Bringers of death: the best attack aircraft in the history of aviation. Replacement for "Rook": what the Russian attack aircraft of the future will be like Textron's Scorpion attack aircraft

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. Thus, 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 new attack aircraft Still, it needs to be done 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 armaments program until 2020 included development work on a project with the code "Hornet-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 best option, 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 that conventional weapons would be used in local conflicts. 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 due to 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, special containers were supposed to carry everything necessary to service the aircraft in the field, including equipment from the ground support staff.
It is important to emphasize that never in the entire long history combat use As an attack aircraft, these capabilities were not useful to him. But in battle, the aircraft performed superbly, becoming truly legendary. The aircraft carries a wide range of weapons, from guided and unguided missiles to a 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 of precision weapons, talk began again that attack aircraft were no longer needed. Why, if there are 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 it concerns how American aviation, and Russian.
Su-25 attack aircraft, together with Su-24 front-line bombers, form the backbone of the Russian group in Syria. Airplanes were effectively used to destroy command posts, warehouses, and manpower of militants. 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. The second famous case is 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 more and more 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 car can be “reached” by fire from small arms. 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 of a flight hour in comparison with lighter attack aircraft,” says military expert Dmitry Drozdenko. According to a source on the Zvezda TRK 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 machine on the battlefield that will show whether it is necessary for the Aerospace Forces.

In a combined arms offensive battle, you can do without air support: a howitzer artillery division Soviet army could rain down half a thousand 152 mm shells on the enemy’s head in one hour! Artillery strikes in fog, thunderstorms and blizzards, and the work of aviation is often limited by unfavorable weather conditions and dark time days.

Of course, aviation has its strengths. Bombers can use ammunition of enormous power - an elderly Su-24 soars skyward with two KAB-1500 aerial bombs under the wing. The ammunition index speaks for itself. It's hard to imagine artillery piece, capable of firing the same heavy projectiles. Monstrous naval gun“Type 94” (Japan) had a caliber of 460 mm and a gun weight of 165 tons! At the same time, its firing range barely reached 40 km. Unlike the Japanese artillery system, the Su-24 can “throw” a couple of its 1.5-ton bombs over five hundred kilometers.

But direct fire support for ground troops does not require so much powerful ammunition, as well as ultra-long firing range! The legendary D-20 howitzer gun has a range of 17 kilometers - more than enough to destroy any targets in the front line. And the power of its projectiles weighing 45-50 kilograms is enough to destroy most objects on the front line of enemy defense. It is no coincidence that during the Second World War, the Luftwaffe abandoned “hundreds” - for direct support of ground troops, air bombs weighing 50 kg were sufficient.

As a result, we are faced with an amazing paradox - from a logical point of view, effective fire support at the forefront can be ensured only by the use of artillery weapons. There is no need to use attack aircraft and other “battlefield aircraft” - expensive and unreliable “toys” with excessive capabilities.
On the other hand, any modern combined arms offensive battle without high-quality air support is doomed to quick and inevitable defeat.

Attack aviation has its own secret of success. And this secret has nothing to do with the flight characteristics of the “battlefield aircraft” themselves, the thickness of their armor and the power of on-board weapons.
To solve the puzzle, I invite readers to get acquainted with the seven best attack aircraft and close support aircraft for troops in aviation, trace the combat path of these legendary machines and answer the main question: what is attack aircraft for?

Anti-tank attack aircraft A-10 "Thunderbolt II" ("Thunderbolt")

Normal take-off weight: 14 tons. Small arms and cannon weapons: seven-barreled GAU-8 gun with 1,350 rounds of ammunition. Combat load: 11 hardpoints, up to 7.5 tons of bombs, NURS units and high-precision missiles. Crew: 1 pilot. Max. ground speed 720 km/h.

The Thunderbolt is not an airplane. This is a real flying gun! The main structural element around which the Thunderbolt is built is the incredible GAU-8 gun with a rotating seven-barrel assembly. The most powerful 30mm aircraft cannon ever installed on an aircraft - its recoil exceeds the thrust of two Thunderbolt jet engines! Rate of fire 1800 – 3900 rounds/min. The projectile speed at the barrel exit reaches 1 km/s.

A story about the fantastic GAU-8 cannon would be incomplete without mentioning its ammunition. Particularly popular is the armor-piercing PGU-14/B with a depleted uranium core, which penetrates 69 mm of armor at a distance of 500 meters at a right angle. For comparison: the thickness of the roof of the first generation Soviet infantry fighting vehicle is 6 mm, the side of the hull is 14 mm. The phenomenal accuracy of the gun makes it possible to place 80% of the shells in a circle with a diameter of about six meters from a distance of 1200 meters. In other words, a one-second salvo at maximum rate of fire gives 50 hits on an enemy tank!

A worthy representative of its class, created at the height of Cold War for extermination Soviet tanks oh armada. The Flying Cross does not suffer from the lack of modern sighting and navigation systems and high-precision weapons, and the high survivability of its design has been repeatedly confirmed in local wars recent years.

Fire support aircraft AS-130 "Spectrum"

Normal take-off weight: 60 tons. Small arms and cannon weapons: 105 mm howitzer, 40 mm automatic cannon, two 6-barreled Vulcans of 20 mm caliber. Crew: 13 people. Max. speed 480 km/h.

At the sight of the attacking Specter, Jung and Freud would have hugged each other like brothers and cried with happiness. The national American pastime is shooting Papuans from cannons from aboard a flying aircraft (the so-called “gunship” - a cannon ship). The sleep of reason gives birth to monsters.
The idea of ​​a “gunship” is not new - attempts to install heavy weapons on aircraft were made during the Second World War. But only the Yankees thought of mounting a battery of several guns on board the S-130 Hercules military transport aircraft (analogous to the Soviet An-12). At the same time, the trajectories of the fired shells are perpendicular to the course of the flying aircraft - the guns fire through the embrasures on the left side.

