Propeller aviation gets a chance to return to service

November 27, 2022 35

The strategy for the destruction of the energy infrastructure of Ukraine, chosen by the new commander-in-chief of the NWO Surovikin, has become a real challenge for the Kyiv regime and the NATO bloc behind it. The task of finally closing the sky over Nezalezhnaya for Russian aviation, cruise missiles and kamikaze drones is a priority for our opponents.

One of the symbols of the second stage of the NWO, which began with the arrival of Surovikin, was the widespread use of shock drones - "kamikaze" called "Geran", clearly having Iranian "genes". Primitive and inexpensive to manufacture, they can be massively used against military targets and critical infrastructure facilities, literally overloading the Ukrainian air defense system. Western accomplices of the Kyiv regime have already promised to supply it with modern air defense systems and ammunition for them. In particular, the UK should provide 1000 anti-aircraft missiles for the needs of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

The fact that these air defense systems will be able to intercept "Geraniums" and even subsonic "Caliber" is beyond doubt. The problem is different: the cost of an anti-aircraft missile and the air object that it should shoot down is simply incomparable, exceeding it by orders of magnitude. If such attacks occur regularly for a long time, the adversary sitting on the defensive can literally overstrain economically without pulling out the large-scale production of expensive modern anti-aircraft missiles, firing them at "penny" UAVs. The Anglo-Saxons are very good at counting their money.

That is why the recent statement by former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson about the expediency of transferring WWII fighter jets to Kyiv attracted attention:

The UK has provided Ukraine with more advanced artillery weapons, but frankly, we must provide them not only with helicopters, but with aircraft that can fly fast enough to destroy drones. The Spitfire would be enough for the Ukrainians to do the job - it's a pity we don't make them anymore.

For some reason, everyone considered this a great joke, but there is more rational grain in this statement than English humor.

Supermarine Spitfire is a true legend of World War II. The British then built more than 20 thousand aircraft of this type, which were used as fighters, fighter-interceptors, fighter-bombers, high-altitude fighters and reconnaissance aircraft. In the Mk IXE version, the British fighter is armed with two 20 mm Hispano Mk.II cannons and two 12,7 mm Browning M2 machine guns, the Rolls-Royce Merlin 66 engine allows it to reach speeds of 650 km / h at an altitude of 6 m, providing a practical ceiling almost 400 thousand meters. And this is what the doctor ordered against kamikaze drones.

The fact is that World War II aircraft fly at speeds close to those that modern UAVs are capable of, and can easily catch up with any of the existing ones. For comparison, the American reconnaissance and strike MQ-9 Reaper has a speed of more than 400 km / h, the maximum speed of the AH-64D Apache attack helicopter is 365 km / h (cruising speed 265-270 km / h), the Russian multi-purpose attack helicopter Ka- 52 "Alligator" it reaches 350 km / h. That is, on catch-up courses, helicopters are inferior to high-speed drones, so they must act from an ambush on the oncoming ones. The practical ceiling for helicopters is limited, and getting a high-altitude UAV will be a difficult task for them. We need fighters, but not just any. Also, a big advantage of obsolete aircraft over modern ones is that they have a low cost of production and subsequent maintenance. A 4++ or 5 generation fighter flight hour can cost tens of thousands of dollars, a turboprop can cost thousands.

That is, about transferring Ukrainian pilots to Spitfire fighters, this is, of course, subtle British humor. It is not known what the residual resource of these museum exhibits is. However, the general direction is correct. A new type of air threat in the form of "flying mopeds" carrying a powerful explosive charge requires an adequate response, and the "screw" gets a chance to return to duty. Either 44 or 53 of these British fighters have survived to this day in a state of airworthiness, so Kyiv should not seriously rely on them. Most likely, the Air Force will continue to use Brazilian-made Embraer EMB-314 Super Tucano attack aircraft, which meet all the declared requirements for combating drones.

It's something we've been talking about for quite some time now offering to revive the light attack aircraft project based on the Yak-52B training aircraft. This is a simple and cheap aircraft, easy to fly and has a very inexpensive flight hour. By arming such an attack aircraft with a cannon and a pair of heavy machine guns, you can get an effective means of destroying enemy drones, which, undoubtedly, will soon fly towards Russia. Besides, perhaps the use of the upgraded Yak-52B not only as a “drone destroyer”, but also in conjunction with Orion-type strike UAVs as a “faithful wingman”. This will further increase the effectiveness of Russian tactical aviation.

