Ukrainian light aviation against Russian UAVs

61
Ukrainian light aviation against Russian UAVs
Перехват БПЛА над Одессой, апрель 2024 г. Подбитый UAV выпустил посадочный парашют


The Russian armed forces widely use unmanned aerial vehicles for reconnaissance and strikes. Ukrainian formations are trying to counteract our unmanned aviation and are looking for effective solutions.



A few months ago, light aircraft and small arms began to be actively used in this area. weapon. This practice is becoming more widespread.

Interceptor trainer


To combat Russian long-range unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), such as reconnaissance Orlans and attack Geraniums, the enemy uses various means, including combat aircraft. Soviet-style fighters are involved in solving such problems, but in some cases they may be redundant for such missions, and their number is constantly being reduced.

In this regard, the Ukrainian Air Force (Air Force) recently proposed and implemented a new concept.

В конце апреля на украинских ресурсах появились любопытные видеоролики, демонстрирующие новый способ борьбы с БПЛА. Видео были сняты накануне над Одесской областью, предположительно, во время прилёта российского разведывательного беспилотника «Орлан-10».

It was decided to use an old Soviet-designed Yak-52 trainer aircraft as a kind of fighter. It is alleged that the plane and the pilots belong to a certain public organization “Civil Air Patrol”, but the car bears the coloring of the “industrial forces”. It was probably also renovated and equipped with modern equipment. The Interceptor carries weapons, but its composition and parameters are not specified. Later it became known that the plane could be equipped with a PK machine gun, and one of the pilots used it directly from the cockpit.

It was reported that the Yak-52 crew was able to shoot down at least one Orlan, thereby hampering the Russian armies conduct reconnaissance. However, the published videos cast doubt on the Ukrainian version of events. Externally, the intercepted target looks more like a Ukrainian UAV UJ-22. In any case, this improvised fighter demonstrated its ability to combat aircraft-type drones, regardless of their nationality.


Presumably, the "Odessa" Yak-52. Photo Telegram / Dambiev

Subsequently, there were reports of new cases related to the “fighter modification” of the Yak-52 training aircraft. Successful hits of targets were reported, but the details of these events remained unknown.

Pilot and gunner


On July 8, another video appeared in Ukrainian sources, which captured the interception of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) using a light aircraft and small arms. It is reported that this unusual idea was implemented by employees of the Main Intelligence Directorate (GUR).

The power steering uses a Ukrainian-made light civil aircraft Aeroprakt A-22 as an interceptor. Its two-seat cockpit houses the pilot and gunner. The shooter is armed with a Malyuk assault rifle and must observe the surrounding situation and attack the detected target. To do this, he fires through the “embrasure” - a standard window in the side glazing of the aircraft.

The published video shows the process of intercepting an aircraft-type UAV. The pilot detected the target, flew closer and took a position above and slightly behind it. The shooter attacked the drone at close range, and it, having received damage, went into an uncontrollable dive.

The nature of this flight is not specified. Judging by the landscape and surroundings, these were some kind of tests in testing conditions, and not a real interception of an unmanned aerial target. However, having received an acceptable result, the power steering department can try to introduce such a technique into practice. In this case, Aeroprakty or other aircraft with machine gunners on board will take off to intercept Russian drones.


Ultralight A-22. Photo "Aeroprakt"

Technical aspects


In April, a Yak-52 aircraft was used in Odessa to intercept unmanned aerial vehicles. This is a sports training machine that was developed in the early seventies.

The Yak-52 was intended for initial training of flight personnel, as well as for use for sporting purposes. Production of this model began in the late seventies at the Romanian Aerostar plant. Most of the aircraft entered educational institutions and other organizations of the USSR.

The Yak-52 is an all-metal piston low-wing aircraft with a straight wing. The length of the vehicle does not exceed 7,8 meters, and the wingspan is 9,3 meters. The dry weight of the aircraft is 1035 kilograms, and the maximum take-off weight is 1315 kilograms. The M-14P star-shaped piston engine with a power of 360 horsepower provides a speed of up to 270 kilometers per hour and a flight range of up to 465 kilometers. Stall speed is 110 kilometers per hour. The practical ceiling is 4000 meters. The design allows maneuvers with overload from +7 to -5.

