Results45

IL-102: Soviet-Russia's Last Dedicated Subsonic Ground Attacker

The IL-102: Your Opinion?  

136 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you want to fly this into battle (even if it means facing RB/SB opponents radar-tracking you in Vulcans & Shilkas 2-4km away)?

    • Yes
      111
    • No
      12
    • I’m fine with anything.
      13
  2. 2. What BR does this ultimate Soviet ground attacker deserve?

    • 8.0
      40
    • 8.3
      9
    • 8.7
      17
    • 9.0
      41
    • 9.3
      29
  3. 3. Which of these aircraft should compliment it in War Thunder?

    • IL-40/42
      81
    • LTV A-7 Corsair II
      90
    • Sud-Oust Vautour
      56
    • Su-25 & A-10 Thunderbolt II (present-day, both expected to stay in service for the next 10 years)
      61
  4. 4. What kind of ordinance should the IL-102 possess?

    • Conventional bombs and rockets
      131
    • Air-to-Air Missiles
      26
    • Air-to-Surface missiles
      50
    • Infrared/laser-guided bombs (ineffective in clouds and bad weather)
      45
  5. 5. Say you are flying out in the IL-102 for the very first time. How do you plan to use it?

    • Tank busting
      89
    • Ground attack/CAS
      121
    • Gunship
      31
    • Bomber
      44
    • Dogfighter
      12
    • Bomber hunting
      33
    • Anti-shipping
      40
    • Boom n‘ Zoom
      25
  6. 6. What kind of vehicle would you most enjoy slugging with this jet?

    • Light & Medium Tanks
      84
    • Heavy tanks
      82
    • MBTs
      93
    • SPAAGs
      62
    • Armored cars, half-tracks, & APC-IFVs
      66
    • Boats & light naval craft
      62
    • Ships & Mid-sized vessels
      56
  7. 7. If you are a tanker on the ground (in any kind of vehicle) and see one of these, what would be your first reaction?

    • Let me at him.
      21
    • Oh, hell no!
      33
    • Hope he’s not comin’ for me (fingers crossed)…..
      61
    • I can deal with it.
      21


I%C5%81-102_NTW_3_95_1.jpg

 

A Short History:

 

Development of the IL-102 by Ilyushin first began in the 50s and 60s in the form of the IL-40/40P, IL-40K/T, and IL-42.  During the 70s, a redesign was completed designating the new airframe IL-102 (around the same time as the USAF A-X and USN VAL programs that resulted in the A-10 Thunderbolt II and LTV A-7 Corsair II respectively), but before they could finish a prototype, Sukhoi beat them to the punch with the faster, more lightly-armored Su-25 prototype so the Soviet Air Force awarded Suhkoi the contract.

 

By 1982, Ilyushin had completed 2 prototypes under private funding and re-attempted pitching the IL-102 to the Russian military through completing costs assessments and 372 demonstration sorties. The results came out to that when compared to the Su-25, the IL-102 costed less to build & maintain, was heavier (by ~10,000lbs) but better armored, had more redundancy built-in structurally, and could carry 3,800kg more offensive ordinance. Despite all these benefits, none were ordered and the IL-102 failed to enter mass-production.

 

Ten years later, it reappeared at the Moscow Air Show in 1992 having been "upgraded" and was presented as an export aircraft, but no foreign orders were finalized.

 

The IL-102 would fit well right after the IL-28 as it was the only subsonic post-Vietnam era Soviet jet built and combat tested as an attacker. :B10: :yes_yes_yes: 

 

Additional Sources:

 

1305517720_il102_2.jpg

 

Photos:

Spoiler

Тяжёлый штурмовик Ил-102

Тяжёлый штурмовик Ил-102

Опытно-экспериментальный самолет Ил-102ppl

Опытно-экспериментальный самолет Ил-102  

Тяжёлый штурмовик Ил-102

Опытно-экспериментальный самолет Ил-102

Опытно-экспериментальный самолет Ил-102

Тяжёлый штурмовик Ил-102

Опытно-экспериментальный самолет Ил-102

Тяжёлый штурмовик Ил-102

xe4fzqibhfgzv4wkgygl.jpg

zlxwhucph9hh4jszxxyd.jpg

hpeprrvqnrt3wia74d3c.jpg

 

Videos (in English & Russian):

Spoiler

.

.

.

.

.

