Military Review

Air bridge builders

28
Do we need military transport "Superdzhety" Yak-242 and Tu-214?

On September 15, the French air force delivered the first blow to the positions of the armed forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. In addition to directly performing combat missions, the French Air Force aircraft opened an air bridge for delivery weapons in Iraqi Kurdistan. Despite the fact that the military pilots of the Fifth Republic recently received the latest A400M, A340-200 transport and passenger from 3 / 60 squadron were used to transport more than fifty tons of small arms and ammunition.

Wide-body four-engine long-haul A340-200 performs the tasks for the delivery of military cargo not only in French but also in the royal air forces of Saudi Arabia, and for a long time. And in the Luftwaffe, despite the fact that the two "340-x" registered as a VIP-transport, they are actively used for the transport of goods, including various containers and pallets.

In the French Air Force classification, the A340 is a “strategic transport aircraft”, and the A400M is only a “tactical” one. A careful study of the fleets of developed countries of the world makes it obvious that passenger aircraft, modified to meet the needs of the national air force, occupy an important place in them.

According to official Luftwaffe data, the A319, A340 and the brand new A310MRTT account for more than 30 percent of the annual raid of the entire fleet of German Air Forces. By the number of transported goods and personnel, they left the C-130, C-160 and A400M park far behind.

Gateway to Afghanistan

British servicemen taking part in the hostilities in Afghanistan have such a thing as a “gateway to war”. This refers to the aircraft of the Royal Air Force, which are transferring contingent to the combat zone, and then back to their homeland. Until recently, such a gate was the Tristar transport-passenger three-engine wide-body wide-body (TriStar), produced by Lockheed and bought by the British Air Force in British Airways and subsequently ruined by PanAm. At the same time, it was immediately decided that in addition to the transportation of troops, these planes should be used (and refined) as tanker aircraft.

With the reduction of the military budget, the Tristarov fleet turned out to be quite variegated, consisting of tankers with limited space for passengers and cargo, clean tankers and multifunctional machines capable of not only filling up to three sides simultaneously, but also carrying more than 150 people, as well as pallets with cargo and small containers.

Now the British military called the A330MRTT gateway to the war, at first pushing, and then finally replacing, the Tristar, which performed its last flight of 24 in March of this year.

Today, the A330MRTT, manufactured by the European aircraft manufacturer giant Airbus, is a real bestseller in the military transport aircraft and tanker segment. This multifunctional board, capable of transporting not only more than 250 passengers and cargo in pallets, but also containers over a distance of over 12 thousand kilometers, is in service with five countries of the world, in particular Great Britain, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. In the near future, the A330MRTT will replenish and aviation park in Spain, and in France these cars will replace the A340-200.

А330MRTT participated in the competition of the US Air Force to replace the fleet of refueling aircraft KS-135, announced at the end of 2000-s. True, European aircraft manufacturers still lost to their overseas rival - "Boeing".

In the Royal Air Force, the tasks of strategic transport aircraft are also performed by C-17, the purchases of which have been going since the beginning of 2000-x. With a comparable fleet of eight vehicles of each type in the 2013, the Voyagers (the name A330MRTT, assigned to the Royal Air Force) carried loads and personnel 10 times more than Globesmasters.

The idea of ​​combining a transport plane and a tanker into a single universal board also belongs to the Royal Air Force, who performed similar work on modernizing the four-engine VC-10 fleet in the middle of the 70's.

The high point of these vehicles was the Falkland War, where they provided a continuous air bridge between England and its forward base on Ascension Island, carrying cargo and refueling other vehicles. Despite the participation in the conflict of full-fueled tankers "Viktor KHNUMX", the VC-1 were refueled more often and pumped much more fuel. It is precisely the high efficiency and versatility of the “dozen” that forced the Royal Air Force to purchase and upgrade used Tristars.

Currently, many industry publications are writing that such multifunctional aircrafts, such as A330MRTT, created on the basis of passenger aircraft, will speed up military transport speed and will completely replace conventional tankers. Is it so? Should Russian aircraft manufacturers step up work in this direction?

