Why does Israel need the Skyraider II counterinsurgency aircraft?

10 175 97
Why does Israel need the Skyraider II counterinsurgency aircraft?

During the fighting in Korea and Southeast Asia, Douglas A-1 Skyraider piston-engine attack aircraft were heavily used, demonstrating superior performance to jet aircraft in a number of missions. It is unknown exactly where and when the Skyraider flew its last combat sortie, but documents confirm that several of these aircraft took part in the armed conflict in Chad in 1979. Considering that the Skyraider prototype first flew on March 18, 1945—before the defeat of Nazi Germany—this longevity is impressive.


An A-1J attack aircraft belonging to Attack Squadron 176 of the U.S. Navy operating in Vietnam, 1966.

The secret to the success of this combat aircraft, which had seemingly become hopelessly outdated after the advent of the "jet age," and was originally developed as a carrier-based torpedo bomber and dive bomber, was its phenomenal reliability and survivability, combined with powerful armament, long flight endurance, and ease of use on runways. Furthermore, thanks to its relatively low flight speed, good maneuverability, and the responsiveness of its piston engine, a properly trained attack aircraft pilot could use its propulsion system with great precision. aviation weapons. This was highly sought after during counterinsurgency and search-and-rescue operations, as well as during the repulse of enemy infantry attacks in close proximity to forward positions. A significant advantage was the significantly lower cost per flight hour compared to jet fighters and the ability to quickly prepare the attack aircraft for a repeat combat sortie.



Comparing the A-1 piston-engine attack aircraft with jet fighter-bombers, it can be concluded that at its operational speed of 500-600 km/h, in the absence of external target designation, the time for visual target acquisition (taking into account the pilot's reaction time) is often insufficient. Jet fighters, designed to combat troop concentrations and destroy fortified positions in the "big war," often wasted their ammunition when operating against various types of scattered insurgents. In this case, the analogy of a sledgehammer and a hammer is appropriate. With some skill, small nails can be driven with a sledgehammer, but a hammer is much more suitable.


In addition to the US Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, piston-engined Skyraiders were operated by the air forces of the United Kingdom, Gabon, Cambodia, the Central African Republic, Chad, Sweden, South Vietnam, and France.


A captured A-1N at the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City.

After the fall of the Saigon regime, several dozen combat-ready aircraft of this type were captured by North Vietnam.

In honor of the highly decorated A-1 attack aircraft, the Skyraider II designation was given to the OA-1K turboprop aircraft, jointly produced by Air Tractor and L3Harris Technologies.

The background to the OA-1K Skyraider II light combat turboprop aircraft


Miniaturization, increased reliability, and increased power density of turboprop engines have made it possible to create fairly compact turboprop engines suitable for installation on light training aircraft.

Serial production of the PC-7 Turbo Trainer began in August 1978. Designed by specialists from the Swiss company Pilatus, this trainer was not the first turboprop-powered "flying desk" of its kind, but it was this aircraft, thanks to its successful combination of high performance, reliability, and relatively low operating costs, that gained widespread popularity. The PC-7 trainer was operated by more than 25 countries. Including upgraded variants, more than 600 were built.


Austrian Air Force PC-7 Turbo Trainer aircraft

Very soon, PC-7 operators realized that, in addition to its training and training missions, the aircraft was also suitable for use as a light attack aircraft or reconnaissance and spotter aircraft. This was especially relevant for Third World countries with limited funds and problems with various insurgents.

The RS-7 was first used for ground attack missions against leftist rebels in 1982 during the Guatemalan civil war. Aircraft of this type participated in at least seven armed conflicts in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East during the 1980s and 1990s. A later modification, the RS-9, with improved avionics and a new, more powerful engine, was developed, but due to higher costs and export restrictions imposed by the Swiss government on deliveries, it was no longer used. weapons In countries with high levels of violence, this aircraft did not have any significant export success.

Following the Pilatus in the first half of the 1980s, the Brazilian EMB 312 Tucano entered the global arms market, which from the very beginning was positioned not only as a training aircraft, but also as a light attack aircraft.


EMB 312 Tucano combat training aircraft

Even at the design stage, the goal of minimizing life cycle costs was set, and the Tucano became one of the most successful and commercially successful combat trainer aircraft of the late 20th century, receiving well-deserved recognition both in Brazil and abroad.

Two modifications were produced under the EMB 312 Tucano designation: the T-27 and the AT-27. The first variant was primarily intended for advanced flight training and training flights. The second was a light attack aircraft, equipped with armored backrests and localized cockpit armor.

Tucano deliveries are known to have been made to Honduras, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Paraguay, Peru, Colombia, and Venezuela. In almost all of these countries, the turboprops were used in combat against their neighbors or in internal conflicts.

Turboprop attack aircraft, developed in the 1970s and 1980s based on the Pilatus and Tucano trainers, proved to be a very successful solution for many countries in need of aircraft for this purpose. Of course, single-engine aircraft are somewhat inferior in combat survivability and strike potential to purpose-built twin-engine turboprop attack aircraft such as the OV-10 Bronco, OV-1 Mohawk, and IA-58A Pucara. However, not all countries with a need for counterinsurgency aircraft could afford to acquire specialized attack aircraft for political and economic reasons.

The EMB-314 Super Tucano, which entered serial production in 2003, proved even more successful as a light attack aircraft. Compared to the earlier model, this aircraft, in addition to a more powerful engine, featured a new canopy, improved avionics with liquid crystal displays, and the ability to use night vision devices. In addition to the inertial navigation system, the avionics now include a satellite navigation receiver. The cockpit and vulnerable structural components are protected by Kevlar armor. The armament has also become significantly more powerful. rockets with thermal guidance and radar jamming, there are automatic devices for firing thermal decoys and dipole reflectors.


EMB-314 Super Tucano combat training aircraft

To facilitate the Super Tucano's access to the international arms market, the American company Sierra Nevada Corporation and Brazil's Embraer established joint production of turboprop aircraft in the United States. In the US military, the turboprop attack aircraft received the designation A-29 Super Tucano. Two modifications were produced, differing in avionics and armament.

A-29A and A-29B aircraft were acquired by Angola, Afghanistan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Indonesia, Colombia, Lebanon, Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal, Turkmenistan, Chile, and the Philippines. In addition, several A-29s were operated by the U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command. During actual combat operations, it was revealed that the Super Tucano, while offering the same or greater effectiveness, was more cost-effective and less vulnerable to countermeasures. Defensethan modern attack helicopters.

For some time, the Hawker Beechcraft AT-6B Texan II light attack aircraft was considered a competitor to the EMB-314 Super Tucano.


AT-6B Texan II light turboprop attack aircraft

This aircraft is an armed modification of the two-seat T-6 Texan II trainer, which, in turn, was created on the basis of the Swiss Pilatus PC-9.

The main reasons for the EMB-314 Super Tucano's victory over the AT-6B Texan II, in addition to its lower cost, were lower operating costs and greater payload capacity. Furthermore, the American-built Super Tucanos were equipped with avionics similar to that installed on the AT-6B Texan II.

The Brazilian Super Tucano is a highly successful counterinsurgency aircraft, which has also been repeatedly used to intercept planes carrying contraband drugs. However, some specific missions required even simpler, cheaper, and yet more capable aircraft.

In the early 2000s, Air Tractor AT-802 aircraft, originally designed for agricultural fields and firefighting, were used to spray defoliants on illegal coca plantations in Colombia.


Air Tractor AT-802F dropping fire extinguishing fluid

The aircraft features a high cockpit, which provides good visibility, high maneuverability and controllability at low altitudes.

The drug plantation guards couldn't stand idly by while their source of income was being cut off, and they fired at the "Air Tractors" with every weapon at their disposal. Drug cartel fighters and leftist rebel groups have access not only to light firearms but also to heavy anti-aircraft machine guns and RPG-7 grenade launchers, so flights to destroy coca plantations were fraught with great risk for the pilots.

The situation was further exacerbated by the fact that the AT-802s, while spraying chemicals, flew "on a combat course" without maneuvering and at low speed. After the aircraft began returning with bullet holes, emergency modifications had to be made in the field. The sides and bottom of the cockpit were covered with improvised armor—bulletproof vests—and the fuel tanks were filled with an inert gas. However, passive survivability measures weren't limited to these. During "combat missions," the flying sprayers were escorted by EMB-312 Tucano attack aircraft.

Experience with the AT-802 in Colombia prompted Air Tractor specialists to develop a specialized counterinsurgency aircraft that would meet the requirements of the US Air Force's Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance (LAAR) program. This program also included the AT-6B Texan II, A-29 Super Tucano, and OV-10X Bronco turboprop fighter aircraft.

