The best attack aircraft in the world. Battlefield aircraft - light off-airfield attack aircraft or light field anti-helicopter attack aircraft - a new class of combat aviation Defeat of attack aircraft

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 ground troops they are afraid to see in the sky 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, highlighting their flexibility and versatility. 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 all the dirty work of providing close air support and isolating 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 stormtroopers from World War II 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 program A-X. Problems with the helicopter combined with some good ones prospects 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 war in Persian Gulf, 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. It was involved in many wars, one way or another connected with the collapse of the Soviet Union, including the Russian-Georgian war of 2008, and then the war in Ukraine. Used Russian anti-aircraft missile systems The rebels 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 the company's P-51 Mustang North American, which was adopted 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) in more than a dozen air forces in countries 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 initially developed the AC-47 based on transport vehicle C-47: They equipped it with cannons, installing them 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 ground troops and enemy 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. Long years air Force They have been reluctant to acquire multi-role aircraft that perform several important missions, but do not have the prestige and gloss that is inherent in leading fighters. 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 it to carry out combat in some situations. air battle.

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 launch nuclear attacks on 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 trade(Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce). Into his sphere scientific interests includes questions national security, military doctrine and maritime affairs.

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 fighting machine is the result of a deep modernization of the famous “flying tank” - the Soviet Su-25 attack aircraft. 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 complex electronic equipment. 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 conducting air combat, that is, performing 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 aircraft plant in Ulan-Ude they tried to start small mass production of this aircraft, a total of four attack aircraft were produced. 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 the almost complete lack of funding from the state buried 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 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 the global nuclear war is canceled, and for local conflicts an aircraft is 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 Shkval anti-tank missiles.

At the beginning of 1991, the first prototype Su-5TM aircraft took off, its serial production it was also planned to organize it at an aircraft factory 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 accepted into service, and mass production of the vehicle never took place. There is a project to modernize the Su-25T into the Su-39, however, 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 co-pilot takes the place of fuel tank and electronics 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 experience has shown Afghan war, even after the defeat of the Stinger-type MANPADS, the 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 the dangerous 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, NAVSTAR. This allows you to determine the location of the aircraft in space with an accuracy of 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 the Shkval sighting system around the clock. 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, units 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.

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

It turned out that some of my first aviation photographs, taken more than ten years ago at the early MAKS, were photographs of unusual, but at the same time very attractive aircraft designed by Evgeniy Petrovich Grunin. This name is not so widely known in our country, Evgeniy Petrovich, who came from the galaxy of designers of the Sukhoi Design Bureau and organized his own creative team, was involved in aviation for almost twenty-five years general purpose, aircraft that would be needed in every corner of the country, would be in demand in a wide variety of industries, I almost wrote, National economy. Of those built, Grunin's most famous aircraft were such machines as the T-411 Aist, T-101 Grach, T-451 and aircraft based on them. They were repeatedly shown at MAKS different years, some examples fly domestically and internationally. I tried to follow the work of E.P. Grunin’s design bureau; the designer’s son, Pyotr Evgenievich, who led a thematic thread on the experimental aviation forum, provided great informational assistance in this regard. In the summer of 2009, I was able to personally meet Evgeniy Petrovich during testing of the AT-3 turboprop aircraft. Evgeniy Petrovich spoke little about his work at the Sukhoi Design Bureau, except that he spoke interestingly about his participation in the modifications of the aerobatic Su-26, which remained “ownerless” after Vyacheslav Kondratiev, who was involved in this topic, left the design bureau, and, rather vaguely, that he had previously worked in the brigade "on the topic of the T-8 aircraft." I did not ask about this in more detail, especially since the summer test day was not very conducive to long interviews.

Imagine my surprise when photographs of unusual combat aircraft models began to appear online, under which it was indicated that these were promising attack aircraft developed at the turn of the 90s at the Sukhoi Design Bureau under the LVSh (Easily Reproducible Attack Aircraft) program. All these aircraft were developed in the so-called “100-2” brigade, and the leader of this topic was Evgeniy Petrovich Grunin.

All photographs and computer graphics used in the article are the property of KB E.P. Grunin and are published with permission, I took the liberty of slightly editing and organizing the texts.