In the central part of the fuselage there is a two-seat tandem cabin. Both pilots have a full set of controls. Access to the cabin is through the sliding parts of the canopy.

The A-22 aircraft was developed in the late nineties by the Ukrainian company Aeroprakt. It was offered to civilian customers as a simple training aircraft or light air transport. To date, at least a thousand A-22 aircraft have been built, including products of several modifications.

The ultra-light A-22 is built according to a high-wing design with a straight metal wing, a plastic casing and fabric covering. The length of the aircraft is only 6,23 meters, and the wingspan is 9,55 meters. The empty plane weighs 306 kilograms, and the maximum take-off weight is 450 kilograms. A Rotax 912 piston engine with 100 horsepower is installed in the bow.


The shooter prepares to attack the target. Still from video from GUR

The cockpit of the A-22 aircraft is the largest and most spacious structural element. It can accommodate just two people, sitting side by side. The cockpit and body of the aircraft as a whole are equipped with a transparent fairing, which provides good visibility in different directions. Entrance to the cabin is through plastic transparent side doors.

According to available data, the armament of the Yak-52 fighter consists of a PK machine gun, which is in the hands of one of the pilots. This is a machine gun chambered for a 7,62×54 mm R rifle cartridge with a rate of fire of 650 rounds per minute and an ammunition load of 100 or more rounds of ammunition. The target firing range is 1000 meters.

During a recent flight, the A-22 crew used a Malyuk assault rifle. This Ukrainian weapon, created on the basis of the Soviet AK-74, is distinguished by its bullpup layout and special appearance. It uses a standard low-impulse cartridge of 5,45x39 mm caliber, and also offered a modification for the NATO cartridge 5,56x45 mm. The machine's rate of fire reaches 650 rounds per minute, and the target range is 1000 meters.

Doubtful result


Due to a shortage of anti-aircraft weapons and modern fighters, the Ukrainian military was forced to resort to improvisation. They equipped light aircraft with small arms and created two types of interceptors.

It is argued that this technique successfully copes with its tasks, but it also has disadvantages.

It is important to pay attention to the types and characteristics of the aircraft that were selected for this purpose. Sports aircraft with low flight characteristics but good maneuverability are used as “fighters”. This choice is determined by the characteristics of the goals with which they have to fight.

According to available data, the speed of the Orlans and Geraniums does not exceed 200–250 km/h. You don't need a high-speed aircraft to fight them, but there are some nuances that should be taken into account.


In the process of interception. Still from video from GUR

The Interceptors were selected from the available stock. In Ukraine there are a number of Yak-52 training aircraft and ultra-light A-22 aircraft. In addition, the latter may still be able to be produced in-house, at least from existing stocks. The presence of a fleet of such aircraft makes it possible to quickly deploy “fighters” without relying on repair facilities or foreign supplies.

Of course, there are also disadvantages. First of all, they are associated with the improvised and compromise nature of the project. The creators of the “fighters” could not choose the optimal components and solutions, which ultimately led to serious limitations of various kinds.

For example, objective restrictions affected the “weapons complex”. Two improvised interceptors are equipped with infantry weapons, and the functions of the control system are performed by a specially trained shooter. All this leads to low fire accuracy and reduces the overall effectiveness of combat work. In fact, the success of an interception depends only on random hits on the target.

Forced measures


At the moment, fighter aircraft and the air defense system of Ukraine have suffered significant losses and lost most of their potential. At the same time, the Russian army continues to actively use unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) of various types, which forces the enemy to urgently look for alternative solutions.

A few months ago, this led to the emergence of improvised fighters in the form of light aircraft for non-military purposes. It is claimed that such “interceptors” are capable of fighting drones. However, the real capabilities and quantity of such equipment are unlikely to correspond to the scale of the threat posed by drones. Therefore, it can be assumed that the Yak-52 with a machine gun or the A-22 with a machine gun will not be able to effectively cope with the assigned tasks and will remain in stories as a necessary measure and a technical curiosity.
61 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -2
    11 July 2024 04: 32
    In general, no matter how lousy the enemy’s aircraft is, there will always be a use for it. Therefore, airplanes and their pilots, regardless of their affiliation with ukrolyufta, are a priority target.
    1. 18+
      11 July 2024 07: 09
      In fact, such a solution in a situation with a UAV threat is in any case a step in solving the problem, and such aircraft can be one of the important parts of the counter-UAV system at the present stage.
      1. +6
        11 July 2024 08: 13
        such a solution in a situation with a UAV threat is in any case a step in solving the problem

