UAV fighter - the concept of the aircraft of the future

68

We paid a lot of attention to new species weapons in general and drones in particular. In general, of course, UAVs are a very interesting and promising type of weapon, and if used correctly (as in Karabakh by the Azerbaijani military, for example), it is very effective.

Drones carry out reconnaissance, aiming at targets, they themselves can successfully attack targets with missiles and bombs. And given the innate secrecy of the devices due to the small amount of metal in the structure, this turns out to be a very unpleasant enemy, which is difficult to notice.



Of course, today there are several ways to neutralize the UAV. The simplest and most effective is to detect the base and demolish it in advance with an air strike or artillery.

But if the drone has already taken off, then there are difficulties. There are electronic warfare stations. Two scenarios. If the UAV flies into the coverage area of ​​the jamming station, then it will be happy. And if not, then it passed. There are stations like "Krasukha" that work far away, but with a very narrow beam, so they will have to detect the adversary, which is not easy.

There are air defense systems. By the way, the hero of today's material was born in an inflamed mind precisely after the memories of how the "Shell" tried to get into Alabino along drone-targets from cannons and how he did it.

It didn't work out at all. Yes, two barrels were hit with 30-mm cucumbers, but they didn’t hit. Then the already angry crew hit the drone with a rocket, and here everything fell into place. However, a rocket is quite expensive. Not every missile will still be able to work on UAVs, not every one. And there are not so many missiles in any complex.

And as practice in the Middle East shows, drone operators are not inclined to wait until the crew takes their places or reloads the launchers.

And what do we draw? Yes, a drone interceptor. The one that will detect, catch up and exterminate.

Helicopters are swept aside immediately. Not the speed. In addition, drones will really soon cross the speed threshold of 350 km / h, which will make any interception by helicopters unrealistic. And the helicopter is suitable for several other operations.

A modern aircraft is also not suitable for intercepting drones due to speed. But here the opposite is true, the speed is redundant. It's like the MiG23MLD air defense of the USSR tried to intercept Rust on the Cessna-172. To see that something small “like the Yak-12” is flying there is one thing, to attack and shoot down is quite another. And modern drones are much smaller than Rust's Cessna. So a modern fighter is not entirely suitable for intercepting and destroying such a target as, for example, Bayraktar.

And what do we have left?

That's right, turboprop aircraft. Yes, even in a good twin-engine.


Why a twin-engine scheme? Everything is simple. Two motors make the machine more tenacious and more load-bearing. And there will be something to raise. First, a two-man crew. The pilot will need the help of a gunner, no doubt. Second, surveillance equipment. Radar, focused on the search for small targets. Thirdly, a decent supply of fuel in order to be able to really cover a certain area, loitering in the sky. Fourthly, a set of weapons that allows you to destroy targets such as UAVs.

How do I see such an aircraft? For example, the British Mosquito NF Mk.38 or the German Heinkel He.219a-7/r-1 stand before our eyes as a prototype. Yes, they were night fighters, but their essence is the same: to find a target with the help of an airborne radar and destroy it with the help of available weapons.


UAV fighter - the concept of the aircraft of the future

Two turboprop engines that can provide a cruising speed of 450-500 km/h and a top speed of 600-650 km/h. In order to catch up with any UAV, this will be more than enough.

The altitude of the interceptor should not be very high, since UAVs have not yet mastered exorbitant heights. Probably more important is the ability to stay in the area of ​​the probable appearance of enemy vehicles for a long time.

Armament. This is a separate issue.

Naturally, the interceptor must carry electronic weapons and a kit to counter enemy air defense systems. Despite the fact that the main task of such an aircraft will be to hunt for enemy UAVs over its territory, the appearance of enemy fighters should not be discounted. And therefore, in addition to detection equipment, there should be electronic warfare modules, heat traps and everything else from the area of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbcounteracting enemy missiles.

Next, we have the weapons with which it will be possible to effectively deal with UAVs.

Rocket. Naturally, yes. But what is good about a drone, even the largest exhaust is not so powerful. Thermal homing heads will not be easy. Plus, these should be small missiles with a range of up to 1-1,5 km. Then the question of target detection will arise.

Small rockets, with a fragmentation part, however, capable of giving a fairly decent spread of a large number of fragments.

A modern unmanned vehicle is not as strong a structure as an airplane and a helicopter, and therefore steel or uranium rods are not needed in the missile warhead. Ordinary metal fragments of a decent damaging effect.

We don’t have such missiles now, but in principle, it can be easily created on the basis of the same 9M335, elementarily reducing its cost.

Small arms. It's probably funny, but it can be just as practical as rockets. Still, UAVs are not very maneuverable targets, and besides, they do not have the ability to actively defend themselves. So here, World War II level options can easily fit. I mean get in close range and destroy the UAV with small arms.