Alas, it won’t be fun to shoot with a howitzer at cities and towns floating under the wing. The work of the AS-130 is much more prosaic: targets (fortified points, accumulations of equipment, rebel villages) are selected in advance. When approaching the target, the “gunship” makes a turn and begins to circle over the target with a constant roll to the left side, so that the trajectories of the projectiles converge exactly at the “aiming point” on the surface of the earth. Automation helps with complex ballistic calculations; Ganship is equipped with the most modern sighting systems, thermal imagers and laser rangefinders.

Despite the apparent idiocy, the AS-130 "Spectrum" is a simple and ingenious solution for low-intensity local conflicts. The main thing is that air defense the enemy had nothing more serious than MANPADS and heavy machine guns - otherwise, no heat traps or optical-electronic defense systems would save the “gunship” from fire from the ground.

Gunner's workplace

Workplace for chargers

Twin-engine attack aircraft Henschel-129

Normal take-off weight: 4.3 tons. Small arms and cannon weapons: 2 rifle-caliber machine guns, two 20 mm automatic cannons with 125 shells per barrel. Combat load: up to 200 kg of bombs, suspended cannon containers or other weapons. Crew: 1 pilot. Max. speed 320 km/h.

The plane is so ugly that there is no way to show its real b/w image. Hs.129, artist's fantasy.

The disgusting celestial slow-moving aircraft Hs.129 became the most notorious failure of the aviation industry of the Third Reich. A bad plane in every sense. The textbooks for cadets of flight schools of the Red Army speak about its insignificance: where entire chapters are devoted to “Messers” and “Junkers”, Hs.129 was awarded only a few general phrases: you can attack with impunity from all directions, except for a frontal attack. In short, shoot it down as you wish. Slow, clumsy, weak, and on top of everything else, a “blind” plane - the German pilot could not see anything from his cockpit except a narrow section of the front hemisphere.

Serial production of the unsuccessful aircraft might have been curtailed before it even began, but the encounter with tens of thousands of Soviet tanks forced the German command to take any possible measures to stop the T-34 and its countless “colleagues.” As a result, the poor attack aircraft, produced in only 878 copies, went through the entire war. He was noted on the Western Front, in Africa, on the Kursk Bulge...

The Germans repeatedly tried to modernize the “flying coffin”, installed an ejection seat on it (otherwise the pilot would not be able to escape from the cramped and uncomfortable cockpit), armed the “Henschel” with 50 mm and 75 mm anti-tank guns - after such “modernization” the plane barely stayed in the air and somehow reached a speed of 250 km/h.
But the most unusual was the Vorstersond system - an aircraft equipped with a metal detector flew, almost clinging to the treetops. When the sensor was triggered, six 45 mm shells were fired into the lower hemisphere, capable of breaking the roof of any tank.

The story of the Hs.129 is a story of airmanship. The Germans never complained about the poor quality of their equipment and fought even with such poor vehicles. At the same time, from time to time, they achieved some successes; the damned “Henschel” has a lot of blood of Soviet soldiers on its account

Armored attack aircraft Su-25 "Grach"

Normal take-off weight: 14.6 tons. Small arms and cannon armament: double-barreled cannon GSh-2-30 with 250 rounds of ammunition. Combat load: 10 hardpoints, up to 4 tons of bombs, unguided missiles, cannon containers and precision weapons. Crew: 1 pilot. Max. speed 950 km/h.

A symbol of the hot sky of Afghanistan, a Soviet subsonic attack aircraft with titanium armor ( total weight armor plates reach 600 kg).
The idea of ​​a subsonic highly protected strike vehicle was born as a result of an analysis of the combat use of aviation against ground targets during the Dnepr exercises in September 1967: every time, top scores demonstrated the subsonic MiG-17. The outdated aircraft, unlike the supersonic fighter-bombers Su-7 and Su-17, confidently found and accurately hit pinpoint ground targets.

As a result, the “Rook” was born, a specialized Su-25 attack aircraft with an extremely simple and survivable design. An unpretentious “soldier aircraft” capable of responding to operational calls from ground forces in conditions of strong opposition from enemy front-line air defense.

A significant role in the design of the Su-25 was played by the captured F-5 Tiger and A-37 Dragonfly, which arrived in the Soviet Union from Vietnam. By that time, the Americans had already “tasted” all the delights of counterinsurgency warfare in the absence of a clear front line. IN lung structures The Dragonfly attack aircraft embodied all the accumulated combat experience, which, fortunately, was not purchased with our blood.

As a result, by the beginning of the Afghan War, the Su-25 became the only Soviet Air Force aircraft that was maximally adapted to such “non-standard” conflicts. In addition to Afghanistan, due to its low cost and ease of operation, the Grach attack aircraft has been involved in a couple of dozen armed conflicts and civil wars around the world.

The best confirmation of the effectiveness of the Su-25 is that the “Rook” has not left the production line for thirty years; in addition to the basic, export and combat training version, a number of new modifications have appeared: the Su-39 anti-tank attack aircraft, the Su-25UTG carrier-based aircraft, the modernized Su-25SM with “ glass cockpit” and even the Georgian modification “Scorpion” with foreign avionics and Israeli-made sighting and navigation systems.

