Military Review

Heavy attack aircraft IL-102

83
The IL-102 was an experimental Soviet heavy attack aircraft, which was a deep modernization of the IL-40. The idea of ​​creating an armored attack aircraft in the Ilyushin Design Bureau, which, as they say, ate a dog during the creation of attack aircraft, was returned in the late 1960s. At this time, in the Soviet Air Force, based on the experience of fighting in Vietnam and conflicts in the Middle East, they again became interested in an assault aviation. It was then that Ilyushin Design Bureau proposed a model of its Il-42 attack aircraft, which was a profound modernization of the Il-40 developed in the 1950s.


In June 1969, the Soviet Union hosted a competition for stormtroopers' projects. In addition to the Ilyushin Design Bureau, the Yakovlev Design Bureau with the Yak-25LSh attack aircraft, Sukhoi - T8 and Mikoyan - MiG-21LSH participated in the competition. At the same time during the competition, it was decided to stop work on the IL-42 and Yak-25ЛШ. But the development of the Ilyushin heavy double attack aircraft did not end there. Under the leadership of G. V. Novozhilov, the work was continued, but already in an orderly manner. The name IL-42 transformed into IL-102. Compared to its initial prototype, the new attack aircraft received a modified form of the nose of the fuselage with improved forward-down visibility, significantly stronger armament and new more powerful engines.

The construction of the attack aircraft prototype proceeded very slowly. At this time, the KB was loaded with work on other projects that were considered a higher priority. In addition, without proper support “from above”, materials and components had to be mined with particular difficulty. Sometimes it did not do without funny situations. For example, ejection seats for the crew had to be borrowed from one aviation scientific research institute. The construction of the attack aircraft was only completed by the beginning of 1982 of the year. 20 of January was examined by the Commander-in-Chief of the USSR Air Force, Chief Air Marshal P.S. Kutahov, who highly appreciated the aircraft and promised that it would facilitate the adoption of the aircraft. The “silt” supporter was I. S. Silaev, who served as the Minister of Aviation Industry, but then the Minister of Defense of the USSR had the last word.

Heavy attack aircraft IL-102


The plane waited for its fate for several months, as a result, the outcome came in May 1982. Defense Minister Dmitry Ustinov ordered that the aircraft not be tested, and he forbade Novozhilov to engage in amateur activities. Where it came from and why such a resolution was justified is rather difficult to understand. Although at that point in time the Su-25 attack aircraft had already been adopted, it was possible to expand its mass production in the country. However, this was not yet a reason to complete all alternative developments.

But the Ilyushin Design Bureau decided not to throw the plane. The general designer of the aircraft Novozhilov turned for support personally to Kutakhov. He twice raised the issue of the resumption of work on the IL-102 project, but Ustinov did not change his mind. Kutakhov could not get the Marshal's approval to test the aircraft. As a result, the developers of heavy attack aircraft stopped trying to beat their heads against the wall and went to the trick. They changed the name IL-102 to neutral abbreviations ECO-1 (experimental aircraft - the first). After that, the Minister of Aviation Industry Silaev, under his own responsibility, allowed the full test cycle of the aircraft. The attack aircraft was sent to one of the Belarusian airfields, away from the all-seeing eyes of the authorities. For the first time, the updated “flying tank” rose into the sky on September 25 1982, it was piloted by the chief pilot of the Ilyushin Design Bureau, the honored test pilot S. G. Bliznyuk.

Tests of the aircraft were surprisingly wonderful. A total of 1982-1984 years attack aircraft performed more than 250 flights. And by the date of the last flight of 29 December 1987, their total number reached 367. During the flight, there was not a single failure of the onboard systems and not a single failure, and there were no emergencies. The attack aircraft demonstrated sufficiently high flight characteristics, surpassing the mass-produced Su-25. It was noted that the aircraft had good stability on a combat course and unique maneuverability for its class. The minimum turn radius of the aircraft did not exceed 400 meters. Attack flights continued until the engine was fully developed. In 1984, the aircraft was handed over for conservation, and in 1986, they tried to revive the topic again, but these plans never came true. Most likely, the car was killed by considerations of economy in the presence of Su-25 in combat units. The saying "Bolivar will not make two" was implemented in practice.



The general public plane is shown only once. This took place at the 92 air show, where it became one of the sensations. Later, the plane embarked on an eternal parking lot in the LII named after Gromov, where the attack aircraft was in storage up to the 2005 year. After that, it was painted and installed on a pedestal in the avenue of heroes of the LII Gromov Museum, where it is adjacent to the monuments of the Yak-38U, MiG-23UB and Su-17UM3 aircraft.

Design features of the IL-102

Heavy double attack aircraft Il-102 was performed on the normal aerodynamic configuration with low-swept wing. The airframe of the attack aircraft had a high level of adaptability. 80% of its skin was formed by sheets of single curvature, the engine air intakes had a circular cross section.

In terms of layout, the car did not differ from the IL-40, but it was a completely different plane, so to speak, in a “retro” style. Over the past 30 years between the IL-40 and the advent of the IL-102 thirty years in the aircraft industry has changed a lot. New construction materials have appeared, more economical and powerful turbofan engines, new technical processes, and there is no reason to talk about equipment. The crew rescue tools have also been updated. The aircraft used universal ejection seats K-36L in the pilot and K-36L-102 from the arrow operator, which reliably rescued the attack aircraft crew in the entire range of speeds and flight altitudes, including during parking (0 km / h, 0 meters ). If the pilot pressed a special “red button”, the squib was triggered and both seats were shot. Even if the shooter was seriously injured or an intercom was broken between the crew and it was impossible to transfer an ejection order, both crew members had equal chances for salvation. At the same time, the shooter-operator could also eject independently, but he could not catapult the pilot.



The main difference between the IL-102 and the Su-25 was precisely the second crew member. Apparently, this circumstance was not counted as an advantage of the aircraft, and the second cabin for the shooter, most likely, played a negative role. However, the shooter operator, in addition to his main task - to protect against attacks by fighters, helicopter gunships and the suppression of enemy air defenses - kept control of the air situation in the rear hemisphere and the operation of a number of onboard attack aircraft systems. Thus, the work of the pilot was greatly facilitated, part of the load was removed from it. At the moments when the shooter-operator got out of attack, he could use fire with the help of fire from the rear of a remotely controlled artillery installation and could fire and disorganize the enemy with fire, mainly the MANPADS and MPA calculations. As the further development of strike aviation showed, the second crew member on the attack aircraft was altogether superfluous, significantly increasing the efficiency of work at night, in difficult meteorological conditions, in the case of using high-precision weapons systems. In the same year Il-102 - the American A-10 "Thunderbolt II" and the Soviet Su-25 - double modifications were designed to solve these problems, which did not go into a large series, mainly for economic reasons. At the same time on the IL-102 the second crew member was originally planned.

The design of heavy attack aircraft was originally designed with the expectation of manufacturability, the utmost simplicity and low cost of mass production. Based on this, as well as the growth of mass and dimensions of the machine, the Ilyushin Design Bureau for the first time decided to abandon the traditional "Ilyushin" booking scheme - a single armored corps, which included all the vital parts of the attack aircraft (used on the Il-2, Il-10, Il -40). On the IL-102 armor decided to close the cockpit, as well as part of the fuel system and engines. The fuel tanks of the reservation plane lost, but they were concentrated in the central part of the fuselage. The front and rear of them were covered by armored cockpit, as well as defensive artillery, sideways - the engines, and below - twin 30-mm gun. To eliminate the possibility of fire during their penetration, a system of filling fuel tanks with polyurethane was used. In order to increase the security, in the assault-wing wing tips bent down, they placed the ejection blocks of the IR traps and the Avtomat-F dipole reflectors.

The fuselage of the aircraft is of semi-monocoque type. In the central part of it were located the thermocabines of the pilot and the side gunner, between which there were fuel tanks. On the sides of the rear fuselage were located two aerodynamic brakes of relatively small area. The lanterns of the pilot and gunner cabs were formed by flat bulletproof glass. The attack aircraft was distinguished by the presence of a swept two-spar wing of a relatively thick profile. Such a wing made it possible to place six bomb-compartments in it. The wing was equipped with a flap, which occupied about 2 / 3 from its span, on the upper surface two-piece interceptors were installed.