The AT-802U Sky Warden, a close air support, reconnaissance, surveillance and ground forces control aircraft, was first unveiled at the 2009 Le Bourget Air Show.

The two-seat turboprop "Sky Guardian", created jointly by Air Tractor and IOMAX, differed from the agricultural AT-802F in having bulletproof armor on the engine and sides of the cabin, bulletproof glass in the cabin, self-sealing fuel tanks and a more durable airframe.


AT-802U Sky Warden light attack and reconnaissance aircraft

The aircraft, with a maximum takeoff weight of 7257 kg, was powered by a 1600-hp Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-67F engine, providing a speed of up to 370 km/h in level flight. Its cruising speed was 290 km/h. Its operational range was 2960 km. The airframe had a service life of 12,000 hours.

The aircraft, fully equipped with electronic systems, cost $17 million, with operating costs of approximately $500 per flight hour. The aircraft retains the ability to install a chemical tank and sprayers. The compartment housing the tank can also accommodate various cargo, additional equipment, and fuel tanks. The aircraft has nine hardpoints for weapons and containers with targeting and search systems and anti-aircraft missile countermeasures. The armament includes both guided and unguided air-to-air weapons weighing up to 4000 kg: 7,62-12,7 mm machine guns, 20 mm cannons, pods with 70 mm unguided rockets, and bombs weighing up to 227 kg, as well as AGM-114M Hellfire and Roketsan Cirit laser-guided air-to-ground missiles.

The AN/AAQ 33 Sniper xr optoelectronic targeting system, operating in the visible and infrared ranges, supported the use of guided munitions. A combined L3 Wescam MX-15Di (IR and TV) camera was used for target observation and acquisition. It was mounted in the lower forward hemisphere of the turret and equipped with an aircraft-to-ground communication link operating in secure mode with ROVER video receivers, enabling real-time image transmission. The aircraft crew is capable of searching, detecting, recognizing, and automatically tracking ground (and sea) targets at ranges of 15-20 km in all weather conditions and at any time of day, illuminating them with a laser, and guiding guided air-to-surface weapons.

Following the presentation, the AT-802U was handed over to the US Drug Enforcement Administration's Aviation Division (also known as the INL Air Wing) operating in Colombia. The aircraft underwent field testing, but details were not disclosed.

Following the Sky Warden reconnaissance and attack aircraft, the Archangel BPA was unveiled, also developed by IOMAX specialists. This aircraft is based on the Thrush 710 agricultural aircraft, which is very similar in design to the Air Tractor AT-802 but boasts superior performance. The Thrush 710 achieves a 35 km/h higher speed and offers a better payload-to-fuel ratio.


Exhibition model of the Archangel BPA aircraft

The Archangel, with a takeoff weight of 6720 kg, can cover 2500 km at a cruising speed of 324 km/h and conduct airborne patrols with a combat load for up to five hours. It is designed to independently search for and destroy small groups of militants when the use of attack helicopters, jet fighters, or attack aircraft is difficult from a combat effectiveness standpoint or impractical for economic reasons.

The primary focus of this aircraft's development was the use of precision weapons—it carries no cannons or machine guns. Six underwing hardpoints can accommodate up to 16 70mm Cirit laser-guided missiles, up to 12 AGM-114 Hellfire missiles, and up to six JDAM or Paveway II/III/IV guided bombs. The attack version of the Archangel can carry more weapons on external hardpoints than any other aircraft in its weight class.


Compared to the "Heavenly Guardian," the "Archangel" is equipped with more sophisticated avionics and can carry a pod with FLIR Systems' electro-optical reconnaissance and search equipment. The "Archangel" has a centralized warning system for high-frequency and laser radiation, as well as anti-aircraft missile launches.

The Archangel BPA Block I aircraft has a two-seat tandem cockpit with dual controls and color multi-function indicators for the pilot and operator in the rear cockpit.


In terms of its ability to employ guided weapons and conduct reconnaissance, the Archangel significantly outperforms the Sky Guardian, which was originally designed as a classic counterinsurgency aircraft and has less sophisticated avionics. Thanks to its sophisticated electronic targeting and reconnaissance system, the Archangel can be equally effective in covert operations, providing close air support, and routine patrol flights. Most of the armor protection on the Archangel BPA is quickly removable and can be installed depending on the mission. Some armor elements are reported to be able to withstand hits from 12,7mm rounds fired from a range of 500 meters.

In July 2014, the Archangel Block 3 reconnaissance and attack aircraft, which is significantly different in appearance from earlier versions, made its maiden flight. This aircraft features improved aerodynamics and is visually strongly reminiscent of the German Ju 87 dive bomber from World War II.


Archangel BPA Block III reconnaissance and attack turboprop aircraft

The Archangel BPA Block III received a "glass cockpit" and an even more advanced targeting and navigation system and weapons. The two-seat cockpit for the pilot and weapons operator has been moved and elevated, improving forward and downward visibility. This also freed up space in the aft fuselage for avionics and other equipment. A more streamlined layout allowed for increased fuel tank capacity, which improved flight endurance.

The Archangel BPA Block III pilot now has access to the CMC Esterline Cockpit 4000 avionics suite, compatible with night vision equipment. The weapons operator's cabin features three multifunction displays and a UFCP front control panel. For surveillance and target acquisition, a pod with an integrated L3 Wescam MX-15 / Star SAFIRE 380 HLD optronic system is used, capable of operating in low visibility conditions and at night.


Particular attention was paid to protection against air defense systems potentially deployed by insurgent groups. Compared to the AT-802U, the aircraft's thermal signature is significantly reduced, which should reduce the likelihood of being locked onto the infrared seeker of man-portable air defense systems. When flying in areas with a high risk of modern MANPADS use, in addition to flares, the TERMA AN/ALQ-213 pod with a laser device that blinds the seeker can be used.


TERMA AN/ALQ-213 heat-seeking missile countermeasure pod

The TERMA AN/ALQ-213 equipment, integrated with the aircraft's avionics, automatically detects SAM launches, radar and laser irradiation, deploys radar and heat traps, and helps plan evasive maneuvers.

The latest Archangel modification, equipped with sophisticated reconnaissance and search equipment, is capable of detecting targets and destroying them with guided weapons without entering the range of short-range air defense systems. However, the Archangel BPA Block III is a very expensive aircraft, unaffordable for poor third-world countries. In 2017, a fully equipped version cost over $22 million, with a flight hour costing almost $800. Furthermore, due to export restrictions imposed by the US government, not all countries can acquire an aircraft with such advanced electronic systems and weapons.

Specifically for cash-strapped countries subject to sanctions that limit the supply of high-tech defense products, the Bulgarian company LASA has developed the T-Bird, a lightweight counterinsurgency attack aircraft based on the Trush 510G agricultural aircraft. It was first unveiled at the 2017 Paris Air Show.


The T-Bird aircraft, presented at the Paris Air Show 2017.

The single-seat T-Bird attack aircraft is equipped with relatively simple targeting and search electronics developed by the Austrian company Airborne Technologies, including a Self-Contained Aerial Reconnaissance (SCAR) pod, information displays, and the Airborne Lynx Command and Control System communications suite. The aircraft's concept is primarily focused on the use of inexpensive unguided rockets and bombs, as well as small arms and cannon armament. The cockpit and several critical components are claimed to be protected against rifle-caliber bullets fired from a range of 300 meters.

Given the specific nature of these aircraft, there is no reliable data on the delivery of strike and reconnaissance aircraft based on the AT-802, Trush 510G, and Thrush 710 agricultural aircraft. However, these combat aircraft are regularly captured on camera by journalists present in military operations around the world.


In addition to the US Drug Enforcement Administration, the UAE, Egypt, and Jordan also operate these aircraft. Agricultural attack aircraft are also known to have been used in combat in Yemen and Libya. In 2018, Kenya acquired twelve Archangel BPA aircraft. According to unconfirmed reports, counterinsurgency aircraft have been spotted in Angola, Niger, Sudan, and Côte d'Ivoire. Although the Russian internet tends to ridicule these "agricultural attack aircraft," like the F-35 fighter, there is a steady demand for these aircraft on the global arms market. At least 38 AT-802U Sky Wardens alone are known to have been sold.


A number of such combat aircraft are in the possession of private military companies operating under contract with governments fighting various armed groups. Given that these "private" attack aircraft often carry no identifying markings and sometimes strike populated areas outside government control, this raises legal concerns.

The creation of the OA-1K Skyraider II aircraft, its characteristics, capabilities, and why Israel needs it


Although several combat aircraft with different avionics, armament, protection, and flight characteristics were created on the basis of American agricultural "air tractors", work in this direction did not cease.

In August 2022, the U.S. Special Operations Command selected the AT-802U Sky Warden aircraft, jointly submitted by L3Harris and Air Tractor, for procurement under the Armed Overwatch program. A total of 75 aircraft were planned for a budget of over $3 billion. The manufacturer received a $170 million advance payment for the construction of the first six aircraft.

