Military Review

Soviet fighter-bombers in battle. Part 1

32



In the 1967 year, ten years after the start of production, export deliveries of the specialized Su-7B fighter-bomber began in an export version of the Su-7BMK.

Soviet fighter-bombers in battle. Part 1


The planes were delivered both to the Warsaw Pact allies and to the “developing countries of socialist orientation”. In terms of deliveries, the Su-7 was inferior only to the “aviation bestseller” MiG-21.



One of the first new attack aircraft was received by Egypt, whose president, Hero of the Soviet Union, Gamal Abdel Nasser, announced the construction of "Arab socialism" in his country.
The first batch of 14 aircraft that had just been launched was delivered by sea in April 1967. Soon a full-fledged air regiment was deployed at the Egyptian aerodrome Faida.



But the Egyptian pilots failed to properly master these vehicles, during the "six-day war" almost all of them were destroyed by the Israeli aviation, along with aircraft under Israeli bombs, many pilots died. Several surviving Egyptian Su-7BMKs made sorties to support their troops, however, without much success.

After the end of hostilities, an “air bridge” was organized to compensate for large-scale losses from the USSR. Aircraft taken from Soviet aircraft parts were transferred over the air by VTA aircraft. A year after the end of the “six-day war,” Egyptian aviation replenished its strength already totaled fifty Su-7B. In addition to Egypt, combat aircraft of this type were delivered to Algeria and Syria.



The machines did not stand idle at the airfields, and in the course of the ongoing Arab-Israeli confrontation, several Su-7Bs were lost. However, as the Arabs acquired combat experience, there was success.
20 July 1969, during the “war of attrition”, eight Egyptian Su-7BMKs attacked anti-aircraft artillery and radar positions in the Ismailia and Romal areas. The combat load included two FAB-500s each, the aircraft also carried PTB. In the afternoon, the blow was struck by each of the links in its target at the same time, the enemy managed to be taken by surprise, and he did not even have time to open the return fire. All planes bombed from the first approach, reaching direct hits, and successfully returned to the base. In total, from 20 July 1969 of the year to April 1970 of the year, Egyptian fighter-bombers performed more than 70 bombing attacks.



In 1973, with the beginning of the “Doomsday War”, the full power of the Arab coalition military aviation fell upon the Israelis. Fighter bombers delivered highly effective missile and bomb attacks from low altitudes. In some combat formations with the Su-7B, the newest Su-20 (the first export version of the Su-17) operated.

In addition to the Egyptian pilots, Su-7B piloted by Algerians, Libyans and Syrians.
In this war, Israel suffered very high losses, so only about 30% of combat aircraft remained combat-ready in the Air Force. Now the Americans had to build an “air bridge” in order to save their ally from defeat. Because of the loss of initiative, the Arabs failed to win, Israel survived by paying a very high price.

The Syrian fighter-bombers participating in the hostilities of 1973 showed themselves quite well. The main ammunition used for striking at troops and equipment was the OFAB-250-270 bombs and the OFAB-250Sh assault bombs, which made it possible to attack from low altitudes, as well as NAR types S-5 and S-24. The attacks were carried out from a horizontal flight or a gentle dive from a height of 100-200 m. Against tanks and other armored vehicles, very effective RBK-250 bomb cartridges were used with small-sized bombs of cumulative action PTAB-2,5 and S-3K and S-5K missiles.

Su-7BMK made a raid on Haifa, attacking the refinery with incendiary bombs ZAB-250-200 and high-explosive fragmentation bombs OFAB-250-270. The task was accomplished without losses, having passed the route at extremely low altitudes and, after executing the slide with a set of 200 meters, dropping bombs from horizontal flight.

Syrian aviation managed to do without losses for reasons of non-combat nature - errors in piloting technique, loss of orientation and abandonment of cars due to the complete development of fuel, which was a real scandal among the Egyptians, who had lost two dozen planes by their own miscalculations. The Syrian pilots were better prepared and had a higher motivation for the combat mission compared to the Egyptians. In general, Su-7BMK losses were significantly higher than those of the MiG-21. This is explained by the fact that it was the enemy air defense systems, interrogators and interceptors that were targeted against the attack machines.

Combat service "Su-seventh" in Indian aviation has become one of the most prominent pages in the biography of the aircraft. The interest of the Indian Air Force in updating the fleet and increasing its strike potential had a very reasonable explanation in view of the tense relations with neighboring Pakistan, which had continued to fester for two decades. In 1967, an agreement was concluded with the USSR on the delivery to 90 of Su-7BMK combat aircraft and Su-7UMK “sparks” to India.



