In the post-war period, work continued in the USSR on new armored attack aircraft. Simultaneously with the creation of fighters and front-line bombers with turbojet engines, the design of attack aircraft with piston engines was carried out. Compared to the Il-10 and Il-10M already in service, the projected attack aircraft should have had greater protection, increased firepower and a better forward-downward view. One of the main drawbacks of the Il-2 and Il-10 attack aircraft was the large, invisible dead zone created by the engine hood, which in turn made it difficult to aim bombing at point targets.
On November 20, 1948, an experienced Il-20 attack aircraft made its maiden flight. The aircraft had a very unusual appearance, the cockpit was located above the M-47 liquid-cooled piston engine with a rated power of 2300 hp. Between the pilot and the gunner, who had a turret with a 23 mm cannon, the main fuel tank was located, covered with double 8 mm armor.
The cockpit and gunner, engine, cooling system, fuel and oil tank were located inside the armored box. The total weight of the metal and transparent armor was over 2000 kg. The thickness of the metal armor in comparison with the IL-10 increased by an average of 46%, and the transparent - by 59%. The armor installed on the Il-20 protected not only from armor-piercing bullets of 12, 7-mm caliber fired from a distance of 300 meters, but also largely from 20-mm shells. The front of the cockpit began immediately behind the edge of the propeller hub. A long frontal armored glass with a thickness of 100 mm, set at an angle of 70 °, provided excellent forward-downward visibility in the 37 ° sector, and when diving at an angle of 40-45 °, the pilot could see targets that were almost directly under the aircraft. Thus, on the Il-20, one of the main shortcomings in the design of the attack aircraft in service was eliminated.
According to the project, the Il-20 was supposed to have very powerful weapons. The bomb load reached 700 kg (according to other data, 1190 kg). The offensive armament in the first version consisted of two 23 mm wing cannons for forward firing and two 23 mm cannons installed in the fuselage at an angle of 22 ° for firing at targets from low level flight. Under the wing, the suspension of four 132-mm TRS-132 rockets, launched from the ORO-132 tubular "guns", was provided.
When designing the TRS-82 and TRS-132 rockets, traditional for Soviet calibers 82 and 132-mm, an attempt was made to reduce the drag when attached to the aircraft and improve the accuracy of fire due to the abandonment of the tail fin to stabilize the projectiles on the trajectory by rotation. The speed of rotation of the TRS-132 reached 204 r / s. At the same time, the shooting accuracy really increased, but it was still insufficient for a confident hit in a single tank. In terms of their damaging characteristics, the TRS-82 and TRS-132 were approximately at the level of the RS-82 and ROFS-132.
The second armament option, designed to combat tanks, consisted of a 45-mm NS-45 cannon, two 23-mm cannons and six RS. It did not come to the construction and testing of a prototype with a 45-mm cannon, but it can be assumed that, thanks to a much better view and more favorable aiming conditions, the accuracy of fire of a large-caliber aircraft cannon installed on the Il-20 could be much better than on the Il-2 with two NS-37.
The aircraft with a takeoff weight of 9500 kg at the ground accelerated to a speed of 450 km / h, at an altitude of 3000 m - 515 km / h. In general, this was quite enough for an anti-tank aircraft and an attack aircraft operating in the interests of close air support. However, the military, fascinated by the high speeds of jet aircraft, considered such characteristics to be insufficiently high and work on the Il-20 was curtailed. Among the disadvantages of the Il-20 was inconvenient access to the engine, which was a consequence of its unusual layout.
The transition of military aviation to jet engines and the experience of air battles in Korea predetermined the creation of a domestic attack aircraft with turbojet engines. In April 1954, the state tests of the Il-40 attack aircraft were successfully completed, and in October 1955, its improved modification of the Il-40P.
An attack aircraft with a normal take-off weight of 16,600 kg, equipped with two turbojet engines of the RD-9V turbojet engine with a nominal thrust of 2150 kgf each, showed a maximum speed of 993 km / h during tests, which was not much less than the speed of the MiG-15 fighter. Normal bomb load - 1000 kg (overload 1400 kg). The four internal bomb compartments could accommodate bombs weighing up to 100 kg or fragmentation and anti-tank bombs in bulk. Combat radius - 400 km. The offensive armament consisted of four 23 mm AM-23 cannons with a total rate of fire of 5200 rounds per minute and eight launchers for the TRS-132. The rear hemisphere was protected by one remote-controlled 23 mm cannon. During firing at ground targets, the Il-40 turned out to be more stable in control than the Il-10M, which had a positive effect on the accuracy of the fire. Simultaneous firing from all four cannons did not affect the piloting of the aircraft, the recoil when firing was small.
