Military Review

Attack aircraft with a propeller: "for" and "against"

208
So as reported news According to the media, the first single-engine turboprop light reconnaissance aircraft Beechcraft AT-6E "Wolverine" was adopted by the US Air Force and, one might say, took up a combat post.


Attack aircraft with a propeller: "for" and "against"


What can be said here?

The decision to put into service the "Wolverine" (this is how the name of the airplane is translated) was made within the framework of the AEROnet program, or Airborne Extensible Relay Over-Horizon Network. That is, initially, the AT-6 was supposed to be a kind of communications aircraft, which in modern conditions could coordinate the actions of American soldiers with coalition allies on the battlefield.

However, the appetite comes with eating. And it played out in Afghanistan, where the use of "Warthogs" A-10 was, to put it mildly, ruinous. Chasing Taliban bombing raids and assaults with AK-47s and machine guns - it went well on budget.



And an experiment was carried out with the Brazilian aircraft Sierra Nevada-Embraer A-29 "Super Tucano". Afghan pilots, trained in the United States, sat at the controls of these planes and successfully worked on the Taliban. Naturally, where it was not associated with increased danger. For example, the use of anti-aircraft missile systems.

"Super toucans" did it. Indeed, having a 20-mm cannon in a container under the fuselage, containers with two 12,7-mm machine guns and 2-4 7,62-mm miniguns under the wings, it was possible to get things done. And if you consider that it would still be possible to hang about 70 NURSs - then in general, beauty. Or bombs instead of missiles.



But this is Afghanistan. A Brazilian plane serving in the US Air Force is somehow not very patriotic. We must cut our own.

And on the basis of the Beechcraft T-6 Texan II training aircraft, the AT-6E light attack aircraft, aka "Wolverine", was built.


T-6


The aircraft is supposed to be used as a light attack aircraft, reconnaissance aircraft and observer aircraft (spotter). There are absolutely no problems with the flight crew for him, the T-6 has long been used as a training and air force, and fleet, and KMP.

The AT-6E is equipped with a PTA-68F turboprop engine, an upgraded Cockpit 4000 cockpit, an A-US aircraft combat system and an MX-15i / Di day and night vision container.

There is a system of protection against infrared and laser seeker UR of the "surface-to-air" and "air-to-air" classes of the enemy, which can include an AN / AAR-47 irradiation warning system and an ALE-47 infrared trap firing machine.



There is armor protection for the engine and cockpit, but it is rather anti-fragmentation and against small arms bullets weapons... The crew is additionally protected by US16LA ejection seats from Martin-Baker (Great Britain).

The main difference between the AT-6E and the T-6 is "full stuffing" in terms of radio electronics. And for such a small "bird" everything is really luxurious here:
- control system for electronic warfare ALQ-213;
- radio communication system ARC-210;
- equipment for air-to-air and air-to-ground data transmission lines for missile and bomb control.
- a set of satellite communications and navigation;
- target designation and lighting systems EPLRS and JTIDS.

By the way, it's beautiful with EPLRS. This system assumes operational-tactical exchange of target designations with F-16 and A-10 aircraft with direct aviation support of ground troops. And besides, it can replace, if necessary, "Navstar", if it works out the electronic warfare of an advanced enemy. But we are already quite ahead of ourselves.

The avionics kit includes an optoelectronic unit of the MX-15i station (manufactured by the Canadian company L3 Wescam), placed on the ventral pylon. The unit is mounted on a gyro-stabilized platform and can be equipped with devices for various purposes, for example, high-definition cameras, IR cameras, and a laser for target illumination.



LTH AT-6E
Wingspan, m: 10,10
Length, m: 10,30
Height, m: 3,30
Wing area, м2: 16,30

Weight, kg
- empty aircraft: 2 100
- maximum take-off: 2 948

Engine: 1 x Pratt Whitney Canada PT6A-68F x 1 HP
Maximum speed km / h: 585
Cruising speed, km / h: 500
Practical range, km: 1 575
Practical ceiling, m: 7 620

Crew, prs: 2
Armament:
- two 12,7 mm machine guns
on the nodes of the external suspension (6 pcs):
- 6 x BDU-33 133, or
- 2 x BDU-33, 2 x LAU-68 or
- 2 x Mk.82 caliber 226 kg.

The armament may include the AIM-9X air-to-air class, the Pave way-2 / Pave way-4 UAB, JDAM, and SDB. Suspension of two PTBs of 220 liters is possible.



In general, it is worth noting that the set is very ... Much higher than that of any heavy attack drone, but less than that of an attack helicopter. But comparisons are a little later, while a few words about stories the project.



In general, the idea of ​​a propeller-driven attack aircraft has long been in the minds of the American military. And they have been experimenting with the T-6 / AT-6 for a long time. In 2017, a program for the purchase of almost several hundred of these aircraft was buried, the purpose of which was to replace normal strike aircraft where it could be done.
After all, the cost of AT-6 is incomparable with the ancient A-10. Instead of one "Warthog" you can build a dozen AT-6. And if we talk about the Su-25, and in general, it's scary to think about what kind of air fleet could be created.

The question is where to use such aircraft. The answer is already in the text. These are third world countries where there are no normal air defense systems. The same Afghanistan, the African region, and in the Middle East there is where and against whom to deploy such attack aircraft.



So the AEROnet program is not bad, yes, operational and tactical formation and exchange of information in real time on the battlefield is great. But against the same Taliban or Kurds it is absolutely unnecessary.

But such an aircraft as the AT-6 in the role of a cheap attack aircraft will do and will be useful.

Let's take a look at its strengths.

1. Price. This is not even discussed. Cheap to build, cheap to operate, you can refuel even at a gas station in case of dire need.

2. Lightweight, unobtrusive, maneuverable. It is difficult to cope with MANPADS, because the heat trail is not as hot as that of a jet plane. And even smeared. As for the DShK and ZSU-23-2, then the aircraft's maneuverability comes into play. The helicopter has a hard time against MZA, but such a plane will go away. Plus it is quite quiet compared to the jet analogue.

3. The plane has quite modern electronics. Heat traps are gorgeous, the possibility of suspending the jamming module is also not superfluous.

4. A variety of weapons, which makes it possible to use the aircraft in the widest range of tasks.

The disadvantages are, perhaps, only an easy booking. But then again, speed and maneuver solve this problem.

Again, I emphasize boldly that this is for countries where Stinger and Strela-2M are still viewed as a panacea. For third world countries. Or fourth.

A reconnaissance attack aircraft who can "hang" over the area, as did the "Rama" from "Focke-Wulf" and control the situation with the possibility of striking the enemy - this is very, very useful.

Considering that AEROnet is just the beginning, given the policy of Biden, who is not Trump at all, one might think that in the near future the US Air Force will actually begin to receive such light attack aircraft for solving problems in countries where the A-10 or F -16 would just be economically disadvantageous.



In general, our Yak-130 came to my mind, which, in principle, is capable of solving the same problems. It's just that we don't seem to be fighting on the territory of countries where an AT-6E type aircraft is needed, because we have a Yak-130. But for the Americans, who are constantly solving the problem of bringing true democracy to the countries of the third and fourth worlds, such an aircraft will be very useful for them.

They got it. Let's see how everything will develop, because the concept is very interesting, and so is the plane.
Author:
208 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 19 February 2021 04: 17
    +5
    Attack aircraft with propeller
    An attack aircraft with a propeller is bullshit, an attack aircraft without a single nail - that's our choice! (Joke)
    1. Civil
      Civil 19 February 2021 08: 44
      +14
      It's just that we don't seem to be at war on the territory of countries where an AT-6E type aircraft is needed,

      Syria, Libya, Tajikistan-Afghanistan border.
      1. Snail N9
        Snail N9 19 February 2021 17: 01
        +13
        We don't have our own engine ... That's why we don't need such a plane ... yes
        1. NIKN
          NIKN 19 February 2021 19: 35
          +7
          Instead of one "Warthog" you can build a dozen AT-6. And if we talk about the Su-25, and in general, it's scary to think about what kind of air fleet could be created.

