marked as the word "theoretical".

                  In all reference books it is exactly 7 tons.
                  1. The eye of the crying
                    The eye of the crying 2 January 2021 21: 44
                    0
                    Probably, they were written by the illiterate. Unlike Wiki smile
              2. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 2 January 2021 22: 43
                0
                One of Vicki's problems is the handicraft of her comrades who are not hardworking. 8 tons and for the B-29 is not the norm. Theoretical bomb load, you need it.
      2. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo 2 January 2021 15: 51
        -1
        Quote: garri-lin
        Well, as if artillery weapons were considered the main thing during the attack

        A concept of dubious value, dating back to the realities of the First World War, when the main targets of the attack aircraft were "soft", and the main form of countermeasures was small arms fire.
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 2 January 2021 18: 14
          0
          The concept around which many danced. The A10 could be so much cooler without its mega-gun. But what is what is. It's good that the Su 25 decided to switch from shells to NURS. Although the concept, in principle, remained.
          1. Narak-zempo
            Narak-zempo 2 January 2021 18: 54
            0
            Well, just on the A10, a cannon with a monstrous rate of fire, uranium sabot calibers and an advanced sighting system makes more sense from the point of view of a classic attack aircraft concept than cannons on Ilakh.
            1. garri-lin
              garri-lin 2 January 2021 19: 06
              +2
              The gun on the A 10 was originally made as an anti-tank gun. Any modern most sophisticated tank will lose its combat effectiveness after being hit. It's not worth talking about the tanks of those times. Definitely corpses. And the main targets for Ila have always been the infantry and fortifications. The doctrine was like this. NATO was preparing to stop the tank hordes and the Union was preparing to break through the lines of defense and crush the resistance in the cauldrons. Against the tanks, the attack aircraft had not guns or missiles, but PTABs. When you need them. Weapons similar to those on the A 10 were not a problem for the union. The General Staff would give them honor and praise. Only the union did not like depleted uranium, and without it, such a weapon would greatly lose its meaning.
              1. Narak-zempo
                Narak-zempo 2 January 2021 19: 12
                0
                Quote: garri-lin
                And the main targets for Il have always been infantry and fortifications.

                And in this situation, in what way is an attack aircraft better than a fighter-bomber?
                Here the caliber of bombs and the total weight of the bomb load already rule.
                1. garri-lin
                  garri-lin 2 January 2021 19: 19
                  +3
                  Sew up. The shturiovik holds a lot of things. And B will be softer. Well, sharpening for low flight speed and high maneuverability at these speeds with a stable flight.
              2. Sergey Sfiedu
                Sergey Sfiedu 2 January 2021 20: 59
                0
                The MiG-27 had about such a weapon, at about the same time. But without depleted uranium. However, tungsten cores are not bad either.
                1. garri-lin
                  garri-lin 2 January 2021 21: 19
                  +1
                  The beast stood on 27 six-barrels. So powerful that there were a lot of restrictions on the application. If you assemble an aircraft of adequate strength around it, you would get a complete analogue of the Warthog. Tungsten isn't bad either. But the USSR decided to take a different path. Both A10 and Su 25 are quite fighting birds, although they are different in everything.
  • Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 2 January 2021 10: 35
    +3
    1.which will lead to unreasonably large losses of the Il-40P attack aircraft, even despite the rather powerful armor. Front-line aviation and fighter-bombers, which would operate outside the reach of ground forces, were supposed to solve the tasks of supporting troops on the battlefield.2.A week after that, assault aviation was abolished in the Soviet Air Force, which was replaced by fighter-bomber aviation. Mdaaaa ....! And then the fighter-bombers were also abolished! Yes .... and the Su-25 was adopted after the "abolition of assault aircraft" ... You can remember, at the same time, the American A-10! And the case when in the 90s they were hastily looking for combat-ready MiG-27s for Chechnya! (A "roasted rooster" pecked in yellow shorts, but there was nothing to cover this place!)
  • John22
    John22 2 January 2021 10: 53
    +3
    The abolition of assault aviation in the USSR Air Force could have been carried out by officials with powers and without front-line infantry and "brains" experience.
  • alex aircraft
    alex aircraft 2 January 2021 11: 06
    +3
    Khrushchev abolished stormtroopers not because of voluntarism, but as a result of the global trend. The Americans also believed that the SHA had outlived its usefulness and supersonic iba was needed. Vietnam proved the opposite and they began to do it precisely after the analysis of the Vietnam War, and the Afghan confirmed this. Is it necessary now with the development of UAVs. this is the question.
    1. iouris
      iouris 2 January 2021 11: 34
      +5
      Quote: Alex aircraft
      Khrushchev abolished stormtroopers not because of voluntarism

      "- This is voluntarism ...
      - I ask you not to express yourself in my house!
      Khrushchev, of course, was a scientist, military leader and aviation expert, and simply a great man who debunked the Stalinist cult of personality, etc. etc. He "figured out" everything. Only America did not catch up.
      Quote: Alex aircraft
      and due to the global trend, Americans also believed

      The "Americans", of course, "considered", but they miscalculated. A glance at "world trends" is a lack of self-sufficiency, a desire to show that "we have the same, but one and a half meters longer."
      Quote: Alex aircraft
      do we need Sha with the development of UAVs is a question