Assembly of the Su-25 Scorpion at the Georgian aircraft plant Tbilaviamsheni

P-47 Thunderbolt multi-role fighter

Normal take-off weight: 6 tons. Small arms and cannon weapons: eight 50-caliber machine guns with 425 rounds of ammunition per barrel. Combat load: 10 hardpoints for 127 mm unguided rockets, up to 1000 kg of bombs. Crew: 1 pilot. Max. speed 700 km/h.

The legendary predecessor of the modern A-10 attack aircraft, designed by Georgian aircraft designer Alexander Kartvelishvili. Considered one of the best fighters of World War II. Luxurious cockpit equipment, exceptional survivability and security, powerful weapons, a flight range of 3,700 km (from Moscow to Berlin and back!), turbocharging, which allowed the heavy aircraft to fight at sky-high altitudes.
All this was achieved thanks to the appearance of the Pratt & Whitney R2800 engine - an incredible 18-cylinder air-cooled star with a power of 2400 hp.

But what does an escort high-altitude fighter do on our list of the best attack aircraft? The answer is simple - the combat load of the Thunderbolt was comparable to the combat load of two Il-2 attack aircraft. Plus eight large-caliber Brownings with a total ammunition capacity of 3,400 rounds - any unarmored target will turn into a sieve! And to destroy heavy armored vehicles, 10 unguided missiles with cumulative warheads could be suspended under the Thunderbolt’s wing.

As a result, the P-47 fighter was successfully used on the Western Front as an attack aircraft. The last thing many people saw in their lives German tank crews, - a silver, blunt-nosed log diving at them, spewing streams of deadly fire.

P-47D Thunderbolt. In the background is a B-29 Enola Gay, US National Air and Space Museum.

Armored Sturmovik Il-2 vs Dive Bomber Junkers-87

An attempt to compare the Ju.87 with the Il-2 attack aircraft is met with fierce objections every time: how dare you! these are different aircraft: one attacks the target in a steep dive, the second fires at the target from a low level flight.
But these are just technical details. In fact, both vehicles are “battlefield aircraft” created for direct support of ground troops. They have common tasks and a SINGLE purpose. But which method of attack is more effective is to find out.

Junkers-87 "Stuka". Normal take-off weight: 4.5 tons. Small arms and cannon weapons: 3 machine guns of 7.92 mm caliber. Bomb load: could reach 1 ton, but usually did not exceed 250 kg. Crew: 2 people. Max. speed 390 km/h (in horizontal flight, of course).

In September 1941, 12 Ju.87s were produced. By November 1941, production of the Laptezhnik was practically stopped - a total of 2 aircraft were produced. By the beginning of 1942, the production of dive bombers resumed again - in just the next six months, the Germans built about 700 Ju.87. It’s simply amazing how the “laptezhnik”, produced in such insignificant quantities, could cause so much trouble!

The tabular characteristics of the Ju.87 are also surprising - the aircraft was morally obsolete 10 years before its appearance, what kind of combat use can we talk about?! But the tables do not indicate the main thing - a very strong, rigid structure and aerodynamic braking grilles, which allowed the “laptezhnik” to dive almost vertically onto the target. At the same time, Ju.87 could GUARANTEED “place” a bomb in a circle with a radius of 30 meters! At the exit from the steep dive, the speed of the Ju.87 exceeded 600 km/h - it was extremely difficult for Soviet anti-aircraft gunners to hit such a fast target, which was constantly changing its speed and altitude. Defensive anti-aircraft fire was also ineffective - a diving “laptezhnik” could at any moment change the slope of its trajectory and leave the affected area.
However, despite all its unique qualities, the high efficiency of the Ju.87 was explained by completely different, much deeper reasons.

IL-2 Sturmovik: normal take-off weight 6 tons. Small arms and cannon armament: 2 VYA-23 automatic cannons of 23 mm caliber with 150 rounds of ammunition per barrel; 2 ShKAS machine guns with 750 rounds of ammunition per barrel; 1 Berezina heavy machine gun to protect the rear hemisphere, 150 rounds of ammunition. Combat load - up to 600 kg of bombs or 8 RS-82 unguided rockets; in reality, the bomb load usually did not exceed 400 kg. Crew 2 people. Max. speed 414 km/h

“It doesn’t go into a tailspin, it flies steadily in a straight line even with the controls abandoned, and it lands on its own. Simple as a stool"

- opinion of IL-2 pilots

The most popular aircraft in the history of combat aviation, a “flying tank”, “concrete plane” or simply “Schwarzer Tod” (incorrect, literal translation - “black death”, correct translation- "plague"). A revolutionary vehicle for its time: stamped double-curved armor panels, fully integrated into the design of the Sturmovik; rockets; the most powerful cannon weapons...

In total, 36 thousand Il-2 aircraft were produced during the war years (plus about a thousand more modernized Il-10 attack aircraft in the first half of 1945). The number of released silts exceeded the number of all German tanks and self-propelled guns available on the Eastern Front - if each IL-2 destroyed at least one unit of enemy armored vehicles, the steel wedges of the Panzerwaffe would simply cease to exist!

Many questions are associated with the invulnerability of the Stormtrooper. Harsh reality confirms: heavy armor and aviation are incompatible things. Shells from the German MG 151/20 automatic cannon pierced the Il-2's armored cabin. The wing consoles and the rear fuselage of the Sturmovik were generally made of plywood and did not have any armor - turn anti-aircraft machine gun easily “cut off” a wing or tail from an armored cabin with pilots.

The meaning of the “armor” of the Sturmovik was different - at extremely low altitudes, the probability of being hit by small arms fire sharply increased the German infantry. This is where the Il-2 armored cabin came in handy - it perfectly “held” rifle-caliber bullets, and as for the plywood wing consoles, small-caliber bullets could not harm them - the Ils returned safely to the airfield, having several hundred bullet holes each.