That's just about aviation guns should be forgotten. As well as about large-caliber machine guns. There is no point in them, because a projectile from 23 to 30 mm, hitting the device, of course, will smash it to pieces. However, the UAV is a small target and it is not so easy for a projectile to hit it. I saw with my own eyes how it happened at the training ground in Alabino, at the "ARMY-2017".

A small target that fires few projectiles. Here's what happened in a nutshell. "Shell" was not very effective against UAVs, which was later confirmed by Syria.

We need ... a machine gun! And not 14,5, not even 12,7 mm. Elementary 7,62 mm.

Yes, the heavy fighters of that war were armed with cannon batteries and went against large armored four-engine bombers. And today we have a plastic plane, and even small in size by aircraft standards.

So really the projectile should give way to the bullet. And it is 7,62 mm, since here the quantity will play a decisive role. A cloud of 7,62-mm bullets fired at a flying UAV is much better than a few dozen shells. Of several hundred bullets, something will fly.

A 7,62-mm bullet will disable an unmanned vehicle in the same way, hitting its control blocks, like a projectile. Only it is easier for the pool to do this, since their number is much higher.

Yes, it is impossible to say that we have something like ShKAS. It's a pity, that's just that machine would be very handy. 1800 rounds per minute is what you need. Four barrels would simply seed the space with pieces of metal. It would be very efficient.

We do not have in service with the descendants of the Gatling product. More precisely, there is, but the caliber is larger. Now, if you take the AK-630 and make an AK-676 based on it, it would be interesting.

The Americans have a toy called the M124 "Minigan" of the same 7,62-mm caliber chambered for the standard NATO 7,62x51 cartridge. A good and powerful cartridge, better not. The machine is not new, but a classic. And it can be used both by a shooter and remotely, suspended in a container or installed, say, in the nose of an aircraft or helicopter.


By the way, yes, Americans have fewer headaches in this regard. They have a machine gun, it won’t be very difficult to come up with a carrier, just remember the old designs. Take the same OV-10D "Bronco".


The plane is quite suitable for our requirements. In the United States, there were a lot of developments of anti-guerrilla aircraft, which today would look very impressive in the role of an UAV interceptor.


Apparently, in China they also thought about this (of course, not only this) topic and created their own Minigun called CS / LM12. The same 6 electric barrels, the same 6 rounds per minute.


We, too, would not interfere with such a useful thing in the household of just such a caliber. Not necessarily six-barrel, it is possible with one barrel. But there must be at least four trunks.

What is good about a twin-engine aircraft has been known since the Second World War. An empty nose in which you can install anything: a radar, a battery of cannons or machine guns, the Germans even installed rockets in the nose on the Natter.

Rockets can easily be hung anywhere. There are no problems with this. The Americans place the machine gun in a container and also hang it. So nothing new either.

This is the concept of a new class of aircraft. Yes, these are theoretically very narrowly targeted aircraft that will be able to operate mainly over their own territory, that is, under cover from air defense or aviation, since enemy aircraft and helicopters are guaranteed to be able to shoot them down. But for UAVs, such fighters can become a mortal enemy, since they can be detected by radar, catch up, find visually and destroy.

Of course, both options and nuances are possible in this matter, but in general the picture is quite logical.
68 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    14 February 2022 05: 42
    how it happened at the training ground in Alabino, at the "ARMY-2017"
    It's been 5 years since then.
    Plus, these should be small missiles with a range of up to 1-1,5 km.
    That's all, and it's worth fencing a garden with an interceptor, which is not yet a fact that it will detect an UAV, because its radar and other things will obviously be weaker than that of an air defense system / air defense system.
    1. +1
      14 February 2022 05: 58
      Not every drone will fly into the range of cannon weapons
      1. +3
        14 February 2022 06: 04
        Quote: Clever man
        Not every drone will fly into the range of cannon weapons
        Rockets dear colleague, rockets. The author still writes about missiles as the first, which means the main weapon.

        P/S. Roman forgot about our GSHG 7,62 mm.
        1. +1
          14 February 2022 08: 11
          Twin-engine monoplanes are too cumbersome for an UAV fighter ... something should be simpler and cheaper ...
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. +4
            14 February 2022 20: 09
            single-engine monoplane with a pusher propeller. Below IR visibility when the exhaust is output under the propeller. Higher aerobatic qualities and enough theater of 2000-2500 l / s. Clean wing, not obstructed by the propeller in front. That means a lot of suspension points. Height up to 12 km, nose for radar, optical system, system for obtaining data from external sources (patrol reconnaissance drones) and optional carrier of long-range homing ATGMs
        2. +1
          14 February 2022 15: 17
          rather he did not know about it)
        3. +2
          14 February 2022 17: 25
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          Quote: Clever man
          Not every drone will fly into the range of cannon weapons
          Rockets dear colleague, rockets. The author still writes about missiles as the first, which means the main weapon.