      In the USSR there was IBA and SHA. In the Russian Federation, the IBA is no longer there ("A" fell, "B" disappeared ...). SHA remained (for the time being). The fate of the SHA is decided regardless of the UAV. While there is no more effective means of destruction (response), a manned aircraft will be used.
      1. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 2 January 2021 18: 19
        0
        Where was Khrushchov wrong in this particular case? Yes - for the confrontation with America, assault aircraft (in the form in which it was - Il-10 with the prospect of replacing it with Il-49 and Tu-91) - it was complete nonsense. About the fact that the USSR would have to wage a local war against a small but proud freedom-loving people - well, firstly, not only Khrushchev could not imagine this, and secondly, why should the MiG-17 and Il-28? By the way, the Afghans greatly appreciated these cars and were sad when their Soviet friends ran out of them.
      2. -Dmitry-
        -Dmitry- 7 January 2021 17: 24
        0
        In the USSR there was IBA and SHA. In the Russian Federation, the IBA is no longer there ("A" fell, "B" disappeared ...). SHA remained (for the time being). The fate of the SHA is decided regardless of the UAV. While there is no more effective means of destruction (response), a manned aircraft will be used.


        Why is the Su-34 not an IBA for you?
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 2 January 2021 12: 02
    -2
    I think that when designing the SU-25, the designers took advantage of the experience of the design bureau and the Il-40 attack aircraft. lol So the plane was not wasted
    1. iouris
      iouris 2 January 2021 12: 58
      -2
      Quote: xomaNN
      I guess, that

      ... the German He-129 was taken as a basis. In general, Il and Su are completely different design bureaus. There was practically no overflow of ideas between them, but there was competition. According to a well-known (in narrow circles) legend, the idea of ​​the Su-25 is a graduation project of an MAI student, carried out under the guidance of one of the designers of the Sukhoi Design Bureau. Before the Afghan, there was no chance of advancement for such an aircraft. After the Su-7, -17 showed their inefficiency, the project was implemented in an emergency, which also could not but affect the quality.
      1. xomaNN
        xomaNN 2 January 2021 14: 46
        0
        The fact that the design bureaus are different is understandable, but both are Soviet. So industrial espionage was not needed to consult hi
        1. PilotS37
          PilotS37 2 January 2021 20: 16
          +4
          Quote: xomaNN
          The fact that the design bureaus are different is understandable, but both are Soviet. So industrial espionage was not needed to consult

          ABOUT! Another connoisseur of Soviet history!
          I want to disappoint you: with the "industrial espionage" in the USSR, everything was very strict - no one knew what the "neighbors" were doing. In a somewhat privileged position were Tupolev's design bureaus (according to old memory, apparently) and Mikoyan (here first my brother covered up, and then Ustinov's SAM): these could sometimes get access to the results of the work of other design bureaus (on which, for a minute, the stamp "Absolute secret "), and the rest used only rumors ...
          We knew more about American developments than about "Yakovlev's" or "Minkoyan's" ...
      2. PilotS37
        PilotS37 2 January 2021 20: 10
        +5
        Quote: iouris
        ... the German He-129 was taken as a basis. In general, Il and Su are completely different design bureaus. There was practically no overflow of ideas between them, but there was competition. According to a well-known (in narrow circles) legend, the idea of ​​the Su-25 is a graduation project of an MAI student, carried out under the guidance of one of the designers of the Sukhoi Design Bureau. Before the Afghan, there was no chance of advancement for such an aircraft. After the Su-7, -17 showed their inefficiency, the project was implemented in an emergency, which also could not but affect the quality.

        For 6 years I worked at Sukhoi in a group that accompanied the T-8, but I have not heard this "legend".
        And about the "emergency order because of Afghan" - not true: the car was conceived back in the late 1960s, the first flight was in 1975, and Afghan is, sorry, 1979. The problems of the "Eight" are that no one expected it, did not order it: the engine had to be taken from the 21st MiG, and the production was given to Tbilisi, where all the personnel of the plant in the fall went to pick (their own) grapes without a break ...
        Yes, the understanding that F was naked again came only in the first half of the 1980s, but the plane was already there, it was flying, its production began in 1978 ...
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 2 January 2021 12: 45
    +2
    The Americans have used piston aircraft for much longer ...
    1. beeper
      beeper 2 January 2021 14: 06
      +7
      Quote: Zaurbek
      The Americans have used piston aircraft for much longer ...

      hi That's right, Comrade Zaurbek! good
      And I, too, when reading this article about the jet Il-40, immediately remembered our piston two-seater Il-2 attack aircraft with the same small practical combat load (like the "hero of the story") and, in contrast to them, "the hero of Korea and Vietnam "-American piston deck single-seat attack aircraft AD-1 (A-1)" Skyrader "(this" Douglas "was produced in various modifications from 1946 to 1957, was removed from service with the US Air Force in the early 70s, and in" third countries "served until the middle 80x) with a maximum combat load (bombs + missiles) up to 3600 kg (it was noted that such a maximum combat load of a single-engine Skyraider even exceeded the usual, practical, combat load of a four-engine strategic bomber of the Second World-V-17 Superfortres) at 15 knots suspension and four built-in 20-mm air cannons.
      With a range of over 2000 km, maximum take-off weight of 11340 kg (with an empty weight of 5430 kg)), max. speed -520 km / h (cruising -475 km / h).
      The booking of the cockpit of the Skyraider assault modification was not weak either!
      (Well told about this, with drawings for modeling various modifications of the "Skyrader", in a thematic article of the magazine "Aviation and Time", formerly "Aero-Hobby", in the mid-90s!) yes

