The most formidable Russian attack aircraft in service. Replacement for "Rook": what the Russian attack aircraft of the future will be like Weights and loads

The Su-39 is a promising Russian attack aircraft, the development of which began at the Sukhoi Design Bureau back in the late 80s. This combat vehicle is the result of a deep modernization of the famous “flying tank” - the Soviet attack aircraft Su-25. And to be even more precise, it was created on the basis of one of the modifications of the aircraft - the Su-25T, designed to destroy tanks and other enemy armored vehicles.

The modernization of the attack aircraft primarily concerned its electronic equipment complex. Having received new avionics and an expanded weapon system, the Su-39 attack aircraft significantly increased its combat capabilities compared to the base model. The Su-39 is even capable of flying dogfight, that is, perform the functions of a fighter.

The Su-39 made its first flight in 1991. Unfortunately, it was never put into service. In 1995, at the aviation plant in Ulan-Ude they tried to start small-scale production of this aircraft; a total of four attack aircraft were manufactured. It should be noted that Su-39 is the export name of the aircraft; in Russia this attack aircraft is called Su-25TM.

The attempt to start mass production of the new attack aircraft came at an unfortunate time - the mid-nineties. The financial crisis and practically complete absence funding from the state buried an interesting project. However, many years later, this wonderful machine never found its way into the sky.

History of the creation of the Su-39

In the mid-50s, the USSR decided to stop work on creating a new jet attack aircraft, the Il-40, and its predecessors were removed from service. In an era of rapid development of missile weapons and supersonic aircraft, the low-speed armored attack aircraft looked like a real anachronism. However, this was a wrong decision.

In the 60s, it became clear that a global nuclear war was being cancelled, and for local conflicts an aircraft was needed that could directly support ground forces on the battlefield. There was no such vehicle in service with the Soviet army. They tried to solve the problem by equipping existing aircraft with air-to-ground missiles, but they were not very suitable for performing such functions.

In 1968, the designers of the Sukhoi Design Bureau proactively began developing a new attack aircraft. These works led to the creation of the famous Soviet plane The Su-25, which received the nickname “flying tank” for its survivability and invulnerability.

The concept of this aircraft was based on increasing the survivability of the aircraft, a wide range of weapons used, as well as simplicity and manufacturability in production. To achieve this, the Su-25 actively used components and weapons that were developed for other Soviet combat aircraft.

On the Su-25TM it was planned to install a new radar-sighting system “Spear-25” and an improved sighting system for anti-tank missiles “Shkval”.

At the beginning of 1991, the first prototype Su-5TM aircraft took off; its serial production was also planned to be organized at an aircraft plant in Tbilisi.

In 1993, production of the attack aircraft was moved to the aircraft plant in Ulan-Ude, the first pre-production aircraft took off in 1995. At the same time, the attack aircraft received its new designation, which today can be called official - Su-39.

The new Su-39 attack aircraft was presented to the public for the first time at the MAKS-95 aviation exhibition. Work on the aircraft was constantly delayed due to insufficient funding. The third pre-production model of the attack aircraft took to the skies in 1997.

However, the Su-39 was not put into service, and mass production of the vehicle never took place. There is a project to modernize the Su-25T into the Su-39, but the anti-tank Su-25T has also been withdrawn from service with the Russian Air Force.

Description of the Su-39 attack aircraft

The design of the Su-39 generally repeats the design of the Su-25UB attack aircraft, with the exception of some differences. The plane is controlled by one pilot, the place of the co-pilot is occupied by the fuel tank and the electronic equipment compartment.

Unlike other modifications of the “flying tank”, the cannon installation on the Su-39 is slightly offset from the central axis to make room for electronic equipment.

The Su-39, like all other modifications of the Su-25, has an excellent level of protection: the pilot is placed in a cockpit made of special titanium armor that can withstand hits from 30 mm shells. The main components and assemblies of the attack aircraft are similarly protected. In addition, the cabin has frontal armored glass and an armored headrest.

The designers paid special attention to protecting the fuel tanks: they are equipped with protectors and surrounded by porous materials, which prevents fuel from splashing out and reduces the likelihood of a fire.

The special paint makes the attack aircraft less noticeable over the battlefield, and the special radio-absorbing coating reduces the aircraft's EPR. Even if one of the engines is damaged, the plane may well continue to fly.

As the experience of the Afghan war has shown, even after the defeat of a Stinger-type MANPADS, an attack aircraft is quite capable of returning to the airfield and making a normal landing.

In addition to armor protection, the survivability of the attack aircraft is ensured by the Irtysh electronic countermeasures complex. It includes a radar irradiation detection station, an active jamming station “Gardenia”, an IR jamming system “Dry Cargo”, and a dipole shooting complex. The Dry Cargo jamming system includes 192 thermal or radar decoys and is located at the base of the Su-39's fin.

The Irtysh complex is capable of detecting all active enemy radars and transmitting information about them to the pilot in real time. At the same time, the pilot sees where the source of radar radiation is located and its main characteristics. Based on the information received, he makes decisions about what to do next: bypass danger zone, destroy the radar with missiles or suppress it using active jamming.

The Su-39 is equipped with an inertial navigation system with optical and radar correction capabilities. In addition, it is equipped with a satellite navigation system that can work with GLONASS and NAVSTAR. This allows you to determine the location of the aircraft in space with an accuracy of up to 15 meters.

The designers took care to reduce the visibility of the attack aircraft in the infrared range; this is facilitated by the aircraft’s afterburning engines with a nozzle signature reduced several times.

The Su-39 received a new radar and sighting system “Spear”, which significantly expanded the combat capabilities of the vehicle. Although this vehicle was based on an “anti-tank modification” of an attack aircraft, the fight against enemy armored vehicles is not the only task of the Su-39.

This attack aircraft is capable of destroying enemy surface targets, including boats, landing barges, destroyers and corvettes. The Su-39 can be armed with air-to-air missiles and conduct a real air battle, that is, perform the functions of a fighter. Its tasks include the destruction of front-line aviation aircraft, as well as enemy transport aircraft, both on the ground and in the air.