In contrast to the commercially produced Su-25 attack aircraft, the Ilyushin Design Bureau aircraft received two-wheeled supports for the main landing gear with tires of rather large diameter. Despite the greater take-off weight of the attack aircraft, the Il-102 had a lower specific load on the aerodrome surface, thanks to which the machine could operate from unpaved airfields. The nose landing gear was carried far forward, it was retracted into the fuselage by turning back (this arrangement allowed for good maneuverability, but it occupied a large useful volume in the forward fuselage of the attack aircraft, in which other aircraft usually had optical-electronic equipment or a BRLS). The main landing gear was removed by turning forward into special wing gondolas.

As the power plant on the attack aircraft were used two engines RD-33I. These were simplified, unformed versions of the engines of the MiG-29 fighter. Thanks to powerful engines and a well-designed chassis design, the attack aircraft could also be operated from short unpaved runways, and also had better runway characteristics in comparison with the Su-25.

At the bottom of the fuselage on the swinging ventral carriage, which was fixed in two positions, a twin 30-mm 9А-4071К gun was installed, the ammunition of which consisted of 500 projectiles. With firepower comparable to the Su-25, the artillery mount on the IL-102 was different in that it was controlled. She could deviate downward at an angle to 15 degrees. In addition, another interesting solution was implemented - if desired, the entire cannon mount could be easily removed and an additional fuel tank or two bombs hung instead of it, adding two more internal suspension units and bringing their total number to 16. An 30-mm gun mount could easily be dismantled within minutes at the aerodrome.



In the tail part of the attack aircraft there was a turret with a double-barreled 23-mm aircraft gun GSH-23L. Cartridge boxes to this gun were in the front of the tail section of the fuselage at a distance of about 3 meters from the gun mount. This arrangement of ammunition allowed to increase the ammunition, as well as move it closer to the center of mass of the attack aircraft. The projectiles were fed to the GSH-23L using a special mechanism of the electric subassembly of the tape, which was fed into the moving part of the gun through the through axis of the lower vertical hinge. It was believed that the use of active interference and infrared traps in combination with the high maneuverability of the IL-102, as well as an additional pair of eyes of the air gunner operator, who closely followed the rear hemisphere and could promptly notify the pilot of the threat of attack, will reduce the effectiveness of the enemy’s missiles. As a result, enemy fighters would have been forced to resort to cannon armament, getting under the fire of a fast-firing 23-mm cannon GS-23L.

The maximum bomb load of the experimental heavy attack aircraft was 7200 kg. Each wing console had three bomb compartments capable of holding bombs in caliber up to 250 kg. And the total combat load of the aircraft on the internal suspension assemblies (in case of dismantling the ventral cannon) reached 2300 kg. In addition, there were 8 external suspension units (6 under the wing and 2 under the fuselage). An interesting solution was that the entire combat load climbed aboard the attack aircraft using the built-in electric winch. The missile armament of the vehicle included air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles. Also, NARs of all possible types and suspended gun containers could be used.



The assault plane could be transported on two standard-type railway platforms or in the fuselage of the Il-76 transport aircraft. The prototype IL-102 did not have a complete set of equipment. In the future, it was planned to equip the machine with modern optoelectronic systems. Antennas of the Bereza-L radio intelligence system were to appear in the wing tips that were bent down.

Flight technical characteristics of IL-102:
Overall dimensions: length - 17,75 m, height - 5,08 m, wing span - 16,9 m, wing area - 63,5 m2.
Empty weight - 13 000 kg.
Maximum take-off weight - 22 000 kg.
The mass of fuel in the internal tanks - 3700 kg.
The power plant - 2 TDRD RD-33I, unforced thrust - 2x5320 kgf.
The maximum flight speed is 950 km / h.
Practical range - 1000 km.
Ferry range - 3000 km.
Practical ceiling - 10 000 m.
Crew - 2 person (pilot, gunner-operator).
Armament: 2X30-mm automatic gun 9А-4071К, 2х23-mm automatic gun ГШ-2-23 in the tail.
Maximum combat load - 7200 kg on 16 suspension units (including 6 compartments in the wing for 250 caliber bombs kg). Bombs: free-fall and adjustable, up to 500 kg. Air-to-Air UR - P-60M and P-73, Air-to-Surface UR - X-23, X-25, X-29, X-58. All types of NARS, as well as gun containers UAK-23-250, SPPU-1-23.



Information sources:
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/attack/il102.html
http://techno-story.ru/articles/aircrafts/93-il-102-kto-protiv
http://ru-aviation.livejournal.com/3199752.html
http://masterok.livejournal.com/1112992.html?page=1
Author:
83 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Bongo
    Bongo 9 December 2015 06: 25 New
    41
    Normal publication, about a plane little known to the general public. There are really small "shoals", but in general - quite at the level.
    1. qwert
      qwert 9 December 2015 07: 52 New
      53
      One of the most popular aircraft on this site. An average of two articles per year about him. So, it is difficult to call it little-known. Of course, I did not find anything new in the article, and where did the news come from if the plane did not go into series. But, those who recently think on the site will be interested.

      The main advantage of the machine was adaptability. Designers even tried to avoid double curvature details. It was planned in case of war (and in Soviet times they were preparing for a long and long one) to organize a large-scale release similar to the release of IL-2.
      About the rear installation. An example was given that in Afghanistan, the Il-Xnumx had practically no losses precisely because of the rear installation, which covered the plane at the exit from the attack, suppressing the lively firing points of dushmans.
  2. Circuit breaker
    Circuit breaker 9 December 2015 06: 43 New
    13
    Offset to the author !!
  3. avva2012
    avva2012 9 December 2015 06: 55 New
    12
    It is interesting how old this aircraft is, because its peer SU-25 is still actively working. In addition to the economic component, what are the other obstacles to adopting a second attack aircraft in the airborne forces?
    1. Mera joota
      Mera joota 9 December 2015 07: 02 New
      +1
      Quote: avva2012
      It is interesting how old this aircraft is, because its peer SU-25 is still actively working.

      So to speak. The modernization potential of the IL-102 was much higher than that of the Su-25.
      Quote: avva2012
      What are the other obstacles to adopting a second attack aircraft in the airborne forces?

      With modern TSA attack aircraft as a type of strike aircraft is outdated.
      1. avva2012
        avva2012 9 December 2015 07: 25 New
        +1
        It will not be possible to upgrade if there was potential?
        1. Mera joota
          Mera joota 9 December 2015 08: 12 New
          0
          Quote: avva2012
          It will not be possible to upgrade if there was potential?

          Formulate the question more clearly, not entirely clear.
          1. avva2012
            avva2012 9 December 2015 08: 26 New
            +3
            You write: "The modernization potential of the Il-102 was much higher than that of the Su-25. With modern ASP, the attack aircraft as a type of attack aircraft is outdated."
            Apparently, I don’t fully understand what you have under TSA. And whether the very concept of a ground attack aircraft or a specific IL-102 is outdated. Thank.
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 9 December 2015 08: 39 New
              +3
              This was claimed half a century ago.

              Just higher ... The Su-25 has no chance.
            2. Mera joota
              Mera joota 9 December 2015 13: 37 New
              +5
              Quote: avva2012
              what do you have under TSA.

              Aircraft weapons.
              Quote: avva2012
              And is the concept of an attack aircraft or a specific IL-102 outdated?

              Due to the tremendous evolution of MANPADS, being in the zone of its defeat has become dangerous. And since rather poor army can afford to saturate the troops with these rather difficult weapons, the support of troops at the forefront requires the use of inaccessible / inaccessible heights for MANPADS. In this case, the use of armor becomes useless, because at such heights small arms and MZA will not reach. Therefore, attack aircraft are not needed. Here it becomes more important to equip the attack aircraft with modern detection tools and a wide range of ammunition in-w, or rather a greater combat load. Su-25 because of the large mass of armor has a small combat load, only 1,5 tons. (This is a normal load). Adding detection / guidance means eats either the load or the fuel supply. IL-102 in this regard looks much better. Additional equipment equipment will not affect cardinally its characteristics, and the presence of an operator will allow the use of new equipment with maximum efficiency because the operator does not need to be distracted by piloting. The operator can control the drone by identifying in advance the enemy’s air defense objectives and means. In general, the IL-102 in its modern form would be much more.
              1. avva2012
                avva2012 9 December 2015 16: 38 New
                +2
                Mera Joota. Thanks for the answer.
      2. Just BB
        Just BB 11 December 2015 07: 49 New
        +3
        Quote: Mera Joota

        With modern TSA attack aircraft as a type of strike aircraft is outdated.