It was envisioned that this aircraft, deployed in "unconventional warfare," would provide close air support, conduct precision strikes, conduct armed reconnaissance and surveillance, provide forward guidance for "large aircraft," and coordinate the actions of individual special forces groups. However, as early as 2023, it was reported that the number of aircraft planned for acquisition had been reduced to 63. Against this backdrop, skeptics predicted that the Armed Overwatch program would be scaled back. However, in April 2025, it was announced that L3Harris Technologies had delivered the first turboprop reconnaissance and attack aircraft to the United States Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC), officially designated the OA-1K Skyraider II by the US Air Force.


OA-1K Skyraider II aircraft

The OA-1K Skyraider II's avionics and armament are similar to those of the Archangel BPA Block III, but its communications suite incorporates satellite equipment for real-time data transmission and target designation. With a maximum takeoff weight of 7260 kg and the use of external fuel tanks, the operational range exceeds 2400 km. The combat radius is 1275 km. The Pratt & Whitney PT6A-67F turboshaft, producing 1600 hp, provides a maximum speed of 395 km/h. Cruising speed is 330 km/h. Stall speed is 169 km/h. The service ceiling is 3000 m. The aircraft is 11,4 m long. The wingspan is 18,06 m. Thanks to the robust fixed landing gear and large-diameter wheels, it can operate from poorly prepared runways.


Ten external mounts are available for mounting weapons, targeting and search equipment pods, and air defense countermeasure systems. Unlike the Archangel BPA, which does not carry small arms or cannon, it can accommodate 12,7mm machine guns or 20mm cannons in pods, which undoubtedly expands the range of missions it can perform.

The aircraft are assembled at Air Tractor's facility in Olney, Texas, and then flown to L3Harris' manufacturing facility at Tulsa Airport in Tulsa, Oklahoma, for electronics upgrades.


Google Earth satellite image of AT-802 aircraft at the Air Tractor facility in Olney. This image was taken in December 2023.

American sources write that the first batch of OA-1K aircraft will be delivered to the 17th Special Operations Squadron of the 492nd Special Operations Wing of AFSOC, stationed at Will Rogers Air Force Base, Oklahoma Air National Guard.

24 2025 October, the news The agencies published information that an OA-1K Skyraider II aircraft crashed in Oklahoma during a training flight.


The two crew members on board, one civilian contractor and one U.S. Air Force member, were not injured in the incident.

The Israel Fire Service already operates fourteen AT-802F aircraft, which have proven themselves to be highly successful. However, many were surprised when, in mid-October 2025, the American company L3Harris and Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) announced a partnership agreement to adapt the OA-1K Sky Warden strike aircraft for the Israeli Air Force. The modified version, designated Blue Sky Warden, is to be equipped with equipment and weapons that meet the requirements of the Israeli military.


It was stated that the Israeli side, having received the base aircraft, will independently integrate its own onboard systems and specialized equipment onto the Blue Sky Warden platform, as was already done with the F-35A 5th-generation fighter.

The turboprop aircraft will be equipped with an IAI onboard computer with an open architecture to accommodate Israeli software and specialized functions. IAI will supply and integrate its onboard equipment, and will conduct flight testing and airworthiness verification activities in collaboration with the Israeli Ministry of Defense and the Israeli Air Force.

Considering that Israel has the most powerful and modern air force in the Middle East, the question arises: why does it need "maize" fighters converted into combat vehicles?

In my view, there are two possible uses for the "Guardians of the Blue Skies." Following the events of October 7, 2023, when armed Palestinians, led by Hamas, infiltrated Israel from the Gaza Strip, followed by the Israeli military response, and the exchange of strikes with Iran, Israel decided to extend the service life of its AH-64 Apache helicopters. Although the Apaches were previously slated for decommissioning to conserve resources, these aircraft have proven useful in supporting infantry units in the Gaza Strip and in repelling Iranian Shahed raids.

Compared to a combat helicopter, the turboprop Blue Sky Warden can patrol for longer periods and carry more sophisticated reconnaissance and surveillance systems, as well as a larger and more diverse combat load. Furthermore, the turboprop's flight hour cost is significantly lower than that of the Apache.

Considering that the Gaza Strip is very close, the use of F-16 and F-35 jets to carry out airstrikes at the request of the Ground Forces and to destroy targets identified drones, is often excessive and very costly. After all, there's no need to demolish a residential building with a heavy aerial bomb if a sniper is holed up in one of the apartments when you can destroy him with a single launch of a compact and relatively inexpensive guided missile or sweep the premises with heavy machine guns.

Provided that turboprop aircraft are equipped with optimal pod-based optronic systems or search radars, as well as low-cost weapons suitable for the destruction of air targets, the Guardians of the Blue Skies could become very effective interceptors. dronesKamikaze. In addition to machine guns and cannons, low-cost laser-guided missiles based on 70mm unguided rockets can be used to combat UAVs.
97 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +8
    28 October 2025 03: 40
    We could also use such an aircraft against enemy UAVs.
    1. +7
      28 October 2025 05: 53
      And not just against UAVs; battlefield support with jets is currently ineffective. Helicopters generally only pitch up and swoop down to attack areas from over the horizon.
      A similar attack aircraft can hang around in a combat zone for a decent amount of time and, if necessary, quickly respond to provide support.
      Unlike UAVs and helicopters, it's virtually invulnerable to small arms fire, much less RPGs. Hitting it with a grenade launcher is impossible, and it's also unlikely to shoot down a UAV. It's much cheaper to produce and operate than helicopters.
      Given our experience in developing attack aircraft, we're perfectly capable of making a modern IL-2. The engines are much more powerful, the materials are stronger and lighter, there's no need for air defense, and there won't be any enemies in the air, like fighters, above the LBS.
      Put it into mass production to destroy drones and support infantry. Cheap and effective.
      1. +8
        28 October 2025 06: 50
        Quote: Evgeny64
        And such an attack aircraft can hang in the BD zone for a decent amount of time
        Before the first MANPADS...
        1. +3
          28 October 2025 07: 02
          Few people carry MANPADS to strongpoints these days; there's no need. Aircraft have practically disappeared from the battlefield as a significant threat. And it's easier for an armored, slow, and maneuverable attack aircraft to evade a missile, and if hit, there's a high chance of it going home. A missile doesn't shoot down with a direct hit; the IL-2 would be far more resilient to shrapnel damage than modern aircraft and helicopters, and its exhaust is significantly cooler, as are heat flares.
          In general, there are always enough reasons to do nothing: tanks until the first drone, artillery until the first MLRS, and infantry fighting vehicles until the first mine, and so on.
          Only the soldier stands alone in this row until the first bullet is fired; no one asked his opinion about what he needs more: a shotgun with a detector or air cover, or all of them together. belay
          1. +7
            28 October 2025 07: 47
            Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6

            But can’t we copy this engine, developed in the 50s?

            P.S. Respect to the author, excellent informative article.
            1. -5
              28 October 2025 08: 02
              The point is... they have their own excellent engines. Like the VK-2500 (a deep modification of the TV3-117), although it's five times more powerful, but it's completely indigenous, mass-produced, and one of the most reliable engines in the world (considering its "grandfather," the TV3-117). The extra power will come in handy for an attack aircraft, after all, for armor and weapons.
              If not, then the VK-800 is the best option, although it is still "under testing," but this is a rhetorical question. It can be tested for passenger aircraft for another couple of years (there is no aircraft yet), and for the military it can be safely produced, because it actually flies.
          2. +8
            28 October 2025 10: 21
            Quote: Evgeny64
            Few people carry MANPADS to strongpoints these days; there's no need. Aviation has virtually disappeared from the battlefield as a significant threat.

            You yourself named the reason for the absence of MANPADS: there are no targets.
            "Tractors" will appear - the infantry will again be carrying MANPADS.
            Quote: Evgeny64
            The missile does not shoot down with a direct hit

            Starstreak looks at this statement with bewilderment.
          3. +1
            29 October 2025 22: 54
            Quote: Evgeny64
            Few people carry MANPADS to strongpoints these days; there's no need. Aviation has virtually disappeared from the battlefield as a significant threat.

            The Su-25's traditional use ceased precisely because of its enormous number of MANPADS. Air Tractors will appear, and large numbers of MANPADS will be brought back to the "strongholds."

            We currently don't have a ready-made agricultural aircraft with a 1600-2500 hp turboprop engine that could be quickly converted into an attack aircraft. Therefore, no propeller-driven attack aircraft will be ready for the Air Defense Forces in time.