At the end of the eighties, the concept became widespread among the country's military leadership that in the event nuclear strike in the USSR, the Union broke up into four industrially isolated regions - the Western region, the Urals, Far East and Ukraine. According to the plans of the leadership, each region, even in difficult post-apocalyptic conditions, should have been able to independently produce inexpensive aircraft for striking the enemy. This aircraft was supposed to be the Easily Reproducible Attack Aircraft.

The technical specifications for the LVSh project stipulated the maximum use of elements of the Su-25 aircraft, and since the OKB named after P.O. The Sukhoi Su-25 aircraft was designated by the code T-8, while the aircraft being created had the code T-8B (propeller). The main work was carried out by the head of the “100-2” brigade, Arnold Ivanovich Andrianov, and leading designers N.N. Venediktov, V.V. Sakharov, V.I. Moskalenko. The leader of the topic was E.P. Grunin. Yuri Viktorovich Ivashechkin advised the work - until 1983 he was the head of the Su-25 project, later he went to work in the 100-2 brigade as a leading designer.
For the LVSh project, department 100 examined several aerodynamic and structural-power schemes; for this work, specialists from specialized departments of the design bureau were widely involved in complex teams.

The following options were considered:
1. Basic - using Su-25UB units and systems.
2. According to the “Frame” scheme - according to the type of North American OV-10 Bronco aircraft.
3. According to the "Triplane" scheme - using the results of design studies and aerodynamic studies of models in SibNIA tubes on the S-80 topic (first version).

1. The first block of preliminary designs. The "basic" low-wing version, the fuselage and cabin of the Su-25, two turboprop engines.

2.

3.

4. “Basic” high-wing version, fuselage and cabin of the Su-25, two turboprop engines. A small PGO is used

5.

6.

7. Single-engine version of the “basic” one.

8.

9. Technical characteristics of aircraft of the “basic” version.

The T-710 Anaconda project was created according to the type of the American OV-10 Bronco aircraft, only it was almost twice as large. Takeoff weight was assumed to be 7500 kg, empty weight 4600 kg, payload weight 2900 kg, and fuel weight 1500 kg. At maximum fuel load, the normal combat load weight is 1400 kg, including 7 paratroopers. In an overloaded version it can carry up to 2500 kg of combat load. The aircraft had 8 weapons hardpoints, 4 on the wing and 4 on the pylon under the fuselage. The forward part of the fuselage is taken from the Su-25UB (together with a twin 30 mm GSh-30 cannon), behind the pilot's cabin there is an armored compartment for separating paratroopers. It was supposed to use TVD-20, TVD-1500 or other variants with a power of about 1400 hp, engine nacelles were covered with armor, six-bladed propellers. The speed with these engines was assumed to be 480-490 km/h. To increase the speed characteristics, an option was developed with two Klimov Design Bureau TV7-117M engines of 2500 hp each. The economic characteristics of using these engines certainly deteriorated, but the speed was supposed to be increased to 620-650 km/h. The vehicle could be used as a fire support aircraft, in the landing version, as a reconnaissance aircraft, electronic warfare aircraft, fire spotter, ambulance, training aircraft, etc. Unfortunately, it is still Russian army there is no multi-role armored aircraft that would combine these functions.

10. Model of the Anaconda airplane.

11. View of the side landing door and weapons pylon.

12. It was supposed to use the tail booms of the M-55 aircraft.

13. Rear view.

14.

15. Airplane T-710 "Anaconda" in three projections

16. "Anaconda" in three-dimensional graphics, some changes are noticeable, especially in the tail.

17.