          What scary fleet can you create if we talk about the Su-25? what
          1. max702
            max702 1 March 2021 08: 33
            0
            It's just that the SU-25 is cheaper than this one with the propeller .. Yes, it is cheaper, which seems to be nonsense, but the fact is ..
        2. Klingon
          Klingon 23 February 2021 10: 41
          +1
          and on the Yak-52 what engine is it worth?
          1. Alexander Skorik
            Alexander Skorik 1 March 2021 21: 30
            +1
            The Yak-52 has a 9-cylinder star-shaped M-14 internal combustion engine with a capacity of 360 horses.
      2. Yuriy Filatov
        Yuriy Filatov 27 February 2021 11: 43
        +2
        but drones seem to have invented for this ?!
    2. Petrol cutter
      Petrol cutter 19 February 2021 21: 53
      +1
      "An attack aircraft with a propeller is bullshit, an attack aircraft without a single nail - that's our choice! (Joke)"
      A stormtrooper without a single slap! Here I would agree.
  2. Bongo
    Bongo 19 February 2021 04: 23
    +42
    Roman, with all due respect, but you are not very familiar with this topic.
    Quote from publication:
    "Super toucans" did it. Indeed, having a 20-mm cannon in a container under the fuselage, containers with two 12,7-mm machine guns and 2-4 7,62-mm miniguns under the wings, it was possible to get things done. And if you take into account that it would still be possible to hang about 70 NURSs - then in general, beauty.
    On the A-29B Super Tucano which are used by the Afghan Air Force two embedded 12,7 mm FN Herstal M3P machine gun. In Afghanistan in combat conditions never attack aircraft with outboard cannons and machine guns were not used - only bombs and NAR.
    In my opinion, there is too much fiction in the publication and lacks specificity.
    1. Bashkirkhan
      Bashkirkhan 19 February 2021 07: 43
      +17
      hi The novel usually writes superficially, often distorting the facts and without going into details, as can be seen in the publications on the fleet about submarines, elementary without studying the project numbers or opuses about the Chinese diesel for 22800. Because he writes about everything and a lot, but he has time to delve it seems not.
    2. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 19 February 2021 08: 27
      +7
      I will also add a couple of points:
      The AT-6 Wolverine is the same American as the A-29 Super Tucano. The AT-6 is based on the Swiss Pilatus PC-9.
      NARs and unguided bombs will not be used in the United States. Too expensive for them. Only guided missiles and bombs. From uncontrolled - machine guns. This seriously increases the survivability, it is better not to enter the air defense zone with anti-air defense means.
      1. zyablik.olga
        zyablik.olga 19 February 2021 13: 40
        +11
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        I will also add a couple of points:
        The AT-6 Wolverine is the same American as the A-29 Super Tucano. The AT-6 is based on the Swiss Pilatus PC-9.
        NARs and unguided bombs will not be used in the United States. Too expensive for them. Only guided missiles and bombs. From uncontrolled - machine guns. This seriously increases the survivability, it is better not to enter the air defense zone with anti-air defense means.

        Not so long ago, VO had a series of much more detailed and informative articles about turboprop attack aircraft:
        Light turboprop attack aircraft: the experience of Vietnam
        https://topwar.ru/175467-legkie-turbovintovye-shturmoviki-opyt-vetnama.html

        Service and combat use of Argentine turboprop attack aircraft IA.58A Pucara
        https://topwar.ru/175690-sluzhba-i-boevoe-primenenie-argentinskih-turbovintovyh-shturmovikov-ia58a-pucara.html

        Service and combat use of OV-10 Bronco turboprop attack aircraft after the end of the Vietnam War
        https://topwar.ru/175925-sluzhba-i-boevoe-primenenie-turbovintovyh-shturmovikov-ov-10-bronco-posle-okonchanija-vetnamskoj-vojny.html

        Combat use of turboprop attack aircraft in the 1970-1990s
        https://topwar.ru/176267-boevoe-primenenie-turbovintovyh-shturmovikov-v-1970-1990-e-gody.html

        Combat use of EMB-314 Super Tucano turboprop attack aircraft
        https://topwar.ru/176446-boevoe-primenenie-turbovintovyh-shturmovikov-emb-314-super-tucano.html

        Turboprop combat aircraft as an alternative to UAVs for third world countries
        https://topwar.ru/176725-turbovintovye-boevye-samolety-kak-alternativa-bpla-dlja-stran-tretego-mira.html
  3. strannik1985
    strannik1985 19 February 2021 04: 23
    +13

    We are at war - in Syria. And the example is very simple and illustrative.
    1. mr.ZinGer
      mr.ZinGer 19 February 2021 08: 14
      +2
      According to "Osprey", the price indicator is confusing, this is a tactical application. What the hell is he needed.
      And the record holder in this regard, I think SR-71.
    2. Sentinel-vs
      Sentinel-vs 19 February 2021 08: 35
      +7
      Quote: mr.ZinGer
      According to "Osprey", the price indicator is confusing, this is a tactical application. What the hell is he needed.
      And the record holder in this regard, I think SR-71.

      This is folk art already. Initially, a post with such a diagram on Defense One's Twitter looked like this:

      Those. Osprey was painted on later, it is not known who. And even on Twitter, the data on the cost of the departure was not checked by anyone and was not based on anything. They just issued such a diagram to prove the benefits of using a UAV. And the figures of the Defense one admins were framed by the same numbers. And I wouldn't vouch for their realism.
      1. mr.ZinGer
        mr.ZinGer 19 February 2021 09: 24
        +2
        Yes, everything is very controversial. I agree with you.
  4. Lech from Android.
    Lech from Android. 19 February 2021 04: 38
    -3
    The Taliban will find an antidote against these attack aircraft as well. This opponent is very resourceful.
    1. Toucan
      Toucan 19 February 2021 05: 10
      +6
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      The Taliban will find an antidote against these attack aircraft as well. This opponent is very resourceful.

      Which one? Are the Taliban smarter than the dushmans who fought in the 80s, who were helped by the United States?
      1. Lech from Android.
        Lech from Android. 19 February 2021 05: 22
        -5
        Smarter, of course, for so many years the United States has not been able to destroy this movement despite all its technological power. See how they open the US puppet bases, competently and effectively.
      2. Mountain shooter
        Mountain shooter 19 February 2021 05: 48
        -10%
        Quote: Tucan
        Which one? Are the Taliban smarter than the dushmans who fought in the 80s, who were helped by the United States?

        They shoot well. Taliban. Anti-material rifles can be quite effective against these unarmored birds. Especially with good scopes. Alternatively ... Or the appropriate grenade launcher ammo. Fast. Especially for such purposes.
        1. Konnick
          Konnick 19 February 2021 06: 17
          +11
          The target has a speed of 500 km / h, good, i.e. with good magnification, it is difficult for the rifle's optics to find such a target, at close range it quickly leaves the field of view. At a great distance, you need to shoot ahead, which is also out of sight of the sight. Defensive fire from conventional small arms is used against such targets.
          1. Mountain shooter
            Mountain shooter 19 February 2021 06: 22
            -7
            Quote: Konnick
            The target has a speed of 500 km / h, good, i.e. with good magnification, it is difficult for the rifle's optics to find such a target, at close range it quickly leaves the field of view. At a great distance, you need to shoot ahead, which is also out of sight of the sight. Defensive fire from conventional small arms is used against such targets.

            Lateral projection only. When the target moves "away from oneself" or "toward itself", lead is required much less. And the search for targets and the attack will be carried out at lower speeds.
          2. Klingon
            Klingon 23 February 2021 10: 49
            +4
            Are you seriously? with a sight? on a fast moving target? to catch it in a raster with a viewing angle of 6-10 ° and at the same time make corrections for target speed and wind? and you are funny however laughing
        2. The eye of the crying
          The eye of the crying 19 February 2021 17: 26
          +5
          Quote: Mountain Shooter
          Anti-material rifles can be very effective against these unarmored birds.


          Do you offer anti-material rifles as an air defense weapon? belay
    2. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 19 February 2021 05: 36
      +5
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      The Taliban will find an antidote against these attack aircraft as well. This opponent is very resourceful.
      The only antidote that the Taliban and others can find is an agreement on the supply of advanced MANPADS and MZA from advanced manufacturers. The author greatly underestimated the capabilities of modern light air defense weapons, but very few people in the world can make modern light weapons.
      1. Lech from Android.
        Lech from Android. 19 February 2021 05: 41
        0
        Iranians can help. Recently, they have begun to make good surface-to-air missiles.
        1. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U 19 February 2021 05: 50
          +3
          Quote: Lech from Android.
          Iranians can help. Recently, they have begun to make good surface-to-air missiles.
          Well, that's all the ingenuity you need. )))
          1. Lech from Android.
            Lech from Android. 19 February 2021 05: 53
            +2
            Why all smile This is one way only. The Chinese can help ... There are options.
            1. Vladimir_2U
              Vladimir_2U 19 February 2021 05: 57
              0
              Quote: Lech from Android.
              The Chinese can help ... There are options.

              Somehow you literally took about some Iranians, but I'm generally talking about "negotiating" - with Iran, China, the devil, it doesn't matter ..
        2. Revolver
          Revolver 19 February 2021 06: 09
          +13
          Quote: Lech from Android.
          Iranians can help. Recently, they have begun to make good surface-to-air missiles.

          Shiite Persians. And the Taliban are Sunnis. Until they figure out whose Allah is more Akbar, they should not count on supplies.
        3. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 19 February 2021 15: 01
          +3
          Quote: Lech from Android.
          Iranians can help. Recently, they have begun to make good surface-to-air missiles.

          The Taliban are the brainchild of Pakistani intelligence services. So I would bet on Chinese MANPADS.
    3. Trapp1st
      Trapp1st 19 February 2021 13: 17
      +11
      The Taliban will find an antidote against these attack aircraft as well. This opponent is very resourceful.
      Yeah, like against the Apaches. I understand the technique and tactics are different, but something tells me, the result will be the same.
  5. Cowbra
    Cowbra 19 February 2021 05: 15
    +5
    There are a couple of obvious downsides. For example, the security of attack aircraft is well understood in the United States. What do you think. why the heck at the helm when conducting a generally test program - put Afghans? I don't mind them. And in my mind, test flights, on the contrary, are performed by the best pilots in order to issue their conclusion later, right?
    Second, but the ammunition supply at the pepelatsa is really small ... This is a minus. About three years ago, precisely because they tried to hang a lot on a fly, they had to bury it. And they hung up nothing at all - two bombs of 230 kg each, two machine guns and this ball with eyes
    https://afirsov.livejournal.com/450812.html
    1. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 19 February 2021 05: 39
      +4
      Quote: Cowbra
      There are a couple of obvious downsides.
      I join! Modern MANPADS are guided not only by heat, but MZA are already equipped with auto-guidance and escort, even outdated ZU-23-2 type.
    2. Revolver
      Revolver 19 February 2021 06: 14
      0
      Quote: Cowbra
      the ammunition at the pepelatsa is really small ... This is a minus. About three years ago, precisely because they tried to hang a lot on a fly, they had to bury it. And they hung up nothing at all - two 230 kg bombs, two machine guns

      Did the IL-2 have much more? Moreover, without any cleverness of homing bombs. And the Germans were terrified only in this way. Taking into account the fact that the Taliban have neither Messers, nor Fokkers and are not expected, but the Germans had them almost until the end of the war.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 19 February 2021 13: 05
        +2
        The fleet also had to be renewed very quickly. At the same time, the Il-2 showed effectiveness against transport columns and the front edge. With PTABs, good results could be obtained against tanks. And the IL-2 always operated in groups. At the same time, the IL-2 is 2 times larger. And the P-47 is 2.5 times, if not 3.