        You tell the infantryman in the trench
  4. Gray 43
    Gray 43 9 December 2015 06: 57 New
    +6
    Thanks to the author! I did not know about such an airplane
  5. Kir1984
    Kir1984 9 December 2015 07: 22 New
    +7
    cabin straight nostalgia for il-2 smile
  6. inkass_98
    inkass_98 9 December 2015 07: 22 New
    +6
    Yes, Comrade Ustinov broke a lot of firewood in his time as Minister of Defense, although we will not deny his services during the war and in the post-war period. But he is a civilian, by and large, because of this, he cleaned up the space around him from the generals and marshals who fought with the Germans, so that authority would not be dropped. Again, all is not without sin.
    It is possible that IL-102 fell under the distribution precisely for this reason - the roots of the legendary IL-2 / IL-10 are too clearly visible in it.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 9 December 2015 07: 37 New
      +2
      IL-102 is not experimental and better than the Su-25.

      In WWII, they clamped Su-6 for IL-2, with Su-25 it was the other way around.
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 9 December 2015 08: 44 New
        11
        Quote: Scraptor
        In WWII, they clamped Su-6 for IL-2, with Su-25 it was the other way around.

        I disagree with you for one simple reason, there were no engines for this machine. Because of the ASh-71 engine, not only the Su-6 but also the I-185 Polikarpov did not go into the series. The Al-82 engine also required constant improvements. throws from one extreme to the other: from air-cooled engines to liquid-cooled engines, designers and the military did not decide what they needed in the end. And Ilyushushintsev’s experience in creating stormtroopers, in this case, gave an excellent car. Author plus.
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 10 December 2015 05: 28 New
          +1
          It was then remade for a different engine - all the same "it was not needed." As well as the Su-10.
          La-5 with the air as it was.
      2. avt
        avt 9 December 2015 10: 22 New
        +8
        Quote: inkass_98
        But he is a civilian, by and large, because of this, he cleaned up the space around him from the generals and marshals who fought with the Germans, so that authority would not be dropped.

        Here is this enchanting nonsense from real knowledge of working with Ustinov? Or just like that - inspired by the pictures you liked in the article? Hence the type of otdashnik and for yourself -
        Quote: inkass_98
        . Again, all is not without sin.

        Quote: inkass_98
        It is possible that the IL-102 came under distribution, which is why

        C maybe according to the test results? Let's guess, or reports, or at least the memories of the pilots really flying on it we give?
        Quote: inkass_98
        too clearly visible in it are the roots of the legendary IL-2 / IL-10.

        Yes, and the Wright Brothers plane guess the features .....
        Quote: Scraptor
        In WWII, they clamped Su-6 for IL-2,

        And think? Well, in general, about which car was ALREADY mass-produced during the war, and which one was also with an engine not mastered by the industry, and why was it necessary to change the awl for soap when installing the same engine on the SU-6 as on the serially produced and necessary one, How is the air of the Il-2 with a stop of the conveyor for transfer to a new machine? Do you recall the years of creation of the Su-6?
        Quote: Mera Joota
        Compared to the IL-102, the Su-25 looked like a puny goner.

        Iron argument laughing
        Quote: Mera Joota
        . IL-102 carried 1500 tons of bombs only in the underwing bomb compartments, which was the normal loading of the Su-25. In total, the IL-102 could raise 7,5 tons. load, while he did not need to cover the tail with a second machine when leaving the attack.

        That is, in fact, he was a bomber capable of fending off the Messerschmites coming into the tail, well, or spirits bouncing in the mountains.
        Quote: Mera Joota
        Those. in Afghanistan, one Il-102 could replace three or four Su-25s with better survivability.

        THOSE. IL-102 fuck is not needed, like Su-24, because the Tu-16 and 22M used there took more ..... Logically wassat
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 10 December 2015 05: 31 New
          +1
          Quote: avt
          Tu-16 and 22M

          Can they storm?

          And think for yourself? The Su-6 was an analogue of the FW-190, in the "attack" version.
          Otherwise, the whole war on the Yak-1 and Lagg would have been fought ...
      3. rubin6286
        rubin6286 9 December 2015 16: 25 New
        +9
        Let's talk about the IL-102. The comments of people flying and not flying undoubtedly differ. In my flight practice there were very few flights on the Su-17 M4 and a little more on the Su-25. What I would like to say. In my opinion, on the one hand, an attack aircraft, like a battlefield machine, should be easy. Then it’s easier to manage. On the other hand, to “hang” over the battlefield, the pilot and the main components of the machine must be rationally and as reliably protected from fire from the ground. Maneuverability of the attack aircraft is ensured by good mechanization of the wing at subsonic flight speeds, which allows a much larger number of approaches to the target, compared with machines with swept (including variable sweep) and triangular wing. The combat effectiveness of the attack aircraft depends on the equipment of the sighting and navigation complex installed on it, as well as the number and nomenclature of the weapons used (small arms, bomb, missile). It’s important not to overdo it: you hang a lot - the plane is like an “iron” heavy, not enough - it quickly shot, didn’t hit the target and “whistled”. On the ground, that car is better, which is easier to prepare for departure. In my opinion, the weapons of the attack aircraft should have exclusively an external suspension. Bombs in planes, built-in winches for raising bombs - this is an exotic thing that can cost a lot in real life, especially if the plane is damaged by fire from the ground. It seems to me that the second crew member on the attack aircraft is not needed - everything should be done by one pilot, and for him to better “see” there should be something that helps him do this. In Turkey, the F-16 went on the attack, as it is taught, “classically”, from the bottom up to exclude the thermal radiation of the Earth. Su-24 did not see him. Why? Because he does not have the equipment necessary for this.
        It seems to me that the visibility of the shooter on the IL-102 is limited, and then, this projectile tape stretches along the fuselage to the turret ... .. Where he will shoot - he does not see anything at the dive, there is very little time for diving at the exit, yes and on a turn too.
        In my opinion, the Su-25 concept remains optimal to this day, retains the potential for modernization and has not exhausted itself. I liked this car. Of course, MANPADS and FOR "drove" it from low altitudes, but with more modern avionics and armament, he will be able to return there for a short time and deliver an effective strike.

        IL-102, despite the comparative simplicity and manufacturability of some structural elements, in general, is more complicated than the Su-25. After launching into a series and military tests for a certain time, he would remain “raw”, then fine-tuning, a battle test, which would not be known what would end. But the Su-25 was already and fought ... .. As they say, "the road spoon for dinner."
        1. avt
          avt 9 December 2015 16: 59 New
          +2
          Quote: rubin6286
          Then it’s easier to manage.

          During the tests I mentioned, well, when the Ilyushinites accused the Air Force command of bias against the 102nd, the pilots noted good track stability in the Il-102 dive, but if it was required to turn back on the course - correct the aiming error, for example, the plane did not want to do it “By the way, Soloviev, the pilot who passed Afghanistan on the Su-25, also took part in the tests. So the Il 102 behaved like a specific bomber.
          Quote: rubin6286
          In my opinion, the Su-25 concept remains optimal to this day, retains the potential for modernization and has not exhausted itself. I liked this car. Of course, MANPADS and FOR "drove" it from low altitudes, but with more modern avionics and armament, he will be able to return there for a short time and deliver an effective strike.

          What exactly in Syria is now being done on it.
          1. rubin6286
            rubin6286 9 December 2015 19: 15 New
            +1
            It's hard for me to judge this. In Syria, the free-fall KAB-500 bombs are still used, as before, and the Kh-29L and NURS guided air-to-ground missiles are used. This is a proven weapon, but in modern conditions, to strike from low altitudes, you need a guided weapon with a greater launch range and accuracy.
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 9 December 2015 22: 54 New
              0
              Quote: rubin6286
              In Syria, while still used, as before, free-falling bombs KAB-500, ....