Civil instead of military

“As a military control body that interacts with the Air Force, we are dealing with two types of transport — personnel and various material and technical means, weapons, military equipment, etc.,” an officer explained in a conversation with a reviewer of Military Industrial Courier. management of one of the military districts. - It is most difficult to agree on the transportation of personnel. Attract IL-76 is often economically unprofitable and indeed many people will not fit in it. But An-26 will transport even less. We usually agree to send Il-62 or Tu-154 from Chkalovsky. ”

Frequent involvement of passenger aircraft for transportation of personnel registered in the 800 fleet of the special purpose airbase (formerly ADON - special purpose aviation division) from a Chkalovsky airfield is a well-known fact. One of the IL-62’s regular routes is the delivery of submarine crews from the Far East to a training center near Moscow.

Air bridge buildersDue to the large capacity and range of flight, these machines easily cope with similar tasks. And the sailors are satisfied with the comfortable conditions of the passenger side with soft seats and a decent toilet. Folding seats and other "convenience" IL-76 were a real torment.

“Passenger planes for transporting personnel over long distances are an order of magnitude more economical and much more comfortable - this is an indisputable fact,” said Anton Lavrov, an independent military expert, one of the authors of the book New Army of Russia. “Of course,” he says, “they will never replace military transport planes like IL-76, A400M, C-130 in the combat zone, in the face of opposing air defense and the air force of the enemy, as well as for transporting equipment and landing troops”.

The sharp increase in the number of transport-passenger and transport-refueling aircraft in the aviation parks of the developed countries (Germany, Canada, Great Britain and others) is primarily associated with their active participation in the hostilities in Afghanistan, where apart from aviation personnel, equipment and various loads not to transport. The same А340-200 or А330MRTT delivers enough material and technical means in containers and pallets of normal dimensions in order not to spend extra money on using specialized C-17 or even C-5 Galaxy and An-124 Ruslan.

Of course, bulky goods, Tanks, helicopters, armored vehicles, etc. have to be carried by military transport aircraft. But unlike the transfer of personnel and material and technical equipment, which occurs almost daily, such special flights are carried out, according to ISAF, no more than two to three times a month.

The situation is similar in the commercial air transport market, where, after active growth from 2001 to 2008, orders for the delivery of bulky cargoes by An-124 aircraft in the interests of NATO and ISAF significantly decreased. Back in 2012, the management of several airline carriers recognized that while reducing orders for oversized cargo, such aircraft as the Boeing-747-8F, carrying only containers and pallets, but with significantly lower costs, make the most profit.

“Of course, the Tu-134, Tu-154 and IL-62 are seriously helping us out. But it’s still pretty old cars. I would like something newer. For example, our colleagues from the Ministry of Internal Affairs last year bought a “Superjet” for their special forces, a representative of the Russian Ministry of Defense told the Military Industrial Courier. However, according to the interlocutor, to a greater degree his department is still interested in wide-body aircraft with a long range: “Russia is quite large. For fast and cost-effective delivery of personnel to the Far East and Transbaikalia, the IL-62 is better than it is capable of carrying out non-stop flights, there is nothing in the aircraft fleet of the Russian Air Force. ”

"Superdzhety" already purchased by law enforcement agencies. In a special flight unit "Russia" are actively operated by Tu-204 / 214, in the lines of which there are transport vehicles capable of transporting pallets and containers. On the approach of the Yak-242 with a "black" wing.

Partially updating the fleet of such passenger aircraft as the Tu-134 and Tu-154 is not a very difficult task for the Russian Air Force, all the more so with a very limited number of them. Do not forget that despite the bravado of the pilots, who consider these machines to be the best, by modern standards the Tu-134 and Tu-154 are largely outdated. But the long-range IL-62 replacement yet.

“To install proper communication and navigation systems, to finalize cargo cabins for certain shipments,” the aircraft engineer familiar with the situation lists the necessary additions. “You don’t need to take part in these machines in combat, which is why it’s not necessary to put means of defense, EW complexes, etc. on them. Part of the Tu-134, Tu-154 and IL-62 nothing but the "livery" does not differ from the civilian sides. "

Il on someone else's experience

The thesis that modern air war is impossible without the participation of tanker aircraft, does not require proof from the time of the American campaign in Vietnam. But maintaining a fleet of such cars is quite expensive, which even countries such as the United Kingdom, France, and the FRG are not always ready to go for. During the years of the Cold War, with a relatively high military budget of their states, European members of NATO in this matter relied only on the help of the US Air Force.

