Despite the low efficiency of supersonic fighter-bombers in the implementation of direct air support for ground units and operations against tanks, the Air Force leadership until the early 70s saw no need for a low-speed armored attack aircraft. Work on the creation of such an aircraft began at the initiative of the command of the Ground Forces.
The official assignment for the design of the attack aircraft was issued by the USSR Ministry of Aviation Industry in March 1969. After that, it was not possible for a long time to agree on the characteristics of the car. The representatives of the Air Force wanted to get an aircraft with a high maximum speed, and the customer, represented by the Ground Forces, wanted to have a vehicle that was less vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire, capable of sighting well-protected firing points and fighting single tanks on the battlefield. It is clear that the designers could not satisfy such conflicting requirements, and they did not come to a compromise right away. The competition was attended by: Sukhoi Design Bureau with the T-8 project (Su-25), Ilyushin Design Bureau (Il-42), Yakovlev Design Bureau (Yak-25LSh), and Mikoyan Design Bureau - MiG-21LSh. At the same time, during the competition, it was decided to stop work on the Il-42 and Yak-25LSh.
The MiG-21LSh was created on the basis of the MiG-21 fighter, but in the end, little remained of it in the new aircraft, the attack aircraft basically had to be redesigned. Initially, the MiG designers planned to turn a simple and reliable MiG-21 fighter into a MiG-21Sh attack aircraft in the shortest possible way. It was supposed to do with "little blood" - to install on the MiG-21 a new wing of an increased area with additional weapons suspension nodes and new sighting and navigation equipment. However, calculations and estimates have shown that it is unlikely that it will be possible to solve the problem in this way with the achievement of the required efficiency. It was decided to significantly modernize the design of the "twenty-first", to pay more attention to the issues of survivability and weapons.
The attack aircraft was designed with a short, strongly sloping front fuselage, which gave a good view. The layout of the aircraft has changed significantly, according to the MiG-21SH project, built according to the “tailless” scheme, it was supposed to have a low ogival wing of a large area, side air intakes, and an afterburner economical engine. The cockpit armor provided protection against small arms fire and shrapnel. The armament included a built-in 23-mm GSh-23 cannon, bombs and NAR with a total weight of up to 3 tons, at nine external suspension points.
However, it never came to the construction of a flying prototype. By that time, the main modernization potential of the MiG-21 had been exhausted and the creation of a new attack aircraft on its basis was considered futile. In addition, the Design Bureau was overloaded with orders on fighter topics and could not allocate enough resources to quickly create a promising armored combat aircraft.
The design bureau under the leadership of P. O. Sukhoi presented a completely new project of the T-8, which had already been developed on an initiative basis for a year. Thanks to the use of the original layout and a number of new technical solutions, the smaller dimensions and weight in comparison with competitors, this project won the competition. After that, together with the customer, the parameters of the future attack aircraft were refined. Great difficulties arose when agreeing on the value of the maximum speed. The military agreed that from the point of view of detecting and hitting small-sized ground targets, subsonic operating speed is optimal. But at the same time, arguing by the need to break through the enemy's front-line air defense, they wanted to have an attack aircraft with a maximum flight speed at the ground of at least 1200 km / h. At the same time, the developers indicated that the aircraft operating over the battlefield or up to 50 km behind the front line does not overcome the air defense zone, but is constantly in it. And in this regard, it was proposed to limit the maximum speed at the ground to 850 km / h. As a result, the agreed maximum speed at the ground, recorded in the tactical and technical assignment, was 1000 km / h.
The first flight of the attack aircraft prototype took place on February 22, 1975. After the first flight of the T-8-1, test pilot V. S. Ilyushin said that the aircraft was very difficult to roll. Another significant drawback of the T-8-1 was its low thrust-to-weight ratio. The problem of lateral control was solved after installing the boosters in the aileron control channel. And an acceptable thrust-to-weight ratio was obtained by adapting the afterburner version of the R13F-300 turbojet engine with a maximum thrust of 4100 kgf. The engine modified for installation on an attack aircraft is known as R-95SH. The design of the engine has been strengthened compared to the prototype previously used on the MiG-21, Su-15 and Yak-28 fighters.