              In Afghanistan, the Su-25 was praised for its good sights. He puts unguided bombs quite accurately. And, it seems, from the first call.
              1. rubin6286
                rubin6286 10 December 2015 17: 02 New
                +2
                In fact, it is not the plane that "puts" the bombs, but the pilot sitting in it, and the probability of hitting a target largely depends on his experience, level of training and fitness. I always remember the question addressed to me by the teacher of the bombing department: "What do you think is needed to hit the target?" and my "smart" answer: "The target must be large, the distance to it is small and the eye is correct!"
                I also tried to hit the target from the first approach, realizing that in modern conditions, given the saturation of the combat formations of troops with air defense systems, the second approach may well become the last.
                It’s very difficult. I, of course, understand the difference between KAB and free-fall bombs, do not judge strictly, if I made a wrong proposal, DAOS corrected and supplemented me. So far, I don’t see NURSs on TV either, but based on my own experience, I suppose that Su-25s are still used and perhaps more often than helicopters, especially "working" on convoys, because an attack aircraft is needed for an attack from low altitudes. I understand what an order is, but, "trying on" the situation for myself, I think that I would take the risk .... There is a temptation: one correctly constructed link entry and a huge column turns into a "fiery snake". And the risk? So after all the war ... ..
            2. Taoist
              Taoist 9 December 2015 23: 52 New
              +2
              KAB is a Spotting bomb, not a "free fall" bomb.
              In Syria (if you believe the video and the MO reports), FAB, BetAB and CAB are used depending on the task. But NURSy, if they apply, it is only from a helicopter. The planes, as far as I know, do not descend there at low altitudes and do not shoot Nursa with 5-6 km ...
    2. Mera joota
      Mera joota 9 December 2015 08: 10 New
      +4
      Quote: inkass_98
      It is possible that IL-102 fell under the distribution precisely for this reason - the roots of the legendary IL-2 / IL-10 are too clearly visible in it.

      IL-102 was the victim of a dishonest game by Sukhoi Design Bureau whose leaders did not disdain ties in the leadership of the USSR Air Force. Having learned in advance about the upcoming contest for LCS and requirements for it, having a head start, they copied the Northrop YA-9 concept a year and were able to provide not an image (like other participants), but a ready-made layout. The fact that the Su-25 did not turn out to be military became clear already by the end of the 70s, it was not suitable for global war because it did not have means of detecting targets and anti-tank weapons, moreover, by the end of the State Security Inspectorate it turned out that the Su-25 did not correspond to a number of TTZ parameters! Against this background, the military demanded to revive the IL-102 in 1980. It was funded the construction of two prototypes that were created in 1982. But the Sukhoi Design Bureau lobby did their job and IL-102 was stolen.
      Compared to the IL-102, the Su-25 looked like a puny goner. IL-102 carried 1500 tons of bombs only in the underwing bomb compartments, which was the normal loading of the Su-25. In total, the IL-102 could raise 7,5 tons. load, while he did not need to cover the tail with a second machine when leaving the attack. Those. in Afghanistan, one Il-102 could replace three or four Su-25s with better survivability.
      1. avt
        avt 9 December 2015 11: 38 New
        +4
        Quote: Mera Joota
        IL-102 was the victim of a dishonest game by Sukhoi Design Bureau whose leaders did not disdain ties in the leadership of the USSR Air Force.

        Well, who shunned something or not - an artistic whistle,
        Quote: Engineer
        What is the Su-25 more suitable for use in the army?
        In light of the above, what to do with the tests carried out based on the complaints of the Ilyushin residents carried out by the test pilot, and even the head of the 1st Directorate of the GK Research Institute of the Air Force of the Hero of the USSR VV Migunov?
        Quote: Mera Joota
        The fact that the Su-25 did not turn out to be military became clear by the end of the 70s, it was not suitable for global war

        Well, Washington certainly couldn’t bomb. wassat
        1. Mera joota
          Mera joota 9 December 2015 14: 02 New
          -1
          Quote: avt
          Well, who shunned something or not - an artistic whistle,

          I would agree, if not a similar story with the Su-33 / MiG-29K. The Sukhovites squeezed their Su-33 onto a ship designed for the MiG-29K, despite the fact that the Su-33 did not meet the basic requirement, versatility (work both by air and by sea).

          Quote: avt
          In light of the above, what to do with the tests carried out based on the complaints of the Ilyushin residents carried out by the test pilot, and even the head of the 1st Directorate of the GK Research Institute of the Air Force of the Hero of the USSR VV Migunov?

          The Il-102 was assembled "on the knee" without being able to carry out normal development work, while the Su-25 was sculpted from 1972 to 1987, 15 YEARS! At the same time, they lost one flight sample that collapsed in the air, while they received an article that was not capable of fulfilling the main purpose of DESTROYING TANKS of the enemy. If the residents of Ilyushin would spend 15 years creating what Migunov described, while receiving normal funding and the required materials, then I would agree with you ...
          The Su-25 became the MOST shot down aircraft in the world.
          Quote: avt
          Well, Washington certainly couldn’t bomb.

          Gee-gee-gee - is this your level? The attack aircraft was intended as an anti-tank weapon, no one in the late 60s planned to wage war against bearded men in the mountains, they needed a tool against NATO tanks, the Su-25 was absolutely useless in this regard.
          1. avt
            avt 9 December 2015 14: 58 New
            +1
            Quote: Mera Joota
            I would agree, if not a similar story with the Su-33 / MiG-29K.

            Or maybe all the same in each case, understand ???
            Quote: Mera Joota
            IL-102 was assembled "on the knee" without being able to carry out normal development work, while the Su-25 was molded from 1972 to 1987, 15 YEARS!

            And if without exaltation and stupidly see how the same Samoilovich was looking for a plant for the 25th and WHAT as a result, the Georgians did ???
            Quote: Mera Joota
            At the same time, they lost one flying model, which collapsed in the air, and at the same time received a craft that was not able to fulfill its main mission to DESTROY AN ENEMY TANK.

            The brain won't let go of the cinema - “the main thing is to knock out the tanks.” But the question is - whose? You don't want to look at the doctrines of those years? Especially who and whose tanks was going to be knocked out, in particular with the help of specialized helicopters. A hundred pounds, if you read and compare - will let go.
            Quote: Mera Joota
            The Su-25 became the MOST shot down aircraft in the world.

            Losses IL-2/10 refresh reluctance? Well, if you bring such analogies.
            Quote: Mera Joota
            Gee-gee-gee - is this your level?

            No - "gee-gee-gee" it's yours, I've never written THIS in my life anywhere. At the same time, in the light of "knocking out tanks" - hang around the World of the same tank less.
            1. Mera joota
              Mera joota 9 December 2015 20: 39 New
              0
              Quote: avt
              Or maybe all the same in each case, understand ???

              Don't see the trend?
              Quote: avt
              And if without exaltation and stupidly see how the same Samoilovich was looking for a plant for the 25th and WHAT as a result, the Georgians did ???

              Type Ilyushushins would have found something else. Would Mikoyan be troubled by a plant in Gorky? Or Yakovlev in Saratov? So there were no options.
              Quote: avt
              Like cinema the brain will not let go - "the main thing is to knock out the tanks."

              Did I come up with this damn thing?
              In November 1975, the aircraft was shown to Minister of Defense Andrei Grechko, who for the first time directly asked the question: “Will the Su-25 be able to hit the new American tank M1A1 Abrams?” - to which he received an honest answer: "Maybe, but with a very low probability."

              Believe Grechko A.A. reluctantly asked empty questions?
              I will repeat myself. The Su-25 was not needed by the army, therefore in 1972. They closed the issue on the Su-25, if not for the intervention of the all-powerful Dementyev, whose motto was "We will give the customer not what he asks for, but what he needs!" the T-8 would have remained an experimental vehicle. Dementyev imposed the Su-25 on the military, therefore in November 1975. the aforementioned bridegroom took place, attended by Defense Minister Grechko, Air Force Commander Kutakhov and an endless general retinue. The military accepted the Su-25 under the promise of an anti-tank version.
              Quote: avt
              Losses IL-2/10 refresh reluctance? Well, if you bring such analogies.

              What does it have to do with the parallel with the IL-2, when there is a parallel with the A-10 warring in the same conditions and with the same intensity as the Su-25?
              Quote: avt
              No -, gy-gy-gy "this is yours, I have never written THIS in my life.

              Do not write, put emoticons.
          2. Scraptor
            Scraptor 10 December 2015 06: 07 New
            0
            With the MiG-29K and Su-33 it’s just the opposite now.