According to the British editions devoted stories and the prospects of the Royal Air Force aviation tanker service, before adopting the Tristar transport and refueling unit, the military could independently provide an air fueling service in the required volume of no more than 15 – 20 to the percent of the attack aircraft fleet. New cars slightly improved performance, but due to financial constraints that reduced their purchase, the situation did not change radically.

Dependence on American tankers in European countries has survived to the present. Several publications of the industry magazine Combat Aircraft Monthly devoted to the operation “Zakat Odyssey” in Libya indicated that the United Kingdom, France and other participating countries appealed to the United States to support them with aircraft tankers. According to the publication, the Europeans considered the US Air Force allocated the KS-135 and KS-10 as the most important support from the United States.

In the US air force, the European experience in developing transport refueling aircraft was taken very carefully. Back in the middle of the 2000, a multifunctional KS-135, developed and produced by Boeing for the Italian Air Force, was considered as a replacement for the KS-767. The contract was canceled due to a corruption scandal.

From the middle of 90-x, Airbus actively fought for the market of transporting refueling planes with its А310MRTT, selected by the Luftwaffe, and Boeing, which proposed the KS-767, which the Italian and Japanese Air Forces liked. Now there is a certain parity in this segment, as the European Aircraft Corporation received quite a few relatively small but lucrative contracts, and American aircraft manufacturers won a multi-billion dollar contract for the supply of KS-46 tankers for the US Air Force.

According to the publications of the American industry media, after the KS-46 arrived, the fleet of other tankers (KS-10 “Eskender”) was planned to be maintained almost until the 2030s. The reason for this decision lies not only in the relative youth of the KS-10 fleet, but also in the ability of these tankers to carry out fueling in combat.

Due to the presence of attack warning systems and electronic warfare systems and countermeasures to Extenders, enemy air defenses and aircraft are not so terrible, which allows them to come close enough to areas of possible danger if necessary. Since the KS-46 will solve transportation problems, the installation of such systems on a new tanker was considered an unnecessary waste of money. True, now these plans can be hindered by the sequestration of the military budget announced by the administration of President Barack Obama, calling into question the further exploitation of the entire fleet of not so multifunctional KS-10.

Today, the Russian Air Force uses a limited number of IL-78, created on the basis of the military transport IL-76, as air tankers. According to official statements by the Ministry of Defense, a promising tanker for the domestic Air Force will be developed on the basis of the newest IL-76MD-90А, also known as IL-746. It is noteworthy that in some media a new tanker has already begun to be called the IL-478.

Currently, the fleet of aircraft tankers is part of the long-range aviation command of the Russian Air Force. World experience proves that such an approach is not always optimal. Back in 1992, the United States Air Force handed over the entire fleet of tankers to the air transportation command, providing support for the deployment of national armed forces in various regions of the globe. The Royal Air Force went even further, creating a separate service in 2007 for this purpose. Taking into account the fact that the fleet of domestic tankers operates in the interests of all Air Forces, one should think about a more optimal management structure.

The air force and aircraft building in Russia are currently actively developing. The fleet of military aviation is replenished with new cars. Nevertheless, we often act as catch-upers. This concerns not only the procurement of new aircraft and aviation weapons of destruction, but also the creation of organizational and staff structures.

Even such developed Air Forces as the American ones pay close attention to multi-purpose transport aircraft refueling planes. Of course, our aircraft manufacturers in recent years have achieved some success and with the correct formulation of the TTZ are ready to provide the right machines. As for foreign experience, sometimes they still should not be neglected, so as not to reinvent the wheel once again.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/22255
28 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. saag
    saag 16 October 2014 18: 48
    +5
    "Do we need military transport Superjets ..."