Training air battles with MiG-15bis and MiG-17F fighters demonstrated that the Il-40 is a difficult enemy in air combat. It is difficult to fire on it due to the high horizontal and vertical speeds of the Il-40, their wide range. Due to the fact that the attack aircraft had effective air brakes, the attacking fighters rushed forward and themselves were hit by powerful offensive weapons. It was also not worth discounting the fire capabilities of the defensive remote-controlled turret. All this gave a good chance of survival when meeting with enemy fighters. The armor protection of the crew and vital components and assemblies approximately corresponded to the level of protection of the Il-10M, which in turn was more perfect than that of the Il-2. The significantly higher flight speed of the Il-40, in comparison with piston attack aircraft, made it possible to get out of the anti-aircraft fire zone faster. In addition, a twin-engine aircraft could continue flying if one turbojet engine failed.
In terms of combat capabilities, the Il-40 was significantly superior to the Il-10M piston attack aircraft, which was at that time in service with the Air Force. The Il-40 could develop a high maximum horizontal flight speed, rate of climb, flight altitude, had a wider range of speeds, and was superior in bomb load and weapon power. It would seem that with such characteristics, a cloudless future awaited the jet attack aircraft, but other times came, and the top military-political leadership relied on missiles, burying many promising aviation projects.
As of January 1, 1955, the Soviet Air Force of the Soviet Army had 19 assault aviation regiments, which were armed with 1,700 Il-10 and Il-10M piston attack aircraft and 130 MiG-15bis jet fighter-bombers. In a report presented in April 1956 by the Minister of Defense, Marshal G. K. Zhukov, an unfounded conclusion was made about the low effectiveness of attack aircraft on the battlefield in modern warfare, and in fact it was proposed to abolish attack aircraft. At the same time, it was proposed that the tasks of direct air support of the troops be assigned to fighter aircraft and front-line bombers. The proposal of the Minister of Defense was warmly supported by the country's leadership, and soon an order was issued, according to which the attack aircraft was abolished, and all existing attack aircraft were to be written off. In parallel with the liquidation of the attack aircraft, the decision to establish serial production of the Il-40 jet was canceled and all design work on promising attack aircraft was stopped.
After the elimination of attack aircraft as a class and the decommissioning of existing piston attack aircraft for scrap and the abandonment of serial construction of the then unparalleled Il-40 jet attack aircraft, this niche was occupied by the MiG-15bis and MiG-17F jet fighters. These aircraft had a fairly powerful cannon armament and a good view from the cockpit, but did not fully meet the requirements as close air support aircraft. Moreover, in the role of tank destroyers, first-generation jet fighters with a rocket and bomb load of 200-250 kg were ineffective. In the 60s, to increase the strike capabilities of the MiG-17F, they began to be equipped with NAR UB-16 blocks with 57-mm NAR S-5. In 1960, the S-5K unguided aircraft missile (KARS-57) with 130 mm armor penetration was adopted.
In the early 60s, the Su-7B began to replace the MiG-17F in the fighter-bomber regiments. A supersonic aircraft with one AL-7F-1 engine with a rated thrust of 6800 kgf, without external suspensions at high altitude, accelerated to 2120 km / h. The maximum combat load of the Su-7B was 2000 kg.
A 30-mm HP-30 cannon with an ammunition load of 70 rounds per barrel could be used against armored vehicles. Their total rate of fire was about 1800 rds / min, that is, in one second, a flurry of 30 shells could be fired at the target. The HP-30 was an effective means of destroying lightly armored vehicles; in a number of armed conflicts, it was possible to knock out medium tanks. At a carrier speed of 200 m / s, an armor-piercing projectile weighing 390 g, flying out of the cannon barrel at a speed of 890 m / s, could penetrate 25 mm armor at a meeting angle of 60 °. The anti-tank weapons of the fighter-bombers also included one-time cluster bombs equipped with PTAB and NAR S-3K and S-5K.
