Military Review

Pilot experimental aircraft IL-102

73
Pilot experimental aircraft IL-102



In the summer of 1991, the taxpayer for the first time saw the experimental pilot aircraft IL-102 ("OES"). The attack aircraft was very similar to the IL-40, launched into serial production in the mid-1950s, but never entered into a big life. The flight tests of the IL-40 were successfully completed in January 1955, and its introduction into production at the Rostov Aviation Plant began. However, in 1956, all work was stopped due to the decision to abolish the assault aviation. Five almost completed aircraft of the experimental series in the autumn of 1956 were dismantled for metal.

At the end of the 1960s, in the air publications, the seemingly forgotten word attack aircraft flashed again. The experience of the operation and combat use of fighter-bombers showed that they are not able to replace armored flying over the battlefield Tanks. Apparently, the first in the USSR began to develop a jet attack aircraft in the OKB P.O.Sukhogo. Following him, employees of the OKB S.V. Ilyushin’s design bureau joined the secret competition to create a battlefield aircraft.

The idea of ​​an armored attack aircraft in the Ilyushin Design Bureau was returned at the end of the 1960s, when, in accordance with the requirements of the Air Force, based on the experience of Vietnam and Middle Eastern conflicts, they were again interested in attack aircraft, a project of the IL-42 aircraft, which is a deep modernization of the IL-40, was proposed. The attack aircraft were supposed to be equipped with two TRDs AM-5F (2x3250 kgf). Its normal take-off weight was 16 480 kg, maximum take-off - 17 470 kg, empty aircraft 12 190 kg, fuel - 4170 kg, armor - 700 kg, maximum bomb load - 1400 kg. According to calculations, the attack aircraft was supposed to reach 997 km / h speed, have a practical 11 600 m ceiling and a practical 1115 km range.



In the competition of projects of attack aircraft, held in June 1969, participated, also, OKB AS Yakovlev, who presented the project Yak-25LSH, A.I. Mikoyan (MiG-21LSH) and P.O. Dry (Т8). As a result, the competition "passed" T8 and MiG-21ЛШ, and it was decided to stop work on the Yak-25ЛШ and Il-42.

However, the development of the Ilyushin double attack aircraft was still continued under the direction of G.V. Novozhilova proactively. Compared with the IL-42, the new aircraft, designated IL-102, had a modified form of the forward fuselage with an improved forward-down view, new, more powerful engines, and much more powerful weapons.

The most important difference between the IL-102 and the Su-25 was the second cabin for the shooter. Apparently, this circumstance played the most negative role in the fate of the car. The layout of the IL-102 was no different from the IL-40, but it was a completely new car, so to speak, in a retro style. For thirty years, lying between them, too much has changed in the aircraft industry. More economical turbofan engines, new construction materials and technological processes have appeared. And about the equipment and can not speak. There was not only a decrease in its weight, but also an expansion of the problems to be solved. Updated means of saving the crew. Universal ejection seats K-36L in the pilot and K-36L-102 in the air gun reliably save now in the entire range of speeds and altitudes, as well as during parking.

A cursory inspection of the IL-102 can reveal that the design of the main landing gear, which retracts into the fairings under the wing, has changed, turning against the flow. This makes room for additional external suspension units. weapons. New aerodynamic layout of the wing allowed to abandon the ridges on its surface. Without going into details of the technical specification, we note that only the use of TRD RD-33I with an increased 60% load led to an increase in take-off weight to 22000 kg, and a combat load to 7200 kg.
Increasing the size and weight of the aircraft required a departure from the traditional "Ilyushin" booking scheme: the designers abandoned a single armored hull, which includes the main vital parts of the aircraft (as was done on IL-2, IL-10 and IL-40). Armor, it was decided to protect the cockpit, as well as, in part, engines and fuel supply system. Fuel tanks deprived of the reservation, concentrating them in the central part of the fuselage. The front and rear of them were shielded by the cockpit and defensive rifle rifle, from the sides by the engines, and from the bottom by the gun. The combat survivability of the aircraft was enhanced by the use of spongy filler tanks. The IL-102, like the former Soviet "classic" attack aircraft, received a stern defensive cannon installation. It was assumed that the use of infrared traps and active interference, in combination with the high maneuverability of the attack aircraft, as well as a pair of eyes of the air gunner, carefully watching the rear hemisphere and timely notifying the pilot of the threat, will reduce the effectiveness of the enemy’s missiles. As a result, the enemy fighter will be forced to use cannon armament and he will fall under the fire of the rapid-fire GSH-23L.



The “offensive” cannon armament, as on the IL-40, was decided to be movable: the 30-mm gun could be mounted in two positions - horizontal for firing forward and at an angle to the horizon.