        I'm not an aviation specialist, but I'm wondering how the plane will be aimed at the UAV in a real battle?
        This is not a problem at the training ground; the pilot knows where to look for the target. But in the realities of life, do you still need to get the plane down, or is all your hope in the vigilance of the pilots and gunner? What about at night?
        1. +6
          11 July 2024 10: 34
          Quote: Popandos
          But in the realities of life, do you still need to get the plane down, or is all your hope in the vigilance of the pilots and gunner? What about at night?

          But in real life (based on drone attacks on our territory), the main task is to detect a UAV, but shooting it down is another task. If a target is detected, then it is possible to point at it, but undetected ones fly far into the interior of Russia. This is where the problem lies, not only is there no continuous radar coverage, but we can’t even build an acceptable radar field in threatened directions. request
        2. -5
          11 July 2024 12: 32
          And what to do in a situation where the Russian Federation has a radar field with a depth of 200 km behind the front line and air defense with an operating range of up to 300 km. With the mass use of this method, sports pilots will immediately become a target for air defense and the air force
      2. +1
        11 July 2024 12: 30
        not the number of pilots and pilots...
        You don’t pack a lot, and considering the nightly use, it doesn’t...
    2. 12+
      11 July 2024 08: 52
      In general, no matter how lousy the enemy’s plane is

      Who told you that the Yak-52 and A-22 are “lousy planes”? These are quite normal planes.
      1. -2
        11 July 2024 08: 58
        Quote from solar
        Who told you that the Yak-52 and A-22 are “lousy planes”? These are quite normal planes.

        Where did you see that I called these planes lousy? These particular planes are definitely better than your command of your native speech.
        1. UAT
          +4
          11 July 2024 14: 12
          Vladimir_2U, What's the problem solar with native speech?
          1. -1
            11 July 2024 14: 25
            Quote: UAT
            Vladimir_2U, what is the problem with solar with native speech?

            And the fact is that solar confused my mention of a certain abstract aircraft with a claim to specific types, and even wrote it in an instructive manner.
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            no matter how lousy a plane is, there will always be a use for it.

            Do you also consider this phrase to be a claim against specific types?
  2. +3
    11 July 2024 05: 08
    A few months ago, this led to the emergence of improvised fighters in the form of light aircraft for non-military purposes
    In a word, the spiral of history repeats itself and we return to the prototypes of the Farmans and Bleriots of the First World War and the Balkan Wars wink
  3. +8
    11 July 2024 05: 28
    ? What's stopping me from doing the same? even with low efficiency, this is at least some result compared to a lost, for example, oil depot or civilian casualties
    and much cheaper than firing rockets
    1. AAK
      12+
      11 July 2024 06: 36
      Well, it’s better to write an article about “inefficiency” than to create a similar or improved one...
      And the real reason for this tone of this article, in my opinion, is that we practically do not have mass flying clubs and the production base for creating such small aircraft, unlike Europe... But we need it both in the troops and in the rear a certain “I-16.2.0”, speed 300-400 km/h, stay in the air for 2-2.5 hours, armament: 2-4 machine guns 7.62/5.45 and a small ventral radar for monitoring the situation
      1. +5
        11 July 2024 07: 33
        speed 300-400 km/h, in the air

        10-12 hours, and the load capacity is good, there is one - TVS-2DTS. hang afar, drlo will work
        1. +4
          11 July 2024 09: 06
          Quote: nswe
          there is one - TVS-2DTS

          Variation on the An-2 theme with a turboprop engine. For a fighter it is too big, heavy, and never super maneuverable.
          1. +5
            11 July 2024 09: 46
            a fighter is not needed. what they launch into cities and villages, except for missiles, does not fly at the speed of a fighter. so, for comparison - IL-2, maximum permissible speed, no more than: 414 km/h. you need something cheap to hang for a long time, discovered and intercepted, if possible, UAVs in dangerous directions
        2. +1
          11 July 2024 14: 02
          Yak 11? and we must also remember how to do weapons, more or less not shoot from the window
      2. 0
        11 July 2024 07: 42
        Quote: AAK
        But both the troops and the rear need a certain “I-16.2.0”

