"Gunship" for SVO

163
"Gunship" for SVO
Gunship aircraft firing on the ground


“I can see everything from above,
you know it!”

Solomon Fogelson "Heavenly slug", 1945

The experience of conducting a special operation has shown that the Russian army, for all its might, lacks something. What exactly - they already wrote on VO, and more than once. But one topic has not yet been touched upon. Namely: fire support from the air on an ongoing basis, which is carried out by special gunship aircraft. Today we will talk about them, both about those that were, and about those that may be ...



Experience is the fruit of difficult mistakes


The Americans first encountered the need for such support in 1964. It was then that the C-131 transport aircraft was converted into a gunship at an airbase in Florida. Moreover, in a very simple way and without any fuss: on the port side in the cargo door they placed a container with a 7,62-mm Minigun six-barreled machine gun, the rate of which was 3-000 rounds / min. The co-pilot received a sight that allows you to shoot away from the flight path - and that's it.

The plane acted as follows: having found a target on the ground, the pilot made turns, circled over the target, while machine gunners fired at it from above from different sides. The rest of the gunships were converted directly in Vietnam on the basis of the C-47 Dakota aircraft. After that, the letter “A” was added to the letter “C”: - from the word “etteker” - “attack aircraft”. Soon, these aircraft proved to be very good in battles, and the Vietnamese even called them dragons because of the fire trails of the "miniguns" that stretched from them to the ground.

Many aircraft of this type were made, but they also suffered very heavy losses. The fact is that the planes were old, they flew mainly at night in mountainous terrain, and their crews had to fire from machine guns from a height of no more than 1 m, which exposed them to anti-aircraft fire from the Vietnamese, who also used heavy machine guns, and anti-aircraft guns with a caliber of 000- and 37-mm.

The next "gunship" was converted to a twin-engine transport aircraft C-119G two-beam scheme. It was more modern, faster and could take on board up to 13 tons of payload. The crew was protected by ceramic armor, and in general, this machine turned out to be more efficient than the AC-47D by about 25%.

To perfection step by step...


Subsequently, this aircraft received a whole battery of two 20-mm Vulkan automatic cannons and four machine guns. The use of cannons increased the height of its use, that is, to get it with small arms fire weapons the Vietnamese now could no longer.

The generally successful use of "gunships" led to the fact that the completely modern C-130 Hercules transport aircraft was chosen as a new aircraft of this type, which received 4 machine-gun and 4 cannon mounts in special embrasures on the port side. For operations at night, it was equipped with an IR vision surveillance system, radars, 20 kW searchlights and a modern on-board fire control computer.

Further - more: in 1969, the aircraft immediately received two Bofors semi-automatic cannons of 40 mm caliber, which made it possible to hit targets from a height of 5 m at a distance of 400 m.

In 1971, the US Air Force received the AC-130E, which was equipped with a manually loaded 105-mm infantry howitzer. All "gunships" were actively used against the cargo transportation of the Vietnamese along the "Ho Chi Minh trail" and showed their best side.

Since 1972, Soviet Strela missiles began to hit them. To reduce their thermal signature, many AC-130s were equipped with coolers - ejectors that reduce the temperature of the exhaust gases. It did not help much, but nevertheless, despite the losses, "gunships" in Vietnam were used until the very end of the war.

Then they were used during the invasion of Grenada and Panama, as well as in Iraq during Operation Desert Storm. It turned out that in the desert, the infrared systems of aircraft work very poorly. And besides, the presence of modern air defense makes their work extremely difficult.

"Flying Battleship"


Today, the US Air Force is armed with an AC-130U aircraft armed with a five-barreled 25 mm cannon (ammunition 3 rounds, rate of fire 000 rounds per minute), a 6 mm cannon (000 rounds) and a 40 mm gun (256 rounds). All of them are mobile, that is, the pilot does not need to accurately maintain the course for the required accuracy of fire.

Such powerful weapons, firstly, provide selective action on the target, which means saving ammunition, and secondly, the effective defeat of protected targets.

The aircraft is equipped with removable armor protection based on both metal and Kevlar armor. Well, it is clear that it is equipped with modern electronic sighting and navigation equipment.

Plane of a mirror design


Now let's see what we have in this regard.

And we have all sorts of modern and efficient aircraft, which, however, cannot hover over the same area for hours, but work on call. They called - flew in, hit and flew away again, and for some time the enemy’s head no longer hurts. You can, of course, organize sorties at intervals, but then the planes may simply ... not have enough targets. Yes, and it’s expensive to drive complex jet crews back and forth for the sake of, say, a column of buses that bring replenishment to the front line.

What could be such an aircraft for our Russian aviation?

The simplest thing is to take and re-equip some existing transporter for a "ganship". However, with an eye to the future (and for export!) It will be much more profitable to create a special aircraft, moreover, of a modular design.

What does this mean in practice?

In practice, we have a front line with a length of about 1 km, along which such aircraft will fly, first in one direction, then in the other. But their effectiveness should not decrease. This can be achieved in the following way: we create one aircraft, but in two versions - version "L" (left) and version "P" (right) - mirrored in relation to each other!

The aircraft, by the way, has an asymmetric profile, which is necessary to reduce its thermal visibility. That is, it has two vertically coupled turbojet engines on one wing or two turboprops in a tandem installation. At the same time, the wing and fuselage are designed in such a way that both engines and wing parts can be rearranged! We install the engines on the left - accordingly, an empty module is inserted into the right wing (which can be used as a fuel tank), and all weapons are mounted in the fuselage on the right, and vice versa: we mount the engines on the right wing - both weapons and engines are placed on the left!

Thus, we get two aircraft at once, capable of appearing over enemy positions exactly twice as often, and even (if they fly on a mission in pairs) - simultaneously bombarding him from two sides at once!

Armament: guns, machine guns, laser and… UAV!


Armament should consist of 100- and 30-mm BMP-3 twin artillery mounts and several machine gun mounts. The main thing is that the aircraft can fire from a height at which the same Stinger cannot reach it.

In addition, it should be provided for equipping it not only with passive means of protection like heat traps, but also with active ones - like a tank KAZ. After all, this is infantry, acting in concert with tanks, you have to be afraid of KAZ shells. And in the air it is quite possible to use them for the direct destruction of anti-aircraft missiles launched at the aircraft.

Moreover, large volumes inside the fuselage and powerful engines that produce a lot of energy are quite capable of providing power to a combat anti-missile laser!

And, of course, armor. Removable, like on the American AC-130, ceramic and made of Kevlar, so that it can be reinstalled from side to side, depending on the modification of the aircraft - “L” or “P”.

And the last. Such an aircraft today can be used as a carrier of inexpensive dronesmade literally from their packaging cardboard or foam to hit targets directly on the battlefield! The cheapest video camera, a cumulative warhead from an RPG grenade, an electric motor with a propeller and a power battery - that's practically all. After all, he does not have to take off on his own!

In fact, it will be a motor glider that can be dropped from the gunship to hit visible targets, which the 100-mm gun simply does not have enough range to shoot at, and it will be risky to enter enemy territory due to possible fire resistance.

This will really be a plane worthy of the Army of a great power.

And, of course, in the same capacity as a patrol aircraft for the border, it may well be purchased by many countries. After all, many people have extended and explosive borders.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

163 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +96
    4 November 2022 05: 25
    The author is a dreamer, it’s too lazy to even comment on this flight of fancy.
    1. +42
      4 November 2022 05: 49
      Armament should consist of 100- and 30-mm BMP-3 twin artillery mounts and several machine gun mounts. The main thing is that the aircraft can fire from a height at which the same Stinger cannot reach it.
      Call the paramedics... or I'll call the police. moderators, where are you?
      1. +14
        4 November 2022 12: 52
        hi
        This, IMHO, is the new face of the permanent author of VO - Mitrofanov ("turbine in the butt, airborne on a buggy").

        A little less delirium, but as soon as the author saddled one of his crazy ideas "KAZ on a plane" - "In addition, it should be provided for equipping it not only with passive means of protection like heat traps, but also with active ones - like a tank KAZ. "My doubts are gone. wassat
        Mitrofanov is, IMHO.
        Only he attaches to the place and out of place (even to the submarine).