T-720 is one of the basic preliminary designs developed under the LVSh program; in total, 43 (!!) versions of the aircraft were developed. They were all similar in aerodynamic configuration, but differed in weight, speed and purpose (attack aircraft, trainer, combat training). Weight varied from 6 to 16 tons. Most of these aircraft were designed according to a longitudinal triplane with tandem wings and had an unstable aerodynamic design. Because of this, the use of SDU (remote control) was envisaged. It was assumed that 40-50% of the weight of these aircraft would be composed of composites.
The design of the longitudinal triplane was dictated by several considerations:
1. It was necessary to have good handling at all speed ranges.
2. When using SDU, ailerons can work like elevons, and you can change the flight altitude without changing the angle of inclination of the GFS (fuselage) to the ground, which is very useful for an attack aircraft (actually going around the terrain without changing the sight).
3. Combat survivability was sufficiently ensured by the triplane design, even if the anti-aircraft gun or stabilizer or part of the wing was shot off, there was a chance to return to the airfield.
Armament - 1 cannon from 20 mm to 57 mm cannon in the lower turret (for the 16 ton modification) which could rotate in all directions. The option GSh-6-30 and even GSh-6-45 were considered. Folding consoles were provided for use in small caponiers for the MiG-21, a salvageable cabin, etc.
This plane won the LVSh competition. The Mikoyan Design Bureau project, also submitted to the LVSh competition, turned out to be much weaker.
The T-720 had a take-off weight of about 7-8 tons, maximum speed- 650 km.h. Weapons and fuel accounted for 50% of the take-off weight.
2 TV-3-117 engines (2200 hp each) were separated by a 25mm titanium plate and operated on one shaft. The screw could be enclosed in a ring to reduce the EPR. At this time, a six-blade propeller was being developed in Stupino, which could withstand several hits from a 20 mm projectile. Its analogue is now installed on the An-70.
The use of a turboprop engine on a promising attack aircraft was dictated by the following considerations:
1. Low (relative to jet) fuel consumption.
2. Low noise
3. “Cold” exhaust.
4. TV-3-117 engines are widely used in helicopters.

The aircraft widely used components from commercially produced aircraft, in particular the cockpit from the Su-25UB attack aircraft (from the L-39 for the training version) and the fins from the Su-27. The complete process of purging the T-720 model was carried out at TsAGI, but interest in the project had already cooled down, despite the support of M.P. Simonova. Modern management has also forgotten this development, despite the fact that there has been a clear tendency in the world to move from complex machines like the A-10 to simpler ones, created on the basis of turboprop aircraft, or even on the basis of agricultural turboprop aircraft.

18. T-720 with engines in separate engine nacelles.

19. Interesting fact. Aircraft of the T-8B type (twin-engine type 710 or 720 with simplified avionics) were valued in 1988 at around 1.2-1.3 million rubles. The T-8V-1 project (single-engine) was estimated at less than 1 million rubles. For comparison, the Su-25 was valued at 3.5 million, and the T-72 tank at 1 million rubles.

20.

21.

22. T-720 with engines running on one propeller.

23.

24.

25.

26. A little-known variant of the T-720.

One of the projects carried out according to the “longitudinal triplane” scheme was the project of the light training attack aircraft T-502-503, which can be considered as an offshoot of the 720 project. The aircraft should provide training for pilots to pilot jet aircraft. To this end air propeller and a turboprop engine or two engines were combined into one package (project T-502) and placed in the rear fuselage. Double cabin with a common canopy and tandem ejection seats. It was intended to use cabins from the Su-25UB or L-39. The hardpoints could accommodate weapons weighing up to 1000 kg, which made it possible to use the aircraft as a light attack aircraft.

27. Model of the T-502 aircraft

28.

29.

The most interesting project of the T-712 multi-purpose aircraft was developed to solve the following problems:
- operational-tactical, radio and radio-technical reconnaissance,
- as a light attack aircraft for striking enemy targets,
- adjusting the fire of artillery and missile units,
- detection and reconnaissance of minefields,
- over-the-horizon target designation for ships and submarines,
- radiation and chemical reconnaissance,
- electronic warfare equipment,
- providing data for counter-terrorism operations,
- imitation of threats when preparing air defense crews,
- resolving missile defense issues,
- educational and training,
- collection of meteorological information.
On the basis of the T-712 aircraft it was possible to create a UAV, long range, with a flight duration of 8-14 hours. Composite materials are widely used in the design. The aerodynamic design of the “triplane” type allows you to fly at high angles of attack without stalling into a tailspin. As an option, a cabin from a MiG-AT aircraft was considered as a basis for accommodating pilots. It is possible to install TVD-20, TVD-1500 or TVD VK-117 engines with a power of 1400 hp. A set of measures was used on the aircraft to reduce IR signature.
The project did not receive further development.

30. Containers similar to floats were used to accommodate cluster bombs, mines, electronic warfare equipment, radar, etc. Several types of containers have been developed.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35. In addition to the use of fuselages from the Su-25, the use of easily reproducible attack aircraft and others, including helicopter fuselages, was considered.

36.

37.

38. Project more heavy aircraft also using the nose part of a helicopter.

39.