The main means of destroying tanks and other types of armored vehicles of the enemy of the new attack aircraft are the Whirlwind ATGMs (up to 16 pieces), which can hit targets at distances of up to ten kilometers. Missiles are aimed at a target using 24/7 sighting system"Squall". The defeat of a Leopard-2 type tank by a Whirlwind missile using the Shkval complex is 0.8-0.85.

In total, the Su-39 has eleven weapons suspension units, so the arsenal of weapons that it can use on the battlefield is very wide. In addition to the Shkval ATGM, these can be air-to-air missiles (R-73, R-77, R-23), anti-radar or anti-ship missiles, blocks with unguided missiles, free-falling or guided bombs of various calibers and classes.

Characteristics of the Su-39 performance characteristics

Below are the main characteristics of the Su-39 attack aircraft.

Modification
Weight, kg
empty plane	10600
normal takeoff	16950
Max. takeoff	21500
Engine type	2 TRD R-195(Sh)
Thrust, kgf	2 x 4500
Max. ground speed, km/h	950
Combat radius, km
near the ground	650
on top	1050
Practical ceiling, m	12000
Max. operational overload	6,5
Crew, people	1
Weapons:	gun GSh-30 (30 mm); 16 ATGM “Whirlwind”; air-to-air missiles (R-27, R-73, R-77); air-to-surface missiles (Kh-25, Kh-29, Kh-35, Kh-58, Kh-31, S-25L); unguided missiles S-8, S-13, S-24; free-falling or adjustable bombs. Cannon containers.

If you have any questions, leave them in the comments below the article. We or our visitors will be happy to answer them

In 1963, it was adopted by the naval forces and corps Marine Corps The United States received the Grumman A-6 Intruder carrier-based attack aircraft. These vehicles actively participated in the Vietnam War and several other armed conflicts. Good characteristics and ease of use ensured this attack aircraft became widely known and became the reason for a lot of positive reviews. However, any aircraft becomes obsolete over time, and the Intruder was no exception. In the early eighties, it became clear that over the next 10-15 years these aircraft would have to be removed from service due to the inexpediency of further modernization. The fleet needed a new aircraft to attack ground targets.

The ATA (Advanced Tactical Aircraft) program began in 1983. At first, naval commanders wanted to make a single project for a universal aircraft. It was to become the basis for an attack-bomber, a fighter, as well as several other auxiliary vehicles, such as a jammer or a reconnaissance aircraft. However, such bold plans were soon abandoned. Firstly, it became clear that such a project would be too expensive, and secondly, options for upgrading existing F-14 aircraft appeared. Finally, the fight against airborne opponents could now be entrusted to the latest F/A-18 fighter-bombers, which had just entered service. Thus, one could only be concerned with creating a new deck attack aircraft.

In the mid-eighties, the appearance of the future aircraft began to take shape. Since it was no longer supposed to intercept enemy aircraft, they decided to make it subsonic and equip it with on-board electronic equipment, “tailored” for working against ground targets. In addition, in accordance with the latest trends in the American aircraft industry, the promising ATA attack aircraft should have been made inconspicuous to enemy radars. This requirement was due to the need to work, including in conditions of serious air defense enemy. Since the task was quite complex, the Pentagon attracted two groups of aircraft manufacturing companies to the research. The first included McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics, and the second included Grumman, Northrop and Vought.

The ATA project looked at the most different options aerodynamic appearance of the new aircraft. From a simple redesign of the F/A-18 airframe with reduced radar signature to the most fantastic designs. For example, the option with a forward-swept wing was seriously considered. However, quite quickly, a flying wing was chosen from the entire variety of configurations, since it had the best combination of stealth and flight characteristics. At the very end of 1987, the customer, represented by the Navy and the Marine Corps, decided which companies would be involved in further design work. The main contractors for the project were McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics.

The Navy and Marine Corps intended to purchase a total of 450-500 ATA attack aircraft. At the same time, they did not forget about the economic side of the matter. The contract for the development of the aircraft clearly stipulated financial terms. Thus, the recommended development cost was $4.38 billion, and the maximum cost was $4.78 billion. In addition, financiers from the Pentagon took interesting measures in case the project became more expensive. In order for the development companies to be interested in maintaining an acceptable cost, the military insisted on the following conditions. If the cost of the program exceeds the recommended cost, then the military department pays only 60% of the overrun, and the contractors take on the rest. If they fail to meet the maximum cost, then all unnecessary costs fall on them, and the Pentagon pays only the recommended amount of costs.

Around the same time, the main aspects of the appearance were fully formed promising aircraft. The designed attack aircraft was a triangular flying wing with a 48° sweep along the leading edge and a protruding canopy in the nose. Apart from the canopy, no components protruded above the surface of the wing - the ATA fully complied with the definition of a flying wing. This feature of the aircraft was due to stealth requirements. Just at this time, the development of the B-2 strategic bomber was ending, and the creators of ATA decided to follow the same path as the Northrop Grumman engineers. It was planned to ensure stealth not only by the shape of the wing. Almost all the main elements of the power structure and skin were proposed to be made from carbon fiber composites. Similar materials had previously been used many times in the American aircraft industry, but the ATA was to be the first US aircraft with such a large proportion of plastic in the design.

The general weight and size parameters of the aircraft were determined at the preliminary design stage and were subsequently subject to almost no major changes. With a body-wing length of 11.5 meters, the ATA attack aircraft was supposed to have a wingspan of 21 and a standing height of 3.4 meters. Dry weight was assumed to be 17.5-18 tons, maximum take-off - no more than 29-30 tons. Of this, up to 9500-9700 kilograms were fuel, placed in several tanks of complex shape.

Just a few months after identifying the development firms, the Pentagon changed its plans. Now the military was going to buy ATA attack aircraft not only for the Navy and Marine Corps, but also for the Air Force. The total number of required vehicles was determined at 850-860 units. Later, in 1990, the aircraft received its own designation. It was named the A-12 Avenger II, after the Grumman TFB/TFM Avenger carrier-based dive torpedo bomber of World War II. The first flight of the new aircraft was initially planned for 1991, and the first production aircraft were supposed to go into combat units no later than 1994-95. In general, plans for the new aircraft were more than optimistic, but expectations were not met.