And yet, the statistics of the combat use of the Il-2 are bleak: 10,759 aircraft of this type were lost in combat missions (excluding non-combat accidents, catastrophes and write-offs for technical reasons). With the Stormtrooper’s weapon, things weren’t so simple either:

When firing from a VYA-23 cannon at total consumption With 435 shells in 6 sorties, the pilots of the 245th ShAP received 46 hits on a tank column (10.6%), of which only 16 hits on the aiming point tank (3.7%).

- report on IL-2 testing at the Air Force Armament Research Institute

Without any enemy opposition, in ideal training ground conditions against a previously known target! Moreover, firing from a shallow dive had a bad effect on armor penetration: the shells simply ricocheted off the armor - in none of the cases was it possible to penetrate the armor of enemy medium tanks.

An attack with bombs left even less of a chance: when dropping 4 bombs from a horizontal flight from a height of 50 meters, the probability of at least one bomb hitting a 20x100 m strip (a section of a wide highway or a position artillery battery) was only 8%! Approximately the same figure expressed the accuracy of firing rockets.

White phosphorus performed well, however, high requirements for its storage made its mass use in combat conditions impossible. But the most interesting story is connected with cumulative anti-tank bombs (PTAB), weighing 1.5-2.5 kg - the Sturmovik could take on board up to 196 such ammunition in each combat mission. In the first days of the Kursk Bulge, the effect was stunning: Stormtroopers “carried out” 6-8 fascist tanks with PTABs in one go, in order to avoid complete defeat, the Germans had to urgently change the order of building tanks. However, the real effectiveness of these weapons is often questioned: during the war, 12 million PTABs were manufactured: if at least 10% of this quantity were used in battle, and of these 3% of the bombs hit the target, the Wehrmacht armored forces would be nothing there are none left.

As practice shows, the main targets of the Stormtroopers were not tanks, but German infantry, firing points and artillery batteries, accumulations of equipment, railway stations and warehouses in the front line. The contribution of the Stormtroopers to the victory over fascism is invaluable.

So, we have seven the best aircraft direct support of ground forces. Each “superhero” has its own unique story and its own unique “secret of success.” As you may have noticed, all of them are not distinguished by high flight characteristics, rather the opposite - all of them are clumsy, slow-moving “irons” with imperfect aerodynamics, given over to increased survivability and weapons. So what is the raison d'être for these planes?

The 152 mm D-20 gun-howitzer is towed by a ZIL-375 truck with a maximum speed of 60 km/h. The Rook attack aircraft flies through the sky at a speed 15 times faster. This circumstance allows the aircraft to arrive at the desired section of the front line in a matter of minutes and rain down a hail of powerful ammunition on the enemy’s head. Artillery, alas, does not have such operational maneuver capabilities.

A simple conclusion follows from this: the effectiveness of “battlefield aviation” primarily depends on competent interaction between the ground forces and the Air Force. High-quality communications, organization, correct tactics, competent actions of commanders, air traffic controllers and spotters. If everything is done correctly, aviation will bring victory on its wings. Violation of these conditions will inevitably cause a “friendly fire”.

Few armies in the world can afford the luxury of an attack aircraft. For example, of the NATO allies, Germany, England and Belgium wanted to buy Thunderbolt-2, the Japanese, Koreans and Australians also licked their lips at it... But in the end, considering that it was too expensive, they refused, limiting themselves to fighter-bombers and multirole fighters.

There are significantly more owners of the Su-25, but if you remove from the list all the freeloaders from the former allies and republics Soviet Union who received the plane for next to nothing from the USSR... then, in principle, the picture is the same. The exception is Congo, which bought the “drying” in 1999, and today’s Iraq.
In general, even for rich countries, a specialized attack aircraft, as it turned out, is an expensive pleasure. Neither the monarchies of the Persian Gulf, accustomed to squandering money on military toys, nor even China, which is rapidly growing in power, have such aircraft. Well, with China it’s a separate question - there the role of ersatz attack aircraft can be played by numerous clones of MiGs of the seventeenth (J-5), nineteenth (J-6) and others like them, and human resources are almost limitless... the excess male population has to be put somewhere.
In general, there are now two serious armies in the world that can afford attack aircraft - the American one and ours. And the opposing sides are represented by the A-10 Thunderbolt II (which I wrote about in detail here) and the Su-25, respectively.
Many people have a natural question -
“Which of them is cooler?

Western apologists will immediately say that the A-10 is cooler, because it has a monochrome screen in the cockpit, takes more and flies further.
Patriots will say that the Su-25 is faster and more durable. Let's try to consider the advantages of each aircraft separately and take a closer look.
But first, a little history - how both cars came to be.

Chronology of creation
USA
1966 Air Force opening of the A-X program (Attack eXperimental - shock experimental)
March 1967 - a competition was announced for the design of a relatively inexpensive armored attack aircraft. 21 aircraft manufacturing companies are participating
May 1970 - two prototypes were flown (YA-9A and YA-10A - finalists of the competition)
October 1972 - start of comparative tests
January 1973 - victory in the YA-10A competition from Fairchild Republic. A contract ($159 million) was signed for the production of 10 pre-production aircraft.
February 1975 – flight of the first pre-production aircraft
September 1975 – first flight with the GAU-8/A cannon
October 1975 – flight of the first production A-10A
March 1976 - aircraft began to arrive at the troops (at Davis-Montain airbase)
1977 - achievement of combat readiness and adoption of the US Air Force

