Not that in a complaint to the Chinese side, but still. It is clear that business is business, and there are partners and competitors here. But, frankly, the passage of some Chinese media about the downed Su-25 is more than strange.
It is clear that there is a lot of unclear in the story of the downed attack aircraft. And how the Ministry of Defense rushed to "change the testimony", and simply lie, is also understandable. It is necessary to bleach. Such a line has been chosen, and it is adhered to.
But the fact that the Chinese began to criticize and advertise their goods does not cause positive emotions.
Undoubtedly, criticism is a good thing and sometimes necessary. Especially if on the topic. Advertising is another matter entirely.
The fact that the Chinese side has begun to use the loss of the Su-25 as a pillar to promote its goods on the military equipment market is ambivalent.
The publication of Sina.com began, and others followed. The theme is simple: the Su-25 are outdated morally and physically, which means they are unsuitable for use in modern wars. As slow and vulnerable to MANPADS attacks due to the lack of modern countermeasures.
Well, the conclusion. As a result, instead of an attack aircraft, a Rainbow CH-4 UAV could be used in a reconnaissance flight. Ready to sell, if anything …
We can agree with the Chinese that a drone would be more practical than an attack aircraft. Moreover, our Ministry of Defense announced the "observation" nature of the flight. One plane.
But the question arises: why did they send an attack aircraft on a reconnaissance flight, if it was possible to use a drone?
It turns out that there are no drones? Probably really not. Or not, with some specific capabilities, since they did fly the plane.
Does this mean that all the stories about the “no analogue in the world” are also fairy tales?
It is sad, considering that specific people pay with specific lives for believing in these fairy tales.
Or, even worse, these people have incompetent comrades in command. Again, unfortunately.
About the stormtrooper itself.
Some experts, starting from the number, color and other details they know, have already stated that the downed attack aircraft is the aircraft of the latest modification of the Su-25SM3.
The press reported on the transfer of four aircraft of this modification to Syria.
Su-25SM3 were presented as aircraft capable of operating both day and night. To strike at terrorists, while remaining virtually invulnerable to enemy air defense systems.
The invulnerability was explained by the presence of the Vitebsk complex, which was supposed to protect the aircraft from any MANPADS, both ours and foreign, as well as from long-range anti-aircraft systems such as Patriot, Buk and their analogues.
Then the area of conjecture begins. Not entirely pleasant. Either "Vitebsk" did not work for some reason, or the traps were not loaded and tested, but the fact is: one launch of MANPADS was enough for both the plane and the pilot to be lost.
In 2015, near Izvarino, I happened to watch as the militia shot down a Su-25. Really working, maneuvering and launching traps. 5 or 6 launches were needed to land the attack aircraft.
This suggests a not very pleasant conclusion that something went wrong.
And I would like to say a few words about Vitebsk.
This system, no matter how much it is praised in programs like "Polygon", is not a panacea. Yes, "Vitebsk" reduces the likelihood, but does not give a 100% guarantee to avoid defeat.
Or, as in our case, it makes it possible to shoot down an aircraft with one shot.
You can talk for a long time about what really happened in the sky and speculate. The Vitebsk malfunctioned, the automatic notification of all protective systems did not work, the pilot could not use the manual control of the protection systems, and so on.
Sounds crazy, I agree. Especially for the experienced Filipov.
The lack of firing traps sounds no better. As well as the surprising statements of some "experts" on the topic of where MANPADS from the defeated terrorists came from.
But the fact is that the plane was shot down, and this allows our partners, starting from this unfortunate fact, to promote their products.
In general, China solves marketing problems at someone else's expense, hinting at the presence of unmanned systems that are insured against such incidents.
Of course, it is possible that the UAVs that the Chinese manufacturer relies on today are inferior to models from the United States and Israel. But it must be admitted that China is making tremendous strides in this industry.
Plus the eternal advantage of everything Chinese: the price. This is a very good reason that in the future can help promote Chinese drones to the world market.
The question, of course, is correctness. But this is business. In business, friends don't exist.
Generally, of course, it is sad. This is not usually expected of allies. It's as if in 2010, after the E-190 disaster near the city of Yichun, we said, they say, there is nothing to buy Brazilian junk, take our planes.
Ethics … It's good that we still have order.