        This news is, of course, bad news. crying
        Mitrofanov will be twice as many, and the author of the article is always written at the bottom request . That is, at first the article has to be read / overlooked, and only then it becomes clear that this should not have been done.
        recourse
        1. +6
          4 November 2022 18: 51
          Our army needs such an aircraft, but definitely not for the NVO, in which it will immediately be shot down either by MANPADS or Buk and S-300. Such an aircraft is needed in Syria, where there is no air defense and long distances, but you need to understand that it also needs air reconnaissance, which we practically don’t have and we need a satellite constellation at a completely different level.
          1. 0
            5 November 2022 01: 50
            You are wrong, you still need it as needed. The US Air Force began to use gunships in Vietnam, with great success and with powerful air defense, you just need a competent approach and tactics. I advise you to read about them.
            1. +1
              5 November 2022 09: 31
              Thanks a lot! I will definitely read it.
            2. +4
              7 November 2022 12: 06
              Quote: merkava-2bet
              You are wrong, you still need it as needed. The US Air Force began to use gunships in Vietnam, with great success and with powerful air defense, you just need a competent approach and tactics.

              "Powerful air defense" is a ZPU of 12,7 and 14,5 mm caliber. As soon as the S-75s appeared near the Trail, the gunships immediately got sick.
              And now the development vector of gunships coincides with the vector of a conventional IBA - the transition from "cast iron", for which you need to get close to the enemy, to URO, applied from afar. "Gunships" become "misslships", exchanging guns for UR, ATGM and UAB - AGM-176 Griffin, GBU-44/B Viper Strike, AGM-114 Hellfire missiles, GBU-39 and GBU-53/B SDB.
              1. +1
                7 November 2022 23: 06
                For 5 years of use in Vietnam (from September 1967 to December 1972), 6 aircraft were lost. The aircraft, lost in Kuwait in 1991, is considered the largest combat loss during Operation Desert Storm, the reaction to which was the avoidance of day missions and the reduction of air cover for ground troops. According to the Task & Purpose[en] publication, over the past 30 years (as of February 2021), not a single AC-130 has been shot down in combat.

                And the US Air Force has just begun to work out tactics for use in Vietnam
                1. +1
                  8 November 2022 10: 29
                  Quote: merkava-2bet
                  The aircraft, lost in Kuwait in 1991, is considered the largest combat loss during Operation Desert Storm, the reaction to which was the avoidance of day missions and the reduction of air cover for ground troops.

                  With great success with powerful air defense, Yes... smile

                  The only tactic of gunship if the enemy has air defense of at least the 80s of the last century is to avoid places where this air defense is. However, in Vietnam it was the same - powerful air defense on that theater of operations was focal, and the AU did not meddle in its zones, working where there was no air defense. As soon as air defense systems appeared in their places of work, they left these places.
                  Now, after the spread of MANPADS from the warehouses of the Libyan and Syrian armies, even slippers on Toyotas can unpleasantly surprise the AC. Therefore, the armament of gunships mutates towards missiles and UAB.
                  1. 0
                    19 December 2022 17: 03
                    Modern Gunships operate at distances over 7000m from the target, the last few versions are accurate. MANPADS or memory will not help against the gunship. In Syria, by the way, such a gunship worked for the Wagnerites and they had nothing to shoot it down.
                    1. 0
                      20 December 2022 10: 11
                      Quote: karabas-barabas
                      Modern gunships operate at distances over 7000m from the target

                      Guns with an effective range of up to 4000 m? wink
                      The fact of the matter is that the current gunships are called so purely by inertia - like destroyers in the fleet. But in fact, they turned into URO carriers, gradually exchanging artillery for launchers and guided weapon compartments.
                      In the extreme case, the same AS-130s will degenerate into S-130s with a cargo compartment loaded with missiles and missiles. smile
                      Quote: karabas-barabas
                      MANPADS or memory will not help against the gunship.

                      There is only one problem here: the economy. As soon as we leave at a distance of more than 4 km and abandon artillery, the cost of hitting a typical target immediately increases sharply. The gunships survived because they allowed them to crush all sorts of zusuls with cheap shells. And if you spend not five or six 105-mm, but "Griffin" or "Hellfire" on a rusty DShK and three people, then why do we need such a gunship? It is easier to use UAVs with the same SD.
                      1. 0
                        20 December 2022 19: 55
                        4000m Are you talking about Bofors? So this applies to infantry fighting vehicles, or boats, on which they are often put, on the floor. Diagonally from above, the effective firing range rests only on optics, and it is excellent on gunships. Modern gunships can also work with Bofors 40, and even more so with a 105mm howitzer higher than their MANPADS, or they can get a memory device, laying shells not only on target, but also in anticipation of running targets. Packages with kamikaze drones, or planning bombs, will apparently also be used. But then again, why should they be necessarily expensive? The modernization of a blunt bomb into a planning one cost the Americans at one time, 20 years ago, about $ 30 thousand, tails, rudders, GPS to fasten, today there are quite cheap processes for manufacturing such a BC. Not the BC itself is expensive and complex, but the guidance system, data exchange.
              2. The comment was deleted.
                1. 0
                  8 November 2022 10: 36
                  Quote: merkava-2bet
                  New weapon systems are an addition to airborne artillery, but not a replacement for it.

                  Well, here is the evolution of the onboard armament of full-fledged howitzer gunships:
                  AC-130E Pave Aegis, AC-130H Specter:
                  2×20*6mm, 1×40mm, 1×105mm
                  or
                  1×25*5mm, 1×40mm, 1×105mm

                  AC-130U Spooky II:
                  1×25*5mm, 1×40mm, 1×105mm

                  All of these models have been retired. And replaced them with AC-130J Ghostrider:
                  1×30mm, 1×105mm

                  And that's it. Two guns, no Gatlings or Bofors. And instead of them - AGM-176, GBU-44/B, AGM-114, GBU-39, GBU-53/B. Moreover, for their use, even underwing hardpoints were put on the gunship.
                  1. +2
                    8 November 2022 14: 31
                    As I wrote above, they did not abandon artillery, but reduced it, but still it is.
            3. +1
              9 November 2022 06: 30
              I'll ask one question: did you win the war?
              1. +1
                9 November 2022 09: 33
                And this, moreover, we are talking about an airplane. Your question is from a series, and the USSR won the war in Afghanistan.
                1. +1
                  9 November 2022 21: 29
                  Yes. The USSR militarily won the war in Afghanistan. No gunships.
                  United States, lost the war in Vietnam, with gunships.

                  Therefore, the question is natural: will the billions invested in the project be worth it?
                  1. +2
                    10 November 2022 09: 23
                    Yes. The USSR militarily won the war in Afghanistan.

                    Just like the United States, they won in military-technical terms. There is even the famous phrase of US President Richard Nixon - "We won the war, but lost the world."
        2. +3
          4 November 2022 19: 31
          Does the KAZ among the Israelis not bother you? On civil aircraft
    2. +32
      4 November 2022 05: 50
      Apparently, out of laziness, the author toils that he began to write fantastic stories .. With such a modern saturation with international air defense systems of various echelons, only the UAC (United Aviation Corporation) needs such an aircraft with vague prospects to launder people's money .. hi
      1. -1
        5 November 2022 22: 51
        Quote: Angry 55
        such an aircraft with vague prospects is needed only by the UAC

        In Russia, there is simply no base for such an aircraft. I hope the author didn’t want to offer IL-76MD90A for such a gunship? If there was an An-12 class aircraft, it would be another matter, one could also estimate the desire for expediency. It is better not to stutter about the "promising" IL-112 \ 114, as well as about the non-existent even in the IL-276 project.
        No, well, if you want so badly that it’s impossible to eat, then you can try to come up with one based on the existing one ... Just take the An-12 hull (this will require reviving its production), but instead of 4 engines (which are not and will not be) install two coaxial turboprops from the Tu-95, which are still being produced for the remotorization of the Bears. Maybe something more expensive will work. And not only for gunship.
        ... But this is unrealistic . In the current reality, even the An-2 maize plant cannot be repeated in the Russian Federation.
        1. 0
          9 November 2022 08: 19
          *maximally sarcastic* Maybe it's still better to just take the base from the Mi 8/26 and install guns, armor, ammunition supply systems there? What is the point of an artillery aircraft? Oh wait a minute, but there are already guns for standard suspensions for all our helicopters! How is it, it turns out that UPK-23-250, 9-A-669 and 9-A-800 have long been invented! request