            These aircraft demonstrate high combat survivability only when used against irregular opponents. Against regular forces, the same Il-2s returned with combat damage in approximately every third combat sortie, and by the end of the war, they demonstrated an average combat survivability of 54 sorties per loss, the lowest among Red Army Air Force combat aircraft that served in the entire war.

            The UTS-800 turboprop from the Ural Civil Aviation Plant should certainly be armed with machine guns to potentially intercept numerous low-speed kamikaze UAVs from the enemy, but it's an aircraft of a different class. It has no relation whatsoever to the 6-7-ton turboprop attack aircraft based on agricultural aircraft with 1600-horsepower turboprop engines.
        2. 0
          28 October 2025 17: 56
          So, a slower and less maneuverable attack helicopter isn't "pre-MANPADS"? It's only in Vietnam, Yemen, and Afghanistan that the locals failed to achieve this "pre-MANPADS" thing.
          Essentially, these attack aircraft are a cost-effective version of an attack helicopter: attach 1-2 UMPKs with FAB-50 or 100 and/or several guided missiles and you get the same hypothetical Mi-28/Apache.
          1. -1
            29 October 2025 23: 15
            Quote: Blackgrifon
            So, a slower and less maneuverable attack helicopter not "until the first MANPADS"?

            The Mi-28NM is equipped with a laser optronic suppression system (LSOEP) for the seeker of MANPADS missiles. To date, no Mi-28NM losses to MANPADS missiles have been recorded. A LSOEP is also installed on the Su-57 fighter. Installation of a LSOEP on the Su-25SM3 attack aircraft was unsuccessful, as it appears there is insufficient onboard power supply and fuselage space for it. As a result, all Su-25 variants are currently used for launching unguided rockets from a nose-up position.

            Of course, the LSOEP can be installed on a turboprop attack aircraft. However, we don't have a turboprop agricultural aircraft that could be quickly converted into an attack aircraft. And our adversary today has more than just MANPADS, as do the rebel and guerrilla groups that the turboprop attack aircraft converted from agricultural aircraft were designed to combat.

            Considering that the Houthis themselves have successfully developed a compact air defense system using obsolete R-27TE air-to-air missiles, and used them to shoot down and damage several supersonic jet fighters and a significant number of turboprop attack UAVs, including the American MQ-9 Reapers, operating above the range of MANPADS missiles, it won't be long before these turboprop attack aircraft, converted from agricultural aircraft and equipped with guided missiles, can be used relatively safely only against the most uncreative and poorly funded irregular armed groups. Those with more money and better protection will either come up with or buy something with a longer range than standard MANPADS. There are already plenty of options, from using the R-27TE air-to-air missile as a ground-based anti-aircraft missile to the Iranian Z58 loitering SAMs.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/358_missile

            Turboprop attack aircraft cannot hide from weapons at altitudes of 5-15 meters, like attack helicopters. Their minimum flight altitude is still somewhat higher than 5-15 meters above the landscape.
            1. -2
              30 October 2025 09: 42
              ATGMs launched through the barrels of T-72/80/90 tanks, BMP-3s, and the compact 82mm Bulat can be used against such slow-moving vehicles. With the appropriate guidance and fire control system, their range and flight speed of 250 m/s will be sufficient.
              1. 0
                30 October 2025 11: 00
                Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                ATGMs launched through the barrel of T-72/80/90 tanks, BMP-3 and the compact 82 mm "Bulat" can be adapted for such slow-moving vehicles.

                In general, how many helicopters were shot down by ATGMs launched through the barrel?
                1. 0
                  30 October 2025 11: 52
                  At the moment, they're not designed for that purpose. Although ATGMs can and should be used to shoot down helicopters and large drones.
                  1. -1
                    30 October 2025 14: 56
                    Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                    At the moment, they're not designed for that purpose. Although ATGMs can and should be used to shoot down helicopters and large drones.

                    lol
                    1. 0
                      30 October 2025 15: 02
                      Olya, or Olya's husband, read on, it will be useful for you.
                      The Arkan 3UBK23-3 unitary loading round is designed to destroy modern tanks equipped with dynamic protection, small-sized targets such as pillboxes and bunkers, as well as low-speed, low-flying targets or hovering helicopters when fired from the BMP-3 100mm gun-launcher.
                      1. -1
                        30 October 2025 15: 28
                        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                        Olya, or Olya's husband, read on, it will be useful for you.

                        You're as knowledgeable as my husband is! He even twirled his finger at his temple when he read your comments! wassat
                        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                        The Arkan 3UBK23-3 unitary loading round is designed for hovering helicopters.

                        It doesn't matter what's written where. Practice is the criterion of truth. In reality, no one has succeeded in using existing anti-tank guided missiles launched from a cannon against air targets. No.
                      2. -1
                        30 October 2025 20: 01
                        Especially considering that there were very few air targets from the Ukrainian side. But even so, there was an instance of a Ukrainian helicopter being destroyed by a tank cannon shot.
                      3. -1
                        31 October 2025 01: 39
                        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                        But even so, there was a case of a Ukrainian helicopter being destroyed by a shot from a tank gun.

                        Would you mind sharing the source of this information?
                      4. -1
                        31 October 2025 09: 18
                        Seek and ye shall find; I don't publish information on Fridays. The information was and is publicly available. Just as there's no definitive information about whether it was a guided missile (and those exist), an ATGM, or a regular high-explosive fragmentation missile.
                      5. -1
                        31 October 2025 09: 34
                        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                        Seek and ye shall find, I do not serve on Fridays.

                        But do not be rude!
                        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                        The information was and is freely available.

                        But you're unable to share this information? Well, I didn't expect anything else.
                      6. 0
                        30 October 2025 16: 59
                        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                        Olya, or Olya's husband, read on, it will be useful for you.

                        I don't approve of my wife's communication style, but Olya has always had a sharp tongue, including with me, and I can't control that. But I have to give her credit: if she doesn't know something, she's not shy about asking.
                        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                        also low-speed, low-flying targets or hovering helicopters when firing from the 100-mm gun-launcher of the BMP-3.

                        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                        Although ATGMs can and should be used to shoot down helicopters and large drones.

                        Sergey, don't you think there's a difference between a flying UAV and a hovering helicopter?
                        In addition, the sights and observation devices of armored vehicles are very poorly suited for detecting and firing even at hovering air targets.
                      7. 0
                        30 October 2025 19: 59
                        If you'd read my comments carefully, you might have noticed that it was about adapting ATGMs launched through the barrel. And what's more, read the excerpt carefully—it's not talking about hovering helicopters, but about low-speed, low-flying targets. And what kind of additional sight was suddenly needed? There's a lot to imagine, especially if you're not familiar with modern IFV sights.
                        Unlike the BMP-1/2, it has combined control of the ATGM and the gun.
                        If missiles against low-flying targets have been developed for the Ataka ATGM, then something similar can be developed for a tank and an infantry fighting vehicle.
                        I assume that you are completely unfamiliar and have never been familiar with the ATGM on the BMP and its sights.
                      8. 0
                        31 October 2025 01: 37
                        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                        You can imagine a lot of things, especially if you are not familiar with modern sights on infantry fighting vehicles.

                        Do you know each other? Maybe you could write an article about it?
                        But frankly speaking, you're talking complete nonsense! fool
                      9. 0
                        31 October 2025 09: 16
                        Frankly, you are completely out of the loop and talking nonsense, and the same goes for you.
                      10. 0
                        31 October 2025 09: 32
                        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                        Frankly, you are completely out of the loop and talking nonsense, and the same goes for you.

                        Would you like to have a substantive discussion?
                        Could you please tell us about the BMP-3's automatic tracking and timely detection capabilities for air targets flying at 120 m/s? What is the sight's vertical and horizontal field of view, and does it have a thermal imaging channel? How do you plan to engage air targets with a missile not equipped with a proximity fuse, and what operational overload can the 9M117M1-1 missile withstand?
                        I look forward to hearing from you!
                      11. -1
                        31 October 2025 09: 59
                        Search the internet. You might find the information you need there.
                        The approach of immediately declaring the sight and missile unusable without delving into the essence of the issue seems wrong to me.
                        Research and substantiate that neither the sight nor the ATGM are suitable—that would be the right thing to do. Currently, publicly available information suggests otherwise.
                      12. 0
                        31 October 2025 10: 21
                        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                        Search the internet.

                        It is impossible to find what does not exist.
                        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                        Study and concretely prove that neither the sight nor the ATGM are suitable, that would be more correct.

                        Why should I prove anything to you if you claim ATGMs can easily engage airborne targets? The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. I already know ATGMs aren't suitable for that.
                        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                        Meanwhile, publicly available information suggests otherwise.

                        Publicly available information suggests that specialized systems are needed to combat air targets. No need to lie!
            2. -1
              30 October 2025 14: 12
              Regarding protective equipment, I agree. But it's a matter of technique.