          P/S. Roman forgot about our GSHG 7,62 mm.

          I saw this video where they hit the target from the Shell. Not a single hit, but they beat for a long time. Then shot down by a rocket. For small targets, guns are not suitable at all.
        4. +1
          15 February 2022 09: 50
          The caliber of 7,62 mm is completely insufficient for a confident defeat of drones, you need at least a 12,7 mm caliber and preferably with explosive bullets so as not to lift large and heavy ammunition into the air.
      2. +1
        14 February 2022 06: 59
        In my opinion, this "fighter" must-must get close to an enemy drone at a distance of actual fire from a machine gun, having exhausted other opportunities for defeat.
        1. +4
          14 February 2022 15: 21
          and if the UAV is quite large, then a couple of stingers will be hung on it, which will ruin an expensive plane with a more expensive crew, who will try to bring it down cheaply.
    2. +3
      14 February 2022 16: 35
      Ground complexes have their disadvantages.
      - the radar field cannot be continuous, moreover, terrain folds will play the role. After all, the radar detects only targets within the radio horizon. He went below - and that's it, the firing radar of the air defense system or the artillery mount does not see the target. This was the trick of breaking through air defense at midget. The interceptor, if its radar is perfect enough, allows you to see and track targets against the background of the underlying surface. Those. a ground-based radar may not observe a target, and there are practically no chances to hide from a radar raised to a height. (What are good AWACS aircraft)
      - both ZAK and air defense systems have a ceiling in height and a limit in range. The target has left the affected area - and it is pointless to use weapons. The UAV-interceptor, on the other hand, can catch up with the target and punish, the interceptor "carries" the affected area with it in the form of missiles and other means of influence.

      But, of course, ground-based radars are usually more powerful - due to the larger antennas and the higher energy that ground-based power supplies can afford. Up to megawatts, which is still unattainable for a "flying" radar.

      Both weapons systems have their pros and cons. They should complement each other, just as air defense aviation complements ground-based air defense systems and vice versa. We need any means to fight drones (and there are a great many drones now, from very miniature to the size of a modern jet fighter) - and each with its own tasks and degree of threat. Each will have its own effective weapon. For example, on the Global Hawk you can not regret a couple of S-400 missiles, on an attack drone near an important object for you - quite the same, but this would be an extreme excess for a mini-quadcopter. Therefore, everything is needed - both electronic warfare, and laser installations, and the introduction - and already yesterday - of shells with remote detonation for artillery, and small-sized and extremely cheap missiles for air defense systems, and the creation of an "interceptor fighter" kit for medium-large UAVs, so that they were able to fight with their brethren. After all, the appearance of a fighter did not make anti-aircraft artillery insignificant, and the appearance of rockets did not sweep away fighters and the same guns from heaven.
      1. 0
        15 February 2022 14: 41
        A wonderful comment, but here is one question, and who will deal with all these promising areas? Putin's "effective" managers?
  2. +10
    14 February 2022 05: 45
    It looks like the progressorism of some hit from science fiction.

    UAVs will shoot down other UAVs. Why fence a huge twin-engine plane with a crew? A medium-sized UAV is quite enough.

    Resp. and attack UAVs will soon be escorted by UAV fighters.
    1. +1
      14 February 2022 09: 50
      Quote: VicktorVR
      UAVs will shoot down other UAVs. Why fence a huge twin-engine plane with a crew? A medium-sized UAV is quite enough.

      absolutely right. The crew of such a "drone fighter" is superfluous. We take a medium-large UAV, hang search and sighting stations and weapons on it - and we get an interceptor. And there is no need to fence the garden.
    2. -1
      April 19 2022 04: 28
      And what will happen if, for example, in near space, a bucket of nails is scattered? Joke! But every joke has its share of truth, and the truth is that all BALA will end up in museums. UAVs are not the kind of weapon with which it is possible to win real wars. In real wars, the mind and spirit of man wins!
  3. +6
    14 February 2022 05: 47
    That's just about aircraft guns you need to forget.

