“A real strike fist”: the foreign press pointed out the use of “troikas” of aircraft by the Russian Aerospace Forces during bombing

51
“A real strike fist”: the foreign press pointed out the use of “troikas” of aircraft by the Russian Aerospace Forces during bombing

Russian aviation is using an increasing number of guided bombs. As Ukrainian observers note, in one day, February 29, the Russian Aerospace Forces dropped 152 MPK/UMPK. 30 long-range bombs flew to the village of Tonenkoye alone.

Guided bombs are accurate enough and the Russians have a lot of them to launch massive attacks on Ukrainian ground forces

- says Pucará Defensa.



As indicated, such a rapid deployment of a large number of MPCs/UMPCs is explained by two reasons. Firstly, the mass production of flight correction kits, which makes it possible to convert not only an increasing number of standard high-explosive bombs FAB-250M-62 and FAB-500M-62, but also cluster bomb units such as RBK-500 and OFAB-500.

Secondly, MPC/UMPK were deployed not only on the Su-34, but also on older Su-24s, due to which the number of aircraft capable of using them sharply increased. At the same time, there is no evidence yet of the use of Su-25 attack aircraft or Su-35 fighters for bombing, although this can be expected.

The main strike group of the Aerospace Forces is currently a “troika” of aircraft: a pair of Su-24 or Su-34, accompanied by one Su-35

- noted in a foreign publication.

It is explained that each Su-24 and Su-34 bomber carries 4 MPK/UMPK, and the Su-35 is equipped with 1-2 Kh-31 anti-radar missiles, as well as means of combating air targets: 1-2 long-range R-37M missiles, 2 medium-range RVV-AE/R-77-1 missiles and 2 short-range R-73M missiles.

One such formation [link] deploys about 8 MPK/UMPK, and also has the ability to simultaneously destroy two Ukrainian radars and protect against any Ukrainian Armed Forces interceptors. Overall, this is a real punch fist.

- a conclusion is made in the publication.

51 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +12
    2 March 2024 21: 38
    It's a pity that the Su-17 was cut up. There would have been a fist of 4-5 planes and they would have crushed it all at once. If you knew about the SVO, then the Mig-27 would be useful, taken out of storage like the T-62 and even Mig-23 tanks. Well, they could have been converted into disposable drones, and then CSOs would have been killed, stuffed with demilitarizers.
    1. +4
      2 March 2024 22: 28
      Yes, they were good cars. We're damn short of cheap front-line bombers. There is no need to write them down as “one-roof”
      1. +8
        3 March 2024 01: 24
        Quote: Serhio250381
        Yes, they were good cars.
        That's exactly what they were.
        Quote: Serhio250381
        There is no need to write them down as “one-route”
        Already written off at zero time. And what were the options in the 90s and even zero? There wasn’t even enough money for conservation, and Russia doesn’t include anything like Arizona. This is where you can leave the plane in an open field, and for many years neither corrosion will corrode it (zero air humidity, and precipitation is not every year), nor rodents will gnaw it, nor insects (in English bug) will short circuit the electronics. And after a couple of winters under the Russian snows without maintenance, any aircraft is at best suitable for overhaul, but rather for decommissioning.
        1. -3
          3 March 2024 01: 42
          Don't write it off, that's an option
          1. +7
            3 March 2024 01: 57
            Well, they didn’t dispose of it, but what next? There is no one to serve, nowhere, and most importantly - nothing. There’s not really anything to preserve it for, and there’s nowhere to store it. Leave it as is, out in the open? So in a couple of years they will still be suitable only for disposal, but it will cost more, because everything that can rust will rust, and of that which cannot, a considerable part will also rust, will rust through, become stuck, or will somehow complicate disassembly and will reduce the value of leftovers even as scrap metal. These are not tanks that will not rust for half a century. The only option was to use it right then, but can you imagine Yeltsin, who launched the Northern Military District against what at that time seemed to be still friendly and fraternal, although already Bandera’s Ukraine? Me not.
            1. 0
              3 March 2024 02: 20
              And then service it, like our other planes, helicopters, tanks and other weapons.
              Yeltsin began his SVO. The first Chechen war is called
              1. +3
                3 March 2024 02: 33
                Quote: Serhio250381
                And then service it, like our other planes, helicopters, tanks and other weapons.