      P.S. All the same, with powerful and reliable serial aircraft engines, materials and mastered aircraft technologies, American aircraft designers had a "fatter" choice than our Soviet ones (and the farmer "voluntarism" on the part of the "party and government" did not weigh on them ?!). .. winked
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 2 January 2021 16: 39
        +2
        In the USSR, there have always been difficulties with aviation ICE ... and such luxury as in the USA, double-triple "stars" of 2-3 tp each. there was no ....... another thing is that the theater of operations appeared after the war .... 2-6 tl.s
      2. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 2 January 2021 20: 53
        0
        The fact is that Skyraider did not have a fully armored fuselage. Well, the motor ...
        1. beeper
          beeper 2 January 2021 22: 21
          +2
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          The fact is that Skyraider did not have a fully armored fuselage. Well, the motor ...

          hi That's right, Comrade Timokhin! yes
          By the way, his, practically the same age, the Soviet Il-2 also did not have a fully armored fuselage, because the wooden tail section riveted (through a steel strip) to the armored hull was glued from birch veneer!
          And I already forgot, over the years, whether the problem of the symbolic "paradise gates" was completely solved (as they were called then, since these flat double "armored doors" in front of the gunner did not protect at all from large-caliber bullets and 20-mm air cannon shells that came into the tail of our slow-moving and the low-maneuverable "cement bomber" of Hitler's "Messers" and "Fokkers"!) "for, practically defenseless on the Il-2, an air gunner, at least on our" all-metal "Il-10 (like it has, from experience war, the Ilyushinites applied a more thought-out armor protection?!) ??!

          And, nevertheless, subsequently "Skyrader" has established itself as a sufficiently maneuverable and tenacious (under fire from the ground) aircraft-cockpit and the most critical components of the structure were armored (and the two-row "star" of his, very powerful and
          high-torque, air-cooled aircraft engine played the role of an armor shield from the front course corners)!
          It's just that a different concept (provided, among other things, with the possibility of staying in the air for 10 hours - long-term duty in the front-line "waiting area" with the ability to quickly respond to "requests from the ground" ?!) was implemented by the Americans in their attack aircraft.
          Apparently they did not consider it expedient to use an expensive and low-tech, too heavy "one-piece bronecocoon", which would still not save from the damaging elements of the then large-sized, and therefore, enough "warheads" (and the time of the small-sized MANPADS "Red Eye" and " creation of "Skyrader" has not yet come, and it was not even visible "in the near future"!), anti-aircraft missiles.
          After heavy losses from rifle and machine-gun fire during low-altitude attacks in Korea, American designers added aluminum armor to the bottom and sides of the cockpit, and in Vietnam it "blew"!
          The survival of the "ejected (2x Stanley Yankee missile system for emergency extraction of the pilot from the cockpit)" pilots should have been assisted by an established American search and rescue service (by the way, in its work, too, accompanied by dedicated "Skyraders" capable of escorting slow-moving ones without any problems) turntables "MSS and long patrol over the search and rescue area, covering them with their fire!).
          The pilot (crew) would have survived, and "hardware" is an inevitable "consumable" in a war.
          IMHO.
  • Proctologist
    Proctologist 2 January 2021 12: 47
    0
    An interesting use of the term "side salvo" - on the one hand, it is customary to call the plane "board", there is no mistake. On the other hand, I always understood the "side salvo" as a salvo exactly perpendicular to the ship's hull, on board, to use the maximum number of guns at the same time - which in relation to the aircraft, again, means "salvo from bow guns")))
  • fa2998
    fa2998 2 January 2021 13: 15
    +2
    Quote: Narak-zempo
    And here is a car with an empty weight of more than 12 tons.

    And the takeoff is probably 20 tons (if one fuel is 4,5 tons) And even with antediluvian engines, obviously not an eagle! hi
    And most importantly, why fence the garden. Compare the piston "Thunderbolt" with this miracle. Poleznuyu load. It was also armored and the speed is good.
    1. Alf
      Alf 2 January 2021 20: 47
      0
      Quote: fa2998
      Compare the piston Thunderbolt to this wonder. Payload. It was also booked

      Armored back and bulletproof glass?
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 2 January 2021 22: 50
        0
        Quote: Alf
        Armored backrest and bulletproof glass

        The early ones. Then local booking was added.
        1. Alf
          Alf 2 January 2021 22: 56
          0
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Quote: Alf
          Armored backrest and bulletproof glass

          The early ones. Then local booking was added.