May 1968 - the beginning of proactive design at the Sukhoi Design Bureau, the appearance was adopted by the general designer P.O. Sukhim. At that time the plane was still called the “battlefield aircraft” (SPB).
The end of 1968 - the beginning of purging at TsAGI
March 1969 – competition for a light attack aircraft. Participated: T-8 (with two 2 x AI-25T), Yak-25LSH, Il-42, MiG-21LSH
End of 1969 – victory of the T-8, military requirement of 1200 km/h
Summer 1970 – development of the project, creation of documentation
End of 1971 - finalization of the appearance, agreed with the military on maximum speed at 1000 km/h
January 1972 – finalization of the appearance of the T-8, start of mock-up work
September 1972 - approval of the layout and set of documentation from the customer, start of construction of the prototype aircraft
February 1975 – flight of the first prototype (T-8-1)
Summer 1976 - updated prototypes (T-8-1D and T-8-2D) with R-95Sh engines
July 1976 - receiving the name "Su-25" and beginning of preparations for mass production
June 1979 – flight of the first production vehicle (T-8-3)
March 1981 - the GSI was completed and the aircraft was recommended for adoption
April 1981 - the aircraft began to enter combat units
June 1981 - start of use of the Su-25 in Afghanistan
1987 - official adoption

Project SPB (Battlefield Aircraft) Sukhoi Design Bureau

Comparison on paper

The tactical and technical characteristics of the aircraft had to be collected long and hard, because they were not available in any source.
Performance characteristics of the A-10 in RuNet (with a maximum speed of 834 km/h Rook versus Warthog. Su-25 and A-10 attack aircraft - a view from the trench) is generally something that has its origins in an old Soviet brochure from 1976. In short, it’s like with that GAU-8 cannon and the mass of its shells, published incorrectly everywhere on the RuNet (except for this post about it in svbr). And I calculated this by counting the variants of the combat load - there was nothing wrong with the existing mass.
Therefore, I had to surf the websites of the adversaries, during which I even found a 500-page manual for the A-10.

Advantages of "Warthog"
Range and payload
And indeed, the A-10 “takes” more
The maximum combat load of the A-10 is 7260 kg, plus the cannon ammunition (1350 rounds) is 933.4 kg.
The maximum combat load of the Su-25 is 4400 kg, gun ammunition (250 shells) is 340 kg.
And it flies on:
Thunderbolt-2 has a longer range - from 460 km with a normal load (in "close support" missions) to 800 km lightly (in "aerial reconnaissance" missions).
Hrach has a combat radius of 250-300 km.
Largely due to the fact that Thunderbolt engines are more economical.
The bench consumption of TF34-GE-100 is 0.37 kg/kgf·h, for R-95Sh - 0.86 kg/kgf·h.
There are amateurs here American technology they throw their caps into the air and rejoice: “The rook is two and a half times more gluttonous.”

Why is that?
Firstly, the Thunderbolt engines are double-circuit (on Grach they are single-circuit), and secondly, the Su-25 engine is more unpretentious and omnivorous (for example, it can eat... diesel fuel instead of aviation kerosene), which of course does not benefit fuel efficiency , but expands the application possibilities of the aircraft.
And it should also be remembered that hourly fuel consumption is not the same as kilometer consumption (because aircraft speeds differ, and at cruising speed the same Su-25 flies 190 km more per hour).
An additional advantage of the A-10 is the presence of an in-flight refueling system, which further expands its possible range.

Refueling from a KC-135 air tanker

Separate engine nacelle
It gives advantages when modernizing an aircraft - the new power plant does not depend on the size of the engine nacelle, you can plug in what you need. It is also likely that this arrangement of the engine makes it possible to quickly replace it if damaged.
Good visibility from the cabin
The warthog's nose shape and canopy provide the pilot with a clear view, resulting in better situational awareness.
But it does not solve problems with finding targets with the naked eye, the same as those experienced by the Su-25 pilot.
More about this below.

The superiority of "Rook"
Speed ​​and agility
Here the Su-25 comes forward.
The cruising speed of the Warthog (560 km/h) is almost one and a half times less than the speed of the Rook (750 km/h).
The maximum, respectively, is 722 km/h versus 950 km/h.
In terms of vertical maneuverability, thrust-to-weight ratio (0.47 versus 0.37) and rate of climb (60 m/s versus 30 m/s), the Su-25 is also superior to the American.
At the same time, the American should be better in horizontal maneuverability - due to its larger wing area and lower speed when turning. Although, for example, the pilots of the “Heavenly Hussars” aerobatic team who piloted the A-10A said that a turn with a bank of more than 45 degrees for the A-10A comes with a loss of speed, which cannot be said about the Su-25.
Test pilot, Hero of Russia Magomed Tolboev, who flew the A-10, confirms their words:

“The Su-25 is more maneuverable, it does not have restrictions like the A-10. For example, our aircraft can fully perform complex aerobatics, but the “American” cannot, it has limited pitch angles and roll angles, fit into the A-10 canyon can’t, but the Su-25 can..."
Vitality
It is generally accepted that their survivability is approximately equal. But still, “Rook” is more tenacious.
And in Afghanistan, attack aircraft had to work in very harsh conditions. In addition to the well-known American Stinger MANPADS supplied to terrorists... in the mountains of Afghanistan, Su-25s encountered intense fire. Strelkovka, heavy machine guns, MZA... and the "Rooks" were often simultaneously fired not only from below, but also from the side, from behind and even... from above!
I would like to see the A-10 in such scrapes (with its large canopy with “excellent visibility”), and not in the conditions of the predominantly flat Iraq.

Both are armored, but structurally... the armored cabin of the A-10A is made of titanium panels fastened with bolts (which themselves become secondary elements of destruction in the event of a direct hit), the Su-25 has a welded titanium “bath”; The control rods on the A-10A are cable, on the Su-25 they are titanium (in the rear fuselage made of heat-resistant steel), which can withstand hits from large-caliber bullets. The engines are also spaced apart for both, but on the Su-25 there is a fuselage and an armored panel between the engines, on the A-10 there is air.