After a year and a half, the Indian Air Force had six squadrons of modern supersonic fighter-bombers in service, significantly increasing their strike potential. The purpose of the Su-7BMK was determined by direct aviation support, actions in the operational-tactical depth behind the front line, the fight against enemy aircraft and tactical reconnaissance. According to our instructors, Indian pilots were considered to be one of the best professional pilots in the developing countries of Asia and Africa. The level of training was quite high. Indian pilots managed very well to master their cars to the beginning of the next Indo - Pakistani war 1971 of the year.



3 December 1971, the Indian Su-7BMK, first attacked airfields in Western Pakistan during a night flight. During several raids, 14 Pakistani combat aircraft were destroyed on the ground, with the loss of one Su-7BMK.


Charging guns HP-30 on the Su-7BMK Air Force India


During this conflict, the Indian pilots have demonstrated that the drums “dry” may well stand up for themselves in air combat, having conducted several fights with the Pakistani “Sabra” and F-6.

Later, with strikes on Su-7BMK airfields, they were reoriented to provide support to ground forces, having achieved quite good results. In addition to strikes against accumulations of troops, armored vehicles and artillery, a significant part of the sorties were made to disrupt communications, as well as to conduct tactical photo reconnaissance in the interests of high command. In accordance with the tasks, high-explosive bombs of caliber 500 kg were widely used here. Very effectively on the Su-7BMK used large-caliber missiles C-24, suspended by two on the plane. They attacked railroad trains and hydraulic structures.



Two weeks of fighting ended in the crushing defeat of the Pakistani army. Indian Su-7BMK destroyed about 150 tanks, 70 trains, a lot of watercraft of a different class, bombed railway junctions, objects of oil industry and energy. In general, at least 90% of tanks lost by the Pakistani army were destroyed by Indian aircraft. Losses Su-7BMK accounted for 19 aircraft. After the war, the Su-7 remained among the main strike machines of the Indian Air Force.

By the time Soviet troops entered Afghanistan, there was an 24 Su-7BMK at the Bagram air base. As the situation in the country worsened, these aircraft began to be attracted to attack the Mujahideen detachments. However, Afghan pilots were not too eager to fight, often dropping bombs anywhere.

At the same time, they flew out of habit without any maps, without particularly troubling themselves with navigation and navigator calculations and being visually guided by their signs of the terrain. During one of the sorties at the beginning of November 1979, the target outlined for the Su-7BMK pair lay in the northern areas of Badakhshan. Having missed, they mistakenly worked on Soviet territory, carrying out a bomb attack on a Tajik village near Khorog. In the village bombs destroyed several houses, killing civilians. During the trial, the pilots talked about a misunderstanding and justified themselves by getting lost on a long-distance route.

With the start of deliveries of Su-22M fighter-bombers, they replaced the former Su-7BMK fighters in Bagram, which were withdrawn to Shindand as part of the 335-th mixed aviation regiment, which also included the IL-28 and MiG-21.
The level of flight training at a new place did not become higher, the aircraft often got into flight accidents. Combat missions and targets were usually specified in advance from Kabul, direct air support on call was not practiced, and the general rule was to assign targets at a distance from their troops in order to avoid their covering during missiles, which happened more than once.

When preparing for the flight, they didn’t bother themselves with tactical constructions, at best, assessing the situation from photographs and intelligence and almost paying no attention to the meteorological forecast and radio communications and navigation aids. The success of the case with the characteristic fatalism was considered not very dependent on the efforts made - “as it pleases Allah!”

As aircraft was lost, mostly damaged in flight accidents, replenishment was made from the USSR. Since Su-7BMK was no longer there, the cars of other modifications were transmitted to the Afghans, the least worn out, mostly looking more or less “fresh”, X-NUMX-7's Su-1971BLK. In all, 72 Su-79B type aircraft were transferred to Afghanistan.


Su-Xnumb in Shindand


After the withdrawal of Soviet troops from the country, these aircraft continued to be exploited, took part in several insurrections and rose into the air, at least until 1992, joining the Air Force of the Islamic State of Afghanistan.