 

1449625026_il-102_5.jpgLing-Temco-Vought A-7 Corsair II 

 

Here's how it compares to the IL-28, A-7D/E, & A-10:


Powerplant/Thrust:

A-10 Thunderbolt II:

  • 2 x Gen. Electric TF34-GE-100A turbofans
  • 18,130lbf

A-7D/E Corsair II:

  • 1 x Allison TF41-A1/A2 turbofans
  • 14,500/15,000lbf

IL-28:

  • 2 x Klimov VK-1A turbojets
  • 11,904lbf

IL-102:

  • 2 x Klimov RD-331 turbofans
  • 22,930lbf

 

Maximum Speed:

A-10 Thunderbolt II: 834km/h

A-7 Corsair II: 940-1125km/h

IL-28: 902km/h

IL-102: 950km/h

 

MTOW:

A-10 Thunderbolt II: 50,000lbs

A-7 Corsair II: 42,000lbs

IL-28: 46,740lbs

IL-102: 48,500lbs

 

Thrust-to-Weight Ratio (based on loaded combat weight):

A-10 Thunderbolt II: .38-.43

A-7 Corsair II: .50

IL-28: .29

IL-102: .58

 

Combat Radius:

A-10 Thunderbolt II: 467km

A-7 Corsair II: 535km

IL-28: 300-400km

IL-102: 400-500km

 

Guns/Ammo (cartridge dimensions, RoF, muzzle velocity):

A-10 Thunderbolt II:

  • 1 x 7-barrel 30mm GAU-8 Avenger (30x173mm, 4200rpm, 1,010m/s) under the nose

A-7 Corsair II:

  • 1 x 6-barrel 20mm M61A1 Vulcan (20x102mm, 6000rpm, 1,050m/s) retractable from fuselage

IL-28:

  • 4 x NR-23 (23x115mm, 800-850rpm, 690m/s) -- one pair in nose and the other in the tail turret

IL-102:

  • 1 x 2-barrel GSh-30-2 (30x165mm, 3000rpm, 870m/s) in undercarriage
  • 1 x 2-barrel GSh-23L (23x115mm, 3400-3600rpm, 715m/s) in remote-controlled tail turret

 

Combat Ordinance:

A-10 Thunderbolt II:

  • 11 external hardpoints
  • 7,260kg

A-7 Corsair II:

  • 8 external hardpoints
  • 6,907kg

IL-28:

  • 1 bombay
  • 3,000kg

IL-102:

  • 6 internal stores (inside wings)
  • 8 external hardpoints
  • 7,200kg

 

note: specs not comprehensive; selected data for comparison purposes only

 

Thoughts, comments, suggestions, additions -- all welcome! :B10:

Edited by Results45
Added poll and A-7 Corsair II for comparison
  • Upvote 10
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Open for discussion. :salute:

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, BLUEBLACK_EQUAI said:

Oh man that thing looks like it can wreak havoc on the ground what but would this thing have?

 

Real Life:

  • 1 x 2-barrel GSh-30-2 (imagine having a gun like on the Hs 129 B-2 "Duck", firing as fast as the M163 with 70mm of pen @ 1000m)
  • 1 x 2-barrel GSh-23L (no more lethal than the M61 Vulcan mounted on comparable US attackers like the A-7 Corsair II)
  • Regular conventional bombs
  • Laser-guided bombs
  • Rocket pods
  • Air2air/air2ground missiles

 

In-Game:

  • 1 x 2-barrel GSh-30-2 in undercarriage
  • 1 x 2-barrel GSh-23L in tail turret
  • Rocket pods
  • Regular conventional bombs (laser bombs are technically useless in WT as we already have pin-point targeting aided bombsights)
Edited by Results45
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vitasalato said:

In the current state of the game, we don't need of a plane like this or similar like the A-10.

 

For now, yes.

 

But who knows? :dntknw: We could be fighting a Hot War One in 2017 & 2018 :p:

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because we have late 70s tanks, I think it's time planes followed suit. So yes, Su-25, A-10, and This.

Edited by F7UCutlass
  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2016 at 8:15 PM, F7UCutlass said:

Because we have late 70s tanks, I think it's time planes followed suit. So yes, Su-25, A-10, and This.

 

Only after we get tanks worthy of such lethality: T57 (basically M103 w/ 2-second reload), Cheiftain Mk. 10 (Stillbrew composite), T-64 (fiberglass-laminate composite), and Leo 1A6/Keiler (Rheinmetall 120mm) :yes_yes_yes:

 

On 11/15/2016 at 8:18 PM, RexLuporum said:

planes are supposed to be heading to the sixties we haven't gotten anything from that time frame yet either sadly, but either way it is time.