        I really hope something like this is done.
      3. +1
        11 July 2024 09: 03
        Quote: AAK
        both the troops and the rear need a certain “I-16.2.0”

        Just not "donkey". It was finicky to handle and had a tendency to spin at low speeds. Here, some kind of aerobatic aircraft would be more suitable, to hang containers with machine guns under its wings. Or install synchronous ones around the motor, but this is already a rather complicated development; the synchronizer must be reliable so as not to shoot off its blades. This is exactly how the famous German ace of the First World War Max Immelman died, he shot off one of his blades, and the vibration from the unbalanced propeller almost instantly destroyed the “whatnot” in the air, and a parachute at that time was not standard equipment.
        The radar, by the way, will not work except in a container under the wing; under the belly it will only see interference from the propeller blades.
        1. +3
          11 July 2024 11: 19
          Quote: Nagan
          Here, some kind of aerobatic aircraft would be more suitable, to hang containers with machine guns under its wings.

          It's time to dig out stewardess SM-92? wink

          In fact, the main problem with UAVs is not to hit, but to detect. With normal detection and continuous tracking, sooner or later the target will be shot down.
          And this leads to the fact that the aircraft will have to be equipped with an OEC or radar. Or both. Does the sports aerobatic car have enough engine power to take off with all this? And then also feed during the flight.
          And yes, when it comes to sports aerobatic machines, the Yak-52B immediately comes to mind. Which, despite the strengthening of the structure, was rejected due to the impossibility of aimed shooting from suspended weapons - the too light structure began to be rocked by recoil.
    2. 0
      11 July 2024 12: 34
      the fact that this was done and tested in the late 40s and 80s... Even balloon interceptors based on the AN-2 were developed... A completely useless, moreover, dangerous idea...
  4. +4
    11 July 2024 07: 41
    The solution is interesting and plausible. IMHO, a helicopter would be better.
    1. +2
      11 July 2024 07: 44
      a helicopter would be better
      Expensive!
      1. 11+
        11 July 2024 08: 46
        Here the matter is different. In 2015, during research and development work on reconnaissance UAVs, conditions were put forward to increase the altitude of the UAV to 5000...6000 m. I will not describe this story. Close people received funding and reported on the work performed, although there are no UAVs with the declared characteristics. The solution to the issue of UAVs avoiding such interceptors is to increase the altitude limit. To do this, you need to use “oversized” piston engines or piston engines with piston supercharging, or a combination of these solutions. Corresponding proposals for such engines were submitted to the relevant structures, but were rejected. Let me explain why. The Japanese Saito-10 engine, which is now installed in the Orlan-40, before the SVO cost in the range of 25...27 thousand rubles, it came to us through direct import, the engine is an aircraft model. Now, due to sanctions, the engine already costs somewhere around 170...180 thousand rubles, and is delivered via parallel import through “warehouse manager, merchandiser and back porch”. How much the engine actually costs, and how much according to financial reports, is a great mystery. Parallel imports are an excellent feeding trough and a method of absorbing government funds. financing. Here the St. Petersburg company offered its own version of such an engine, but something didn’t work out for them, in principle, it’s clear what. Serious guys don't care about breaking business schemes. Belousov is surprised to see the figure of 11 trillion rubles, but he hasn’t seen everything yet. We also tried to come up with our own motor project for high-altitude drones, but we were politely sent on an “erotic walking tour.” It turns out that the main specialists in aircraft engines work at the Institute named after. Plekhanov. So, gentlemen, calm down, while our country is led by lawyers, economists, journalists, artists and athletes, everything will be as before as EBN set it.
        1. -1
          11 July 2024 12: 36
          just increase the speed of the UAV by 50-80 km to 280-300 km/h and it will become practically inaccessible for light sports aircraft..
  5. +3
    11 July 2024 08: 15
    I assume that the Air Force will soon have EMB-314 Super Tucano, to combat geraniums and more
    1. 0
      11 July 2024 23: 01
      Yeah. And how do you imagine that? The Tucan has a stall speed similar to the cruising speed of the Geranium :) The Yak-52 has less. That's why it fits better.
  6. +4
    11 July 2024 08: 58
    Nothing
    They operate similarly all over the world.
    Shooting from airplanes, helicopters, etc.