    Why not? Shells with remote detonation will be very much nothing against UAVs.
    And for UAV fighters, a canister charge launched from, say, a 20-40 mm dynamo-reactive disposable tube, is useful.
    1. 0
      14 February 2022 07: 49
      I agree with you.
      The answer to the appearance of attack aviation a hundred years ago was, precisely, the appearance of fighter aircraft.
      Ground defense is good, but air support is even better.
      I already wrote that my vision is a fighter UAV. Moreover, with the functions of artificial intelligence. Man is already lagging behind the machine in terms of speed. The operator will only need to confirm that the detected drone is an enemy and give the command to destroy it.
      You don't need two engines. One is enough, but simultaneously working in cruising mode + long patrol), and
      on the afterburner - when the attack. Armament - four - eight melee missiles and a machine gun of normal caliber (multi-barreled is also possible), but with a large supply of cartridges and, preferably, in a mobile installation.
      1. +5
        14 February 2022 08: 27
        We need normal UAVs with a normal load. It is pointless to invent any separate type of aircraft.
        Against slow targets, it is enough to equip the current MALE with V-V missiles, with radars on them.



        Soon we need a reactive cheap multi-purpose UAV. With conventional aviation weapons.


        Below is the concept that the modern Air Force will switch to in the near future. Work is underway in this direction in all leading countries.
        1. -1
          14 February 2022 15: 17
          waiting for vk-650s
      2. 0
        27 March 2022 16: 55
        Fighter aircraft appeared in response to airship-bombers. Shchurmoviks didn't even mention it.
    2. -2
      14 February 2022 15: 14
      it will come out cheap, which is expensive ... This is too specific a means .. It is better to display a mini-UAV with electronic warfare equipment, lasers and microwaves of the Rat-S type. Everything else is already the size of a small aircraft, it is already more reliable to destroy it from afar with a rocket, since it will carry weapons or conduct fire adjustments, and it is better not to let such UAVs get close to you
  4. +4
    14 February 2022 05: 55
    That's right, turboprop aircraft. Yes, even in a good twin-engine.

    No, such an aircraft will itself be vulnerable to enemy air defense and aviation.
    1. +1
      14 February 2022 07: 46
      And why would he enter the enemy's air defense zone? He must work under the cover of his air defense and have the task of cleaning the near area from cheap and numerous evil spirits.
      1. +2
        14 February 2022 07: 49
        And why would he enter the enemy's air defense zone?

        This is how enemy aircraft operate everywhere. And the enemy's air defense should block someone else's zone, from which UAB, UR can be launched.
  5. +6
    14 February 2022 06: 18
    And what makes you think that we do not have suitable machine guns of 7,62 caliber? There is very much even from the 70s, it is called GSHG, it spits with a rate of fire up to 6000 rpm.
  6. 0
    14 February 2022 06: 43
    A continuous radar field will save from the UAV, and intercepting the same is probably better than the UAV, and here, in my opinion, canister charges are more suitable, but how to deliver them to the target (rocket, projectile) should be considered both in weight and in money. hi
    1. 0
      14 February 2022 08: 42
      Hitting a target with the help of fragments (striking elements) is used in air defense missiles, while the rocket turns out to be large and expensive, thermal ones are used at short ranges, they enter directly into the target.
      1. -1
        14 February 2022 09: 36
        Quote: Victor Sergeev
        use thermal, they go right on target.

        modern MANPADS (Igla-S, Verba) also use proximity fuses. to hit small targets with a small miss.
  7. +7
    14 February 2022 07: 06
    . About drones and reb :) ...
  8. 0
    14 February 2022 07: 44
    And here comes the understanding that the author is a little delusional. You can’t place a powerful radar on a small plane, and if you place it, you get a very expensive thing, it’s better with missiles. Ideal: a Pe3-type drone with normal navigation, a battery of 23-23mm cannons guided from the ground, maybe with a weak radar to capture a target at 3-5 kilometers and make a sieve.
  9. +7
    14 February 2022 08: 55
    Again these drop dead stories about Rust

    He was led from the very border, but no one gave the order to shoot down after the Boeing
  10. +4
    14 February 2022 09: 30
    And what do we have left?

    That's right, turboprop aircraft.

    Or the same UAV. Why is the drone itself bad in the role of a fighter of its own kind? Yes, nothing, on the contrary - it is preferable in all respects. Such an interceptor definitely does not need a pilot, UAVs are usually non-maneuverable targets, and the ground-based missile operator will also cope. Radar operator - even more so. It is possible to target designation from an unearthly radar, plus install a small-sized radar on the UAV itself. You don’t need a place to accommodate the crew, you don’t need life support systems - these are all volumes and mass, besides reducing the potential patrol time. There is no risk of losing the crew (due to an accident or as a result of an enemy attack)

    Rocket. Naturally, yes. But what is good about a drone, even the largest exhaust is not so powerful. Thermal homing heads will not be easy

    Rockets? There are many options here.
    The first - and most simple - is to hang the MANPADS pipes. Modern "Igla-S" and "Verba" with multispectral seeker easily "take" even "cold" targets. But such MANPADS are not cheap, although the option is quite viable, it will work for sure.
    The second - we hang ATGMs, even with radio command, even with laser guidance. The second option will be even lower in cost than MANPADS. In addition, ATGMs are lighter than MANPADS and more missiles can be taken.