 

I've no doubt Gaijin will be adding most of these (maybe even up to Mach 1.5):

 

USAircraft (still missing a 2nd independent attacker line):

Spoiler

Tier 5:
Army Air Force Attackers/Fighters:
 Lockheed:

  • F-94 Starfire

North American:

  • F-86D Sabre
  • F-86Sabre
  • F-86Sabre

 Northrop:

  • P-89 Scorpion

Army Air Force Bombers:
Boeing:

  • B-50
  • B-47 Stratojet

Consolidated:

  • B-32 Dominator

Douglas:

  • B-66 Destroyer

North American:

  • B-45 Tornado

Naval Fighters:
Douglas:

  • F3D Skynight
  • F4D Skyray
  • A-4 Skyhawk

 McDonnell:

  • F3H Demon

Vought:

  • F7U Cutlass

North American:

  • FJ-1 Fury
  • FJ-2 Fury
  • FJ-3 Fury
  • FJ-4 Fury

Naval Bombers/Torpedo Bombers/Flying Boats (in bold):
Douglas:

  • A-3 Skywarrior

Martin:

  • P6M Seamaster

Premium/Gift:
North American:

  • B-36 Peacemaker (World-War Mode Only)

McDonnell:

  • FH Phantom

Vought:

  • F6U Pirate

Lend-Lease:
Canada/Germany (Canadair):

  • Premium CL-13 Mk. 1
  • CL-13 Mk. 2
  • CL-13 Mk. 3
  • CL-13 Mk. 4
  • CL-13 Mk. 6

Australia (Avon):

  • CAC Sabre

 

British Aircraft Proposal List:

Spoiler

Tier 5:
Royal Air Force Attackers/Fighters:
Folland/Hawker-Siddley:

  • Gnat

Gloster:

  • Javelin

Supermarine:

  • Scimitar
  • Swift

Naval Attackers/Fighters:
De Havilland:

  • Sea Vixen

Supermarine:

  • Scimitar 

 

Royal Air Force Bombers:

Avro:

  • Vulcan

Handley Page:

  • Victor

Avro:

  • Lincoln

Short:

  • Sperrin

Vickers:

  • Valiant

 

 

USSR Aircraft:

Spoiler

Tier 5:
Attackers/Fighters:
Mikoyan-Gurevich:

  • Mig-17F

Yakovlev:

  • Yak-23

Ilyushin:

  • Il-40P/42
  • 102

Bombers:

Myasishchev:

  • Mya-4

Tupolev:

  • Tu-14

  • Tu-85
  • Tu-16

 

ITALY:

  • G. 91R
  • G. 91Y

 

FRANCE:

Spoiler

160618024056275910.png .

 

International:

Spoiler

Warthunder Interational Aircraft Tech Tree v1 (French excluded).png

.

 

Edited by Results45
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't fit the game. There will never be afterburners and guided missiles in this game, so you want attackers that are still in service nowadays fly together with fighters from 50's. 

If any of airplanes that started to use electronic weapon targeting and delivery systems like radars, lasers, image-recognition, infra red would be introduced then I expect those systems to be replicated in game so in SIM you can use them.

This is amount of work that is way above current state of the game and I don't  think it is justified at all.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/18/2016 at 2:23 AM, Sputnik_77 said:

It doesn't fit the game. There will never be afterburners and guided missiles in this game, so you want attackers that are still in service nowadays fly together with fighters from 50's. 

If any of airplanes that started to use electronic weapon targeting and delivery systems like radars, lasers, image-recognition, infra red would be introduced then I expect those systems to be replicated in game so in SIM you can use them.

This is amount of work that is way above current state of the game and I don't  think it is justified at all.

 

We might get F-86D, F4D, Mig-17F, & J-32 all of which went transonic and contained afterburner. Also as the tech limited for tanks is now at ATGMs with 800mm pen, there's also a good chance we might see 1/1.5 gen air-to-air missiles like the AIM-9A/B, Fireflash/Firesteak, AA. 20, and K-5/AA-1.

 

Technically with the UI in air battles, all planes already have radar and all bombers have all-weather pin-point aided bombsights.

 

Not expecting image-recognization or layers to be in-game, but since many late-model MBTs like T-62 1975, T-54B/55B, M60A3, and Leo 1A5 used infrared IRL, it could make its way into BR 8.5-10.0 Tier 5 jets as well.

Edited by Results45
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You talk about AB and yes maybe there implementation of those systems and weapons could be quite easy and primitive, in SIM though it is not.

 

While early sidewinders for example, - it is enough to introduce growl sound when warhead is looking for target, changing for constant tone when locked. But for all radar guided missiles this wont work this way. You need a target aquisition radar to be inplemented with cathode ray tube display in cockpit, additional controls for radar on/off, radar mode, radar range, antenna azimuth, lock.