    In poorer countries, propeller-driven attack aircraft generally remain.
    and nothing. They live.
    In terms of meaning, UAVs are an analogue of ultra-cheap missiles. Due to the revolution in microelectronics, batteries, micromotors. There have already been similar cases in history.
    And logically, ultra-cheap interceptors should fight them. In the meantime, they are not there - and cheap airplanes will do...
  7. BAI
    +1
    11 July 2024 08: 58
    1. It is necessary to revive WWII fighters.
    2. Drones will also increase their speed and it will not be easy to catch up with them.
    3. UAVs will receive all-round cameras and will ram fighters themselves
    1. +2
      11 July 2024 10: 39
      1. It is necessary to revive WWII fighters

      You don't need any fighter jets to chase tiny drones. It's a very complicated matter...

      3. UAVs will receive all-round cameras and will ram fighters themselves

      This option is more or less acceptable...
    2. +2
      11 July 2024 12: 38
      Or explode in the air like a V-1, demolishing everything around within a radius of 300 meters..
      Why did the British quickly abandon shooting V-1s, switching to the tactic of flipping them over with their wings?
    3. +3
      11 July 2024 23: 07
      Quote: BAI
      2. Drones will also increase their speed and it will not be easy to catch up with them.

      For what? Increasing the speed means a more powerful motor, which means a stronger thermal footprint and easier targeting of missiles.
      Quote: BAI
      3. UAVs will receive all-round cameras and will ram fighters themselves

      Yes? And How? In order to ram an airplane you need to have greater speed and greater maneuverability. Are you going to make a missile defense system from Geranium?

      You're thinking in the wrong direction. There is no need to protect the UAV. UAVs—I’ve been saying this for years—should be consumables of war.
    4. 0
      12 July 2024 01: 58
      1. It is necessary to revive WWII fighters.

      Maybe it's better to use something newer? I understand that those planes were reliable, but the machines on which they were assembled have long been in museums. And the emergence of new materials and technologies in aircraft construction has made production cheaper, and aircraft are lighter and simply better.
      2. Drones will also increase their speed and it will not be easy to catch up with them.

      For a long time now, there have been jet UAVs, moreover kamikaze ones, and we have already shot them down. Their problem is the high cost of jet engines and short flight range compared to their other propeller counterparts. For the price of one kamikaze jet UAV, you can assemble 1,5~2 conventional UAVs, both cheaper and more profitable.
      3. UAVs will receive all-round cameras and will ram fighters themselves

      Expensive + impractical. Equipping a UAV with expensive cameras that could potentially be filled with explosives and could fall on some very expensive object exceeding the cost of a fighter jet does not sound profitable. Plus, what kind of fighter will it ram? To shoot down UAVs, both the Yak-52 and A-22 and Mig-29 are used. I doubt that you will be able to catch up with one of them, especially the last one. Well, the cherry on the cake, how will he ram them? How will he decide that there is neither a bird, nor garbage, nor anything else near him, namely an airplane? What if it misfires and he mistakes the bird for an airplane and decides to destroy a graduate of American bio laboratories in Ukraine instead of something important? And the pilots are not idiots either, they stay at a safe distance from the UAV, if they see that the UAV is flying after them, they will fight as hard as they can, and they will also shoot back.
  8. +2
    11 July 2024 10: 17
    Some kind of throwback to the First World War. All that remains is to put frying pans under the pilots’ ass. The evolution of humanity is spiraling upward.
    1. 0
      12 July 2024 01: 42
      Everything is new, it is well forgotten old.
  9. 0
    11 July 2024 10: 25
    Quote: Dutchman Michel
    a helicopter would be better
    Expensive!

    I'm not sure that any two-seater Robinson is more expensive than these airplanes. However, it may be more expensive.
  10. -2
    11 July 2024 10: 29
    Reconnaissance drones must fly in pairs... In a pair - 1 reconnaissance drone and its “defender” (loitering interceptor drone), capable of attacking both an enemy “aggressor” drone and a Yak-52 type...! [The defender drone patrols on propellers (electric engines); but it also has a rocket accelerator... as an option, a pair of electric engines are added that are turned on during an attack! Example: a drone is loitering with a tail engine with a pushing propeller...during an attack, two more wing engines with pulling propellers are turned on!]
  11. +2
    11 July 2024 10: 54
    Quote: Nagan
    The radar, by the way, will not work except in a container under the wing; under the belly it will only see interference from the propeller blades.