              Quote: AlexanderA
              shot down and damaged several supersonic jet fighters and a significant number of turboprop attack UAVs, the same American MQ-9 Reapers, operating above the range of MANPADS missiles

              I agree. But they haven't announced a single turboprop. Even though they're actively using them.

              Quote: AlexanderA
              Turboprop attack aircraft cannot hide from weapons at altitudes of 5-15 meters, like attack helicopters. Their minimum flight altitude is still somewhat higher than 5-15 meters above the landscape.

              So they don't need to climb to the front - like the helicopters, they launched a fab/rocket from a safe distance and went back to their place.

              The biggest problem is that we don't have such a machine. The UTS-800 just came out.
              1. +1
                30 October 2025 17: 17
                Quote: Blackgrifon
                I agree. But they haven't announced a single turboprop. Even though they're actively using them.


                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_and_accidents_during_the_Saudi_Arabian-led_intervention_in_Yemen

                In 2017, one UAE Air Force AT-802U was lost, although it is believed not to have been due to enemy fire.

                In fact, 23 American MQ-9 Reaper attack drones alone have been shot down in the skies over Yemen. They are also turboprop-powered, and their combat tactics involve flying over the combat zone above the range of MANPADS missiles.
                The biggest problem is that we don't have such a machine. The UTS-800 just came out.

                In my opinion, all these turboprop attack aircraft converted from agricultural aircraft are rapidly becoming obsolete. They are gradually being replaced by turboprop attack UAVs. After all, such UAVs can also launch a missile or a glide bomb from a safe distance and then retreat.

                The same MQ-9A can carry up to 8 AGM-114 missiles, or 4 missiles and two guided bombs.

                The OA-1K Skyraider II aircraft has an advantage over the MQ-9A attack UAV as a forward air controller coordinating air strikes while being "right on the spot", in the air, in the combat zone, but not as an attack aircraft.
                1. -1
                  30 October 2025 19: 34
                  Quote: AlexanderA
                  In 2017, one UAE Air Force AT-802U was lost, although it is believed not to have been due to enemy fire.

                  That's interesting.
                  Quote: AlexanderA
                  In my opinion, all these turboprop attack aircraft are converted from agricultural aircraft.

                  I agree. Vehicles originally designed for military purposes or as training/attack vehicles are preferable, at least in terms of survivability.
                  Quote: AlexanderA
                  They are gradually being replaced by turboprop attack UAVs. After all, such UAVs can also launch a missile or glide bomb from a safe distance and then retreat.

                  They'll probably add to it. The flight time was still an hour, and according to the Yankees, a turboprop is cheaper than a strike helicopter or drone. The pilot's reaction time is faster, infrastructure requirements are lower, and there are no electronic warfare issues.
                  In fact, the fact that their flight time is lower than that of others, with better survivability, and the pilot is easier to train (and, as WWII showed, faster) is a huge advantage of this class of aircraft.

                  In my opinion, the current advantages of turboprop aircraft are their low cost (compared to attack helicopters and similarly sized drones), lower pilot requirements, lack of infrastructure dependency (compared to heavy drones), resistance to electronic warfare, and rapid response to the situation (including threats). As a cheap and mass-produced addition to the army aviation fleet (roughly 1000-1500 "extra" attack aircraft), they won't hurt anyone.
                  1. 0
                    30 October 2025 20: 15
                    Quote: Blackgrifon
                    I agree. Vehicles originally designed for military purposes or as training/attack vehicles are preferable, at least in terms of survivability.

                    In my opinion, this is a complex, multi-factorial issue. If we compare turboprop-powered aircraft of the same power, say the EMB-314 Super Tucano and the OA-1K Skyraider II, the Super Tucano, a turboprop-based attack aircraft, undoubtedly has significantly superior performance compared to the OA-1K Skyraider II, a conversion of an agricultural aircraft, which doesn't even have retractable landing gear.

                    At the same time, the flight characteristics, in the sense of higher speed and horizontal/vertical maneuverability, radically reduce the likelihood of being hit by small arms fire and small anti-aircraft missiles, rather than by MANPADS missiles.

                    Today, only the installation of a laser-guided anti-aircraft missile (AIAM) can radically reduce the likelihood of being hit by MANPADS with infrared seekers. And the transition from unguided APS to increasingly longer-range guided missiles and guided bombs removes these aircraft not only from the range of intense small arms and small-caliber anti-aircraft fire, but even from MANPADS.

                    And it turns out that this is precisely the most important factor in increasing the combat survivability of this class of attack aircraft today, and not their flight characteristics.
                    They'll probably add more. The flight time was still an hour, and according to the Yankees, a turboprop is cheaper than a helicopter or a drone.

                    Again, a difficult question. According to one infographic from the US Air Force against ISIS, the cost per hour of an MQ-9A UAV flight is $4762, while the cost per hour of an OV-10 Bronco flight is $1000.

                    On the other hand:

                    https://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/11/politics/decades-old-planes-used-against-isis/index.html

                    "Harmer estimated the cost of flying more modern aircraft at $45,000 per hour, while flying an older Bronco could cost less. 5000 dollars."

                    And only 120 combat sorties hardly allow us to draw any clear conclusions in this case.
                    In my opinion, the advantages of turboprop aircraft now are their low cost (compared to attack helicopters and similarly sized drones), lower requirements for pilots, lack of dependence on infrastructure (compared to heavy drones), resistance to electronic warfare, and speed of response to the situation (including threats).


                    There are no definitive and comprehensive statistics on cost. It seems to be true that it's cheaper than attack helicopters. The only question is how much cheaper. As for what's cheaper than attack UAVs... it's less clear, and likely depends on the level of modern avionics the turboprop attack aircraft is equipped with.

                    The issues of attack UAVs' resilience to electronic warfare interference in their communications with ground operators and their speed of response to changing battlefield conditions appear to be "solved" by AI on board such UAVs in the foreseeable future.

                    Manned turboprop attack aircraft certainly have a niche today. But in my humble opinion, this niche is shrinking, and in the foreseeable future, such manned attack aircraft will be completely "devoured" by turboprop "counterinsurgency" fixed-wing UAVs with similar performance characteristics and significantly longer combat patrol endurance.
            3. 0
              30 October 2025 17: 04
              Quote: AlexanderA
              The same Houthis managed to create a small-sized air defense system using outdated R-27TE air-to-air missiles and, with the help of such air defense systems, shot down and damaged several supersonic jet fighters and a significant number of turboprop attack UAVs.

              Regarding the "several" fighters and the "significant" number of UAVs shot down using the R-27TE, you are not entirely correct.
              And citing Vika isn't entirely correct. She's a mediocre source.
              1. 0
                30 October 2025 17: 29
                Quote: Bongo
                Regarding the "several" fighters and the "significant" number of UAVs shot down using the R-27TE, you are not entirely correct.

                Not only launchers with R-27T or R-27TE missiles were noted, but also other air defense systems, even the Kvadrat air defense system.

                If you have a more accurate and detailed source on aircraft losses in the skies over Yemen than this one:

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_and_accidents_during_the_Saudi_Arabian-led_intervention_in_Yemen

                In which, over 10 years of combat operations, two Tornado IDS, one Mirage 2000, two F-16s, one Su-24, two F-15Ss damaged... and, of course, 23 MQ-9 UAVs downed in the confrontation with the Houthis are mentioned.

                Then please provide a link to this source.
                1. +1
                  31 October 2025 01: 47
                  Quote: AlexanderA
                  In which, over 10 years of combat operations, two Tornado IDS, one Mirage 2000, two F-16s, one Su-24, two F-15Ss damaged... and, of course, 23 MQ-9 UAVs downed in the confrontation with the Houthis are mentioned.

                  Before this you wrote:
                  Quote: AlexanderA
                  Taking into account that the same Houthis managed to create a small-sized air defense system using outdated air-to-air missiles R-27TE and with the help such air defense systems shot down and damaged several supersonic jet fighters and a significant number of turboprop attack UAVs

                  Will you still insist that all air targets were hit by R-27s launched from the ground?
                  Quote: AlexanderA
                  Then please provide a link to this source.


                  https://topwar.ru/237544-sostojanie-istrebitelnoj-aviacii-i-nazemnyh-sil-pvo-jemena-do-nachala-vozdushnoj-kompanii-arabskoj-koaliciej-v-2015-godu.html

                  https://topwar.ru/237594-sredstva-pvo-husitov.html

                  Vika was not used in collecting materials for these publications.
                  1. 0
                    31 October 2025 11: 45
                    Quote: Bongo
                    Will you still insist that all air targets were hit by R-27s launched from the ground?