    Yeah, the question is, why is such a transport needed? There Il-112 asks
    1. Denis fj
      Denis fj 16 October 2014 19: 30
      +2
      I agree with the author of the article, it’s not worth reinventing the wheel. You need to use tankers in the interests of all the Air Force, even helicopters need to learn how to refuel. What they can do in the states. Not to mention 3 fighters at a time. All this is necessary. Otherwise, the cost of maintaining the tanker fleet will high, to the fleet of aircraft that refuel from them in the required quantity.
    2. Giant thought
      Giant thought 16 October 2014 19: 32
      -3
      Of all the proposed options, you need to choose the best.
      1. enot73
        enot73 16 October 2014 19: 58
        +5
        And why only transporters? After all, there are on the basis of civilian aircraft, for example, also flying command posts and EW aircraft
  2. peter-tank
    peter-tank 16 October 2014 18: 52
    +24
    What do not like IL-96-400? Capacity up to 435 people, payload 58 tons, flight range - 13000 km.
    Tu-204. Capacity - 215 people, range - about 7500 km, load - 23 tons.
    If they are not suitable for flights abroad, then for the military within the country (in my non-specialized opinion) they would be quite suitable.
    1. Same lech
      Same lech 16 October 2014 18: 57
      +13
      The car is excellent .... but in our country there are people who think differently ... roughly the fifth column.
      1. Demob 2012
        Demob 2012 16 October 2014 19: 05
        +1
        People want comfort, they’re used to riding Cruisers, so they don’t like them
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. roman_pilot
        roman_pilot 16 October 2014 20: 32
        +3
        Our parasites (in the AFL) removed all sludge from service this year.
        1. Kacar0005
          Kacar0005 17 October 2014 10: 11
          +1
          The airline must carry passengers and receive PROFIT! There are 5-10 people who are especially urapatriotic, like local commentators, who want to fly Ilom. And the empty board will fly. If the AFL impose IL, then please be kind enough to pay expenses from the budget (i.e. from the pocket of taxpayers) and let them fly. And 95% of passengers want to fly for their hard-earned money with comfort and tranquility, and they have the right to do so. I myself had a chance to fly IL-96-3 years then I was afraid to fly. Airline passengers vote for Boeing / Airbus good
        2. Kacar0005
          Kacar0005 17 October 2014 10: 11
          +1
          The airline must carry passengers and receive PROFIT! There are 5-10 people who are especially urapatriotic, like local commentators, who want to fly Ilom. And the empty board will fly. If the AFL impose IL, then please be kind enough to pay expenses from the budget (i.e. from the pocket of taxpayers) and let them fly. And 95% of passengers want to fly for their hard-earned money with comfort and tranquility, and they have the right to do so. I myself had a chance to fly IL-96-3 years then I was afraid to fly. Airline passengers vote for Boeing / Airbus good
          1. roman_pilot
            roman_pilot 17 October 2014 12: 52
            0
            Something I don’t remember, that our silt flew to Antalya empty. There is another problem - in the service. Il broke down somewhere in Delhi, you must first wait for the techies who will arrive on the next flight, then spare parts, but this is already a real loss. But this is the organization of the process, not the plane to blame.
            1. Kacar0005
              Kacar0005 17 October 2014 17: 20
              +1
              In my opinion, they only went on charter flights. Not a crowded charter is nonsense, although I saw this: 30 people for the entire Boeing 737-800, just a fairy tale! But as a passenger, I liked Boeing more (and even more CRJ), and airlines like what is more profitable to operate. And since the plane is not to blame, let it fly, let it be converted into a transporter or to transport contingent, there will be application. But blaming Aeroflot for refusing to exploit what is causing them losses is wrong.
            2. The comment was deleted.
    2. valokordin
      valokordin 16 October 2014 20: 57
      +5
      Quote: piter-tank
      What do not like IL-96-400? Capacity up to 435 people, payload 58 tons, flight range - 13000 km.
      Tu-204. Capacity - 215 people, range - about 7500 km, load - 23 tons.
      If they are not suitable for flights abroad, then for the military within the country (in my non-specialized opinion) they would be quite suitable.

      They are suitable for flights abroad, only no one needed to do this. PS-90 is already certified in ICAO, just push it over the hill, but the 5th convoy in the government slows down everything. Even the president does not cope with them.
      1. Starover_Z
        Starover_Z 16 October 2014 21: 56
        +4
        Quote: valokordin
        but the 5th column in the government is slowing down. Even the president does not cope with them.

        Give a command to sort out the Dzerzhinsky division! And to clarify all the circumstances
        a warning in the style of the film "Liquidation"
        This is just a warning!

        "Or everything will start working for the country and the people or ...!"
      2. ochakow703
        ochakow703 17 October 2014 05: 40
        0
        Of course, it’s much more profitable for these parasites to buy used ear booths and airbags than to invest in their own. Trade, in particular procurement, is a much more muddy scheme than production, and, as you know, it is easier to catch fish there. Lord, when will such a bastard have just started to shoot! Already looking at this disgust is sickening. I am sure that in our country, without Stalin’s methods, order cannot be restored.
    3. VAF
      VAF 16 October 2014 20: 59
      +2
      Quote: piter-tank
      What do not like IL-96-400?