        But in general, the question of their effectiveness against the leading edge is little controversial. On the one hand, the Il-2 had a very powerful 23 mm cannon, that is, unlike the "toucan", they could destroy equipment with cannon fire, on the other hand, the aircraft ammunition during operations against infantry was negligible and the suppressive effect was much more important when the very fact of shelling from above and the explosions of even small bombs force the infantry to lie down. That is, it makes sense to do this only to ensure the offensive of your own infantry.
        1. dauria
          dauria 19 February 2021 14: 10
          +3
          when the very fact of shelling from above and the explosions of even small bombs force the infantry to lie down.


          The fact of the matter is that in such wars the enemy has already laid down, dug in and hid. And their infantry needs to pick him out of the settlement, and not in an open field and in the mountains. NURS and machine guns - nafig are not needed, zero sense. The Mi-8 took six OFAB-250 land mines. Two links dragged 48 such pigs to the village. This is how it should be. And where to throw guided bombs? Which gunner will show you exactly which shed you need a bomb in? How would he know? Everything has to be hammered there.
          Probably, there will be work for these fleas too - to hammer caravans indiscriminately, to patrol and so on. But definitely not a real BSHU.
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 20 February 2021 08: 07
            0
            And the Mi-8 won't hit the bombs with shrapnel? Or with such a suspension deceleration fuses?
            1. dauria
              dauria 20 February 2021 11: 49
              +1
              And the Mi-8 won't hit the bombs with shrapnel?


              With two thousand ... What fragments. But such things will not "fail" now.
              1. EvilLion
                EvilLion 20 February 2021 12: 37
                +1
                In the conditions of Afghanistan, where the surface height above sea level is already non-figurative, to rise another 2000 m above it with 1.5 tons of load? Given that the turntables have a ceiling, it's good if there are four thousand. And it won't save you from MZA anyway. As well as from the antiaircraft guns of the WWII times, if you set the fuse correctly.
                1. dauria
                  dauria 20 February 2021 13: 43
                  +1
                  to climb another 2000 m above it with 1.5 tons of load?


                  What a nonbeliever you are. Mi-8MT with TV3-117, without "ears". Moreover, it is lighter than 24-ki. That the white clouds are dust, the shadow of the column of dust is dark. The squares are fields. My picture, 85th year.
        2. Revolver
          Revolver 19 February 2021 21: 49
          +2
          IL-2 could take in overload 2 x FAB-250, quite comparable with AT-6 2 x 230kg. At the same time, he did not take any PCs, because he barely took off anyway. Cannons ... yes, of course, the Il-2 had a pair, but since 1942 they were not very effective against German tanks, even in the stern and side, so until the end of the war they tried to find something better than 23 mm, penetrating tanks and at the same time, the plane was not completely knocked off the course by recoil, up to 45mm. We tried but never found. But the Taliban and others like them with tanks (or rather, without them) are not good enough, and for a Toyota Hilux with a self-made launcher NURS and rifle caliber machine guns, there will be enough.
          Armor? The AT-6 holds a rifle caliber, but a 20mm direct hit and the IL-2 did not. But go and get even from the same ZU-23-2 into a high-speed maneuvering, and at the same time shooting target, from an unstable platform Toyota Hilux, when the point is a bench press. And the Taliban rarely encounter Shilki with radar, and the skill in using them is even less common. The hits of "Needle" in the engine exhaust and the IL-2 would not necessarily have survived.
          1. Kerensky
            Kerensky 20 February 2021 01: 32
            0
            Cannons ... yes, of course, the Il-2 had a pair, but since 1942 they were not very effective against German tanks, even in the stern and side,

            Tanks were not the priority target ... STEAM CARS! The rifle caliber will not make him very sick, but the shell drove the locomotive into heavy repairs. And there are few locomotives, they take a long time to repair ...
            My wife's grandfather worked for the Hero like that.
            1. Revolver
              Revolver 20 February 2021 01: 35
              +1
              Quote: Kerensky
              STEAM LOCKS!

              There and then - yes. But where did you see steam locomotives of the Taliban? Or ISIS? wassat

              hi
              1. Kerensky
                Kerensky 20 February 2021 07: 50
                0
                There and then - yes. But where did you see steam locomotives of the Taliban? Or ISIS?

                Well, so we talked about "then". Now fuel trucks.
                1. CTABEP
                  CTABEP 20 February 2021 14: 56
                  0
                  And the fuel truck will have enough and a pair of BZT 12,7mm in the tank :).
            2. EvilLion
              EvilLion 20 February 2021 08: 10
              +1
              Well, in fact, there is more cargo in one train than in a whole convoy, reaching such a goal is highly desirable. The very concept of "counter-guerrilla" warfare by aviation is extremely wasteful, aviation is good when it destroys a plant, or swoops down on a cluster of equipment, otherwise it only eats resources in vain.
          2. EvilLion
            EvilLion 20 February 2021 08: 05
            0
            Cannons are not against tanks, cannons are not against light cover and various equipment, a 23 mm shell will do a lot of bad things with a truck on the road. Rifle caliber machine guns showed low efficiency even in air. battles, where farther than 50-100 meters did not shoot. Their range is scanty, you need to set at least 12.7.
    3. Kalmar
      Kalmar 19 February 2021 15: 22
      +5
      Quote: Cowbra
      What do you think. why the heck at the helm when conducting a generally test program - put Afghans?

      From the same economy. The salaries of Afghan pilots are clearly lower than those of their American counterparts. At the same time, trusting such a flyer with serious and expensive equipment like the A-10 is frankly a pity.

      Quote: Cowbra
      And in the mind, test flights, on the contrary, are performed by the best pilots in order to issue their conclusion later, right?

      Or they were testing the "cheap pilot plus cheap airplane" complex. Almost-UAV with almost-artificial bionic intelligence))

      Quote: Cowbra
      Second, but the ammunition at the pepelats is really small

      It depends on what you compare it to. This airplane, apparently, is set to compete with attack UAVs, and against their background, even with such ammunition, it looks pretty good. Also, the Americans are actively digging the topic of guided small-caliber bombs, with which even such an attack aircraft will be able to process several targets per flight.
      1. Cowbra
        Cowbra 19 February 2021 15: 36
        +3
        There is one more topic. They were going to give PMCs to Super Tucano at one time - they are under the wing of the government, and the pilots are of the Afghans' qualifications.
        And another funny thing. Here is the case, the link to which I gave - this program is screwed and buried. We closed the program. Now again in a new way, as the Indians are straight. Why are they bouncing from side to side there? The only thing is that the plant that produces these litaki is now on the verge of bankruptcy, is being saved, maybe?
        1. Kalmar
          Kalmar 19 February 2021 15: 41
          +1
          Quote: Cowbra
          Why are they bouncing from side to side there?

          Maybe they figured out that problem in one way or another and decided to try again. Programs, it happens, are simply closed in the heat of the moment. Or some kind of behind-the-scenes games that have little to do with the combat capabilities of propeller-driven attack aircraft.
  6. Graz
    Graz 19 February 2021 05: 31
    +3
    still prone to pessimism in relation to such machines
    most likely, drones in the near future will catch up with the cost of the departure aircraft and the speed and missile and bomb load of similar machines and squeeze them out of the market
    as an option, as it is written in the article, the same Americans recruit kamikaze from other countries to their service for departures in these machines

    Well, the British recruit Gurks for their troops in Nepal, in principle, you can do the same here, I think there will be those who wish
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 19 February 2021 05: 37
      +3
      still prone to pessimism

      Everything is simpler, to work only with guided weapons - ATGM, UAB, modernization of NURS as the Americans did with Hydra 70.
    2. Kalmar
      Kalmar 19 February 2021 15: 28
      +6
      Quote: Graz
      still prone to pessimism in relation to such machines

      There is one niche - an attack aircraft for the Third World War. After the phase of friendly exchange of radionuclides, the participating countries are unlikely to be able to produce sophisticated equipment at the proper pace (even of the Su-25 / A-10 level). And then unpretentious airplanes will come in handy, which can be riveted almost in garage conditions. There was even an article here that both the USA and the USSR were working on similar projects.
  7. tasha
    tasha 19 February 2021 05: 32
    +5
    As it was rightly noted, the advantage of such an attack aircraft in the cost of a flight hour is in the first place. Therefore, they can make more sorties ...