                    I don’t understand where you are in the phrase: "...the Houthis have succeeded in creating a small-sized air defense system using outdated R-27TE air defense missiles and with the help of such air defense systems shot down and damaged several supersonic jet fighters и significant amount turboprop attack UAVs"

                    did you see the word "all"?

                    The words "several" and "significant" (quantity) are not synonyms for the word "all".

                    Where in the link you provided https://topwar.ru/237544-sostojanie-istrebitelnoj-aviacii-i-nazemnyh-sil-pvo-jemena-do-nachala-vozdushnoj-kompanii-arabskoj-koaliciej-v-2015-godu.html is there a list of aircraft shot down from 2015 to 2024 with dates and an indication of what shot down the aircraft?

                    Do you think that: "Due to their high mobility and numbers, MANPADS, small-caliber anti-aircraft guns, and anti-aircraft machine guns posed a major threat to the Arab coalition's aviation. By the end of 2015, they had destroyed one Moroccan F-16C, one Bahraini F-16C, two Saudi AH-64As, and up to a dozen drones." - this is a more detailed list of downed aircraft than for the same 2015 in:

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_and_accidents_during_the_Saudi_Arabian-led_intervention_in_Yemen

                    Roundel of the airforce of Yemen 25 March 2015 – A Yemeni Airforce CASA CN-235M-300 cargo plane is destroyed in the ground on Al-Dulaimi Air Base, Sanaa International Airport by the Saudi led Coalition, during the opening day of Operation Decisive Storm.[1][2]
                    Roundel of the airforce of Yemen 25 March 2015 – A Yemeni Airforce Beechcraft Super King Air utility aircraft is destroyed in the ground on Al-Dulaimi Air Base by the Saudi led Coalition in the same incident.[1][2]
                    Roundel of the airforce of Yemen (2) 25 March 2015 – Two Yemeni Airforce Huey Bell 214 helicopters parked on the Al-Dulaimi Air Base, were destroyed in the ground by the Saudi led Coalition, during the opening day of Operation Decisive Storm.[1]
                    Roundel of the airforce of Yemen (5) 25 March 2015 – Saudi Coalition strikes destroyed Yemeni Airforce aircraft in their hangars at Sanaa International Airport and Al Anad Air Base, including four Su-22s ground attack fighters and one Mi-8 helicopter, during the opening hours of Operation Decisive Storm.[3][4]
                    Roundel of Saudi Arabia 26 March 2015 – During the opening strikes, a Royal Saudi Air Force F-15S crashed into the Gulf of Aden after circling around over the sea; its two pilots were ejected safely and were recovered from the sea by a US Air Force HH-60G rescue helicopter. Arab coalition reports stated enemy fire did not cause the crash,[5] while Houthi and Iranian sources stated they shot it down.[6]
                    Roundel of Sudan 27 March 2015 – During the opening days of Operation Decisive Storm, Houthi forces said they shot down a Sudanese Air Force Su-24 in Yemen using a SA-2 missile.[7] Houthis published photos of a captured Sudanese pilot and the aircraft wreckage.[8][9]
                    Yemen late March 2015 – An Ilyushin Il-76TD cargo aircraft registration 7O-ADO of the Barash Aviation was destroyed by Saudi Coalition strikes in Sanaa International Airport.[10]
                    Roundel of the airforce of Yemen (2) 28 April 2015 – Two Yemeni Airforce MiG-29 were destroyed in Sanna Airport by Saudi Coalition airstrikes.[11]
                    Yemen 28 April 2015 – A Bombardier CRJ702ER airliner registration 7O-FAA of the Felix Airways was destroyed by Saudi Coalition strikes in Sanaa International Airport.[12]
                    Roundel of the airforce of Yemen 4 May 2015 – A Houthi–Saleh-led Government Ilyushin Il-76TD cargo plane was destroyed by Saudi Coalition strikes in Sanaa International Airport.[13]
                    Roundel of Saudi Arabia 7 May 2015 – Damaged or Destroyed – A Saudi Arabian Army Aviation Boeing AH-64 Apache helicopter made an emergency landing just inside the Yemeni territory in Najran, because of a technical failure.[14] The Houthis claimed they forced the helicopter down. The helicopter suffered minor damage according to Saudi officials.[15]
                    Roundel of Saudi Arabia 9 May 2015 – Claim – The Houthis claimed they shot down a Saudi Arabian Army Aviation Boeing AH-64 Apache helicopter in Baqem district in Sa'ada, capturing both pilots.[16]
                    Roundel of the Royal Moroccan Air Force 10 May 2015 – At 18:00 local time, a Royal Moroccan Air Force F-16C Block 52, serial number 08-8008, crashed in Saadah, while performing a mission as part of the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen. The pilot of a second F-16 said that he did not see any ejection. Originally missing for several hours,[17] on 11 May, Houthi rebels showed the crash site, located near Nushoor, Sa'ada.[18] They claimed they shot the jet down with anti-aircraft artillery fire[17] while the pilot was killed in the crash.[citation needed] Other sources claim the F-16 was shot down by anti-aircraft guns or MANPADS.[19][20]
                    Roundel of Saudi Arabia 3 August 2015 – A Saudi Arabian Seeker 400 is shot down in Al-Buqa, Saada.[21]
                    Roundel of Saudi Arabia 5 August 2015 – The Houthis claimed they shot down a Saudi Arabian Army Aviation Boeing AH-64 Apache helicopter in western province of Hajjah.[22] Saudi Arabian press denied the claim adding that the airframe made an emergency landing by a technical issue.[23]
                    Roundel of Saudi Arabia 21 August 2015 – A Saudi Arabian Army Aviation Boeing AH-64 Apache helicopter was lost near the Tawal border crossing in Jizan Region, both pilots were killed.[24] According to Saudi forces the chopper crashed, but according to Yemeni reports it was shot down.[25]
                    Roundel of the United Arab Emirates 21 August 2015 – Houthi forces shot down a Schiebel Camcopter S-100 operated by the United Arab Emirates Army in Dhubab.[26]
                    Roundel of Saudi Arabia 20 September 2015 – A Saudi Arabian Army Aviation Boeing AH-64 Apache helicopter was shot down.[27]
                    Roundel of Saudi Arabia 26 September 2015 – Claim – The Houthis claimed they shot down a Saudi Arabian Army Aviation Boeing AH-64 Apache helicopter in Jizan Region. No other sources confirmed or denied the claim.[28]
                    Roundel of the United Arab Emirates 25 October 2015 – Houthi forces shot down another Schiebel Camcopter S-100 operated by the United Arab Emirates Army in Al-Abdiyah.[26]
                    Roundel of Bahrain 30 December 2015 – An RBAF F-16C was lost in Jizan Region, Saudi Arabia. A military source reported that the pilot was ejected and survived the crash. The F-16 was already in flames before hitting the ground as recorded on video.[29] The loss was initially attributed to a technical malfunction, but other sources claim the F-16 was instead shot down by anti-aircraft guns or MANPADS.[19][30][31]
                    Vika was not used in collecting materials for these publications.

                    Do you consider this as an advantage of these two publications?

                    P.S. The first combat use of a SAM system based on a launcher with R-27T/R-27TE missiles did not occur in 2015. For example, this video was published on YouTube on March 22, 2018:



                    And yes, a replica "At the September 2022 parade, three heavy trucks carrying R-27T missile launchers passed through a square in central Sana'a." Here's a photo for this:

                    https://topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2024-03/s-r-27.webp

                    in the article https://topwar.ru/237594-sredstva-pvo-husitov.html "Houthi air defense systems" erroneous.

                    The photo shows R-27TE missiles, not R-27T.
                    1. 0
                      31 October 2025 11: 48
                      Perhaps you should be more precise in your wording and not so verbose?
                      1. 0
                        31 October 2025 12: 39
                        Quote: Bongo
                        Perhaps you should be more precise in your wording and not so verbose?

                        See how long a comment I wrote instead of responding to your comment: "Will you still insist that all air targets were hit by R-27s launched from the ground?" write: "Where did you find the word 'all' in my text?" wink

                        To be honest, I still can’t understand why my reply: "Considering that the Houthis have succeeded in creating a compact air defense system using the outdated R-27TE air-to-air missiles, and with the help of these air defense systems, they shot down and damaged several supersonic jet fighters and a significant number of turboprop attack UAVs, including the American MQ-9 Reaper... soon, these turboprop attack aircraft, converted from agricultural aircraft, with guided missiles, can be used relatively safely only against the most uncreative and poorly funded irregular armed groups."

                        It resulted in such lengthy explanations of my position that took place after words were attributed to me that I did not write. wink
                      2. 0
                        31 October 2025 13: 10
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        URVV R-27TE and with the help such air defense systems shot down and damaged several supersonic jet fighters and a significant number of turboprop attack UAVs, including the American MQ-9 Reaper.

