Read the forum code of contact
By: - 6th July 2014 at 03:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Ilyushin aircraft was based on a outdated concept, I mean, waste weight for a gunner and a tail gun? in the MANPADs age?
By: - 6th July 2014 at 04:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Gunner wasn't just to operate the tail gun IIRC. Il-28s used their tail guns to great effect during bombing runs assent against anyone foolish to try to lob a manpad in their ass in Afghan. eason why they tried to field modify tail gun to Hinds in Afghan and gun pod were mounted the other direction
By: - 6th July 2014 at 05:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Gunner wasn't just to operate the tail gun IIRC. Il-28s used their tail guns to great effect during bombing runs assent against anyone foolish to try to lob a manpad in their ass in Afghan. eason why they tried to field modify tail gun to Hinds in Afghan and gun pod were mounted the other direction
I remember reading about the tail gunner of a Blinder (old Tu22) shooting down a ManPad launched after his plane. Story was from pilots seating on ground during the bombing run !
By: - 6th July 2014 at 09:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
FWIW, the sole prototype is now on display as a gate guard at Zhukovsky......
Ken
By: - 6th July 2014 at 10:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
FWIW, the sole prototype is now on display as a gate guard at Zhukovsky......
Ken
From the specs the Il-102 is not so much a Su-25 but more similar to a Blackburn Buccaneer with armor and guns fore and aft. It's interesting that it has internal bomb bays built into the wings.
Not sure how the tail gunner can see anything from his position, and without him the pilot seems to have no rear visibility at all.
By: - 6th July 2014 at 15:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Il-102 was Ilyushin's second attempt at a 'Jet Shturmovik' - after the equally ill-starred Il-40....
My Amodel Il-40 models plus the Anigrand Il-102 - the Il-40 is the same aircraft before and after mods to eliminate gun gas ingestion problems.
Ken
By: - 6th July 2014 at 15:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Gunner wasn't just to operate the tail gun IIRC. Il-28s used their tail guns to great effect during bombing runs assent against anyone foolish to try to lob a manpad in their ass in Afghan. eason why they tried to field modify tail gun to Hinds in Afghan and gun pod were mounted the other direction
But would the gunner be able to spot a MANPADs site until after the the MANPAD missile was fired?
By: - 6th July 2014 at 15:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I assume that visibility out of cockpit was bad and the Il-102 is more complex than Su-25, with tail gun and second crew man and internal bombs and so on. Thus it was more costly than Su-25.
By: - 6th July 2014 at 18:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The designer set out to make an ugly overweight a/c, he was successful.
By: - 6th July 2014 at 18:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The designer set out to make an ugly overweight a/c, he was successful.
You are aware that the Il-102 is a tonne lighter, empty? Two tonnes higher MTOW. And has two tonnes more thrust.
So... seems the designer did a good job all around. How did you do?
By: - 6th July 2014 at 18:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You are aware that the Il-102 is a tonne lighter, empty? Two tonnes higher MTOW. And has two tonnes more thrust.So... seems the designer did a good job all around. How did you do?
Obligatory never said Il-102 was heavier than the Su-25, just that it was 'overweight'. And maybe it is?
He/she was also right in calling the Il-102 ugly too.
By: - 6th July 2014 at 21:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
IL-2, now that's where it's at.
By: - 6th July 2014 at 21:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Il-2 had the most fearsome nickname ever given by an enemy. IIRC the Finns called it the combine harvester.
By: - 7th July 2014 at 01:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You are aware that the Il-102 is a tonne lighter, empty? Two tonnes higher MTOW. And has two tonnes more thrust.So... seems the designer did a good job all around. How did you do?
I must say i believed the aircraft had a empty weight of 13Tm, so i'm right?
By: - 7th July 2014 at 10:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If they'd improved the cockpit layout to improve the visibility of both pilot and gunner... maybe have the "gunner" in the front section with rotating seat to be able to look forward as well as back?
it would have been an "interesting" LAAR type aircraft if it had a 6-8 hour endurance and had on board ISAR / FLIR etc (operated by the second crewman)... with those 14 hardpoints! :D
By: - 7th July 2014 at 10:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Interesting that both designs (Su-25 & Il-102) were essentially 'private venture' submissions - before a MAP requirement existed.
The development history of the Su-25 is fascinating in itself - I can recommend Ildar Bedretdinov's definitive history of the type - if you can find it!!!
Ken
By: - 9th July 2014 at 02:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Perhaps the Il 2 Sturmovik has a fascinating history as the Su 25, however certainly it history could be one of the most dramatic of the military aviation from all time.
The Il 102 could be equipped with a gunner in reason of the background from Il 2 in the World War II.
Besides this primary function that were to operate the rears guns, the gunner from Il 102 could accomplish others missions such as:
- Alert the pilot about the presence of enemy fighters or anti aircraft artillery and assist this in evasive maneuvers;
- Alert the pilot about the missiles launch by SAM batteries and MANPADS, or before that the gunner could trigger with less reaction time the releasing from flares and chaffs to avoid the incoming missiles;
- Perform the function from BDA ( Battle Damage Assessment) in 'real time' with purpose to inform the pilot about the outcome of an attack, and thus that could be avoid a second pass over the target just to verfy if it was hit in the first pass;
- Find any targets had not been detected by the pilot during an attack, or even to spot the position of some anti air defense system to any other aircraft from an attack formation.
However the Su 25 had proved better in agility and much more simple fighter-bomber to build and maintain than the Il 102, and with the increasing of the threat from heat-guided missiles with the ability to engage in the forward aspect during the 70s, that would be matter of time before the MANPADS could assimilate this capability too.
Indeed the Il 102 could already become less efective than the Su 25 even during the Afghanistan War in the 80s , once the rebels had been equipped with MANPADS Stingers, and against this threat the better agility of the Su 25 were substancials benefit to avoid those Stingers missiles.
By: - 9th July 2014 at 04:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Very nice models Flanker_Man. Thanks for posting them side by side!
[ATTACH=CONFIG]229929[/ATTACH]
By: - 29th April 2015 at 15:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Il-102 was the ground attack aircraft that lost out to the Su-25. For some reason the Ilyushin bureau continued developing it well after the Soviet government rejected it in favor of the Frogfoot. Was it the right choice, how did it compare? The Il-102 used turbofan engines and had nearly twice the payload.
Maybe I am wrong, but my impression is that the Il-102 is a development of the Il-42, which lost the Shturmovik competition against Sukhoi/MiG proposal. Il-42 was equipped with AM-9F engines, with half the thrust of R-95Sh (*).
After Il-42 was rejected it was modernised by Ilyushin with RD-33I engines, then it received Il-102 designation.
* Il-42 was also heavier.
Posts: 805
By: Multirole - 6th July 2014 at 02:04
The Il-102 was the ground attack aircraft that lost out to the Su-25. For some reason the Ilyushin bureau continued developing it well after the Soviet government rejected it in favor of the Frogfoot. Was it the right choice, how did it compare? The Il-102 used turbofan engines and had nearly twice the payload.
Site with good pictures of the Brawny:
http://englishrussia.com/2013/07/01/soviet-attack-plane-il-102/