    Here is a question for VO readers. What do you think, is it morally justified to use such stormtroopers in a counter-terrorist struggle or a local conflict? Imagine IL-2 at the modern level. Pilots are volunteers, for example, retired from jet aircraft for health reasons or military retirees.
    And as a continuation - is it justified to use as truck drivers in the context of the use of IEDs by various terrorists - volunteers from people who do not meet modern medical requirements for military personnel.
    1. Lech from Android.
      Lech from Android. 19 February 2021 05: 43
      +3
      In war, they use everything that can harm the enemy, if viewed from this point of view, it is justified.
    2. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 19 February 2021 05: 55
      +2
      Quote: tasha
      Pilots are volunteers, for example, retired from jet aircraft for health reasons or military retirees.
      And as a continuation - is the use of IEDs - human volunteers justified as truck drivers in the context of the use of IEDs by various terrorists
      A bit of a strange statement of the question, let's clarify, are volunteers as mercenaries or as military personnel?
      1. tasha
        tasha 19 February 2021 06: 30
        +1
        What's the strangeness? Okay, let's assume they are contract soldiers.
        1. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U 19 February 2021 06: 32
          0
          Quote: tasha
          Okay, let's assume they are contract soldiers.

          Then what doubts about morality? I do not have the slightest, and in the event of being taken prisoner, to a sane enemy, of course, there should also be no problems with the attitude towards the MILITARY.
          1. tasha
            tasha 19 February 2021 06: 55
            -2
            Vladimir, for example, pilots in the war continued to fly without legs. But these were isolated cases. And the question is different. How moral it is to specifically (!) Involve volunteers with any health limitations in peacetime to participate in hostilities (for example, in Syria) for high-risk service (sappers, drivers, propeller-driven attack aircraft pilots). And create a technique adapted for such people ...

            If it's quite straightforward. There are about 300 thousand wheelchair users in Russia. Have full conditions been created for them? Can everyone be provided with equipped workplaces? I don’t think so. Are there among them those who want to become, for example, operators of the weapons of such an attack aircraft?
            1. Jacket in stock
              Jacket in stock 19 February 2021 07: 02
              +3
              Quote: tasha
              How moral it is to specifically (!) Involve in peacetime for participation in hostilities

              You will decide whether in peacetime or in hostilities.
              And as for morality, why aren't you embarrassed to attract the healthy?
            2. Vladimir_2U
              Vladimir_2U 19 February 2021 07: 07
              +2
              Quote: tasha
              If it's quite straightforward. There are about 300 thousand wheelchair users in Russia. Have full conditions been created for them? Can everyone be provided with equipped workplaces? I don’t think so. Are there among them those who want to become, for example, operators of the weapons of such an attack aircraft?
              I almost choked! It is necessary to warn! I asked you to clarify, otherwise those written off for health from the Air Force and wheelchair users are very different categories of health! It is possible to create equipment for such people, cars and armor, in my opinion, there is absolutely no aircraft equipment! The first and main barrier is the means of rescue, very large weight restrictions for catapults, for example. Well, if you think about it, there will be a lot more.
              1. tasha
                tasha 19 February 2021 07: 14
                -2
                This is my cannibalistic mood today ...

                Imagine. So far, UAVs are small and expensive, to build propeller-driven attack aircraft, put military pensioners on them or those decommissioned from jet aircraft for health reasons, and let them fly and patrol in Syria. And young healthy pilots on the SU-57 ...
                So this is the first part of the question. To drive trucks with humanitarian aid in columns, for example ...
                1. Jacket in stock
                  Jacket in stock 19 February 2021 07: 30
                  -1
                  Quote: tasha
                  while UAVs are small and expensive, build propeller-driven attack aircraft, put military pensioners or those decommissioned from jet aircraft for health on them, and let them fly-patrol in Syria

                  Well, like bum, the transfer of those written off from jet to transport and other slugs in our army has been practiced for so long.
                  I have not heard of plans to build such airplanes, but I had to adapt the Gzhel from the stocks for patrolling and reconnaissance. I don’t know who flies on them, pensioners or cadets.
                2. Vladimir_2U
                  Vladimir_2U 19 February 2021 07: 30
                  +2
                  Quote: tasha
                  Imagine. So far, UAVs are not enough and expensive, to build propeller-driven attack aircraft, put military pensioners or those decommissioned from jet aircraft for health on them, and let them fly and patrol in Syria. And healthy young pilots on the SU-57
                  In general, it is better and healthier not to put pensioners and those written off at the controls, but to put young people, but not quite fit for fighters. Massive light aviation is really cool!
                  1. tasha
                    tasha 19 February 2021 07: 35
                    -2
                    So they write that the risk on propeller-driven attack aircraft is higher.
              2. Free wind
                Free wind 19 February 2021 08: 53
                +2
                Disabled legless people, as it were, lighter than ordinary people, black humor.
                1. Vladimir_2U
                  Vladimir_2U 19 February 2021 09: 11
                  0
                  Quote: Free Wind
                  Disabled legless people, as it were, lighter than ordinary people

                  You will be surprised, but there are restrictions on the minimum weight for catapults.
                2. tasha
                  tasha 19 February 2021 09: 17
                  +5
                  Indeed, humor. Why do modern astronauts need legs? Delivery of 1 kilogram of cargo to the ISS costs about 100 thousand dollars ...
          2. Revolver
            Revolver 19 February 2021 21: 59
            +1
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            in the case of being taken prisoner, to the sane enemy, of course, there should also be no problems with the attitude to the MILITARY.

            Where have you seen the sane among the Taliban, or in ISIS, or in any Yemeni and Somali armed groups? They will open their heads with a knife, or, like that Jordanian F-16 pilot, they will burn them alive in a cage, or maybe even worse, they are in this sense, oh, how ingenious. So hope for the gun, or go the Gastello path.
    3. strannik1985
      strannik1985 19 February 2021 06: 59
      +1
      Here is a question for VO readers.

      ATGM to use Cthulhu banned? JAGM helicopter flies 16 km, Brimstone 10, PARS 3 LR 8 km. Why such passions?
      1. tasha
        tasha 19 February 2021 07: 02
        0
        Why such passions?
        Yes, I didn't manage to convey the idea, I'm not a master of the word. But you still try again, read ...
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 19 February 2021 07: 17
          +1
          With logic too ... if there is a means cheaper why such sacrifices?
          1. tasha
            tasha 19 February 2021 07: 19
            0
            Perhaps clarify:
            if there is a cheaper remedy for what such sacrifices?
            1. strannik1985
              strannik1985 19 February 2021 07: 32
              +1
              What's not clear here? Long-range ATGM or AB with SVP-24 is in any case cheaper than an aircraft of the Il-2 + pilot type.
              1. tasha
                tasha 19 February 2021 07: 34
                0
                And the carrier? There, above, someone clever published a sign with the price of a flight hour ...
                1. strannik1985
                  strannik1985 19 February 2021 08: 14
                  +3
                  And the carrier?

                  Any suitable aircraft, for example, the Iraqi Cessna AS-208V Combat Caravan, from June 10, 2014 to December 31, 2017, flew 3459 sorties, firing 2660 Hellfire missiles.
                  1. tasha
                    tasha 19 February 2021 08: 25
                    0
                    Vladimir, I honestly don't understand, why are you writing this?
                    1. strannik1985
                      strannik1985 19 February 2021 11: 41
                      0
                      Well, it's simple - "disposable" planes are not acceptable, neither for moral - ethical, nor economic requirements.
                      1. tasha
                        tasha 19 February 2021 11: 45
                        +2
                        Why "disposable"? Normal, just the risk is higher. Someone is flying on the Cessnah you mentioned ..
                        For example, there were restrictions on the call of the only son ...

                        But I heard your position, thank you.
                      2. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 19 February 2021 11: 56
                        +1
                        Why "disposable"?

                        Because Cessna flies at an altitude of 2,5-3 km, the Hellfire ATGM firing range is 8 km.
                      3. tasha
                        tasha 19 February 2021 12: 00
                        0
                        Excuse me, but I will not understand you. Head full of other thoughts. Therefore, please write a little more. Thank...

                        "Iraqi Cessna AS-208V Combat Caravan from June 10, 2014 to December 31, 2017 made 3459 sorties, firing 2660 Hellfire missiles."
                    2. Per se.
                      Per se. 19 February 2021 12: 07
                      +4
                      Quote: tasha
                      Normal, just the risk is higher.
                      Mikhail, to the original, why is the risk on a combat helicopter lower than the risk on a "propeller" attack aircraft, if the speed of the attack aircraft is much higher than the speed of the combat helicopter, and the protection of the pilot is not inferior? Second, why should there be "disabled people" in the topic? Again, the pilot on the F-15 or MiG-31 will experience much greater loads than the pilots of combat helicopters, such as the AN-64 Apache or Mi-24, Mi-28, but are the last "disabled"?

                      It must be understood that we are primarily talking about combat expediency, where and when a propeller-driven (turboprop) attack aircraft will be preferable to a combat helicopter, especially when it comes to counter-terrorist operations, counter-guerrilla actions.

                      Bongo (Sergey), made voluminous articles on the topic touched upon by Roman, and does not share what I personally think is acceptable, the refinement of an aircraft like the Il-10 would quite justify itself in certain local conflicts. First of all, against an enemy devoid of effective air defense means.

                    3. tasha
                      tasha 19 February 2021 12: 29
                      +1
                      Sergei, as for the propeller-driven attack aircraft, I'm all for it. This is on the topic of the article.

