Military Review

Assault "thirty-four" block the weak points in the video conferencing system

143

Most modern tactical fighter jets are multi-purpose machines, thanks to which they perfectly cope not only with the tasks of gaining superiority in the air, suppressing air defense, anti-ship defense or delivering targeted attacks against the enemy, but also are adapted to carry out assault operations on the ground theater of operations. The exception is only such highly specialized aviation systems, such as the MiG-31BM long-range interceptor, not intended to barrage over the battlefield with full suspensions of tactical missiles or the inconspicuous Nighthawk F-117A bomber, designed for limited high-precision strikes. What can I say, even the MiG-31BM in the range of weapons includes X-31P, X-25MPU anti-radar missiles, as well as anti-ship X-31A and multi-purpose X-59M.


But what tactical fighter-bomber can be the most appropriate as a worthy alternative to the aging Su-25 attack aircraft, which have low speed, great vulnerability and an average radius of action around 550 km? Of course, the unique Su-34. About this 25 June said the commander-in-chief of the Russian Space Forces, Colonel General Viktor Bondarev. He clarified that first the thirty-fourth will completely replace the exhausted Su-24M, and later on the Rooks. These airplanes expire permissible airframe operational resource, and non-modern avionics does not allow you to safely perform shock and assault operations on a theater, saturated with modern air defense systems and enemy fighter aircraft, more than half of which are 4 ++ generation aircraft. The Su-25T high-precision attack aircraft project is closed, and its more advanced younger brother, the Su-39, is continuing, but the sequel is "sluggish" and does not provide for mass production. Although the renewed Frogfut avionics, including the Sukhogruz station of optical-electronic interference, the Irtysh REB complex and the Shkval-M optic-electronic sighting system, is quite consistent with the transitional generation of attack aircraft of the 21st century.

Su-34 remains the only favorite as an additional role to attack the future. Subsonic manned assault vehicles in a network-centric war lose their value: they are easy prey for the operators of modern MANPADS, air defense systems and other means of military air defense, but need a very solid support staff and become not very profitable in the Air Force, which was confirmed by the situation with the American attack aircraft A -10A, instead of which the “green light” was given to more “Reapers” capable of circling at low speed, similarly to “Thunderbolt”, launching rocket attacks on the ground enemy, as well as the newest F-35A, equipped with a powerful radar with AFAR AN / APG-81 to work on ground targets in any meteorological conditions, which was not implemented in A-10A (it is strange that the container suspended radar, similar to our “Lance”, was not developed for Warthog, but after all, this could seriously change the views on the “flying tank” of the USAF). Su-34 is a true standard for any type of strike aviation: a crew of two near-seated pilots is protected by a welded titanium armored capsule with 17 mm sheet thickness, a glider from Su-27 and 2 TRDDF AL-31-М1 with a total 25600 kgS glider with a total weight of 8 kg-s can be performed. heavy percussion "tactics" maneuvers with overloads up to 1,8 units, speeding up in 35М, leading a close air battle with such "turtles" as F-XNUMXA; and not only the neighbor.

On board there is a multi-mode radar with PFAR Sh-141, designed to work on land, sea and air targets. The air-to-air mode here, although not super-long-range, can certainly meet modern air combat measures beyond visual visibility. An “F / A-18E / F with suspension” type (EPR near 2 m2) can be detected and fired at a distance of about 90 — 100 km with P-27EP and P-77 missiles. Equipping the new missiles RVV-SD / DB will make it possible to destroy even those targets that will be outside the detection limits of the W-141. Targeting will be carried out using its own SPO "Birch", or the DER devices used in the EIB Khibiny container station.

We have already heard about the strike and assault capabilities of the Su-34, and about the nomenclature of air-to-ground weapons too, so see them above the theater of war, destroying Tanks, suppressing military air defense, and at the same time leading the battle with a pair of F-16C, could become an absolutely real event in the near future. In addition, such a moment as interchangeability in a mixed air tactical grouping will be strengthened in the Russian Aerospace Forces. The Thirty-Four will be able to temporarily replace both the MiG-29SMT and Su-30SM without problems, which was not previously observed in the Air Force.
Author:
143 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Wedmak
    Wedmak 30 June 2016 06: 36
    +49
    therefore, to see them above the theater of operations, destroying tanks, suppressing military air defense, and at the same time leading the battle with a pair of F-16C, could become an absolutely real event in the near future.

    It is doubtful. Su-34 is heavier than the same Su-30 (normal take-off), a little worse in aerodynamics, a duck nose affects, and indeed is sharpened for strikes on ground targets. Is it worth it that in Syria 34-ki cover Su-35?
    The Thirty-Four will be able to temporarily replace both the MiG-29СМТ and Su-30СМ without problems, which was not previously observed in the Air Force.

    Most likely not without problems, but forcedly. And not the fact that it is effective.

    In vain refuse subsonic attack aircraft. You just need a new aircraft, with protection against MANPADS, armored, with good navigation and targeting devices, an electronic warfare station and multi-point weapons suspensions.
    1. Sally
      Sally 30 June 2016 07: 11
      +20
      [quote] "Thirty-four" will be able to temporarily replace MiG-29SMT and Su-30SM without problems, which was not previously observed in the Air Force. [/ quote]
      Most likely not without problems, but forcedly. And not the fact that it is effective.

      In vain refuse subsonic attack aircraft. You just need a new aircraft, with protection against MANPADS, armored, with good navigation and targeting devices, an electronic warfare station and multi-point arms suspensions. [/ Quote]
      I can also add to your words the materiel questions about fuel consumption (all the same 34ka is made on the basis of a heavy fighter) and the ability to be well controlled at low speeds.
      1. goose
        goose 30 June 2016 09: 51
        +17
        Quote: Sally
        Most likely not without problems, but forcedly. And not the fact that it is effective.

        It has already been held in Afghanistan. The author of the article is not in the subject. The Su-39 has not yet been replaced with anything; we do not have another aircraft for conducting local wars and tactical support. It’s not the Su-34, but it’s also super-expensive and sensitive to airfields. Well, at least they invented something turboprop, maybe based on the Yak-152, but so far there is no alternative.
        Perhaps the attack aircraft do not need a lot, but they are needed and effective.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 30 June 2016 15: 44
          +10
          "Su-39 can not be replaced by anything yet" - How to replace mono, then what is not there?
      2. Pushkar77
        Pushkar77 30 June 2016 16: 26
        +21
        And the author would not want to ask a question about such things as the loss of an aircraft, its cost, the cost of its combat flight. Where did the author hide all this? In Syria, in the first place, the Su-34 did not descend below 5000 meters, in other words, it was not engaged in an attack, which is a completely different matter. Losing a 130 bucks lemons car in a dive is too much. What are you talking about nonsense, the Su-34 is a bomber, it is not an attack aircraft and even less the MiG-29 SMT, which is a multi-role fighter. The Su-25 is several orders of magnitude superior to it in terms of the cost of combat mission, survivability (which, unlike the Su-34, has been proven by time). Also, the SU-25 is several times cheaper, more unpretentious, more reliable, and its operation is much cheaper (this sounds cynical, of course, but losing it is also much cheaper for the state). In Syria, he did not engage in ground attack (this is reasonable), since this is fraught with the loss of a car, there, during ground attacks, much more nimble machines, MiG-21, MiG-23 are shot down, and now imagine in their place a car weighing over forty tons, which is enough slower and much more. The Syrian Air Force suffers losses from this, because it is the dive attack that is engaged in. And you don't need to compare it with the MiG-29 either, as a fighter, it will never replace it, in close combat, the Mig just blows it up, without options. Or do you want to release it instead of the MiG against the F-16, "Rafale", "Mirage", this is a 34% loss of the car, I hope the top think a little differently. In general, so many specialists have appeared with articles and everything is so simple for them, to take a bomb carrier and replace it with a full-fledged attack aircraft and a full-fledged fighter, neither the one nor the other, the Su-XNUMX is not, just the next time you create a car, first think about which his niche can then be crammed, and not after tens of billions of greens have been spent. In Syria, these machines gobbled up the budget in two months, which they planned to stretch until a complete victory over the rebels and most of the aviation had to be withdrawn under the guise of achieving goals. In the west, this class of machines has long been abandoned, due to their high cost and due to the fact that these tasks are nowadays well performed by heavy and light multipurpose fighters, while much cheaper and not ceasing to be fighters. And for attack aircraft, it is attack aircraft that are good (they were actually created for this) and helicopters, in terms of attack efficiency they are much superior to bomb carriers, especially turntables. For longer ranges, there are cruise missiles and long-range aircraft. Therefore, aircraft of this class have gone down in history everywhere, and you are trying to replace them with really very necessary attack aircraft and full-fledged multi-role fighters. Hopefully this never happens because it will be a huge mistake.
        1. smershxnumx
          smershxnumx 30 June 2016 22: 23
          +8
          Su-25 and Su-34 are completely different in purpose aircraft - attack aircraft and front-line bomber with fighter capabilities. They cannot be compared. They have completely different tasks, characteristics and different areas of their application. No, no and NO! This is incomparable !!! IMHO!
        2. Fulcrumxnumx
          3 July 2016 20: 16
          +1
          Why then on the Su-34 titanium armored capsule?))) Is it possible to defend against the SCREEN during low-altitude flight?
          1. Bongo
            Bongo 4 July 2016 03: 17
            +4
            Quote: Fulcrum29
            Why then on the Su-34 titanium armored capsule?))) Is it possible to defend against the SCREEN during low-altitude flight?

            The presence of an armored capsule on the Su-34 protecting the crew does not make this aircraft an attack aircraft capable of operating at low altitudes along with the Su-25. The vulnerability of Su-34 is much greater, its main security systems are almost similar to Su-27. The armored capsule protects the crew from all means of destruction, primarily from air defense systems. When designing it, the fragmentation field formation data was taken into account when the MIM-104 Patriot warhead was detonated. But about real foreign I would like to read ZRAK in more detail. Do not enlighten?
            1. Falcon
              Falcon 4 July 2016 21: 18
              0
              Hello, Sergey! hi

              Quote: Bongo
              The armored capsule protects the crew from all means of destruction, primarily from air defense systems. When designing it, the fragmentation field formation data was taken into account when the MIM-104 Patriot warhead was detonated.


              You surprised me! I have never seen such information, well, probably, as always, I have not fully studied request

              But I'm still skeptical of your statement.
              Of course you certainly know that this is not a capsule but a bath.