          ... But this is unrealistic . In the current reality, even the An-2 maize plant cannot be repeated in the Russian Federation.
          Everything is real, and it can be repeated if you remove parasitic financial holes in positions in enterprises, because they have lost their scent and brakes. As a result, almost everything that is aimed at creating is stolen on the one hand, and thanks to an unprepared executive base, it is cut down. Those. in the fight against corruption, before cutting the budget, it is necessary to prepare an executive base - to make it impossible for the cost price to change relative to the moment the order is paid. This is both difficult and simple to do, but it is necessary, otherwise the factories receive a contract, an amount for execution, but are forced to execute at a loss, because the cost has changed, and materials are purchased using a flow mechanism, which is good for trading finished products, but unacceptable in the manufacture of products " to order".
          1. 0
            9 November 2022 14: 35
            Quote from SincerityX
            Everything is real, and it can be repeated if you remove parasitic financial holes in positions in enterprises, because they have lost their scent and brakes.

            So this is our Reality.
            For the sake of this, everything was destroyed, privatized, appointed, educated and promoted. This is the natural quality of the leading (today) class.
            Quote from SincerityX
            and materials are purchased on a streaming basis, which is good for finished goods trade, but unacceptable for "made-to-order" production.

            Still worse - the state does not allocate money on order, but gives a "guarantee" (on a loan). The company is forced to take out a loan to fulfill the order, the interest on the loan goes into the cost, and when the order is completed, the customer begins to delay payment as much as possible, starts arguing about the price and, in fact, bankrupts the company. Debts grow , the enterprise does not develop , and officials play with the amounts allocated under the contract , scrolling them through trusted banks .
            I'm already silent about the "development of the budget".
            It is for this that the Soviet Union was destroyed, for which they "jumped on the Maidan" in 1991 and seized power ...
            You can't harness a jackal to a plow.
            1. 0
              9 November 2022 15: 47
              "jumped on the Maidan" in 1991

              Yes, we jumped, now, there, other horses feel all the "charms" of shitocracy.
              1. 0
                9 November 2022 15: 48
                oh, what am I, how embarrassingly happened, sealed up.
                1. -1
                  9 November 2022 16: 04
                  Quote from SincerityX
                  Yes, we jumped, now, there, other horses feel all the "charms" of shitocracy.

                  In 1991, everyone jumped ... it just so happened, they divorced like five-year-old children.
                  And what the Kyiv horses feel is now felt by the entire population of the Earth. Some with a skin, some with a purse, some with a quality of life and international politics that is going to pieces. The case is leading to a global war. And the power of the Russian Federation at the same time demonstrates its ... deep and systemic secondary nature.
                  Till .
                  But there are nuances.
    3. +12
      4 November 2022 06: 15
      the author’s imagination is bad .. even Kaz forgot to put
    4. -10
      4 November 2022 06: 48
      Well done author... good I liked his fantasy with drones...why not try this option in reality...there is a reasonable grain in this.
      1. +5
        4 November 2022 08: 28
        Quote: Lech from Android.
        fantasy with drones...why not try this option in reality...there is a reasonable grain in this.

        not similar.
      2. +5
        4 November 2022 14: 11
        Quote: Lech from Android.
        The author is well done ... good, I liked his fantasy with drones ... why not try this option in reality ... there is a reasonable grain in this.

        Whether or not a direct fire support aircraft is effective is a moot point, but the author’s approach regarding the design of a SPECIALIZED aircraft, and even in two, mirror versions, is such New Vasyuki that Bender-Maria will be envious. laughing
      3. +6
        4 November 2022 17: 49
        yeah .. just why do we need a whole plane with hinged armor (it’s not clear how it will save the plane from the same Buk or S-300 missile) with KAZ if we launch cheap kamikaze drones with cumulative warheads? It’s much cheaper and more reliable to make ground launchers. .By the way, AC-130 flights to the USA are very expensive.
        1. 0
          5 November 2022 15: 10
          The armor of the aircraft cannot be saved, but the crew - completely.
          1. 0
            5 November 2022 18: 01
            from instant death, yes, but the engines will become unusable, which means you need to put ejection seats on everyone, taking into account the flight altitude of 5-6 km at combat altitude .. i.e. in fact, a bunch of Kazov, armor, seats, special equipment, not to mention the price of the aircraft itself, which in itself is at least 3 billion rubles .. and for what? batteries of guns and a launcher for an UAV? reconnaissance and kamikaze will cost 100 orders of magnitude less, and the result will be the same
      4. +4
        4 November 2022 20: 39
        Quote: Lech from Android.
        Well done author... good I liked his fantasy with drones...why not try this option in reality...there is a reasonable grain in this.

        Yes, why be trifles, immediately cling fighters laughing
        1. 0
          5 November 2022 21: 51
          The Americans even clung to the 50s, "Goblin" under the B-36)
      5. +2
        4 November 2022 22: 10
        Maybe because it is impossible that such a monster costs 300 million, but there is no sense in modern warfare. It is easier to make loitering UAVs with missiles. A monster in a few hours of flight will gobble up fuel at a cost of several UAVs. Does anyone believe that in our time it can be used against a technological adversary? Hit from a 100 mm cannon from a height of 6 km (whatever they hit from MANPADS), the chance to hit is close to 0.
        1. 0
          9 November 2022 08: 36
          Such a "flying gunner" is needed only against the Indians with arrows, well, or at most with rifles. And we have this in the form of containers UPK-23-250, 9-A-669 and 9-A-800. The first is a twin 23mm gun, the second is a container with machine guns, and the third is with an ags. Those. our helicopters can be easily turned into such "gunships", while without the need for "raid" tactics, as is the case with aircraft that cannot "hover and water".
    5. +4
      4 November 2022 16: 54
      Wanted to write the same thing about fantasies! lol Such an aircraft in the conditions of NWO would not fly for long ...
    6. +2
      4 November 2022 18: 26
      This even in children's fantasies will not come to mind (when they dream of a super weapon with super armor)
    7. +1
      4 November 2022 20: 43
      What is needed in the NWO, but not a plane to disperse the natives on horseback!
  2. +30
    4 November 2022 05: 27
    Building gunships is insanity, the same Ukraine with Brezhnev's air defense will not give a chance to fly them. The Kyiv partners of the Aerospace Forces do not allow flying higher than trees, our modern fighters and bombers are forced to actually play the role of an Il-2 attack aircraft of the Second World War, dropping unguided bombs on the enemy’s heads from a low altitude. At the same time, while also being under constant fire from MANPADS. It is the lack of high-precision glide bombs, which allow them to be used from a distance of tens of kilometers, being outside the zone of destruction of most air defense systems, that force pilots to risk their lives and aircraft, performing tasks that are unusual for themselves, which have repeatedly led to unjustified losses.
    1. +11
      4 November 2022 08: 33
      Quote: Alexander_Snegirev
      Building gunships is insanity, the same Ukraine with Brezhnev's air defense will not give a chance to fly them.