                      At the same time, I began to ask the readers what they think, is it morally permissible to replace some of the servicemen in hot spots with volunteers from among those people who are currently unsuitable for health reasons, the same "wheelchair users." Lower the bar. For example, pilots of such attack aircraft, weapon operators, sappers, truck drivers, and so on ... This is no longer on the topic of the article ...
  • PSih2097
    PSih2097 19 February 2021 16: 42
    0
    Quote: tasha
    Imagine IL-2 at the modern level.

    then the Il-10 / Il-10M ... yes
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 19 February 2021 06: 30
    +2
    ... It's just that we don't seem to be fighting on the territory of countries where an AT-6E type aircraft is needed, because we have a Yak-130.

    Nonsense.
    We are fighting, for example, in Syria.
    Therefore, we have "Gzhel"
    https://topwar.ru/179380-nu-nas-zhe-ne-41-god-i-vojna-ne-na-nashej-territorii-.html
  • evgen1221
    evgen1221 19 February 2021 06: 42
    +1
    Well, I must admit that large-scale wars are not expected, but for training purposes and (partisans) such aircraft more than justified themselves. And what would not be washed down the same uts based on?
  • Morris812
    Morris812 19 February 2021 06: 54
    +2
    Such an attack aircraft, it seems, for close support during close-range ranged combat. Low speed and good visibility to visually distinguish friends from foes, and pour NURS on top. And in such conditions, there is usually no air defense, and there is no time to conduct barrage fire, there is its own firefight.
  • Baron pardus
    Baron pardus 19 February 2021 07: 02
    +7
    Airplanes like the Tucano and this Wolverine - it seems to me that these are non-stormtroopers, although everything new is well forgotten old. I've always been a huge fan of the A-1 Skyraider. I just think what if you take a kind of Skyrader, put a new engine on it (it will probably be easier and more economical than engines from the 50s). Lighten the hull by making it of polymer materials, and spend the saved weight on booking (around the cockpit, engine and gas tank) and electronic warfare equipment. I think that the new skyrader will calmly drag the latest versions of Hellfire, and Mavericks, and perhaps even (just in case) Saidwainders or Stingers. 3600kg of weapons is a lot. 12 Missiles Maverick, just for a second. Skyrader fought in Vietnam, where there were already enough anti-aircraft guns and air defense systems were already there. So the updated Skyrader will be cool and powerful. Less visible in the IR spectrum than even the smallest jet aircraft. By the way, this concept of the "Light attack aircraft" is not new. Truly, nothing new under the moon. I recall the attack aircraft Hawk and Alpha Jet, which were in service with Britain and Germany in the 80s-90s. Do you think Hawk was well armored? What could withstand being hit by 12.7mm machine guns? Of course not. But he flew and fought. And the modern version of A1 Skyrader will be even better and cheaper.
    1. IS-80_RVGK2
      IS-80_RVGK2 19 February 2021 11: 50
      0
      You can also ov-10. smile And by the way, I did not understand at all why there is no protection from 12,7. If you intend to fight the partisans, including in the mountains.
  • riwas
    riwas 19 February 2021 07: 08
    +3
    Attack UAVs may well replace such an attack aircraft, although it can be tried to be used as a fighter against those attack drones and helicopters.
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 19 February 2021 07: 14
    +3
    As an addition to the Mi28 and Ka50, it is quite a "yes" .....
    1. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 19 February 2021 07: 24
      +3
      Quote: Zaurbek
      As an addition to the Mi28 and Ka50

      In Afghanistan, SuperTucano was not an addition, but a replacement for the Mi-24.
      The speed is higher, the consumption of fuel is less (critically less).
      Some tasks were solved even better because of the new avionics.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 19 February 2021 08: 42
        0
        Well, vertical takeoff is important ..... but in addition, I think it will be good. It is possible with the same VK2500 ....
        1. Jacket in stock
          Jacket in stock 19 February 2021 12: 21
          0
          Quote: Zaurbek
          vertical takeoff capability is important.

          What?
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 19 February 2021 12: 51
            0
            This is all described ..... jump airfield on unprepared sites .... recharge. And further. But in local conflicts this is not necessary.
  • Momotomba
    Momotomba 19 February 2021 07: 52
    +4
    I, an earthly person, have a question: why is it impossible to remove the flyers from the plane, the life support system with catapults, to screw it into the control unit from the UAV? Well, if you really want to have a light cheap propeller-driven attack aircraft ... The speeds are comparable to those of UAVs, the control technology has been worked out.
    1. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 19 February 2021 08: 29
      +7
      Quote: Momotomba
      I, an earthly person, have a question: why is it impossible to remove the flyers from the plane, the life support system with catapults, to screw it into the control unit from the UAV?

      Apparently, the unmanned / remote control system is not doing well at the current stage. The pilot is smarter anyway, and if he is also Afghan, cheaper.
      1. Momotomba
        Momotomba 19 February 2021 09: 17
        +1
        Quote: Jacket in stock
        Apparently, the unmanned / remote control system is not coping at the current stage

        Most likely to fire at the target from machine guns while diving is still bad at it. But for this, there seem to be helicopters ...
        Or maybe the air defenses of powerful armies are "sharpened" to fight something serious, and such an insect will cause her problems. And the pilot is really more resourceful than automation.
        1. Jacket in stock
          Jacket in stock 19 February 2021 09: 22
          +2
          Quote: Momotomba
          for this, there seem to be helicopters ...
          Or maybe the air defenses of powerful armies are "sharpened" to fight something serious, and such an insect will cause her problems.

          Everything is written here about helicopters, the "bug" is stupidly simpler, cheaper, more economical.
          And for the war against the air defense of powerful armies, it was not originally intended, exclusively anti-guerrilla.
        2. Free wind
          Free wind 19 February 2021 10: 01
          -5
          Tesla unmanned, one accident per 4 million kilometers, Cars with a man, one accident per 800 thousand kilometers. That is, the machines react much faster to threats and calculate the consequences.
          1. Momotomba
            Momotomba 19 February 2021 16: 45
            +2
            Quote: Free Wind
            That is, the machines react much faster to threats and calculate the consequences.

            This is if there is a regular situation around. Have your computer ever frozen with some kind of "critical error"?
        3. Bolt cutter
          Bolt cutter 19 February 2021 14: 57
          +2
          And the pilot is really more resourceful than automation
          But the automatics are braver than the best kamikaze.
          1. Momotomba
            Momotomba 19 February 2021 16: 43
            0
            Quote: Bolt Cutter
            But the automatics are braver than the best kamikaze.

            Kamikaze is a disposable item laughing
            1. Bolt cutter
              Bolt cutter 19 February 2021 16: 45
              0
              I gave him as an example of courage.
              1. Momotomba
                Momotomba 19 February 2021 17: 09
                0
                Only now the kamikaze goes deliberately, and the automation does not understand that it can break
                1. Bolt cutter
                  Bolt cutter 19 February 2021 17: 14
                  0
                  Of course. But on the whole it turns out to be braver. No fears will turn the robot out of its way - because there are NO fears. Absolute fearlessness.
  • Avior
    Avior 19 February 2021 08: 11
    +2
    ... It's just that we don't seem to be fighting on the territory of countries where an AT-6E type aircraft is needed

    But what about Syria with the banned ISIS? Such an aircraft would be quite useful there. Cheap and cheerful.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 19 February 2021 08: 43
      -1
      Moreover, it can completely replace ..... Su24 and 34 and helicopters.
      1. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock 19 February 2021 12: 23
        +2
        Quote: Zaurbek
        , can completely replace ...

        Completely cannot.
        Only in some very specific conditions.
  • rocket757
    rocket757 19 February 2021 08: 13
    -3
    We wanted to do it for a long time ...
    For their manner of fighting those who are much weaker, they imitated.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 19 February 2021 08: 44
      +3
      The USSR fought in Afghanistan, then Chechnya, Chechnya-2 ... Georgia, Syria ..... not enough for you?
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 19 February 2021 08: 51
        +1
        You have not compiled a complete list, but only Afghanistan can be seriously discussed ... that's where you got in, so got in.
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 19 February 2021 12: 04
          +3
          I mean, all these are anti-guerrilla conflicts, where such an aircraft would be a workhorse
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 19 February 2021 12: 15
            0
            There are nuances .... fighters for something out there, against Russia, their Western sponsors will quickly provide all sorts of different things against such aircraft .... this is an old rake, you shouldn't step on them again and again.
            Although, a certain amount of cheap, light equipment will not hurt to have.
            1. Zaurbek
              Zaurbek 19 February 2021 12: 55
              +1
              And don’t ... the main losses were not during combat use, but during any patrols and escorts. Since then, ammunition has appeared and, everyone's favorite, VTOL-24 ... and Balls with IR optics and all sorts of AFAR for mapping and surveying the earth. And UAVs.
  • Ros 56
    Ros 56 19 February 2021 08: 44
    -1
    The tradition is fresh, but hard to believe. And the Papuans will go. But some kind of contradiction is felt between the equipment of the aircraft and the tasks assigned to it.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 19 February 2021 10: 58
      +1
      Where helicopters fly, these machines will be able to fly ...
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 19 February 2021 09: 16
    -4
    Oh everything. At which gas station to refuel an aircraft that either eats aviation gasoline, and such grades seem to have an octane rating of more than 100, or ordinary aviation kerosene?

    As for the heat footprint, helicopters have the same turbines, and the noise of turboprop aircraft is not just high, it is outrageous.

    Protection from MZA by maneuver is purely statistics, especially in the conditions of single aircraft flights, when air defense is not purposefully choking. Even rifle bullets can lead to repairs. Helicopters, so they sneakily and insidiously hide behind the relief, which Syria showed, the hills and normal sighting systems made our turntables almost invulnerable.