              And the mass of warhead patriot 90 kg.
              I mean, Buch 70 kg - and a similar bath would not save the Buoy ... No.
              Mass is certainly not the main indicator (I have no other), but it seems to me that the essence remains. request
              1. Bongo
                Bongo 5 July 2016 03: 21
                +3
                Quote: Falcon
                You surprised me! I have never seen such information, well, probably, as always, I have not fully studied

                But I'm still skeptical of your statement.
                Of course you certainly know that this is not a capsule but a bath.


                In the media, this "bath" is called a capsule, and therefore I adhere to the terminology that is understandable to most. wink
                Quote: Falcon
                And the mass of warhead patriot 90 kg.
                I mean, Buch 70 kg - and a similar bath would not save the Buoy ...
                Mass is certainly not the main indicator (I have no other), but it seems to me that the essence remains.


                A warhead SAM S-200 is within 200 kg, and so what? Modern medium and long-range missiles are not equipped with contact fuses and, as a rule, do not hit the target with a direct hit. When designing the armor protection of the Su-34 cockpit, they proceeded from the estimated miss value of the MIM-104 Patriot missile defense system and mathematical modeling of the formation of a fragmentation field during an airplane attack "from the side-bottom". This information about the characteristics of the Patriot PAC-2 warhead appeared after the Iraqi company in 1991.
                1. Falcon
                  Falcon 5 July 2016 08: 14
                  +1
                  Quote: Bongo
                  A warhead SAM S-200 is within 200 kg, and so what? Modern medium and long-range missiles are not equipped with contact fuses and, as a rule, do not hit the target with a direct hit. When designing the armor protection of the Su-34 cockpit, they proceeded from the estimated miss value of the MIM-104 Patriot missile defense system and mathematical modeling of the formation of a fragmentation field during an airplane attack "from the side-bottom". This information about the characteristics of the Patriot PAC-2 warhead appeared after the Iraqi company in 1991.


                  No, I do not argue that comparing the weight of the warhead is stupid. But still: C-200 is much older - it is clear there that the weight of the warhead and miss are huge.
                  SAM MIM-104 Patriot is certainly not worse than 9m38 and Buk. Those. Reasoning purely amateurishly, the "miss" will be no more - and the result is in the photo above.
                  I agree with you that with a combination of circumstances and luck from some old ZURka there will be more chances to survive. But something seems to me here wishful thinking is given out ...
                  1. Bongo
                    Bongo 5 July 2016 08: 33
                    +2
                    Quote: Falcon
                    But still: C-200 is much older - it is clear there that the weight of the warhead and miss are huge.

                    Hello! Long-range C-200, including intended for the destruction of group targets. In fact, the accuracy of guidance of the S-200 missile with a semi-active seeker is at about the same level as that of an army Buk.
                    1. Falcon
                      Falcon 5 July 2016 08: 38
                      0
                      Quote: Bongo
                      Hello! Long-range C-200, including intended for the destruction of group targets. In fact, the accuracy of guidance of the S-200 missile with a semi-active seeker is at about the same level as that of an army Buk.


                      Hello again!
                      Yes, I think you're right. 7-8 should not be in vain. Already it was possible and then to push the equipment worthy yes
    2. Malkor
      Malkor 30 June 2016 07: 13
      +21
      Too bad the Su-25 is a great car. Of course, the design does not allow to supply all the necessary modern equipment, but we could rivet them for export for hundreds - the Syrians would be very useful. And replacing the cheaper Su-25 with the Su-34 is not rational. You need an assault subsonic relatively cheap car, but with a modern glider and filling.
      1. Now we are free
        Now we are free 30 June 2016 09: 24
        +18
        I completely agree to completely replace the SU-24 fleet with the SU-34, but completely remove the Rook to please the Duck? .. The SU-25 is an attack aircraft in its purest form if you want the reincarnation of the IL-2. Reliable, armed, cheap to manufacture, LIVING. Such planes should be because it is not worth "Duck" (with all my personal love and respect for him) to plug all the holes. The question is, IS IT HOLES? Speaking directly about the SU-25 ...
        SU-24 yes it is a HOLE that needs to be closed in the first place (again, as the author says in the conditions of the already ongoing network-centric war), it was good for breaking through at low level flight and destroying the columns of NATO equipment and important objects, but now it is outdated both in technical terms and in the tactical + THIS IS THE MOST EMERGENCY AIRCRAFT of our Air Force ... It's just a pity for the men of professionals whose lives and experience are not worth their weight in gold but worth their weight in platinum! Let us first completely replace the SU-24 with the SERIAL SU-34 (and not with the ducklings that unfortunately entered the troops at the initial stage of the aircraft refinement) and only then think about whether to change the concept of the "Friend of Infantry" - a clean attack aircraft at all. especially since the SU-25 "Rook" fits perfectly into it and has earned love and respect with its sweat and blood!

        P.S. If you fantasize that the SU-25 will no longer be able to withstand the F-35 on an equal footing ... Then let's write off all military aviation, leaving only the Tu-160, which will bomb, and the T-50, which will be a "Mad broom" to plug all "Holes "...

        P.P.S. I didn’t set down the article (respecting the author’s work), but I think he runs too forward and runs a little in the wrong direction ...
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 30 June 2016 14: 38
          +7
          Quote: Now we are free
          SU-24 yes it is a HOLE which needs to be closed first of all

          I agree with you. And here the SU-34 fits perfectly.
          Quote: Malkor
          And replacing the cheaper Su-25 with the Su-34 is not rational

          I believe that two options can be considered for replacing the SU-25 ... the YAK-130 (preferably) and the SR-10. Of course, with some minor modifications, on the reservation. I think this is better than replacing the SU-34, which is both heavier and more expensive.
          1. DrVintorez
            DrVintorez 1 July 2016 13: 06
            0
            Quote: NEXUS
            I believe in replacing the SU-25, two options can be considered ... YAK-130 (preferably) and SR-10

            yak and avg are less well protected, and in the conditions of the enemy’s use of mkzar and mzzr booking is extremely important.
          2. Falcon
            Falcon 4 July 2016 21: 28
            +1
            Quote: NEXUS
            I suppose to replace the SU-25, you can consider two options ... YAK-130 (preferred) and CP-10. Of course, with some minor improvements, on booking


            Come on. How can I add a reservation there - it's not to change the electronics in the cockpit. And the engines there are not located for the assault. If only without a pilot, then I agree! Well, or with optional piloting repeat But these are crazy dreams ...
        2. NIKNN
          NIKNN 30 June 2016 21: 09
          +3
          If you fantasize that the SU-25 will no longer be able to withstand the F-35 on an equal footing ... Then let's write off all military aviation, leaving only the Tu-160, which will bomb and the T-50, which will be a "Mad broom" to plug all the "Holes "...

          In general, I can hardly imagine the collisions of the Su25 and F35 over the battlefield. If only because of the mutual, extraordinary stupidity of the headquarters or even without them ..
        3. 73bor
          73bor 1 July 2016 02: 05
          0
          There is not so much a minus to the article as the haste of reporters, recently it was infa that the Su-34 will replace the Su-24 and (up to a heap) Su-25, only in the conditions of modern realities the Su-25 in limited theaters and the fight against partisans is most preferable, it just cheap and simple like AKM, even the actions in Syria show that the Rooks haven't said everything yet, this is the busiest plane in Syria!
          1. Fulcrumxnumx
            2 July 2016 01: 22
            +2
            In the conditions of modern air defense, all 25s will be very vulnerable, if in the LPR the Ukrainian Su-25 managed to "fill up" from the PKM, then excuse me))
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. igor.borov775
        igor.borov775 30 June 2016 13: 49
        +2
        Hi !! So it turned out the problem of light medium-range vehicles. Yes 34 is an ideal replacement 24. And with 25 the question is closed. He stayed in Tbilisi. MIG29, too, as a heavy SU 27 give way to new cars. And with the average problem there is no replacement. A heavy fighter has a different task than the average machine. The collapse of the country made itself felt. A lot of time is lost. Now there is saturation with those machines that managed to be brought to the required requirements. As long as it’s not possible to close everything but the searches do not stop going NIKOR is looking for the best option. To the topic, China believes that an average car is needed (necessary). Would we have a normal version of a light fighter exactly bought. But there is no trial, and no. Yes, they are buying weapons from us, but this measure is a necessary one. There is a boom for qualified specialists. It is fashionable there to be a civil engineer and many specialties. Their science is on the rise. The return will not be so fast but it will be. We would also take the equipment that interests us. Yes, they don’t sell. The highway to that lesson. The USA simply blocked it. This is about the fact that the United States is watching us very carefully. We have to do everything ourselves more difficult and it is very difficult. I believe that we can solve our problems and only then move forward.
        1. vova1973
          vova1973 1 July 2016 05: 16
          0
          SU 24 at the maximum sweep of the wing where it read it is better to go at low altitude with enveloping the terrain than SU 34 (features of the wing and glider), and for a bomber it is important to increase survivability when striking (it’s difficult to shoot down an airplane in this flight mode)
      4. user
        user 30 June 2016 18: 44
        +2
        Too bad the Su-25 is a great car.


        Do not worry much, this is another project. Remember in the USSR there were entire divisions of fighter-bombers (Su-17, MiG-23, MiG-27, etc.), and in Afghanistan they turned out to be of little benefit, because the goals and objectives are different (well, not Europe), for the same the very reasons that the author cites as a big plus for the Su-34. Although the machine itself is a kind of masterpiece, it is not necessary to hammer nails with a microscope, there is a hammer for this.
    3. Iline
      Iline 30 June 2016 07: 16
      +16
      Quote: Wedmak
      In vain refuse subsonic attack aircraft

      I will support this idea.
      Su-34 is imprisoned for completely different tasks than the Su-25. He is primarily an operational bomber, but not an attack aircraft. And the use of vehicles of this type over the battlefield is a very costly task, and their number should increase many times from what we have.
      Even in Chechnya, the Su-25 performed their tasks, and the Su-24 (the predecessor of the Su-34) had its own. And in Syria we saw the same thing.
      So we can agree to the point that we do not need helicopters either.
    4. qwert
      qwert 30 June 2016 07: 16
      +25
      Subsonic manned assault vehicles lose their value in network-centric warfare: they are easy prey for operators of modern MANPADS, air defense systems and other military air defense systems, and they need very solid service personnel and become not very profitable in the Air Force, which was confirmed by the situation with the American attack aircraft A -10A, instead of which the "green light" was given to more "Ripers",
      We have already gone through this ... Under Khrushchev, when we liquidated the attack aircraft. And how many times did the tanks predict the end? In the 30's after the appearance of rapid-firing light anti-tank guns, in the late forties, with the advent of rocket-propelled grenade launchers, in the fifties with the advent of the first ATGMs, in the 60's with the advent of anti-tank helicopters, you are 70's with the advent of individual-guided cluster munitions. And the tank and now - the main striking power. The same goes for attack aircraft working on the front line.
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 30 June 2016 07: 26
        +15
        Quote: qwert
        A-10A, instead of which "green light" was given to more "Ripers",

        Edward, in this place the author again demonstrates his incompetence. negative First of all, all the "boar dwarves" in service have been upgraded to the A-10C version, and secondly, the Americans do not oppose manned aircraft to unmanned aerial vehicles. UAVs are, first of all, means of reconnaissance and surveillance, and secondly, the solution of "special" tasks. It is ridiculous to compare the striking capabilities of the A-10S and the Reaper.
        1. Stena
          Stena 30 June 2016 08: 11
          0
          Recently I just read that the Sukhoi Design Bureau is conducting R&D for high-speed (supersonic) attack aircraft. And in front-line and army operations it is impossible without attack aircraft. Have you heard anything about this?
          1. goose
            goose 30 June 2016 09: 54
            +9
            Why supersonic attack aircraft? What nonsense. Anyway, with the load, he flies on the sound. Supersound will automatically reduce its maneuverability, takeoff and landing characteristics and load efficiency, as well as increase complexity and cost.
          2. NEXUS
            NEXUS 30 June 2016 14: 44
            +1
            Quote: Stena
            Recently I just read that the Sukhoi Design Bureau is conducting R&D for high-speed (supersonic) attack aircraft.