Even at the preliminary design stage, before selecting development companies, the customer decided on the requirements for the power plant of the new aircraft. For unification and reduction in cost, we chose F412-GE-400 turbojet engines. Two such engines provided thrust of 6700 kgf. The engine air intakes were located on the front of the wing, below its edge. The air flowed to the engines through curved channels, which prevented radar radiation from reaching the compressor blades. Before installing engines on the A-12 aircraft, it was planned to carry out a small technological upgrade. It was planned to change the design of several auxiliary units, as well as install a new digital control system.

The desire to reduce the cost of the finished aircraft influenced the composition of the avionics. Designers from McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics tried to balance on the brink of high performance and relatively low price. At the same time, the overall layout of the aircraft forced them to apply several original solutions. The Westinghouse AN/APQ-183, which was a development of the F-16 fighter radar, was chosen as the radar station. Due to the specific shape of the wing-hull, this radar station was equipped with two antennas with passive phased arrays. They were placed on the leading edge, near the cockpit. The AN/APQ-183 radar could search for ground, surface and air targets, allow it to follow the terrain, etc. Despite the general intentions to reduce the cost of the station, it received five computing modules with a performance of 125 Mflops each. As a result, the radar of the A-12 attack aircraft had combat potential at the level of fourth-generation fighters.

In addition to the radar station, the A-12 received an optical-electronic station with a thermal imaging channel manufactured by the same Westinghouse company. This station consisted of two modules. The first of them monitored a wide sector and was intended for flying at night or in difficult weather conditions, as well as for searching for targets. To attack, it was necessary to use a second module with a narrow field of view. It could find and track ground and air targets, as well as provide information to the sighting system.

Despite the need to reduce the cost of the program as a whole and each aircraft in particular, the A-12 attack aircraft received a modern “glass” cockpit for two pilots. The pilot had at his disposal three multifunction liquid crystal displays (one 8x8 inches and two 6x6) and a head-up display measuring 30x23 degrees. In the rear cockpit of the navigator-operator there was one color display 8x8 inches and three smaller monochrome ones, 6x6. The control systems were distributed between the pilot and the navigator in such a way that the crew commander could single-handedly carry out an attack with certain types of weapons, as well as resist enemy fighters.

In the middle part of the flying wing, on each side of the engines, the A-12 had two relatively long cargo bays. Two more volumes for weapons, but of a smaller size, were located in consoles, immediately behind the niches of the main landing gear. It was possible to hang weapons on the suspension devices of the cargo compartments total mass up to 3-3.5 tons. However, due to their relatively small dimensions, the central compartments could only accommodate one guided bomb of 2000 lb caliber. The side weapons bays were originally designed to carry and launch AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles. In the case of operations in an area with relatively weak air defense, the A-12 attack aircraft, at the cost of increased radar visibility, could carry twice as many weapons. In this case, up to 3.5 tons of load could be suspended on external nodes. It is noteworthy that built-in weapons in the form of an automatic cannon were not provided.

The A-12 aircraft was originally created for the Navy and Marine Corps, so it was immediately adapted for use on aircraft carriers. For this purpose, the wing consoles were made folding. The folding axis was located immediately behind the side weapon compartments. Interestingly, the unfolded wing of the A-12 attack aircraft had a noticeably greater span compared to the F-14 fighter in takeoff configuration: 21.4 meters versus 19.55; but at the same time, the A-12 was superior in size when folded, since its span was reduced to 11 meters versus 11.6. The older A-6 had a smaller wingspan than the A-12 in both cases. However, due to the flying wing architecture, the new aircraft beat everyone in terms of length. From the nose to the trailing edge of the wing it was only 11.5 meters. Thus, the new A-12 took up significantly less space than the F-14 or A-6. The nose landing gear was further strengthened for use with the carrier's steam catapult.

Although the A-12 was planned to be armed with relatively long-range missiles and guided bombs, the aircraft still received armor elements. The cockpit, engines and a number of important components received additional protection. Thanks to the “flying wing” design, it was possible to place the armor elements in such a way that the combat survivability of the aircraft was radically increased. The A-12, according to calculations, turned out to be 12 times more survivable than the A-6 and 4-5 times more survivable than the F/A-18. Thus, the level of protection of the carrier-based attack aircraft turned out to be approximately at the level of another aircraft of a similar purpose, but “land” - the A-10.

At the later stages of design, when we have not only decided common features, but the smallest nuances were also worked out, the designers of McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics were able to calculate the expected flight characteristics of the promising attack aircraft. With the help of engines without an afterburner, it could accelerate to a speed of 930 km/h and fly at a range of up to 1480-1500 kilometers. The practical ceiling of the car did not exceed 12.2-12.5 kilometers. With such flight data, the new A-12 could carry out missions to attack enemy targets at tactical depth. In other words, it was possible to fulfill all the tactical and technical requirements of the military.

The development of the new aircraft proceeded at a rapid pace, but in the end this speed did not produce any results. By the end of 1989, it became clear that the recommended project budget had been exceeded by almost a billion dollars. These costs, in accordance with the terms of the contract, were to be borne entirely by wasteful developers. In addition, a number of technical problems remained, clearly hinting at a further increase in the cost of the program. The Pentagon began to get nervous. If the planned volume of purchases were maintained, the re-equipment of the Navy and Marine Corps could cost $55-60 billion, which was significantly more than the originally planned amount. Development companies were forced to initiate additional negotiations to change the terms of the contract.

For a long time, the military did not want to meet halfway and soften the financial requirements for the project. At the same time, seeing a number of serious problems and the emerging disruption of planned deadlines, the command of the Marine Corps refused to purchase new aircraft. Thus, the order was reduced to 620 vehicles, and the planned production rate was cut from 48 to 36 attack aircraft per year. At this time, the designers had to urgently solve the problem with the grade of carbon fiber for some airframe parts. An alternative grade was nevertheless found, but because of it, the plane at its maximum load became heavier from the required 29.5 to 36 tons. This did not suit the sailors, since from the very beginning they demanded such a mass and dimensions that one aircraft carrier aircraft lift could deliver two A-12s to the flight deck at once.