    Composite propeller blades
    https://www.mt-propeller.com/en/entw/pro_blades.htm
    1. +1
      11 July 2024 12: 41
      The Americans installed radars on piston Birket F-6s back in 1944.. On the wing outside the rotor rotation zone.. And with modern electronics, synchronizing radar pulses with the passage of the blades or cutting off interference from the propeller with filters is not a problem at all..
  12. 0
    11 July 2024 12: 02
    We need a modern version of the Yak fighters. More than 30 thousand of them were produced during the war and pilots can be trained easily.
    Armament, speed and maneuverability are quite sufficient. They can patrol in the air near protected objects for hours. So they are able to completely solve the problem of long-range drones at low speed.
    1. +2
      11 July 2024 12: 43
      not needed.. drones themselves must fight with drones.. Artificial intelligence, at least in air combat and piloting, has far surpassed human intelligence, so it’s high time to develop and launch compact fighter drones..
      1. +1
        11 July 2024 23: 16
        Quote: Biggi_2006
        not needed.. drones themselves must fight with drones.. Artificial intelligence, at least in air combat and piloting, has far surpassed human intelligence, so it’s high time to develop and launch compact fighter drones..


        There is no artificial intelligence in nature. Neither here, nor in Japan, nor in the West. Just no, that's all. There are probabilistic data processing algorithms. On which "neural networks" are implemented. BUT they have no more intelligence than a doorknob.
        For air combat, you don’t even need a neural network. There, EVERY object has a “friend or foe” system. Therefore, air combat is carried out according to the simplest “beat the enemy” algorithm. And finding and holding a target was already developed when computers were big.
        You just need to develop a miniature “friend or foe” system.

        Now the problem will be that at the front there are a lot of CIVIL drones of various state. accessories that no one can distinguish in any way, because on both sides there are the same Chinese Mavics.
      2. 0
        12 July 2024 01: 40
        Artificial intelligence, at least in air combat and piloting, has far surpassed human intelligence

        1st problem: where is this artificial intelligence?
        2nd problem: what should he fight with?
        3rd problem: combat training?
        4th problem: where is the enemy, and where is the bird, and where is the friend?
        5th problem: will the cost of such a toy justify its development and operation?
  13. -1
    11 July 2024 12: 10
    Well, after all, there is a use for everything that flies. About the IL-2 - in the modern version, from new armor plates and the tank engine was in the same place, you can plug in a new modification (perhaps) the speed will increase. There is a speed gap in the sky. And there will always be a way to apply it. There are also training aircraft of the Yakov type and can be used in some places. And small 2-seaters can also be used for patrolling around cities and refineries. Why can you keep laughing?! There are no proposals of any kind, even if they are crazy. During the Second World War and Po-2 it was suitable and used. The problem of pilots - does anyone know how many private pilots with their own planes and helicopters there are in the country?! And there is also such a thing as a gyroplane.
    1. +2
      11 July 2024 12: 47
      The IL-2 did not have a tank engine...
      The tanks were equipped with an M-17 aircraft engine with exhausted service life... which was installed on the P5, early versions of the TB...
      The M-17 (licensed BMW) had absolutely nothing to do with the AM-34/42 line.. The AM-34 was created by Mikulin completely from scratch..
    2. -3
      11 July 2024 12: 50
      the number of accidents and disasters during such “patrol” will be much greater than the damage caused by UAVs .. in addition, a refinery is private property and the problem of private companies, which is why they should first of all develop and finance countermeasures .. Over a bottle of vodka somewhere in In Usinsk, Lukoil finds helicopters and pilots to fly, but stubbornly refuses to organize and pay for the security of its refineries using the same equipment (maybe with military riflemen) ..
      1. +5
        11 July 2024 15: 23
        Quote: Biggi_2006
        In addition, refineries are private property and the problem of private companies, which is why they should first of all develop and finance countermeasures.