40. Further development The LVSh project began to study the modernization of Su-25 aircraft according to the T-8M project. main idea- as in LVSh, create an aircraft, including for the “special period” with maximum use of components and assemblies of the Su-25 (UB) and other production aircraft (helicopters). The main difference is the use of a turbofan engine to increase speed and combat characteristics. A non-afterburning version of the well-known RD-33 engine with a thrust of 5400-5500 kgf was used. A similar version of the engine, called I-88, was installed on the Il-102. The first sketches show a project with a high-mounted stabilizer. There were projects with low-mounted engines and a V-shaped tail.

41. Double option.

42. Larger - reverse device on engines.

43. Front view.

This is where I end my story, although Pyotr Evgenievich periodically pleases by publishing old developments of the “100-2” brigade in computer graphics. So it is quite possible that new publications will appear.

44. For illustration. Projects of attack aircraft based on agricultural vehicles being created in our time can also claim the right to be called LVSh.
The Air Tractor AT-802i aircraft in the attack aircraft version at the Dubai Airshow 2013. Photo by Alexander Zhukov. Also shown in Dubai was an attack aircraft armed with Hellfire missiles based on a Cessna 208 aircraft.

45. Evgeny Petrovich Grunin during testing of the AT-3 aircraft in Borki. June 2009.

46. ​​Evgeniy Petrovich gives an interview to AeroJetStyle magazine correspondent Sergei Lelekov.