At the same time, the Su-25 is geometrically smaller, which somewhat reduces the likelihood of it being hit by a rifle or MZA.
Location flexibility
Rook is less demanding on the airfield.
Take-off run length of the Su-25: on a concrete runway - 550/400 m (on the ground - 900/650 m). If necessary, it can take off and land from unpaved runways (whereas the A-10 only claims to land on grass).
Take-off/run length A-10: 1220/610 m.

Special complex ALS (Ammunition Loading System) for reloading GAU-8
And the most interesting thing.
Su-25 pilots do not need a refrigerator with Coca-Cola! Just kidding. The Rook R-95 engine, which is criticized for its “gluttony” (stand consumption 0.88 kg/hour versus 0.37 kg/hour for the American)... is much more unpretentious and omnivorous. The fact is that the Su-25 engine can be fueled... with diesel fuel!
This was done so that the Su-25s operating together with the advancing units (or from “skid-up airfields”, prepared sites) could, if necessary, refuel from the same tankers.

Price
The price of one A-10 is $4.1 million in 1977 prices, or $16.25 million in 2014 prices (this is the domestic price for the Americans, since the A-10 was not exported).
It is difficult to establish the cost of the Su-25 (because it has been out of production for a long time)... It is generally accepted (in most sources I have seen this exact figure) that the cost of one Su-25 is $3 million (in 2000s prices).
I also came across an estimate that the Su-25 was four times cheaper than the A-10 (which roughly agrees with the above figures). I suggest you accept it.

View from the trench
If we move from paper to specific ravines, i.e. from comparing numbers to combat realities, the picture turns out to be more interesting.
Now I’m going to say a seditious thing for many, but don’t rush to shoot tomatoes - read to the end.
The solid combat load of the A-10 is, in general, meaningless. Because the job of an attack aircraft is to “appear, brush the enemy, and leave” until he comes to his senses and organizes air defense.
The attack aircraft must hit its target on the first, or maximum on the second, approach. On the third and other approaches, the effect of surprise has already been lost, the unhit “targets” will hide, and those that do not want to hide will prepare MANPADS, heavy machine guns and other things that are unpleasant for any aircraft. And enemy fighters called for help may also arrive.
And for these one or two (well, three) approaches, seven tons of the A-10’s combat load is excessive; it won’t have time to dump everything specifically on the targets.
The situation is similar with a cannon, which has a huge rate of fire on paper, but allows you to fire only short bursts lasting one second (maximum two). In one run, the Warthog can allow himself one burst, and then a minute of cooling of the trunks.
The second burst of the GAU-8 is 65 shells. For two passes the maximum consumption of ammunition is 130 pieces, for three passes - 195 pieces. As a result, out of an ammunition load of 1350 shells, 1155 unused shells remain. Even if you shoot in two-second bursts (consumption of 130 pieces/sec), then after three passes there are 960 shells left. Even in this case, 71% (actually 83%) of the gun’s ammunition is essentially unnecessary and redundant. Which, by the way, is confirmed by the same “Desert Storm”, the actual consumption of shells was 121 pieces. for departure.
Well, oh well, he doesn’t have enough reserves - let’s leave it to him so that he can shoot down helicopters along the way; we need to dispose of the depleted uranium 238 that the Americans don’t need somewhere.

Well, you say, we can not take the full combat load (we’ll take the same amount as the Grach), but add more fuel and even grab a couple more PTBs (outboard fuel tanks), seriously increasing the range and time spent in the air. But the large combat radius of the A-10 hides another problem.
A longer range has an unpleasant downside for a subsonic aircraft. The higher the flight range, the farther the airfield is from the battlefield, and accordingly, it will take longer to fly to the aid of your troops. Okay, if the attack aircraft is patrolling in the “front line” area at this time... what if this is an emergency flight from the ground?
It’s one thing to fly 300 kilometers at a speed of 750 km/h (Su-25 departure), and completely different to fly 1000 km (and about that much and even a little further you can drag an A-10 with 4 tons of combat load, full tanks and a pair of anti-tank tanks ) at a speed of 560 km/h. In the first case, a ground unit, pinned down by fire, will wait 24 minutes for an attack aircraft, and in the second, 1 hour 47 minutes. What is called - feel the difference (c).
And the military comrades will “cut” the zone of responsibility for the attack aircraft on the map according to the radius of action. And woe to those American infantrymen whose units will be located at the edges of the radius.

But we forgot that an American attack aircraft with a lot of fuel (and the ability to refuel in the air) can “hang” over the front line for a long time, ready to work when called from the ground. Here, however, the problem of calling from the other end of a large area of ​​​​responsibility still remains... But maybe you’ll get lucky and the guys attacked somewhere nearby will call.
Fuel and engine life will indeed have to be wasted, but this is not the worst thing. There is another serious BUT. This scenario is poorly suited for a war with a peer enemy that has front-line fighters, AWACS aircraft, long-range air defense systems and over-the-horizon radars in the combat zone. With such an enemy, hanging over the front line “waiting for a call” will not work.
So it turns out that a seemingly serious advantage on paper is practically nullified in real life. The A-10's range and combat load capabilities seem excessive. It’s like driving a nail (destroying an important point target on the front line) with a microscope... You can take a regular hammer (Su-25), or you can take a sledgehammer (A-10). The result is the same, but the labor costs are higher.