          Where exactly ?
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 2 January 2021 23: 38
            +1
            To increase the survivability of the aircraft, the cockpit, the fuel automation compartment, the oil cooler and the oil tank were covered with overhead armor plates up to 15 mm thick. In the lower part of the fuselage, the same sheets were used to cover the fuel tanks in the wing center section.

            http://www.airwar.ru/enc/attack/a1h.html

            There, a total of 1.6 tons of structural protection were visited.
            1. Alf
              Alf 3 January 2021 08: 56
              0
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              There, a total of 1.6 tons of structural protection were visited.

              I thought you were talking about Thad.
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 3 January 2021 10: 45
                +1
                You are right, something got me wrong.

                Thunder, yes, it was not altered. But the Thunder is a high-altitude long-range fighter, so this is not an analogue of Ila, but from the power of some Yak-7B. As for protection, there is not a lot of armor, but the bottom of the ski is for an emergency landing, and around the secondary units. So with 5mm armored vehicles it is quite comparable.
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 2 January 2021 13: 28
    0
    Why did the Il-102 abandon the "double-barreled" scheme?
    1. iouris
      iouris 2 January 2021 13: 52
      +3
      "It's elementary, Watson!"
      The design of the IL-40 does not provide the pilot with visual detection of a ground target: the hood obscures visibility. This error has been eliminated in the design of the IL-102. In addition, the lateral arrangement of the air intakes makes it possible to place equipment and weapons in the nose of the fuselage, facilitates access to it for maintenance.
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 2 January 2021 20: 54
        0
        On the Il-102, nothing could be placed in the nose because of the landing gear
    2. garri-lin
      garri-lin 2 January 2021 19: 16
      -1
      Why waste weight on air ducts for engines? For an unusual look? The idea was initially controversial.
    3. PilotS37
      PilotS37 2 January 2021 20: 25
      0
      Quote: Pavel57
      Why did the Il-102 abandon the "double-barreled" scheme?

      Who needs it? - "Double-barrel" was a forced decision due to the shortcomings of the then turbojet engine (and the lack of the necessary experience from the Ilyushin aerodynamics).
      A long canal means excess weight and excess pressure loss. In the 1950s. otherwise they simply could not (see MiG-15-17-19-21, Su-7-9-11, La-11, Saber, etc.), and now - who does this? - Nobody! We learned to solve the problem in a different way - more efficient.
      Plus: the nose of a modern aircraft is its "eyes and ears", not its "nose" in the literal sense of the word ...
    4. Alf
      Alf 2 January 2021 20: 48
      +1
      Quote: Pavel57
      Why did the Il-102 abandon the "double-barreled" scheme?

      The Cheburashka designers did a lot smarter by placing the engines in the back. When attacking, dviguns are covered with a wing and it is very difficult to hit them.
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 2 January 2021 14: 52
    0
    Quote: iouris
    "It's elementary, Watson!"
    The IL-40 design does not provide the pilot with visual detection of ground targets:.

    Not convincing. The IL-40 was originally equipped with side intakes. But the engines stalled from the guns. This means that the IL-102 was able to resolve the stall issue.
    1. iouris
      iouris 2 January 2021 19: 45
      0
      Quote: Pavel57
      But the engines stalled from the guns.

      By that time, an "anti-surge system" (or "counter launch" when firing or launching missiles) had already been developed. Technology however!
      1. -Dmitry-
        -Dmitry- 7 January 2021 17: 34
        0
        By that time, an "anti-surge system" (or "counter launch" when firing or launching missiles) had already been developed. Technology however!


        The engines stalled not from surging, but from the "exhaust" gases of the guns. The same thing was observed on the MiG-15 when the gun was in the center.
  • Undecim
    Undecim 2 January 2021 14: 58
    +8
    Ilyushin had several more projects between the Il-10 and Il-40.

    Piston Il-16.

    Piston Il-20.
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 2 January 2021 15: 05
      +7

      Then there was the project of the Il-44 turboprop, and only then - the Il-40.
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 2 January 2021 15: 13
        +9
        After the Il-40, the project of the Il-58 attack aircraft followed.

        There was also a deep modernization of the Il-40 - Il-42.
        And the last project of the Ilyushin attack aircraft was the Il-102.
      2. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 2 January 2021 20: 19
        +1
        Here's a good option ..... do it now
  • Monar
    Monar 2 January 2021 16: 02
    0
    Let's be honest. A clumsy plane. It seems that the Ilyushin Design Bureau tried to shove its legendary Il-2 into jet engines. About the "double-barreled" I generally keep quiet. What is the loss for the characteristics of the aircraft in terms of mass and resistance?
    Having fired twice from the Il-2 and Il-28, they could do nothing more. For the military.
    Correct if wrong.
    1. Grif
      Grif 2 January 2021 18: 04
      0
      Does the IL-54 mean anything to you?
      1. PilotS37
        PilotS37 2 January 2021 20: 29
        0
        Quote: Grif
        Does the IL-54 mean anything to you?