The work on the IL-102 program was rather sluggish: the lack of funds and the "semi-legal" status of the aircraft affected. The leadership of the Ministry of Defense opposed the Ilyushin attack aircraft, considering its creation as an unnecessary dispersal of forces in the presence of a much more “advanced” T8 program (Su-25). However, by the beginning of 1982, the construction of an experienced IL-102 was completed. 20 January, the car was examined by the Air Force Commander P.S. Kutakhov, in general, supported the work on this aircraft. Favor for IL-102 and the Minister of the aviation industry I.S. Strength However, the position of the MoD remained negative. Moreover, the Minister of Defense, D.F. Ustinov categorically banned G.V. Novozhilov "engage in amateur." But OKB still continued work on the aircraft. For the "conspiracy" he was given the name of OES-1 (experimental aircraft 1), which was not talking about anything, and it was decided to conduct flight tests in the most "partisan" places - in Belarus. The first flight of the IL-102 took place on 25 September 1982. The car was piloted by the chief pilot of the OKB, honored test pilot S. G. Bliznyuk.

In 1982-1984. a total of 250 flights were performed, during which no failure or serious failure of the onboard systems occurred. The high maneuverability of the attack aircraft was demonstrated, the minimum turn radius was only 400.

In 1984, the aircraft flew to the airfield LII MAP (Zhukovsky), where it was put on conservation in the hangar of the OKB Design Bureau. Ilyushin. By that time, full-scale mass production of Su-25 attack aircraft had already been deployed, over which IL-102 did not have any significant advantages, except for the presence of a very controversial tactically defensive small arms. In 1986, the program was again tried to "reanimate", but by that time the internal political situation in the country had already changed, and the course was taken to reduce the funding of the defense industry. In addition, a fundamental decision was made on the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan. Under these conditions, IL-102 finally lost any perspective. His "farewell bow" became the Moscow Air Show 1992, where the IL-102 briefly became a "star", after which it finally sank into oblivion.



The IL-102 aircraft is made according to the normal aerodynamic design with a low-lying swept wing. The airframe design has high manufacturability. 80% trim is formed by sheets of single curvature, air inlets have a circular cross section.

The fuselage is a semi-monocoque type. In its central part, there are located the thermocabines of the pilot and the side gunner, between which fuel tanks are located. On the sides of the rear fuselage there are two aerodynamic brakes of relatively small area. The lanterns of the gunner and pilot are made of flat bulletproof glass. The arrow-shaped two-spar wing has a relatively thick profile, which made it possible to place cargo compartments for bomb weapons in it. The wing has a flap that takes about 2 / 3 span. On the upper surface of the wing are two-piece interceptors. K-36L ejection seats are installed in the cockpits, ensuring aircraft escape at zero speed and height. The crew rescue system has a one-way synchronous ejection device: the pilot, ejecting himself, automatically catapults the shooter, which, however, cannot eject the pilot. The aircraft is equipped with a three-bearing landing gear with two-wheel main supports, equipped with low-pressure pneumatic tires, which allows the attack aircraft to be operated from unpaved airfields. The nose rack is carried far forward and retracts into the fuselage by turning it backwards (a similar arrangement provides good throughput, but it takes up the volume of the forward fuselage, where other aircraft usually have a BRLS or optoelectronic equipment). The main racks are retracted into special wing gondolas by turning forward. Disassembled IL-102 can be transported on two standard railway platforms or in the fuselage of the IL-76. The prototype did not have a complete set of equipment. In the future, it was supposed to equip the attack aircraft with modern optoelectronic systems. Antennas of the Bereza-L electronic reconnaissance system are installed in the wing tips that are bent down.

The IL-102 aircraft is equipped with two I-88 TRDDs (2х5380 kgf), created in the Izotov Design Bureau and are a form of RD-33 engine.



On the ventral swinging carriage, fixed in two positions, a double-barreled 30-mm 9А-4071К gun with 500 rounds of ammunition was installed. Installation is easy, within a few minutes, can be dismantled in aerodrome conditions. Released intra-body volume is used to suspend bomb armament or to install an additional fuel tank. In the rear fuselage there is a turret with a double-barreled 23-mm gun GSH-23L. Its cartridge boxes are located in the front of the tail section of the fuselage, at a distance of about 3 m from the gun. This solution allowed to slightly increase the ammunition load and move it closer to the center of mass of the aircraft. The projectiles are fed to the cannon by means of a special electromotive belt mechanism, which is fed into the moving part of the gun through the through axis of the lower vertical hinge.

The maximum mass of the bomb load IL-102 - 7200 kg. In each wing of the wing there are three cargo compartments capable of holding bombs in caliber up to 250 kg. The total combat load on the internal suspension assemblies (after the removal of the ventral cannon) can reach 2300 kg. There are eight external suspension units (six under the wing and two under the fuselage). The entire combat load is lifted aboard using the built-in electric winch. In the bent down wingtips, emitters of infrared traps and dipole reflectors “Avtomat-F” are installed. Missile armament includes air-to-surface C-25L with laser semi-active guidance, air-to-air missiles P-60М and P-73, NAR of various types.



Before the Su-25 has the following advantages - a large 1,5 times max combat load, somewhat greater speed, greater range. On maneuverability at normal rates, the take-off mass is not inferior, because its engines are more powerful, and the wing load is less.