            On the ground, even the Su-25 can work. lol

            And how can they just not fool you?
        2. Aleksandr1959
          Aleksandr1959 9 December 2015 16: 19 New
          0
          In light of the above, what to do with the tests carried out based on the complaints of the Ilyushin residents carried out by the test pilot, and even the head of the 1st Directorate of the GK Research Institute of the Air Force of the Hero of the USSR VV Migunov?

          About what Valery Valentinovich Migunov was in conflict with Vadim Anatolyevich Oleinikov (one of the reasons).
        3. Scraptor
          Scraptor 10 December 2015 05: 39 New
          0
          Alaska - could ...
    3. grigoriy
      grigoriy 9 December 2015 08: 23 New
      +3
      But in my opinion delitanta Ustinov made the right choice .. SU-25 is as simple as a shovel, at what price would the IL-102 cost? how reliable would it be? Of course, the IL-102 is perhaps better in some ways, but the SU-25 was most suitable for use by the troops.
      1. Engineer
        Engineer 9 December 2015 08: 59 New
        +6
        Why is this Su-25 reliable, but not the IL-102? What is the Su-25 more suitable for use in the army? How is the IL-102 complicated? Continuous speculation. The IL-102 is much better armored and has better firepower. Is an aircraft that provides better crew protection and greater impact power less suitable for troops? Strange logic, to be honest.
        1. fitter71
          fitter71 April 1 2016 20: 14 New
          0
          “On the Il-102, it was decided to cover the crew cabins with armor, as well as partially the fuel supply system and engines. The aircraft's fuel tanks lost their reservation” - where are the indications of the “best” of the Il-102 reservation? yes, and there are questions about firepower - a container with a cannon removable, and any additional element in the technique reduces the reliability of the mechanism as a whole. because you will not dispute that all sorts of easily removable devices can fail at the most inopportune moment ... I do not dispute the advantages of such an arms system, but there are also disadvantages.
    4. rubin6286
      rubin6286 9 December 2015 16: 23 New
      +7
      DF Ustinov, the best Minister of Defense of the USSR for the entire post-war period and until his death, did much more for the Armed Forces than all the other marshals who, in their post-war reforms, went no further than “the color of pants and boots”. In life, Ustinov was a kind, attentive and at the same time intelligent and demanding leader. Being by nature, rather a “production man” than a “strategist,” the minister had a rare flair for the new, the ability to distinguish the main thing from the “sea of ​​chatter” and, if necessary, help implement the idea if it deserved it. He never trumped his authority, although he was always and significantly higher with him than the rest (still living at that time) of the "professional" military.
  7. Tanker55
    Tanker55 9 December 2015 07: 41 New
    +2
    Thanks, article plus!
  8. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 9 December 2015 07: 59 New
    +9
    The fate of the aircraft, as well as the people - are different .... But they would have let us in the series, there would be another splinter to our partners!
  9. Dimon-chik-79
    Dimon-chik-79 9 December 2015 09: 55 New
    +2
    Oh, these under carpet intrigues, how many interesting ideas they ruined ...
  10. Zubr
    Zubr 9 December 2015 09: 57 New
    +9
    Interesting car. most. what surprised me: "For all the time of 300 test flights with a hook, not a single failure of the onboard control systems, until the engines are fully exhausted." And the turning radius for a car of this class is 400 meters, ... I take off my hat.
  11. castle
    castle 9 December 2015 10: 00 New
    +5
    Judging by the pictures, the rear view of the operator-shooter was not entirely optimal. Question to the author of the article and to all people who know. Using what equipment did the shooter operator review (control) the rear hemisphere and with what sights did he work on the ground and in the air? And the ACS or, at least, the ballistic computer were there? How many degrees horizontally (left, right) could the rear guns unfold? If it `s not a secret.
    The video materials from the tests of IL-102 (I did not sit on commissions) show a certain military superiority of Il over Sukhoi. But, Sukhoi’s production economy probably won. And maybe human factors.
  12. Taoist
    Taoist 9 December 2015 10: 33 New
    +7
    I do not know why some here have concluded that "Stormtrooper as a class is outdated."

    The presence of well-protected strike vehicles capable of "hanging" over the battlefield providing direct support to the infantry "by sight" is still necessary. And in this regard, it is precisely the layout machine 102 but taking into account modern technologies. The stern cannon installation, with an automatic sighting station, is quite capable of hitting MANPADS, as well as it was noted to suppress ground firing points at the most dangerous treader area for an attack aircraft - at the exit from the attack.
    1. avva2012
      avva2012 9 December 2015 11: 03 New
      0
      And in this regard, it is the 102 layout machine, but taking into account modern technologies. Personally, I wanted to find out. Maybe the question was not so formulated, but, being, not even an amateur, he was interested in a person who clearly knew the problem better than me.
    2. castle
      castle 9 December 2015 12: 15 New
      +2
      Thanks to the respected Taoist. He taught me Russian vocabulary.
      An attack aircraft can "hang over the battlefield" only if the adversary has nothing in his hands except a Kalashnikov. In the presence of the "captured" Raytheon FIM-92 Stinger or the "Willow" (GRAU index - 9K333, missile - 9M336) that accidentally fell into the hands of enemies, the attack aircraft will not hang over the battlefield for a long time. After all, even an Iraqi grandfather knows how to shoot down a modern plane with a flintlock.
      I think that some of you saw how "Pantsir" was unable to shoot down a UAV with cannon armament. I had to shoot rockets. And this despite the fact that for the commercial, the UAVs were specially driven at a minimum speed and not to the target, but to fly over the target. This I mean, what would be the effectiveness of the IL-102 stern gun mount without proper electronics?
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 9 December 2015 12: 33 New
        +4
        On the one hand, you strive to read me literally - this is about "hanging" ... Although the term was not invented by me, but it was used precisely in terms of the use of a permanent air cover working on "land requests". (Why did we have air controllers assigned to the forward units and caravans)
        on the other hand, you don't finish reading my posts, but I wrote "if there is an automatic sighting station" - that is, "proper electronics"
        By the way, the comparison of the capabilities of the "shell" to defeat the UAV and targeting the CPU to the target is incorrect. If only because the radar's view from the ground and from the air is different, as well as the defeat of a target freely maneuvering at a distance or a target going to intercept with practically no maneuvering. MANPADS are certainly dangerous - but their capabilities are quite limited.
        1. castle
          castle 9 December 2015 12: 46 New
          0
          Dear Taoist!
          Please forgive me for misunderstanding. Not everything I studied in Russian.
      2. Scraptor
        Scraptor 10 December 2015 05: 38 New
        0
        Quote: hrad
        what would be the effectiveness of the IL-102 stern gun mount without proper electronics