The S-3K unguided 160-mm cumulative fragmentation missiles were specially designed to increase the anti-tank capabilities of the Su-7B. With a mass of 23.5 kg, the S-3K missile carried 7.3 kg of a cumulative fragmentation warhead with 300 mm armor penetration. Usually, two APU-14U launchers with 7 guides in each were suspended under a fighter-bomber. The S-3K rockets had good firing accuracy: at a distance of 2 km, more than half of the missiles fit into a circle with a diameter of 14 m.
The S-3K missiles performed well during the Arab-Israeli wars, where the Su-7B was used. But these NARs had a number of significant drawbacks. Placing rockets "herringbone" on the APU-14U created a lot of drag, and aircraft with suspended launchers had significant speed and maneuver limitations. To defeat armored vehicles, the S-3K had excess power, at the same time, insufficient to destroy field fortifications. In addition, fourteen, albeit quite powerful unguided missiles, were clearly not enough to effectively combat tanks when they were massively used. The fragmentation effect of the S-3K was weak. When the warhead exploded, many light fragments were formed. But light high-speed fragments quickly lost speed and penetrating power, which made them ineffective for fighting manpower, not to mention technology, where weak striking elements could not penetrate the vehicle hull, aircraft skin and ignite the contents. In the combat aviation regiments of the NAR S-3K, they were not popular, and their use was limited.
In this regard, the 57-mm NAR S-5KO with a cumulative fragmentation warhead with 170 mm armor penetration looked much more advantageous. When crushing 11 steel rings with notches, up to 220 fragments weighing 2 grams were formed. The number of 57-mm missiles with folding empennage in the UB-16 blocks on the Su-7BM was more than four times more than the S-3K on the two APU-14U. Accordingly, the affected area turned out to be significantly higher. Although the S-5 had a less powerful warhead compared to the S-3K, they provided sufficient destructive action against most targets, including armored vehicles in open positions, parking areas and field-type shelters.
The aiming range of the NAR S-5 launch was 1500 m. The launch of unguided rockets was carried out from a dive, and the setting of the current value of the distance to the target, which served as the basis for solving the aiming problem, was carried out automatically according to the data of the barometric altimeter and the pitch angle or manually by the pilot.
In practice, launches were carried out, as a rule, from one preset and tested mode - a gentle dive at a speed of 800-900 km / h at a flight altitude of at least 400 m. attacks and dive at the target.
Naturally, with such a flight speed and launch range of the NAR, there could be no talk of fighting individual tanks. Even on a well-known range, the probability of a successful attack from the first approach against small targets did not exceed 0, 1-0, 2. As a rule, strikes occurred on clusters of enemy equipment in places of concentration, or on columns on the march. Attacking tanks deployed in battle formations was very difficult and often not very effective.
Nevertheless, the Su-7B, when used correctly, has proven itself very well in local conflicts. So, during the next Indo-Pakistani war in 1971, the Indian Su-7BMK distinguished themselves during strikes on clusters of armored vehicles. In two weeks of fighting, the Indian pilots of Sushki destroyed about 150 tanks. In 1973, Syrian fighter-bombers, using RBK-250 cluster bombs equipped with PTAB-2, 5, and S-3K and S-5K missiles, inflicted significant losses on Israeli tank units. The 30-mm beaters have also proven themselves quite well. The HP-30 proved to be an effective weapon not only against lightly armored vehicles: in some cases, their shells knocked out the M48 and M51HV medium tanks.
In the 60-70s, in parallel with the MiG-17F and Su-7B aircraft, the MiG-21PF / PFM fighters were transferred to the fighter-bomber regiments. The strike armament of the MiG-21PF consisted of two UB-16-57U blocks of 16 S-5M or S-5K rounds and bombs of caliber from 50 to 500 kg. In addition, provision was made for the suspension of two heavy S-24 rockets.
The relatively low combat load, the excessively high attack speed with poor visibility from the cockpit of the existing fighter-bombers of that time forced us to turn to the idea of an attack aircraft based on the Il-28 front-line bomber. In accordance with the project, the modified bomber was supposed to have the same depth of combat as the Su-7B, but surpass it in the number of weapons of destruction by 2-3 times. Due to the relatively high aspect ratio and lower flight speed, the conditions for finding targets on the battlefield and aiming should have become better than those of a single-engine jet fighter-bomber with a large sweep wing. The advantage of the aircraft was a good view from the cockpits of the crew members and the possibility of combat work from unpaved airfields.