            You are confusing something ... The MIG design bureau is working on a long-range interceptor (presumably hyper-fast ... conditionally MIG-41) ... but I did not come across information about the attack aircraft.
            I repeat, in my opinion, after some refinement, instead of the Rook, the Yak-130 and possibly the SR-10 could well fit in. Although, nevertheless, I am inclined to the Yak-130. hi
            1. gladcu2
              gladcu2 30 June 2016 15: 36
              +3
              NEXUS

              The Yak-130 does not have armor protection and does not carry bomb assault weapons, respectively.
              It is not designed to work at low altitudes in dusty clouds. Moreover, it cannot work with unequipped aerodromes.

              The SU-35 is not a ground attack aircraft and, moreover, it is not an analogue of the T-34, which contains the concept of a weapon that is not expensively averaged over all parameters. This is a high-tech front-line bomber with its own narrow task. According to this task and the training of pilots. Yes, the SU-34 can deliver high-precision bombing attacks with freely falling bombs. But for this there are also serious restrictions on height and weather conditions. Yes, the SU-34 can carry air-to-air weapons, but in this case there are limitations, since the tasks of this aircraft are not air-to-air opposition, and it should not be involved in this, it is not economically profitable.

              There is a certain niche of weaponry versatility associated with drones. But as long as a person remains in the cockpit, you have to wait a while with universality.
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 30 June 2016 15: 55
                +1
                Quote: gladcu2
                The Yak-130 does not have armor protection and does not carry bomb assault weapons, respectively.

                Dear, carefully read the posts ... I wrote, "after some revision and booking" ...
                Quote: gladcu2
                It is not designed to work at low altitudes.

                Why then can he not work at low altitudes?

                Quote: gladcu2
                SU-35 is not a ground attack aircraft and, moreover, no analogue of the T-34

                What are you talking about, dear? And where is the SU-34, and even more so the T-34?
                I repeat, the Yak-130 can be made an attack aircraft, since it is a relatively universal platform. By the way, I am considering the second option, this is the SR-10.
                1. gladcu2
                  gladcu2 30 June 2016 17: 09
                  +4
                  NEXUS

                  Yak-130 can not be made an attack aircraft instead of the SU-25. GENERALLY.

                  But the Yak-130 allows the possibility of being used when attacking certain targets.

                  The problem is 2 things. The first concept, the conditions for which these two different aircraft are created. And the second is the tactical training of the pilots. To be an attack aircraft you need to think like an attack aircraft. This is for example if the housewife is sent to drive a huge huge truck. He will bring her to the first pillar.

                  Once again, the difference is in the skill of a specialist pilot, tactical skills and thinking.

                  On the Yak-130 armor can not be hung.
                  1. vv3
                    vv3 1 July 2016 11: 09
                    -1
                    In Syria, the SU-25 is not used as an attack aircraft. It performs the mission of aviation security. Moreover, this will continue to be the case. We just don’t have IBA aircraft. You don’t need to armor the Yak-130 like an attack aircraft ... It was attacked yesterday, and today it is called naval bombing. Assaulting is in the interests of advanced units that come in contact with the enemy and suffer huge losses. In our modern warfare, these types of military operations do not must be, with smart commanders, True, where to get them?
                  2. DrVintorez
                    DrVintorez 1 July 2016 13: 10
                    0
                    Quote: gladcu2
                    But the Yak-130 allows the possibility of being used when attacking certain targets.

                    with bulletproof booking (up to and including caliber 7,62), the Yak-130 aircraft is quite capable of performing counter-guerrilla functions. no more. attacking an even less fortified position will result in extremely bad consequences for the yak
                2. vv3
                  vv3 1 July 2016 11: 23
                  +1
                  Not an attack aircraft, but a lightweight IS. Gentlemen, what and where are you going to storm? On the battlefield? And you will walk on it in melee? Bearded people have many times more birthdays, and everything is in order with motivation too, can you think better with your head?
            2. Stena
              Stena 1 July 2016 00: 57
              0
              I am not confusing anything. Here is a quote from the book "Combat Aircraft of Russia" by Yu.A. Zuenko, S.E. Korostelev - m: Elakos, 1994 -192 with ill., Page 90: "Currently, the Design Bureau under the leadership of VP Baban is working on the creation of a fundamentally new attack aircraft with an estimated maximum speed of 1500 km / h."
        2. Tsoy
          Tsoy 30 June 2016 09: 48
          +6
          Damans of such Damans ... a person either specifically omits some facts from the article to the article, or simply does not know about them.


          it is strange that the container-type overhead radar, similar to our “Spear”, was not developed for the “Warthog”, and this in fact could seriously change the views on the “flying tank” of the US Air Force)


          On A10 stood lantirn, and after sniper xr. Suspended sighting containers.
          1. Fulcrumxnumx
            30 June 2016 14: 50
            0
            And where are "Sniper" and "Lantin"? It meant a specialized container radar that allows air combat with AIM-120C missiles, i.e. to conduct self-defense on distant lines, the Su-39 can do this with the "Spear", and for the "Thunderbolt" only the WX-50 container radar was developed, which has an "air-to-ground" mode with terrain mapping! Read carefully)
            1. Bongo
              Bongo 30 June 2016 15: 00
              +4
              Quote: Fulcrum29
              And where are "Sniper" and "Lantin"? It meant a specialized container radar that allows air combat with AIM-120C missiles, i.e. to conduct self-defense on distant lines, the Su-39 with the "Spear" can do this

              stop Can not! Due to the lack of Su-39 and Spear-25 radar in the troops. Aren't you tired of introducing people with your fantasies at all?
              1. Fulcrumxnumx
                3 July 2016 10: 32
                -1
                We are talking about the technical possibility that the "39th" with the "Spear" exists, and not about the fact that its serial production was not carried out. That is why "34" is quite realistic and adequate to replace the old "Sushki", so there is no need to invent fables about fantasies
                1. Bongo
                  Bongo 3 July 2016 11: 15
                  +3
                  Quote: Fulcrum29
                  We are talking about the technical possibility that the "39th" with the "Spear" exists, and not about the fact that its serial production was not carried out. That is why "34" is quite realistic and adequate to replace the old "Sushki", so there is no need to invent fables about fantasies

                  Fantasy fables? belay Are you friends with your head? negative Your publications are full of fables and fantasies! foolEspecially this one, which is clearly evidenced by the statistics of voters and comments. If you mention any technical product or aircraft, please disclose its status, whether it consists in mass production, how long and how long it was built!
            2. Cro-Magnon
              Cro-Magnon 30 June 2016 15: 32
              +2
              Well, let’s hang a hanging container with a gunner and laser cannons (star wars) ... if you didn’t conquer the sky or cover the attack aircraft with fighters, then no suspended wunderwaffles will help him! And even then, to the mounted DZ, you will fantasize!
            3. Tsoy
              Tsoy 30 June 2016 17: 16
              +2
              Quote: Fulcrum29
              AIM-120C,

              There are a lot of them, which modification? They have a range from 50 to 120 km.
              "Spear 25" detects air targets at a distance, a tank-type target at ranges up to 25 km, a boat-type target at ranges up to 75 km, air targets at a range of up to 25-50 km, depending on EPR. The radar can simultaneously track up to eight targets and direct missiles to two. If the Su-25TM is equipped with a container with a Kopyo radar, the aircraft is capable of hitting air targets with R-27 and R-77 missiles with semi-active radar guidance. However, the standard operating mode of the Kopyo radar is the “on the ground” operating mode. With such a range, there is no question of any long-range interception.
              So the sniper can work through the air. Detect it for sure.
        3. Falcon
          Falcon 4 July 2016 21: 41
          +1
          Quote: Bongo
          On the first, all the "boar dwarves" in service have been upgraded to the A-10C version, and secondly, the Americans do not oppose manned aircraft to drones. UAVs are, first of all, means of reconnaissance and surveillance, and secondly, the solution of "special" tasks. It is ridiculous to compare the striking capabilities of the A-10S and the Reaper.


          I read a note for a long time - on the English site. There, an "insider" claims that the military would gladly abandon the A-10. But Congress is against it - in order to save money.
          The motives of the military are certainly not entirely clear, maybe they just knock out the money, but they said that they want instead of A-10 - f-35 or at least F-18 ...