      like our brave 70th airborne troops ... "blue lightning" "in the zone of special attention" - (about the last war ...) flew off, woke up in another world? century? right now, crawling ... crawling ... Uncle Vasya, he lived in another century, the head must be turned on by the current Vasya. no need to get drunk in your fountains to swim in strangers. Dedov's former merits are not yours, young stoners in tattoos. earn yours. (does not apply to database participants...)
      1. +8
        4 November 2022 08: 46
        Parachute landing of the Airborne Forces is also not applicable in war, I agree. I watched a video of how the "old men" of the Su-22 VKS IRGC dropped high-precision planning bombs of the Yasin family, capable of hitting targets at a distance of more than 50 kilometers without entering the air defense system's affected area. This is what we should be striving for. It looks good against the background of the Su-35s bombing the enemy with FABs ...
        1. +2
          4 November 2022 14: 06
          Quote: Alexander_Snegirev
          I watched a video of how the "old men" of the Su-22 VKS IRGC dropped high-precision planning bombs of the Yasin family, capable of hitting targets at a distance of more than 50 kilometers without entering the air defense system's affected area. This is what we should be striving for. It looks good against the background of the Su-35s bombing the enemy with FABs ...
          Purely for understanding, the drop height of these bombs is at least (but rather more than) 5 km. An aircraft at such an altitude is visible from 100 kilometers, no less. So consider whether or not the plane will enter the S-300 or NASAMS affected area?
          Although the thing is certainly necessary, it is far from a panacea.
          1. +3
            4 November 2022 19: 56
            Israeli f16s make a slide before dropping, then again go to ultra-small. Yankers also train on ships: approaching 50 km above the water - a slide, capturing a target with harpoon heads - launch - leaving for ultra-small beyond the radio horizon. S-300 missiles with radio command guidance, and you can get away from them. It is more difficult to get away from the S-350 and S-400, they have missiles with ARLGSN.
            1. 0
              5 November 2022 06: 37
              Quote: Beregovyhok_1
              Israeli f16s make a slide before dropping, then again go to ultra-small. Yankers also train on ships: approaching 50 km above the water - a slide, capturing a target with harpoon heads - launch - leaving for ultra-small beyond the radio horizon.
              You write about the use of ROCKETS! A slide to a height of more than five kilometers for the use of a BOMB from the floundering bay cannot be performed.
              1. +1
                5 November 2022 12: 28
                The Israelis in Syria are making a hill to drop planning bombs.
                1. +2
                  5 November 2022 13: 11
                  Quote: Beregovyhok_1
                  The Israelis in Syria are making a hill to drop planning bombs.
                  Let me remind you that the Jews are attacking BECAUSE of the Golan Heights, and these are heights of up to 2,5 km, against 700 m of Damascus. Those. even just appearing from behind the mountains they have an excess of 1800 meters.
                  1. +1
                    5 November 2022 17: 54
                    I have never been a pilot, so my opinion is not an expert. Maybe a slide and a dangerous maneuver in the conditions of NWO. But for some reason it seems to me that it is not used only because of the lack of planning bombs. And flying in IL-2 mode is even more dangerous for aircraft ...
                    1. 0
                      9 November 2022 09: 02
                      When launching gliding ABs from a hill, there is a risk of AB "stalling" due to insufficient speed for gliding.
        2. +1
          4 November 2022 17: 51
          Well, the question is simple ... what kind of targets can we talk about at a distance of up to 50 km? a product for Tornado or put a Grad package, For shorter distances there is Krasnopol - it makes sense to make planning ammunition for a flight range of at least 20 km at least
      2. +1
        4 November 2022 09: 47
        Well, then you are not proud of the merits of your grandfathers, and the grandfathers who won the Second World War, their merits, not yours, earn your own. There is nothing to blab for everyone here. The same participants in the database are proud of their belonging to the Airborne Forces, precisely thanks to its rich and glorious history, which grandfathers again deserved for their kind of troops, and this has always been and will always be (no matter what types and types of troops), everything else, future and current exploits only increase the glory of certain troops. And what now, stop being proud of it!? Yes, I don’t like it either, those who dishonor the troops so much by swimming in fountains, BUT that’s not all and you don’t have to blame everyone else.
        1. +4
          4 November 2022 10: 33
          And what's wrong with swimming in a fountain? I sincerely do not understand why they try to make something forbidden and obscene out of ordinary traditions.
          And if this is a modern "dry" fountain, where passers-by can freely walk under jets of water, is it also obscene?
          1. +7
            4 November 2022 10: 42
            Well, when drunk, their own paratrooper brothers behave indecently, as for me this is not good. Again, you can behave in different ways, took a dip and went on.
      3. 0
        4 November 2022 11: 39
        Quote: Aerodrome
        Dedov's former merits are not yours, young stoners in tattoos. earn yours.

        It turns out that our Airborne Forces are to blame for the fact that the Aerospace Forces use bombing tactics in the style of "IL-2". But the Airborne Forces, on a par with the Marines, Vovans, ordinary army men, did not climb out of local conflicts and did their job.
        1. +1
          8 November 2022 09: 45
          Quote: Blackgrifon
          That's just the Airborne Forces, on a par with the Marines, Vovans, ordinary army men

          Only marines, vovans and infantry in drunken fountains do not bathe on their holiday.
          1. 0
            8 November 2022 14: 53
            Yes. Well, the article is not about the Airborne Forces. And about the problem of fire support for the Air Force / Aerospace Forces of those on the ground. And this comrade has direct bombing because of them out of the blue.
    2. 0
      4 November 2022 09: 39
      You know, back in WWII, one Hansian general spoke the truth as simple as scrap
    3. +5
      4 November 2022 09: 45
      In order not to incur unnecessary losses, a massive use of various types of weapons is required to destroy targets.
      Massed, simultaneous in place and coordinated in time application.
      But in the era of the holy belief in offensives by the forces of the BTG (from the strength of a support division of any caliber for a couple of kilometers of the front), everything else is like a taboo among the natives.
      And that the BTG with a support division does not suppress the enemy’s fire system, not only guaranteed, but even approximately. That is little bullshit. Okay, I’m silent now, new trends and Lisipets, their mother, are new.
  3. -3
    4 November 2022 05: 28
    There, if desired, 57mm high ballistics 4 pieces are enough. 2 each on the right and left sides.
    1. +4
      4 November 2022 08: 46
      And what to do with them? Even the mammoth Neva, ancient as shit, will shoot him down on the way
      1. +2
        4 November 2022 12: 03
        I think the time for gunships has passed .. or it has not come, when creating an effective system of protection against MANPADS - it can return .. but in any case - only against the "natives"
  4. +12
    4 November 2022 05: 31
    Sure sure. Now MANPADS are almost in a platoon. Just a little, they got it and fired. No one will deny themselves pleasure.
    This is only MANPADS.
  5. +9
    4 November 2022 05: 37
    Nu-nu. Of the pros - Schaub was like mattresses, of the minuses ... Where to start?
    * Not applicable in conditions of any significant air defense.
    * Near the front line it is replaced by artillery, away from it, well, at least where the MLRS will not be reached for 120 km - there will already be an air defense zone like the same Buk
    * Requires a rather big runway. Not a helicopter.
    * Sense - like from a goat's milk, a low-powered howitzer will shoot, but machine guns will be in the MANPADS zone.
    * No survivability with a large crew. One bang - and a bunch of corpses.
    * Transport aviation, and so the cat cried, to squander the devil knows what.
    * And the fact that the whole set needs to be rebuilt under the cannon - no one thought? Yes, what for, an ordinary transport worker will fall apart from a long line from an air gun with a frantic rate of fire, and also sideways, from a howitzer splash!
    And most importantly - how are you going to use it? On the front line? What did you not like about artillery? BEHIND THE FRONTLINE? What's wrong with a helicopter? These are helicopters near the mattresses, either anti-tank, or light, or transport, so they got out - and then, purely against the rebels GENERALLY without air defense. As soon as even MANPADS went - there are no gunships at all
    1. +2
      5 November 2022 02: 08
      I wrote one garbage, read the history of gunships for a start, a sofa expert. You argue like Zadorny - “Well, stupid”, but this is not so, the US Air Force has tremendous combat experience and is unlike the VKS.
  6. +13
    4 November 2022 05: 37
    Such gunships are only against natives with bows, and if they have MANPADS, they are kirdyk.
    1. +4
      4 November 2022 06: 04
      Quote: Popenko
      Such gunships are only against natives with bows, and if they have MANPADS, they are kirdyk.

      for cinema only ... though on the Ho Chi Minh Trail, these monsters worked ... and so it was in the last century.
  7. +13
    4 November 2022 05: 43
    The aircraft, by the way, has an asymmetric profile, which is necessary to reduce its thermal visibility. That is, it has two vertically coupled turbojet engines on one wing or two turboprops in a tandem installation. At the same time, the wing and fuselage are designed in such a way that both engines and wing parts can be rearranged! We install the engines on the left - accordingly, an empty module is inserted into the right wing (which can be used as a fuel tank), and all weapons are mounted in the fuselage on the right, and vice versa: we mount the engines on the right wing - both weapons and engines are placed on the left!