    it is impossible to say that we have something like ShKAS. It's a pity, that's just the kind of machine would be very handy. 1800 rounds per minute is what you need. Four barrels would simply seed the space with pieces of metal. It would be very efficient.
    We do not have in service with the descendants of the Gatling product.

    and where did the "domestic" Minigun "- the GSHG-7,62 machine gun? 6 thousand rounds per minute. But the machine gun is a devourer of cartridges, and a direct hit is required to hit the target. What is worse in the role of "artillery" shotgun? - a ready-made fragmentation field. Yes, the range is short, but this can be put up with. The operator of the attacked drone may not even understand that he is being attacked - so far self-defense stations and all-round visibility systems are not installed on UAVs.

    In general, it is probably pointless to create a specialized "drone fighter". It is necessary either to re-equip the existing large UAVs, or - the concept of a "faithful wingman" is already being implemented, and this "slave" can be used separately as an interceptor fighter. Having equipped it with missiles and the necessary hanging containers.
    1. 0
      14 February 2022 16: 38
      Or the same UAV. Why is the drone itself bad in the role of a fighter of its own kind?

      Nothing - on the contrary, he is very good.
      The main thing is that you can finally get rid of the operator. You can’t confuse an alien UAV with anything peaceful, that is the task of search and destruction can be shifted to AI, and not even to AI, but to those of its miserable rudiments that are now.
      1. -2
        14 February 2022 16: 51
        Quote: bk316
        Nothing - on the contrary, he is very good

        here I am about that ... Having read the article to the end and seeing Roman as the author, I did not believe at first ... We throw out the crew cabin from the same conditional "Pe-2", and we get a medium-heavy drone, which is now already quite efficient systems.

        Quote: bk316
        The main thing is that you can finally get rid of the operator

        very dangerous trend. For now, at least. After all, far from all UAVs are equipped with friend or foe defendants, only serious things such as strategic reconnaissance and attack units (of course, shooting down a drone by mistake will not do much harm, this is not a plane with passengers), but still ... You can also crumble your own drones . Of course, even now video surveillance systems have quite advanced image recognition functions (including human faces - they say that there was even a real use of UAVs in a fully automatic mode to eliminate someone there), but somehow completely trust automation for now scary. Moreover, it is unlikely that it will be possible to completely get rid of the operator - you still need to monitor the UAV, its location and condition.

        Although, I think, the most automated zonal air defense complex is of interest, combining a "flying radar" (at least on a balloon or airship), which would issue commands to automated air defense systems and air defense systems and "steer" drones.
        1. +1
          14 February 2022 18: 52
          but still..

          1. UAVs must have very characteristic signatures, not to be confused.
          2. Well, after all, the pilot launches very often without seeing the target, that is, according to the same signature. Believe me, a modern computer solves the task of recognizing a signature much better than a human.
          3. And it's time to force all civilians to carry defendants.
          1. 0
            14 February 2022 19: 01
            Quote: bk316
            1. UAVs must have very characteristic signatures, not to be confused.
            2. Well, after all, the pilot launches very often without seeing the target

            I know all this. But the pilot will use the weapon in the belief that he is using it precisely against the enemy. From the RP team. And the solution of the problem "enemy or not" is decided by the ground command post, or the pilot knows for sure that there are no friendly people in the given area. In any case, this is a huge job, not a single service.
            Quote: bk316
            And it's time to force all civilians to carry defendants.

            civilians just wear them, those that are reflected on the Flytradar, for example. Many military people do not have them. For example, small drones of the regiment-battalion level
            1. 0
              14 February 2022 20: 09
              In any case, this is a huge job, not a single service.

              Well, in this case, who prevents the AI ​​from taking the pilot's seat and communicating with the CP in exactly the same way. There will be people, well, for now laughing
              For example, small drones of the regiment-battalion level

              Well, because of such people, the war will definitely not start, again, I don’t know about small UAVs, but they learned to distinguish tank signatures with three nines. This is beyond human capabilities.

              Well, then, you understand that you can be afraid or not be afraid, but this is inevitable. It’s just that for working on the ground without an operator, that scanty AI that exists, well, just doesn’t fit in any way. And for air targets, it already more or less corresponds.
  11. +1
    14 February 2022 10: 05
    It seems that our mega-expert is not aware of the presence of GSHG. Well, UAVs are not so cheap, and missiles are not so expensive either.
  12. The comment was deleted.
  13. sen
    +2
    14 February 2022 12: 48
    On TV they showed an air defense post against Ukrainian drones in the Donbass.
    PC in a special fixture in the center of the trench. They say they shoot him down.
  14. +2
    14 February 2022 12: 50
    It will be easier to attach a pair of the same 7.62 mm machine guns under the same drone. It will be able to hang in the sky for a long time, it will be cheap, there will be no need to worry about the lives of pilots if an enemy fighter suddenly appears. Solid pluses.