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

soloist2424

0

27 November 2022 13: 32

In my opinion, this is not an idea, but complete nonsense. Khokhols on Mig-ah and Su-shkakh fly with an eye, almost everyone was shot down, and then change to a propeller-driven machine. They will be killed immediately. Where to take the pilots then?
1. zloybond
  
  +10
  
  27 November 2022 14: 42
  
  "Nonsense" - once the horses of the General Staff reacted to the UPL. That is why our Army is mainly provided with surveillance drones by volunteers. The same attitude was towards small sea drones - now the bay of Sevastopol was open to the enemy. "Nonsense" - units through volunteers get generators for themselves. "Nonsense" - the junior commanders are forced to look for captured carts in order to constantly drive to the Headquarters or even for some other everyday nonsense .... A lot of necessary "nonsense" so necessary for waging war.
2. Avarron
  
  +1
  
  27 November 2022 22: 13
  
  Pilots for propeller-driven combat aviation during the Second World War were trained in any flying club, which makes it difficult to repeat this experience now.
Vladimir Tuzakov

+3

27 November 2022 14: 14

The main problem of low-speed, not large UAVs (Geranium and others) is detection, and if they fly at night, using clouds, with silencers installed, or on electric traction, there will be more problems to detect. Special UAVs are also needed to shoot down, because manned aircraft will become the prey of long-range S-350s, "air-to-air." etc. There is an accelerated development of weapons, problems are solved "in the course of the play." Attack UAVs with constant modernization, when produced under the Geranium-2 license, we need capabilities for moving targets (up to sea and others), Lancet-3 modifications, to increase the warhead to 10-15 kg of explosives. and mass-produce so that each company has attack UAVs with constant replenishment ... Actions in the NWO indicate the need for rearmament.
1. Igor_E
  
  +1
  
  29 November 2022 23: 45
  
  or on electric traction, and there will be more problems to detect
  
  Geranium strikes targets deep in the rear. A drone on electric traction will not fly there, because the amount of stored energy per unit mass for batteries and gasoline differs by a factor of 10. Therefore, everything that needs to fly far runs on gasoline.
k7k8

+1

27 November 2022 15: 37

the cost of an anti-aircraft missile and the air object that it should shoot down is simply incomparable, exceeding it by orders of magnitude

A somewhat one-sided point of view. It does not take into account the damage that a penny drone can cause. But it can already amount to tens of megabucks. In this case, the price of an air defense missile does not really matter.
However, the idea of using propeller-driven aircraft against UAVs, I think, is quite viable and has a place to be, because. in this case, the aviation of the Armed Forces of Ukraine will operate over its territory, where the effectiveness of the air defense of the RF Armed Forces is insignificant.
Z.Y. Dear author, not the cost, but the price. You, as a person with two higher educations, should be aware of this.
Nikolaevich I

+3

27 November 2022 15: 37
What is there to discuss? "There are" Grunin's attack aircraft (!) ... for example, this one!
1. k7k8
  
  +2
  
  27 November 2022 15: 46
  
  1. Unfortunately, 3d models cannot fight in real combat. And they do not know how to air defense all the more.
  2. Well, this is an attack aircraft, however. Although our iksperdnuyu community deeply do not care about this.
  1. Nikolaevich I
    
    +1
    
    27 November 2022 19: 42
    
    Quote: k7k8
    2. Well, this is an attack aircraft, however
    
    How do you call a boat ...
2. Avarron
  
  +1
  
  27 November 2022 22: 16
  
  It was he who had seen enough of "Miracles on bends", chtoli? Why double fuselage, two fins and two engines? Instead of two such "frames" you can make three single-engine ones.
  1. Nikolaevich I
    
    +1
    
    28 November 2022 06: 59
    
    Well, if you don't want "2 keels and 2 motors", take a single-engine one!
Dmitry Volkov

+1

27 November 2022 16: 13

And why not develop an attack aircraft weighing 1 ton with a piston control system, and an exhaust like that of Geranium2 Actually, we already have such an option
https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AF%D0%BA-152
Avarron

+2

27 November 2022 16: 37

I've been thinking about this for a long time too. Under current conditions, this would make it possible to prepare tens of thousands of military flights in a short time, and these aircraft can also be made unmanned. Their carrying capacity is greater than that of a conventional UAV, respectively, and they can cause more damage.
You can arm them with cannons and guided missiles, and expensive jet fighter-bombers will just cover them, eliminating the most dangerous threats from afar on guidance from propeller engines.
Paul3390

+4

27 November 2022 16: 47

Well, they will begin to hang on drones, say the Needle. It's just light and small. And - kirdyk to all these screw at a meeting ..
1. Ugens
  