                        Not?
                        By the way, have you ever wondered whose Su-24M was shot down in Yemen and who was piloting it?
                      3. 0
                        1 November 2025 01: 33
                        Quote: Bongo
                        Not?

                        Not "all".
                        Quote: Bongo
                        By the way, have you ever wondered whose Su-24M was shot down in Yemen and who was piloting it?

                        Roundel of Sudan 27 March 2015 – During the opening days of Operation Decisive Storm, Houthi forces said they shot down a Sudanese Air Force Su-24 in Yemen using a SA-2 missile.[7] Houthis published photos of a captured Sudanese pilot and the aircraft wreckage.[8][9]

                        SA-2 - S-75. And the Su-24M from the Sudanese Air Force was piloted by a clearly unlucky crew.
                      4. 0
                        1 November 2025 06: 07
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        SA-2 - S-75.

                        Is not a fact...
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        And the Su-24M from the Sudanese Air Force was piloted by a clearly unlucky crew.

                        Uh-huh. Yes
                        But how did these Su-24Ms end up in Sudan, and what country were the crew from?
                      5. 0
                        1 November 2025 18: 51
                        Quote: Bongo
                        Is not a fact...

                        Well, at least NOT a complex using R-27T/R-27TE missiles, which the Houthis were NOT using at that time.
                        But how did these Su-24Ms end up in Sudan, and what country were the crew from?

                        The Su-24Ms were delivered to Sudan, I believe, from Belarus. As for who was in the cockpit, I'm honestly not that interested. The question of the nationality of the downed pilots has no bearing on their equipment or tactics.
                      6. 0
                        2 November 2025 01: 50
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        Well, at least NOT a complex using R-27T/R-27TE missiles, which the Houthis were NOT using at that time.

                        I didn't claim that. The point is that after some air defense units equipped with S-75M3 SAMs defected to the Houthis, their combat effectiveness was very low. The systems' hardware was in poor condition, and no regulations were followed for the SAMs. After some time, several divisions were activated and even launched. But the only UAVs they were responsible for were EMEIP.
                        Quote: AlexanderA
                        The Su-24Ms were delivered to Sudan, I believe, from Belarus. As for who was in the cockpit, I'm honestly not that interested. The question of the nationality of the downed pilots has no bearing on their equipment or tactics.

                        Yes, the planes are from the Belarusian Air Force, and the pilots are from there too. But you're mistaken about the tactics; they certainly do.
                      7. 0
                        2 November 2025 09: 40
                        Quote: Bongo
                        Yes, the planes are from the Belarusian Air Force, and the pilots are from there too. But you're mistaken about the tactics; they certainly do.

                        Obsolete equipment predetermines outdated combat tactics. As far as I remember, a group of four Sudanese Air Force Su-24Ms used free-fall bombs in that operation (at least there is photographic evidence of this payload). This payload, and especially the Su-24M's completely outdated air defense system, greatly increased the chances of losses in combat sorties even with minimal counterfire from enemy air defense systems. Well, the Sudanese Air Force lost one of the four Su-24Ms deployed in the operation.
      2. +10
        28 October 2025 07: 10
        Given our experience in creating attack aircraft, we are quite capable of creating a modern IL-2.
        Considering that our media trumpeted the "renovation" of the AN-2 as a great breakthrough, it certainly was!
        1. -2
          28 October 2025 07: 30
          In our country, civil aviation and military aviation have always been in slightly different universes.
          So that
          An-2 "renovations"
          and the creation of a military aircraft from slightly different dimensions.
          1. +3
            28 October 2025 07: 35
            creation of a military aircraft from slightly different dimensions.
            That's it!
          2. +8
            28 October 2025 10: 22
            Quote: Evgeny64
            So that
            An-2 "renovations"

            and the creation of a military aircraft from slightly different dimensions.

            Unfortunately, they do intersect in one plane. And this plane is called "where is the engine?!"
          3. +2
            28 October 2025 15: 16
            In different funding universes. And the design engineers were outstanding, world-class specialists. Military technology was the priority. But when it came to creating a good civilian aircraft, excellent examples emerged. The Il-86, for example, was a wonderful aircraft for its time.
            And what now?
            1. +1
              29 October 2025 23: 33
              Quote: Mustachioed Kok
              The same Il-86 was a wonderful aircraft of its time.

              "N. D. Kuznetsov did not abandon the development of an engine for the Il-86, but due to a lack of time and resources, he decided not to create a new high-bypass turbofan engine, but to modernize the NK-8 engine with a low bypass ratio.

              "Kuznetsov proposed installing the NK 8-6 engine on the Il-86—a modification from the same family of engines used on the Il-62 and Tu-154. However, from the very beginning, the chief designer warned that the proposed NK-86 would be inferior to modern foreign engines in terms of fuel efficiency and power."


              The Il-86 was a fine aircraft for its time, but its NK-86 engine was uneconomical for its time. It's no surprise that not a single Il-86 was ever exported.

              In 1988, the GDR's state airline, Interflug, was ready to accept delivery of two Il-86 aircraft and had already assigned them the tail numbers DDR-AAA and DDR-AAB. However, the airline instead received two Airbus A310s that same year.
              And what now?

              And yet, we managed to deliver the Russian Il-96 abroad.:)
              1. 0
                30 October 2025 09: 18
                Well, it worked because they finally managed to solve the engine problem (and if I'm not mistaken, it wasn't our engines that were installed on another plane). And that was in the 2000s.
                i.e. 20 years ago
        2. +4
          28 October 2025 14: 19
          Well, it depends on who it is—we. If you give the task to Chemezov and Manturov, they won't be able to produce anything, let alone engines. But they'll outshine another mansion, where the only Russian inhabitant will be a kept woman.
        3. +1
          9 November 2025 12: 57
          Bravo! ...
          in the creation of attack aircraft, to make a modern IL-2

          If you "forgot," the IL-2 is a different country! It's the USSR!
          Hmm... and the modern "capacity for development and economy" of our country over the last 30 years, using the example of "development" of science or, in your example, the AN-2 and or IL-114... ETC!
  2. -2
    28 October 2025 05: 09
    Given that small aircraft will soon transition to electric power, we'll likely see attack variants based on them as well. Electric aircraft will have a significant advantage due to their extremely low infrared signature, low operating costs, and high reliability.
    1. +3
      28 October 2025 05: 43
      I'm afraid that to achieve acceptable performance comparable to an internal combustion engine, such an aircraft would only be able to carry its own batteries. Even UAVs designed for more or less decent ranges are equipped with internal combustion engines, as carrying anything heavy for any significant amount of time on electric power is currently unrealistic.
      There are no significant breakthroughs in energy sources yet.
      1. +2
        28 October 2025 05: 56
        Quote: Evgeny64
        There are no significant breakthroughs in energy sources yet.

        Progress never stands still. Higher-density batteries and electric motors will follow.
        Already today, the Chinese have announced the start of mass production of solid-state batteries for cars with a charge density of 400 Wh/kg, and the Germans have created an electric motor weighing only 12,7 kg with a peak power of 1000 hp.
        1. +4
          28 October 2025 07: 48
          Quote: Puncher
          Progress never stands still. Higher-density batteries and electric motors will follow.

          How's our progress going? Not standing still?
          1. 0
            28 October 2025 07: 58
            Quote: Civil
            How's our progress going? Not standing still?

            I'm speaking on a global scale. Regarding our country... Unfortunately, we missed the transition to electric transport, even though it was a real option for the Russian auto industry, and, accordingly, we haven't developed the expertise in either batteries or electric motors.
        2. +3
          28 October 2025 15: 23
          Progress cannot outpace the energy consumption of solar energy.
          1. -1
            28 October 2025 17: 11
            Quote from alexoff
            Progress cannot outpace the energy consumption of solar energy.

            The issue isn't just about energy capacity. It's also possible to build an air-to-air hybrid, with a small auxiliary power unit (APU) that would recharge the battery.
            The electric motor is reliable and has a very low thermal signature, not to mention ease of installation and control.
            1. +3
              28 October 2025 19: 17
              The issue is 99% about energy consumption. If, following the BelAZ principle, the engine powers the generator to distribute power to the wheels, then this only saves on the transmission.
    2. +1
      30 October 2025 09: 27
      No, it's not. Experiments with electric motors in aviation have been going on since at least the second half of the 20th century. And the problems remain the same: high mass with low impact. Furthermore, any fuel-powered engine has the advantage of gradually lightening the aircraft, which SIGNIFICANTLY increases its range. Even hybrid aircraft (a combination of electric and fuel components) have not resulted in any significant improvement in performance. Electric motors and batteries have led to a giant leap in the development of lightweight UAVs. Because, at the level of physical processes, an electric propulsion system is most efficient for small aircraft. But electric motors lose their efficiency as they are scaled up.
      1. 0
        30 October 2025 10: 08
        If I remember correctly, a purely electric Cessna 172 Electric-Powered was tested about 15 years ago. The Cessna, with its electric motor and quickly removable electric batteries, was planned to be equipped with solar panels on the upper wing, which could significantly increase flight endurance on sunny days. Fully charged, replaceable lithium-ion batteries provided two hours of flight without recharging. Battery replacement time was no more than 15 minutes. The main purpose of the electric version was short air excursions around the airfield and basic pilot training. According to statistics, training and basic training flights take less than one hour. This means the battery charge should be more than sufficient for using the electric aircraft as a "flying school desk." The main idea behind developing this Cessna modification was to reduce the cost per flight hour during pilot training, but whether this idea has been developed remains to be seen.
  3. -6
    28 October 2025 05: 56
    and why does Israel need it?