At the same time, everyone should remember that the Su-25 is much cheaper. For the price of one A-10 you can buy 4 Su-25s, which can cover the same (if not larger) area of ​​responsibility with much more high speed response.
Now, let's think about what is most important for a stormtrooper.
The attack aircraft must a) accurately and quickly hit the target, b) get out of the fire alive.
On the first point, both aircraft have problems (and even their current modifications, the A-10S and Su-25SM). Without preliminary high-quality target designation from the ground or a drone, it is often impossible to detect and hit a target on the first approach.
And for the A-10A and Su-25 we are comparing, this is even worse, since there was no normal sighting system (about this and the problems encountered in Iraq - here).
The attack aircraft did not carry either an optical-electronic sight (for TV-guided missiles, the A-10 pilot searched for the target on a monochrome screen of poor resolution through the missile’s homing head with a narrow field of view), nor did they carry a radar. True, the "Rook" at the same time had its own laser rangefinder-target designator "Klen-PS", with the help of which it could use air-to-surface guided missiles with laser seekers (S-25L, Kh-25ML, Kh-29L). The Warthog could only use laser-guided bombs when targets were externally illuminated with a laser.

Launch of a Kh-25ML guided missile from a Su-25 attack aircraft

On the second point (“getting out of the fire alive”) the Su-25 clearly has an advantage. Firstly, due to higher survivability. And secondly, due to a much higher maximum speed and better acceleration characteristics.
And now, for example, we are also installing the Vitebsk personal protection complex on the Su-25SM3.

Different approach
It seems that the planes are of the same class, but you start to understand and realize that in fact the machines are very different. And their differences are due to different approaches and concepts of application.
"Thunderbolt" is more of a protected flying "tank destroyer" designed for for a long time staying in the air and free hunting. Powerful and heavily loaded, carrying a ton of ammunition for all occasions. Its weapons complex (the heavy-duty GAU-8/A cannon and AGM-65 Maverick guided missiles) was primarily “sharpened” to attack tanks, in order to level out the Soviet tank advantage on the ground (which emerged in the late 60s and took shape in the 70s). 1940s), and only then - for direct support of troops.

"Rook" was created as a workhorse for the furnace. As a hardy, cheap and unpretentious aircraft for war, which was supposed to solve the problem of supporting ground forces “cheaply and cheerfully”, coming as close as possible to the enemy and treating him with bombs, NURS and a cannon... And in some cases, using missiles with a laser seeker to destroy point targets goals.

As we see today, the idea of ​​a “plane around a gun” did not justify itself (especially considering that the vast majority of the A-10A’s targets were destroyed by Maverick missiles), and in the next modification the A-10C went to altitude, receiving sighting containers as “eyes” and precision weapons as a “long arm” and retaining atavisms in the form of a gun and armor.
And the concept of remote warfare and loss reduction actually pushed it out of the “attack aircraft” into the niche of fighter-bombers, which, in my opinion, largely determines its current problems. Although sometimes the Warthog “takes to the old ways” and irons ground targets (preferably more defenseless) ... but still, it seems that the Americans seriously intend to bury the attack aircraft as a class again.

Ours do not intend to abandon the Su-25. Not so long ago, the Hornet design and development work was opened for a new promising attack aircraft, and then they started talking about the PAK SHA program. True, in the end, having studied the capabilities of the modernized Su-25SM3, the military seemed to have decided for now to abandon the new platform and squeeze the potential of the old Su-25 to dry, modernizing all the remaining aircraft in the Air Force under the SM3 program. Maybe even the production of the Su-25 would have been launched again if the plant for their production had not remained in Georgia after the collapse of the USSR, and the Ulan-Ude Aviation Plant (which at one time produced the Su-25UB, Su-25UTG and plans to produce the Su-25TM) production of the Su-25 has already been curtailed.
Despite periodically sounding crazy thoughts about replacing the Su-25 with a light attack aircraft based on the Yak-130, our military is not going to give up attack aircraft. And God willing, soon we will see a replacement for the good old Rook.

No matter how hard military visionaries try to rid the battlefield of the ordinary soldier... the onset of these times is not yet in sight. No, in some cases you can fight with robots, but this solution is very “niche” and not for a serious war.
In a large-scale war with a comparable enemy, all of today’s expensive fake whistles will quickly become a thing of the past. Because anyone who will strike with high-precision missiles/bombs costing $100,000 or more on bunkers with a cost of 50,000 rubles and 60 man-hours of work is doomed. Therefore, all this talk about high-precision weapons, replacing attack aircraft with drones, 6th, 7th and 8th generation aircraft, “network-centric warfare” and other joys will quickly cease in the event of a serious and large-scale mess. And the attack aircraft will have to return to the battlefield again, the seats in the cockpits of which will have to be taken by Ivans and Johns...

Low speed, strong armor and powerful weapons - in tactical combat aviation, the combination of these three qualities is typical only for attack aircraft. The golden age of these formidable aircraft, designed to provide close support to ground forces on the battlefield, occurred during the Second World War. world war. It seemed that with the advent of the jet era, their time was gone forever. However, the experience of armed conflicts of the second half of the twentieth century (and the first wars of the new century) has proven that these simple, slow and unsightly in appearance machines can perform combat missions where much more complex, expensive and modern aircraft are useless. RIA Novosti publishes a selection of the most formidable attack aircraft in service different countries.

A-10 Thunderbolt II

At first, pilots were skeptical about the American A-10 attack aircraft, which was adopted by the US Air Force in 1977. Slow, fragile, clumsy and downright ugly compared to the “futuristic” F-15 and F-16 fighters that began entering service around the same time. It was because of its appearance that the plane was christened offensive nickname"warthog" (Warthog). The Pentagon debated for a long time whether the US Air Force needed such an attack aircraft in principle, but the machine itself put an end to it during Operation Desert Storm. According to the military, about 150 unsightly A-10s destroyed more than three thousand Iraqi armored vehicles in seven months. Only seven attack aircraft were shot down by return fire.