        Kuzhugetych, we didn’t recognize you in makeup.
  14. +2
    11 July 2024 12: 54
    If the Russian defense posted a film about such a Yak, the author would probably write only praise and emphasize the ingenuity. Unfortunately, this idea came to the Ukrops' minds earlier, so it has to be ridiculed and criticized. And the truth is that such a plane, hovering over an oil refinery, would be an excellent defense reinforcement. The costs are laughable compared to the profits that can be made from successfully shooting down a drone over an oil refinery. The author ridiculed the topic, and perhaps soon we will see the same decisions from the Russian side, then there will be only praise.
    1. +1
      11 July 2024 15: 12
      Quote: Little Bear
      Unfortunately, this idea came to the Ukrops' minds earlier, so it has to be ridiculed and criticized.

      Come on. These options have been discussed here for a long time. The idea is on the surface. But in Russian conditions no one will let you try this. “No matter what happens.”
    2. +1
      11 July 2024 23: 22
      Quote: Little Bear
      Such a plane hovering over an oil refinery would be an excellent defense reinforcement.


      How do you imagine a plane “hovering” over something? Have you confused an airplane and a helicopter for an hour? A plane over a refinery can only circle in circles, which is why the pilot will inevitably have an empty stomach :) And in general, loitering fighters are a different story. These are very specific machines.
      Fighters usually fly out to intercept on command from a radar post. Why do they stand on the runway with weapons suspended and full tanks with pilots in the cockpits? This means that an airfield is needed next to every refinery.

      And I don’t understand what’s the problem with shooting down drones from the ground?
      1. +1
        12 July 2024 01: 32
        And I don’t understand what’s the problem with shooting down drones from the ground?

        Tell this to our air defense that allows UAVs to go where they shouldn’t
        1. +1
          14 July 2024 13: 44
          Quote: Just A Guy
          Tell this to our air defense that allows UAVs to go where they shouldn’t


          I saw with my own eyes how our air defense shoots down the UAV where it is needed. And how the “alarm group” of special services arrives on site in 7 minutes.
          So our air defense has no problems shooting down UAVs.
          Another question is that the crazy people on the other side are striking not at strategically important objects, but at objects of propaganda importance. But you cannot cover every house or oil storage facility with an air defense system; there are still few of them. We have to work, as my “military-industrial complex behind the wall” says. The same Gibka-S perfectly hammers a UAV from the ground.
          If you feel sorry for MANPADS, then you need to puzzle the designers and they will make something cheaper, for example, machine guns with buckshot or shrapnel...
          1. +1
            15 July 2024 02: 25
            So our air defense has no problems shooting down UAVs.

            I'm afraid there is a problem. Despite the fact that you cannot cover all refineries, the problem is that some of these refineries were hit at a distance of 500-1000 km, or even more, and this is the problem. I understand if it’s not possible to shoot down near the front line, but here UAVs fly deep into the country. And if UAVs are shot down, then in close proximity to the object (the most striking example is the same Su-57 on which the covers of a downed UAV fell. And this is not the only case - debris falling on strategically important objects)
            1. +2
              19 July 2024 12: 39
              Quote: Just A Guy
              I'm afraid there is a problem. Despite the fact that you cannot close all refineries,

              Why? It's a matter of money and time. The Gibka-S air defense system is a mobile group on Tigers with a control vehicle with radar and several launchers with OLS. All elements of the complex are serial and produced in Russia. It is not difficult to locate such complexes in close proximity to refineries. There are not many such facilities in Russia: only 74 oil refineries and gas processing plants. With oil storage facilities it is more difficult and simpler at the same time. On the one hand, there are much more of them. On the other hand, they are much smaller; there are no objects of “federal significance” among them.

              Quote: Just A Guy
              Refineries were hit at a distance of 500-1000 km, or even more, and this is the problem.

              Did you mean to say "с distance"? I just don’t even know what it is that needs to be detonated to hit an object at a distance of 500 km :)
              Yes - this is a problem. There is a solution to this problem. It is called “continuous radar coverage”. You can’t put something that can fly 1000 km in your pocket or put it in a suitcase. These are quite decent aircraft. Which can and should be detected using radar. These radars should be located along the borders and be on duty around the clock. What the USSR had and what Russia does not have now. Again, it's a question of money and time. The S-350 complex can not only detect UAVs automatically, it can also shoot them down automatically. Shooting down may not be necessary; for this, helicopter formations can be placed along the border to intercept UAVs. I don’t know... Ansat or Ka-226 should be used. You can also use the Mi-28M with the Ka-52, even though they are expensive...