Before A-10 - much greater speed, much greater thrust-to-weight ratio, with a comparable load on the wing and radius of action, hence the much better VPH and maneuverability.

In addition, Su-25 and A-10 were originally developed as single rooms. But modern optoelectronic systems require an operator, a crew member 2, who on the IL-102 was from the very beginning. 2-x local options Su-25 and A-10 have, naturally, worse TTD compared to the base ones.

Tactical and technical characteristics of the aircraft:
Wingspan - 16,9 m
Aircraft length - 22,0 m
Aircraft height - 5,08 m
Wing area - 63,5 m2
Weight, kg
- empty aircraft - 13000
- normal takeoff - 18000
- maximum take-off - 22000
Fuel
- internal - 4000 kg
- in PTB - 2 x 800 l
Engine type - 2 TDRD RD-33I
Traction unformed - 2 x 5500 kgf
Top speed - 1100 km / h
Cruising speed - 950 km / h
Practical range - 3000 km
Combat Range - 400-500 km
Practical ceiling - 9600 m
Crew - 2 pax

Armament: 1 30-9K twin-rotary 4071-mm cannon (500 shells, 1500 rds / min), 2 x 23-GSH-2-23 in a mobile installation in the tail (60 shells, 2400-X-3200-7250-16-6-250-60-73 in the mobile installation in the tail (23 shells, 25-29-58 in the mobile installation in the tail (500 shells, 23-250-1-23) Combat load - XNUMX kg on XNUMX suspension units (including XNUMX compartments in the wing on bombs up to XNUMX kg). UR "air-to-air" РМ, Р, УР "air-to-earth" Х, Х, Х, Х. HURSy of all calibers, all kinds of bombs, incl. adjustable, up to XNUMX kg, gun containers (UAK, SPPU).

Source:
"Military Aviation", Media 2000
Aviation Internet Encyclopedia "Corner of the Sky"
Wings of the motherland. Nikolay Yakubovich. The return of "Strongman"
Mikhail Zhukov. Illustrated catalog of the aviation of the world. IL-102
Wings of the motherland. Vyacheslav Kondratyev. IL-102: Who is against?
Wings of the motherland. Mikhail Levin. New "humpback"
Aviation and rocket technology. IL-102 and Su-25ТК attack aircraft
Vladimir Ilyin. Stormtroopers and fighters-bombers
Roman Astakhov. Russian Power. Stormtrooper IL-102
73 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mikhado
    Mikhado 29 June 2013 07: 49 New
    36
    When I first found out about this car, I fell in love with this angular “monster”, and I still think that the Rook, with all its legendary legacy, is worse, just like an attack aircraft.
    In Afghanistan, the old IL-28s had good survivability, with a stern shooter who detected Stinger’s launch and could not only command the traps to be shot, but also “treat” the 23mm launch site with a burst.
    "Spirits" tried not to mess with the "old man" ...
    It’s a pity that politics once again killed another Ilyushin attack aircraft (the first was IL-40)
    1. Chicot 1
      Chicot 1 29 June 2013 11: 56 New
      15
      Yes, the car is wonderful and promising. And it seems like it would look nice in combat units and over the battlefield ...
      But alas and ah Bolivar can not take two, and improving and modernizing the Su-25 mastered in production for economic reasons will be more reasonable than reanimating the IL-102 program ...
      However, this does not in any way implore the dignity of the Ilyushin brainchild. Honor and praise to the team, which was able to literally clandestinely develop such a great car ...
      1. dustycat
        dustycat 29 June 2013 13: 09 New
        +5
        From Su25, no matter how you try, you won’t make a good attack aircraft.
        Its basis is a front-line bomber and nothing more. Only well armored. This is a completely different ideology.
        1. Chicot 1
          Chicot 1 29 June 2013 17: 56 New
          10
          Quote: dustycat
          From Su25, no matter how you try, you won’t make a good attack aircraft.
          Its basis is a front-line bomber and nothing more. Only well armored. This is a completely different ideology.

          You just never tell anyone again. They will laugh, however ...
        2. mertvoe_exo
          mertvoe_exo 30 June 2013 00: 38 New
          +5
          The guy does not want to offend you, but please think what you say
        3. Orty
          Orty 30 June 2013 17: 42 New
          +5
          Well, what did you attack him? Maybe he knows the truth! Where everyone else, and do not care that the Su-25 is a subsonic plane, and all modern front-line bombers have a super-sound mode, do not care about the excellent reservation and survivability of the "rook" typical of an attack aircraft, spit for years of successful operation of this aircraft as an attack aircraft whose time he proved himself to be the best. All this is garbage! After all, only Dusty knows how it should and finally!
          1. Know-nothing
            Know-nothing 30 June 2013 19: 04 New
            +4
            You look at his range and speed, especially in comparison with the A-10.