47. Viktor Vasilievich Zabolotsky and Evgeny Petrovich Grunin.

This is not the first time Bondarev has made statements that an attack aircraft will be created on the basis of the Su-34 fighter-bomber. So, in 2016, the then-current Commander-in-Chief of the Aerospace Forces stated that in the future it is planned to create a line of various modifications based on the Su-34. “My opinion is that the new attack aircraft should still be made on the basis of the Su-34. A wonderful plane. Maneuverable, eight tons of bomb load versus four for the "twenty-fifth", excellent accuracy characteristics<…>. I think it would be easier and faster to make a cockpit for one pilot, and leave everything else as is,” Bondarev said. Bondarev also noted that the Su-25 attack aircraft still have serious modernization and repair potential and their service life should be enough for 10 years. 15 years. This period is primarily due to the service life of aircraft airframes.
"Hornet" and Yak-130 The development of projects for a new Russian attack aircraft began several years ago. In particular, the state armament program until 2020 included development work on a project with the code “Horshen-EP”, which was planned to be created on the basis of the Su-25. It was assumed that the aircraft would receive R-195 engines and new avionics. In addition, at the beginning of this year, the head of the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation, Denis Manturov, said that the Yak-130 combat training aircraft could replace the attack aircraft.
There is nothing surprising in such a range of opinions about what the new Russian attack aircraft should be like. Firstly, this is how the most optimal option is always found, and secondly, the debate in this case is not about a specific machine, but about what place it should take on the battlefield in armed conflicts of the future. And in order to understand this, you need to talk about the history of domestic attack aircraft. Reinforced concrete plane Russian military history knows an illustrative example when the future of the entire country depended on attack aircraft. Il-2, or, as the Germans called it, “reinforced concrete aircraft,” was created to directly support troops on the battlefield. It is important to emphasize that during the Great Patriotic War Not only attack aircraft, but also fighter pilots stormed ground targets. At the beginning of the war, due to shortages suitable technology these tasks were even carried out by Il-4 bombers, which naturally led to huge losses. The main difference between the Il-2 and other aircraft was that it was originally created as an attack aircraft: the armor was part of the structure, which not only protected from bullets, but also carried the load. But all attempts to create an analogue of the Soviet attack aircraft in Germany failed. The IL-2 became the most popular aircraft in the history of aviation: in total, about 36 thousand attack aircraft were built, which greatly influenced the outcome of the war. Modifications of these machines were used in some countries until 1954, but in the USSR, attack aircraft were completely eliminated after the war. Ilyushin vs Sukhoi Attack aviation was abolished by order of the USSR Minister of Defense on April 20, 1956. This was due to the advent of tactical nuclear weapons, which forced us to take a different look at the Air Force’s missions over the battlefield: in the event of a nuclear war, attack aircraft seemed unnecessary. In addition, the command was confident that, if necessary, attack aircraft could easily be replaced by fighter aircraft, which even then could carry a wide range of weapons. But it soon turned out that this was not the case. By the mid-60s, the military doctrines of the USSR and the USA had again changed dramatically. It became clear that a full-scale nuclear war was unlikely, and in local conflicts conventional weapons will be used. In 1967, the Dnepr exercise took place, during which fighter pilots attempted to strike ground targets. The results were unexpected: the most effective fighter was the MiG-17, which, thanks to its maneuverability, allowed pilots to confidently recognize and hit targets. It was difficult for other high-speed cars to get on the ground because of their high speed. It became clear that the army needed a new attack aircraft, which was the Su-25, which later received the nickname “Rook” among the troops.
The development of the Su-25 project was started by young employees of the Sukhoi Design Bureau, secretly from the management, long before the USSR Ministry of Defense announced a competition for a new attack aircraft. In many ways, this is what influenced the victory of the Su-25: this machine was the only one at the competition presented in the form of a full-size mock-up, which, of course, also influenced the choice of the commission. OKB im. S.V. Ilyushin submitted to the competition a project for the Il-102 attack aircraft, which was significantly larger than the Su-25: the weight of the empty aircraft was 13 tons versus nine for the Su-25, and the payload of the Il-102 was close to the Su-34 and amounted to 7 200 kg. But it was the Sukhoi aircraft that was adopted for service, and, of course, this was done not only because the Design Bureau presented a full-scale model: the project turned out to be closer to the needs of the military than the Il-102. Born in controversy The dimensions of the aircraft and its take-off weight changed several times during the design: initially the car was much lighter, and the military wanted to get a supersonic car. As a result, an aircraft with a normal take-off weight of 14,600 kg, a maximum speed of 950 km/h and a maximum combat load of 4,400 kg went into production. It was assumed that the Su-25 would have to move with the army in the event of its advance or retreat, and is therefore capable take off from unpaved strips, and in case of urgent need, use motor gasoline instead of aviation kerosene. All key elements of the aircraft are well armored. Initially, it was planned to transport everything necessary for servicing the aircraft in special containers. field conditions, including equipment from ground support personnel.
It is important to emphasize that not once in the entire long history of combat use of the attack aircraft have these capabilities been useful to it. But in battle, the aircraft performed superbly, becoming truly legendary. The aircraft carries a wide range of weapons, starting with guided and unguided missiles and ending with the 20-mm GSh-30-2 cannon and anti-tank missile system"Vortex". The aircraft underwent several modifications for the Russian Aerospace Forces. The newest of them is the Su-25SM3. "Rooks" over Syria With the advent precision weapons conversations began again that attack aircraft were no longer needed. Why, if they exist? cruise missiles, capable of hitting any window from a distance of thousands of kilometers? Voices in favor of removing attack aircraft from service began to be heard especially loudly in the United States, where the F-35 A-10 fighter is supposed to replace the A-10 Thunderbolt. This is largely due to the fact that the developers of the fighter, by hook or by crook, tried to recoup the colossal funds invested in this project. But in reality, attack aircraft still remain one of the main strike forces on the battlefield, and this applies to both American and Russian aviation.
Su-25 attack aircraft, together with Su-24 front-line bombers, form the backbone of the Russian group in Syria. Aircraft were effectively used to destroy command posts, warehouses, militant manpower. The Rooks proved to be especially effective in destroying terrorist armored vehicles. But at least two cases are known that showed that these aircraft are very difficult to replace with anything. Thus, Su-25 attack aircraft provided air support during the release of a platoon of Russian military police in the Idlib de-escalation zone in Syria, striking militant positions. Thanks to the quick response and precision of air strikes, the Russian military was successfully removed from the encirclement. Second famous case- when attack aircraft covered the movement of troops on the road to Deir ez-Zor, preventing terrorists from approaching the convoy. “When it comes to real armed conflicts, it turns out that a well-armored and protected attack aircraft still remains indispensable on the battlefield, despite the emergence of ever new types of weapons. And this situation is unlikely to change in the future,” says military expert Vladimir Karnozov. Replacement for "Rook" The concept of using the Su-34 as an attack aircraft has both undoubted advantages and disadvantages. The advantages include the fact that the aircraft has a significantly larger combat load compared to the Su-25, and that the R&D will take little time and require relatively little money. The main disadvantage of such a project is the size of the aircraft. “The main task of an attack aircraft is to strike ground targets from relatively low altitudes. At these altitudes, the vehicle can be “reached” by small arms fire. And the larger the plane, the higher the chances that they will be able to get into it. Besides, big sizes and take-off weight can increase the cost per flight hour compared to more light attack aircraft", says military expert Dmitry Drozdenko. According to a source on the Zvezda TV and Radio Broadcasting Company website in the military-industrial complex, development work on this project has not yet begun, and the question of creation on the basis of the Su-34 remains open for now.
“An attack aircraft is an aircraft that was originally created for specific tasks, and it is quite difficult to create it from a Su-34 or Yak-130. Therefore, in my opinion, it would be more appropriate to continue work on the Hornet project,” says Karnozov. According to Viktor Bondarev, work on creating an attack aircraft based on the Su-34 is planned for 2018. It is the calculation of the cost of this work and modeling the effectiveness of this vehicle on the battlefield that will show whether it is necessary for the Aerospace Forces.