        I did not go into the series, so the example is not a good one.
    2. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 2 January 2021 18: 23
      +1
      This is precisely the fault of the military, who insisted on the stern firing point, which ate up all the payload and maneuverability. What was needed was a Thunderjet or Skyhawk type aircraft. However, making a special attack aircraft, having deposits of the rapidly aging MiG-17, was a luxury for the USSR.
      17
      1. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 2 January 2021 18: 40
        +1
        And another attack aircraft was in the USSR Air Force
        1. iouris
          iouris 2 January 2021 19: 42
          0
          This is the "anti-Chinese version" of the seventies. By that time, there were practically no Il-28s left.
    3. PilotS37
      PilotS37 2 January 2021 20: 28
      +1
      Quote: Monar
      Let's be honest. A clumsy plane.

      Here! Finally, "the words are not a boy, but a husband"!
  • agoran
    agoran 2 January 2021 20: 20
    +3
    IL-28 with modern engines, modern avionics, quite a normal machine for the destruction of barmaley.
    The pilots were praised for simple controls, technicians for ease of maintenance.
    1. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 2 January 2021 21: 06
      -2
      For the destruction of the Barmaley and An-12 would be quite suitable, but it's a pity that it was removed from production early.
  • Klingon
    Klingon 2 January 2021 21: 43
    0
    an interesting car, but this is not the last Ilyushin attack aircraft, the last one I remember was the Il-102, which lost the tender to a rook and did not go into production
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 2 January 2021 22: 22
    +1
    Quote: Alf
    The Cheburashka designers did a lot smarter ...


    The A-10 lost the A-9 competition, which was closer to the Il-102 and Su-25. But for political reasons, the A-10 was launched into series.
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 2 January 2021 22: 23
    +1
    Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
    However, to make a special attack aircraft, having deposits of rapidly aging MiG-17 -

    During the exercises, the MiG15 / 17 proved to be more effective than the Su-7.
    1. Alf
      Alf 2 January 2021 22: 36
      0
      Quote: Pavel57
      Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
      However, to make a special attack aircraft, having deposits of rapidly aging MiG-17 -

      During the exercises, the MiG15 / 17 proved to be more effective than the Su-7.

      Logically, the speed is half that.
      1. iouris
        iouris 3 January 2021 13: 31
        0
        Quote: Alf
        Logically, the speed is half that.

        I don't see any logic. Supersonic speed for combat use against ground targets is nonsense. The Su-7 (-B. -BKL) differed from the MiG-17 only in its ability to carry a higher bomb load and an expanded ammunition load (NURS S-24). Which, however, is important.
        1. Sergey Sfiedu
          Sergey Sfiedu 3 January 2021 20: 47
          +1
          The logic is there. The MiG-15/17 had significantly lower minimum speed and much better maneuverability compared to the Su-7B. So the MiGs were better in the role of attack aircraft. The Su-7B is more of a tactical nuclear weapon.
          1. iouris
            iouris 4 January 2021 14: 48
            0
            Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
            The MiG-15/17 had a significantly lower minimum speed and much better maneuverability compared to the Su-7B. So the MiGs were better in the role of attack aircraft.