              Quote: Just A Guy
              And this is not the only case - debris falling on strategically important objects

              Well, what should we do? By itself, nothing can happen in the sky. It will definitely fall. :) But I agree, it is necessary to intercept in advance. Although here we must make allowances for the fact that we are waging a war with those who choose targets within the framework of the Douai doctrine. If they don’t break through to the refinery, they will hit a hospital or just a house.
  15. +2
    11 July 2024 13: 54
    They write and write: “Problem No. 1 is to detect,” but who reads this ((((((((((((((
    Let's revive the IL-2 with a tank engine...
    “Potential partners”, in principle, in many areas developed a couple of “hunter-killers” (traditionally this is translated directly into “hunter-killer”).
    For detection, a maneuverable device is not necessary; you can at least attach a radar + OLS + thermal imager + noise direction finder to a tethered balloon, powered by cable from the ground. And N is loitering in the air... no, that’s not enough, let it be M wink highly maneuverable and high-speed fighter drones. In principle, they probably have some kind of rapid-fire submachine gun on board that will be enough to destroy an enemy UAV, especially if the fighter itself is piloted by an AI, and the human operator only adjusts the aiming of the weapon at the enemy’s vulnerable zones. Maintaining a safe distance to the target at effective engagement distances with such integrated control will be much easier than for a manned fighter, even if it has an anti-tank ion-plasma weapon. In the worst case scenario, only the robot fighter will die.
  16. +1
    11 July 2024 23: 27
    Yakovlev has an excellent plane: a new version of the aerobatic aircraft - the Yak-152. If you need a piston fighter, you can make it based on it. The problem there is that the Germans arrested the developer of the engine for this aircraft and gave him 3 years. Therefore, you need to look for an alternative to RED A03-102. And so there is a platform. The question is in the search system, aiming and, most importantly, weapons. Because hitting a drone with a machine gun is a bad idea. You need either pencil rockets or shotguns that shoot shrapnel...
  17. +1
    12 July 2024 10: 37
    Quote: abc_alex
    Because hitting a drone with a machine gun is a bad idea.

    We are talking about drones flying in deep mud, like Russian Geraniums or Ukrainian drones attacking oil refineries.
    For them, an air machine gun is just what they need and is quite enough. In addition, the yaks had air cannons in the war, but today there is nothing stopping you from hanging an “Strela”, “Igloo” or R-60.
  18. 0
    12 July 2024 11: 53
    This means that the UAV will be equipped with destructive elements and a fuse will be added.
  19. -1
    13 July 2024 20: 04
    This is all bullshit. It is necessary to revive the I15, but at a new level, with a battery of machine guns.
  20. 0
    22 July 2024 13: 54
    Judging by the news about the destruction of two “crested” Yak-52s, they did drink “blood” from us. There are quite a few questions about such anti-drone warfare. How to deal with UAVs at night, and during the day (detection, target designation)? Intercepting a small air target against the background of the ground is a very non-trivial task. It is not possible to shoot at UAVs at low and extremely low altitudes, no matter what, everywhere; there is a significant risk of hitting objects and people on the ground. And most importantly: where can I get flight personnel trained for such tasks? If you believe Zvezda, the current flight personnel have completed far more than half a thousand combat missions in two years, and that’s combat missions! The organization and interaction of all participants in such “events” is a special sadness. But inaction is also criminal!
  21. 0
    11 September 2024 23: 04
    In fact, the Ukrainians have several dozen L-39s, and if they were smarter, they could have equipped each L-39 with four machine guns paired on each pylon two years ago; 7.62 caliber would have been more than enough. The L-39 has equipment for visual aiming, and an excellent speed range that would allow it to shoot down both simple Shaheds and jets — stall speed is 160 km/h and maximum is 750 km/h. Initial guidance, naturally. from the ground. For work at night — four landing lights on each side of the wing...
    However, even after two and a half years they still "didn't figure it out"... lol