    ...
    This will really be a plane worthy of the Army of a great power
    .
    A good start to the holidays, for someone.
  8. +2
    4 November 2022 05: 47
    All weapons can be conditionally divided into two large "heaps" - weapons for war with the enemy, who also has weapons and weapons suitable for chasing the Papuans. And I feel incredibly ashamed in Spanish when someone, in all seriousness, offers, or even begins to produce expensive, but unnecessary crafts suitable for the colonial troops. We already have a fucking useless BMPT Terminator - very beautiful, it’s better not to think up for parades ... And now they also offer this fool
  9. +2
    4 November 2022 05: 52
    Why P&L? Instead of a navigational cabin in the IL-76, slap a rotary one. a tower with all the cannon facilities and that's it. Its dimensions will decrease due to the storage of ammunition in the cargo hold.
    The author for the rampage of fantasy - 5. For the lack of 4-6 rotary rapid fire against anti-aircraft missiles - 2. :)
    1. +4
      4 November 2022 06: 11
      Quote: Monar
      Why P&L? Instead of a navigational cabin in the IL-76, slap a rotary one. a tower with all the cannon facilities and that's it. Its dimensions will decrease due to the storage of ammunition in the cargo hold.
      The author for the rampage of fantasy - 5. For the lack of 4-6 rotary rapid fire against anti-aircraft missiles - 2. :)

      put everything in the IL "T15" and "T80" ... the "ganship" is ready. gee ... though after the T 80 shot, IL will have to do the "barrel" ... but ... little things.
      1. +5
        4 November 2022 06: 24
        Caterpillars only to be removed from them. Why carry extra weight. :)
        1. +1
          4 November 2022 06: 46
          Nada. If he doesn’t take off with all this garbage, then at least crawl away to the garage on his own - drink with the men
          1. +3
            4 November 2022 07: 05
            Exactly! Then throw out the chassis of the flyer and punch a hole in the bottom. Let it take off right on the tracks. At the same time, the permeability will increase. :)
          2. 0
            4 November 2022 07: 07
            Quote from Bingo
            Nada. If he doesn’t take off with all this garbage, then at least crawl away to the garage on his own - drink with the men

            and there ... they throw so many ideas, write them down.
    2. +3
      4 November 2022 06: 49
      Instead of a navigational cabin in the IL-76, slap a rotary one. a tower with all the cannon facilities and that's it.
      Why only one. Let's do things right away 4. As soon as he gives a volley on board, he will make a barrel and fly further. laughing
      1. +2
        4 November 2022 07: 01
        Why make a barrel? Let the letter "S" fly. And a volley from two sides at once. :)
        By the way, then the guns can also be welded to each other. A volley in different directions will compensate for the recoil. This is how much weight you can save on counter-rollbacks! :)
        1. +2
          4 November 2022 13: 04
          Why make a barrel? Let the letter "S" fly. And a volley from two sides at once. :)
          How is it from two sides? Both ours and yours? And if on one side, then the barrel will come out by itself. laughing
          1. 0
            4 November 2022 18: 50
            What does how mean? Across the location of the APU. And from two sides. :) The letter "SW". And then there is already a futurohunter bucks imagining. :)
        2. +3
          4 November 2022 14: 53
          You put it wrong)) not with the letter S, but with the letter "dollar" am
  10. +3
    4 November 2022 06: 19
    In addition to the main 30 mm cannon, four more cannon containers with 23 mm can be hung on the rook. Why not ganship? Only more maneuverable and protected than a transporter. Handling landings with APU is a good option by the way. A sort of flying shilka. I didn’t see a video with this use case for SU 25, mainly NARs work.
    1. +1
      4 November 2022 14: 55
      In Afghanistan, dryers with cannon containers were used. And even a couple of containers were hung with trunks back - so that they would not shoot back. But in general, NURS are better
    2. +1
      4 November 2022 19: 00
      Don't compare. "Rook" jumped out, thrashed from all trunks and went beyond the horizon. The gunship has a different use. Fall on the port side and shoot flying in a circle.
      Even if you do not remember the level of booking, even the tactics used are different.
  11. 0
    4 November 2022 06: 51
    The author, maybe it’s better to launch the Ka-50, Black Shark, again, as just a highly maneuverable means of delivering bombs and missiles to the battlefield at the request of infantry commanders? In vain it was removed from production, they hurried. And the runway is not needed, and there is more sense, and the fuel consumption is less than flying along the front line back and forth and I am the target of air defense. By the way, the Americans lost such a "Ganship" in Iraq.
  12. +3
    4 November 2022 06: 51
    In 2019, during the “Army of Russia-2019”, TASS announced that in Russia, on the basis of the An-12, the development of “a new project for a flying battery with two automatic 57-mm cannons, smaller-caliber guns and automatic grenade launchers” had begun. and on the site the topic was raised https://topwar.ru/159652-asimmetrija-priznak-sovremennosti-ili-ganship-dlja-rossijskoj-armii.html by the same author about three years ago
  13. +8
    4 November 2022 07: 10
    "Gunship" in SVO is DEFINITELY NOT NEEDED. He conducts his shooting circling over the object of attack, which means that he will go far enough into the depth of the enemy’s defense, where he may have something more significant than MANPADS. It is not for nothing that now our military aviation goes as low and as fast as possible ... during combat missions to the positions of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
    Gunships are good against gangs, DRGs and partisan units. If where it is used in the NWO, it is to accompany the columns.
    Yes, and projects of such aircraft were worked out back in the USSR, on the basis of the Il-114 and An-12


    Crew - 2 people, attendants - 4 people, takeoff weight - 23500 kg, maximum payload - 6500 kg, operating speed - 300-350 km / h, maximum speed - 500 km / h, flight range - 900 km, ceiling - 7600 m, engine power - 2 TVD TV7-117S 2500 hp each, takeoff run - 1360 m, weight of the Nona installation with 90 rounds of ammunition - 4170 kg, weight of the 2A42 installation with 1100 rounds of ammunition - 1476 kg, weight of the sighting and sighting equipment - 500 kg.
    1. 0
      4 November 2022 17: 16
      Quote: svp67
      more significant than MANPADS

      By the way about.
      And if, as in the "peculiarities of the national hunt", but with the Needle?

      In theory, this is how you can shoot down a higher-altitude target (which went nuts from impunity).
      For Papuans with only MANPADS - perhaps an option.
      1. +1
        6 November 2022 14: 26
        great idea,
        we take a parachutist with 2 MANPADS
        we raise it to a height of up to 1 km with the help of several balloons with hot helium
        so to speak, an emergency take-off by cutting the hold rope
    2. 0
      4 November 2022 20: 14
      If where it is used in the NWO, it is to accompany the columns.
      And here let me disagree. Painfully, the speed is different for the column and letak.
      Well, the most extreme situation. Anushka passed over the column and the DRG is immediately discovered. How much will she (Anushka) need to turn around and return? And here helicopters are out of competition.
      Personal opinion. Transport aviation - to carry cargo. It's none of their business to attack.
      1. 0
        5 November 2022 09: 02
        Quote: Monar
        How much will she (Anushka) need to turn around and return?

        The IL-114 has swivel turrets with automatic cannons in the project, they are even capable of firing backwards
        Quote: Monar
        And here helicopters are out of competition.