State tests of the attack aircraft began in June 1978. Before the start of state tests, the aircraft's sighting and navigation system had undergone significant modernization. On a copy of the T-8-10, the equipment used on the Su-17MZ fighter-bomber was mounted, including the ASP-17BTs-8 sight and the Klen-PS laser rangefinder. This made it possible to use the most modern guided aircraft weapons at that time. Built-in artillery armament was represented by the GSh-30-2 air cannon with a rate of fire up to 3000 rds / min. Compared to the GSH-23, the weight of the second salvo has more than tripled.
In terms of anti-tank potential, only the Il-28Sh could compare with the Su-25 of the existing Soviet combat aircraft, but the attack aircraft, converted from a front-line bomber, did not carry such impressive protection and not many of them were built. On eight nodes of the Su-25, UB-32 blocks with 256 57-mm NAR S-5 or B-8 with 160 80-mm C-8 could be suspended. The attack aircraft could sow a large area with anti-tank bombs using eight RBK-500 and RBK-250.
A single RBK-500 cluster bomb weighing 427 kg contains 268 PTAB-1M combat elements with armor penetration up to 200 mm. This is more than enough to defeat tanks and armored vehicles from above. The improved RBK-500U PTAB weighing 520 kg has 352 shaped charge elements.
One-time cluster bomb RBK-250 PTAB-2, 5M, weighing 248 kg, contains 42 PTAB-2, 5M or PTAB-2, 5KO. When two cluster bombs are opened at a height of 180 m, anti-tank bombs are dispersed over an area of 2 hectares. PTAB-2, 5M weighing 2, 8 kg was equipped with 450 g of explosive TG-50. When hit at an angle of 30 °, the armor penetration thickness is 120 mm.
The Su-25 arsenal includes an RBK-500 SPBE-D equipped with 15 SPBE-D self-aiming anti-tank warheads with infrared guidance. A separate command module is used for guidance.
Each striking element weighing 14.9 kg is equipped with three small parachutes with a descent speed of 15-17 m / s. After the ejection of the striking elements, the infrared coordinator is released with inclined rectangular wings, providing rotation at a speed of 6-9 rpm. The coordinator scans with a viewing angle of 30 °. When a target is detected, the detonation point of the striking element is determined using the on-board computer.
The target is hit with a copper impact core weighing 1 kg, accelerated to a speed of 2000 m / s. The thickness of the penetrated armor at an angle of 30 ° to the normal is 70 mm. A bomb cassette equipped with self-aiming submunitions is used in the altitude range of 400-5000 m at a carrier speed of 500-1900 km / h. Up to 6 tanks can be hit with one RBK-500 SPBE-D at the same time.
In addition to single-use cluster bombs, anti-tank ammunition on the Su-25 can be loaded at the KMGU (universal small cargo container). Unlike RBK-120 and RBK-500, suspended containers with small submunitions are not dropped during normal use of weapons, although in an emergency there is the possibility of a forced reset. Submunitions without hanging ears are placed in a container in special blocks - BKF (container blocks for front-line aviation).
The container consists of a cylindrical body with rear stabilizers and contains 8 BKFs with aerial bombs or mines. Electroautomatics of KMGU provides ammunition discharge in series at intervals: 0, 05, 0, 2, 1, 0 and 1, 5 s. The use of aviation weapons from the KMGU is carried out at a speed of 500-110 km / h, in the altitude range of 30-1000 m. The weight of the empty container is 170 kg, the loaded container is 525 kg.
In the literature on anti-tank aircraft weapons, anti-tank mines are rarely mentioned. At the same time, minefields, promptly placed on the battlefield, can be even more effective than an air strike inflicted by PTAB or NAR on the battle formations of enemy tanks. The fire effect during an air raid is of a very short-term nature, and mine laying constrains the actions of tanks in a sector of the terrain for a long period.
In our country, PTM-3 cumulative combined action anti-tank cluster mines are used as part of the Aldan-2 aviation mining system. A mine with a proximity magnetic fuse weighing 4.9 kg contains 1.8 kg of explosive TGA-40 (an alloy containing 40% TNT and 60% RDX). The mine is unrecoverable, the self-destruction time is 16-24 hours. When the tank hits the mine, the PTM-3 explodes the caterpillar. In an explosion under the bottom of the tank, the bottom is broken through, the crew is damaged, and components and assemblies are damaged.
Serial production of the attack aircraft under the designation Su-25 began at an aircraft plant in Tbilisi. In many ways, this was a forced decision, before that, the MiG-21 of various modifications was being assembled at the Tbilisi Aviation Plant. Representatives of the military acceptance and the OKB workers had to make a lot of efforts to achieve an acceptable quality of attack aircraft being built in Georgia. The build and finish quality of the first vehicles was so low that some of them were later shot at the test site to determine their vulnerability to various anti-aircraft weapons.