          And they wanted to make the A-10 even a UAV, though it looks more like a joke - but the video was real.
      2. ism_ek
        ism_ek 30 June 2016 08: 37
        +6
        Quote: qwert
        We have already gone through this ... Under Khrushchev, when we liquidated the attack aircraft.
        At the time of Khrushchev, the main attack aircraft was the IL-10, which delivered strikes mainly at low level flight. Su-25 in terms of those years would most likely be called a dive bomber. The technologies of those years did not allow to create a jet, armored bomber. The promising IL-40 attack aircraft had 4 mm "armor" !!!
        No need to scold Khrushov. Under him, a cheap and reliable nuclear missile shield was created behind which we still live. The Chelomeevsky missiles, which Khrushchev was pushing by a willful decision, were removed from service only this year. Without this shield, the Americans would have crushed us for a long time and no tanks and attack aircraft would have protected us.
      3. avia12005
        avia12005 30 June 2016 09: 04
        +3
        And under Yeltsin and Dainekina, when they cut the whole IBA.
    5. Sally
      Sally 30 June 2016 07: 30
      +8
      and rather, the author confuses the concepts of bombardment and the application of precision missile strikes (the example with rippers) with the objectives of an attack (and tools for it). All the same, 34 ka is not the easiest (by weight, price, “crew training” ... Airplane) and it is probably not very advisable to spend it on the tasks of attack aircraft here, rather, let UAVs (with high-precision missile weapons) come in with a slightly different concept which a lesser resource is spent in training pilots (in case of a UAV shot down) and resource consumption (I take American drums for an analogue) in view of possible significant losses.
      1. oblako
        oblako 30 June 2016 09: 02
        +3
        Each combat aircraft has its own mission niche. If the plane is universal, then it solves all these problems obviously worse than specialized ones. The war was won not by the perfect "Tiger" but by the massive T-34 ka ...
    6. sivuch
      sivuch 30 June 2016 10: 17
      +3
      Then add - with dual-circuit engines, i.e., economical and with a small IR signature
    7. silver_roman
      silver_roman 30 June 2016 13: 40
      +3
      Quote: Wedmak
      More likely not without problems, but forced

      With the same success, it is possible to shoot aircraft from a tank.

      simultaneously leading the battle with a pair of F-16C

      The outcome in almost 100% of cases will be in favor of the F-16.
      Unless of course we are talking about close maneuverable combat.

      Will not replace the Su-34 Rook. These are cars of different classes and for different purposes.
      Does it make sense to develop a clean attack aircraft is another question. But he must be hardy enough, not expensive and carry a large ammunition.
      That and supersonic he does not really need.
      You should always remember that a multifunctional aircraft will be much worse than a highly specialized aircraft in its industry.
    8. joopel
      joopel 30 June 2016 14: 05
      +3
      It seems to me that burying the SU-25 is somewhat premature. SU-34 is a car of a completely different class and a different price, which is very significant.
    9. Vadivak
      Vadivak 30 June 2016 18: 53
      +1
      Quote: Wedmak
      In vain refuse subsonic attack aircraft


      Yes, no one will refuse them, Rook is a pure stormtrooper, so to speak, a totalitarian imperial product is cheap, simple, unpretentious - it sits in a field next to a theater, refueling with a diesel fuel from Belarus or a tank, and again flies to distribute cots.
    10. stopkran
      stopkran 1 July 2016 14: 04
      0
      And not the fact that it is effective.

      Has he ever tried to control an airplane, and work on small-sized moving targets, even if at subsonic speed? The second crew member, which frees the pilot from aiming, increases the effectiveness of the use of weapons at times!
      1. DrVintorez
        DrVintorez 1 July 2016 14: 16
        0
        Quote: stopkran
        The second crew member, which frees the pilot from aiming, increases the effectiveness of the use of weapons at times!

        this is in the case of using guided weapons. and if you hammer with nursami and guns, then why the second crew member? excess weight and only. but, of course, when using high-precision / guided weapons (especially without implementing the "fire-and-forget" principle), the second crew member is very necessary, one might say necessary.
  2. 7race
    7race 30 June 2016 06: 46
    +4
    Someone explain to me: we still reached the level of FB-111 / F-111F?
    1. qwert
      qwert 30 June 2016 07: 20
      +11
      Quote: 7race
      Someone explain to me: we still reached the level of FB-111 / F-111F?
      Well, if you do not take into account the flight range, and the combat load claimed by the Americans (which was not lifted in any real operation of the FV-111), then the Su-24 still reached. And the possibilities of a low-altitude breakthrough and vitality still surpassed the American thanks to, among other things, the ability to go on super-sound at low altitudes. The range was only less, but it’s a fee for supersonic on the shaver, the choice of turbojet engine and not turbojet engine was conscious
      1. Kasym
        Kasym 30 June 2016 19: 09
        +2
        "... Su-24 ... and the ability to go supersonic at low altitudes" (I will add) with a bend around the terrain, which the Su-34 cannot do. Has anyone thought why they drove the Su-24 to Syria when the required number of Su-34s was available? So while the Su-34 is not completely ready to replace the "old man".
        And how can a heavy and large Su-34 replace a small and light Su-25? I mean that when attacking a target it is much easier to maneuver (dovaruvat if the approach was not ideal) Su-25. And at the same time, it is better to be a low-speed boat, and not a high-speed plane - for an attack aircraft, you do not need high speed, on the contrary, the lower the minimum possible flight speed, the better. Well, according to the experience of the Second World War, attack aircraft were shot down faster - this is how much Su-34 will have to be made (you won’t save enough money!)? hi
        Sorry, that is not the topic. In our media (MK in Kazakhstan, Coms. True in Kazakhstan, a fat woman) appeared infar. That Roscosmos agreed with Kazakhstan on a joint project in Baikonur. The Russian Federation is an updated Zenit launch vehicle with improved features, and the Republic of Kazakhstan will build the infrastructure for it (start. Table on the site of old Zenith - there were 2 launch sites for Zenit on Baikonur). We hope that this project will grow together, as two had broken before.
        To Karagandy. 6 people were detained in the region, one was blown up by a martyr’s belt.
        I apologize again, but I think it's interesting. hi
        1. samoletil18
          samoletil18 30 June 2016 21: 09
          0
          Baikonur with a new Zenith - good!
          Shahid, dog, spoiled the impression.
        2. Falcon
          Falcon 4 July 2016 22: 31
          +1
          Quote: Kasym
          "... Su-24 ... and the ability to go supersonic at low altitudes" (I will add) with a bend around the terrain, which the Su-34 cannot do. Has anyone thought why they drove the Su-24 to Syria when the required number of Su-34s was available? So while the Su-34 is not completely ready to replace the "old man".


          That's not at all for that. In Syria, no one needed to fly around the relief! From whom to hide? Otherwise, the L-082 could have seen the Turkish missile.
          Here is more likely logic. Su-34 are new and there are very few of them, what for wasting resources on Bormolei and a more expensive flight hour, we still need to bring terror to NATO lol . When there are five minutes to retirees ...
  3. Bongo
    Bongo 30 June 2016 07: 11
    +12
    even the MiG-31BM has the X-31P, X-25MPU anti-radar missiles, as well as the X-31A anti-ship and multi-purpose X-59M in the range of weapons

    Really? No. Maybe such options were worked out at the R&D level, but the MiG-31 combatant missiles do not carry such SDs. Article minus, the author, as usual, is dabbling and voicing his fantasies.
    1. Iline
      Iline 30 June 2016 08: 12
      +5
      Quote: Bongo
      Article minus, the author, as usual, is dabbling and voicing his fantasies.

      The worst thing in this article is that the author pushes off the words of the commander of the videoconferencing.
      1. vv3
        vv3 30 June 2016 11: 42
        +1
        And you listen to the interview of this commander in chief, and you find out how many articles he wrote, read his publications. Energetic, proactive with an active attitude, with advanced views ... 56 years is a full-bodied mind and color.
        1. zyablik.olga
          zyablik.olga 30 June 2016 12: 31
          +4
          Quote: vv3
          And you listen to the interview of this commander in chief, and you find out how many articles he wrote, read his publications. Energetic, proactive with an active attitude, with advanced views ... 56 years is a full-bodied mind and color.

          Forces is possible, but what about the mind ...
          1. vv3
            vv3 1 July 2016 11: 03
            +1
            This is irony. But I cannot, in this case, call a spade a spade. Interview with the not-so-new Commander-in-Chief of the VKS, look. I advise everyone.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. Amurets
      Amurets 30 June 2016 08: 21
      +2
      Quote: Bongo
      even the MiG-31BM has the X-31P, X-25MPU anti-radar missiles, as well as the X-31A anti-ship and multi-purpose X-59M in the range of weapons

      Really? No. Maybe such options were worked out at the R&D level, but the MiG-31 combatant missiles do not carry such SDs. Article minus, the author, as usual, is dabbling and voicing his fantasies.

      Sergey! Hello! I, too, was surprised at such a BC and why did it need anti-radar missiles? I think that S.V. Ilyushin was right when he laid down the concept of a battlefield airplane in IL-2. And here they propose using the interceptor as a fighter-bomber? I mean the MiG-31. And the rest of the article is nonsense of Sivaya Kobyla.
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 30 June 2016 08: 32
        +7
        Quote: Amurets
        Sergey! Hello! I, too, was surprised at such a BC and why did it need anti-radar missiles?

        Hi Nikolay! I myself know how hard and thankless it is to prepare a publication that would be interesting to readers. Therefore, I usually try not to criticize other authors very much. But Damantsev is a separate issue. fool In each article, the blatant incompetence is diluted with incomprehensible fantasies. negative One can disagree with Oleg Kaptsov on a number of issues, but at least he is not afraid to defend his point of view, although not always correctly. But there are no words, only non-normative vocabulary ... wassat
        1. Amurets
          Amurets 30 June 2016 09: 05
          +3
          Quote: Bongo
          One can disagree with Oleg Kaptsov on a number of issues, but at least he is not afraid to defend his point of view, although not always correctly. But there are no words, only non-normative vocabulary

          I agree, I respect Kaptsov for the fact that he can admit his mistakes. Yes, you can agree or disagree with him, but you can still find something useful. And here, it's just FANTASY.
        2. Odysseus
          Odysseus 30 June 2016 12: 20
          +3
          Quote: Bongo
          In each article, the blatant incompetence is diluted with incomprehensible fantasies.

          I liked the most about how the Su-34 will launch the RVV-BD using Birch as a means of guidance laughing
      2. DrVintorez
        DrVintorez 1 July 2016 13: 19
        0
        Quote: Amurets
        I was also surprised at such a BC

        Most likely, there was confusion with the x-31 missile: there was information that a version of the x-31 air-to-air missile was being developed (or even already made). the missile was supposed to have a long range and an active homing system. rather, legs grow from there about equipping the mig-31 with x-31 missiles
    3. PSih2097
      PSih2097 30 June 2016 09: 48
      +1
      Quote: Bongo
      even the MiG-31BM has the X-31P, X-25MPU anti-radar missiles, as well as the X-31A anti-ship and multi-purpose X-59M in the range of weapons

      Really? No. Maybe such options were worked out at the R&D level, but the MiG-31 combatant missiles do not carry such SDs. Article minus, the author, as usual, is dabbling and voicing his fantasies.

      on the site "corner of the sky" this is what it is:
      The MiG-31BM aircraft presented at the Zhukovsky show carried four long-range R-33C missiles with radar guidance and one anti-radar UR X-31P suspended under the left console on the ventral conformal suspension nodes. In addition to the UR class ⌠ air-to-air ■ long-range, the new modification ⌠miga ■ is equipped with the most advanced medium-range missiles RVV-AE (up to 4 units), which are located on the underwing units. The R-40TD type (two) powerful missiles, which were inherited by the MiG-31 ■ by inheritance ■ even from the MiG-25P interceptor, were retained as part of the weapons complex.