        But they are just as susceptible to the threat from MANPADS. But by tying up the discovered DRG in battle, they will make it possible both to turn around for the "armed airship" and begin to work out this target.
        1. +1
          5 November 2022 21: 24
          How many meters per second does IL fly? Turning radius to target?
          Here is one of two. Or hanging high. And the accuracy of the defeat falls. Or low. And it takes a long time.
          Yes, any Mi-8 with 4 NURSOV units will be much faster and more accurate. But this is my couch opinion.
          1. 0
            6 November 2022 16: 53
            Quote: Monar
            And it takes a long time.

            Modern SLAs allow you to shoot quickly and accurately
            1. 0
              8 November 2022 05: 10
              So what? To keep such a clumsy "cow" in the zone of destruction of MANPADS? With the hope that she will shoot back faster than the "hello from the pipe" will arrive?
              1. 0
                8 November 2022 06: 33
                Quote: Monar
                With the hope that she will shoot back faster than the "hello from the pipe" will arrive?

                And what kind of hope are the helicopters fed by?
                1. 0
                  8 November 2022 13: 50
                  Yes, at least the same catapult on the Ka-52 in case of emergency. Or the soft landing system on the Mi-28.
  14. +1
    4 November 2022 07: 24
    If we already make an armed aircraft out of a transporter,
    then as a loitering carrier of long and medium-range missiles
    (200-1000 km).
  15. +5
    4 November 2022 07: 38
    Some thread of the Papuans will come down to nightmare. And someone a thread more serious, even like Afghan dushmans, who had both "Arrows" and "Stingers", is already dumb, a response may fly in. This, like its American prototype AC-130, has neither speed nor maneuverability, in general, a flying shed is just an anti-aircraft gunner's dream.
  16. +3
    4 November 2022 07: 41
    If this opus is taken seriously, then obviously such an aircraft will be immediately demolished by a portable air defense system!
  17. +3
    4 November 2022 07: 48
    You can also dream up: take a transporter to load with planning bombs and fly 20 km from the front line at a decent height. When a target is detected - reset of controlled cast iron with illumination from the ground or by coordinates. I hope that making a 250 kg bomb capable of gliding from 10 km to a range of 30-50 km is not a problem? It is certainly possible to install TT accelerators.
    1. +1
      4 November 2022 13: 15
      It makes little sense, and there is no such urgent need, there are enough bombers and rooks, but there are no extra transporters, we can’t even lift an airborne regiment into the air, there aren’t enough sides even for current needs, and even with the destruction of flight schools with a flight and technical composition, its quality is tension, crews for this business must be taught and trained. And for 15-20 km from a pitch-up, the cheapest FAB can be thrown from any SS.
    2. +1
      7 November 2022 12: 13
      Quote: gas113
      You can also dream up: take a transporter to load with planning bombs and fly 20 km from the front line at a decent height. When a target is detected - reset of controlled cast iron with illumination from the ground or by coordinates.

      You have just described the operation of the AC-130J Ghostrider. smile
      The latest version of the American gunship has only two guns - 105 mm and 30 mm, but it has acquired internal and external suspensions for ATGM, UR and UAB.
  18. +3
    4 November 2022 08: 52
    "The experience of conducting a special operation has shown that the Russian army, for all its might, lacks something. What..."

    At first I thought that the author was Staver. Similar sense of humor
  19. 0
    4 November 2022 09: 00
    All correctly write some commentators. The gunship can only be used in the fight against bushmen in slippers. Perhaps there is a reason to use such an aircraft to launch missiles, planning bombs and to launch drones (kamikaze, etc.) from a long distance.
  20. +1
    4 November 2022 09: 53
    why complicate things so much? ...... now the UAV flies quietly in the air and monitors the enemy, transmits the coordinates, and then this place is covered with all available means of fire damage - that's all ..........
  21. +3
    4 November 2022 09: 58
    This "cow" will be shot down at once from ANY air defense. How many gunships did the Americans lose in Vietnam?
    1. 0
      8 November 2022 00: 03
      Quotation from Wikipedia:
      For 5 years of use in Vietnam (from September 1967 to December 1972), 6 aircraft were lost.
  22. +5
    4 November 2022 10: 47
    The aircraft, by the way, has an asymmetric profile, which is necessary to reduce its thermal visibility.
    A new word in stealth technology. Author, urgently patent the design! (if someone didn’t understand, then the insanity of the text grows stronger as you read the article further.)
  23. +1
    4 November 2022 10: 57
    There was a Ganship project based on the Il-114. And now there is no other platform.
  24. exo
    +6
    4 November 2022 11: 06
    What gunship, when full-fledged aviation, due to enemy air defense, is limited? And drive a patrol plane with a crew of ten people? Article, not for the VO level.
    1. +2
      4 November 2022 17: 10
      Yes, the article is great. Funny.

      A large aircraft that should just SHINE on radar hundreds of kilometers away.
      Which flies right over the front line.
      Which did not "bomb and leave", but flies in circles.

      Low is the dream of MANPADS.
      High is the dream of an air defense system.

      Well, if the enemy’s plane is nearby - also “oh that’s all” (if there is no fire in response and they show how to steer - I’ll get into such a bandura, I won’t accidentally stick myself with a cannon (especially since I couldn’t sit down anyway) ).
  25. +1
    4 November 2022 11: 10
    It is written, of course, beautifully, but a gunship is not needed on the front of the NWO
  26. +3
    4 November 2022 11: 25
    Shas just needs a drone deliverer to their launch square and a retrotranslator.
  27. +1
    4 November 2022 11: 30
    The search for the "wunderwaffle" began. Nothing is against enthusiasts and other dreamers, I draw your attention to the fact that in the Third Reich there were a huge number of such enthusiasts and other dreamers, but the "technologically backward" Red Army still defeated the enemy. It is now that they began to promote the idea that they did not completely defeat or did not defeat at all, and in 1945 no one had any questions. And all because Stalin very efficiently disposed of limited resources and technologies. But under Gorby, they believed in American "star initiatives" and "the Lenin-Stalin cause perished." Do you want to repeat?
    In short: there is no Russian "gunship" and there will be no more until the end of the war. By the way, a very simple target for air defense.
  28. The comment was deleted.
  29. -1
    4 November 2022 11: 52
    Meli, Emelya, your week.
    The text of your comment is too short and in the opinion of the site administration does not carry useful information.
    But in this scribbling of this useful information - more than enough.
  30. 0
    4 November 2022 12: 15
    Quote: Aerodrome
    Armament should consist of 100- and 30-mm BMP-3 twin artillery mounts and several machine gun mounts. The main thing is that the aircraft can fire from a height at which the same Stinger cannot reach it.
    Call the paramedics... or I'll call the police. moderators, where are you?

    First of all, it is necessary to ensure the missile defense and air defense security of the aircraft, then reconnaissance, and only then weapons. To solve the priority issue, it is necessary to decide on the hull, namely which aircraft to use. The best possible is a military transport aircraft with a unified equipment placement platform for combat missions. In a modern war, most likely there will be enough missile defense and air defense systems, reconnaissance equipment and drones with a control system and ammunition for reloading !!! A sort of reconnaissance "drone carrier" air-based.!!!
  31. +1
    4 November 2022 12: 59
    The site seems to be positioning itself as a serious one, for sane adults, specialists and veterans, and publishes such nonsense. We have already carried out "reforms" in the days of Serdyukovism according to Hollywood advertising brochures, we have already discarded the thousand-year experience of ensuring the protection of our Fatherland in the anti-Soviet frenzy of the ruling class and in its servile desire to become "we are the same as you", for the sake of this, putting up the country and heritage for sale our ancestors. The author still lives in a world of dreams about the greatness and infallibility of "wow America", having ideas about a modern battle from overseas promotional action films commissioned by the Pentagon and Call of Duty about "brave guys from marinas", forgetting that they never won one war they started. It's time to wake up and look around, after "effective and super-efficient managers", Chubais, Abramovichs, etc. in the country, as after a nuclear bombing, we can no longer even produce "corn". To begin with, I’m embarrassed to ask where the author is going to take an aviation platform (base) in sufficient quantities, such an An-12 has not been produced for a long time, the rest begin to periodically fall due to wear and tear, the 76th is sorely lacking even for current needs, and specifications do not match. And most importantly, where with what partisans, bandit formations and what kind of expeditionary corps do we conduct such intense military operations that it is necessary to spend scientific and production resources for them, which we don’t have a lot of money now, even for uniforms, not to mention personnel and the crew, because in a real combat situation, such a misunderstanding will be destroyed even on takeoff, if not on the site. The author obviously decided to be smart on the wrong resource and in the wrong area of ​​​​competence, but it’s a shame for the editors, it seems to be an adequate site with a military bias, but there are fewer vital and topical issues raised, for example, about the situation of military pensioners, dividing them into "ours and strangers", attitude towards war veterans as waste material, etc.
    1. +1
      4 November 2022 21: 14
      The author still lives in a world of dreams about the greatness and infallibility of "wow america"