Iraqi Su-7B in the amount of 40 units. took an active part in the Iran-Iraq war. By that time, the Iraqi Air Force already had more advanced machines. "Su-seventh" were usually attracted for the direct aviation support of troops and strikes on the enemy’s rear lines.


Su-7B Iraqi Air Force at the US Air Force Base Nellis


Some of them survived until the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, hitting the American air museum as trophies.

In 70-80-s, Soviet fighter bombers embodied all the best of the Soviet aircraft industry. They had a good price-quality ratio, were able to use the widest range of weapons, flight performance met international standards. Not surprisingly, Soviet aircraft of this class enjoyed success in the global arms market.

The first modification of the Su-17, delivered to a foreign customer and who took part in the hostilities was the Su-20. In accordance with the then existing practice, the car had a “degraded” composition of avionics.



In 1973, deliveries of the Su-20 to Egypt and Syria began. Later, Egypt, "having quarreled" with the USSR, sold part of its fighter-bombers of the PRC and the USA, where they were studied as weapon potential adversary. At the end of 70, Egypt applied its Su-20 in a border conflict with Libya.

For the first time, Su-20 fighter-bombers were used in combat conditions in 1973 during the Arab-Israeli war. By the beginning of the military operations, the Syrian air forces had 15 aircraft of this type. Already on the first day of the conflict, 6 of October, 12 Syrian Su-20 under the cover of eight MiG-21 attacked the control center of Israeli aircraft "Hebron". Later, 6 and 7 of October, Su-20 operated groups of 6-12 aircraft, hitting targets deep in the defense of the Israelis. The aircraft reached the targets at extremely low altitudes, using anti-aircraft maneuvers in height, course and speed. In connection with the increasing opposition of the enemy’s air defense, aviation control centers and radar posts were increasingly chosen as targets for strikes. The main weapon of the Su-20 for defeating the strongholds of the Israelis were the free-falling bombs FAB-500 and FAB-250. Troops and military equipment were hit, as a rule, by the OFAB-250 and RBC-250 high-explosive fragmentation bombs with PTAB-2,5, as well as NAR C-24 and C-5к. The greatest losses fighter-bombers carried during the departure from the target, as well as in repeated visits to the bombing, when the aircraft rose to a height of more than 200 m. During the war, the Syrian Su-20 performed 98 sorties, losing eight aircraft (50% of the original composition). All of them were shot down by anti-aircraft artillery or air defense missiles. Syrian Su-20 did not enter air battles. However, as the experience of combat use in 1967g. An earlier fighter-bomber Su-7B, when meeting with the Israeli "Supermister" or "Phantom" certain chances of success were available. The first Su-20 exceeded in speed, and the second was not inferior in horizontal maneuverability. When meeting with the Mirage pilots were advised not to engage in combat, and to carry out a low-speed speed gap.

The export version of the Su-17М2, received the designation Su-22. At the request of the Ministry of Aviation Industry, it was installed TRD R-29Б-300, used also on the MiG-23BN and MiG-27 aircraft. This ensured the unification of the power plant with the MiGs already present in the air force of many of the allied countries of the USSR. In addition, this engine had a simpler design and, consequently, a lower cost, and also had a greater burden.

The X-22, X-25Л and Р-29 missiles were excluded from the Su-60 armament. The UR X-23 was saved, and the fighter-bomber was equipped with a K-13 rocket for air combat. Provision was made for the possibility of suspending the KKR integrated reconnaissance container (in this case, the aircraft received the Su-22Р index).

Afghanistan has become a serious test for the Su-17. Su-17 was the only Soviet combat aircraft that participated in the Afghan war from beginning to end. The main modifications were Su-17М3 fighter-bomber and Su-17М3Р reconnaissance aircraft. In the first year of the war, early Su-17 and Su-17М were used, and in 1988, Su-17М4 appeared in Afghanistan. The aircraft were used very widely, although in the second half of the war they were somewhat crowded out by the Su-25 attack aircraft.

Based on the experience of the combat use of the aircraft in 1987, a number of improvements were carried out aimed at improving the combat survivability. In particular, 12 launching devices for ASO-2В IR traps were installed on the lower and upper surfaces of the fuselage tail section, and armored plates were mounted in the lower part of the fuselage. At the first stage of the Su-17 combat operations, OFAB-250 bombs, NAR C-5 bombs (they were hit by poorly-defended open targets), as well as more powerful C-24 missiles, which they "worked" on fortified targets.