            Su-25
            Combat radius: 300 km
            Cruising speed: 750 km / h
            (roughly speaking, just to have some kind of figure, maybe in the air 2 * 300 / 750 = 0.8 hours)

            A-10
            Combat radius:
            direct aviation support: 463 km
            Cruising speed: 555 km / h off the ground
            (2 * 463 / 555 = 1.7 hours)

            Those. Su-25 will fly in, strike and run away until it receives a MANPADS missile in a hot engine (they are much colder with A-10 - a high bypass ratio, further separated and covered by tail) or the fuel does not run out. It seems to me that dustycat is right
            Quote: dustycat
            No matter how hard you try to make a good attack aircraft from Su25, its foundation is a front-line bomber and nothing more. Only well armored.


            1. Taoist
              Taoist 30 June 2013 20: 00 New
              +8
              Again measure kg / am? Well, guys, what are you talking about? Firstly, the "combat radius" is already a definition that includes flying to the target, combat maneuvering over the target (usually 10-15 mines are considered) and returning to the departure point while maintaining the "navigational reserve" of fuel. So your calculations of the "flight time" if they talk about something or something only about the fact that on a call from the ground, the "Rook" will arrive (ceteris paribus) faster than the "archarch".
              About "hot engines" ... I will disappoint you, for both the Stinger or the Needle seekers, both engines shine the same, moreover, the short gas path of the "archarch" makes compressor rotors and turbines much more noticeable to the seeker ... They are the ones will become the most "contrasting goals."
              The “archarch” as well as the “rook” each have their own advantages and disadvantages ... but do they compare their performance characteristics head-on? A completely pointless activity.
              1. Know-nothing
                Know-nothing 30 June 2013 20: 35 New
                +2
                Quote: Taoist
                Firstly, "combat radius" is already a definition that includes flying to a target, combat maneuvering over a target

                Not fundamentally. It is important relative, not absolute value. If you want, you can recalculate to a practical range or based on the specific fuel consumption and its supply in the internal tanks, for sure the ratio will be approximately the same.

                Quote: Taoist
                I will disappoint you, for GOS Stinger or Needles, both engines glow the same

                R-95Sh and R-195 are also the same for GOS MANPADS?
                1. Taoist
                  Taoist 30 June 2013 20: 56 New
                  +3
                  Who cares? To you personally? But nothing that you compare the car is two times different in size and take-off weight? (and I suspect it every five times for the price). Why are we always trying to compare the incomparable? The Rook is an excellent attack aircraft as part of the task for which it was created. As well as the "archarchist" is good in the hypostasis for which it was created.
                  1. marder7
                    marder7 10 July 2017 11: 52 New
                    0
                    by the way, the su-25 in the army and another nickname is "comb!". if anyone saw him with a full suspension from the ground, he will immediately understand why they called him that smile
      2. MOSKVITYANIN
        MOSKVITYANIN 11 February 2018 19: 34 New
        0
        Chicot 1 praise to the team that could literally clandestinely develop such an excellent car ...

        What are you uncle? Sukhoi and Ilyushin were simultaneously developing an attack aircraft, Sukhoi won, what underground development did you see, apparently either didn’t read the article or didn’t watch the video ... fool
        OKB A.S. also participated in the stormtrooper project competition held in June 1969. Yakovleva, who presented the project Yak-25LSH, A.I. Mikoyan (MiG-21LSH) and P.O. Dry (T8). As a result, the contest "passed" T8 and MiG-21LSH, and work on the Yak-25LSH and IL-42, it was decided to stop.
    2. sevtrash
      sevtrash 29 June 2013 12: 01 New
      +5
      It would be interesting to compare the Su25 and A10
      1. Chicot 1
        Chicot 1 29 June 2013 17: 57 New
        +3
        Quote: sevtrash
        It would be interesting to compare the Su25 and A10