      "wow america" ​​and it would never occur to the author to use such an aircraft in the area of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXboperation of unsuppressed air defense.
      1. +1
        4 November 2022 22: 15
        it won’t come to anyone, except for a couch expert and players of Internet shooters, even rooks and turntables don’t fly close to strong points, not to mention dryers, so there is very little use of free-fall bombs, although when suppressing and firing at platoon strong points of the first echelon they are very efficient.
  32. 0
    4 November 2022 13: 02
    Yeah ... gunships are certainly cool, flying along the border and hitting from a cannon ... but patrol planes, even in such a fantastic version, cannot be defeated in NWO.
    In my opinion, hoping and creating a prodigy is not the right judgment! For a convincing victory in the NMD, we need an army that Comrade Serdyukov slaughtered!
    More soldiers, tanks, planes, artillery! And spare parts for them and ammunition! We need QUANTITY!
    We must understand that the war is already underway and it is necessary to create new weapons, but it is too late to hope for it in the already ongoing war. While we collect thousands of Lancets, Geraniums and Krasnopoles, we will have to give the enemy not only Kherson, but also Belgorod with Kursk, and at the same time Rostov!
    This does not mean that we do not need this new weapon, we need it and even very much so! But to win, it was necessary to prepare all this in advance! In 2014, when Strelkov was not given troops to defend Slavyansk! Then it was necessary to think about Krasnopoles, Lancets, Geraniums. Make T90m in large quantities, Malki!
    But we didn't do it all! They screwed up. And any superweapon, super guns, spikes and spikes will definitely not change anything.
    There is a good old method. Surround and force surrender! And for this we need to exceed the number of what we have. Create a powerful group in Belarus and Kherson. Cut off the blood supply to the fascist reptile, cutting off her path from Poland and by sea through Odessa. Only Romania will remain, but we will get there! We have people for this! in a country with 145 million people, at least 5 million men will be typed! But it is important to arm these forces!
  33. +1
    4 November 2022 13: 04
    Quote: Not the fighter
    at once from ANY air defense

    The thought is correct, but in Russian it would be better and more correct "by different means of air defense at times", no offense, good luck.
  34. The comment was deleted.
  35. -3
    4 November 2022 13: 16
    An-74M can be gunship and zababahat, but what’s wrong with sticking a new one in your engines and also making a new cargo plane out of it soldier
  36. +4
    4 November 2022 14: 02
    For a young technician, an article. Over our front line, SU-30-34s fly at low level due to enemy air defense, and you drive a barn out of there. We need anti-radar missiles with memorizing the position of the emitter, to suppress air defense, and height will help from needles and stingers.
  37. -3
    4 November 2022 14: 14
    the idea of ​​the author is nonsense. to engage in constant alteration of the aircraft, to the left-right, the game is complete. really doesn’t know about the IL-114top. such a version with modern electronics and pturs to the "heap" would be very useful. and let me remind the critics how the Amer versions of our fighters were shot in Syria. there is always a place to use such a device. Moreover, they do not need to be riveted by the thousands.
  38. The comment was deleted.
  39. +4
    4 November 2022 15: 00
    To put on such a pepelats is special for the author to make and put him there - and to the front! If even earlier he does not kill the sibyaapsten
    1. +1
      4 November 2022 17: 02
      It is cheaper to build a wall on abandoned tracks. And a cart for the author. feel
  40. +6
    4 November 2022 15: 11
    Mr. Shpakovsky, log in!! And don't tell me it's a different person, the Master's hand can be seen right away!! ))
    In general, of course, it’s funny, yes, especially delivered about the rationale for the LEFT and RIGHT location of the guns: therefore, these planes fly along the entire front (already frenzy), towards each other, fire at the enemy with their own side, but at the end point, then each of them must TURN AROUND, on 180 bitch degrees to fly back, right? And then their weapons will already be directed at their own: that is, the flight back goes empty))))
    God, what am I doing, trying to logically comprehend the idea of ​​a GENIUS !!)))
    1. 0
      4 November 2022 17: 42
      Nah, they fly in eights so as not to shoot at each other
  41. 0
    4 November 2022 15: 47
    Almighty, to the one who is responsible for the Air Force, tell me that the disease has appeared.
  42. +1
    4 November 2022 17: 00
    It’s easier to look in storage for something ancient capable of carrying a FAB500 paska or one FAB-5000 \ FAB-9000 and bombing from 10 km.
    Well, or take one of the newer large bombers, if you don’t feel sorry for it (like almost everyone is now missile carriers).
    One fig so that the S-300 will reach out, but the needles / stingers will not.
    As a result, the "gun ship (aircraft)" - these are anti-Papuan troops are obtained, it is pure to kill those who have neither an aircraft (theoretically, if it is without cover, it can almost be shot down with a biplane), nor air defense.
  43. +3
    4 November 2022 17: 39
    Especially for the author, I propose to put a large-caliber cannon that shoots backwards so that the recoil creates jet thrust. Engines and fuel are not needed for such an aircraft, but a supply of shells is needed, especially blanks. First, the plane fires several blank shots for takeoff. Occasionally firing blanks, the gunship flies to the target and turns around, at the same time revealing firing points. And then he shoots back from the adversaries already in combat, using the recoil to return home. Well, and, yes, the author is at the helm am
  44. +1
    4 November 2022 18: 37
    ******************* (pardon the expression)
    What is this ha prodigy ...
    "we mount the engines on the right wing - both weapons and engines are placed on the left!"
    This nifiga will not fly ... It will fly, somehow, but this is not accurate and the pilot is hemorrhagic .......
    Do you know what is raznotyag in piloting? And here are TWO engines and on one side of the axis of the aircraft ...
  45. +1
    4 November 2022 18: 51
    [quote] Moreover, large volumes inside the fuselage and powerful engines that produce a lot of energy are quite capable of providing power to a combat anti-missile laser! [/ quote
    The author's picky grass
  46. +1
    4 November 2022 19: 16
    fire support from the air on an ongoing basis, which is carried out by special gunship aircraft
    I touched, in the comments. I received an ignore from some, and arrogant teachings of "specialists" from others. We were desperately in need of aircraft worth hundreds and hundreds of millions, with record speeds. They are urgently needed to jump over the airfield, quickly launch missiles and immediately land before they are shot down. Of course, someone will say that a launcher for a hundred thousand rubles can do the same much faster and better, but specialists know better. And if, during this super-complex maneuver, the pilots are also killed, then it’s quite good, right?
    And now, just look, everything has changed! Is it possible somehow to do this without sacrificing people's lives? Or not? Or is it necessary - to put more, and then reluctantly admit, they say, yes, it seems they were wrong. Listen, how many should be sacrificed in order to start listening to the mind? How many funerals does each "epiphany" cost?
  47. 0
    4 November 2022 19: 30
    Rinse your eyes with holy water... It must be such a flight of fancy. The talents of the author and for peaceful purposes ...
  48. +2
    4 November 2022 19: 34
    The author is a liar, a spy and a provocateur! There was also a Soviet "ganship" (!): IL-114TOP ... even in the project!