        Why not? Probably at the level of such installations for the Tu-16.
    3. iouris
      iouris 11 December 2015 16: 40 New
      0
      In any case, a strict rule applies when performing shock missions: only one run is performed. Of course, if the enemy cannot provide fire resistance, then it is possible to "hang". But that rarely happens.
      Therefore, if your idea materializes in theory and practice, then great losses to the pilots are guaranteed.
      I think that there is no consistent definition of the concept of "attack aircraft". Basically, an attack aircraft differs from a bomber in that it works on mobile targets and provides direct support to ground forces. In the USSR, there was another class of attack aircraft: the fighter-bomber. In the USA, there are two classes of "frontline" aviation: tactical fighter (F) and attack aircraft (A-10, AC-130)
      The attack aircraft is forced to enter the zone of destruction of military air defense systems. Also, the attack aircraft is characterized by a greater variety of weapons used. The attack aircraft does not need supersonic speed, altitude and range. But what is needed is simplicity of maintenance and repair of combat damage, protection of critical structural elements, good agility and thrust-to-weight ratio, and controllability. I personally doubt that a large combat load is mandatory for an attack aircraft: the preparation time for a re-flight increases, and it is difficult to "unload" it.
    4. iouris
      iouris 11 December 2015 16: 40 New
      0
      In any case, a strict rule applies when performing shock missions: only one run is performed. Of course, if the enemy cannot provide fire resistance, then it is possible to "hang". But that rarely happens.
      Therefore, if your idea materializes in theory and practice, then great losses to the pilots are guaranteed.
      I think that there is no consistent definition of the concept of "attack aircraft". Basically, an attack aircraft differs from a bomber in that it works on mobile targets and provides direct support to ground forces. In the USSR, there was another class of attack aircraft: the fighter-bomber. In the USA, there are two classes of "frontline" aviation: tactical fighter (F) and attack aircraft (A-10, AC-130)
      The attack aircraft is forced to enter the zone of destruction of military air defense systems. Also, the attack aircraft is characterized by a greater variety of weapons used. The attack aircraft does not need supersonic speed, altitude and range. But what is needed is simplicity of maintenance and repair of combat damage, protection of critical structural elements, good agility and thrust-to-weight ratio, and controllability. I personally doubt that a large combat load is mandatory for an attack aircraft: the preparation time for a re-flight increases, and it is difficult to "unload" it.
  13. holgert
    holgert 9 December 2015 10: 44 New
    +2
    Thank you! Excellent article! The car looks great --- it is a pity that today it is not in service !!!!
  14. Sigi3mund
    Sigi3mund 9 December 2015 11: 55 New
    +6
    It is interesting to imagine the situation if the IL-102 went into production, but the SU-25 did not. We would read articles that such a wonderful plane was not allowed into the series due to some intrigue)
  15. Free Cossack
    Free Cossack 9 December 2015 12: 14 New
    -1
    Thank! An interesting article about an interesting, but not well-known aircraft.
  16. Taoist
    Taoist 9 December 2015 12: 16 New
    +6
    By the way, do not oppose the "Rook" and the 102nd ... these are conceptually different machines. For good reason, it was necessary to have both in service. But reality is always a compromise. In that situation, there was simply no urgent need for a heavy attack aircraft ... But now, in the development and growth of local conflicts, a heavier, protected and autonomous vehicle would be more useful.
    1. iouris
      iouris 9 December 2015 12: 42 New
      +2
      In that situation, there was strong concern about the growing threat from China, which relied on the use of huge masses of people, so the IL-102 is an aircraft capable of carrying a lot of S-5-type NURSs with arrow-shaped striking elements. In fact, IL-102 is the development of IL-28, which were in demand after Damansky and subsequent events on the Chinese border. The development of technology, in particular, increasing the capabilities of anti-aircraft weapons, calls into question the entire concept of this aircraft. Now we need reconnaissance and strike systems with space, air and ground components for the use of high-precision weapons from long ranges. For target designation and striking, UAVs will be needed. It would be necessary to accelerate the creation of effective means of destroying enemy UAVs and defending their UAVs from enemy UAV fighters.
      1. max702
        max702 9 December 2015 12: 56 New
        +3
        Regarding the UAV .. All the successes in this direction among the Western countries can be explained by the reason for "laziness" and Russia's lack of interest .. Yes, that's right, everyone understands that it is possible to effectively use UAVs against the "Papuans" in the absence of air defense and electronic warfare, as soon as these components appear, the efficiency of the UAV drops sharply, and now, when the masks are dropped, it is very likely that the "Papuans" will have electronic warfare equipment sharpened for jamming UAVs, it is not very expensive and something tells us about this in the near future, but when UAVs will become ineffective, so the presence of a person in the control of the aircraft on the battlefield will be needed, another reincarnation of attack aircraft at a new technological level ..
        1. rubin6286
          rubin6286 9 December 2015 17: 37 New
          +3
          I think you are wrong. UAV today is a fully-formed class of aircraft for various purposes. It is difficult for me to judge the capabilities of electronic warfare, but I saw our Russian UAV made of composite materials with a wingspan of about 3 meters. It is controlled remotely, it can rise to a height of up to 3 thousand meters and conduct reconnaissance with the transfer of information to the computer of the platoon (company) commander in real time.
          In clear weather, visually detecting it in the sky is quite difficult and also almost inaudible. Today in the world much more work is being done to increase the efficiency of UAVs than manned vehicles. In civil aviation, a number of countries are actively working on the creation of unmanned passenger airliners.
        2. iouris
          iouris 11 December 2015 16: 11 New
          +1
          In Afghanistan, Chechnya, Ukraine, Syria, the regular army was opposed by the "Papuans", that is, paramilitary formations, and electronic warfare and nuclear weapons were not used. What's in the near future: a major nuclear war or a chain of military conflicts like the Syrian one?
          Only the UAV is capable of "hanging" over the enemy.
      2. avt
        avt 9 December 2015 13: 21 New
        +1
        Quote: iouris
        . In fact, IL-102 is the development of IL-28, which were in demand after Damansky and subsequent events on the Chinese border.

        wassat Have you read the article ???? You saw a picture of IL-40 and IL-40P ???? And if you look WHAT the Ilyushin residents did after IL-28 in its continuation, you will find out a lot of interesting things.
        1. iouris
          iouris 9 December 2015 16: 38 New
          +1
          My assertion is not strict, of course, it is connected with the fact that on the "Chinese direction" it was found effective to have an Il-28Sh with a large number of UB-32s. The straight wing of a significant span (compared to the Su-7 and MiG-21) allowed this idea to be realized. It was believed that the Chinese would attack in huge masses, and the technical equipment of the army would be extremely low. However, the Il-28s were cut at the direction of Khrushchev, it was deemed inappropriate to restore production, therefore this project appeared. No matter what the design bureau did, the idea of ​​creating a subsonic battlefield aircraft could not have penetrated the wall of the USSR Ministry of Defense until 1979 broke out. In Afghanistan, it turned out that the supersonic Su-17 and MiG-21 are ineffective. In general, the support of infantry from the air by aviation in the USSR did not have an adequate solution, primarily for organizational and technological reasons: the "Red Guards" could not find mutual understanding with the Air Force, and modern reconnaissance and target designation means did not exist. The role of aviation in maneuvers was reduced to creating a television picture. They began to solve this problem only in Afghanistan, where air controllers worked, in which they urgently turned the navigators of the combat command, who had previously served at the command post.
          IL-40 is the development of IL-2.
          1. avt
            avt 9 December 2015 17: 13 New
            0
            Quote: iouris
            . In Afghanistan, it turned out that supersonic Su-17 and MiG-21 are ineffective.

            wassat In fact, the Su-17M4 is the workhorse of that war. When they realized in the first Chechen war and demanded from the storage of the Su-17M4 or MiG-27, which were not massively used in Afghanistan - they were guarding the western direction, they could not lift ANY machine - the mechanisms for changing the sweep were completely rotten. neither to the village nor to the city.
            Quote: iouris
            In general, the support of infantry from the air by aviation in the USSR did not have an adequate solution, primarily for organizational and technological reasons: the "Red Guards" could not find mutual understanding with the Air Force, and modern reconnaissance and target designation means did not exist.

            request Rare delirium wassat Right on Bulgakov - whatever you grab - there is nothing. wassat fool Right out of nowhere, the same Su-17M4 appeared, and I’m not talking about air reconnaissance. The spirits didn’t know about it and the aircraft guards were aimed and simply hunted. Maybe something to look for, read for an adequate attitude? But it’s silly to argue that ANY war leads its corrections to those or other methods of warfare and in peacetime it’s impossible to argue. Well, before issuing opuses with such an aplomb?
            Quote: iouris
            IL-40 is the development of IL-2.