    PS in Alabino there was such a problem with the defeat of the UAV, because we do not have a projectile with remote detonation in the nomenclature of 30 mm ammunition and we have to achieve an accurate hit. If there was such a projectile, it would be easier.
  15. +3
    14 February 2022 14: 27
    And why is the S-60 anti-aircraft gun using shells with a remote fuse not being considered?
  16. +1
    14 February 2022 14: 45
    For some reason, the author decided that the game would be played with one goal. Unlikely. Rather, we should talk about confrontation, just on a new technical field. Rather, a new layer is being added to the existing technical field of confrontation between aviation and air defense - UAVs.
    For large UAVs, the technical aspects are no different from aircraft, for small ones - I really want to save money, which is understandable, but there is a nuance - in the calculations you need to take into account not only the means of destruction, but also the maintenance (maintenance, repair) and combat use of carriers, if you already are going to apply special.
    It may well turn out that universal carriers and mass (universal) weapons may turn out to be cheaper than special ones, in the end.
  17. +1
    14 February 2022 15: 10
    hmm, I thought someone new wrote, but then Roman excelled ... 1) Shell and missiles are expensive, but a whole plane with a crew and with the same missiles is already cheap ..
    2) The task is not to get an ultimatum cheap means of destroying UAVs and not to let the UAV destroy expensive equipment, in the case of the Shell it is easier to refine in terms of undermining the shells for the gun, which is actually done ..
    3) "Gatling, which is not" in your feed
  18. 0
    14 February 2022 15: 27
    For now, ground-based complexes will win by detection. But how to deliver the damaging element to the target - here questions remain.
    1. +2
      14 February 2022 16: 58
      Quote: Kerensky
      While ground complexes will win by detection

      and why did they create AWACS aircraft, since ground-based radars win?
      1. 0
        14 February 2022 17: 57
        and why did they create AWACS aircraft, since ground-based radars win?

        Are we talking about DEFENSE from drones?
        1. If we are defending a certain object, then it is realistic to hide all the equipment in a bunker, leaving quick-change antennas outside. There are no restrictions on the mass and dimensions of the equipment, and it will receive stupidly more energy.
        2. Defense of parts and connections. The same thing, only on tracks - wheels. Is it ground?
        1. +1
          14 February 2022 18: 09
          Ground radar does not see everything. Only up to the radio horizon. The "flying" radar has a much - much - more radio horizon
          1. 0
            14 February 2022 18: 18
            The "flying" radar has a much - much - more radio horizon

            And so it can be seen further.

            A ground station can deploy huge "burdocks" and be powered by a hefty generator.
            No need to save grams and centimeters.
            If you really want to do aeronautics, then (as an option) a balloon over an object with cable power. With modern technologies and materials, they can be made quite "toothy" and compact.
            1. +1
              14 February 2022 18: 36
              You didn't hear me, alas. Do you know what a radio horizon is? Let me explain: the radar beam is microwave radiation, it propagates only in the line of sight. Those. its spread will be hindered by:
              - curvature of the Earth (yes, our Earth is a sphere - didn't you know?)
              - the relief of the Earth (mountains, buildings, etc. - everything that exceeds the location of the RADAR ANTENNA in height)
              Nobody saves grams and centimeters, I am writing to you about PHYSICAL limitations, even if you build a radar station the size of a metropolitan area and a power of 999999 megawatts
              1. 0
                14 February 2022 18: 48
                I am writing to you about PHYSICAL limitations,

                This is clear. But ... a lot of buts.
                А when do we need to detect the UAV?
                If this is a scout, then he himself will stick out because of the "curvature of the earth" (which is not a ball, but a geoid).
                If the drummer, then he, too, direct visibility is not superfluous.
                That is, the "large and thick" ground-based radar has an advantage over the "small and dead" one placed on board the UAV.
                The radio horizon is about 36 km. Right? With a change in the elevation angle of the target (flight altitude), it grows. Right?
                1. 0
                  14 February 2022 19: 07
                  Quote: Kerensky
                  And when do we need to detect the UAV?

                  the sooner the better. at the same time, this will not interfere with understanding his goals and objectives, at least approximately - is he a striker or a scout. You don't think that a photograph of the apparatus is reflected on the radar screen, do you?

                  Quote: Kerensky
                  in front of the "small and dead" placed on board the UAV.

                  Who told you that there is small and dead? Modern radars, which are not quite too heavy, fully provide visibility up to 100 km. It's really nothing. the higher you go, the farther you see.