However, assembly of the first prototype continued, although it was seriously behind schedule. As of January 1991, the delay had already been 18 months, and dissatisfied voices were increasingly heard on the sidelines of the American military department. By the same time, the total costs of the Pentagon and development companies for the development of a promising attack aircraft reached $7.5 billion. The first flight, in turn, in once again was postponed, now to 1992. All problems with money and deadlines ended on January 7, 1991. Having reviewed the project reports for the previous 1990, the US Navy command made the only possible correct decision. The A-12 project was closed due to unclear prospects and uncontrolled cost growth. It was initially assumed that a total of approximately $45 billion would be allocated for the purchase of aircraft, and each aircraft would cost no more than $50 million. But at the beginning of 1991, the cost of an individual aircraft exceeded 85-90 million, and in the future this figure could only increase.

The A-12 project was terminated after a special order from the then US Secretary of Defense D. Cheney. He commented on the order as follows: “I closed the A-12 project. This decision was not easy because we had a very important task ahead of us. But no one could tell me how much the entire program would cost or when it would be completed. Previous forecasts were inaccurate and out of date within just a few months.”

The A-6 Intruder carrier-based attack aircraft, to replace which the new A-12 Avenger II was created, served in the US Navy until 1997, after which they were decommissioned. Currently, a number of EA-6B electronic warfare aircraft based on the Intruders remain in service. As for attacking ground targets, over the past fifteen years such tasks have been assigned exclusively to F/A-18 fighter-bombers of various modifications. There are no plans to create a full-fledged deck attack aircraft.

Based on materials from sites:
http://globalsecurity.org/
http://flightglobal.com/
http://paralay.com/
http://foreignaffairs.com/
http://jsf.mil/

Today, almost no one is developing new attack aircraft for the Air Force, preferring to rely on fighter-bombers. Here are five attack aircraft that the Army is afraid to see in the skies above them.

One such aircraft has remained in service since the Vietnam War, while the other has not yet made a single combat mission. Most are used in a wide variety of situations, which emphasizes the flexibility and versatility of their combat use. Air strikes against ground targets are still very important. Here are five attack aircraft that the Army really doesn't want to see in the skies above them.

Have stormtroopers become an endangered species? Today, almost no one is developing new attack aircraft of this type for the Air Force, preferring to rely on fighter-bombers, although attack aircraft with their precision weapons do everything dirty work to provide close air support and isolate the battlefield from the air. But it has always been this way: the Air Force has always eschewed direct strike support and was more interested in fast fighters and majestic bombers. Many attack aircraft from the Second World War began their lives in design bureaus as fighters, and turned into attack aircraft only after the “failure” of the developers. Nevertheless, all these years, attack aircraft skillfully and conscientiously carried out one of the main tasks of aviation to destroy enemy forces on the battlefield and to provide support to their ground forces.

In this article, we will analyze five modern aircraft that perform very old ground attack missions. One such aircraft has remained in service since the Vietnam War, while the other has not yet made a single combat mission. All of them are specialized (or have become specialized) and are designed to strike enemy troops in combat conditions. Most of them are used in a wide variety of situations, which emphasizes the flexibility and versatility of their combat use.

The A-10 was born out of rivalry between branches of the armed forces. In the late 1960s, the long-running battle between the Army and the US Air Force over the close air support vehicle gave birth to two competing programs. The Army championed the Cheyenne attack helicopter, and the Air Force funded the A-X program. Problems with the helicopter, combined with the good prospects of the A-X, led to the abandonment of the first project. The second model eventually evolved into the A-10, which had a heavy cannon and was designed specifically to destroy Soviet tanks.

The A-10 performed well during the Gulf War, where it caused serious damage to Iraqi transport convoys, although the Air Force was initially reluctant to send it to that theater of operations. The A-10 has also been used in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recently saw combat against ISIS. Although the Warthog (as the military affectionately calls it) rarely destroys tanks today, it has demonstrated its superior effectiveness in counterinsurgency warfare due to its low speed and ability. for a long time patrol in the air.

The Air Force has tried to phase out the A-10 several times since the 1980s. Air Force pilots say the aircraft has poor dogfight survivability and that multi-role fighter-bombers (F-16 to F-35) can perform its missions much more efficiently and without much risk. Outraged A-10 pilots, the Army and the US Congress disagree. The latest political battle over the Warthog was so bitter that one Air Force general declared that any Air Force member who leaked information about the A-10 to Congress would be considered a "traitor."

Like the A-10, the Su-25 is a slow, heavily armored aircraft capable of delivering powerful firepower. Like the Warthog, it was designed to strike on the central front in the event of a conflict between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, but then went through a number of modifications for use in other conditions.

Since its inception, the Su-25 has participated in many conflicts. First he fought in Afghanistan, when they entered Soviet troops– it was used in the fight against the Mujahideen. The Iraqi Air Force actively used the Su-25 in the war with Iran. He was involved in many wars, one way or another connected with the collapse Soviet Union, including in the Russian-Georgian war of 2008, and then in the war in Ukraine. The rebels, using Russian anti-aircraft missile systems, shot down several Ukrainian Su-25s. Last year, when it became clear that the Iraqi army was unable to cope with ISIS on its own, the Su-25 again attracted attention. Iran offered to use its Su-25s, and Russia allegedly urgently supplied a batch of these aircraft to the Iraqis (although they could have been from Iranian trophies captured from Iraq in the 1990s).

From the outside, the Super Tucano appears to be a very modest aircraft. It looks a bit like North American's P-51 Mustang, which entered service more than seventy years ago. The Super Tucano has a very specific mission: to carry out strikes and patrols in unopposed airspace. Thus, it has become an ideal machine for counterinsurgency warfare: it can track down rebels, strike them and stay in the air until the combat mission is completed. This is an almost ideal aircraft for fighting insurgents.

The Super Tucano flies (or will soon fly) with more than a dozen air forces in South America, Africa and Asia. The aircraft is helping Brazilian authorities manage vast swaths of the Amazon and Colombia's efforts to fight FARC militants. The Dominican Air Force uses the Super Tucano in the fight against drug trafficking. In Indonesia, he helps hunt pirates.

After many years of efforts, the US Air Force managed to acquire a squadron of such aircraft: they intend to use them to increase the combat effectiveness of the air forces of partner countries, including Afghanistan. The Super Tucano is ideal for the Afghan army. It is easy to operate and maintain and could give the Afghan Air Force an important advantage in the fight against the Taliban.