    The only protection is range, and for its implementation, controlled AAS are needed. And for controlled ASPs, aiming systems are needed, which must be mounted somewhere. And precisely because of the equipment, the minimum empty weight of a full-fledged fighter (radar, cannon, at least some supersonic) is 6-6.5 tons.

    Okay, theoretically it is possible to build a more serious unit around one engine, like the VK-2500. It will be quite possible to implement the P-47 at a new level, such an aircraft with an empty weight of 5-6 tons will be able to arm itself with suspended containers and use aerial bombs, like the KAB-500, and not just a small one like the Tucano. The cost will also not be like the "Tucano".

    Will such an aircraft allow for a reduction in the number of heavier jet vehicles and helicopters? And here I am not sure. This means that there will be no savings from the development and operation of such an aircraft. By the way, it would be nice to know that the Tucano actually fought in Afghanistan, because the USSR had hundreds of aircraft there, including those with high-precision and spit-on-precision weapons, and hundreds of sorties were required. Rock fortifications, like the countless rat passages that are digging in the Middle East, require extremely powerful ammunition.
    1. tasha
      tasha 19 February 2021 09: 26
      +4
      Vladimir said above that "the Iraqi Cessna AS-208V Combat Caravan from June 10, 2014 to December 31, 2017, flew 3459 sorties, firing 2660 Hellfire missiles."
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 19 February 2021 09: 31
        -7
        American B-29 "Enola Gay" made the 9th Aug. 1945, only one sortie, but it did more damage than all the "toucans" and "caravans" can do during the entire period of operation.
        1. tasha
          tasha 19 February 2021 09: 35
          +5
          A very unfortunate comparison.
        2. Viktor Sergeev
          Viktor Sergeev 19 February 2021 11: 17
          +1
          Are you delusional or are you really suggesting that nuclear weapons be used as conventional weapons?
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 19 February 2021 12: 35
            -4
            I scoff at the "possibilities" that predictably did not lead to any result.
    2. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 19 February 2021 12: 33
      +4
      Quote: EvilLion
      precisely because of the equipment, the minimum empty weight of a full-fledged fighter (radar, cannon, at least some supersonic) is 6-6.5 tons.

      The supersonic attack aircraft did not surrender to any place at all, rather the opposite. Radar against partisans too. Here is a powerful multispectral optics with the identification of camouflaged people, like on Tucano - this is a really useful thing.
      And why KAB500? To bomb carts? There is also a 10 kilogram firecracker for the eyes.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 19 February 2021 12: 38
        -5
        Indeed, and what on Khmeinim the men did not understand. And they are driving some Su-30s and fortifications, including underground tunnels, which the partisans do not have, they are destroying.

        If you want an attack aircraft without supersonic and without a cannon, that's how the Americans did it, 5 tons empty weight.
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 19 February 2021 13: 06
          +1
          Because there is nothing else on which Sukikh pilots need a raid ....... as well as Mig23MLD and, all the more, 29 (adjusted for the current avionics) will cope calmly. Under cover from the Turks with the Su35S. and AWACS workers,
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 19 February 2021 13: 46
            +2
            The MiG-23MLD did not have serious capabilities for striking ground targets, although experienced pilots could throw bombs quite well. Derivatives from the MiG-29M, of course, will cope, since the sighting systems are better and it is quite possible to hang a couple of tons of bombs, for which it would take 10 toucans, which nullifies the whole meaning of the notorious flight hour. We add here that the MiG-29 and even the Su-25 are much faster, which means that when working on requests from land-based aircraft, aviation will arrive earlier, with corresponding positive results.

            "Tucano" is not a combat, but a police plane, the Brazilians made this heavenly car to fly over the forests cheaply and sometimes shoot poachers and drug dealers from machine guns.
            1. Zaurbek
              Zaurbek 19 February 2021 13: 49
              0
              I wrote (adjusted for modern avionics) and was a MiG27, if you find fault.
              1. EvilLion
                EvilLion 19 February 2021 13: 54
                0
                The MiG-23 is not a toucan in any case.
                1. Zaurbek
                  Zaurbek 19 February 2021 13: 59
                  +1
                  In terms of carrying capacity and range, it is already possible to compare. Loitering time.
                  1. EvilLion
                    EvilLion 20 February 2021 08: 12
                    0
                    Do you even understand that the MiG-23 is 4 times larger? And it will take as much load as 2 "toucanos" will not carry.
            2. Zaurbek
              Zaurbek 19 February 2021 13: 50
              0
              Then it is better to do like the Americans ..... B-52, armed with corr bombs 250 and 100kg.
    3. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 19 February 2021 13: 03
      +1
      They fly on kerosene ... Accuracy depends on the sight and ammunition ...
  • Free wind
    Free wind 19 February 2021 09: 29
    +6
    Nice car, and the topic is right. In Vietnam, the United States used quite successfully piston attack aircraft Skyraders, during the Second World War. The flight altitude of this aircraft is much higher than that of a helicopter. DShK, Stingers with Arrows will not reach, The helicopter has a maximum of 3-4 km, the speed is much higher, the maneuverability is better, and there are other advantages indicated in the article. A man consists of bones, meat and water, and he dies in the same way. even though he is from a country of the first world or the fifth or tenth.
    1. Viktor Sergeev
      Viktor Sergeev 19 February 2021 11: 20
      -3
      It's just that the countries of the top three are armed with a mountain of ultra-modern weapons that will be swept away by attack aircraft quickly and painlessly. The same Shilka will crumble them easily and naturally, I am silent about Tunguska, Pantsir, they will cut them in half with their trunks, even missiles will not be needed.
      1. Free wind
        Free wind 19 February 2021 11: 40
        +2
        Eight or ten kilometers? What is it like?
      2. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 19 February 2021 13: 52
        +2
        In the United States, the A-10 has AT missiles that shoot Armor. But the Carapace is absent from the bandits ... Needle-arrow-stingers are the main weapon.
        1. Viktor Sergeev
          Viktor Sergeev 19 February 2021 17: 04
          0
          There is no impenetrable air defense, it all depends on the forces and means of the attacker and the depth of the air defense. It will let a thousand CR on Khmeimi and that's it, there is no base, but from a hundred or even two it will completely beat it off.
  • kamakama
    kamakama 19 February 2021 09: 55
    -8
    Did the Americans invent the IL-2? well adjusted for modern avionics and weapons
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 19 February 2021 13: 07
      +3
      Americans are lawmakers in piston fighters and strike aircraft.
      1. Viktor Sergeev
        Viktor Sergeev 19 February 2021 17: 05
        -1
        "Americans are legislators in piston fighters and attack aircraft." Sorry, but is this a joke?
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 19 February 2021 19: 03
          +1
          Look at their WWII fighters and attack vehicles and beyond ...
          1. Viktor Sergeev
            Viktor Sergeev 19 February 2021 21: 04
            -1
            And what should I see?
  • certero
    certero 19 February 2021 10: 25
    +3
    This is what the lack of normal opposition has brought the Americans to. There would be a normal cold war now, the Union would supply the Taliban with anti-aircraft missiles and so on, and no propeller-driven attack aircraft would appear.
  • Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 19 February 2021 11: 06
    +3
    I have been saying for a long time that the Il10 with a normal body without defects from the times of 1945, on a new electronic base, with a new engine, would perfectly go against the barmaley, especially if there were hundreds of them, instead of a dozen Su25.
    By and large, there should be two armies: against an equal enemy and for local wars, and this will reduce costs.
    1. The eye of the crying
      The eye of the crying 19 February 2021 14: 50
      +1
      Quote: Victor Sergeev
      IL10 with a normal body without defects since 1945, on a new electronic base, with a new engine


      ... it would no longer be the Il-10.
      1. Viktor Sergeev
        Viktor Sergeev 19 February 2021 17: 01
        -2
        I meant the concept.
        1. The eye of the crying
          The eye of the crying 19 February 2021 17: 13
          +1
          There is no such concept for the Il-10. There is the concept of "propeller-driven attack aircraft with an armored hull." And this concept is obviously not popular.
          1. Viktor Sergeev
            Viktor Sergeev 19 February 2021 17: 19
            -1
            You want to say "did not use" it was replaced by helicopters and stupidity, and there were practically no local wars like Syria, but the world is changing and an armored capsule with a cheap engine will still show itself. But the Il10 had its own concept: an attack aircraft capable of fighting almost on equal terms with fighters.
            1. The eye of the crying
              The eye of the crying 20 February 2021 15: 01
              +1
              Quote: Victor Sergeev
              You mean "didn't use" it was driven out by helicopters


              I mean "does not use". There are quite a few propeller-driven attack aircraft, and none is made according to the IL-10 concept. However, you are right that this concept was not popular - earlier attack aircraft (like Bronco and Pukar) did not match it either.

              Quote: Victor Sergeev
              attack aircraft capable of fighting almost on equal terms with fighters.