IL-28SH with underwing pylons for suspension of various weapons, was intended for action from low altitudes against accumulations of enemy equipment and manpower, as well as against single armored combat vehicles in battle formations. 6 pylons were mounted under each wing of the aircraft, which could accommodate: 12 UB-16-57 blocks, suspended cannon gondolas, aerial bombs and cluster bombs.
For ground targets, it was also possible to use two 23-mm NR-23 cannons installed along the sides in the lower part of the fuselage. The experience of military operations in local conflicts has shown that when leaving the attack, the gunners with the help of the Il-K6 stern defensive installation with two NR-23 cannons can effectively suppress anti-aircraft fire.
Il-28Sh tests began in 1967. Numerous external hardpoints have significantly increased the drag of the aircraft. Fuel consumption in flight near the ground has increased by 30-40%. Combat radius of action with a load of twelve UB-16 was 300 km. According to the test pilots, the assault version of the bomber was quite suitable for destroying mobile small targets. But the aircraft was not launched into mass production. In the Il-28Sh, a number of bombers were altered, which happily escaped being cut into metal during the defeat of the front-line aviation by Khrushchev. The re-equipment was carried out during a major overhaul at the factory. Il-28Sh with NAR units entered mainly bomber air regiments deployed in the Far East.
In general, the combat effectiveness of the supersonic Su-7B has significantly increased compared to the MiG-15bis and MiG-17F. But the increase in the combat effectiveness of the new fighter-bombers was accompanied by an increase in take-off weight and a deterioration in take-off and landing characteristics. The maneuverability of the aircraft at altitudes typical of operations for direct air support of ground forces also left much to be desired. In this regard, in 1965, the creation of a modification of the Su-7B with a variable sweep wing began.
The new aircraft rotated only the outer wing parts, located behind the main landing gear. Such a layout made it possible to improve takeoff and landing characteristics and improve controllability at low altitudes. A relatively inexpensive upgrade turned the Su-7B into a multi-mode aircraft. The supersonic fighter-bomber, designated the Su-17, was produced in large series from 1969 to 1990. For export, the car was produced under the designations Su-20 and Su-22.
The first Su-17s had an engine and avionics similar to the Su-7BM. In the future, on the modification of the Su-17M, thanks to the installation of a more powerful engine TRDF AL-21F3 and new electronic equipment, the capabilities of the aircraft increased significantly. The Su-17M was followed by modifications of the Su-17M2, Su-17M3 and Su-17M4.
The last, most advanced model entered trials in 1982. Taking into account the fact that the Su-17M4 was mainly intended for strikes against ground targets, there was a rejection of the adjustable cone-shaped air intake. The cone was locked in a position optimal for transonic low-altitude flight. The maximum speed at altitude was limited to 1.75M.
Externally, the Su-17M4 differed little from earlier models, but in terms of its capabilities it was a much more advanced machine, equipped with the PrNK-54 onboard sighting and navigation computer complex. Compared to the Su-7BM, the maximum combat load has doubled. Although the armament included a wide range of guided bombs and missiles, they were primarily intended to destroy point stationary especially important targets and the anti-tank capabilities of the fighter-bomber did not increase much. As before, PTABs in RBK-250 or RBK-500 and NAR single-use cluster bombs were intended to combat tanks.
However, the new 80-mm cumulative fragmentation NAR S-8KO and S-8KOM had increased armor penetration up to 420-450 mm and a good fragmentation effect. The cumulative fragmentation 3, 6 kg warhead contains 900 g of the explosive Gekfol-5. The launch range of the S-8KOM missile is 1300–4000 m. The range of speed of the carrier aircraft during combat use of the NAR S-8 of all types is 160–330 m / s. The missiles were launched from 20-charge launchers B-8M. Thanks to the introduction of a digital computer and a laser rangefinder-target designator "Klen-PS" into the Su-17M4 avionics, the accuracy of the NAR application has significantly increased.
According to Western data, as of January 1, 1991, in the USSR Air Force, the Su-17s of all modifications were equipped with 32 fighter-bomber, 12 reconnaissance regiments, one separate reconnaissance squadron and four training regiments. The Su-17, despite its somewhat archaic design by the standards of the mid-1980s, embodied the optimal combination in terms of cost-effectiveness criterion, which led to its widespread and long-term operation. Soviet fighter bombers in their strike capabilities were not inferior to similar Western machines, often surpassing them in flight data, but, like foreign counterparts, they could not effectively fight individual tanks on the battlefield.