  -4
  
  27 November 2022 17: 00
  
  Who will shoot her?
2. Avarron
  
  +1
  
  27 November 2022 22: 18
  
  The needle will be more expensive than a plywood aircraft with an internal combustion engine, IMHO. Such aircraft can be riveted in almost any barn.
vlad127490

+5

27 November 2022 17: 56

Most drones are propeller-driven, including quadcopters. The author wants propeller-driven aircraft to participate under the control of a pilot. An airplane is more expensive than a drone, and a pilot has only one life. The industry of the Russian Federation is now such that they cannot make the simplest aircraft model without Chinese components. And you're talking about planes. What are we talking about?
1. Avarron
  
  +1
  
  27 November 2022 22: 20
  
  It is not necessary to put a pilot in such an aircraft. The Azerbaijanis famously opened up the Armenian air defense with unmanned "corncobs", what and to whom prevents unmanned propeller-driven attack aircraft from doing?
  Take the same UAV "corncob", stuff bombs and missiles into it, and you can safely make a rustle while drinking juice in your quarter.
boriz

+6

27 November 2022 18: 10

Two problems nullify this proposal.
1. Discovery of Geranium.
SAMs cannot effectively shoot down Geraniums. More often fall into the surrounding houses. This UAV is simple as a rake. The main construction material is plastic. There is very little metal. There is almost no radio reflection. Can't be detected by radar.
Internal combustion engine, weak. Accordingly, the temperatures are small, the exhaust volume cannot be compared with jet engines. All heat is instantly dissipated by the screw. Therefore, IR guidance is unrealistic.
The UAV itself is guided by coordinates, it does not support a radio channel with an operator. Therefore, it is simply impossible to detect and direct by its own radio emission.
The plane will fly higher, so Geranium, painted in the color of dirty grass (or dirty snow), is unrealistic to notice. And the pilot will not hear the sound of the "moped". The pilot simply does not have the means to detect such a UAV.
2. The vulnerability of the aircraft.
Such an aircraft is forced to stay at low altitudes, where it will be perfectly shot down by devices such as the ZU-23, Shilka, Tunguska, just a jihad mobile with a heavy machine gun. This aircraft, in terms of booking capabilities, is not IL2, from the word "absolutely".
However, it is easy to detect. They are made mainly from metal. Radio reflection is good. That is, the air defense system is on the shoulder.
The engine is quite powerful, the IR radiation is quite noticeable, therefore - The needle is in his back.
It's near the front line. And so - the UAV Pacer is quite capable of shooting down such an aircraft with an air-to-air missile. This option really exists, production volumes are growing. The speed of the UAV does not matter, you cannot run away from the rocket. And it’s easier to detect an aircraft than the Pacer UAV. The UAV has less EPR, less IR footprint.
Such attack aircraft are money thrown away and irrational use of pilots, which are not there anyway.
Sergey Latyshev

+1

27 November 2022 21: 57

Yes. Another viable idea.
Like a single Partizan (or 2x), put on the Kuznetsov aircraft carrier or launch anti-ship missiles from a civilian and non-existent in metal ekranolet (there is only a project) ....

So that's a good idea. Slow-moving cheapness will fight slow-moving cheapness.
The problem is, first of all, that piston training aircraft do not have powerful radars for detecting and the high cost of missiles, designed only to fight fast aircraft.

IMHO, it’s easier to take a run-in combat training light attack aircraft Yak 130, put in a better radar, bungle cheap missiles, powerful aiming equipment, small-caliber machine guns for large ammunition, remove excess armor ...

The problem is basically the same. The guarantor with the Medvedevs and Serdyukovs have optimized everything to the point that Russia is unlikely to be able to. quickly develop and mass-produce such a modification of the Yak and such missiles that they are very cheap, but can be aimed at a weak signal.
1. usm5
  
  0
  
  29 November 2022 10: 49
  
  This is a real offer. But the problem is different. UAVs must be detected in a timely manner. These are mainly low-flying slow targets and therefore special radars should be placed high. Well, at least at an altitude of 500m, 10-20 km from the line of contact, and even in balloons.
  1. Sergey Latyshev
    
    0
    
    29 November 2022 13: 39
    
    A similar scheme, in principle, exists and has been worked out. A powerful radar like the Avax targets smaller fighters with their own radars.
    Balloons are too low mobility. Airships? too
Moscow

-1

27 November 2022 22: 38

Matthias Rust in 1987 brought down the Soviet air defense system with his flight from Hamburg to Moscow. Therefore, the logic of protecting the internal space over the cities of Ukraine by light aircraft has its advantages. In addition, modern long-range air defense simply will not see them on radar. Yes, and it’s unrealistic to shoot them with C300 systems in the Kyiv region. There are many such aircraft in the USA, the only question is how to arm them against drones.
1. twigs
  
