We love freebies so much that we are ready to give any money for it.
80% of the combat losses of the Soviet Air Force in Afghanistan fell on the DShK machine guns and anti-aircraft artillery of the Mujahideen
A camouflaged dugout was found in the woodland of the Vedensky district on Wednesday, October 24, during operational search activities in the territory of the Chechen Republic. MANPADS were found in the cache, the type of the complex was not specified.
For each pilot, a step into the sky begins with a flight on a training aircraft (TCB) - the most simplified machine with low cost and operating costs. At the same time, the TCB should be easy to operate and contribute to the development of piloting skills in newly minted "Icars".
There is a great variety of TCB designs, the most famous are the Czech L-39 "Albatross" (the main TCB of the Warsaw block), the American legend T-38 Talon, the British "Hawk", modern "twin brothers" - the Russian Yak-130 and the Italian M-346 Master. Over the 100 years of aviation's existence, training aircraft has made its way from plywood biplanes "Farman" and U-2 to supersonic jet aircraft, which are not inferior in flight characteristics and instrumentation to real combat aircraft. And each time the designers of aircraft, like the aviators themselves, thought about the possibility of using training vehicles as military equipment: indeed, if the TCB is the same aircraft, then why not use it during hostilities, even on a second lines "for solving auxiliary problems.
The 46th (Taman) Guards Night Bomber Aviation Regiment, 23672 sorties, 2,902,980 kg of dropped bombs - a unique female aviation regiment during the Great Patriotic War, which fought on U-2 aircraft.
Our training aircraft was not designed for military operations. Wooden biplane with two open cockpits, located one after the other, and dual controls - for the pilot and navigator. Without radio communication and armored backs, capable of protecting the crew from bullets, with a low-power motor, which could reach a maximum speed of 120 km / h. The plane did not have a bomb bay, the bombs were hung in bomb racks directly under the plane of the plane. There were no scopes, we created them ourselves and called them PPR (simpler than a steamed turnip).
The regiment of "night witches" was not created from good conditions - a necessary measure in the most difficult times. Despite the actions exclusively in the dark, the skill of the pilots and the lack of a radar for the Germans, the combat losses behind the front line amounted to 32 people, a lot for one air regiment.
During the assault on Okinawa, the Japanese used everything that could fly to carry out suicidal kamikaze attacks, from the latest fighters to float planes and old Ki-79 training biplanes. The Ki-79s covered with canvas barely stayed in the air, but were almost invisible to American radars, which gave some chance of a successful mission.
Kamikaze is the weapon of the desperate and desperate; in good times, the Japanese would never send training vehicles into battle.
In the era of jet aviation, the idea of using training aircraft as combat vehicles received a rebirth - the abrupt increase in the speed and payload of aircraft gave the most optimistic forecasts for the high efficiency of using jet trainers in hot conflicts, especially against ground targets. In technical terms, the idea looked as easy as shelling pears: to install a pair of pylons on the training aircraft for suspending unguided ammunition and equip the pilot's workplace with a primitive sight. There was even a special term - combat trainer. Cheap and cheerful!
However, upon careful analysis of this theory, a number of contradictory points arise. And let us put the question directly: is it even possible to create an effective combat trainer aircraft?
To begin with, it is worth highlighting the main tasks facing the combat training vehicle:
1. Education and training of flight personnel: take-off and landing, piloting, navigation, performing complex maneuvers, acquiring the skills of actions at maximum flight conditions, actions in case of equipment failures and pilot errors, performing flights in close order during the day and in conditions of visual visibility, working out the basics combat use in operations against ground and air targets. Consequently, the TCB has obvious requirements: ease of piloting, reliability, low cost of the machine and its operating costs. General layout ideas: a two-seater cockpit (student + instructor), a duplicate set of controls and flight and navigation instruments.
2. Application in hot conflicts. Consequently, it is necessary to have: high flight characteristics, a full-fledged complex of instrumentation and navigation equipment and on-board electronics, a radar station, weapon suspension points and a high-quality sighting system. A combat aircraft should have increased survivability and, ideally, sealed fuel tanks, as well as armoring the cockpit and critical components. Do not discount the possibility of using outboard fuel tanks to increase the range of the aircraft's combat action, as an option - an air refueling system. For flights in the enemy air defense zone, it becomes extremely important to have on board: a radar warning system, an automatic machine for shooting heat traps, and, optionally, an active jamming station.
The excuses that concessions can be made to the combat trainer do not hold water. You want to get a real war machine, not a useless "flying coffin". A combat training aircraft must be able to perform at least some combat missions, and for this one cannot do without all of the above. In fact, we get the first contradiction - the requirements for a combat vehicle do not strongly converge with the requirements for a simplified training aircraft.
Perhaps I am being overly strict with combat trainers. Each tool is created for specific tasks, let's see what tasks a training aircraft can perform:
Air combat, interception of air targets. Hmm … even the most fevered imagination does not lend itself to the "carousel" of "Albatross" and F-16, or a pair of Yak-130, going to intercept the Su-27. This is nonsense. Supersonic super-maneuverable fighters, sometimes equipped with the most modern weapons and avionics, do not always manage to emerge victorious from an air battle. To put up against them slow training combat vehicles is nonsense. Training vehicles lack radar, and without radar and guided air-to-air missiles, going into modern air combat is a senseless suicide.
Although … there is a real combat episode in history, when on October 25, 1994, eight Dudayev L-39s unexpectedly attacked a group of Mi-24 helicopters of the federal forces with a volley of unguided missiles. In a short air battle, two "Crocodiles" were shot down, but the rest, finding the enemy, immediately took revenge by shooting a pair of combat training "Albatrosses".
The exception only confirms the general rule. At the same time, the battle "plane versus helicopter", as it were, initially implies the advantage of the plane - which was not at all observed at that time.