      Because our ... domestic ... how to create a joint venture with such "documentation" lol
  3. roman_pilot
    roman_pilot 16 October 2014 18: 53
    +2
    In Bishkek in Manas, he watched MD-11 of some unknown (probably charter) office. He sat right after me. He brought a bunch of Zolder amerovskih. By the way, somehow two of the special forces drove them to Moscow.
    1. Mol
      Mol 16 October 2014 20: 00
      +1
      Roman pilot
      It was necessary to land American special forces somewhere, half the way! laughing Let them fly.
  4. TECHNOLOGY
    TECHNOLOGY 16 October 2014 18: 55
    +2
    MS-21. Hope? Has the Super broken off? Our engines or theirs? In Irkutsk, they can make the Yak-142. Our engines. Let the Frenchmen with mattresses disappear. It’s a pity that my opinion is unprofitable.
  5. Sergey Krymsky
    Sergey Krymsky 16 October 2014 18: 55
    +1
    Worthy "replacement" for Gotelei http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmK5jRgXJM0
    1. andj61
      andj61 16 October 2014 20: 41
      +2
      Is there really a need to spread this old video on several branches at once?
    2. ochakow703
      ochakow703 17 October 2014 05: 43
      0
      ... In the South North of Lugansk ... That's it. He did not make a slip, he lies!
  6. TECHNOLOGY
    TECHNOLOGY 16 October 2014 18: 57
    +3
    Yak-142 or MS-21?
    1. Reader
      Reader 16 October 2014 19: 31
      +3
      Rogozin said that the series will be Yak 242. MS-21 is the working name.
  7. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 16 October 2014 19: 04
    0
    We need such machines. And the passenger "trucker" is needed. Only not yet even in the project, which is very important for Russia with its vastness.
  8. Reader
    Reader 16 October 2014 19: 05
    +5
    A superjet is unlikely to be suitable for transporting a significant number of people. In addition, it is too dependent on foreign parts. Russian military aircraft should have a full production cycle in their homeland. Tu-334 or An-148 are more suitable.

    But the capabilities of the IL-96 are quite enough to create a serious transporter on its base. Aircraft of the same class as the A340.
    1. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri 16 October 2014 23: 13
      0
      So the IL-96T is launched in a series, only there are no orders ...
      1. Reader
        Reader 16 October 2014 23: 28
        0
        Poletovsky several pieces in Voronezh are and do not fly. Ready-made transporters. And still unfinished at the factory. But for now, min. defense apparently shows no interest.
  9. Basarev
    Basarev 16 October 2014 19: 10
    +4
    Why do we constantly have old stuff in the ranks of the planes? Even the new ones turn out to be "deep modernization" or "based on" the old ones. But we have not heard about completely new projects. As for the Superjet, in my eyes it has fallen very seriously since the very time I found out that it is completely foreign and Russian in it. I will never tire of repeating: Russia is the only country that can be absolutely self-sufficient. And not just can - Russia should become it. Our honor depends on it.
    1. valokordin
      valokordin 16 October 2014 21: 01
      +4
      Quote: Basarev
      I will never tire of repeating: Russia is the only country that can be absolutely self-sufficient. And not just can - Russia should become her. Our honor depends on it.

      BUT it wasn’t here, but what about Chubais, Vekselberg, Medvedev, Manturov, Pogost and many others. It’s not a shame they won’t give.
      1. Basarev
        Basarev 17 October 2014 16: 38
        0
        So, you have to trample them with a filthy broom. Rot in the government cannot be tolerated - this is the path to the death of the country. So, you should get rid of all this carrion at all costs.
  10. Tra-ta-ta
    Tra-ta-ta 16 October 2014 19: 23
    +1
    .. everything seems to be right .., it’s not clear just why sailors from the Pacific Ocean are regularly transported by crowds to the Moscow region .. isn’t it easier to send some admirals / generals to the Pacific Ocean and organize a training center on the spot ..
    1. 406ppm2gv
      406ppm2gv 16 October 2014 22: 23
      0
      Tra-ta-ta RU  Today, 19:23