It turned out that some of my first aviation photographs, taken more than ten years ago at the early MAKS, were photographs of unusual, but at the same time very attractive aircraft designed by Evgeniy Petrovich Grunin. This name is not so widely known in our country, having emerged from the galaxy of designers of the Sukhoi Design Bureau and organizing his own creative team, for almost twenty-five years Evgeniy Petrovich was engaged in general aviation, aircraft that would be needed in every corner of the country would be in demand in a variety of sectors, I almost wrote, of the national economy. Of those built, Grunin's most famous aircraft were such machines as the T-411 Aist, T-101 Grach, T-451 and aircraft based on them. They were repeatedly shown at MAKS in different years, some samples fly in the country and abroad. I tried to follow the work of E.P. Grunin’s design bureau; the designer’s son, Pyotr Evgenievich, who led a thematic thread on the experimental aviation forum, provided great informational assistance in this regard. In the summer of 2009, I was able to personally meet Evgeniy Petrovich during testing of the AT-3 turboprop aircraft. Evgeniy Petrovich spoke little about his work at the Sukhoi Design Bureau, except that he spoke interestingly about his participation in the modifications of the aerobatic Su-26, which remained “ownerless” after Vyacheslav Kondratiev, who was involved in this topic, left the design bureau, and, rather vaguely, that he had previously worked in the brigade "on the topic of the T-8 aircraft." I did not ask about this in more detail, especially since the summer test day was not very conducive to long interviews.
Imagine my surprise when photographs of unusual combat aircraft models began to appear online, under which it was indicated that these were promising attack aircraft developed at the turn of the 90s at the Sukhoi Design Bureau under the LVSh (Easily Reproducible Attack Aircraft) program. All these aircraft were developed in the so-called “100-2” brigade, and the leader of this topic was Evgeniy Petrovich Grunin.

All photographs and computer graphics used in the article are the property of KB E.P. Grunin and are published with permission, I took the liberty of slightly editing and organizing the texts.

At the end of the eighties, the military leadership of the country began to spread the concept that in the event of a nuclear strike on the USSR, the Union would break up into four industrially isolated regions - the Western Region, the Urals, the Far East and Ukraine. According to the plans of the leadership, each region, even in difficult post-apocalyptic conditions, should have been able to independently produce inexpensive aircraft for striking the enemy. This aircraft was supposed to be the Easily Reproducible Attack Aircraft.

The technical specifications for the LVSh project stipulated the maximum use of elements of the Su-25 aircraft, and since the OKB named after P.O. The Sukhoi Su-25 aircraft was designated by the code T-8, while the aircraft being created had the code T-8B (propeller). The main work was carried out by the head of the “100-2” brigade, Arnold Ivanovich Andrianov, and leading designers N.N. Venediktov, V.V. Sakharov, V.I. Moskalenko. The leader of the topic was E.P. Grunin. Yuri Viktorovich Ivashechkin advised the work - until 1983 he was the head of the Su-25 project, later he went to work in the 100-2 brigade as a leading designer.
For the LVSh project, department 100 examined several aerodynamic and structural-power schemes; for this work, specialists from specialized departments of the design bureau were widely involved in complex teams.

The following options were considered:
1. Basic - using Su-25UB units and systems.
2. According to the “Frame” scheme - according to the type of North American OV-10 Bronco aircraft.
3. According to the "Triplane" scheme - using the results of design studies and aerodynamic studies of models in SibNIA tubes on the S-80 topic (first version).

1. The first block of preliminary designs. The "basic" low-wing version, the fuselage and cabin of the Su-25, two turboprop engines.