            The maneuverability of the Su-7B was at a good level, and the minimum speed is irrelevant. The problem is that this class "stormtrooper" itself existed only in our thinking. There is no aircraft that is absolutely protected from the fire effects of air defense systems, while practically any front-line aircraft is capable of performing tasks in the interests of fire support for ground forces. However, the probability of surviving an attack on a ground target depends mainly on the capabilities of the enemy's air defense, surprise and transience of the attack. A second run is usually unacceptable.
            "Sturmovik" is a specialized, relatively simple and cheap attack aircraft, which mainly uses unguided bombs, NURSs, cannons, the dispersion of which is large enough in relation to the size of, for example, a tank. This means that getting into a tank with such ammunition is almost impossible. Since it is mainly required to hit point targets on the battlefield, the effectiveness of "processing" the enemy from the air is not obvious, and there will be problems with survival. In addition, the "attack aircraft" must visually detect the target itself and not lose it when performing a combat maneuver.
            "Our Potential Partners" took the path of creating multipurpose aircraft capable of using high-precision (very expensive) weapons. They pay great attention to the ability of attack aircraft to hit targets without entering the affected area of ​​air defense systems. At the same time, other areas are developing: reconnaissance and strike complexes, UAVs.
            1. Sergey Sfiedu
              Sergey Sfiedu 4 January 2021 23: 48
              +1
              "The maneuverability of the Su-7B was good, and the minimum speed is irrelevant." - oh well, fig, is it true? How can you compare the Su-7 and MiG-17 in terms of maneuverability? How can you say that minimum speed is not important if the attack aircraft needs to find the target itself? Precision ammunition began to be used only during the Vietnam War, and that is limited, and so it is usually - NAR and bombs - either A-1 or Phantom. The article talks about the Il-40, back to the realities of its time, precision weapons and UAVs are a topic for other articles ..
              In terms of terminology, there is confusion on both sides of the Iron Curtain. A-37 is, of course, an attack aircraft. But A-4, A-7, "Harrier", G.91, "Strikemaster", "Alpha Jet" (German version) - the same attack aircraft? Then why the four-point MiG-17, "Hunter", F-84 - not attack aircraft? Well, they don't have a reservation, but they haven't come up with another term. The fact that it is subsonic and smaller than a tactical bomber is also an attack aircraft. That supersonic is a fighter-bomber. It was already in the 70s that they tried to create specialized armored attack aircraft for the war in Europe - A-10 and Su-25, but in conditions of saturation of troops with air defense systems and the presence of fighters at the enemy, their fate in a big war would not be enviable.
              1. iouris
                iouris 5 January 2021 11: 53
                0
                Was the fate of the IL-2 enviable? I do not think so. Nobody should think so. The MiG-17 is not a "fighter-bomber" or "attack aircraft". There is nothing to discuss here. Let's say the MiG-17's maneuverability is better than that of the A-10. What follows from this?
                1. Sergey Sfiedu
                  Sergey Sfiedu 5 January 2021 17: 03
                  -2
                  And what is especially enviable in the fate of the IL-2 at the end of the war, besides its former glory? A good aircraft for the first half of the war and not very good for the second, especially against the background of the FV-190 and Western fighter bombers. Large, low-maneuverable, slow-moving, weakly armed, vulnerable enough, cannot dive. We built a lot, and we lost a lot. And why shouldn't I think so? Only from a falsely understood patriotism is it necessary to close our eyes to the truth?
                  "MiG-17 is not a" fighter-bomber "or" attack "- sorry, but what then? The classification does not know other types of aircraft of close air support, and this is how the MiG-17 was used in the 60s and 70s. Officially - a fighter-bomber In fact - an attack aircraft.
                  "Let's say the MiG-17's maneuverability is better than that of the A-10. What follows from this?" - nothing follows. These are aircraft from different eras. I'm not at all sure that the A-10's maneuverability is worse than that of the MiG-17 - I saw a video with the maneuvering of the Warthog - impressive .. But in domestic articles, one of the main advantages of the Su-25 over the A-10 is called better maneuverability, as a quality especially necessary for an attack aircraft - no one canceled anti-aircraft maneuvers ..
  • pro100y.belarus
    pro100y.belarus 3 January 2021 09: 26
    -1
    I remembered the footage of the Karabakh conflict. A Turkish drone is aiming at the Armenian T-72 tank, bang! And the formidable combat vehicle turns into a heap of wreckage together with the crew.
    Maybe it is worth revising the concept of assault aircraft, and not breaking spears in disputes - which is better, an attack aircraft or a helicopter.
    The twenty-first century after all.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 3 January 2021 10: 50
      0
      American generals were unable to resolve this dispute .... having a much larger arsenal of UAVs and F35s with all known sensors and weapons.
    2. Alf
      Alf 3 January 2021 22: 29
      +1
      Quote: pro100y.belarus
      Armenian tank T-72, bang!

      Which is not covered with an "umbrella".
      Quote: pro100y.belarus
      Turkish drone

      Did the Armenians use electronic warfare means?
      The example you gave is like on a landfill. He calmly flew up, calmly took aim, fired at a tank standing without cover and the decision - "in one sortie a helicopter can burn 8-10 tanks." And what if, like in a war, when electronic warfare is buzzing to the fullest and air defense is on guard?
      1. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik 3 January 2021 22: 37
        0
        Quote: Alf
        Did the Armenians use electronic warfare means?

        Yes, of course.
        R-330, Repellent, Field-21 - this is what is 100% known

      2. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik 3 January 2021 22: 44
        0
        Quote: Alf
        And if, like in a war, when electronic warfare is buzzing to the fullest, and air defense is on guard?

        The Armenians had a full-fledged echeloned air defense.
        Shilki, Wasps, Torah, S-300, electronic warfare systems, ground-based radars.

        Below is a list of everything destroyed with photo / video confirmation.

        https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2020/09/the-fight-for-nagorno-karabakh.html

        1. Alf
          Alf 3 January 2021 22: 49
          +1
          Quote: OgnennyiKotik
          The Armenians had a full-fledged echeloned air defense.

          Did it work "as expected"? A well-used air defense system to break through, oh, how difficult and bloody. And separately used elements themselves look like a black man on a pole. Having little, you also need to know how to use it.
          1. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik 3 January 2021 22: 52
            0
            Yes, the Armenians were trained by the Russian military, exercises were held regularly. The last one was 2 months before the war.
            Planned exercises of the joint air defense system of Russia and Armenia started in Armenia today. (23.07.2020)

            The main task: to study methods of countering reconnaissance and strike UAVs.
            Press Secretary of the Armenian Defense Ministry Shushan Stepanyan reported this on his Facebook page.


            https://ru.armeniasputnik.am/politics/20200723/23850867/Obedinennaya-sistema-PVO-Armenii-i-Rossii-izuchaet-metody-borby-s-bespilotnikami.html
    3. -Dmitry-
      -Dmitry- 7 January 2021 17: 43
      0
      I remembered the footage of the Karabakh conflict. A Turkish drone is aiming at the Armenian T-72 tank, bang! And the formidable combat vehicle turns into a heap of wreckage together with the crew.
      Maybe it is worth revising the concept of assault aircraft, and not breaking spears in disputes - which is better, an attack aircraft or a helicopter.
      The twenty-first century after all.