              There are no such ones for years ... 70, probably.
              1. Viktor Sergeev
                Viktor Sergeev 20 February 2021 16: 29
                -1
                But there were at that time. The strength of the IL10 is in armor, maneuverability and cheapness, which is what you need, the mass character often wins where super modern weapons cannot do anything.
                1. Intruder
                  Intruder 21 February 2021 17: 45
                  +1
                  mass character often wins where super modern weapons cannot do anything.
                  at the cost of human lives, also massive ...!? winked
              2. Intruder
                Intruder 21 February 2021 17: 44
                +1
                There are no such ones for years ... 70, probably.
                this, as well as the area of ​​tank battles, only the last and full head under the cockade, "stubborn" military commander will create a similar critical situation in the tactical aspect of the battle, where attack aircraft and fighters (up to a heap and scouts, with drums belay ), as well as MBT, among themselves ...
          2. Intruder
            Intruder 21 February 2021 17: 55
            +1
            And this concept is obviously not popular.
            OV-1 "Mohawk", AT-6V, EMB-314 Super Tucano, AT-802U, all were used and are still in service in a number of air forces of countries and have just the same ..:
            propeller-driven attack aircraft with armored hull
            more precisely, spaced (modular) armor protecting the crew and critical structural units, from small arms of "irregulars" and other barmaleks, on the ground ... wink
  • Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 19 February 2021 11: 09
    +8
    Grunin's attack aircraft. War after war!
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 19 February 2021 13: 51
      -1
      For all my love for these units, which would look great in Red Alert, their very concept raises some doubts, since you would still have to keep prom. communications, otherwise what difference does it make to the Su-25 in Ulan-Ude or Tashkent, native engines, or TV3-117, if neither one nor the other is produced at the aircraft plant, and the supplier has long been destroyed by a nuclear strike, or from it you can't bring anything.
  • iouris
    iouris 19 February 2021 11: 57
    +2
    We don't know how to do that.
  • sen
    sen 19 February 2021 12: 25
    +3
    More picture
  • Undecim
    Undecim 19 February 2021 12: 27
    +6
    LTH AT-6E
    Wingspan, m: 10,10
    Length, m: 10,30
    Height, m: 3,30
    Wing area, м2: 16,30

    Weight, kg
    - empty aircraft: 2 100
    - maximum take-off: 2 948

    Engine: 1 x Pratt Whitney Canada PT6A-68F x 1 HP
    Maximum speed km / h: 585
    Cruising speed, km / h: 500
    Practical range, km: 1 575
    Practical ceiling, m: 7 620

    Crew, prs: 2
    Armament:
    - two 12,7 mm machine guns
    on the nodes of the external suspension (6 pcs):
    - 6 x BDU-33 133, or
    - 2 x BDU-33, 2 x LAU-68 or
    - 2 x Mk.82 caliber 226 kg.

    The armament may include the AIM-9X air-to-air class, the Pave way-2 / Pave way-4 UAB, JDAM, and SDB. Suspension of two PTBs of 220 liters is possible.

    And what does Beechcraft say about LTH Beechcraft AT-6 WOLVERINE?

    As you can see, the author was mistaken in something. The aircraft has seven total hardpoints.
    The basic weight is 2671 kg and the Maximum Takeoff Weight is 4536 kg.
    The engine is installed on the plane - PT6A-68D, its power is 1600 hp.
    Two outboard fuel tanks can hold 932 kilograms of fuel. This is about 1200 liters.
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 19 February 2021 12: 32
      +4

      This is a list of possible weapons.
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 19 February 2021 12: 54
        +4

        Cab Beechcraft AT-6 WOLVERINE
  • Constanty
    Constanty 19 February 2021 12: 37
    +3
    The author incorrectly presented the tactical and technical data of the aircraft.
    The maximum takeoff weight of the AT-6E is 4536 kg, not 2948 kg.
    If we take into account the data of the author, then the payload of the AT-6E would be only 848 kg.
    With a simple weight of fuel in the internal tanks of 544 kg, plus the weight of the pilots, for weapons, practically nothing would be left.
  • APASUS
    APASUS 19 February 2021 12: 56
    +2
    The question is where to use such aircraft. The answer is already in the text. These are third world countries where there are no normal air defense systems. The same Afghanistan,

    Will he survive a hit from the DShK?
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 19 February 2021 13: 23
      +2
      There are several options for protection ..... the main thing is flight altitude and range of application. And varying degrees of booking .....
      1. Intruder
        Intruder 19 February 2021 16: 53
        0
        There are several options for protection ..... the main thing is flight altitude and range of application. And varying degrees of booking .....
        Well, so the hit of a modern SD of almost any air defense system does not hold the "degree of reservation" especially when, there:
        1 , 2 kg) located behind the control compartment;
        2. or prefabricated glued shells with GGE are used. GGE in the form of cubes, cylinders, etc. are made of steel or heavy alloys based on tungsten with a density of 16-18 g / cm ';
        3. Another quite progressive method for the formation of a fragmentation field / flow with a sufficiently high speed of response is a warhead with explosive deformation. In this case, the fragmentation shell is made of plastic steel or rubber with GGE built into it. Along the generatrix of the shell with a charge of plastic explosive, detonating elongated charges (DUZ) with dampers are located (it was precisely following the results of the defensive missile operation in the Persian Gulf that the need to switch from circular fragmentation fields to directed ones was firmly realized.);
        PS Only the probability of hitting a target, the less - the better ... for such devices !!!
    2. The eye of the crying
      The eye of the crying 19 February 2021 14: 48
      +2
      And on DShK, he will drop a bomb from a height of a couple of kilometers.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 19 February 2021 19: 05
        0
        He simply will not fly where the dshk will finish the shot. And the corr ammunition will cover the target.
        1. The eye of the crying
          The eye of the crying 20 February 2021 00: 15
          +1
          I'm just about that.
        2. APASUS
          APASUS 20 February 2021 08: 47
          0
          Quote: Zaurbek
          He simply will not fly where the dshk will finish the shot. And the corr ammunition will cover the target.

          Are the Americans aware of your findings? Something all the adjustable ammunition on invisible planes did not help them, they are fleeing from Afghanistan
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 20 February 2021 10: 05
            0
            What are the Americans to do there? Like the Soviet troops in the 20th century? To keep the territory there without significant losses and costs, it is necessary to start genocide ..... no one wants to do this in the 21st century. And there is no significant wealth there either. Even the volume of their exports - opium, began to fall, and the strength of the growth in the consumption of synthetics
            1. OgnennyiKotik
              OgnennyiKotik 20 February 2021 10: 11
              0
              The United States will not withdraw troops from Afghanistan in the near future, but it will not actively meddle in their internal affairs.
              Afghanistan is primarily a base. He is in the center of Eurasia. Central Asia, Pakistan, India, China and Iran directly border on this country, they are interested in them, not Afghanistan itself.
              1. Zaurbek
                Zaurbek 20 February 2021 11: 02
                +2
                That's right ..... they go about their business there, quietly guarding their bases. All support lies with the PMC. They don't build factories and factories and socialism there.
    3. Intruder
      Intruder 19 February 2021 16: 39
      0
      Will he survive a hit from the DShK?
      and this is a normal air defense !? with a snotty shooter operator ??? laughing
      1. APASUS
        APASUS 20 February 2021 08: 53
        +1
        Quote: Intruder
        Will he survive a hit from the DShK?
        and this is a normal air defense !? with a snotty shooter operator ??? laughing

        Do children write to VO now, I don’t understand?
        January 9 - Mi-8T was hit by DShK fire, made an emergency landing in the Ishkashim area and was lost. The crew is saved.
        February 13 - Mi-24V was shot down by machine gun fire in the Jalalabad region. Both crew members and the onboard military council were killed.
        March 30 - Mi-8T was hit by DShK fire in the Faizabad region and exploded after landing, the crew survived. August 25 - Mi-24V was hit by DShK fire in the area of ​​the Surubi reservoir, made an emergency landing and exploded. 3 crew members killed
        [12 December - Mi-24D shot down by DShK fire in the Ghazni area. 2 crew members were killed, 1 survived.
        December 12 - Mi-24V was hit by DShK fire, made an emergency landing and burned down. The crew survived

        These are our losses in Afghanistan from the DShK in just one 80 year. Learn history
        1. Intruder
          Intruder 20 February 2021 12: 10
          0
          These are our losses in Afghanistan from the DShK in just one 80 year
          it is not surprising to shoot down "tadpoles" or "crocodiles" at those heights when they pressed against the slopes in the Afghan gorges, especially from 12,7 with an armor-piercing or BZT bullet, plus their speed characteristics are limited at those heights (especially for "tadpoles ", with a target load at medium altitudes in Afghanistan, it's still a helicopter) than an attack aircraft, with a theater of operations ...
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Intruder
    Intruder 19 February 2021 16: 38
    0
    ... It's just that we don't seem to be fighting on the territory of countries where an AT-6E type aircraft is needed, because we have a Yak-130.
    well, in SAR would come in handy .., or even closer, in the region of the Black Sea coast !?
  • Aviator_
    Aviator_ 19 February 2021 17: 57
    +3
    because the heat footprint is not as hot as that of a jet.

    The heat trace generally emits negligibly little, the nozzle shines. In the wake, if there is anything, it is soot particles or unburned fuel, they can shine in the infrared range, but there are few of them.
    1. illuminat
      illuminat 20 February 2021 17: 50
      -1
      Quote: Aviator_
      The heat trace generally emits negligibly little, the nozzle shines. In the wake, if there is anything, it is soot particles or unburned fuel, they can shine in the infrared range, but there are few of them.

      The hot air after the exit glows no worse than the nozzle, and the unburned fuel just contributes to cooling. Learn physics.
      1. Aviator_
        Aviator_ 20 February 2021 22: 50
        +2
        The hot air after the exit glows no worse than the nozzle, and the unburned fuel just contributes to cooling. Learn physics.