At the start of the Vietnam War, the US Air Force saw the need for a large, heavily armed aircraft that could fly over the battlefield and destroy ground targets when the Communists went on the offensive or were discovered. The Air Force first developed the AC-47 based on the C-47 transport vehicle, which they equipped with cannons mounted in the cargo bay.

The AC-47 proved to be very effective, and the Air Force, desperate for close air support, decided that a larger aircraft would be even better. The AC-130 fire support aircraft, developed on the basis of the C-130 Hercules military transport, is a large and slow machine that is completely defenseless against enemy fighters and serious air defense systems. Several AC-130s were lost in Vietnam and one was shot down by a MANPADS during the Gulf War.

But at its core, the AC-130 simply grinds down enemy ground troops and fortifications. He can endlessly patrol over enemy positions, firing powerful cannon fire and using his rich arsenal of other weapons. The AC-130 is the eyes of the battlefield, and it can also destroy anything that moves. AC-130s fought in Vietnam, the Gulf War, the Invasion of Panama, the Balkan Conflict, the Iraq War, and operations in Afghanistan. There are reports that one plane has been converted to fight zombies.

This plane did not drop a single bomb, did not fire a single missile, and did not make a single combat mission. But one day it might do so, and it could revolutionize the 21st century combat aviation market. Scorpion is a subsonic aircraft with very heavy weapons. It does not have the firepower of the A-10 and Su-25, but it is equipped with state-of-the-art avionics and is lightweight enough to allow it to conduct reconnaissance and surveillance, as well as strike ground targets.

Scorpion can fill an important niche in the air forces of many countries. For years, the air force has been reluctant to acquire multirole aircraft that perform multiple missions but lack the prestige and polish of leading fighter jets. But as fighter jet costs skyrocket and many air forces desperately need attack aircraft to maintain order at home and protect borders, the Scorpion (as well as the Super Tucano) could fit the role.

In a sense, the Scorpion is the Super Tucano's high-tech counterpart. Developing country air forces may invest in both aircraft, as it will give them a lot of ground attack capabilities, and the Scorpion will allow air combat in some situations.

Conclusion

Most of these aircraft ended production many years ago. There are good reasons for this. The attack aircraft has never been particularly popular as a class of aircraft in the Air Force different countries. Close air support and battlefield isolation are extremely dangerous missions, especially when performed at low altitudes. Stormtroopers often operate at the interfaces of units and formations and sometimes become victims of inconsistency in their actions.

To find a replacement for attack aircraft, modern air forces have focused on improving the capabilities of fighter-bombers and strategic bombers. Therefore, in Afghanistan, a significant part of the close air support missions is carried out by B-1B bombers, designed to attack nuclear strikes for the Soviet Union.

But as recent battles in Syria, Iraq and Ukraine show, stormtroopers still have an important job to do. And if this niche in the US and Europe is not filled by traditional suppliers from the military-industrial complex, then (relative) newcomers like Textron and Embraer will.

Robert Farley is an associate professor at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce. His research interests include national security, military doctrine and maritime affairs.

And also for targeted destruction of ground and sea targets.

Assault- defeating ground and sea targets using small arms and cannon weapons (cannons and machine guns), as well as missiles. This method of destruction turns out to be more suitable for striking extended targets, such as clusters and especially marching columns of infantry and equipment. The most effective strikes are against openly located manpower and unarmored vehicles (cars, unarmored tractors and the equipment they tow, railway transport). To perform this task, the aircraft must operate at low altitude without diving (“low-level flight”) or with a gentle dive (at an angle of no more than 30 degrees).

Story

Non-specialized types of aircraft, such as conventional fighters, as well as light and dive bombers, can be used as attack aircraft. However, in the 1930s, a specialized class of aircraft was allocated for attack operations. The reason for this is that, unlike an attack aircraft, a dive bomber only hits pinpoint targets; a heavy bomber operates from a great height over areas and large stationary targets - it is not suitable for hitting a target directly on the battlefield, since there is a high risk of missing and hitting friendly forces; a fighter (like a dive bomber) does not have strong armor, while at low altitudes the aircraft is exposed to targeted fire from all types of weapons, as well as to stray fragments, stones and other dangerous items flying over the battlefield.

The most produced attack aircraft of the Second World War (as well as the most produced combat aircraft in the history of aviation) was the Ilyushin Design Bureau's Il-2. The next vehicle of this type created by Ilyushin was the Il-10, which was used only at the very end of World War II.

The role of stormtroopers decreased after the appearance cluster bombs(with the help of which elongated targets are hit more effectively than from small arms), as well as due to the development of air-to-surface missiles (accuracy and range have increased, guided missiles have appeared). The speed of combat aircraft has increased and it has become problematic for them to hit targets at low altitude. On the other hand, there were attack helicopters, almost completely displacing the aircraft from low altitudes.

In this regard, in the post-war period, resistance to the development of attack aircraft as highly specialized aircraft grew in the Air Force. Although direct air support of ground troops by aviation remained and remains an extremely important factor in modern combat, the main emphasis was on the design of universal aircraft that combine the functions of an attack aircraft.

Examples of post-war attack aircraft include the Blackburn Buccaneer, A-6 Intruder, A-7 Corsair II. In other cases, ground attack has become the domain of converted trainers, such as the BAC Strikemaster, BAE Hawk and Cessna A-37.

In the 1960s, both the Soviet and American militaries returned to the concept of a dedicated close support aircraft. Scientists from both countries settled on similar characteristics of such aircraft - a well-armored, highly maneuverable subsonic aircraft with powerful artillery and missile and bomb weapons. Soviet military settled on the nimble Su-25, the Americans relied on a heavier one [ ] Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II . Characteristic feature Both aircraft were left with a complete lack of air combat capabilities (although later both aircraft began to be equipped with short-range air-to-air missiles for self-defense). The military-political situation (significant superiority of Soviet tanks in Europe) determined the main purpose of the A-10 as an anti-tank aircraft, while the Su-25 was more intended to support troops on the battlefield (destruction of firing points, all types of transport, manpower , important objects and enemy fortifications), although one of the modifications of the aircraft also became a specialized “anti-tank” aircraft.