        Here on the site was material in which they compared the Rook and Thunderbolt II. Try to find this article through a search (on the site) ...
      2. Taoist
        Taoist 30 June 2013 00: 50 New
        +8
        they have compared so many times ... only this is always a comparison "in favor of the poor" ... Cars are initially different, different ideologically, different in "weight category". The Americans made a “flying gun”, we made a universal “battlefield” plane ... And if I personally like our approach more, this absolutely does not mean that the American car is worse ... It's just different.
      3. Flyer_64
        Flyer_64 17 October 2016 19: 00 New
        0
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeOLj4utfsg
    3. Argon
      Argon 29 June 2013 13: 45 New
      +7
      I completely agree with you, the spirits even made a sabotage and burned almost all the “veterans” in the parking lots. I did not understand the Su-25 concept at all. Being completely a “child of compromise” is not enough in the combined arms battle. Its biggest advantage is the price of a car / flight hour . Practice showed, they didn’t put that “filly” on the spot. Considering the mass-dimensional characteristics of our KVV, the desire to increase the range of the Su-25, and all the problems with the electronics, an overloaded “masterpiece” of the Su-39 came into being, which couldn’t stay in the air (significant restrictions on the modes), and the post There is no reserve for mass, not for finance (fixed sample cost). We got out of the situation by installing the so-called “autopilot mode” and this thing, but for the attack aircraft, its presence is at least a consequence of the creators' frivolity. Operation from the ground they don’t remember it anymore. On the other hand, the Ilyushinsky product does not look a little finished, which is generally described in the article, but in my opinion the prospects for modernization are somewhat higher than that of Grach. And although the question of the "battlefield plane" is now As it is, it’s as if it’s “unlearned” by the appearance of the Su-34, by expanding the capabilities of the 27th. Over the next 10 years, the Russian defense industry should begin developing such a machine. lol
    4. Apologet.Ru
      Apologet.Ru 29 June 2013 15: 13 New
      +4
      Yes, a gorgeous airplane! Just no luck, no luck recourse , it's a pity...
    5. iz odessy
      iz odessy 5 November 2016 12: 39 New
      0
      and where ? I just don’t remember at the time of my stay there, the place of basing of something significant of the parts on IL-28
  2. duke
    duke 29 June 2013 10: 08 New
    15
    Of course, there must be two pilots on the attack aircraft, one of which is the weapons operator. Their layout should probably be like on a Mi-28 helicopter, one after another, or at least like on a Ka-52, where by the way there are catapults. It would also be nice to reanimate IL-10 type helicopter attack aircraft, but of course at the modern technical level, and with a helicopter arrangement of pilots. to deal with irregular gangs, he would do just fine, inexpensively and very effectively. It is not in vain that many countries buy the Brazilian Tucano, including they are used to patrol borders and to fight partisan formations precisely as an attack aircraft. For these purposes, high speed is not needed, but powerful armoring and weapons are important. IL-2 and 10 returned to airfields with holes in the wings, where a person could climb and flew home.
  3. slaventi
    slaventi 29 June 2013 11: 03 New
    +3
    Something like il-10. Cool car.
  4. not good
    not good 29 June 2013 11: 11 New
    10
    According to the mind, it is necessary to adopt equipment according to the results of the victory in the competition, and not according to the political direction. If you now hold a competition, it is very likely that the modified IL-102 will bypass Grach.
    1. Chicot 1
      Chicot 1 29 June 2013 11: 49 New
      +3
      Quote: Negoro
      If a contest is being held, then with a high probability the modified IL-102 will bypass Grach.

      Su-25 also did not stand still ...
      1. dustycat
        dustycat 29 June 2013 13: 12 New
        +1
        And what?
        Su25 - a heavily armored light front-line bomber.
        He can storm, but this is not his main task.
        Before Il2, there was also Su2.
        And also went to the attack. And even came back from them with a victory.
        The appearance of IL2 buried him.
        1. kirpich
          kirpich 29 June 2013 14: 50 New
          +3
          Then what is your attack aircraft?
        2. Apologet.Ru
          Apologet.Ru 29 June 2013 16: 25 New
          +7
          And there was Su-6, the attack aircraft ...

          “In terms of maximum speeds, climb, maneuverability, ceiling, range, armament and armor, the double“ dry ”significantly exceeded the double-armed IL-2 that was in service with the Air Force. The Su-6 had excellent stability and handling characteristics, was simple and pleasant to fly.”
          1. Taoist
            Taoist 29 June 2013 19: 31 New
            +3
            in the picture, then Su-2 ... You need more brushing.
            1. Apologet.Ru
              Apologet.Ru 29 June 2013 20: 05 New
              +4
              I agree, waved, not looking, correcting myself ...
  5. fzr1000
    fzr1000 29 June 2013 11: 52 New
    +4
    I did not know about such an “ironing”. What a pity that he was also devoured by his dashing nineties.
  6. Dimka off
    Dimka off 29 June 2013 12: 04 New
    +7
    I regret that this machine did not go into the series and the troops. But a good plane!
  7. max702
    max702 29 June 2013 12: 49 New
    +9
    The most amazing thing is that the attack aircraft that we have developed in the West as a side project for the remnants of money and resources and are more in demand than all other types of military aviation .. Idiocy ...
  8. Jrvin
    Jrvin 29 June 2013 12: 55 New
    +7
    Doesn't it remind me of something IL-2 reminds me?
    1. dustycat
      dustycat 29 June 2013 13: 13 New
      +6
      "Humpbacked" he is "hunchbacked"
      1. Jrvin
        Jrvin 29 June 2013 15: 50 New
        +1
        God willing, this "granddaughter" will be as quick as his "grandfather" =)
  9. Jrvin
    Jrvin 29 June 2013 12: 55 New
    +2
    Does it hurt IL-2 reminds me? =)
  10. Taoist
    Taoist 29 June 2013 14: 01 New
    +8
    Yes, this car initially had a modernization reserve far more than a Rook. You can abandon the shooter (replacing the automatic system - especially since modern systems allow rockets to be fired on approach). Put a side-view radar and use the SPPU in the "ganship" version for firing at ground targets at a turn. It’s easy to replace the feed SPPU with a powerful jamming station (here’s the EW option for you). There are many options right away ... But the train left, you just have to "swallow drool"
    1. Apologet.Ru
      Apologet.Ru 29 June 2013 20: 14 New
      +1
      Quote: Taoist
      But the train left, it remains only to "drool to swallow"

      Let's hope for the best! But what if...
  11. xomaNN
    xomaNN 29 June 2013 15: 01 New
    +4
    The first external impression, but this was taken by the front-line forces of the IL-10 hulls, two engines and modern avionics stuck :)) Joke. Well done, Novozhilov Group of Companies proactively continued the development of an attack aircraft, even without instructions from the top!
  12. kirpich
    kirpich 29 June 2013 15: 01 New
    +3
    Quote: Mikhado
    In Afghanistan, the old IL-28s had good survivability, with a stern shooter who detected Stinger’s launch and could not only command the traps to be shot, but also “treat” the 23mm launch site with a burst.