      This is exactly what they thought in the 60s, when they removed guns from airplanes. Why cannons when rockets will roll ??? As practice has shown, the cannons were discounted a bit early.
      1. pro100y.belarus
        pro100y.belarus 7 January 2021 18: 27
        -2
        Quote: -Dmitry-
        This is exactly what they thought in the 60s, when they removed guns from airplanes. Why cannons when rockets will roll ??? As practice has shown, the cannons were discounted a bit early.

        That's it. The fighting showed that aircraft needed guns.
        1939 The fighting showed that the Polish cavalry with sabers was defenseless against the tanks and bombers of Germany.
        1940. The hostilities showed that Guderian's tank wedges destroyed the most powerful French army in Europe in a short time.
        1941 Again, the hostilities showed that German tank divisions, with the support of aviation, can easily cope with the Soviet mechanized corps, breaking through the defenses in separate areas, smashing the rear and communications of the Soviet troops, causing panic and encirclement.
        2020 Nagorno-Karabakh. The fighting showed that several drones can stop the advance of tank units without losing a single pilot and navigator. And the drone is much cheaper than an attack aircraft or a helicopter.
        How to deal with this is another topic.
  • Radiator
    Radiator 4 January 2021 15: 03
    -1
    Quote: PilotS37

    "Sukikh's monopoly" arose due to the fact that in the 1990s KB was able to create an effective concern and sold a large number of quite competitive aircraft around the world (especially to China and India)

    No, not like that. First Simonov, and then Poghosyan, began to rub around the government, using all their connections and their human qualities that have nothing to do with the design of aircraft.
    And only then, as a result of these graters, Sukhi got the opportunity to sell something around the world more than others.
    This whole smelly game was described in detail, for example, in the memoirs of the Deputy Chief Pilot of MiGs Fedotov, and then Chief Pilot - V. Ye. Menitsky.
    1. PilotS37
      PilotS37 4 January 2021 18: 51
      +1
      Quote: Radiator

      Quote: PilotS37

      "Sukikh's monopoly" arose due to the fact that in the 1990s KB was able to create an effective concern and sold a large number of quite competitive aircraft around the world (especially to China and India)

      No, not like that. First Simonov, and then Poghosyan, began to rub around the government, using all their connections and their human qualities that have nothing to do with the design of aircraft.
      And only then, as a result of these graters, Sukhi got the opportunity to sell something around the world more than others.
      This whole smelly game was described in detail, for example, in the memoirs of the Deputy Chief Pilot of MiGs Fedotov, and then Chief Pilot - V. Ye. Menitsky.

      Radiator, You either inattentively read my post, or deliberately distort the facts. I wrote specifically the following:
      Sukikh's monopoly "arose due to the fact that in the 1990s the Design Bureau was able to create an effective concern and sold a large number of quite competitive aircraft around the world (especially to China and India). The rest of our design bureaus at the same time demonstrated either their incapacity (like the same Mikoyan) or non-competitiveness (like everyone else). Accordingly, the result: Sukhoi is, he can do something new, he can push his interests, and the rest are in intensive care with no chance of ever getting out of there ...

      Are Simonov and Poghosyan bad boys? Who is good? Belyakov? Or maybe Tupolev? - We'll see...
      If you have carefully read the same Menitsky, then you know that Belyakov was "Vas-Vas'" with "himself" Ustinov and solved many cases with him directly. He also had other "well-wishers" which Sukhoi never had. From myself to what Menitsky wrote, I can add that in the 1970s and 80s, there was a strict belief in the Sukhoi Design Bureau that the Mikoyans were allowed to get acquainted with our developments, while the Sukhoi people had access to the results of the Mikoyan Design Bureau's work. never had ...
      And the fact that the 29th was not brought to mind, and instead of it all forces were thrown at a promising car, which did not take place, this is also a reproach coming from Menitsky for Belyakov. And the fact that Belyakov did not understand at the time that the rules of the game had changed, that no one needed him without Ustinov - this also has Menitsky.
      It is clear that he is offended for his "native company", but he himself explains everything: Belyakov leaked the MiG in the 1990s. Not Simonov and, moreover, not Poghosyan ...
      And you can also recall the glorious leadership of the glorious Tupolev Design Bureau: how, for example, they robbed the Myasishchev Design Bureau during the competition for the future Tu-160 .... And the story of the refusal to produce the T-4 ("Sotki") also smells strongly of the Tupolev lobby. ..
      And about the moral qualities of our Great fabulist Not-Fluff, I generally keep quiet.!
      Top management at all times and under all authorities is a dirty business. "Dry" first floated out. I swam myself, and then I started to row everything under myself. But these are the "rules of the genre".
      1. Firelake
        Firelake 5 January 2021 11: 32
        0
        T4 was much more expensive than 160. For the sake of 160, the garden was fenced for half the union, with t4 it would be even cooler ...
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 10 January 2021 10: 52
          0
          And he could not fly to the USA .... And the Tu22 was already there.
      2. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 10 January 2021 10: 53
        0
        Not robbed. Only Tupolev could pull such a project in production. It's not enough to draw. It must be done and mass-produced.
  • Ml. Sergeant
    Ml. Sergeant 4 January 2021 20: 35
    +1
    Eh, good old Ilyusha
  • Radiator
    Radiator 4 January 2021 23: 02
    0
    Quote: PilotS37

    Radiator, You either inattentively read my post, or deliberately distort the facts. I wrote specifically the following:
    Sukhikh's monopoly "arose due to the fact that in the 1990s KB was able to create an effective concern

    I carefully read and answered you exactly this above. With graters near the government and intrigues, he created this concern. Based on the monopoly bubble flow.
    Are Simonov and Poghosyan bad boys?