According to data published in open sources, the cockpit is covered with welded titanium armor capable of guaranteed to withstand a hit of 12.7 mm armor-piercing bullets. Frontal armored glass with a thickness of 55 mm provides protection against small arms fire. In general, the Su-25 is a fairly protected combat aircraft. Systems and elements for ensuring combat survivability account for 7.2% of the normal takeoff weight or 1050 kg. Armor weight - 595 kg. Vital systems are duplicated and less important are shielded. The engines are housed in special nacelles where the wing meets the fuselage. At the end of the 80s, more advanced R-195 engines with a thrust increased to 4500 kgf began to be installed on attack aircraft. The R-195 engine is able to withstand a direct hit from a 23-mm projectile and remain operational in the face of numerous combat damage from weapons of a smaller caliber.
The aircraft demonstrated high combat survivability during the hostilities in Afghanistan. On average, the shot down Su-25 accounted for 80-90 combat damage. There are cases when attack aircraft returned to an airfield with 150 holes or with an engine destroyed by a direct hit from a MANPADS missile.
Attack aircraft with a maximum takeoff weight of 17,600 kg, at 10 suspension points can carry a combat load weighing up to 4,400 kg. With a normal combat load of 1400 kg, the operational overload is + 6.5g. Maximum speed with normal combat load is 950 km / h.
After winning the Su-25 competition, the leadership of the Ilyushin Design Bureau did not accept defeat and work on the creation of an armored attack aircraft continued on an initiative basis. At the same time, developments were used on the Il-40 jet attack aircraft buried in the late 50s by Khrushchev. The modernized Il-42 project did not fully meet modern requirements, and the military preferred the Su-25 designed from scratch.
Compared to the Il-42, the new Il-102 two-seater attack aircraft had a modified shape of the front of the fuselage with a better forward view - downward, new, more powerful engines and improved armament. The most noticeable difference between the Il-102 and the Su-25 was the presence of a second cockpit for the gunner and a mobile defensive installation with a 23-mm GSh-23. It was assumed that a highly maneuverable armored attack aircraft equipped with electronic warfare equipment, infrared traps and a defensive installation would be of low vulnerability even when meeting enemy fighters. In addition, it was not without reason that it was believed that a gunner with the help of a fast-firing 23-mm aft cannon would be able to suppress anti-aircraft guns and MANPADS when leaving an attack. On tests, the minimum bend radius of the Il-102 was only 400 m. For comparison, the bend radius of the Su-25 with a normal combat load is 680 m, empty - about 500 m.
The armament of the Il-102 was very powerful. In the ventral detachable swinging carriage, fixed in two positions, two 30-mm GSh-301 cannons with 500 rounds of ammunition and liquid cooling were mounted. In place of the removable carriage, bombs weighing up to 500 kg or additional fuel tanks could be suspended. Sixteen hardpoints and six internal bomb compartments could accommodate a load weighing up to 7200 kg. There were three internal bomb compartments in the wing consoles, bombs weighing up to 250 kg could be placed there.
The first flight of the Il-102 attack aircraft took place on September 25, 1982. The aircraft was actually tested illegally, since the Minister of Defense D. F. Ustinov categorically forbade the chief designer G. V. Novozhilov "to be engaged in amateur performances". For two years of testing, the Il-102 has completed more than 250 flights and has proven itself positively, showing high reliability and finishing of the structure. With two I-88 engines (non-afterburning version of the RD-33) with a thrust of 5380 kgf each, the aircraft showed a maximum speed of 950 km / h. With a maximum takeoff weight of 22,000 kg, the combat radius with a maximum combat load was 300 km. Ferry range - 3000 km.
The Il-102 was frankly late, although it surpassed the Su-25 in terms of combat load and had large internal volumes, which in the long term made it possible to mount various equipment without problems. But in conditions when the Su-25 was serially built and had a positive reputation in Afghanistan, the leadership of the USSR Ministry of Defense did not see the need for the parallel adoption of an attack aircraft with similar characteristics.
