Me encanta el cañón trasero, como último reducto de una doctrina que seguía implantándose en los transportes soviéticos de hasta los años 60. Colocar al artillero y su peso para mover un cañón caudal era un absurdo a partir de la introducción de los misiles IR operativos.
Pero el concepto no era tan absurdo: si se colocara un R-73 apuntado hacia atrás, la protección no habría sido ninguna broma
totally agree! this airplane is faster than the SU-25, had a higher operating cieling and better range. its another one of those in hindsight they should have picked it instead sorta things. as far as the R-73. love the idea and we should adopt it for our own bombers.
SU25 was a better pick by far ,cheaper simpler,using mig 21 based engines vs mig29 based engines in Il102 ,Su25 is also quite agile and reportedly a great flying airframe .Check reports from western pilots that had the chance to fly it.
Interesting design. The tailgun would have probably been removed if it ever went into production. Not sure what the rear window behind the cockpit is for either (gunner station? observation?) Like Mt. T, I think the Su-25 "Frogfoot" was the better choice. Not QUITE as good as a U.S.A.F. A-10 Thunderbolt II (or "Warthog") in my opinion though.
Me encanta el cañón trasero, como último reducto de una doctrina que seguía implantándose en los transportes soviéticos de hasta los años 60. Colocar al artillero y su peso para mover un cañón caudal era un absurdo a partir de la introducción de los misiles IR operativos.
ReplyDeletePero el concepto no era tan absurdo: si se colocara un R-73 apuntado hacia atrás, la protección no habría sido ninguna broma
totally agree! this airplane is faster than the SU-25, had a higher operating cieling and better range. its another one of those in hindsight they should have picked it instead sorta things. as far as the R-73. love the idea and we should adopt it for our own bombers.
DeleteWhat did they think the tailgun was going to be used for?
ReplyDeletesame thing the tail gun on the B-52 was to be used for. fighter defense. this concept was born in the late 60's early 70's (i believe).
DeleteThe '82 first flight date threw me.
DeleteBy then, AAMs make a tailgun useless.
SU25 was a better pick by far ,cheaper simpler,using mig 21 based engines vs mig29 based engines in Il102 ,Su25 is also quite agile and reportedly a great flying airframe .Check reports from western pilots that had the chance to fly it.
ReplyDeleteIn Russia Tanks have wings.
ReplyDeleteInteresting design. The tailgun would have probably been removed if it ever went into production. Not sure what the rear window behind the cockpit is for either (gunner station? observation?) Like Mt. T, I think the Su-25 "Frogfoot" was the better choice. Not QUITE as good as a U.S.A.F. A-10 Thunderbolt II (or "Warthog") in my opinion though.
ReplyDelete