      .. everything seems to be right .., it’s not clear just why sailors from the Pacific Ocean are regularly transported by crowds to the Moscow region .. isn’t it easier to send some admirals / generals to the Pacific Ocean and organize a training center on the spot ..
      Training center in the suburbs, with appropriate infrastructure, costly pleasure. admirals have nothing to do with it.
    2. 406ppm2gv
      406ppm2gv 16 October 2014 22: 23
      +2
      Tra-ta-ta RU  Today, 19:23


      .. everything seems to be right .., it’s not clear just why sailors from the Pacific Ocean are regularly transported by crowds to the Moscow region .. isn’t it easier to send some admirals / generals to the Pacific Ocean and organize a training center on the spot ..
      Training center in the suburbs, with appropriate infrastructure, costly pleasure. admirals have nothing to do with it.
      1. Tra-ta-ta
        Tra-ta-ta 16 October 2014 22: 54
        0
        Please do not confuse Moscow M2 with the Pacific! I would prefer TF in place of crews, especially family ones. Otherwise - it is better on a special steam locomotive with ballistic missiles on board .. + exchange of experience when firing on a semi-station. Travel will be remembered for a lifetime.
  11. Denis fj
    Denis fj 16 October 2014 19: 33
    0
    Interestingly, the civilian-military turns out, therefore, there is no replacement for the Il-62, but we want to buy new types of Tu-204/214. And how many times the cost of transportation will rise. Airlines operating Tu-204 go bankrupt, and it would be reasonable to order a long-term charter for special transportation ... If you need your own aviation, then the version with the remotorization of the Il-62 and Tu-154 in a two-engine version, based on an engine with a thrust of 18-20 tons, will be the most economical. Load up the capacities of the Kazan, Samara aircraft factories while maintaining independence from imports. And an important detail; in the latest issue of "Popular Mechanics" for October (2014), the PS-90 thrust (modified for IL-476) is indicated at 14500kgs! Here is its true thrust with the required reliability. It is not for nothing that Tu-204/214 are not trusted
    1. roman_pilot
      roman_pilot 16 October 2014 20: 44
      0
      I also think that the pin ... they order charters in order to carry the holders. Because the MD that I saw in Manas was clearly a civilian. Maybe it really is more profitable.
  12. TECHNOLOGY
    TECHNOLOGY 16 October 2014 19: 50
    +3
    Well, let's build the 242nd. Let’s burn the new IL-76. Let's forget all the foreign flightless trash. And what will we be? The same IL-114 is already physically dead. Who killed 204? Manturov wants An-2 to start production? He doesn’t suffer from dullness? Pogosyan with his jet. Well, tell me that this is a cool car. I’ll shoot freaks.
  13. lexx2038
    lexx2038 16 October 2014 20: 58
    -1
    When the time comes to storm the Pentagon and the White House, we will need refuellers and long-range aircraft. We must work in all directions.
    1. lexx2038
      lexx2038 17 October 2014 11: 57
      0
      Quote: lexx2038
      When the time comes to storm the Pentagon and the White House, we will need refuellers and long-range aircraft. We must work in all directions.

      Oh, why are you so? And after the publication of "Pentagon: Hagel did not say that he threatened Russia" Are you all as one going to bomb the Pentagon? How quickly some people change their worldview. You will decide for whom you will fight (or hide).
    2. The comment was deleted.
  14. zinander
    zinander 16 October 2014 21: 12
    +1
    Quote: TECHNAR
    Well, let's build the 242nd. Let’s burn the new IL-76. Let's forget all the foreign flightless trash. And what will we be? The same IL-114 is already physically dead. Who killed 204? Manturov wants An-2 to start production? He doesn’t suffer from dullness? Pogosyan with his jet. Well, tell me that this is a cool car. I’ll shoot freaks.
    Better than Manturov right away, you see civil aviation clearance appears in aviation. How much can you destroy domestic aircraft construction?
  15. Barakuda
    Barakuda 17 October 2014 03: 46
    0
    Through Uzin (Kiev region. The former base of Tu-95), Americans still fly to Afghanistan. The juvenile beekeeper built an airfield.
  16. Wolka
    Wolka 17 October 2014 08: 20
    0
    Earlier, during the Soviet era, in all performance characteristics of civilian models of various equipment, including aircraft, the possibilities were initially laid for their use for military purposes, because this idea is still relevant today when developing new types of equipment ...
  17. Prager
    Prager 20 October 2014 15: 43
    0
    I read the article with great interest. thanks to the author.