  0
  
  26 December 2022 22: 31
  
  Matthias Rust in 1987 brought down the Soviet air defense system
  
  Do not talk nonsense ! more is known about this flight than you think. At first, at least google it and then climb with your 2 kopecks.
usm5

+2

27 November 2022 23: 15

A very sound suggestion. But this is only part of the problem to be solved. The biggest problem is the timely detection of drones, which are mostly low-flying targets. To solve this problem, in the immediate vicinity of the contact line, it is necessary to place specialized radars on balloons (height 0,5-1 km), which should detect and transmit to control centers all information about such objects. And they will shoot down this "crap" based on the means by which in this case it is more expedient to do it.
Pro100

+1

27 November 2022 23: 31

For some reason, I remembered an old joke about Petka, Vasil Ivanovich and the gate.
blackcat190463

+2

27 November 2022 23: 39

Don’t you think that the article is a bit delusional, the whole problem lies in the early detection of a small drone, the radar doesn’t see it, and that it’s even harder for a pilot to detect a small drone in old propeller-driven fighters, they determine it from the ground at least by sound, and the pilot is only visually in short, I don't believe
Retvizan1974

+2

28 November 2022 16: 44

In World War II, an ordinary, rather large aircraft, it was a whole thing to shoot down and only assam pilots could do it! Shoot down a pretty small drone with machine guns, uuuu...
The option with an air-to-air missile, fired it and forgot it, is again not an option - it's expensive ...
1. Ksv
  
  +1
  
  28 November 2022 19: 14
  
  Because it was necessary to hit the engine at high speed, large aircraft were still armored, had their own protective weapons, and could maneuver. Shooting down any plane was an art. And an unmanned drone just flies straight and quietly, it’s just as easy to shoot it down, but it’s almost impossible for a pilot to find it in the sky
svit55

0

28 November 2022 19: 35

That's all nonsense, remember the U-2 (PO-2). Wood, percale, a motor, cheap, but who will fight on this? How much does a pilot cost?
1. Dmitry Volkov
  
  0
  
  28 November 2022 21: 55
  
  A ready-made pilot costs 1 ml bucks, a fighter 3-5 ml bucks, a helicopter pilot 10-12 ml bucks, something like this ...
2. av58
  
  +1
  
  30 November 2022 22: 55
  
  A penny, not to mention the fact that there are many ready-made Yak-52 pilots.
av58

+1

30 November 2022 22: 53

Good idea. The Brazilians were able to figure out how to create an attack aircraft-turboprop Tucano and Super-tucano, there is also a turbine for Yak, he even climbed. Pilot training for such aircraft is much cheaper and shorter in time, in fact, this is any athlete pilot of the Yak-52 aircraft. The speed is high enough, combined with high maneuverability - for hunting on the battlefield / over the battlefield, including attack helicopters and UAVs, mobile / nomadic artillery pieces / MLRS batteries.
DO

+1

1 December 2022 04: 08

it is possible to use the upgraded Yak-52B not only as a “drone destroyer”, but also in conjunction with Orion-type strike UAVs as a “faithful follower”

Good idea. If an enemy reconnaissance drone appears above our front line, wait for arrivals from the MLRS or enemy cannon artillery. Therefore, if an enemy reconnaissance drone is somehow detected in such a section of our front line and there are no ground-based anti-drone air defense systems, the arrival at the required connection point of the manned Yak-52B with the Orion UAV (or UAV of another model - also with an internal combustion engine, but smaller) can help out dimensions).
We are talking about the destruction of the most often "hanging" enemy reconnaissance drone - because a successful interception at a relatively short distance of a purposefully flying kamikaze drone by relatively slow propeller-driven aircraft is unlikely.
The formation must fly/patrol at the lowest possible altitude and at a sufficient distance from the front line so as not to be shot down by enemy air defenses.
The UAV carries specialized drone detection tools (radar, optical / thermal imaging station), and low-cost anti-drone weapons (conditionally, a "shotgun", fired nets, a simple electronic warfare transmitter). Yak's pilot controls the slave UAV and secures it with anti-drone missiles, a powerful and advanced electronic warfare transmitter, standard machine guns and a cannon. Attack on the enemy drone - from the bottom up, usually in the direction of the front line.
Squid X

0

18 December 2022 09: 17

hm. he himself recently came to the same conclusions - the Yak-52 to fight drones. as well as the Yak-130, as a more powerful tool for the same. armament - underwing containers with machine guns gshg or yakb