            Yah ! wassat laughing Or maybe all the same, the development of IL-2 was IL-8 and IL-10? And in general, this topic ended on the IL-20? Or maybe all this is a continuation of the creation of Comrade Junkers in the First World War? Maybe you still decide who came from whom, otherwise I’m watching you storm along the IL-102 from the Il-28 to the Il-2, well, the last through the Il-40. wassat It would be necessary to decide how the heart calms down ...
            1. iouris
              iouris 11 December 2015 12: 46 New
              +2
              Quote: avt
              Actually, the Su -17M4 is the workhorse of that war

              Everything is more complicated. There was no alternative. In the initial period, the Su-25 was not at all, and then the Su-25 was still a scarce aircraft.
              PrNK Su-17 and MiG-27 proved to be ineffective in mountain conditions. And in the "western direction" too. There were too many failures, and the adjustment effort was very high. The pilots preferred to work in "manual mode". In general, the Su-17 and MiG-27 differed little from each other. For use in the mountains (the main type of combat use - from a dive), they did not have sufficient maneuverability.
              In 1984, the MiG-23ML was sent to Afghanistan. A sufficiently high maneuverability made it possible to drop bombs from diving angles of 40 degrees, which was especially valuable when the target was in the gorge. At the same time, the MiG-23ML could be used even in narrow gorges. Those. MiG-23ML was used as the Yu-87. The accuracy of the bombing has increased markedly. In addition, the MiG-23ML was used as a cover from Pakistani fighters.
              Minus: there is at least one known case when a pilot was killed by a bullet from the DShK during a dive, which the pilots called "autogenous".
              Only armor has effective protection against "autogen".
              Quote: avt
              you storm on IL-102 from IL-28 to IL-2, well, the last through IL-40

              First, you should capitalize "you".
              Secondly, what is the fundamental difference between the combat use of a piston IL-2 from the combat use of a jet attack aircraft?
  17. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 9 December 2015 13: 32 New
    0
    How do people compare the vitality of IL and Sukhoi? Size in this case is more likely minus than plus. Against the fighter, the second shooter will not help, against MANPADS, either. Survivability is determined by the armor and location of aircraft systems. And in fact, and in Sukhoi one of the best. There are only two of them, along with the A-10.
    1. Mera joota
      Mera joota 9 December 2015 14: 08 New
      -8
      Quote: Zaurbek
      Survivability is determined by the armor and location of aircraft systems. And in fact, and in Sukhoi one of the best. There are only two of them, along with the A-10.

      The wreckage of the Su-25 has accompanied many conflicts since Afghanistan. How did the reservation help? Nothing. A-10 has been fighting since 1991. and in terms of the number of sorties, if you didn’t surpass the Su-25, then it corresponds, only much less are lost.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 9 December 2015 16: 30 New
        +2
        The reservation helped the pilots who were not killed. The Americans used the A-10 for its intended purpose as an anti-tank aircraft. Take the statistics of the downed Su-25s in Afghanistan and divide by 10 years of war, not so many were shot down ... two were attacked by Pakistan's F-16s. And name the conflict, where A-10 participated and where we delivered MANPADS to the opposite side. In the Donbas, they would have been shot down just like the Sukhoi.
        1. Mera joota
          Mera joota 9 December 2015 20: 48 New
          +1
          Quote: Zaurbek
          And name the conflict, where A-10 participated and where we delivered MANPADS to the opposite side.

          Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya.
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 10 December 2015 08: 58 New
            +2
            Of those listed in Iraq, when trying to use a 30mm gun against tanks, losses began, then they used television-guided missiles. 80% of the armored vehicles were destroyed by artillery and Apaches. Mostly at night.
          2. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 10 December 2015 08: 58 New
            +1
            Of those listed in Iraq, when trying to use a 30mm gun against tanks, losses began, then they used television-guided missiles. 80% of the armored vehicles were destroyed by artillery and Apaches. Mostly at night.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Aleksandr1959
        Aleksandr1959 9 December 2015 16: 33 New
        +5
        As for the combat survivability of the Su-25. Photos during the events of 08.08.08/XNUMX/XNUMX
        1. Mera joota
          Mera joota 9 December 2015 20: 48 New
          -7
          Quote: Aleksandr1959
          As for the combat survivability of the Su-25. Photos during the events of 08.08.08/XNUMX/XNUMX

          And how much did not reach? Remind me?
          1. Aleksandr1959
            Aleksandr1959 9 December 2015 22: 10 New
            +4
            Quote: Aleksandr1959
            As for the combat survivability of the Su-25. Photos during the events of 08.08.08/XNUMX/XNUMX
            And how much did not reach? Remind me?

            In my opinion, it is more important how much they reached in such a state as in the photo. And this is not the worst option. There were cars on which the pilots reached the airfield ... but these machines could not be restored. The skill of the flight crew multiplied by the exceptional combat survivability of the Su-25 showed miracles. And one more point, the Su-25 provided, like no other aircraft, the survival of the flight crew in conditions of dense enemy fire.
          2. barbiturate
            barbiturate 10 December 2015 18: 37 New
            +2
            So what, try to remind. Just what kind of data are you thinking of using? Georgians announced 80-90 cars, then reduced to 14 in official communications, ours are called much lower numbers. I believe our official data, and whose is yours?
            Here it is still important to understand what the attack aircraft was shot down by. MANPADS and MZA missiles from the ground are one thing, the Su-25 attack aircraft is not very bad against these weapons, there are a lot of CERTIFICATES of pilots and ground services and all in one direction - the plane is very tenacious.
            Another thing is the defeat by a missile of a Buk type complex - there the warhead has a mass of 70 !! kg and all 4 officially recognized war losses 080808 (1 Tu 22m and 3 Su 25) were from these missiles. Do you feel the difference in the mass of warheads for MANPADS and MANPADS? Trials of the Su25 included shelling the MZA and detonating the MANPADS warhead directly in the engine nozzle, but NOBODY and NEVER assumed the survival of the aircraft (any aircraft) in the event of an explosion of 70 kg !! bch The Su-25 aircraft logically collapsed with such a missile, but even after undermining a warhead of such mass, the cockpit armor kept a dense stream of fragments and the pilots survived !!!
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 10 December 2015 20: 16 New
              +2
              The A-10 was most made with awls. MANPADS - AV-8B, their side nozzles "shine" well, so it is difficult to drop a rocket
    2. Scraptor
      Scraptor 10 December 2015 05: 47 New
      0
      Quote: Zaurbek
      Against the fighter, the second shooter will not help, against MANPADS, either.

      You can compare the loss of IL-2 before and after adding the shooter
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 10 December 2015 08: 54 New
        +1
        You can put 3 shooters in the rear in the attack aircraft. What and what will they be shot at and how much weight will this add to the airplane?
      2. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 10 December 2015 08: 54 New
        +1
        You can put 3 shooters in the rear in the attack aircraft. What and what will they be shot at and how much weight will this add to the airplane?
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 10 December 2015 20: 17 New
          +1
          Quote: Scraptor
          You can compare the loss of IL-2 before and after adding the shooter
    3. iouris
      iouris 13 December 2015 03: 09 New
      +1
      On one American site, Iraqi war veterans posted photographs of the A-10s debunked, which they nevertheless successfully repaired in the field.
  18. Pate
    Pate 9 December 2015 16: 21 New
    0
    Sorry for the car.http: //www.youtube.com/watch? V = botGd4jN8Dk
  19. K-36
    K-36 9 December 2015 19: 53 New
    +7
    Quote: Engineer
    Why is this Su-25 reliable, but not the IL-102? What is the Su-25 more suitable for use in the army? How is the IL-102 complicated? Continuous speculation. The IL-102 is much better armored and has better firepower. Aircraft providing better crew protection and greater impact power less suitable for troops? Strange logic, to be honest.

    I apologize, but I am forced to contact you privately. Here you have chosen a nickname Engineer... Here I am, without a moment's hesitation, and expected comments from you with the Engineer's thought expressed enough in them. And what do I see? "... less suitable for troops." I am even ashamed to speak in front of educated people the most banal truths that each technological operation needs its own equipment. yes Well, you really won’t seriously declare that for workshop No. 2 a drill with a diameter of 8 mm is more suitable for (troops) workers than a drill of 3 mm? recourse To any literate person, it’s quite clear that, for example, soldier’s boots are more convenient (and more Qualified !!!) to hammer with cloves with a Special hammer, rather than a sledgehammer; ... that a splinter from under the nail Qualified to pull out with tweezers, and not with ticks, etc. etc.
    Well, back to the planes. You can’t apply this criterion to airplanes (is it better for troops or not). For the criterion here is high efficiency for solving the tasks for which it was created. That is, an airplane is the same tool as a drill, a sledgehammer, a hammer, a milling cutter, a blacksmith press, etc. But what is more necessary for troops (infantry) directly on the battlefield at this moment and in this situation to be decided by higher headquarters (ideally - literate and smart winked ) according to the reports of mid-level commanders from the line of combat contact. And here they have (big military leaders) on hand and they need the necessary set of tools. And, oddly enough, here the dog is buried. Well, in the sense that they adequately understand that it is better to knock down soldier’s boots with a hammer, specially sharpened for this case, and not with a sledgehammer (and especially not with a drill or tweezers).
    Sorry generously, did not want to offend you. Just your comment caused some dissonance. That nostalgia for the engineering past and leaped.
    With good wishes hi .
  20. TOR2
    TOR2 9 December 2015 21: 10 New
    +1
    Quote: avva2012
    And in this regard, it is the layout machine 102, but taking into account modern technologies. Personally, I wanted to find out
    Look, if you develop the concept of IL-102, then you just can not do without modern technologies. Firstly, such an aircraft will need a fairly powerful information system. The shooter will have to clean up what the pilot did not have time to clean up and there will be little time for this. For example, the pilot managed to hit 2 targets and 1 remained. The shooter must see this target in advance on the monitor. In addition, a nomenclature of weapons will be required with which the IL-102 will be able to conduct reverse fire. Guns alone are not enough for this. If there are appropriate engineering solutions, then this aircraft, along with the Su-39, will have a future.
  21. Bayun
    Bayun 9 December 2015 23: 00 New
    +2
    It is strategically important to keep the WORST warfare in mind. Nuclear weapons - massively, no one has satellites. ALL electronics are dead. There is nowhere to produce expensive spare parts, factories are partially or completely destroyed. So, with what "axes" will the victory in the 3rd World War be forged? Namely, armored aircraft. Tanks of the IS-2 type, and possibly the T-34. MANPADS, ATGMs and other wunderwales will quickly run out, like all modern technology, and it will be IMPOSSIBLE to produce them. Questions for the flyers, will the SU-25 take off from the ground? And what in general from modern combat takes off from the ground?