                  Quote: Kerensky
                  With a change in the elevation angle of the target (flight altitude), it grows. Right?

                  I immediately wrote to you about that - the problem is in detecting low-flying targets. A ground-based radar may not see them (due to the terrain), or see them too late, raised to a height - no. So what's the disagreement?
                  1. 0
                    14 February 2022 19: 28
                    So what's the disagreement?

                    There is no disagreement. There is a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages.

                    Modern radars, which are not quite too heavy, fully provide visibility up to 100 km. It's really nothing. the higher you go, the farther you see.

                    Let me smoothly move on to such a parameter as the EPR of the UAV. It is very small in plastic airplanes. And in order to accurately catch him, the radar complex will have to sacrifice something.
                    With the air deployment of the complex, we cannot sacrifice weight and size characteristics and power-to-weight ratio.
                    On the ground, yes - we see a "muzzle under our noses", but we can identify it ...
                    That is, the concept of "detect earlier" takes on a slightly different meaning.
                    Detection ends at the moment when the target is identified as an adversary UAV.
  19. +1
    14 February 2022 16: 35
    To combat UAVs, the Swiss Oerlikons would be best suited, firing 30-mm fragmentation projectiles with a programmable time (distance) before detonation. Well, there is a programmer at the end of the barrel, and a microchip retarder inside the projectile. From this it would be the most in terms of price / performance ratio!
    1. 0
      14 February 2022 16: 57
      Quote: krvl
      To combat UAVs, the Swiss Oerlikons would be best suited, firing 30-mm fragmentation projectiles with a programmable time (distance) before detonation. Well, there is a programmer at the end of the barrel, and a microchip retarder inside the projectile. From this it would be the most in terms of price / performance ratio!

      And if the drone goes above the ceiling of the artillery system? Well, let's say, "Global Hawk" came to visit at an altitude of 10 thousand?
      No one argues that programmable detonation shells are very, very necessary (and not only for fighting air targets, but also for hitting completely ground targets in cover, for example, behind a hillock or in a trench), but this is not a panacea.
  20. 0
    14 February 2022 20: 26
    Why can't a fighter UAV perform the above tasks? Why put at risk the extra lives of pilots, of whom there are so few and which are worth their weight in platinum? Algorithms are very mature these days, a corrective robot will be only marginally less efficient.
  21. 0
    14 February 2022 21: 05
    Against UAVs, it is necessary to revive large-caliber anti-aircraft artillery. And if we are to make an UAV interceptor, then it should also be an UAV without a radar (pointing from the ground, otherwise it’s expensive and it’s a pity to lose, but it will be necessary to bring it down) and, if limited to machine guns, then - large-caliber, 14.5 is quite sincere, and it’s cheap to book from it won't come out.
  22. 0
    14 February 2022 23: 03
    IMHO.
    A machine gun against small things is not a solution.
    it is enough to lead an anti-aircraft maneuver into small UAVs - and you will get figs.
    I saw a couple of videos where American fans at the shooting range with all barrels fired at a radio-controlled model. Didn't hit.
    About the same here in VO they talk about defense against anti-ship missiles .. But there the automation is firing.

    Cheap UAV - cheap mass rocket.