Striking ground targets. This is usually what the supporters of "combat training vehicles" mean. It is clear that it is completely unrealistic to use a combat training aircraft in conditions of enemy air superiority. How unrealistic is its use against targets with powerful air defense - a combat trainer is not able to hide at extremely low altitudes - for it, such a flight regime is associated with a mortal risk, due to the lack of a perfect flight and navigation system and onboard radar.
The last chance remains - the use of combat training vehicles in low-intensity conflicts. What a good idea! At first glance, raising a powerful fighter-bomber or anti-tank attack aircraft to destroy scattered terrorist groups, for example, in the mountainous regions of the North Caucasus or Afghanistan, is too stupid and wasteful. A small, cheap combat trainer with an NURS unit or a container of cluster bombs can cope with such tasks. As a result, we get substantial savings on the conduct of counter-guerrilla warfare.
However … 80% of the combat losses of the Soviet Air Force in Afghanistan fell on the DShK machine guns and anti-aircraft artillery of the Mujahideen. This alarming fact already clearly shows that the use of the armored Su-25 attack aircraft is fully justified in anti-terrorist operations. How justified is the use of F-16 fighter-bombers tracking the mujahideen in the Afghan mountains.
The fact is that many supporters of "combat training aircraft" forget about one important detail - it is sometimes difficult for even specialized attack vehicles to find a point target (a group of militants, a single jeep, traces of an extinguished fire), especially in difficult mountainous terrain. To solve such problems, the most complex systems are used, for example, hanging containers of the LANTIRN sighting and navigation system. The complex amplifies the light of the stars 25 thousand times and, according to the impressions of NATO pilots, allows you to see and do absolutely fantastic things; the reverse side - two overhead containers, navigation (contains a thermal imager and a radar for tracking the terrain) and sighting (a high-resolution thermal imager, a laser rangefinder and optical target tracking sensors), - this whole set costs $ 5 million, a third of the cost of a combat training Yak-130!
The Russian analogue of LANIRN is a cheaper, but no less complex built-in digital system SVP-24 (the Hephaestus theme) - an aiming and navigation system based on laser gyroscopes, with support for satellite navigation and three-dimensional display on the HUD. The SVP-24 set is installed on modernized Su-24 front-line bombers.
For complex reconnaissance of the territory, since the time of the Afghan war, thermal and radio-technical systems have been used for direction finding of the enemy's portable radio stations. And the suspended containers of the Zima complex were able to detect at night even the traces of a recently passed car!
Needless to say, after such amazing facts, the capabilities of combat training vehicles, whose pilots are limited when searching for point ground targets only by visual means, cannot be compared with real combat vehicles.
Finally, do not forget that who, but the Basmachi, have never had a shortage of portable anti-aircraft missile systems, as well as more primitive, but no less formidable anti-aircraft weapons: DShK, automatic cannons, small arms.
Taking into account all the above facts, it becomes obvious that "combat training aircraft" are suitable only for shooting unarmed people in the daytime in open areas.
An illustrative example - one of the best trainer aircraft T-38 "Talon" for 50 years of its operation has never
used in the war zone. Although, it would seem, "Talon" had every chance of developing a military career. Excellent pedigree - "Talon" was created on the basis of the light F-5 "Tiger", the main fighter of the capitalist world during the Cold War. As a result - supersonic flight speed (1, 3M), excellent maneuverability and flight characteristics, huge climb rate - 170 m / s. The aircraft is equipped with ventral holders for outboard tanks and special equipment. The new modifications received a "glass cockpit" with multifunctional LCD displays and modern navigation equipment. A total of 1,146 copies of the training aircraft were built, there is a civilian version of the T-38 and a version for training NASA astronauts.
The circumstances themselves allegedly contributed to the Talon's military career - the United States often and fruitfully waged local wars in all corners of the Earth. Grenada, Panama, Colombian drug cartels, Afghanistan, Iraq and Yugoslavia … And nevertheless, the T-38 "Talon" has never, under any circumstances, found military use.
The limited combat use of L-39 "Albatros" in local conflicts on the territory of the former USSR also showed the futility of this tactic: Abkhazia, Chechnya, Kyrgyzstan - combat training aircraft occasionally bombed large targets (residential areas where a hostile ethnic group lived), however, benefits these "deadly" airstrikes were not observed. Aviation of Chechen militants, before their complete destruction in December 1994, made several unsuccessful raids on the positions of the federal forces. The accuracy of the bombing, coupled with the low yield of ammunition (50-kg and 100-kg bombs) made all the efforts of the pilots useless.
On the other hand, the L-39's aerobatic characteristics were unmatched among the training aircraft, the unique flight characteristics of the Albatross made it possible to form a Rus flight group from them. And the pilots of the former USSR and the countries of the Warsaw bloc probably remember well this simple and light training aircraft on which they first took to the air.
Currently, new Yak-130 aircraft continue to arrive at the Lipetsk aviation center for combat use and retraining of flight personnel, which are positioned as training combat vehicles. An extraordinarily elegant aircraft for basic and basic pilot training. Sometimes from the pilots you can hear dissatisfaction with this aircraft - the Yak-130 is too expensive and complicated for a training aircraft. Although it must be remembered that it is the 13th year of the 21st century, and aircraft can no longer be as simple as the U-2 biplane. And you have to pay for quality and high performance characteristics. The main thing is not to overdo it. The Yak is an excellent training aircraft, but there are some doubts about its combat characteristics.
I am a categorical opponent of any "asymmetric" answers and other decisions in the spirit of "cheap and cheerful". If there is not enough money for real weapons, then it is better not to fight at all. As practice shows, most of the ersatz projects and the use of unprepared equipment in combat conditions only leads to a catastrophic increase in losses.