    Crew - 2 people, attendants - 4 people, takeoff weight - 23500 kg, maximum payload - 6500 kg, operating speed - 300-350 km / h, maximum speed - 500 km / h, flight range - 900 km, ceiling - 7600 m, engine power - 2 TVD TV7-117S 2500 hp each, takeoff run - 1360 m, weight of the Nona installation with 90 rounds of ammunition - 4170 kg, weight of the 2A42 installation with 1100 rounds of ammunition - 1476 kg, weight of the sighting and sighting equipment - 500 kg.
    If they wanted to, they would!
    1. 0
      8 November 2022 22: 04
      Now there are no conditions for the appearance of such aircraft in Russia.
  49. -1
    4 November 2022 19: 35
    Bullshit. To drive camels across the desert, this artillery is good. To have not ephemeral, but real support is to keep HUNDREDS of such airplanes at the front with a length of a thousand kilometers. Suitable for show. Especially if these units are commanded by the sons of generals. Orders will be transported to them on trucks.
  50. +2
    4 November 2022 19: 44
    Quote: exo
    Article, not for VO level

    The article is quite worthy to receive a fee. There are many beeches. There is a line payment.
  51. 0
    4 November 2022 19: 51
    “I also had one like that - I made wings.
    - Oh well.
    “I put him on a barrel of gunpowder, let him fly.”©
    laughing
  52. +2
    4 November 2022 20: 37
    This flying gunship was created to chase barmalei who have nothing but a machine gun.
  53. +1
    4 November 2022 20: 37
    A flight of fancy, not limited by technical knowledge. I couldn't finish reading this nonsense.
  54. 0
    4 November 2022 21: 07
    For the conflict in Ukraine, such an aircraft is completely useless. It is used where there is no air defense. And in Ukraine it will last until the first flight.
  55. 0
    4 November 2022 22: 15
    How much does this monster cost, 100-200 million dollars? Do you want constant pressure on the enemy? We rivet an analogue of the Il10 in a modern version with a price 500-1000 times cheaper and get complete suppression of the enemy, fortunately there is no saturation of troops with guns of 23 or more calibers, plus a means against UAVs.
  56. The comment was deleted.
  57. The comment was deleted.
  58. 0
    4 November 2022 23: 34
    Nooo, of course you need a ganship. But definitely not for SVO. And for operations like Syria, when the enemy does not have developed air defense and engineering support.

    But developing a special aircraft as a gunship is a crazy idea for creating a “golden” aircraft.
    After all, the need for such ganships amounts to a couple of dozen. Imagine carrying out entire design work from the production of aircraft with so many specific designs, and all to create, well, a MAXIMUM of 30-40 aircraft.
    That’s why gunships are created based on existing models.
  59. 0
    5 November 2022 00: 11
    If he doesn't get enough MANPADS, he'll get a Buk or M-300.
    By the way, at a range at which MANPADS cannot reach, the targets will have to be examined through a small telescope, and in order to cover them, shells will have to be fired hundreds of kilograms - and who knows where they will hit due to dispersion, even at a target the size of a house.
    In general, it doesn't matter.
  60. 0
    5 November 2022 12: 56
    yeah, fly airplanes along the front and chatter with machine guns from a height of 1-2 km, everything is clear. True, the Ukrainian Armed Forces, unlike the Vietnamese with their machine guns, have full-fledged air defense systems. Which a heavy transporter will definitely not be able to dodge or fight off. Plus the fighters are still not running out. But on transport ships (also in gunship mode) the crews are large, and catapults are not provided. In total, an expensive mass grave is expected with a minimum of efficiency. But it’s impressive, there’s no denying it.
    Bravo, author!
  61. The comment was deleted.
  62. 0
    5 November 2022 13: 25
    Here in the Northern Military District fighters fly with caution at their speed and maneuverability, but the author wants to hang such a low-speed barn over the battlefield. Air defense, if there is one, will land without any options, but it will be suitable for natives with bows.
  63. 0
    5 November 2022 13: 48
    For the author’s ideas to have at least some value, the smallest thing is missing - to confiscate all air defense systems from the enemy. And then everything that is written beyond the third sentence could be read.
  64. 0
    5 November 2022 16: 58
    I wonder where the author of this opus gets something so flamboyant? I want too! laughing
  65. The comment was deleted.
  66. The comment was deleted.
  67. The comment was deleted.
  68. 0
    5 November 2022 20: 41
    Or you can also have an airship with a pedal propulsion and made of a radio-transparent shell. And there are crossbowmen with optical and thermal imaging sights, and on a cloudy night.
    Although... even Jules Verne in “The Extraordinary Expedition of Barsak” had it even cooler!
    Jules, Verne!
  69. +1
    5 November 2022 21: 29
    Author ? What were you smoking? Nowadays even rooks shoot from cabrio, and you are talking about gunship. Nowadays suicide bombers have no options. Gunship is good at chasing partisans who do not have any air defense.
  70. The comment was deleted.
  71. +2
    6 November 2022 22: 39
    If the Su34 cannot bomb Ukraine calmly from 5-6000m with the help of Hephaestus..... what can a gunship do? Is the C130 even original?
  72. 0
    7 November 2022 10: 26
    If we consider the use of any weapons in the Northern Military District, then it must meet several criteria
    -relevance
    -efficiency/cost ratio
    - speed of development and implementation in the aircraft
    Gunship with KAZ does not go away at all.
  73. -2
    7 November 2022 17: 03
    I hope the author will be in the first crew of this mass grave.
  74. The comment was deleted.
  75. 0
    8 November 2022 09: 13
    Yes, no gunships are needed in this war with a neighbor. The necessary adjustable projectiles, RZSO missiles, with an accuracy of ±2-3 meters, and a range of 100-150 km. We need adjustable aerial bombs gliding at the same 100-150 km. We need more LMUR. Lancets and geraniums, Orlans and copters, preferably for each company, or even platoon.
    And gunships, in conditions where even Su-34 and Su-35 with all the Khibiny, etc. they don’t rise above 100 meters, using heavy aircraft is not even a mistake, it’s a crime.
  76. 0
    8 November 2022 11: 11
    With such a MANPADS-rich defense of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, even high-speed fighters and armored helicopters operate from maximum range.
    Is he really a reasonable person?
    may think that a transport plane with guns will not be destroyed on its first flight to the line of combat contact.
  77. 0
    8 November 2022 14: 09
    They will shoot you down on the second day of flights... or maybe right away, the saturation of air defense in the conflict zone is high
  78. 0
    9 November 2022 00: 30
    If I'm not mistaken, the Americans have "gunships" assigned to the Special Operations Forces... there is a specific concept of use...
  79. 0
    9 November 2022 01: 13
    Gunships were created to fight an enemy who did not have an air defense system. Like the Basmachi in Syria on trucks with machine guns. If there is air defense, then a conventional aircraft the size of a Hercules will be shot down on the very first flight, and perhaps by mistake.
  80. 0
    12 November 2022 19: 57
    the author burns, of course, in Vietnam the tactics of using air defense systems were just becoming, firstly, and secondly, air defense systems have stepped far forward now and a transport aircraft over the battlefield will hold out exactly until it enters the enemy’s air defense missile zone, and given that this is a transport aircraft, it will make sharp maneuvers will not be able to implement, in short, another nonsense
  81. 0
    24 November 2022 12: 58
    Nonsense. Gunships were invented because there was no UAV spotter-gunner.
  82. The comment was deleted.
  83. DO
    0
    19 December 2022 16: 56
    Such an aircraft today can be used as a carrier of inexpensive drones made literally from packaging cardboard or foam plastic to hit targets directly on the battlefield! The cheapest video camera, a cumulative warhead from an RPG grenade, an electric motor with a propeller and a battery - that’s practically all. After all, he won’t have to take off on his own.
    In fact, it will be a motor glider that can be dropped from the gunship to hit visible targets, which the 100-mm gun simply does not have enough range to shoot at, and it will be risky to enter enemy territory due to possible fire resistance.

    Such a “glider” could be the mass-produced and therefore cheap Lancet-1 with an increased warhead mass due to a lighter battery.
    After all, he won’t have to take off on his own!
  84. The comment was deleted.
  85. 0
    26 December 2022 17: 29
    VO has finally turned into some kind of clown gay parade: either an air-launched red one or a gunship. Tin
  86. The comment was deleted.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"