      Upgraded versions of the aircraft can be equipped with X-31P, X-25MP or X-25MPU anti-radar missiles (up to six units), X-31 A anti-ship missiles (up to six), air-to-surface missiles X-59 and X-29T ( up to three) or X-59M (up to two units), up to six adjustable air bombs KAB-1500 or up to eight KAB-500 with television or laser guidance. The maximum mass of the combat load is 9000 kg

      maybe the author took information from here? Although, as for me, the author is burning - he calls the MiG 31 - a highly specialized aircraft, then a multi-purpose ...
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 30 June 2016 09: 54
        +2
        Quote: PSih2097
        maybe the author took information from here?

        Alexander, the author once again reacted extremely extremely irresponsibly to the preparation and analysis of information. What are the armed MiG-31 drilldowns in open sources of information is. I didn’t specifically comment on the P-27 and P-77 missiles on the Su-34, since the author is hardly familiar with the results of the second stage of the ICG on the Su-34.
        1. sivuch
          sivuch 30 June 2016 10: 22
          0
          I am not familiar either. But the photos from P-27 were
          1. Bongo
            Bongo 30 June 2016 13: 40
            +2
            Quote: sivuch
            I am not familiar either. But the photos from P-27 were

            Igor, good evening! Agree to suspend rockets and be able to use them - this is not the same thing. Until recently, the Su-35С had a similar story. Take an interest in the actual composition of the Su-35С missile weapons and how it has changed since the beginning of this year.
  4. Nix1986
    Nix1986 30 June 2016 07: 12
    +4
    And why not immediately PAK FA prepare as an attack aircraft ?! The attack aircraft should, first and foremost, be inexpensive and have reservations for important components and crew cabs from at least the MANPADS to the KPVT as the main anti-aircraft weapon of infantry, and no one canceled the requirements for survivability of the layout like engine spacing like on the A10. Read the experience of Afghanistan. Little of your experience, so study the statistics of who ironed the most land equipment and infantry in both Iraqi companies - not Eagles or F16, but the old man A10.
    1. goose
      goose 30 June 2016 09: 57
      +6
      Quote: Nix1986
      And why not immediately PAK FA prepare as an attack aircraft ?!

      Take it a little, I thought that the assault version of the Tu-160 is what should be terrifying. About 1500 NURS and 50 tons of armor with a radius of 500 km, this is so cool.
      1. samoletil18
        samoletil18 30 June 2016 21: 36
        +3
        Let me object. Tu-95 will be better. Subsonic speed - better maneuverability and accuracy. Although, the Be-200 is even better: you can’t build an airfield, you haven’t brought up ammunition - it’s okay you can flood it with scooped diver.
        The author did not come across material about An-2, -12, -24, -26. Sorry. Estimate: under the cover of Su-27, -30, -35 fighters and in the S-500 coverage area with the use of modern calculators with the inherent possibility of bombing, the Su-24, -34 and -25 are canceled like a class!
        1. DrVintorez
          DrVintorez 1 July 2016 13: 24
          +1
          Quote: samoletil18
          Although, the Be-200 is even better: you can’t build an airfield, you haven’t brought up ammunition - it’s okay you can flood it with scooped diver.

          project: increase be-200 to be-20000000. Well, so that the size of the BURNED steel. fly over the ocean, scoop up a nuclear submarine, and ideally - SSBNs (you can even a likely enemy), and then storm anything. with such a present in my belly.
      2. DrVintorez
        DrVintorez 1 July 2016 13: 21
        +1
        Quote: goose
        Approximately 1500 NURS and 50 tons of armor with a radius of 500 km

        uhhhh !!!! and the guns?!?!?! ??!?!?! how is that??? pieces of 20-30 caliber 76mm are quite suitable. and with a simultaneous salvo the plane will throw up!
  5. hohel73
    hohel73 30 June 2016 07: 16
    +1
    xs. He is unlikely to win a full-fledged close air battle! In view of the limited visibility in the rear hemisphere!
  6. Letnab
    Letnab 30 June 2016 07: 30
    +6
    article is like nonsense ... to remove attack aircraft as a class? replace with a bomber ...?
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 30 June 2016 07: 32
      +2
      Quote: Letnab
      article is like nonsense ... to remove attack aircraft as a class? replace with a bomber ...?

      You read all the publications of this author wassat
      https://topwar.ru/user/Fulcrum29/news/
      1. aviamed90
        aviamed90 30 June 2016 13: 25
        0
        But after all, our military "theorists" removed the IBA in the late 1990s!

        And the tasks to be solved were scattered between the FBA and the ShA.

        And nothing!...
        1. Bongo
          Bongo 30 June 2016 13: 43
          +3
          Quote: aviamed90
          And nothing!...

          Nothing ... because thank God there was no big war! During the Second Chechen War, they tried to return the Su-17 and MiG-27 from "storage", but there was nothing to turn it back. For several years of "storage" in the open air and with little or no security, the aircraft actually turned into scrap metal.
  7. sergeyzzz
    sergeyzzz 30 June 2016 07: 33
    0
    Quote: 7race
    Someone explain to me: we still reached the level of FB-111 / F-111F?

    And what is its super feature? New radars see him perfectly, is there anything to tear your ass from?
    1. goose
      goose 30 June 2016 10: 01
      +4
      Quote: sergeyzzz
      New radars see him perfectly, is there anything to tear your ass from?

      What radars can the F-111 see in the round-trip mode? He has a stable flight altitude of about 300 m above the terrain. Its invisibility and invulnerability in this mode is abrupt than that of the F-35A. In fact, this aircraft can only be seen from tactical air defense systems at a range of about 10 km, from an AWACS aircraft at a range of less than 50 km, or with the help of an OLS, at a range of 40-50 km. Other means - NO.
      Such machines, like the Su-24M, are still extremely dangerous.
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 30 June 2016 10: 36
        +3
        goose: Such machines as the Su-24m are still extremely dangerous

        I put you a plus, you are reasoning sensibly. Although on F-111, I do not agree with you.
        The machine is decommissioned, so what’s to be discussed here. And according to the mode of terrain envelope: 300 m altitude - the invulnerability of aircraft at this altitude is zero, this is a very high altitude. To overcome air defense, flight is performed at altitudes of 50 m or lower, in manual mode. what we have, what they have.
      2. sergeyzzz
        sergeyzzz 30 June 2016 13: 33
        +2
        I inform you, not far off, that this problem was solved more than 20 years ago at our department, where I studied. And they decided. I will not post the details to you. The result - the invisibility was already clearly visible then. And with the envelope of the relief - it is still necessary to reach us, so that the relief is enveloped. laughing
    2. PSih2097
      PSih2097 30 June 2016 10: 13
      +1
      Quote: sergeyzzz
      And what is its super feature? New radars see him perfectly, is there anything to tear your ass from?

      supersonic flight with envelope relief at low altitude (up to 100 meters).
      Mostly F-111A aircraft were used in Vietnam as bombers. At low altitude (up to 60-80 meters), they autonomously followed the target, skirting the terrain. In fact, they were the prototype of future cruise missiles - the coordinates of a given target were entered into the on-board computer of the aircraft still on the ground, the pilots could only control the instruments. Even after 40 years, the F-111A, according to a number of specialists, has no equal in terms of low-altitude flight capabilities when striking deep into enemy defenses.
      https://topwar.ru/66861-f-111-odin-iz-samyh-udachnyh-v-svoem-klasse.html
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 1 July 2016 07: 24
        +1
        At low altitude (up to 60-80 meters)
        This is not a small height, but extremely small
        they followed the goal offline
        What does it mean - offline mode?
        the pilots could only control the instruments
        The pilot (crew) during such flights experiences a very large additional load, since you have to deal with enveloping the terrain manually without any automation.
        Even after 40 years, the F-111 ..... is unparalleled in its ability to fly at low altitudes ...
        It doesn’t have, and had no equal in flight at extremely low altitudes - Su-24
        supersonic flight with enveloping at low altitude (up to 100 m)
        There is no need for supersonic flights with envelope relief at low altitudes, such flights are not safe, not economical - no one needs such flights.
        1. DrVintorez
          DrVintorez 1 July 2016 13: 29
          +1
          Quote: bober1982
          There is no need for supersonic flights with envelope relief at low altitudes, such flights are not safe, not economical - no one needs such flights.

          Well, somehow you are very categorical. in supersonic mode, the last section of the route before the attack passes through the relief envelope mode, and just the su24 has the ability to reach such a target. Naturally, if we are talking about a European TVD or similar.
          1. bober1982
            bober1982 1 July 2016 19: 54
            -1
            To reach the target and attack, you need to get to it. Everything above 50 m and more can be easily seen by air defense, i.e. the flight must be performed at altitudes below 50 m. The height itself is 50 m - conditional, it is impossible to withstand it, therefore it turns out from 50m and below (10m, 15m, 20m, 25m .... 50m) How is it possible to fly at supersonic sounds at such altitudes? It is impossible, too high speed, and too low altitude + there is simply no need for this, supersonic itself does not give an advantage in overcoming air defense.
            The last section of the route before the attack (as you called it) is the combat path, this is detection, identification and aiming at the target, this is combat maneuvering, keeping the formation in combat order, when a follower or link can hang on the tail. This is also maintaining the flight mode. Supersound in such cases comes from the realm of fiction.
  8. infantryman2020
    infantryman2020 30 June 2016 07: 37
    +5
    After reading the article, I get the impression that this is either a fake or a April 1 joke. Delusions and / or incompetence.
    If this is really serious, then, either, as usual in Russia, lobbying (Su-34) prevails over common sense, or the VKS command has become very tight with creativity.
    1. engineer74
      engineer74 30 June 2016 08: 53
      +1
      "Not everything is so simple!" (C) smile
      Replacing the Su-25 with the Su-34 is really a fake. Have you noticed that officials and the press have disappeared any information on heavy UAV strike? I think we will soon see a new generation battlefield plane! wink
  9. Kenneth
    Kenneth 30 June 2016 07: 49
    +1
    It’s not clear how this typical fighter bomber will replace the bomber and attack aircraft.