 

Then modelling proper missile aero and thermo dynamics that change with altitude, different drag when missile ascending/descending. AA missiles require alot more work than AT missiles which operate in constant conditions at sea level air pressure and temp.

 

Then laser guided weapons need laser implentation with ability to move reticle. over targets and lock visually like su-25 for example.

 

And then addition of whole missile AA defence to balance things up.

 

And countermeasures flares, chaff and RWR - radar warning receivers.

 

There are so many systems to simulate that it is not possible to do even in semi-realistic, soft-sim way in 2 years even if this would be the main project.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, I guess that's a pretty valid argument against missiles (although Gaijin has simplified missile targeting systems for tanks by miles to non-sim levels already).

 

Your opinion on afterburners and infrared/night vision for aircraft & ground forces?

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Afterburners - well supersonic aerodynamic calculations are simpler than subsonic in.general so I don't see major programming challenges or issues. Well the only problem would be if game engine was developed with sub sonic in mind and some of it's core features were designed in a way preventing easy supersonic implementation which doesn't seem very likely.

I think the biggest problem here would be map sizes as supersonic airplanes would cover the tiny maps now available in matter of seconds. Personally I would like to see some early supersonic jets in game but I still think this will require quite a lot of devs work.

 

NV - well it would make sense to implement the early systems on tanks like T-55/62, Leo or M-60, with working IR searchlight that those tanks had. The searchlight had a range up to more or less 600m-800m. The IR should be only the mode of the gunsight, switching between normal and IR in sniper view. In 3rd person ut should still be pitch black.

 

NV googles are only modern 20-30 year invention so totally against implementing that.

The aircraft should get the ability to equip flares, either flare rockets or canisters, that dropped over target area would ignite flare on small parachutes that would light up the area. This will not be implemented though as potato computers would suck at rendering multiple lights and light effects.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I look at rocket launchers (wich seem similar to the ones on Soviet and now Russian helicopters), I feel like it will be a total rocket flood on the ground.

Looking at its caracteristics, it seems very powerful compared to planes of other nations.

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, PanzerCell said:

When I look at rocket launchers (wich seem similar to the ones on Soviet and now Russian helicopters), I feel like it will be a total rocket flood on the ground.

Looking at its caracteristics, it seems very powerful compared to planes of other nations.

 

Hence why we need proximity air-bursting shells, 2nd gen composite MBTs like T-64, AMX-32, M60AX, Kpz-70, & Chieftain Mk. 10 and Korean-era heavies like Obj. 279, T58/T110, & Super Conqueror inB4 the IL-102 w/ conventional weapons would be added.

Edited by Results45
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Results45 said:

Hence why we need proximity air-bursting shells, 2nd gen composite MBTs like T-64, AMX-32, M60AX, Kpz-70, & Chieftain Mk. 10 and Korean-era heavies like Obj. 279, T58/T110, & Super Conqueror inB4 the IL-102 w/ conventional weapons would be added.

 

+1 if tanks can handle this then.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Results45 said:

 

Hence why we need proximity air-bursting shells, 2nd gen composite MBTs like T-64, AMX-32, M60AX, Kpz-70, & Chieftain Mk. 10 and Korean-era heavies like Obj. 279, T58/T110, & Super Conqueror inB4 the IL-102 w/ conventional weapons would be added.

The Super Conqueror is not a contemporary of any of those other Heavy tanks, it is just a Conqueror with spaced armour added to the turret.

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we really need another Russian attacker? The Russian attack line is fine as it is.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, if the U.S. gets the A-10 with Correct ammo, Rocket pods and Bombs.

Edited by RB_Hawkz
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you guys think the IL-102 is OP then how about having the AC-130 ingame?

 

You get to buzz over the battlefield at 500km/h one-shotting light, medium, and heavy tanks alike with miniguns, Vulcans, 25mm rotary cannons, 40mm Bofors, and a 105mm M102 Howitzer (not to mention being capable of airdropping up to 6 pallets of supplies, 64 paratroopers/reinforcement tank crew, and 2 airborne vehicles).

 

I guess you could call it "balanced" as it operated in the current endgame era meta of jets, ground-attack choppers, and radar-targeting SPAAGs, but in BR 9.0 tanks RB/SB/EC/WW Mode battles where you might be the only CAS aircraft in the area, this thing (with a bit of skill) could insta-kill 5 to 10 enemy vehicles in just one pass.

Edited by Results45
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK with more advanced attackers , if balanced and all nations.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.