The main feature of the "warthog" is its main weapon. The plane is literally “built around” a huge seven-barreled GAU-8 aircraft cannon with a rotating block of barrels. It is capable of bringing down seventy 30-mm armor-piercing or high-explosive fragmentation shells- each weighing almost half a kilo. Even a short burst is enough to cover a column of tanks with a series of hits on the thin roof armor. In addition, the aircraft is capable of carrying guided and unguided missiles, bombs and external artillery mounts.

It is worth noting that this aircraft has a dubious reputation as a “record holder” for “friendly fire”. During both Iraq campaigns, as well as in Afghanistan, A-10s repeatedly fired their guns at the troops they were supposed to support. Civilians also often came under fire. The fact is that most of these attack aircraft have extremely simplified electronics, which does not always allow them to correctly determine the target on the battlefield. It is not surprising that when they appear in the air, not only enemies, but also their own people scatter.

Su-25

The famous Soviet "rook" first took to the air on February 22, 1975 and is still in service in more than 20 countries. A reliable, powerful and very durable aircraft, it quickly earned the love of attack aircraft pilots. The Su-25 is equipped with a powerful set of weapons - air cannons, air bombs of various calibers and purposes, guided and unguided air-to-ground missiles, guided air-to-air missiles. In total, the attack aircraft can be equipped with 32 types of weapons, not counting the built-in double-barreled 30-mm GSh-30-2 aircraft cannon.

Business card Su-25 - its security. The pilot's cabin is covered with aircraft-grade titanium armor with armor plate thicknesses ranging from 10 to 24 millimeters. The pilot is reliably protected from fire from any gun with a caliber of up to 12.7 millimeters, and in the most dangerous directions - from anti-aircraft guns up to 30 millimeters. All critical attack aircraft systems are also sheathed in titanium and, in addition, are duplicated. If one is damaged, the spare one is activated immediately.

The rook underwent its baptism of fire in Afghanistan. The low flight speed allowed him to deliver precise blows to the most difficult conditions mountainous terrain and at the last moment to rescue the infantry, which found itself in a seemingly hopeless situation. During 10 years of war, 23 attack aircraft were shot down. At the same time, not a single case of aircraft loss due to the explosion of fuel tanks or the death of the pilot was recorded. On average, for every Su-25 shot down there was 80-90 combat damage. There have been cases when "rooks" returned to base after completing a combat mission with more than a hundred holes in the fuselage. Exactly Afghan war gave the "rook" a second unofficial nickname - "flying tank".

EMB-314 Super Tucano

Compared to the heavily armed jet Su-25 and A-10, the light Brazilian turboprop attack aircraft Super Tucano looks frivolous and more like an aircraft for sports or training aerobatics. Indeed, this two-seater was originally designed as a training aircraft for military pilots. Subsequently, the EMB-314, which first flew on June 2, 1999, was modified. The cockpit was protected with Kevlar armor, and two 12.7-mm machine guns were built into the fuselage. In addition, the aircraft was equipped with hardpoints for a 20-mm cannon, as well as for unguided missiles and free-falling bombs.

Of course, such an attack aircraft cannot scare a tank, and Kevlar armor will not save it from anti-aircraft fire. However, the Super Tucano is not required to participate in combined arms operations. Such planes Lately increasingly began to be called counter-guerrilla. These machines, in particular, are used by the Colombian government to combat drug trafficking. It is known that the Brazilian attack aircraft is currently participating in a US Air Force tender for the purchase of up to 200 aircraft that will be used in Afghanistan against the Taliban.

Alpha Jet

The Alpha Jet light attack jet aircraft, developed by the German company Dornier and the French concern Dassault-Breguet, has been in operation since 1977 and is still in service with 14 countries. These vehicles are designed to destroy moving and stationary targets, mainly on the battlefield and in the tactical depth of defense. They make it possible to solve such tasks as direct air support of ground forces, isolating the battlefield, depriving the enemy of the ability to transport reserves and ammunition, as well as aerial reconnaissance with strikes against targets discovered in the front-line rear.

The Alpha Jet features high maneuverability and a large combat load for its weight category - 2.5 tons. This made it possible to equip light attack aircraft a very serious arsenal. The ventral hardpoint can accommodate a container with a 30 mm DEFA 553 cannon, a 27 mm Mauser cannon or two 12.7 mm machine guns. High-explosive free-falling bombs weighing up to 400 kilograms, incendiary bombs, and containers of 70-mm caliber unguided missiles are suspended from four underwing nodes. Such weapons allow a light and inexpensive attack aircraft to fight any type of ground targets - from infantry to tanks and field fortifications.

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 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 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, which perform very old tasks related to striking ground targets. 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 ground forces were in favor of attack helicopter Cheyenne, and the Air Force funded program A-X. 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 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 demonstrated its highest efficiency in counter-guerrilla warfare - thanks to its low speed and ability to loiter in the air for a long time.

The Air Force has tried to phase out the A-10 several times since the 1980s. Military pilots from the Air Force claim that this aircraft has low survivability in air combat and that multirole fighter-bombers (F-16 to F-35) can carry out 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. At first he fought in Afghanistan, when Soviet troops entered there - he 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. 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 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 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 the latest 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. Air Force developing countries can invest in both aircraft, as this will give them a lot of capabilities in terms of striking ground targets, 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 forces of various 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 stormtroopers, modern air force 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 Commerce. His research interests include issues national security, military doctrine and maritime affairs.