    .
    1. vv3
      vv3 30 June 2016 11: 18
      +1
      SU-34, according to the old classification, a front-line bomber. Do you at least understand the terms you use. The word "typical" raises questions about your abilities in general.
  10. Nix1986
    Nix1986 30 June 2016 07: 49
    +6
    Quote: infantryman2020
    After reading the article, I get the impression that this is either a fake or a April 1 joke. Delusions and / or incompetence.
    If this is really serious, then, either, as usual in Russia, lobbying (Su-34) prevails over common sense, or the VKS command has become very tight with creativity.

    I was also surprised that on TV in all sorts of hurray broadcasts they say "In addition, the armata has anti-submarine weapons, if it is thrown off the submarine without a parachute or onto a submarine." And here this article is in the same spirit.
    1. DrVintorez
      DrVintorez 1 July 2016 13: 30
      0
      Quote: Nix1986
      "In addition, the armata has anti-submarine weapons, if it is thrown onto a submarine without a parachute from the IL76

      eh ... that's just hardly il76 armature pull.
  11. Leto
    Leto 30 June 2016 07: 53
    +2
    Eugene, calm down already, your writer's itch has already got everyone, you remind such a famous character as Nikifor Lyapis-Trubetskoy ...
  12. VIT101
    VIT101 30 June 2016 08: 00
    +5
    The decision is early. I am glad that this is a distant prospect, because the rooks will long produce a resource. During this time, a couple of commander-in-chiefs will change, the concept may also change, especially since the rooks are being modernized and it is planned to have more than 2020 modernized machines by 120. It would be simply criminal after modernization to remove them from service. I think they understand this at the top.
    I want to note that replacing attack aircraft with front-line bombers is the idea of ​​VKS commander Bondarev, and not the author of the article, although the author is trying to bring a theoretical basis for this.
  13. Ruby
    Ruby 30 June 2016 08: 52
    +4
    Not a constructive idea, and history has already proved this more than once, and the Americans in the near future will not remove the A10 from service. In a large war it is always necessary, and in large quantities, not expensive, an aircraft of direct support, easy to manufacture and operate. Of course, helicopters largely overlap these tasks. But they have their own niche, and the stormtrooper has its own. In Su 25, it is only necessary to upgrade avionics, well, it’s possible to add a second crew member. The design of the airframe is optimal there, and the engines. Expend expensive bombers for tasks of attacking small targets on the battlefield, it's not even a cannon on sparrows .....
  14. Slon1978
    Slon1978 30 June 2016 09: 06
    +4
    Low speed is an advantage of the attack aircraft, because allows you to assess the situation on the battlefield and work locally. The experience of the armies of other countries has shown that using a high-speed fighter (usually F-16) as an attack aircraft is possible only because of poverty and the inability to afford a specialized aircraft. The author is trying to pass off this regrettable fact for some future achievement of the Russian Aerospace Forces ??? The pilot of a high-speed fighter does not have time to see it and cannot effectively provide direct support to the troops. At the same time, the higher speed of the Su-34 will not save it from MANPADS. the MANPADS missile has a huge speed reserve and an attack aircraft will catch up as easily as a fighter. The MANPADS problem is solved by onboard protection systems. The cost of the Su-34 and the operating costs and survivability cannot be compared with the Su-25. Piloting the Su-34 at low altitudes and low speeds is much more difficult due to the large sweep of the leading edge of the wing, which leads to the appearance of strong vibrations. The same Su-25 and Su-24 with variable sweep goes much better "on the ground" on "straight" wings. I don't understand what kind of news is this? Can't we resume production of the Su-25 or create a new analogue? Here is the Tu-160 we can, but the Su-25 we can’t ... There are no decent words for such "news", God forbid. How many lives will the soldiers on the ground have to pay before the stormtroopers are returned to them?
    1. goose
      goose 30 June 2016 10: 07
      -5
      Quote: Slon1978
      higher speed Su-34 will not save him from MANPADS

      I do not agree, just save. If they shoot dogon. In modern PZKR, the maximum range is about 4-4,8 km with a reach in height at Stinger 1,5-3,8 km.
      The maximum speed is about 2M. Despite the fact that after the actual launch range will be at least 1 km, given the reaction rate. At a speed of Su-34 about 1M, he has a lot of chances to break away from the rocket, given its weak energy.
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 30 June 2016 10: 16
        +4
        Quote: goose
        At a speed of Su-34 around 1M, he has a lot of chances to break away from a rocket, given its weak energy.

        MANPADS are not very easy to use weapons, but ask at your leisure what speeds combat planes operate over the battlefield and how quickly they can accelerate to get away from the rocket.
      2. Slon1978
        Slon1978 30 June 2016 13: 50
        +1
        Too lazy to climb into the performance characteristics of MANPADS, but the launch range of MANPADS is indicated taking into account the dynamics of the target, i.e. if the performance characteristics indicate launch on overtaking courses of up to 4 km, the missile is guaranteed to catch up with a fighter with a 4 km handicap. The energy of a MANPADS missile, with all its incomparably less thrust-weight ratio compared to many other missiles, is much higher than the thrust-weight ratio of a fighter. A fighter in attack aircraft mode will reduce speed as much as possible in order to at least see something on the ground. In addition, do not forget that the MANPADS has a passive infrared seeker, the launch of which is not possible for launching on board (if the plane does not have a radar for viewing the rear hemisphere) and the pilot will not even know about the need to give maximum thrust and perform anti-ballistic maneuvers.
        In Chechnya, they shot down Su-24 from MANPADS, which were marching to the mission area at cruising speed.
        1. Bongo
          Bongo 30 June 2016 13: 58
          +2
          In general, I agree with you, except for this:
          Quote: Slon1978
          In Chechnya, they shot down Su-24 from MANPADS, which were cruising at the target area.

          I do not know about the Su-24 shot down in Chechnya "in the target area". On May 7, 2000, a Su-24MR was shot down from a MANPADS near the Chechen village of Benoi-Vedeno. About another Su-24MR reconnaissance aircraft shot down on October 4, 1999, not everything is clear. It could have been an anti-aircraft gun.
      3. The comment was deleted.
    2. vv3
      vv3 30 June 2016 12: 03
      -5
      What is the battlefield, what is the direct support of the troops ?. Everyone lives in the age of information technology, and you rave about the battles of World War II. We have almost no people on the forum who represent what modern war is. Moreover, we have no such people in the top command of the army! Everyone thinks tanks, planes, missiles, and nobody knows how to use them, how to find targets for them .. Here is an example in Syria. Draw a scenario for yourself how you can wage a war there and how it is waged. Think, at least once, what is a modern war? ..Here is the topic that should be the main one on the forum. When you figure it out, you will understand how a modern war should be waged without nuclear weapons, then we can discuss what is needed for this and what we lack for this ...
      1. Odysseus
        Odysseus 30 June 2016 12: 27
        +2
        Quote: vv3
        Here is an example in Syria. Draw a scenario for yourself how you can wage a war there and how it is waged.

        Detection tools, of course, are important. And it’s very good that you constantly write about it. And then we shoot, we shoot, but God knows where it is. And you have to use fighters as air guides.
        Well, they cannot be absolutized either. Look at the same war in Syria through the eyes of the enemy: An-Nusra or ISIS - are they fighting with the help of network-centric systems for detection and defeat? But they are fighting so that hell can handle them.
        1. vv3
          vv3 30 June 2016 15: 51
          0
          They cannot be dealt with because they are mobile and hide. The response time should be instant. This we can do now. Let's take a simple primitive information link. A patrol UAV with the ability to fly for more than 4 hours, which can determine the coordinates of a target and a radius of about 100 km. Let it have a repeater and a closed communication and control channel. The UAV is the operator of the control, and the information is received and the picture is duplicated on the monitor of the operator of the control center, which can be placed next to the means of destruction of the self-propelled guns and MLRS, or even combined, taking into account the radius of destruction of these weapons. "TORNADO". Discover, get coordinates and strike both day and night, and also with fixing the results. The radius of these weapons and the accuracy allow you to close any area. This is what is called a combat information cell, not even a center. We can do it. We can answer. They even wanted to, but could not. ESU TK where? There! Why don't we have this? I better not answer ...
      2. zyablik.olga
        zyablik.olga 30 June 2016 12: 43
        +6
        Quote: vv3
        What is the battlefield, what is the direct support of the troops ?. All live in the age of information technology, and you rave about the battles of 2-th World.

        Are you writing to the author of more than 200 articles about aviation and air defense systems? As practice shows, in a real combat situation, any situation can develop. Here is an excerpt from Sergei's article "F-15E vs. Su-34". Who's better?:
        During the sorties in Afghanistan, the American F-15E fighter-bombers usually did not descend below 2000 meters over the mountain ranges in order to avoid being hit by MANPADS missiles.

        At the beginning of March 2002, several F-15E took part in the subsequently well-known “Anaconda Operation”. The purpose of the operation was to capture or physically liquidate the al-Qaida leadership in Afghanistan and destroy the militia bases and shelters in the Shahi Kot valley.

        From the very beginning, due to mistakes in planning and unreliable intelligence, the operation went wrong. The Americans underestimated the enemy forces in the area several times. As it turned out, the militants were here before the 1000.

        During the landing of special forces, two MH-47 Chinook helicopters were shot down, manpower losses were 8 killed and 72 wounded American soldiers.

        Only thanks to the air support, including that provided by several F-15E, did the Americans manage to turn the tide of the battle and avoid the complete destruction of the landing force. In this case, one fighter-bomber F-15E I had to fire from 20 mm gun on the Taliban advancing on the position of the American special forces before the complete exhaustion of ammunition.
        So who the hell?
        1. vv3
          vv3 1 July 2016 10: 58
          +2
          Maybe it’s how much percent of the typical military operations? 1% or maybe 5%? And 95%? So, everything is clear, I certainly understand, solidarity ....
          1. Bongo
            Bongo 1 July 2016 11: 15
            +2
            Quote: vv3
            Maybe it’s how much percent of the typical military operations? 1% or maybe 5%? And 95%? So, everything is clear, of course I understand, solidarity ...

            Everything is much more serious, not solidarity - love. But in general, Olga is right (although I don't need advertising). The use of "high information technologies" is applicable against an obviously weaker enemy. Do we have any superiority in these technologies over "potential partners" in the West and in the East? No. So to discount aircraft operating at low altitudes with unguided weapons is not worth it.
            1. zyablik.olga
              zyablik.olga 4 July 2016 16: 37
              +3
              Quote: Bongo
              Everything is much more serious, not solidarity - love.

              I love you too... smile
      3. DrVintorez
        DrVintorez 1 July 2016 13: 35
        0
        well duck enlighten us. I think everyone will be interested.