The role of stormtroopers remains well defined and in demand. In the Russian Air Force, Su-25 attack aircraft will remain in service at least until 2020. NATO is increasingly offering modified production fighters for the attack role, resulting in the use of dual designations, such as the F/A-18 Hornet, due to the growing role of precision weapons, which has made the previous approach to the target unnecessary. Recently, the term “strike fighter” has become widespread in the West to refer to such aircraft.

In many countries, the concept of “attack aircraft” does not exist at all, and aircraft belonging to the classes “dive bomber”, “front-line fighter”, “tactical fighter”, etc. are used for attack.

Stormtroopers now also called attack helicopters.

In NATO countries aircraft this class is designated by the prefix “A-” (from the English Attack) followed by a digital designation (it should be noted that until 1946 the prefix “A-” was also assigned

Even in these times of widespread fascination with helicopters for fire support of troops, ground commanders around the world dream with melancholy hopelessness of a battlefield aircraft. Although the helicopter element, like a jet from the main rotor of a helicopter, enchantingly twisted the concepts of military theorists about the participation of aviation in combat clashes between ordinary infantry, airborne troops and marines with the enemy, but thoughts about battlefield aircraft, which should be at the direct disposal of the commander on the battlefield - battalion commander, brigade commander or army commander - periodically arise at various meetings of ground commanders of all levels. Pyotr Khomutovsky discusses all this.

The idea of a battlefield aircraft or an aircraft for direct combat air support of ground forces on the battlefield, capable of inflicting fire damage on enemy personnel and military equipment under intense enemy fire to effectively carry out combat missions by its own troops, began to interest infantry and cavalry commanders with the advent of aviation.

During the First and Second World Wars, aviation became widely used not only to confront the enemy in the air, but also to destroy manpower and military equipment enemy on the ground. Numerous types of aircraft appeared, which were used with varying success both for air battles and for fire support of troops.

Moreover, already in the first period of the First World War, the Russian armies suffered significant losses not from machine-gun fire from German airplanes, but also from ordinary iron arrows, which were dropped by German pilots from a great height onto a concentration of infantry or cavalry.

In World War II, aviation became not only the main means of struggle for gaining dominance over the battlefield in the tactical depth of defense, but also effective means intimidation of the population, destruction of industry and disruption of communications in the operational-strategic depths of the enemy’s country.

Few war veterans who have survived to this day remember the skies of June 1941, when it was dominated by enemy aircraft - the Junkers Ju-87 and other German aircraft were especially effective then.

In that terrible summer of 1941, the Red Army soldiers had one question: where is our aviation? The soldiers of Saddam Hussein probably felt the same way in two Iraqi campaigns, when all types of US aviation “hung” over them, from carrier-based aircraft to fire support helicopters for troops, since then the situation was characterized by the almost complete absence of Iraqi aircraft in the air.

To achieve infantry superiority over the enemy in ground battles, a type of combat aviation called attack aircraft was established. The appearance of Soviet attack aircraft over the battlefield took the German command by surprise and showed the terrifying combat effectiveness of the Il-2 attack aircraft, which was nicknamed the “Black Death” by Wehrmacht soldiers.

This fire support aircraft was armed with the full range of weapons available in aviation at that time - machine guns, bombs, and even rocket shells. The destruction of tanks and motorized infantry was carried out with all the onboard weapons of the Il-2 attack aircraft, the composition and power of which turned out to be extremely well chosen.

Enemy tanks had little chance of surviving an air attack with rocket shells, cannon fire, and bombing. The tactics of attacking enemy ground forces from the first days of the war showed that pilots of Il-2 attack aircraft, when successfully reaching the target at low level, with an onboard set of missile shells, hit all types of tanks and enemy manpower.

Based on the pilots' reports, it could be concluded that the effect of rocket shells is effective not only when directly hitting a tank, but also has a demoralizing effect on the enemy. The Il-2 attack aircraft was one of the most popular aircraft, the production of which was one of the main tasks of the Soviet aviation industry during the war.

However, although the achievements of Soviet attack aviation in the Great Patriotic War were huge, but in the post-war period it did not receive development, since in April 1956, the Minister of Defense Marshal Zhukov was presented to the then leadership of the country, prepared General Staff and the Air Force General Staff, a report on the low effectiveness of attack aircraft on the battlefield in modern war, and it was proposed to eliminate attack aircraft.

As a result of this order of the Minister of Defense, attack aircraft were abolished, and all the Il-2, Il-10 and Il-10M in service - about 1,700 attack aircraft in total - were scrapped. Soviet attack aviation ceased to exist; By the way, at the same time the question of eliminating bomber and part of fighter aviation and the abolition of the Air Force as a branch of the Armed Forces was seriously raised.

The solution to combat missions for direct air support of ground forces in the offensive and defense was supposed to be provided by the forces of the developed fighter-bombers.

After the resignation of Zhukov and a change in the priorities of the military confrontation in the Cold War, the high command of the Soviet armed forces came to the conclusion that the accuracy of hitting ground targets with missiles and bombs from supersonic fighter-bombers was not high enough.

The high speeds of such aircraft gave the pilot too little time to aim, and poor maneuverability left no opportunity to correct inaccurate aiming, especially for low-profile targets, even with the use of high-precision weapons.

This is how the concept of field-based Su-25 attack aircraft near the front line appeared at the initial stage of its creation. The most important thing is that this aircraft was supposed to become an operational-tactical means of supporting ground troops, similar to the Il-2 attack aircraft.

Realizing this, the command of the ground forces fully supported the creation of a new attack aircraft, while the command of the air force for a long time demonstrated absolute indifference towards it. Only when the “combined arms” announced the required number of staff units for the Su-25 attack aircraft did the Air Force command become unwilling to give the ground commanders, along with the aircraft, a huge number of personnel and airfields with infrastructure.

This led to the fact that the aviators took up the project of creating this attack aircraft with all the responsibility, naturally, in the understanding of the aviation commanders. As a result of repeated demands for increased combat load and speed, the Su-25 was transformed from a battlefield aircraft into a multi-role aircraft, but at the same time it lost the ability to be based on small, minimally prepared sites near the front line and instantly practice targets on the battlefield according to the developing situation.