    In IL-28, KOU sat in a cocoon under the tail. And in the IL-102 shooter and weapons are spaced meters.
    1. Argon
      Argon 29 June 2013 16: 15 New
      +9
      Yes, actually, what difference does it make where he was sitting, the main thing was the possibility of influencing the attack object when leaving (Achaeles heel, that Mi-24, that Su-25) with a relatively low thrust-weight ratio, the exit from the attack is "slow." remote control systems. I do not see a fundamental problem.
      1. kirpich
        kirpich 29 June 2013 17: 38 New
        +1
        The key phrase is. And the fact that they are separated so there are remote control systems ...

        In any aerial battle, whether it’s an attack, a collision, a bombing, finally, seconds decide. Remote control of defensive weapons is not suitable here. It is too slowly aimed at the target.

        As for the low thrust-to-weight ratio - attack aircraft SPECIALLY slow down! For a more accurate attack (therefore they are booked)
        And, for some reason, the IL-102 has no armor !?
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw_WQ1HRdE4
        1. Taoist
          Taoist 29 June 2013 19: 37 New
          11
          Sorry, but modern remote drives are much faster than "manual control". Yes, and no one has been pulling for a long time manually turrets (no matter where the shooter sits), the following circuits work, de facto arrows only give target designation. And booking at Il-Xnumx is no worse than at Grach ... Modern armor is not always a "trough of armored plates"
          1. kirpich
            kirpich 29 June 2013 20: 32 New
            +1
            Oh, too ... You can regret when the bullet breaks the hydraulic drive, and it turns out that the KOU is full ammunition, and it’s impossible to shoot (in IL-102).
            In IL-28, the KOU shooter could (!) Accompany (before destruction) two targets. In case of damage to the automation, he switched to manual control.

            Well, about the reservation, re-read the post ... from the first page.
            1. Taoist
              Taoist 29 June 2013 22: 01 New
              +7
              Dear, I am a specialist in the "mechanic for the operation of aircraft and aircraft engines" mechanic, and we were well taught in the USSR. So I will disappoint you ... even in the towers where the shooter was sitting "on cannons" - there was no manual transmission. There was duplication, but it wasn’t manual ... just because there wasn’t enough human strength at the speeds under 800 km h to turn the tower ... this is not a pivot installation with SHKASami or UBT ...

              By P2. Reread ...
              / It was decided to protect the cockpit with armor, as well as, in part, the engines and the fuel supply system. Fuel tanks deprived of reservation, concentrating them in the central part of the fuselage. Front and rear, they were screened by crew cabs and a defensive rifle installation, from the sides - engines, and from below - a gun. /

              Will you still claim that this car did not have a reservation? Will you give the Rook reservation scheme? Or is armor for you an armored corps?
            2. The comment was deleted.
        2. Koshak
          Koshak 19 October 2016 10: 48 New
          +3
          Quote: kirpich
          Remote control of defensive weapons is not suitable here. It is too slowly aimed at the target.

          And what is the difference in controlling the cannon mount on the IL-28 and IL-102? Only the distance from the operator to, in fact, the gun. Both there and there electric drive and remote control. And the pendants, run the extra 5 meters, will not take much time. And where did you see that the movable cannon mount was not controlled remotely (very slowly, in your opinion)? Manually, or what?
  13. kirpich
    kirpich 29 June 2013 15: 08 New
    +8
    Quote: max702
    and more in demand than all other types of military aviation



    Pancake! At least one understood. Shake your hand!!!
    1. max702
      max702 4 July 2013 10: 49 New
      +5
      I read about the creation of the American "warthog" there, the same parsley is almost on an initiative basis, and the plane is in recent wars does the lion's share of work on the enemy .... can instead of super destroyers and megabommers make an intelligent machine to support the infantry? to give at least half of the finances and resources, it would seem to me that the unit would turn out to be a sight for sore eyes .. and it’s needed an order of magnitude more. )
  14. Comrade1945
    Comrade1945 29 June 2013 17: 46 New
    +4
    The beast is simple!
    It is unfortunate that the fate of this aircraft so happened ...
  15. _KM_
    _KM_ 29 June 2013 20: 10 New
    +4
    Great article. Also never understood the ideology of attack on the Su-25.
  16. laurbalaur
    laurbalaur 29 June 2013 20: 43 New
    +4
    I bought myself on a scale of 1 \ 72, I will build! actually the monster is still there, but, but, but ... I really want to go to the collection. Guys if there is a more advanced info on weapons, write in a personal pliz! (links, photo)
  17. kirpich
    kirpich 29 June 2013 22: 41 New
    +1
    Quote: Taoist
    I’m a specialist in mechanics for the operation of aircraft and aircraft engines, and we were well taught in the USSR. So I will disappoint you ... even in the towers where the shooter was sitting "on cannons" - there was no manual transmission. There was duplication, but it was not manual.