Almost simultaneously with the adoption of the Su-17 on the basis of the front-line fighter with a variable geometry wing, the MiG-23, its strike version of the MiG-23B was developed and launched into series. Impact modification "twenty-third" had a characteristic nose. In addition to the lack of radar, partial booking of the cockpit, a modified front end and the installation of special target equipment, the airframe differed little from the MiG-23S fighter, which has been in serial production since the beginning of 1970. To improve forward-downward visibility and install the ASP-17 sight, the front of the aircraft, devoid of radar, was sloped 18 ° downward. A good overview made it easy to navigate and find targets. A slight roll was enough to look down. The pilots who flew the MiG-21 and Su-7B, except for the nose, could not really see anything and, in order to look around, sometimes they had to perform a half roll, turning the plane over.
An aircraft with a normal take-off weight of 16,470 kg, equipped with the same AL-21F3 engine as the later modifications of the Su-17, could accelerate from the ground to 1,350 km / h. The maximum speed at altitude without external suspensions was 1800 km / h. It is difficult to say what was guided by the command of the armed forces, adopting two different types of fighter-bomber with similar combat characteristics. The MiG-23B had no particular advantages over the Su-17, with the exception of better visibility from the cockpit. Moreover, the military rightly pointed out such disadvantages as a 1 ton lower combat load, more difficult piloting, worse takeoff and landing characteristics, and laborious ground handling. In addition, like the front-line fighter MiG-23, the shock MiG-23B, when it reached high angles of attack, easily fell into a tailspin, which was very difficult to get out of.
Since the weight of the combat load of the MiG-23B was less than the Su-17M, the number of anti-tank bombs in single-use cluster bombs was reduced. In addition, the GSh-23L double-barreled ventral cannon with 200 rounds of ammunition was installed on the MiG-23B. With a small dead weight of 50 kg, the GSh-23L had a rate of fire of up to 3200 rds / min and 10 kg in a second salvo. GSh-23L was very effective against air and lightly armored targets, its 182 g armor-piercing shells, fired with an initial speed of about 700 m / s, at a distance of 800 meters along the normal, pierced armor up to 15 mm thick. This was enough to defeat armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, but the armor of heavy and medium tanks from GSh-23L was impossible to penetrate.
In 1973, an improved MiG-23BN with a more economical R29B-300 engine was presented for testing. Despite the fact that the MiG-23BN was built for export deliveries until 1985, it was in many ways an intermediate solution that did not satisfy both the creators and the customer. The military wanted to get an aircraft with increased combat effectiveness, superior to the products of the Sukhoi Design Bureau of similar purpose. In this regard, work began to radically improve the combat characteristics of the MiG-23B.
The modernization involved making changes in three directions: constructive improvements to the aircraft in order to improve flight and operational characteristics, the introduction of new target equipment and the strengthening of weapons. The new aircraft received the designation MiG-27. The adjustable air intakes, inherited by the strike modification from the fighter variants, were replaced on the MiG-27 with lightweight unregulated ones, which gave a weight saving of about 300 kg. For the sake of increasing the weight of the combat load on the new vehicle, the maximum speed and altitude were slightly reduced.
Wanting to surpass the competitors of the Su-17 family, the designers relied on a new highly effective sighting and navigation system, which has greatly expanded the possibilities for the use of guided weapons. In addition, the 23 mm cannon was subject to replacement. Its place was taken by a six-barreled 30-mm GSh-6-30, which has a high rate of fire and a large second salvo weight. The transition to the 30-mm caliber, already used on the Su-7B and Su-17, provided a twofold increase in the mass of the projectile, and the increased ballistics provided not only good armor penetration and impact power against various targets, but also significantly improved the accuracy of fire. The GSh-6-30 on the MiG-27 was placed in the ventral niche, which was not covered by the fairing, which ensured ease of maintenance and good cooling by the oncoming air flow.