The reconnaissance Su-17MZ-R and Su-17М4-Р with KKR-1 containers in various configurations were widely used. Aircraft conducted aerial photography in day and night conditions, carried out infrared and radio reconnaissance (identification of enemy radio stations). Subsequently, the scouts began to use the newest thermal imaging complex “Zima”, which has high accuracy and allows detecting such targets as the trail of a passing car or a recently extinguished fire by thermal radiation.

In 1980, the enemy’s air defense capabilities increased markedly. 12,7 and 14,5-mm machine guns appeared in large numbers at the "spirits", which required improvement of tactics of fighter-bomber aircraft, as well as improvement of tactical training of pilots.



In 1981, the scale of the fighting increased further. Instead of insufficiently powerful NAR C-5, more effective C-8, capable of hitting targets from the zone beyond the reach of enemy enemy anti-aircraft machine guns, have become more widely used. Aircraft Su-17 began to be attracted to create debris in the mountains, on enemy caravan tracks (this was done using salvo dumping FAB-250 or FAB-500), as well as “free hunting” for caravans (in this case, the aircraft was usually equipped with two PTB with a capacity of 800 l, two blocks UB-32 or B-8M, two RBC or four NAR C-24). In general, Su-17 showed sufficiently high efficiency and survivability, and the losses that still suffered "Dry", were largely due to errors in the tactics of using fighter-bombers (for example, in 1984, near Kandahar, one of the Su-17 was shot down after the sixth call on the target).

In 1983, the "dushmans" had a new weapon - portable anti-aircraft missile systems (MANPADS) - first our "Strela-2", then the American "Red Ay" and the British "Bloupep" and, finally, the most modern American "Stingers", able to hit the target in the front and rear hemisphere. This made it necessary to raise the combat use of the Su-17, which made the strikes less accurate and increased the consumption of ammunition. Applied technical "news" and the Soviet side, began the use of volume-detonating ammunition (ODAB). They found the use and adjustable bombs with laser-guided, as well as SD X-25L and X-29L.

The Su-20 and Su-22 were operated by the Afghan pilots of the 355 air regiment based in Bagram. However, the aircraft of this division flew not very actively, “from time to time,” despite the fact that its pilots had fairly good training. Two Afghan Su-22s were shot down in 1988 by Pakistani F-16A fighters near the Afghan-Pakistan border, several more aircraft of this type were destroyed by anti-aircraft machine-gun fire and MANPADS. However, almost the main losses of the Afghan regiment suffered not in the air, but on the ground: a group of “mojaheds”, 13 June 1985, bribed guards, penetrated the parking lot and blew up 13 aircraft, including six Su-22М.


Su-22M Air Force DRA


At the end of the 70, the beginning of the 80, Libya received a hundred and fifty fighter jets, MiG-23BN, Su-22 and Su-22М fighter planes.


Libyan Su-22M


Libyan aircraft were used in the 1980-ies during the fighting in Chad. Subsequently, they acted there against the French contingent, several aircraft were destroyed by anti-aircraft artillery fire and the Hok air defense system.

19 August 1981 The two Su-22M Libyan air forces were shot down by American F-14A carrier-based fighters over the Mediterranean. According to the Americans, "Tomkaty" were attacked by Libyan aircraft that used the K-13 UR, in response to that, dodging rockets, struck the impudent Libyans with the impact of the Sidewinders. According to one of the Libyan pilots who took part in this “battle,” Su-22M, who did not intend to attack anyone at all, but who made the usual training flight, were suddenly attacked by the Americans. In general, the idea of ​​attacking F-14 interceptors with the help of fighter-bombers, created entirely for other tasks, looks very ridiculous. If Muammar Kadaffi had really decided to “punish” Americans, he would have chosen a more suitable technique for this — the MiG-21bis, MiG-23, MiG-25P or F.XNNX Mirage fighters, specially designed to fight air targets, having for this purpose the necessary armament and avionics, as well as crews, "trained", primarily on the air, and not on the ground enemy.
Subsequently, almost all Libyan aviation was destroyed on the ground during the civil war.