    So you were taught poorly. Otherwise, you would have known from the course of school physics that in the turbulence generated behind the tail, you can use your handles to control large-caliber weapons without much risk.
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 29 June 2013 23: 54 New
      11
      And you try ... good
      And we'll see ... by the way, can you find a little scheme? manual drive? son, would you be more careful about the "twists" ... Otherwise, you’ll be scorched ...

      For your information:
      "The protection of the rear hemisphere of the IL-28 was ensured by the IL-K6 aft installation with two HP-23 cannons with ammunition for 225 shells per barrel. The shells were placed in two cartridge boxes, the external contour of which repeated the contour of the tower. The loaded cartridge boxes were inserted into the turret niches at the right and left cannons.This design ensured the cannons' failure-free operation due to a simple power supply and removal of cartridges without traditional flexible hoses, brackets and other unreliable structural elements. There was little time, it was simple and provided quick preparation of the artillery weapons of the aircraft for departure. The basis of the drive unit of the IL-K6 tower was the original hydraulic unit of the swinging pumps with two electric motors. Hydraulic control carried out remotely using a tracking potentiometric system with high accuracy and reliability. IL-K6 was aimed at the target with a rifle scope, which automatically took into account angular corrections for the relative movement of the target, the lag of the projectile and lowering the trajectory depending on the range, angle of rotation of the weapon, own speed and altitude. The sight was connected to the weapon by independent feedback, minimizing the mismatch between it and the weapon. Due to this, the mismatch, for example, on horizontal guidance on the IL-K6 tower was three times less than what was allowed at that time by technical requirements.

      IL-K6 became the first in the USSR two-gun electro-hydraulic remote installation. She embodied the positive features of KU-3 and KU-4 and was deprived of their shortcomings. The IL-K6 installation had firing angles along 70 left and right, 40 down and 60 up. In normal drive operation, the weapon moved at a speed of 15-17 degrees. per second, and in forced mode - at speeds up to 36 degrees. per second. The power of the Il-K6 drive ensured its effective use at a flight speed of more than 1000 km / h. The IL-K6, which was distinguished by great combat effectiveness, had a relatively small weight (340 kg) and maximum external torque 170 kgm. Compared with it, the B-29 and Tu-4 bombers had significantly smaller firing angles (30 left and right, 30 up and down), their maximum external moment was 50 kgm, and the mass exceeded the mass of the Il tower -K6 almost 50 kg. Subsequently, the IL-KB tower was installed on other domestic aircraft. "(C)

      You apparently Schwarzenegger once gathered to 340 kg manually spin, and even with an angular speed of 70 * per second ... laughing
      1. Argon
        Argon 30 June 2013 00: 06 New
        +3
        Dear Taoist, well, do not succumb so easily to provocations, why you don’t have any idea of ​​“throwing beads” before the “young log”, not just the technical aspects, but also the conditions and tasks of the commander of the cannon installations themselves.
        1. kirpich
          kirpich 30 June 2013 09: 26 New
          +1
          Dear Argon, young logs absolutely understand the technical aspects and working conditions of the commander of the FIRE installations.

          Z.Y. I can not find a photo of the KOU cabin.
      2. kirpich
        kirpich 30 June 2013 09: 16 New
        +1
        Quote: Taoist
        You probably Schwarzenegger once gathered 340 kg to manually twist and even with an angular speed of 70 * per second ... laughing


        No, not an athlete. I just know that KOU has the ability to control the tower manually. And for this, it’s not necessary to be SchwarzEnegger, the normal person has enough strength
        1. Taoist
          Taoist 30 June 2013 11: 55 New
          +9
          Son, "manual control" in this case is just a transition to the "direct scheme" of guidance, when in case of failure of the sight the shooter continues to aim the guns "by eye" at the simplest collimator. But the engines still rotate the tower. There is a handwheel that for maintenance purposes can turn the tower with the power off. But it is impossible to use it in flight - the turning speed (gearbox however) is very small. And the sight has no mechanical connection with the guns. - there is a "selsyno tracking circuit" - where will we shoot? In the white light like a pretty penny? By the way, if, as a result of combat damage, the power system fails, the guns will not be fired either, the electric release will not work, and the belt pulling up too ... Those days have long gone when you could manually turn and reload and shoot ... Learn the materiel.
          1. kirpich
            kirpich 30 June 2013 13: 09 New
            -2
            Dad, well, you yourself answered the question. PS Dear Taoist, you’ll already decide who you are to me.
        2. Koshak
          Koshak 19 October 2016 11: 19 New
          +3
          Quote: kirpich
          I just know that KOU has the ability to control the tower manually.