                What kind of shisha????????????? Moreover, the then Mercedes Pasha needed these shishi to purchase vehicles in then friendly Germany in accordance with his nickname.
                1. 0
                  3 March 2024 14: 25
                  Those that contained all the rest of our equipment and aircraft
        2. 0
          4 March 2024 09: 20
          Nagan, I agree with you. I can add from myself how in the USSR for decades all military equipment was stored in the open air or in unheated hangars at best. Sometimes this property was in the custody of civilian enterprises under the 2nd Division and had to be inspected annually and even undergo field deployment exercises. We had this with army communications equipment RRL (R-406), which by the early 90s was a complete anachronism and it was impossible to imagine that it would be used in a real war. But what costs did our storage enterprises incur, excluding hundreds of cars from the real sector of the economy and all of them simply rotting in warehouses.
          I can also remember the storage bases for old submarines, for example in Sov. Harbors, with dozens of boats of the C-613 project, which they tried to maintain in working order. Some even had to do conscript service on these boats chained to the shore. Although everyone understood that they would not play any role in the event of a real war. Storage costs were enormous and even the officers agreed that it would be better to write everything off and use the saved money to build an extra submarine of a new project.
        3. 0
          7 March 2024 18: 32
          For some reason, Bandera’s followers did not write them off, but kept them in storage. Satellite images showed how many vehicles were and are parked at their airfields. And now we wonder why they still don’t run out of planes.
      2. 0
        3 March 2024 05: 23
        The SU-17M4 was written off practically new. They can fly and fly. They would be useful now.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. +1
      3 March 2024 13: 01
      Firstly, “I wish I had known the purchase...” And, secondly, storage, restoration, retraining of pilots, servants, spare parts, etc.... it’s still a gimmick.
    4. 0
      3 March 2024 14: 56
      However, even the Su-24 is practically invisible at the front. I haven't seen any videos of them being used. Somehow our generals don’t really want to use old equipment, which could still serve well.
      1. 0
        4 March 2024 20: 09
        The Su 24 does not have a reb, which is probably why it is not in service.
    5. 0
      3 March 2024 19: 55
      Who cut? Aliens?
    6. 0
      4 March 2024 20: 00
      The su17 won't have a reb system, and the plane isn't a tank, it won't be possible to get out if it breaks down every five minutes. Thirdly, suggest horse attacks, they were effective, and the idea is right
  2. +3
    2 March 2024 21: 39
    Beauty. More planes, beautiful and different)
  3. +5
    2 March 2024 21: 40
    Good hunting, guys.
  4. +1
    2 March 2024 21: 40
    the carousel is very good, take more, throw further and most importantly at the target, while not forgetting to insure each other, this cannot but rejoice, the main thing is that the enemy gets into it
  5. +1
    2 March 2024 21: 41
    With this fist, hit the fascists in the face! And at the same time, Western fascists will think again
  6. +1
    2 March 2024 21: 43
    Judging from the article, in the third year of the North Military District they finally realized that bombers and fighter-bombers, when carrying out a mission, require fighter cover. At this rate, the A-50 will also begin to be covered in the fifth year.
    1. +13
      2 March 2024 21: 52
      Quote: Vladimir M
      Judging from the article, in the third year of the North Military District they finally realized that bombers and fighter-bombers, when carrying out a mission, require fighter cover. At this rate, the A-50 will also begin to be covered in the fifth year.

      What does this have to do with the third year? As the umpk went en masse, so did these triplets appear. And there was cover, even for single bombers, by fighters almost from the beginning of the Northern Military District.
      1. -1
        2 March 2024 21: 55
        And before the UMPC came on a massive scale, weren’t bomber aircraft used?
        1. +1
          2 March 2024 21: 55
          Quote: Vladimir M
          And before the UMPC came on a massive scale, weren’t bomber aircraft used?

          As the umpk went en masse, so did these troikas appear. These are my words
          1. -3
            2 March 2024 21: 59
            And my words were that in the third year of the Northern Military District the bombers began to hide behind fighters. The good news is that, even in the third year, they realized the need for cover. There was just no cover for single or group aircraft.
            1. +6
              2 March 2024 22: 04
              Quote: Vladimir M
              And my words were that in the third year of the Northern Military District the bombers began to hide behind fighters. The good news is that, even in the third year, they realized the need for cover.

              I will repeat my comment for you:
              Quote: Leshak
              Quote: Vladimir M
              Judging from the article, in the third year of the North Military District they finally realized that bombers and fighter-bombers, when carrying out a mission, require fighter cover. At this rate, the A-50 will also begin to be covered in the fifth year.

              What does this have to do with the third year? As the umpk went en masse, so did these triplets appear. And there was cover, even for single bombers, by fighters almost from the beginning of the Northern Military District.

              I’m so lucky to live next to a combat airfield and planes take off above the roof of my house, the airfield is less than a kilometer from the garden. Here, willy-nilly, you see what types of planes take off. request
              1. -3
                2 March 2024 22: 16
                It's good that you live next to a combat airfield and can see everything. But bombers and fighters are different aircraft, have different performance characteristics, and require different times to arrive in the area. And they won’t take off together to complete the same task. They take off at different times, but arrive at the mission area at the same time.
                1. +3
                  2 March 2024 22: 21
                  Of course, you know better... I won’t argue. But after the start of the air defense, both bombers and cover are based at the same airfield.
                  Thank you for the interview. I've already said more than I should say online. hi
                  1. -1
                    2 March 2024 22: 22
                    And thank you for the conversation.
                2. +4
                  2 March 2024 22: 29
                  Do fighter jets have to fly at maximum speed? And our bombers are not slow-moving corn bombers.
                  1. +5
                    2 March 2024 22: 39
                    Quote: Tagan
                    Do fighter jets have to fly at maximum speed? And our bombers are not slow-moving corn bombers.