    Dear UAV - so it will defend itself in the future, leave - If it is comparable in cost to an airplane.
    Also at a distance for 7,62 will not let.
  23. +1
    14 February 2022 23: 42
    Wouldn't it be easier to use ordinary projectiles with a programmable burst instead of missiles and expensive UAV fighters? You always remember that video from Alabino - I also watched this video, the shells pass half a meter from the drone without hitting it. But if AT LEAST ONE shell had exploded at least a meter from it, the apparatus would have been blown away by a blast wave of 100%.
    Well, during the heyday of barreled anti-aircraft artillery, there was such a technique - a "box", four shells were sent, exploding around the target, at four corners, the probability of its destruction increased sharply. A burst of four projectiles with a programmable burst is guaranteed to disable any drone. And a rocket is a really very expensive weapon.
  24. 0
    15 February 2022 01: 25
    Personally, I’ve been “toal” for a long time for the modernization of the yak 130. There is even infa in the open spaces about the yak 131 attack aircraft, but it’s still quiet.
    1. It already exists! Only refinement
    2. Cheap. Short turnaround time is also a big plus.
    3. "Training desk", respectively, can be included both in the process of training cadets, and "green" cadets in hot times can be immediately involved
    4. In addition to the narrowly specialized tasks of destroying drones, they can also be used for serious assault missions (when covering air defense or fighters, or when used at a distance of inaccessibility of enemy air defense)
  25. 0
    15 February 2022 09: 09
    1. If aircraft guns or SAM guns do not work very effectively against such targets, maybe it is worth developing special ammunition for them that do not require a direct hit to hit a rather fragile target?
    2. Why use propeller-driven aircraft to intercept them? Then use light helicopters. Or, as an option, the Yak-130, its stall speed is not very high.
  26. 0
    15 February 2022 14: 18
    The idea to put the conditional "Bending" on the UAV is not bad .....
  27. -1
    15 February 2022 18: 37
    Against medium-sized UAVs (such as Bayraktar), fighter armament is much better than MANPADS or ATGMs from a distance of 2-3 km.
    It is possible to shoot down a drone with 7,62 mm machine guns only after approaching 200-300 meters, which will be unsafe.
  28. 0
    15 February 2022 18: 57
    sorry
    "And machines rose up in nuclear ashes..."[center]
  29. DO
    0
    15 February 2022 21: 48
    I read the comments. All the concepts of pain with drones deserve attention - ground, UAVs (including kamikaze), specialized missiles, shells, machine guns, buckshot, radio equipment, lasers, nets, and so on.
    The manned "UAV fighter", proposed by the author, most likely corresponds to the niche of the "last defender" from enemy UAVs that have broken through the rest of the means of destroying drones (more precisely, the penultimate one, because the last defense is portable or transportable special air defense systems on the objects attacked by drones themselves).
    Why manned? "Last Defender" must be reliable. Today's AI will perfectly perform standard deterministic tasks, but it is probably premature to entrust it with the creative functions of the "last defender" from effective, as Karabakh has shown, UAVs. In addition, he must work on his controlled territory.
    The speed of the UAV fighter, most likely, is not required to be supersonic, but it must be higher than indicated by the author. Not in order to catch up with the slug, but in order to have time to fly in and eliminate the threat.
    A powerful radar station on such a device is hardly feasible, therefore, this aircraft must have developed means of interaction with ground systems and AWACS aircraft, manned and unmanned.
    What specific weapons a UAV fighter should have is better known to professionals with experience in testing. But most likely, it should be small rackets and a machine gun.
    And of course, the UAV fighter must have a prototype that is already flying. For example, the Yak-130, or the project of a small airplane with a reverse-swept wing previously described on the net. Or both - the existing Yak-130 now, and the "reverse arrow" with a short takeoff a little later.
  30. 0
    23 February 2022 06: 32
    - The optimal interceptor for UAVs of the Bayraktara class and the like for Israel would be an M-346 type aircraft:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alenia_Aermacchi_M-346_Master#Specifications_(M-346)
    But with a wingspan increased by three meters (with the same area) and a radar like https://www.iai.co.il/p/elm-2052, - small, compact, powerful, with AFAR, "unparalleled in world", and as weapons - two six-barreled Gatling machine guns with a large ammunition load, but small caliber, 5.56:
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/5,56_%C3%97_45_%D0%BC%D0%BC_%D0%9D%D0%90%D0%A2%D0%9E
    Such an aircraft will have a minus-shifted speed range, instead of:
    Maximum speed: 1,090 km / h
    Stall speed: 176 km/h
    there will be a range of operating speeds of 120-750 km / h - and this is quite enough for a quick exit to the interception point, and for equalizing the speed with the UAV, for guaranteed aiming and hitting it.
    ========================
    Just the other day, a mini-UAV, obviously Iranian, again flew into the Golan with impunity and could not be shot down - neither from the ground, nor from a fighter, nor from a helicopter. Scandal... The problem really emerged, because this is the second such case in the last three years.
  31. IVZ
    0
    April 8 2022 09: 47
    Loitering drone with radio command control for rough guidance from the ground to a detected target, + homing head in the rendezvous and attack area with the possibility of correction by the operator. Weapon: built-in - machine gun 5,45 ... 7,62mm. or a 10-gauge shotgun, can be multi-barreled;
    suspended - NAR C5, MANPADS, etc..
  32. 0
    April 10 2022 16: 35
    Wow! My favorite ear was remembered! And you Skomorokhov are not bad.

    Well, somewhere like this. But not really..
  33. 0
    7 May 2022 00: 45
    As far as I remember, in 2010, the Americans tested a laser system to combat unmanned aerial and surface targets on ships in the Persian Gulf. They used rather cheap and at the same time efficient semiconductor lasers with fiber focusing. That is, there is a powerful semiconductor laser, from which an optical fiber departs, which goes into the focusing system. There are several hundreds of such lasers in the facility. The task of the focusing system is to collect these hundreds of rays on the target.
    The system has shown not only its effectiveness, but also its low cost. A laser shot was cheaper than a shot from an anti-aircraft machine gun. The price was around 10-20 dollars. Against large drones, their blinding was supposed. It was just that the focal spot was made larger in order to damage the optical instruments of the drone.