        Quote: vv3
        When you figure it out, you will understand how a modern war should be waged without nuclear weapons,


        and tell us how you imagine a world war WITHOUT the use of nuclear weapons.


        Quote: vv3
        Here is an example in Syria

        But what about Syria? civil deyur (and de facto) war. a bunch of partisans, a bunch of mercenaries. you so imagine the conflict between rf / china / nato / usa?
  15. eleronn
    eleronn 30 June 2016 09: 13
    +2
    / Target designation will be carried out using its own open source software "Birch" / ... What kind of nonsense ?! It’s the same as using parking sensors instead of a navigator, the author understands WHAT he writes ?!
    1. Leto
      Leto 30 June 2016 10: 01
      +2
      Quote: eleronn
      the author understands WHAT he writes ?!

      Gavriliadu ...
      Waves falling down by a swift jack
    2. DrVintorez
      DrVintorez 1 July 2016 13: 37
      +1
      tiiiii ... tiiiii ... let it play.

      but seriously, the question is certainly a good one. but he is to the editors who skipped this. although anything happens.
    3. Fulcrumxnumx
      1 July 2016 13: 46
      0
      And in your opinion, the element base of open source software is not amenable to modernization and is not integrated into the SOU? Yes, and the "Khibiny" in elevation and azimuth can see everything perfectly ..
      1. DrVintorez
        DrVintorez 1 July 2016 13: 52
        +1
        here’s a microscope for you. here's a self-tapping screw. go get it.
  16. AKsvlad047
    AKsvlad047 30 June 2016 09: 14
    +2
    A good car, no words, but he cannot replace everything and everything!
  17. demiurg
    demiurg 30 June 2016 09: 30
    +6
    Now there is no point in attacking a battlefield. Especially there is no sense in an attack aircraft weighing about 40 tons and supersonic, without booking engines.
    Some kind of game. Why should a plane cut dimes over the most protected area?
  18. K-50
    K-50 30 June 2016 09: 59
    +7
    therefore, to see them above the theater of operations, destroying tanks, suppressing military air defense, and at the same time leading the battle with a pair of F-16C, could become an absolutely real event in the near future.

    Well, she nafig such a reality. Because, most likely, you will have to sing the song "Slowly the rockets fly away into the distance ...", well, and the corresponding landscape on the planet after that will be seen by the one who remains alive. request negative
    1. DrVintorez
      DrVintorez 1 July 2016 13: 39
      0
      tablecloth-tablecloth binary gas spreads, and clogs under a gas mask ...
  19. Operator
    Operator 30 June 2016 10: 01
    -7
    Attack aircraft are a thing of the past.

    Their successor is a reconnaissance and strike group consisting of an aircraft controller (small-sized UAV over the battlefield) and an air-to-ground ammunition carrier (a multifunctional fighter outside the air defense zone).

    See the actions of the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria.
    1. vv3
      vv3 1 July 2016 11: 36
      +2
      In every word there is a sea of ​​humor. It’s necessary to say so, some kind of humor ... The idea is correct, but it is so far away that you only want to ... laugh. You have special glasses that you saw in Syria.? Where can I buy? I want to see everything in pink too ..
  20. Hey
    Hey 30 June 2016 10: 09
    +2
    Why is the question of replacing the SU-25 with the SU-34 raised?
    The answer, I see, is that SU-25s are not currently being produced, some of the aircraft are running out of resources, some of the aircraft were intensively used in Syria, which also greatly reduced their resources, several SU-25s were sold at the request of Iraq and it looks like there is a desire of the Iraqis to get a few more copies, I think, and the Syrians have views of this plane from second-hand, as they don’t have any money for something new.
    Hosh is not hosh, but you need to look for a replacement or the best option to resume production.
  21. OlegYOla
    OlegYOla 30 June 2016 10: 24
    +2
    Which is probably effective: until 2020, 92 Su-34 front-line bombers what will replace one and a half thousand Su-24 belay
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 30 June 2016 10: 42
      +1
      There is no such quantity of Su-24 (one and a half thousand), and it never was, even in the Soviet Air Force. You voiced a fantastic number.
  22. vv3
    vv3 30 June 2016 11: 09
    +1
    Article minus. One can develop the idea that the SU-34 could replace the TU-22M3, if there were more of them. We need at least 400 front-line bombers, and if we take into account the size of the country, and all 600. Recently, the use of Yak-130 as attack aircraft has been hushed up. Perhaps there is a serious reason? .. But using the SU-34 as an attack aircraft is simply not smart and very expensive. I do not like the word "attack aircraft" itself and the thought of the need for booking. From what? From a portable RZK? The SU-25 is not used as an attack aircraft in Syria, it is used as a light bomber, which we all destroyed as a genus. We do not have an ISA. We do not have such aircraft as the SU-17M4, MiG-27. Or, more precisely, we need an aircraft with them and the SU-25. Not armored, subsonic, maybe without afterburner ... And again, we have to return to the YAK— 130, or an airplane based on it. Enlighten, why is this airplane in the shadows?
  23. Torins
    Torins 30 June 2016 11: 20
    +1
    The same conversations as in the article were conducted when the assault aviation was abolished under Khrushchev, almost word for word. Then I had to restore from scratch having lost unique achievements and machines. Is history repeating itself?
  24. shelva
    shelva 30 June 2016 12: 07
    0
    One "thirty-four" helped us a lot during the Second World War, and I hope the flying 34 will be just as useful.
  25. iDog
    iDog 30 June 2016 12: 07
    +1
    Many Su-25s have 7-9 series, since about 2005 cracks have been identified in the power set of the airframe / VLF. For the time being, for the time being it was covered by inspections and flight restrictions, now the limit is apparently coming. The widely publicized avionics modernization did not clearly solve this problem.
  26. Sedoy
    Sedoy 30 June 2016 12: 32
    0
    In my opinion, the Americans have already shown the right direction - drones
    moreover, they have a "network": one F-35 + several attack drones that can be controlled from the F-35 ...

    the trick is that for an accurate strike at the target, you need high-precision ammunition, or a "slow" attack aircraft ...
    precision ammunition is not enough, and expensive ...
    attack aircraft - the risk of losing people ...
    so, the attack drones in conjunction with the "command" aircraft are good "design" of the combat link ...

    in addition, drones can barrage, at a safe height, almost for days ...
    those. no need to fly an entire squadron of attack aircraft ...
    for massive support of ground forces, it is enough to send one aircraft that will control the battle on the spot ...
    1. DrVintorez
      DrVintorez 1 July 2016 13: 43
      0
      Quote: Sedoy
      one F-35 + several impact drones that can be controlled with the F-35 ...

      strong doubt is the possibility of the pilot to be also a UAV operator.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 2 July 2016 02: 38
        0
        In the F-35, the pilot almost does not control the aircraft. The flight is controlled by a comp. And the pilot is the operator
        weapons and real-time coordinator of actions in a network with other platforms,
        in particular with UAVs.
  27. JD1979
    JD1979 30 June 2016 13: 14
    +4
    When reading this opus, phrases like: "the author drink yadu", and "kill yourself up the wall" begin to spin in my head. It’s necessary to mix everything together. It seems that the author, when writing this crap in reality, was thrown against the walls and with each bounce, the direction of flight of his thoughts changed radically to the exact opposite.
    Subsonic manned assault vehicles in network-centric warfare lose their value: they are easy prey for operators of modern MANPADS, anti-aircraft missile systems and other military air defense systems, and they need very solid service personnel and become not very profitable in the Air Force, which was confirmed by the situation with the American attack aircraft A -10A ...

    Yah? You want to say that the cost of an hour of a Su-25SM flight and its maintenance is more expensive than that of a Su-34. And you want to say that Su-34 if you catch it during the execution of the attack or exit from it is not the same easy target? you are a naive person. Well, yes, there is an electrician, electronic warfare, there are more serious, but let's assume that the complexes with televised guidance are ** on heat traps and electronic warfare, like MZA.
    instead, the “green light” was given to a larger number of Ripers, capable of circling at a low speed similarly to the Thunderbolt, delivering missile strikes against a ground enemy, as well as the latest F-35A

    Yeah, low-speed drones and the latest flying irons when performing the task of direct support to the troops magically receive +100 invulnerability from missiles and MZA?
    The Su-34 is a true standard of any type of strike aircraft: a crew of two adjacent pilots protects a welded titanium armored capsule with a sheet thickness of 17 mm, a glider from Su-27 and 2 turbofan AL-31F-M1 with a total thrust of 25600 kgs allow for unique heavy strike "tactics" maneuvers with overloads of up to 8 units, develop a speed of 1,8M, conduct close air combat with such "turtles" as the F-35A; and not only the neighbor.
    On board there is a multi-mode radar with PFAR Sh-141, designed to work on land, sea and air targets.

    Explain to me, where did the booking of the cabin, tanks, engine su-25 go? Ukrainians stole? Why would a direct support aircraft conduct an air battle with fighters if they should have cover? If it is not with the proposed counteraction, then it is necessary to increase the diameter of the anus in the operation commander and chief of staff. If you haven’t noticed, the Su-25 can also carry short- and medium-range explosives.
    I look at you with high-precision weapons and you, like Khrushchev corn, try to shove it wherever you can. Are you going to use it for every barmaley in green stuff and tarantas with a machine gun? Or is it better to comb the Nurses? A little expensive. All too lazy to write. The author, and you’ll get at least something in the barmaels in mountainous areas, when they hide somewhere in gorges covered with forests, and even ours there, 200-300 meters away, can wait for cover at a speed of 1,8 mach, when only one can enter there direction, a sharp lapel after reset / start. Or maybe it’s more reliable and more accurate in the old fashioned way on the sound of quietly aiming to work and leave.
    1. Fulcrumxnumx
      1 July 2016 13: 38
      -2
      And now you tell me what will happen if all the air defense aviation is directed to HE, with which there is a breakthrough of the airspace by Tomahawks and carrier-based aircraft, what will the Su-25SM do without fighter cover if one Super Hornet appears on the horizon? Let's keep quiet, right? So every attack aircraft, if possible, just should have radar and medium-range air combat missiles .. !!! Or can you say something against it?))))
      1. DrVintorez
        DrVintorez 1 July 2016 13: 51
        +1
        Quote: Fulcrum29
        if all air defense aircraft

        as I understand it by air defense, do you mean interceptors like mig-31? I will disappoint: they have absolutely nothing to do over the battlefield. and even more so cover up su25.
        Quote: Fulcrum29
        if one Super Hornet appears on the horizon

        I agree. here we must be silent. Then think about what the super hornet will do over the battlefield, which might threaten the Su25? cover another super hornet he will be! he has nothing more to do on the battlefield! and on su25 he will not care, his task is to let the relatives with the bomb load bomb. By the way, do not forget about the air defense of the land explorers.
        Quote: Fulcrum29
        So, every attack aircraft, if possible, just should have a radar and medium-range air combat missiles.