For all the advantages of the Su-25, its arsenal mainly contained unguided anti-tank weapons. In addition, he was able to act mainly during the day, and only for visually visible targets. As you know, in the armed forces of technologically developed states, tanks and motorized infantry are fighting under the cover of an umbrella of military air defense: mobile self-propelled anti-aircraft guns, short-range anti-aircraft missile systems and MANPADS. Under these conditions, the armor protection of the Su-25 is not a guarantee of invulnerability. Therefore, it was quite logical to equip the attack aircraft with long-range ATGMs and a modern optoelectronic system that ensures the search and destruction of point targets, outside the range of military air defense systems. The modified Su-25T attack aircraft was supposed to be equipped with PrNK-56 equipment with a television channel of 23x magnification. The main anti-tank caliber of the attack aircraft was to be a new ATGM "Whirlwind", which was being developed at the Tula Instrument Design Bureau.
Calculations have shown that for a confident defeat from above modern tanks such as M1 Abrams and Leopard-2, an aircraft gun of at least 45-mm caliber is required, with high-speed projectiles, with a core made of dense solid material. However, later on, the installation of the 45-mm gun was abandoned, and the same 30-mm GSh-30-2 remained on the plane. The formal reason was the assertion that the 45-mm cannon has a relatively low efficiency when firing at promising models of armored vehicles and the need to approach the tank at close range. In reality, the Ministry of Defense did not want to expand the already very wide range of aviation ammunition, while the military was supported by officials from the Ministry of Industry, responsible for the release of new shells.
Since additional space was required to accommodate an additional very large avionics, they decided to build the Su-25T on the basis of the Su-25UT twin. Based on the experience of operation and combat use, a number of significant changes were made to the airframe and aircraft systems of the modernized attack aircraft, corresponding to the increased requirements for survivability and operational manufacturability. This approach in the design of the Su-25T ensured high constructive and technological continuity with the two-seat combat training Su-25UB.
In place of the second pilot's cockpit there is a compartment for radio-electronic equipment, and under the electronic units there is an additional soft fuel tank. In comparison with the combatant Su-25, the outwardly Su-25T differs in a volumetric gargrot behind the cockpit, the nose of the aircraft has become longer and wider. The gun mount was moved under the fuel tank and shifted from the aircraft axis to the right by 273 mm. The resulting volumes were used to mount a new Shkval optical sighting system. The Shkval automated sighting system ensures the use of all types of attack aircraft's aviation weapons day and night, including against air targets. Navigation, aerobatic and sighting information in all flight modes of the aircraft is displayed by the information display system on the windshield. The solution to the problems of using all types of weapons, as well as aircraft navigation, is carried out by a central computer.
The middle part of the fuselage and engine air intakes are completely identical to the Su-25UB. To compensate for the increased fuel consumption, an additional soft fuel tank is installed in the aft fuselage. The engine nacelles were modified for the installation of new, more powerful R-195 engines. An increase in the thrust-to-weight ratio of the aircraft was required to maintain flight data at the level of the Su-25, since the maximum take-off weight of the Su-25T increased by almost 2 tons. The wing of the Su-25T is completely borrowed from the Su-25UB. New antennas of the Gardenia electronic warfare system are installed in the brake flap containers.
Under each wing there are five weapon suspension assemblies, including 4 beam holders BDZ-25, which provide the suspension and use of all types of bomber, unguided and guided weapons, as well as outboard fuel tanks, and one pylon-holder for installing a launcher under the rocket air-to-air R-60M. On the nodes of the suspension closest to the side of the fuselage, bombs weighing up to 1000 kg can be placed.
The maximum payload remains the same as on the Su-25. The main anti-tank weapons of the Su-25T are 16 Vikhr ATGMs. The complex allows firing single missiles and a salvo of two missiles. The high supersonic speed of the ATGM (about 600 m / s) makes it possible to hit several targets in one run and reduces the carrier's time in the area of operation of the military air defense. The laser-beam guidance system of the ATGM on the target, in combination with an automated tracking system, allows you to obtain very high firing accuracy, which practically does not depend on the range. At a distance of 8 km, the probability of a missile hitting a tank moving at a speed of 15-20 km / h is 80%. In addition to pinpoint land and sea targets, the Whirlwind ATGM can be used against low-maneuverable and relatively slow air targets, such as helicopters or military transport aircraft.
ATGM weighing 45 kg (weight with TPK 59 kg), capable of hitting targets during the day at a distance of up to 10 km. The effective range at night does not exceed 6 km. A cumulative fragmentation warhead weighing 8 kg, according to advertising data, penetrates 800 mm homogeneous armor. In addition to the Vikhr ATGM, the Su-25T can carry the entire range of anti-tank weapons previously used on the Su-25, including two removable mobile gun mounts SPPU-687 with a 30-mm GSh-1-30 cannon.