This backfired during the war in Afghanistan, since in order to reduce the response time to calls from motorized riflemen and paratroopers, it was necessary to organize constant duty of attack aircraft in the air, and this led to a huge overconsumption of scarce aviation fuel, which had to first be delivered from the USSR to the airfields of Afghanistan under constant fire from the Mujahideen , or cover vast distances from airfields in Central Asia.

Even more fatal was the problem of the light anti-helicopter attack aircraft. Its appearance in Soviet times never took place, although several promising projects were proposed for consideration by the military. One of them is the light attack aircraft “Photon”, whose unofficial nickname was “Pull-Push”.

The main feature of the Photon attack aircraft design was the redundant spaced power point, consisting of a TVD-20 turboprop engine located in the forward part of the fuselage, and an AI-25TL bypass turbojet engine located behind the cockpit.

This placement of the engines made it unlikely that they would be simultaneously damaged by enemy fire, and in addition, it provided additional protection for the pilot, who, like on the Su-25, was sitting in a welded titanium cockpit.

The project of this attack aircraft, together with the developed model, was presented to the ordering departments of the Air Force weapons service, but for some reason it did not appeal to the aviators, who repeated that any device that lifts less than five tons of bombs is of no interest to the Air Force.

Meanwhile, during the transition to the formation of military units on the “battalion-brigade” principle, a clear disproportion arose in the availability of aviation at the direct disposal of the battalion commander and brigade commander; more precisely, one can note the complete absence of both combat aviation and vehicles at the battalion-brigade level.

In Soviet times, they tried to solve this issue by creating airmobile air assault brigades with squadrons of Mi-8T transport and combat helicopters and Mi-24 fire support helicopters, but this idea was also not widely developed, since the “convoys” of helicopter pilots turned out to be too bulky .

The fact is that usually regiments and individual squadrons of helicopter pilots are based at their inhabited airfields, which are part of the structure of army aviation and are located at a fairly significant tactical distance from the main forces of the air assault brigade.

In addition, army aviation itself cannot be determined with its location under the sun - it is either thrown into the Ground Forces, then transferred to the Air Force, or, according to rumors, it may soon be reassigned to the Airborne Forces.

If we take into account that the Russian army aviation is mainly armed with materiel dating back to Soviet times, then the capabilities of regiments and individual squadrons of fire support helicopters look pale, despite the sworn assurances that the latest helicopters will soon arrive in the army aviation firms Mil and Kamov.

But the point is not only in what structure army aviation will be organizationally included, but in the fact that army aviators do not quite well understand the essence of modern combined arms combat, which, with the advent of modern tanks and armored personnel carriers has turned from positional to maneuverable and which requires continuous air cover, both from the impact of enemy combat helicopters and ground-based fire weapons.

In addition, there is an urgent need to supply ammunition and food to troops on the march and in defense. A typical case is from the clashes between the Angolan FAPLA army and the troops of the UNITA group in the mid-80s in Angola. Carrying out a rapid offensive against UNITA troops, FAPLA units operated in jungle conditions.

The troops were supplied by pairs of Mi-8T helicopters and Mi-24 fire support helicopters. Since air support for UNITA troops was provided by South African aviation, which identified the helicopter supply line for FAPLA. At the request of UNITA leader Savimbi, a decision was made to secretly intercept FAPLA supply helicopters using Impalas light attack aircraft, which had only cannon weapons.

As a result of several unexpected attacks on a group of Angolan helicopters, which were not warned in advance by FAPLA intelligence, about 10 helicopters were shot down by Impalas light attack aircraft, and the offensive against the UNITA group failed due to the lack of timely supply of ammunition and food to the troops.

As a result of the failure of the FAPLA offensive, more than 40 tanks, about 50 armored personnel carriers were lost, and the loss of FAPLA personnel amounted to over 2,500 soldiers and officers. As a result of this, the war in Angola dragged on for more than 10 years.

Thus, using the example of this episode of armed struggle, it is clear that among the troops on the battlefield, in the tactical depth and on the lines of communication, a situation arises of obvious vulnerability from unexpected enemy air strikes, since fighters of the fourth and fifth generations not only flew up too high and found themselves completely cut off from the battlefield, but they act only at the request of the command with a predominance of the “free hunt” method of searching for enemy aircraft and attractive targets on the ground.

"Big stormtroopers", for obvious reasons, cannot long time“hang” over the battlefield, working according to the principle: - they dropped bombs, fired and - flew away. As a result, there is a need for the emergence of new battlefield aircraft - light off-airfield-based attack aircraft, which must be under the direct command of the battalion commander and brigade commander.

Such aircraft must have one quality - to be within tactical reach of the location of a company, battalion or brigade and be used for timely air cover and escort of military units during a halt, march or combat clash with the enemy, both in defense and on the offensive.

Ideally, off-airfield-based light attack aircraft should be directly assigned to a specific platoon, company and battalion, ensuring the transfer of reconnaissance groups in the tactical depth of the offensive or defense, ensuring the transportation of the wounded to the rear, during the so-called “golden hour”, being used for reconnaissance and surveillance on the battlefield and carry out local tasks to suppress enemy firing points.

It is logical in this case to teach the technique of piloting battlefield aircraft to contract sergeants who are medically fit for flying work. Over time, it seems possible to certify them for promotion to officers. Thus, the Ground Forces will have battalion and brigade air group commanders who understand the essence of using aviation at the battalion and brigade level on the battlefield.

This will be of enormous importance, especially for mountain brigades, air assault brigades and arctic special forces brigades. Attempts to use various types of helicopters for these purposes - great success didn't have. In the best case, with the help of the “eight” or “twenty-four” it was possible to evacuate the wounded, supply ammunition or food, and also suppress enemy firing points.

Although helicopter pilots in Afghanistan showed massive heroism in the air, the advent of mobile short-range air defense systems of the Stinger type reduced the effect of the presence of fire support helicopters on the battlefield to a minimum, and transport helicopters did not have a chance to survive when using stingers. Local conflicts of recent decades also show that the use of “large” military aircraft is limited.