        Look at your leisure epsilon (the letter is so ancient Greek) at a hot gas and at a solid surface heated to the same temperature, you will learn a lot from physics. I am telling you this as the head of the department of general physics.
        1. illuminat
          illuminat 22 February 2021 16: 34
          -1
          Quote: Aviator_
          Look at your leisure epsilon (the letter is so ancient Greek) at a hot gas and at a solid surface heated to the same temperature, you will learn a lot from physics. I am telling you this as the head of the department of general physics.

          Thank you, looked. You leave out two things
          1. At low altitudes there pressure in kPa, respectively Ɛ of gas can reach 0,1, differing by 1-2 (maximum 3) orders of magnitude from a solid.
          2. The amount of substance. Solid particles with, under one in the exhaust are grams, and gases - hundreds of kilograms. The difference, as we can see, is 5 (five) orders of magnitude.
          Continue teaching physics, "manager." hi
          1. Aviator_
            Aviator_ 22 February 2021 16: 53
            0
            Continuing, no thanks. If you have ever seen an engine jet in the infrared range, especially in afterburner mode, you would have made sure that Mach discs (visible even to the naked eye) consist precisely of luminous solid particles that have slowed down after direct jumps. And the jet itself, especially with complete combustion, is transparent. It's not kilograms that shine. Good luck, poor student.
            1. illuminat
              illuminat 24 February 2021 10: 31
              -1
              Quote: Aviator_
              If you are
              Let's go for you, after all.

              Quote: Aviator_
              If you have ever seen an engine jet in the infrared range, especially in afterburner mode, you would have made sure that Mach discs (visible even to the naked eye) consist of luminous solid particles
              What's the difference, I saw / did not see. Such things are not determined by eye.
              Quote: Aviator_
              It's not kilograms that shine.
              Squares, so what? You rested on Ɛ. Is a dural plane (Ɛ 0,2) visible on IR worse than a milligram of soot heated to the same t (Ɛ 0,95)? Does it radiate five times less?
              And about unburned fuel - heresy.
              Quote: Aviator_
              Continue, no thanks.
              From what? It is worth, it is interesting to remember childhood. So thanks, but keep learning.
              1. Aviator_
                Aviator_ 24 February 2021 20: 06
                0
                What's the difference, I saw / did not see. Such things are not determined by eye.

                Name the equipment through which the observation was conducted? - This will not happen without the presentation of a certificate of admission. Good luck.
                1. illuminat
                  illuminat 24 February 2021 21: 12
                  -1
                  Quote: Aviator_
                  This will not happen without presenting a certificate of admission. Good luck.

                  I left as a specialist for demobilization, so that in 5 years I would become an exit trip, and here schoolchildren offer me to measure up with certificates laughing laughter! However, you are not sick either.
                  1. Aviator_
                    Aviator_ 24 February 2021 21: 15
                    0
                    I left as a specialist for demobilization, so that in 5 years I will become an exit one,

                    Fair wind!
                    1. illuminat
                      illuminat 24 February 2021 21: 15
                      -1
                      Quote: Aviator_
                      Fair wind!

                      Thanks for that!
  • Usher
    Usher 20 February 2021 00: 46
    0
    And if we talk about the Su-25, and in general, it's scary to think about what kind of air fleet could be created.
    Didn't get the hint? How is this interconnected? Is the Su-25 more expensive than the A-10?
  • SVD68
    SVD68 20 February 2021 07: 54
    +2
    Whoever writes that the screw-type attack aircraft is cheap is mistaken. He's supposed to be in a very expensive war. Not the one where aviation is the strike force of land or sea forces. No, propeller-driven attack aircraft are offered for fighting guerrillas one-on-one. Those. against the enemy infantry, a lone fighter is released in a suit of an iron man (at this stage, a couple of people in a screw attack aircraft). In fact, the propeller-driven attack aircraft in the existing concept is not a replacement for modern aviation, it is a replacement for modern infantry. And the replacement is super-expensive and questionable in terms of combat results.
    1. The eye of the crying
      The eye of the crying 20 February 2021 16: 35
      0
      Quote: SVD68
      propeller-driven attack aircraft are offered for fighting partisans one-on-one


      One attack aircraft for one guerrilla? smile
  • hostel
    hostel 20 February 2021 13: 35
    0
    And what about the Yak-130 you should think about
  • czes
    czes 20 February 2021 14: 01
    0
    Don't we need those like that?
    1. Weaponmaster
      Weaponmaster 22 February 2021 17: 17
      0
      We do not bother with black asses, we do not have such tactical tasks, to fight the partisans.
  • yehat2
    yehat2 20 February 2021 14: 30
    +2
    it seems to me that our aviation would also be useful, at least as a training and patrol officer.
    Drive the same poachers or watch out for fires.
    1. Weaponmaster
      Weaponmaster 22 February 2021 17: 15
      0
      So we have them, and dofiga.
      Themselves gliders in bulk. But modern equipment is a problem for them. Nobody gives money for this.
  • ironic
    ironic 20 February 2021 22: 33
    -1
    And in Syria, too ... Or Syria is not a third world country ...
  • ironic
    ironic 20 February 2021 22: 51
    0
    On the one hand, it may be a successful attempt to save money in the short term; it has no future in the long run. We need an unmanned attack aircraft with air combat capabilities. In two versions, a turboprop with a speed of somewhere up to 700-800 km / h for striking the ground and for destroying enemy light drones and a turbojet, with stealth elements and a maximum speed of up to 1.2-1.25M. The engine must be without afterburner. This one is for delivering massive front-line strikes and destruction of helicopters and heavy drones, as well as with the ability to counter the attack of enemy front-line fighters. Everything else is half-measures.
  • Alexey Will do
    Alexey Will do 21 February 2021 21: 56
    -1
    A fundamental impasse.
    The drone niche ...
  • Alex russia
    Alex russia 22 February 2021 08: 18
    0
    by the way, an excellent and cheap tool for destroying drones, after they began to be used in Greece - the Turks stopped using their vaunted drones to violate the borders of this country and again use only exclusively the classic F-16 fighter
  • Weaponmaster
    Weaponmaster 22 February 2021 17: 12
    0
    Well, everything is clear, another wunderwaffle for "kurovanie black asses".
  • bar
    bar 23 February 2021 09: 15
    0
    It is quite an intermediate link, when the drone is not enough, there is a lot of a normal plane, and the turntable can fly far.
    For these purposes, our legendary Il-2 would be perfect, install a new turboprop engine on it good
  • kytx
    kytx 25 February 2021 20: 28
    0
    the title of the article is completely untrue
    could have been simpler "at6 history of creation"
    and I did not see any pros and cons in the article
    where and against whom such devices are used, it is obvious to anyone
    but I can look at other resources as well
    analysts in the material -0
    reflections - 0
    sleeper
  • cdrt
    cdrt 28 February 2021 16: 06
    0
    Isn't it better and cheaper even for the described conditions a bundle of UAVs, such as Aileron, kamikaze, such as Cuba and Grad, RPU-14, or the Serbian MLRS with its Kashuba missiles / bombs? And its subordination, and not the Air Force, and the price will certainly be cheaper. And if you really need a big bomb, ask - an ordinary fighter
  • Sedoy
    Sedoy 1 March 2021 18: 41
    0
    it doesn't matter if there is a screw or not ...
    basic - low speed above the ground - so that the pilot can "orient / aim, etc."
    small turning radii - for re-attack ...
    long range / long loitering time ...
    and the maximum combat load ...
    cumulatively, A-10 is better - no ...
    but "expensive" ...
    for "small" mills and tasks, you need something "simpler" - hence the "return" in screw versions ...
  • SkyMaXX
    SkyMaXX 1 March 2021 20: 18
    0
    Well, the Brazilian EMB-314 Super Tucano is still better than the AT-6. The Brazilians have gained a lot of experience in this since the EMB-214 Tucano and have built really the best turboprop attack aircraft in the world.
  • Tambov-there is god
    Tambov-there is god 2 March 2021 13: 56
    0
    Where can such an aircraft be used? Yes, wherever a helicopter is used. The superiority over the helicopter is enormous: it is cheaper to build, cheaper to operate, the speed is 2 times higher, there are less unmasking factors, the time to manufacture MANPADS is less, since it flies faster and makes less noise. In Afghanistan, when there were no drones, such an aircraft would have been in place. The presented sample has two disadvantages: two pilots, although one is enough and a weak defense. We remove the co-pilot and apply blindfold to the weight of the pilot and his workplace.
  • DO
    DO Yesterday, 02: 28
    0
    It is inappropriate to develop something new for the war with the barmaley, who do not have serious air defense - it is enough that there is. Today we need something else - to prepare for a possible clash with a high-tech systemic enemy, including on the ground, army against army.
    The propeller-driven attack aircraft can be designed mainly to support the infantry, as well as for firing missiles at the targets of the enemy's front line of defense, being mainly outside the zone of action of his air defense.
    The SU-24/25 attack aircraft, in comparison with the propeller-driven attack aircraft, and only for its range of tasks, seem redundant.
    Helicopters, in comparison with a propeller-driven attack aircraft, consume a lot of fuel, and are significantly more expensive (excluding from consideration cases of relief terrain, where the helicopter is out of competition).
    The modern propeller glider solution is a pusher propeller. This arrangement improves visibility and leaves more room for ammunition suspension.
    If you create such an aircraft, then it is advisable to start with the manned version, necessarily and in parallel working on the unmanned one.