2.

3.

4. “Basic” high-wing version, fuselage and cabin of the Su-25, two turboprop engines. A small PGO is used

5.

6.

7. Single-engine version of the “basic” one.

8.

9. Technical characteristics of aircraft of the “basic” version.

The T-710 Anaconda project was created according to the type of the American OV-10 Bronco aircraft, only it was almost twice as large. Takeoff weight was assumed to be 7500 kg, empty weight 4600 kg, payload weight 2900 kg, and fuel weight 1500 kg. At maximum fuel load, the normal combat load weight is 1400 kg, including 7 paratroopers. In an overloaded version it can carry up to 2500 kg of combat load. The aircraft had 8 weapons hardpoints, 4 on the wing and 4 on the pylon under the fuselage. The forward part of the fuselage is taken from the Su-25UB (together with a twin 30 mm GSh-30 cannon), behind the pilot's cabin there is an armored compartment for separating paratroopers. It was supposed to use TVD-20, TVD-1500 or other variants with a power of about 1400 hp, engine nacelles were covered with armor, six-bladed propellers. The speed with these engines was assumed to be 480-490 km/h. To increase the speed characteristics, an option was developed with two Klimov Design Bureau TV7-117M engines of 2500 hp each. The economic characteristics of using these engines certainly deteriorated, but the speed was supposed to be increased to 620-650 km/h. The vehicle could be used as a fire support aircraft, in the landing version, as a reconnaissance aircraft, electronic warfare aircraft, fire spotter, ambulance, training aircraft, etc. Unfortunately, the Russian army still does not have a multi-purpose armored aircraft that would combine these functions.

10. Model of the Anaconda airplane.

11. View of the side landing door and weapons pylon.

12. It was supposed to use the tail booms of the M-55 aircraft.

13. Rear view.

14.

15. Airplane T-710 "Anaconda" in three projections

16. "Anaconda" in three-dimensional graphics, some changes are noticeable, especially in the tail.

17.

T-720 is one of the basic preliminary designs developed under the LVSh program; in total, 43 (!!) versions of the aircraft were developed. They were all similar in aerodynamic configuration, but differed in weight, speed and purpose (attack aircraft, trainer, combat training). Weight varied from 6 to 16 tons. Most of these aircraft were designed according to a longitudinal triplane with tandem wings and had an unstable aerodynamic design. Because of this, the use of SDU (remote control) was envisaged. It was assumed that 40-50% of the weight of these aircraft would be composed of composites.
The design of the longitudinal triplane was dictated by several considerations:
1. It was necessary to have good handling at all speed ranges.
2. When using SDU, ailerons can work like elevons, and you can change the flight altitude without changing the angle of inclination of the GFS (fuselage) to the ground, which is very useful for an attack aircraft (actually going around the terrain without changing the sight).
3. Combat survivability was sufficiently ensured by the triplane design, even if the anti-aircraft gun or stabilizer or part of the wing was shot off, there was a chance to return to the airfield.
Armament - 1 cannon from 20 mm to 57 mm cannon in the lower turret (for the 16 ton modification) which could rotate in all directions. The option GSh-6-30 and even GSh-6-45 were considered. Folding consoles were provided for use in small caponiers for the MiG-21, a salvageable cabin, etc.
This plane won the LVSh competition. The Mikoyan Design Bureau project, also submitted to the LVSh competition, turned out to be much weaker.
The T-720 had a take-off weight of about 7-8 tons, a maximum speed of 650 km/h. Weapons and fuel accounted for 50% of the take-off weight.
2 TV-3-117 engines (2200 hp each) were separated by a 25mm titanium plate and operated on one shaft. The screw could be enclosed in a ring to reduce the EPR. At this time, a six-blade propeller was being developed in Stupino, which could withstand several hits from a 20 mm projectile. Its analogue is now installed on the An-70.
The use of a turboprop engine on a promising attack aircraft was dictated by the following considerations:
1. Low (relative to jet) fuel consumption.
2. Low noise
3. “Cold” exhaust.
4. TV-3-117 engines are widely used in helicopters.