Based on:
http://vadimvswar.narod.ru/ALL_OUT/AiKOut02/MiG27/MiG27132.htm
http://vadimvswar.narod.ru/ALL_OUT/AiKOut02/MiG27/MiG27142.htm
http://aviapanorama.su/2003/02/istrebitel-bombardirovshhik-su-7b/
http://vadimvswar.narod.ru/ALL_OUT/AiKOut06/Su-7B/Su-7B080.htm
http://voenhronika.ru/
Author:
Articles from this series:
Soviet fighter-bombers in battle. Part 1
Soviet fighter-bombers in battle. Part 2
32 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. invisibility
    invisibility 27 January 2014 08: 38
    +12
    In terms of supply, the Su-7 was second only to the “aviation bestseller” MiG-21.
    Power! That's what you need to strive for! Weakly surpass?
  2. Denis
    Denis 27 January 2014 09: 02
    +3
    In terms of supply, the Su-7 was second only to the “aviation bestseller” MiG-21
    What is not surprising, the machine was what we needed!
    I met the only and infrequent remark about high mileage during take-off and landing.
    So the Arabs have places in the desert before .., in short a lot
    1. Know-nothing
      Know-nothing 27 January 2014 10: 33
      0
      Did you read this?
      http://topwar.ru/29142-aisaev-recenziya-na-knigu-vmarkovskiy-iprihodchenko-pervy
      y-sverhzvukovoy-istrebitel-bombardirovschik-su-7b.html
      1. Gamdlislyam
        Gamdlislyam 27 January 2014 11: 45
        +7
        Alas, dear colleague Dunno, everything is spoken correctly in the link.
        Technicians this aircraft (Su-7B), to put it mildly, did not like. They didn’t talk about him without mats, and during routine maintenance one mate was heard.
        But in the hands of well-trained pilots, it was a formidable car.
        About Su-17 I heard positive reviews from pilots flying in Afghanistan, but the engine was weak for those high-altitude airfields.
        1. Bongo
          27 January 2014 12: 34
          +7
          Quote: Gamdlislyam
          About Su-17 I heard positive reviews from pilots flying in Afghanistan, but the engine was weak for those high-altitude airfields.

          You are absolutely right, but this problem was not only with the "dry". All aircraft engines, on all types of aircraft participating in hostilities, lost thrust in conditions of thin air and high temperatures, which led to an increase in takeoff run and a decrease in combat load.
      2. Letun
        Letun 27 January 2014 13: 47
        +3
        By the way, 20 years ago, I talked with a man who flew the SU-7B, so I still remember the humorous characterization of this aircraft given to him: "Welded the tail to the pipe - we got the Su seven ba" Apparently the machine was really right lol
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 27 January 2014 20: 32
          +2
          Quote: Letun
          By the way, 20 years ago, I talked with a man who flew the SU-7B, so I still remember the humorous characterization of this aircraft given to him: "Welded the tail to the pipe - we got the Su seven ba" Apparently the machine was really right

          By the way, yes, if he looks into the nozzle, then the turbine blades can be seen somewhere in the wing area. That is, the afterburner occupies at least a third of the length of the aircraft.
          1. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 27 January 2014 20: 49
            +3
            Was in Afghanistan 1983-1985. The right half of Afghanistan traveled all over (large cities, strategic directions) - most of the MIG-21 were with allied identification marks, the Su-7B was with the Afghan, the Su-25 was only allied. Other types of aircraft (such as the MiG-23-27, su-24, etc.) did not come across (I am not indifferent to aviation, I would have noticed something new right away).