    Yes. The second is simply a bastard.

    Who is good?

    Competition is good. At least some. Not Sukhikh's monopoly. Because of what such a worthless g * as the Su-34 pushed through. Which g * even against the background of the Su-24, because it does not know what it supposedly replaces.
    It is surprising that before the MiGs, even though the MiG-31 was pushed through, the Sukhoi wanted to devour it. More precisely, not Sukhoi, but "effective managers" from Sukhoi.
    1. -Dmitry-
      -Dmitry- 7 January 2021 17: 49
      0
      Because of what such a worthless d * as the Su-34 and pushed through. Which g * even against the background of the Su-24, because it does not know what it supposedly replaces.


      What's wrong with the Su-34? Well, if you discard what you have already said? I would like to be specific.

      It is surprising that before the MiGs, even though the MiG-31 was pushed through, the Sukhoi wanted to devour it. More precisely, not Sukhoi, but "effective managers" from Sukhoi.


      Come on. And what would they "gobble up" with?
    2. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 10 January 2021 10: 50
      +1
      Moreover, Su34 has changed a bunch of professions. Didn't know where to stick. And "sea" and "attack" and "fighter" and armored "bomber". And the whole plant makes them ...... although it could make the Su30.
      1. Radiator
        Radiator 12 January 2021 00: 17
        0
        Poghosyan, whom many interpret simply as a recruited agent of influence who did much more harm to our country than some kind of Chubais, even the Tu-22M * at one time tried to bury the Su-34 for the sake of useless shit. Despite the fact that the Su-34 is not able not only to do what the Su-24 * can do, but in principle is not capable of being loaded with what the Tu-22M is loaded with.

        Such open work to destroy the defense capability of our country and the prospects for military aviation, which was carried out by Poghosyan - look for
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 12 January 2021 08: 12
          0
          Well, Tu22 is also not a miracle machine ...
          1. Radiator
            Radiator 13 January 2021 20: 29
            0
            I have never written about the Tu-22. Tu-22M and Tu-22 are completely different machines, the "marking" was made for special reasons.
            1. Zaurbek
              Zaurbek 13 January 2021 20: 38
              0
              Yes. But absolutely one-sided, not universal machines.
              1. Radiator
                Radiator 14 January 2021 00: 52
                0
                Name a universal car.
                1. Zaurbek
                  Zaurbek 14 January 2021 09: 15
                  -1
                  From strategists - B-52 ...... from tactical F15EX. I think the Su30XXX will become the same with an aiming container after modernization. Rafal, New Hornet F18.
                  1. Radiator
                    Radiator 15 January 2021 06: 19
                    0
                    The B-52 is a very narrow aircraft, where the Tu-22M is already.

                    Little of. B-52 is a plane nowhere and about nothing. About 50 years old he is a typical anti-Zulu crap.
  • Dmitriy Zadorozhniy
    Dmitriy Zadorozhniy 6 January 2021 17: 56
    +1
    Of course, I am an amateur, but judging by the photos and drawings, the pilot has no vision in front and down from the word at all.
  • Radiator
    Radiator 8 January 2021 07: 51
    -1
    Quote: -Dmitry-

    What's wrong with the Su-34?

    Stop. This is not necessary. It flies and does something, yes.
    You must prove it than this shit better than the Su-24M *. Despite the fact that it does not know how to do what the Su-24 can do. Let's go, imagine.
    I must say right away that if something goes about the "extermination function", the kremlebot will be immediately clear, and there will be no point in talking further.
  • mmrr
    mmrr 8 January 2021 20: 18
    0
    The Il-40 is not the last Ilyushin attack aircraft, the last Ilyushin attack aircraft is the Il-102))
  • Olegi1
    Olegi1 10 January 2021 05: 18
    0
    Quote: Avior
    From 10 km it can be inconvenient to see it, it is difficult to see from afar

    Behind the clouds - especially)
  • Fatal error: Uncaught Error: Call to a member function delete () on null in /var/www/topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ressio/pharse/pharse_node_html.php:1135 Stack trace: # 0 / var / www /topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ressio/pharse/pharse_node_html.php(529): HTML_Node-> deleteChild (false) # 1 /var/www/topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ressio/pharse/ pharse_node_html.php (269): HTML_Node-> delete () # 2 /var/www/topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ressio/pharse/pharse_node_html.php(559): HTML_Node -> __ destruct () # 3 / var / www / topwar / html / topwar.ru / vendor / ressio / pharse / pharse_node_html.php (531): HTML_Node-> clear () # 4 /var/www/topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ressio/ pharse / pharse_node_html.php (269): HTML_Node-> delete () # 5 [internal function]: HTML_Node -> __ destruct () # 6 {main} thrown in /var/www/topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ ressio / pharse / pharse_node_html.php on line 1135