The aircraft widely used components from commercially produced aircraft, in particular the cockpit from the Su-25UB attack aircraft (from the L-39 for the training version) and the fins from the Su-27. The complete process of purging the T-720 model was carried out at TsAGI, but interest in the project had already cooled down, despite the support of M.P. Simonova. Modern management has also forgotten this development, despite the fact that there has been a clear tendency in the world to move from complex machines like the A-10 to simpler ones, created on the basis of turboprop aircraft, or even on the basis of agricultural turboprop aircraft.

18. T-720 with engines in separate engine nacelles.

19. Interesting fact. Aircraft of the T-8B type (twin-engine type 710 or 720 with simplified avionics) were valued in 1988 at around 1.2-1.3 million rubles. The T-8V-1 project (single-engine) was estimated at less than 1 million rubles. For comparison, the Su-25 was valued at 3.5 million, and the T-72 tank at 1 million rubles.

20.

21.

22. T-720 with engines running on one propeller.

23.

24.

25.

26. A little-known variant of the T-720.

One of the projects carried out according to the “longitudinal triplane” scheme was the project of the light training attack aircraft T-502-503, which can be considered as an offshoot of the 720 project. The aircraft should provide training for pilots to pilot jet aircraft. For this purpose, a propeller and a turboprop engine or two engines were combined into one package (project T-502) and placed in the rear fuselage. Double cabin with a common canopy and tandem ejection seats. It was intended to use cabins from the Su-25UB or L-39. The hardpoints could accommodate weapons weighing up to 1000 kg, which made it possible to use the aircraft as a light attack aircraft.

27. Model of the T-502 aircraft

28.

29.

The most interesting project of the T-712 multi-purpose aircraft was developed to solve the following problems:
- operational-tactical, radio and radio-technical reconnaissance,
- as a light attack aircraft for striking enemy targets,
- adjusting the fire of artillery and missile units,
- detection and reconnaissance of minefields,
- over-the-horizon target designation for ships and submarines,
- radiation and chemical reconnaissance,
- electronic warfare equipment,
- providing data for counter-terrorism operations,
- imitation of threats when preparing air defense crews,
- resolving missile defense issues,
- educational and training,
- collection of meteorological information.
On the basis of the T-712 aircraft, it was possible to create a long-range UAV with a flight duration of 8-14 hours. Composite materials are widely used in the design. The aerodynamic design of the “triplane” type allows you to fly at high angles of attack without stalling into a tailspin. As an option, a cabin from a MiG-AT aircraft was considered as a basis for accommodating pilots. It is possible to install TVD-20, TVD-1500 or TVD VK-117 engines with a power of 1400 hp. A set of measures was used on the aircraft to reduce IR signature.
The project did not receive further development.

30. Containers similar to floats were used to accommodate cluster bombs, mines, electronic warfare equipment, radar, etc. Several types of containers have been developed.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35. In addition to the use of fuselages from the Su-25, the use of easily reproducible attack aircraft and others, including helicopter fuselages, was considered.

36.

37.

38. A project for a heavier aircraft, also using the nose section of a helicopter.

39.

40. A further development of the LVSh project was the development of the modernization of Su-25 aircraft according to the T-8M project. The main idea is, as in LVSh, to create an aircraft also for the “special period” with maximum use of components and assemblies of the Su-25 (UB) and other production aircraft (helicopters). The main difference is the use of a turbofan engine to increase speed and combat characteristics. A non-afterburning version of the well-known RD-33 engine with a thrust of 5400-5500 kgf was used. A similar version of the engine, called I-88, was installed on the Il-102. The first sketches show a project with a high-mounted stabilizer. There were projects with low-mounted engines and a V-shaped tail.

41. Double option.

42. Larger - reverse device on engines.

43. Front view.

This is where I end my story, although Pyotr Evgenievich periodically pleases by publishing old developments of the “100-2” brigade in computer graphics. So it is quite possible that new publications will appear.

44. For illustration. Projects of attack aircraft based on agricultural vehicles being created in our time can also claim the right to be called LVSh.
The Air Tractor AT-802i aircraft in the attack aircraft version at the Dubai Airshow 2013. Photo by Alexander Zhukov. Also shown in Dubai was an attack aircraft armed with Hellfire missiles based on a Cessna 208 aircraft.

45. Evgeny Petrovich Grunin during testing of the AT-3 aircraft in Borki. June 2009.

46. ​​Evgeniy Petrovich gives an interview to AeroJetStyle magazine correspondent Sergei Lelekov.

47. Viktor Vasilievich Zabolotsky and Evgeny Petrovich Grunin.