            In 1985, at Poly Khumri, he was an eyewitness to the approach of an Afghan Su-7B to an emergency landing (helicopter airfield with a strip length of 500 m). He sat on his stomach about 50 meters away from me, then slipped three hundred meters and went through the Mi-6 helicopter, which was trying to leave the strip. Together with additional tanks, the turntable has seven tons of kerosene. From the fire, only the tail and the tips of the blades were visible.
  3. svskor80
    svskor80 27 January 2014 09: 09
    +10
    They handed over their equipment to the Arabs and Afghans almost for free, and for their part, their laziness, unwillingness to learn and master sophisticated equipment only dishonored Russian planes. The contracts must take into account the possibility of pilot control for the aircraft sold.
    1. Canep
      Canep 27 January 2014 09: 14
      +2
      Quote: svskor80
      The contracts must take into account the possibility of pilot control for the aircraft sold.
      The contracts must provide for the training (and subsequent retraining) of pilots at our bases. As well as the exchange of pilot experience.
    2. Denis
      Denis 27 January 2014 10: 21
      +7
      Quote: svskor80
      dishonored Russian planes
      But the enemy appreciated. I don’t know about airplanes, and the Israelis willingly used trophy armored vehicles
      It’s not the technology that is fighting, but the soldier
  4. Turkestan
    Turkestan 27 January 2014 11: 19
    +2
    I would like it when the authors writing about the current plane like SU-17 wrote the full name of the Su-17, Su-17m - Su-17m4 are completely different machines. Various TTD, combat load, sighting navigation and aerobatic complex.
    1. Bongo
      27 January 2014 12: 27
      +4
      I agree, different, but in the text where we are talking about specific machines "ideks" are indicated.
      1. Turkestan
        Turkestan 27 January 2014 16: 31
        0
        Su-17 aircraft began to be used to create blockages in the mountains, on the enemy’s caravan trails (for this, a volley discharge FAB-250 or FAB-500 was used), as well as “free hunting” for caravans (in this case, the aircraft was usually equipped with two PTB with a capacity of 800 l, two blocks UB-32 or B-8M, two RBCs or four NAR S-24). In general, the Su-17 showed quite high efficiency and survivability, and the losses that Sukhoi still suffered were largely due to errors in the tactics of using fighter-bombers (for example, in 1984 near Kandahar one of the Su-17 was shot down after the sixth approach to the target).

        On ordinary Su-17 B-8m blocks were not hung. In 1984, there were no conventional SU-17s in Afghanistan. The only aviation combat regiment that was armed with simple Su-17 aircraft was located in the city of Kizil - Arvat of the Turkmen SSR and at that time did not take part in military operations
        1. Bongo
          28 January 2014 06: 03
          +4
          When the article was written, the information was taken "not from the ceiling", the sources are indicated.
          1. chetbor
            chetbor 22 November 2015 18: 57
            +2
            And it came out of the ceiling, which is sad
  5. Turkestan
    Turkestan 27 January 2014 12: 02
    +2
    Technicians this aircraft (Su-7B), to put it mildly, did not like. They didn’t talk about him without mats, and during routine maintenance one mate was heard.