        Choose either an attack aircraft or a fighter. the Americans are stepping on a rake for the second and a half time (there should be a phrase of Lavrov) trying to create a universal plane: the first time with f111, now with f35, well, half for a phantom. you offer an attack aircraft with radar and medium-range missiles, that is, also step on the rake. question: why? if cheaper to make specialized equipment?
  28. Slon1978
    Slon1978 30 June 2016 14: 00
    +2
    Quote: vv3
    What is the battlefield, what is the direct support of the troops ?. All live in the age of information technology, and you rave about the battles of 2-th World.

    You are raving about the age of information technology. A war of approximately equal rivals, even with good command and control, carries a large percentage of chaos, all kinds of unpredictable events that develop in dynamics. This is not a strategy where you can pause and consider the disposition. Simple solutions and effective tools for their quick implementation will be needed. Su-25 fits completely into this concept. This, however, does not mean that it should not be protected, in particular from MANPADS, not have electronic warfare systems or modern sighting systems.
    1. vv3
      vv3 1 July 2016 11: 57
      0
      Fits into the concept of chaos. Excuse me, is this in your opinion the most modern concept of warfare? Will we use it now?
  29. Vadim237
    Vadim237 30 June 2016 15: 48
    -4
    Let them replace, if you don’t twist, the Su 34 is more heavily armed and in terms of avionics is significantly superior to the Su 25CM.
  30. Hornet
    Hornet 30 June 2016 16: 22
    0
    And why reinvent the wheel? And what does not like the SU-39?
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 30 June 2016 19: 00
      +3
      Quote: HorNet
      And why reinvent the wheel? And what does not like the SU-39?

      The Su-39 has one small problem - the same one that buried the Ka-50. And she has already been voiced on this site repeatedly:
      One of the remarks of the List No. 1 of the GI Su-25T Act is written approximately like this (I don't remember the exact wording, more than twenty years have passed): "When performing some combat modes, the psychophysiological load on the pilot is close to the limit." The remark was given by specialists of the Research Institute of Aviation and Space Medicine of the Moscow Region. Those. the combination of the process of aiming and piloting in a number of modes caused problems. Moreover, it was not about combat pilots, but about military test pilots of the first class.
      © Alexander1959
      https://topwar.ru/96882-ka-50-dolgaya-doroga-v-nebo.html

      That is, on a modern single-seat drummer, even for the elite, the simultaneous solution of the tasks of piloting, searching and selecting a target, the work of a missile defense system and assessing the air and ground situation is an overwhelming task. An operator is needed, but it can’t be put in the Su-39 anymore - there is no space (occupied by avionics units) or a thrust reserve. We'll have to redo the glider, change the engines ... in short - make the car again.
  31. berezin1987
    berezin1987 30 June 2016 19: 57
    0
    Replacing the outdated su-24 with su-34 was necessary for a long time. And the tasks of the Su-25 attack aircraft are better to really shift to drones. Work on targets from low altitudes is extremely dangerous due to the presence of the enemy’s MANPADS, anti-aircraft artillery and heavy machine guns. It is better to lose a drone than a plane and a pilot. You can, of course, transfer the tasks of su-25 to the front-line bomber of su-34 and he can cope with them even better, but is it worth the risk of a very expensive airplane.
  32. berezin1987
    berezin1987 30 June 2016 20: 17
    0
    I see the future of Russian military aviation as follows:
    Air Fighter - PAK FA / Su-35;
    Interceptor - Mig-41;
    Multipurpose fighter / training - Su-30СМ;
    Front-line bomber - Su-34;
    Attack aircraft - Su-25СМ with its subsequent replacement by drones;
    Strategic bomber - Tu-160 M2;
    Attack helicopters - Mi-28NM / Ka-52.

    I consider the Mig-35 production to be impractical due to the increase in the mass of the machine and the transition from the category of light fighters to medium ones. Most of the cost of a modern aircraft is avionics and engines, not iron. The level of technology used for light and heavy aircraft is the same, so the price can be reduced only by using a single-engine scheme. But it will affect reliability. Why do you need Mig-35 with Su-35? Dry is a cheaper alternative to PAK FA
  33. berezin1987
    berezin1987 30 June 2016 20: 48
    -1
    Any manned aircraft for work on the ground at low altitudes must have a reservation. Two aircraft meet this criterion - Su-25 and Su-34. Su-30 / 35 / PAK FA are more specialized in combating air targets and more vulnerable to enemy fire at low altitudes. The MIG-41 being developed should have a significant advantage over front-line fighters in the form of a significantly higher maximum / cruising flight speed, range without refueling, a more powerful multi-mode radar and a longer-range air-to-air missile.
  34. Lucy
    Lucy 30 June 2016 23: 01
    +2
    Evgeny Damantsev that we smoke!
  35. iouris
    iouris 30 June 2016 23: 35
    0
    The conventional war of the Russian Federation against a coalition that exceeds its resources by 5 ... 10 times can not. This means that front-line aviation should be small, very professional and sharpened for operations like the Syrian. But to fall below 5000 m is strongly not recommended.
  36. Torins
    Torins 1 July 2016 00: 14
    0
    Quote: JD1979
    When reading this opus, phrases like: "the author drink yadu", and "kill yourself up the wall" begin to spin in my head. It’s necessary to mix everything together. It seems that the author, when writing this crap in reality, was thrown against the walls and with each bounce, the direction of flight of his thoughts changed radically to the exact opposite.
    Subsonic manned assault vehicles in network-centric warfare lose their value: they are easy prey for operators of modern MANPADS, anti-aircraft missile systems and other military air defense systems, and they need very solid service personnel and become not very profitable in the Air Force, which was confirmed by the situation with the American attack aircraft A -10A ...

    Yah? You want to say that the cost of an hour of a Su-25SM flight and its maintenance is more expensive than that of a Su-34. And you want to say that Su-34 if you catch it during the execution of the attack or exit from it is not the same easy target? you are a naive person. Well, yes, there is an electrician, electronic warfare, there are more serious, but let's assume that the complexes with televised guidance are ** on heat traps and electronic warfare, like MZA.
    instead, the “green light” was given to a larger number of Ripers, capable of circling at a low speed similarly to the Thunderbolt, delivering missile strikes against a ground enemy, as well as the latest F-35A

    Yeah, low-speed drones and the latest flying irons when performing the task of direct support to the troops magically receive +100 invulnerability from missiles and MZA?
    The Su-34 is a true standard of any type of strike aircraft: a crew of two adjacent pilots protects a welded titanium armored capsule with a sheet thickness of 17 mm, a glider from Su-27 and 2 turbofan AL-31F-M1 with a total thrust of 25600 kgs allow for unique heavy strike "tactics" maneuvers with overloads of up to 8 units, develop a speed of 1,8M, conduct close air combat with such "turtles" as the F-35A; and not only the neighbor.
    On board there is a multi-mode radar with PFAR Sh-141, designed to work on land, sea and air targets.

    Explain to me, where did the booking of the cabin, tanks, engine su-25 go? Ukrainians stole? Why would a direct support aircraft conduct an air battle with fighters if they should have cover? If it is not with the proposed counteraction, then it is necessary to increase the diameter of the anus in the operation commander and chief of staff. If you haven’t noticed, the Su-25 can also carry short- and medium-range explosives.
    I look at you with high-precision weapons and you, like Khrushchev corn, try to shove it wherever you can. Are you going to use it for every barmaley in green stuff and tarantas with a machine gun? Or is it better to comb the Nurses? A little expensive. All too lazy to write. The author, and you’ll get at least something in the barmaels in mountainous areas, when they hide somewhere in gorges covered with forests, and even ours there, 200-300 meters away, can wait for cover at a speed of 1,8 mach, when only one can enter there direction, a sharp lapel after reset / start. Or maybe it’s more reliable and more accurate in the old fashioned way on the sound of quietly aiming to work and leave.

    I agree with a friend hi
  37. Yutas
    Yutas 1 July 2016 09: 23
    +1
    I'm sorry, what? Easily vulnerable Su-25? Are you serious?
  38. Yutas
    Yutas 1 July 2016 13: 07
    0
    Well, since minusanuli - argue.
    Examples of survivability of the Su-25 (which suggests its NOT vulnerability):
    https://topwar.ru/index.php?newsid=64474
    http://svpressa.ru/war21/article/133350/
  39. iDog
    iDog 1 July 2016 15: 51
    +1
    On the Su-24, the low-altitude SAU-6 circuit has been blocked since the mid-80s, due to the low reliability of the computer after a series of disasters. And he dragged RPO dead weight half a ton because of this
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 1 July 2016 17: 22
      0
      Self-propelled guns - this is an autopilot, who will block it, RPO - r / l sight, what is this dead load.
      Nobody blocked the low-altitude circuit (MVK).
      1. iDog
        iDog 8 July 2016 13: 15
        0
        Autopilot is not a self-propelled gun once. As for RPO, I made a mistake in one letter of the RPM, the collision warning radar, such as you did not know .., the dead load there is three hundred kilograms together with the Bino a-PNK Puma blocks - sucks, - two Talk to the specialists of the TEC IAS ,. On the remote control of the self-propelled guns - 469 (from memory), a washer was laid under the MVK button-lamp, no need to say what you don't know. Personally, Leitech tried to set up this circuit.
        Yes, about the six-barrel gun, remember, forbidden to operate
  40. Dimonk
    Dimonk 1 July 2016 18: 11
    +1
    The author’s article is more like a person who saw all the capabilities of the SU-34 and with round eyes decided that we do not need anything else. Before making such conclusions, I would recommend watching a documentary about the appearance and development of the Su-25. Everything is specifically laid out on the shelves there: how it appeared and why in this form, by learned people, and not cheers by patriots sitting behind electronic devices winked I think after watching it, it will no longer be so bold to say that the Su-25 is no longer needed.
  41. Dimonk
    Dimonk 1 July 2016 18: 17
    0
    And besides, they can do Su-25 in Ulan-Uda, and not just in Tbilisi.
  42. iDog
    iDog 8 July 2016 13: 44
    0
    In Ulan-Ude, Rosvertolovsky will rivet Mi-17 with pleasure for export, but they won’t create a skim for Su-25, remove the pink glasses .. The technology for welding armored vehicles from titanium has already gone underground, along with its carriers. Locksmiths - 60-x