    PS: now, the steam engines from the reserve are already smoking ...
  22. Aleksandr1959
    Aleksandr1959 9 December 2015 23: 12 New
    0
    Questions to the flyers, the SU-25 will take off from the ground?

    Why not? Su-25T took off from the primer with different soil strengths, with different suspension options.
    On the Su-25 tests were conducted using diesel fuel instead of kerosene. Flights were performed both on summer and winter tanning beds. There was more soot, though. To determine the gas-dynamic stability of the engine, the tests were carried out with NAR launches and cannon fire. Now I don’t remember which LDCs worked, but there was either a collision of two shells on the trajectory or a premature detonation. And the warhead was with SPELs. The fuselage was chopped, there were nicks on the first stage of the compressor. The engines were replaced, the fuselage was patched up, the car flew on. Here are just a parsing Valery Valentinovich Migunov arranged for the flight and engineering personnel of the aircraft departments rather severe.
  23. aba
    aba 9 December 2015 23: 23 New
    +3
    Sorry he is not in Monino.
    And there are a lot of interesting things
  24. -СтрР° РЅРЅРёРє-
    -СтрР° РЅРЅРёРє- 10 December 2015 17: 20 New
    0
    Be that as it may, the car is just beautiful! This is a purely personal opinion. hi , without any comparisons of TTD (far from special request ) and what would be, if only ...
  25. Dekabrev
    Dekabrev 10 December 2015 23: 46 New
    0
    It seems to me that the effectiveness of the gun in the tail of the plane against the Mujahideen is greatly overestimated.
    Firstly, it was provided for in the project in the 50s, of course, not against them, but against American fighters armed with machine guns, which needed to be approached for a kilometer. At such a distance, of the cannon, of course, one could get into the radio-contrast apparatus. It is interesting at what distance the shooter will see the ground at such a view? I think much more than a kilometer. Does he replace Mujahid from such a distance? I think that he will notice, at best, the launch of a rocket or the DShK machine gun track. If it is a rocket, then it will be too late to do something. I think it’s clear to everyone that getting into such a small rocket as. a stinger from a maneuvering aircraft is only possible with fantastic luck, even with electronics. The DShK itself will cease fire, since at a distance of about two kilometers it is practically useless.
    So I think, why this gun?
    I think that they simply forgot to remove it from the project of the 50s, for which the device was actually designed.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 11 December 2015 09: 29 New
      0
      The supersonic American "Hustler" was also going to fight with Soviet machine-gun fighters with its stern gun?
  26. Tjeck
    Tjeck 11 December 2015 07: 09 New
    0
    Of course I understand that from a number of fiction, but what if we say to replace the cannon in the rear turret with short-range missiles and put a locator? I understand that now all this gimor is useless to anyone, but at the time of development of this flyer there were already quite effective missiles.

    ps: nevertheless, I am glad that they accepted drying instead of this miracle, even though it is not inferior to the passport technical characteristics, but it is difficult for me to imagine the mass use of such an apparatus.
  27. Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 11 December 2015 07: 23 New
    0
    good article ! thank. I read it with pleasure!
  28. samara-58
    samara-58 11 December 2015 07: 33 New
    0
    NO, well, in nature - "hunchback" !!! Inspires !!! belay
  29. spy008
    spy008 11 December 2015 08: 09 New
    +2
    I am not a specialist, but compared to the SU-25, I’m just a fighter. Forgive me if I offended anyone.
    I agree only with the fact that you need to know the story.
  30. Arandir
    Arandir 11 December 2015 11: 53 New
    +1
    Chic thing. Great article. It is a pity that our Soviet leadership sometimes made such negative decisions. Great projects have not been implemented. Or, in those facilities that we are proud of because of the cheapening or simplification, the things necessary for the crews that made it easier for them to complete tasks or simply life did not appear.
    1. iouris
      iouris 11 December 2015 14: 37 New
      0
      Quote: Arandir
      It is a pity that our Soviet leadership sometimes made such negative decisions.

      To evaluate it would be necessary to know the source data. I believe that in the mountains of Afghanistan, the IL-102 would be ineffective.
  31. Mama_Cholli
    Mama_Cholli 11 December 2015 11: 56 New
    -2
    The appearance of the attack aircraft shocked me. They also say that cows do not fly. Even buses and trolleybuses fly a little modified by a file.
    1. iouris
      iouris 11 December 2015 14: 37 New
      -2
      Only an efficient aircraft can be beautiful.
  32. Gomel
    Gomel 11 December 2015 14: 36 New
    0
    A wonderful article, the first drawing with competitors is especially valuable, though it is incomplete there is no the same MiG-21LS and other western competitors, but on the other hand, is it worth comparing with the obviously worse ones?
  33. VA.ODESSAAs
    VA.ODESSAAs 11 December 2015 16: 23 New
    0
    The plane is beautiful. But his time has passed. I think the time behind the drones. No need to devote time and control to the pilot.
  34. VA.ODESSAAs
    VA.ODESSAAs 11 December 2015 16: 29 New
    0
    The concept of a ground attack aircraft is not outdated and does not become outdated by where we walk on the ground.
  35. Strashila
    Strashila 11 December 2015 17: 05 New
    +2
    Good car, with a good supply for the future.
    Good thrust-to-weight ratio makes it possible to make on the basis of this machine various versions from shock to electronic warfare, comparable in fact with the SU-24.
  36. CRASH
    CRASH 11 December 2015 18: 49 New
    -2
    Is this the great-grandfather of Su25go?
  37. driving
    driving 11 December 2015 19: 29 New
    0
    I was at the Moseroshow (92g), I saw this plane in kind, I was impressed both by the appearance and the TTD. Then, at the subsequent MAKS (93g), he stood abandoned, in the backyard near the Ilyushinsky (or Yakovlevsky, forgot, as it was) passage at the airfield in Zhukovsky
  38. bober1982
    bober1982 12 December 2015 21: 00 New
    -2
    The plane is awkward, clumsy and ridiculous. As an experimental one, there are no prices for it, they tried it, they tried it. It’s also good.
    Ustinov is the youngest people's commissar, with Stalin, and in terms of armament, he is a very competent person.
    P.S.Kutakhov, with all due respect, in recent years, at times fell into insanity.
  39. iouris
    iouris 13 December 2015 03: 05 New
    0
    Quote: inkass_98
    Yes, Comrade Ustinov broke a lot of firewood in his time as Minister of Defense

    You have to be very self-confident to speak about D.F. Ustinov like that. As for the generals, the slogan: "We will give the army what it really needs, and not what the generals demand" is the only correct one, for for some reason the generals are preparing for the last war. Especially if they won it.
    Unfortunately, many Soviet front-line marshals were deeply unaware of the features of the operation of modern technology. For example, in the early 1980s, a command was given after, before starting the flight, to test (gas) and warm up jet (!) Engines. It looked like this: after the completion of preflight training, the pilots got into the cockpit and tested the engines. Then, in fact, it was necessary to prepare the planes for the second flight. Then, of course, this instruction was canceled.