          I, who had served 26 years on the Tu-95/142, have never heard more nonsense. “I just know,” and you all know nothing. Yes, when servicing cannon mounts, you can turn them manually, but only outside, behind the barrels.
  18. Bosk
    Bosk 30 June 2013 09: 28 New
    +4
    And I like the IL-20, that there is something in this shovel-pushed car moving along the nose ... and secondly, I think that even in our days the light on the jet engines did not converge.
  19. Bosk
    Bosk 30 June 2013 09: 33 New
    +6
    Good mower for the infantry.
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 30 June 2013 12: 07 New
      +3
      Alas, the time for such attack aircraft has passed. There is no massing of infantry, no columns of tanks ... In general, modern warfare has radically changed the concept of an attack aircraft. de facto now you need to have two aircraft. Lightweight, cheap and simple "counterguerrilla aircraft" such as the American "Bronco" or the Brazilian "Pukkara". Here, of course, even a piston engine will be in the subject. And the universal, heavy “battlefield plane” - optimized for striking external targets with high-precision weapons - here, in principle, Su 34 in the subject.
      1. kirpich
        kirpich 30 June 2013 13: 16 New
        0
        Alas, the apricots MUST BE, if only for the infantry to attack
        1. Taoist
          Taoist 30 June 2013 13: 49 New
          +1
          Son, you replayed the game ... Or like the “generals" you think in terms of the past war. And you don’t seem to know how to read. I did not say that "attack aircraft are not needed" - but today there are two categories of wars and in order to correspond to these two completely different categories, you need to have two absolutely different "ideology" attack aircraft.
          1. Orty
            Orty 30 June 2013 17: 49 New
            +1
            Yes, you spit on this little-cold, he did not have a single argument for the entire dispute, so he throws some statements and phrases like "I said, believe me," looks more like a troll.
            1. Bosk
              Bosk 30 June 2013 18: 27 New
              +2
              Through "I do not want" ... but I have to agree, light attack aircraft are already a past, support helicopters firmly hold their place. The airplane version has some advantages compared to helicopters - it is a payload and high speed, but it still wakes a little compared to the vertical and heel aerodrome ...
  20. novik-rif
    novik-rif 15 September 2013 00: 10 New
    +5
    welcome all,
    I admit, I was also carried away by the harsh forms of the IL-102. I carefully studied all the available photos, diagrams and videos and ... And the idea arose to translate it into a flying radio-controlled model with a length of 3 meters. After all, a rather big model flies better. Of course it will be collapsible for convenience. Two 120-mm electric impellers can be used as engines - there is enough traction, and it’s more convenient and cheaper to use micro-turbojet engines in operation. I have experience. The design has already been developed.
    What do you think that it will be the IL-102?
  21. air wolf
    air wolf 23 January 2016 21: 39 New
    0
    It is a pity that this miracle plane was forgotten by our generals ...
  22. persei
    persei 17 October 2016 19: 29 New
    +1
    (Not a Viator) But if you build a few pieces and test them in Syria, and by the results it’s already decided
    1. Koshak
      Koshak 19 October 2016 11: 07 New
      +1
      Quote: persei
      (Not a Viator) But if you build a few pieces and test them in Syria, and by the results it’s already decided

      An expensive experiment will turn out. How much money and time is needed to conduct all tests to build even an experimental batch? By that time, the issue with Syria will no longer be relevant.
  23. Moor
    Moor 20 October 2016 10: 27 New
    0
    It seems to me, or this aircraft is really very similar to IL 2, which is full of steroids winked
  24. Varaga
    Varaga 9 November 2016 15: 58 New
    +3
    IL-102 - the victim of the "apparatchiks", their "mouse fuss." But the car is cool. Even after so many years.
  25. polkovnik manuch
    polkovnik manuch 15 November 2016 19: 26 New
    0
    Good car ! Only in combat conditions, unlike the “rook,” it wasn’t, and this is not an unimportant fact, so let's see.
    1. mkpda
      mkpda April 17 2017 18: 45 New
      +2
      Judging by the received flight data, the IL-102 turned out to be no worse than the Su-25. And in terms of combat capabilities, much better.
  26. AFHENOGEN
    AFHENOGEN 27 September 2017 14: 11 New
    0
    Quote: novik-rif
    welcome all,
    I admit, I was also carried away by the harsh forms of the IL-102. I carefully studied all the available photos, diagrams and videos and ... And the idea arose to translate it into a flying radio-controlled model with a length of 3 meters. After all, a rather big model flies better. Of course it will be collapsible for convenience. Two 120-mm electric impellers can be used as engines - there is enough traction, and it’s more convenient and cheaper to use micro-turbojet engines in operation. I have experience. The design has already been developed.
    What do you think that it will be the IL-102?

    But what the hell is not joking while God is sleeping?
  27. aristok
    aristok 27 May 2019 09: 51 New
    0
    An ideal aircraft for a fliesman in 1941.