The tests of the Su-25T dragged on due to the high complexity of the avionics and the need to pair it with guided weapons. Only by 1990 the aircraft was prepared for launch into serial production at the Tbilisi Aviation Production Association. Since 1991, it was planned to switch to serial production of attack aircraft with expanded anti-tank weapons, with a gradual curtailment of production of the Su-25. However, the reduction in military spending, and later the collapse of the USSR put an end to these plans. Until the end of 1991, only 8 Su-25Ts were built and flown around. At the plant, there was still a reserve for 12 more attack aircraft in varying degrees of readiness. Apparently, part of the Su-25T remaining in Georgia was completed.
According to media reports, 4 Su-25Ts fought in 1999 in the North Caucasus. Attack aircraft made about 30 sorties, during which they struck with high precision guided aviation munitions at the positions of the militants. But the combat use of the Su-25T in Chechnya was limited due to the small stock of guided weapons. Several aircraft modified to the level of the Su-25TK were delivered to Ethiopia at the end of 1999. These machines were actively used during the Ethiopian-Eritrean War. During the attack on the positions of the mobile medium-range air defense system "Kvadrat" on May 20, 2000, an anti-aircraft missile exploded next to one of the Su-25TKs, but the attack aircraft withstood the blow and, despite the damage, safely reached the base.
A further variant of the development of the Su-25T was the Su-25TM. But the task of fighting tanks for the Su-25TM is not a priority. Compared to the Su-25, the mass of armor on the Su-25TM was reduced by 153 kg, but at the same time, based on the analysis of combat damage, fire protection was improved. The construction of the central part of the fuselage, the fuel system lines and the thrust control system have also undergone reinforcement.
The new attack aircraft was supposed to become a multifunctional vehicle capable of effectively fighting enemy tactical and transport aircraft and destroying warships in the coastal zone. In order to expand the functional capabilities of the projected attack aircraft, a three-centimeter-band "Kopyo-25" suspended radar with a slotted antenna array with a diameter of 500 mm and a weight of 90 kg was introduced into the avionics.
Suspended container-type radar station "Spear-25" provides all-weather use of weapons, terrain mapping, detection and preliminary target designation in various modes, significantly expanding the range of combat missions of the Su-25TM. Thanks to the use of radar, it became possible to use the Kh-31A and Kh-35 anti-ship missiles. Su-25TM is capable of carrying four anti-ship missiles. Air targets with a RCS of 5 m² can be detected on a collision course at a distance of up to 55 km, and on a catch-up course - 27 km. The radar simultaneously accompanies up to 10 and provides the use of missiles against two air targets. In the improved version of the station "Kopyo-M", the detection range of air targets "head-on" is 85 km, in pursuit - 40 km. A column of armored vehicles can be detected at a distance of 20-25 km. At the same time, the weight of the modernized station increased to 115 kg.
The anti-tank armament of the Su-25TM remains the same as on the Su-25T. In the forward part of the fuselage there is a modernized optoelectronic station "Shkval-M", the image from which is fed to a television monitor. When approaching the target, at a distance of 10-12 km, the OEPS starts working in the scanning mode. Depending on the flight altitude, a strip of terrain with a width of 500 m to 2 km is scanned. The Shkval-M equipment makes it possible to recognize a tank at a distance of up to 8-10 km. The target identified by the pilot is taken for auto-tracking by a television machine with image memory, and during spatial maneuvers, the target is kept on tracking, while determining the range. Thanks to this, not only the use of guided weapons is ensured, but the accuracy of unguided weapons is increased several times.
Tests of the Su-25TM, which received the "export" designation of the Su-39, began in 1995. Serial production of the modernized attack aircraft was supposed to be organized at the aircraft plant in Ulan-Ude, where the Su-25UB "twin" were built before. Various domestic sources indicate that a total of 4 prototypes were built.
In addition to expanding combat capabilities, the installation of a radar on an attack aircraft had a number of significant disadvantages. Significant weight and dimensions make it possible to place it only in a suspended container, which significantly reduces the combat load of the attack aircraft. The station with a high power consumption was unreliable during the tests. The detection range of air and ground targets and low resolution do not correspond to modern conditions.