Essentially, in many African conflicts, especially in Angola, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, etc., as well as in the battles in Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh, light aircraft of various types were used as attack aircraft, as well as converted ones from sports aircraft (Yak-18, Yak-52), training (L-29, L-39) and even agricultural (An-2) aircraft and hang-gliders.

The need for a battlefield aircraft also urgently arises during anti-terrorist operations, when the use of a fire support helicopter completely unmasks the intentions of the attacking side to clear the area of bandit formations; moreover, the use of a “rattling helicopter” is not always possible, especially in the mountains.

Meanwhile, in the USA and NATO countries, based on the information available to me, processes are also underway to rethink the use of aviation in numerous local conflicts recent times. The Marine Corps and Air Force recently received $2 billion in initial funding to purchase 100 Light Attack Armed Reconnaissance (LAAR) aircraft for use in local conflicts such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.

At the same time, the first aircraft should enter service with the troops in 2013. Also, the British company British Aerospace recently presented information on the development of the SABA light aircraft project, designed to combat helicopters and cruise missiles. Three versions of the vehicle were presented - R.1233-1, R.1234-1 and R.1234-2. The R.1233-1 variant showed a great advantage.

Its canard-type layout with a small forward-swept wing, front destabilizers and a rear-mounted turbofan engine with a twin pusher propeller was considered by customers from the British Ministry of Defense to be the most optimal. Destabilizers are front horizontal tails installed in front of the wing and are intended to ensure or improve the longitudinal control of the aircraft.

According to a company representative, the main advantages of this light aircraft are high maneuverability in all flight modes, the ability to be based on unpaved airfields with a runway length of up to 300 m, a very impressive duration (up to 4 hours) of autonomous flight and powerful small arms, cannon and missile weapons.

Tactical and technical characteristics of the aircraft:

aircraft length: 9.5 m
wingspan: 11.0 m
Maximum take-off weight: 5.0 tons, including weapon weight: 1.8 tons
average speed: 740 km/h
landing speed - 148 km/h
minimum turning radius - 150 m
180 degree turn time - about 5 seconds

Based on the main purpose of this aircraft - intercepting enemy combat helicopters appearing directly on the battlefield, the aircraft is armed with 6 short-range air-to-air missiles of the Sidewinder or Asraam type and a built-in 25 mm cannon with 150 rounds of ammunition. .

A heat direction finder is installed on board the aircraft as a surveillance and targeting system, and a laser range finder is installed as a target designator. The aircraft designers of this aircraft claim that such powerful weapons with high maneuverability will allow the SABA pilot to conduct air combat at low altitude even with supersonic fighters.

However, critics of this aircraft believe that this aircraft can become easy prey not only for enemy fighters and attack aircraft, but also for fire support helicopters, due to the fact that it is not off-airfield.

A real find and a pleasant surprise for the Russian Ground Forces could be the use as a light attack aircraft - a light amphibious aircraft of a normal category with an air-cushion landing gear, which is designed to perform air transport missions with payload up to 1000 kg in conditions of unprepared sites and flight at minimum altitude.

This amphibious aircraft, in addition, can be used to perform various combat missions, for patrolling military columns in the tactical depths of defense and offensive, for search and rescue operations, conducting aerial photography reconnaissance, detecting enemy tank columns, landing and disembarking troops on water surface and be a headquarters command post for directing drones, which will make it possible to determine the occupation of defensive lines by the enemy and their preparedness in engineering terms, the presence of enemy troops in the forest, determine the movement of enemy reserves along highways, dirt roads and their concentration at railway stations.

One of its modifications can be an effective means of combating transport helicopters and fire support helicopters for enemy troops, as well as enemy tanks and armored personnel carriers.

Modifications:

The basic platform of the amphibious aircraft can be easily converted into various modifications of ambulance, attack, transport, patrol, etc., depending on the type of protection of the fuselage, which will be manufactured in two versions:

based on the use of aluminum alloys
based on the use of titanium alloys with the creation of a welded titanium cockpit in combination with the use of Kevlar fiber

Dimensions:

amphibious aircraft length - 12.5 m
height - 3.5 m
wingspan - 14.5 m

The dimensions of the fuselage can accommodate 8 soldiers with standard weapons and food supplies.

Engines:

The power plant consists of:

main turboprop engine Pratt&Whitney PT6A-65B power - 1100 hp
lifting engine for creating an air cushion PGD-TVA-200 with a power of 250 hp. With

Masses and loads:

take-off weight - 3600 kg

Flight data:

maximum flight speed up to 400 km/h
cruising speed up to 300 km/h
flight range with a maximum payload of 1000 kg - up to 800 km
flight range - maximum ferry - up to 1500 km

The program for the creation and serial production of an amphibious aircraft involves:

NPP "AeroRIK" - project developer
JSC Nizhny Novgorod Aircraft Plant Sokol - aircraft manufacturer
JSC Kaluga Engine - manufacturer of a turbofan unit (TVA-200) for creating an air cushion

The initial version of the amphibious aircraft was equipped with a propulsion engine from the Canadian company Pratt & Whittney - RT6A-65B with a rear location on the fuselage. In the future, during serial production it is planned to install Russian or Ukrainian-made aircraft engines.

Alleged weapons:

one 23-mm double-barreled gun GSh-23L with 250 rounds of ammunition
2 air-to-air missiles R-3(AA-2) or R-60(AA-8) with laser homing heads in difficult weather conditions
4 PU 130 mm
NURS C-130
PU UV-16-57 16x57 mm
NUR Container with reconnaissance equipment

It is planned to install an ASP-17BTs-8 on-board sight on this aircraft, which will automatically take into account the ballistics of all weapons and ammunition used. Also on board will be installed an SPO-15 radar irradiation warning system, with devices for ejecting dipole reflectors and over 250 IR cartridges.

Although discussions continue in Russia and around the world regarding the possibility of using light attack aircraft in ground forces, due to the fact that the life of a battlefield aircraft in modern combat conditions is very short, such statements are also found in relation to tanks and armored personnel carriers and even drones.

Therefore, despite the increased risk to the lives of the crew of an attack aircraft in modern combat, the role of aircraft in direct support of ground troops will only increase and over time the infantry will have at its disposal such aircraft that will form a new class of combat aviation - battlefield aircraft.