                    I agree with you. The Presidential aircraft somehow got along with the Su 35 on a recent trip abroad, and the SU 34 and SU 35 will definitely not get lost. Yes
    2. +3
      3 March 2024 05: 04
      Т
      Quote: Vladimir M
      Judging from the article, in the third year of the North Military District they finally realized that bombers and fighter-bombers, when carrying out a mission, require fighter cover. At this rate, the A-50 will also begin to be covered in the fifth year.
      They worked in threes from the very beginning of the operation, and not only in threes. Stormtroopers also always worked under the roof of fighters. Likewise, the A 50 is ALWAYS covered by fighters. It must be understood that the fighter’s task in this cover is to protect against enemy attack from the air, search for and destroy air defense systems. A fighter in no way can protect bombers from enemy MANPADS, which in most cases are used against attack aircraft. In addition, fighters are tasked with illuminating the air situation; the avionics of modern fighters allows them to see it in sufficient detail. The few successes of the enemy’s air defense in the air were mainly due to miscalculations in planning strikes and, in my opinion, almost all of them lie on the conscience of the headquarters.
    3. 0
      3 March 2024 13: 03
      Yes .... The Ministry of Defense did not interview local experts before the start of the SVO ... now it is suffering ...
    4. 0
      4 March 2024 20: 03
      If you haven’t used it before, it means it wasn’t possible; if you don’t know about the use of a50, it doesn’t mean that they aren’t used.
    5. 0
      4 March 2024 20: 23
      Judging by the article, Western media decided to explain why their HPO is bullshit. Because the Russians suddenly decided to fly with four.
  7. +8
    2 March 2024 22: 16
    Quote: Vladimir M
    And my words were that in the third year of the Northern Military District the bombers began to hide behind fighters. The good news is that, even in the third year, they realized the need for cover. There was just no cover for single or group aircraft.

    These are your inventions.
    1. -1
      3 March 2024 13: 06
      This is not "fiction". A non-comrade throws guano onto the fan either for the owner’s money or according to his own character, just to release a cloud of miasma...
  8. -10
    2 March 2024 22: 43
    Ordinary bombs - what doesn’t they throw? - and what is this strange combination of three?
    1. +1
      3 March 2024 02: 18
      And to “throw conventional bombs” you need to enter the enemy’s air defense coverage area. Which I don't really want.

      Well, to follow up - why the hell would the Su-34 be a bomber (bomber)? According to the entire classification, it is a firebomber (fighter-bomber, or, as they say now, “multi-role fighter”). Yes, it is 3+ tons heavier and less maneuverable, but if you need to fire a missile from a distance, it can also shoot down air targets. The only question is what to hang on it. It used to be that classes of aircraft were somehow separated. And now the whole division is from the suspension of weapons.
      1. +1
        3 March 2024 04: 40
        Quote from: DirtyLiar
        or as they say now -

        "tactical strike aircraft"
        1. 0
          4 March 2024 20: 28
          I know a tactical bomber, a front-line bomber, a strategic one, also a tactical aircraft - I don’t know. How is that?
          1. 0
            5 March 2024 03: 35
            Quote: Negrobank8
            tactical aircraft - I don’t know. How is that?

            A tactical strike aircraft, one that is capable of both supporting the actions of its ground forces and navy, with bombing strikes, and seizing and maintaining air superiority over the battlefield and performing air defense missions
    2. -1
      3 March 2024 13: 09
      Kostya woke up, didn’t strain his brain and immediately trampled the clave.... and what he trampled, he himself didn’t understand, not to mention the literacy of what he trampled laughing
  9. +1
    3 March 2024 08: 18
    It’s a pity they didn’t save the MiG-27, now they would have shown their effectiveness...
    And a lot of other things are a pity...
  10. +1
    3 March 2024 13: 29
    Those who like to sigh about old planes. In order to bring back the good old models, the planes themselves are not enough. Where will you get pilots? An airplane is not a tank or a car. Today's pilots have spent a lot of time mastering current aircraft models, and to transfer to old ones they need to undergo retraining so as not to require the capabilities of new models from them. It's time and money. Train new pilots? It takes even longer and is more expensive. And it’s unlikely that young people will agree to fly “oldies” for the rest of their lives.
    1. 0
      4 March 2024 20: 31
      Tu 160 and Tu 95 are also old, not even updated.
      1. 0
        5 March 2024 11: 49
        Even they are modernized. And we are not talking about “strategists”.
  11. 0
    5 March 2024 17: 10
    Can you borrow bombs from the Koreans?
  12. 0
    5 March 2024 17: 20
    They go like a pig. Like the Tefton knights.
  13. 0
    7 March 2024 14: 28
    UMPC is the main caliber of the SVO. And it's good that we have it
  14. 0
    7 March 2024 18: 40
    Each Su-24 and Su-34 bomber carries 4 MPK/UMPK

    It is unlikely that the Su-24 carries 4 MPK/UMPK. Most likely just a couple. 34 began to appear on the Su-4.