Instead of building new Su-25TM (Su-39), the leadership of the RF Ministry of Defense preferred to order overhaul and modernization of combatant Su-25s with a sufficiently high residual life for the airframe. For a number of the above reasons, it was decided to abandon the suspended container radar. The upgraded attack aircraft received the designation Su-25SM. Its combat capabilities have expanded due to the use of a new sighting and navigation system 56SM "Bars". The complex is controlled by a digital computer TsVM-90. It includes a multifunctional color indicator, satellite and short-range navigation equipment, an electronic reconnaissance station, an aircraft transponder, a weapon control system, an on-board system for collecting, processing and recording flight information and a number of other systems. From the old avionics on the attack aircraft, only the Klen-PS laser rangefinder sight was preserved.
Thanks to the transition to a new, lighter avionics, it was possible to reduce the mass of onboard equipment by about 300 kg. This made it possible to use the mass reserve to increase the security of the Su-25SM. On the modernized attack aircraft, thanks to the introduction of an integrated control system for onboard equipment, labor costs have been significantly reduced when preparing the aircraft for a second flight. But the anti-tank capabilities of the Su-25SM have practically not changed after the modernization. Representatives of the Russian Aerospace Forces announced information that the Su-25SM can be in operation for another 15-20 years. However, the updated avionics of the modernized attack aircraft practically did not contribute to an increase in anti-tank potential.
Relatively recently, information appeared about a new modification of the attack aircraft - the Su-25SM3. This vehicle is also not endowed with special anti-tank properties like the Su-25T / TM. The main improvements of the avionics were made in the direction of increasing the capabilities of the means of countering anti-aircraft and air combat missiles. The Su-25SM3 received a new electronic warfare system "Vitebsk", which includes a system for monitoring the radar situation, ultraviolet direction finders for launching missiles, and a powerful multi-frequency jammer. According to unconfirmed information, the electronic countermeasures system includes not only a radiation warning station, but also a laser system for blinding infrared-guided missiles, in addition to heat traps.
According to Military Balance 2016, last year the Russian Aerospace Forces had 40 Su-25s, 150 modernized Su-25SM / SM3s and 15 Su-25UBs. Apparently, this is data taking into account machines that are "in storage" and in the process of modernization. But among the two hundred available attack aircraft, the anti-tank Su-25T / TM are not officially listed.
In the mid-90s, during the "reform and optimization" of the armed forces, under the pretext of low efficiency and the struggle to improve flight safety, fighter-bomber aviation was eliminated. I must say that back in the early 80s, the leadership of the USSR Ministry of Defense set a course for equipping the Air Force with twin-engine machines. This was to reduce the number of accidents and increase combat survivability. Under this pretext, all Su-17 and MiG-27s were sent for "storage", and the air regiments equipped with them were disbanded. The strike functions are assigned to the Su-24M front-line bombers, Su-25 attack aircraft and MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters. The heavy Su-27 fighter with NAR units looked especially "good" as an anti-tank vehicle.
During the Second Chechen War, it became clear that the Su-24M bombers are not optimal for performing a number of tactical missions, in addition, these aircraft require careful and very time-consuming maintenance and make high demands on the qualifications of the pilots. At the same time, the Su-25 attack aircraft, simple and relatively inexpensive to operate, do not have the ability to use all-day and all-weather use, and also have a number of restrictions on the use of guided weapons. Here, Russian generals who faced fierce resistance from Chechen gangs recalled the Su-17M4 and MiG-27K / M, which, with acceptable operating costs, could deliver pinpoint strikes with guided bombs and missiles. However, it soon became clear that after several years of "storage" in the open air, the fighter-bombers, which were formally in stock, were only suitable for scrap metal. Although in flight test centers and at the aircraft plant in Komsomolsk-on-Amur, where they were properly cared for, the training Su-17UMs were recently decommissioned.
In the past few years, with the filing of the leadership of the Russian Aerospace Forces, the media have been circulating statements that the Su-34 front-line bombers are capable of replacing all other front-line strike aircraft. Such statements, of course, are a slyness designed to disguise the losses incurred by our military aviation during the years of "recovery from its knees." The Su-34 is undoubtedly an excellent aircraft, capable of effectively destroying highly important point targets with guided weapons and striking area targets with free-fall bombs. The front-line bomber of the new generation Su-34, if necessary, can successfully conduct a defensive air battle. But its anti-tank capabilities remained approximately at the level of the old Su-24M.