    Quite right, the technicians spoke and other words are the most harmless ones. PLANE DRY AND THE TECHNICIAN WET yes
  6. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 27 January 2014 12: 20
    +5
    as an conscript, when in 1981 in the GSVG, for the first time I saw SU7b, I thought: how does this pipe fly ??? belay but after the quarantine, during the flights, being directly at the "point" of the CPA, when the couples one after the other went to the sky on afterburner literally a hundred meters from me ... it was something! and then when the "drying" with various pendants went to work at the landfill, they looked very serious! and after half a year, the regiment began to enter the "twenty-fourth", well, those were generally handsome!
  7. misham
    misham 27 January 2014 12: 25
    0
    What is the raid on Haifa ???? 1973 year. Something I’ve never heard of her. Refinery is a tidy target and burns well.
  8. xomaNN
    xomaNN 27 January 2014 15: 43
    +7
    Good article, a lot of factual information. And examples, by the way, of the fact that the same plane in different armies was either an effective winner or incompetently burned on the ground or in the air No. Those. "Learn materiel, Ahmed" lol
    And the Hindu pilots - well done, rolled out the Pakistani Air Force. And it would really seem that Soviet aircraft are bad.
    1. Bongo
      28 January 2014 06: 10
      +3
      The professionalism of the pilots of the Indian Air Force has always been at a high level, they have operated and operate our equipment competently. But in fairness it is worth saying that in the 1971 war of the year, Indians used Canberra and Hunters in addition to our aircraft.
  9. dmitrij.blyuz
    dmitrij.blyuz 27 January 2014 16: 23
    +2
    Well, "Sukhoi" is also "Sukhoi" in Africa!
  10. tnship2
    tnship2 27 January 2014 16: 41
    +4
    Su-17 front worker.
    1. Civil
      Civil 27 January 2014 17: 30
      +5
      The deputy in armament says that there was a normal apparatus. No worse no better.
      1. Kassandra
        Kassandra 8 January 2015 19: 40
        0
        only he with the Su-9 also significantly ahead of his time - at the time of his appearance, only F-104 was a foreign one, absolutely nothing ...
  11. tnship2
    tnship2 27 January 2014 16: 42
    0
    The monument is located in the Primorsky Territory
  12. Irokez
    Irokez 27 January 2014 18: 41
    +3
    In 1983, the GSVG served on the Su-17M4. Good plane. With variable wing geometry, the performance characteristics changed depending on the task. He already had a computer and could go around the ground and, according to the program, go to the target. Cruise missile so to speak. The pilots practiced all sorts of maneuvers and air battles, too, and the moments of pressing the trigger were recorded on the film. In general, a universal aircraft and a bomber and a fighter if, what for themselves stands well, within reason.
  13. samoletil18
    samoletil18 27 January 2014 19: 28
    0
    The article is interesting. WAITING FOR CONTINUE. To author +
  14. Dima
    Dima 27 January 2014 21: 07
    +4
    Americans like to write that their F-15, for example, had no losses in air battles, etc. It is clear that this is propaganda. But, in my opinion, Soviet planes were really not lucky with "foreign operators". I mean those who fought on these planes. These were always the countries of the "third world", which did not know how to use complex equipment and fight on it. Plus the traditional deliveries from the USSR of equipment in a "cut" configuration and the absence (or at least a complete non-delivery to these countries) of electronic warfare equipment and AWACS aircraft. Hence the not a rich list of victories for the same MiG-29. We say that the MiG-29 and Su-27 are the best fighters in the world, based on air combat training and the aerobatic qualities of these aircraft. But we do not have (thank God) examples of real battles of these machines with the same F-15, 16 or 18, all other things being equal - with similar quality pilot training, provision of radar and electronic warfare equipment, with a similar number of aircraft on both sides ... Only then it would be possible to draw conclusions and make "advertising" for one or another aircraft. Of course, the F-15 will have no casualties when it flies in a formation of two dozen of its kind, controlled by trained pilots; with two electronic warfare aircraft with constant support and support from an AWACS aircraft against a pair of enemy MiG-29s, going without all of the above and controlled by pilots with several tens of hours of flight !!! Of course, after this, the Americans proudly declare that their technique is invincible! .. It's a shame that after, probably, the Vietnam War, our technique did not turn out to be on an equal footing with American or Israeli aircraft in terms of everything described above in air battles. In the same Yugoslavia or Iraq. Plus, often among the Arabs, who, to put it mildly, are rather weak with motivation ... If in the conflicts that have occurred over the past 30 years, our aircraft were in more or less equal conditions with the enemy, then one could objectively judge another side of the issue - electronic stuffing and armament of our fighters. And this, since the beginning of the 80s, has become a more determining factor in the success of the aircraft's combat use than the traditionally stronger aspects of Soviet / Russian technology - maneuverability and aerobatic qualities. Then it would become clear what is more important now - the maneuverability of a fighter in close air combat, or its ability to conduct long-range air combat and how often, for example, fighters of the 4th generation or generation 4+, it would come to close combat.
  15. Irokez
    Irokez 27 January 2014 22: 52
    +1
    Everything is correct. Right now, air duels are exotic and everything is decided by radars, electronics, REB and AWACS.
  16. Marconi41
    Marconi41 28 January 2014 06: 35
    +3
    Exotic ?! In order to find out, one must first observe the counteraction of the states that are approximately the same in equipping with military equipment. War is not a computer and flying groups of aircraft with the same capabilities will definitely meet. Or are there no longer short-range missiles on planes ?! And why are they ?!
  17. Irokez
    Irokez 28 January 2014 12: 56
    +1
    I do not deny that there can be fights, but at present there are completely different conditions for warfare than in the Second World War when there was a wall to wall. It is clear that anything can happen in a full-scale war (God forbid, of course), but it’s another time when months are needed to build one aircraft, while during the Second World War they could be mass-produced and sent to the front. Right now they are cherished and they will not be allowed to slaughter just like that.
  18. 79057330785
    79057330785 28 March 2015 14: 14
    0
    Everything is fine, but the bomb load of the Su-7B is small-2 500-ki, 2 S-24. Against Phantom, Tiger and Skyhawk does not pull
  19. chetbor
    chetbor 22 November 2015 19: 01
    +2
    Debriefing of my aviation.

    Egypt received the Su-17s simple at first, they were not exported to anyone else. In the figure, the Su-17m or Su-20. A simple RSBN antenna is on top and the container of the brake parachute is different, because it has a two-dome system.

    Su-17m in Afghanistan was not used at all.

    Afghan Air Force received the Su-22m4, which is shown in the figure with the erroneous signature of the Su-22m

    In the photo the very first Su-17 85-01
  20. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 22 February 2017 10: 42
    +1
    In a museum in Italy (near Rimini)