However, the installation of such a powerful gun with a rate of fire of up to 5100 rds / min caused a number of problems. Often, when firing, the most powerful recoil knocked out electronic devices, the entire structure of the aircraft loosened, the front landing gear doors were warped, which threatened them with jamming. After the shooting, it became commonplace to replace the landing lights. It was experimentally found that it is relatively safe to fire in a burst of no more than 40 shells in length. At the same time, the gun sent a 16-kg volley into the target in tenths of a second. When using the PrNK-23 automated sighting and navigation system, it was possible to achieve very good firing accuracy, and the firepower of the GSh-6-30 made it possible to hit tanks with a fairly high efficiency. At the same time, the reliability of the very sophisticated equipment installed on the MiG-27 left much to be desired.
The most perfect modification in the MiG-27 family was the MiG-27K with the Kaira-23 laser-television sighting system. This machine possessed in many respects unrivaled until now in our Air Force capabilities in the use of guided aircraft weapons. But at the same time, the unique equipment was very expensive, which became the reason for the relatively small number of MiG-27s. So, the MiG-27K was built only 197 aircraft, and the MiG-27M, which was inferior in its capabilities to the "Kayre" - 162 aircraft. In addition, 304 MiG-23BMs were upgraded to the level of the MiG-27D. All modernized MiG-27s were well suited for destroying high-priority point targets, but using them to fight tanks on the battlefield can be compared to hammering nails with a microscope.
In general, the Su-17 (export Su-20 and Su-22), MiG-23BN and MiG-27 have proven themselves well in armed conflicts that occurred at the end of the 20th century. In addition to destroying various stationary objects, fighter-bombers were involved in strikes against clusters of armored vehicles. So, in 1982, during the fighting in Lebanon, the Su-22M and MiG-23BN made 42 sorties. According to Syrian data, they destroyed and seriously damaged up to 80 tanks and armored vehicles. NAR C-5KO, cluster bombs from PTAB and FAB-100 bombs were used against Israeli armored vehicles.
During the airstrikes, the more advanced Su-22Ms performed better than the MiG-23BNs. Having lost 7 Su-22M and 14 MiG-23BN, the Syrians managed to stop the advance of Israeli tanks along the highway to Damascus. Most of the attack aircraft were shot down by Israeli fighters. The main reason for the large losses of fighter-bombers was the stereotyped tactics of actions, planning miscalculations and the low tactical and flight training of Syrian pilots.
During one of the bloodiest conflicts of the late 20th century - the seven-year Iranian-Iraqi war, the Iraqi Air Force actively used: MiG-23BN, Su-20 and Su-22. In a number of cases, Iraqi fighter-bombers effectively stormed Iranian tank columns, but they themselves often suffered considerable losses from anti-aircraft artillery, the Hawk air defense system and Iranian fighters.
Along with the purchase of supersonic fighter-bombers, many countries kept in service the MiG-17 and Hunter subsonic fighters. It would seem that hopelessly outdated aircraft, inferior in weight to the combat load and flight speed, should have quickly left the scene, but this did not happen, and flying rarities in a number of states were in operation until the beginning of the 21st century. And this was due not only to the poverty of these countries, some of them simultaneously purchased very modern combat aircraft.
Back in 1969, at the large exercises "Berezina" in Belarus, in which several IBA regiments took part in MiG-17, MiG-21 and Su-7B, the Air Force leadership drew attention to the fact that during individual attacks, to aim at the decommissioned tanks, installed as targets at the range, only MiG-17 aircraft were able to. Naturally, the question arose about the ability of the supersonic MiG-21 and Su-7B to fight enemy tanks. For this, a special working group was formed, which included representatives of aviation design bureaus and specialists from the 30th Central Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense, which was responsible for the theoretical substantiation of the issues of building military aviation. In the course of analyzing the submitted materials, experts came to the conclusion that the ability to fly near the ground, performing combat maneuvers over a target at speeds of 500-600 km / h, makes subsonic aircraft a more effective weapon for assault strikes. At such speeds, provided there is a good view from the cockpit, it becomes possible to fire point targets, and good maneuverability (and not just speed), together with the use of extremely low altitudes, become a means that increases the chances in the confrontation with air defense. At the same time, it was desirable that the subsonic low-altitude maneuverable combat aircraft had cockpit armor protection and powerful offensive weapons. In other words, the leadership of the USSR Ministry of Defense again came to an understanding of the need to create a well-protected attack aircraft capable of providing direct air support and fighting tanks on the battlefield.