    Why would they do that? It's much cheaper to carry out total genocide against Palestinians (and possibly Lebanese as well) with such an aircraft than with an F-35 or F-16. And if anyone tries to help the Palestinians develop even the most basic air defense, they'll be bombed by the Americans.
  4. +5
    28 October 2025 07: 03
    An amateur question arose.
    Does discharging exhaust gases through a single outlet to several cylinders affect the thermal silhouette of the aircraft, unlike WWII aircraft, where each cylinder had its own exhaust outlet, and IR seekers were not even dreamed of?
    Thank you, Sergey!
    1. +5
      28 October 2025 07: 15
      Quote: 3x3zsave
      An amateur question arose.
      Does discharging exhaust gases through a single outlet to several cylinders affect the thermal silhouette of the aircraft, unlike WWII aircraft, where each cylinder had its own exhaust outlet, and IR seekers were not even dreamed of?
      Thank you, Sergey!

      Hi Friend, it does.
      The issue is different: the designers have tried their best to reduce the overall noise of the car, in addition to the thermal signature.
      This year, on the way from Crimea, I was lucky enough to see Tu-95, Su-34, and Su-30 aircraft flying at low altitude. The roar of the engines is harsh to the untrained eye.
      1. +3
        28 October 2025 07: 22
        Hello, Vlad!
        And how does it affect?
        1. +4
          28 October 2025 07: 41
          Guys, hello!
          Quote: 3x3zsave
          An amateur question arose.

          Good question! good
          Quote: 3x3zsave
          Does discharging exhaust gases through a single outlet to several cylinders affect the thermal silhouette of the aircraft, unlike WWII aircraft, where each cylinder had its own exhaust outlet, and IR seekers were not even dreamed of?

          The thermal signature of an aerial target depends on the signal's power and temperature. For example, a piston engine's exhaust temperature and volume are much lower than those of a turbojet engine, meaning the probability of locking on a light aircraft or UAV with an IR seeker is lower under similar conditions than, say, a cruise missile or a jet attack aircraft. To reduce thermal signature, for example, helicopters use screens. "Smearing" the exhaust also helps lower the temperature of the exhaust gases by better mixing them with cooler air.
          1. +4
            28 October 2025 07: 59
            Hello, Sergey!
            Once again. Is the heat dissipation with individual gas exhaust better or worse than with a common exhaust system?
            1. +2
              28 October 2025 08: 15
              Quote: 3x3zsave
              Is the dissipation of the thermal trace with individual gas removal better or worse than with a common one?

              Theoretically, a "smeared" "individual" deflection should reduce thermal signature. However, it's less for a turbojet-powered aircraft than for a turbojet. And for a turbojet, it's less than for a turbojet.
              1. +1
                28 October 2025 11: 10
                Quote: Bongo
                Theoretically, the "individual" lead "smeared" over an area should reduce thermal visibility
                Here, it probably all depends on the design of the engine itself. If the engine has a radial cylinder arrangement, then it makes more sense to exhaust the exhaust gases all at once - through the collector, which encircles all the cylinders. If the cylinders are arranged in a linear fashion, then the conclusion is obvious—separately for each cylinder.
                Quote: Bongo
                for an aircraft with a piston engine it is less than for a turbojet engine
                In my opinion, it's exactly the opposite. In the combustion chambers of turbojet and turboprop engines, the fuel mixture burns more completely than in piston engines, whose exhaust contains hot particles with high levels of infrared radiation.
                1. +4
                  28 October 2025 13: 26
                  Quote: Luminman
                  In my opinion, it's exactly the opposite.

                  Compare the engine design, specific fuel consumption, and engine outlet temperature. I don't know, maybe I'm just unlucky, but I've never seen a picture like the one in the photo below on an airplane with a piston engine, but it's not uncommon on jet fighters.
                  1. +5
                    28 October 2025 14: 43
                    Sergei welcome! hi The article is interesting, thanks!
                    Now, regarding the issue of thermal visibility, if there was a fundamental difference, then the most acceptable option would be used, as for WWII
                    Does discharging exhaust gases through one pipe to several cylinders affect the thermal silhouette of the machine, in contrast to WWII aircraft, where each cylinder had its own gas outlet?
                    In those days, the exhaust pipes on piston engines were, to put it more accurately,... well, "jet-like," which not only increased the engine's power (the length of both the intake and exhaust tracts reduced losses), but also used the exhaust as additional jet thrust. Yes, that's true, although not significant, it was taken into account in a time when every horsepower was not easy to come by.
                    Now about the use of these (as if not particularly serious) counter-insurgency aircraft, here is one thing that
                    The armament includes both guided and unguided aircraft weapons of mass destruction. up to 4000 kг
                    This already speaks of the seriousness; most WWII bombers, with the exception of long-range ones, did not have such a bomb load.
                    Yours! hi
                  2. +1
                    28 October 2025 15: 09
                    Quote: Bongo
                    a picture like the one in the photo below
                    Apparently, this is not an exhaust stream, but condensation path, formed as a result of the temperature difference between the hot gases exiting the engine nozzle and the air. This is especially evident at high altitudes, where the air is thinner and colder, making the trail brighter and longer. And at night, it's much more visible. Example: A single street lamp also creates a path of light during snow or rain...

                    Alternatively (which is less likely), it could be surge, when tongues of flame and smoke burst from the engine, and at night it looks doubly fantastic...

                    I don't rule it out either Photoshop... wink
                    1. +5
                      28 October 2025 15: 46
                      Quote: Luminman
                      Apparently, this is not an exhaust stream, but a condensation trail.

                      At one time, during the energetic takeoff of the Su-15TM, ​​I observed such “tracks” many times.
            2. +1
              28 October 2025 11: 22
              Quote: 3x3zsave
              Once again. Is the heat dissipation with individual gas exhaust better or worse than with a common exhaust system?
              I think this is a question that can probably only be answered in a specialized laboratory. Moreover, exhaust gases not only evaporate into the atmosphere, they also partially wash over the skin surface... P.S.IR tracking emerged with the advent of jet aircraft, something no one had even considered in the piston-engine era. But the question got me thinking, albeit to no avail... wink
          2. 0
            28 October 2025 18: 30
            Quote: Bongo
            To reduce thermal signature, for example, screens are used on helicopters; "smearing" the exhaust also helps lower the temperature of the gases due to better mixing with cold air.
        2. +3
          28 October 2025 12: 48
          Quote: 3x3zsave
          Hello, Vlad!
          And how does it affect?

          A single muffler can be equipped with a cooling system and screens to mix the exhaust gases with cool air. The exhaust outlet is positioned as far away from the cockpit as possible, in the tail.
    2. +3
      28 October 2025 09: 14
      In World War II, piston engines were used, so the exhaust outlet came from the cylinders. Modern aircraft have turboprop engines, which have no cylinders, just a turbine, and therefore only two exhaust pipes.
      1. +2
        28 October 2025 09: 38
        Quote: Garm
        In World War II, there were piston engines, and accordingly, the exhaust outlet came from the cylinders.

        The discussion was generally about the thermal signature of certain engines. Furthermore, thrusters are very actively used on UAVs.
    3. +2
      28 October 2025 11: 08
      An amateur question arose.
      Does discharging exhaust gases through a single outlet to several cylinders affect the thermal silhouette of the aircraft, unlike WWII aircraft, where each cylinder had its own exhaust outlet, and IR seekers were not even dreamed of?

      It does. After all, exhaust gases are hotter than the atmosphere.
      But don't forget that the aircraft fuselage also heats up relative to the atmosphere and has contrast.
      The old AIM-9L (1975) already had all-aspect coverage.
  5. The comment was deleted.
  6. +1
    28 October 2025 08: 39
    I wonder if Israel still has any A-4 Skyhawks in storage anywhere?
    1. +5
      28 October 2025 09: 40
      Quote: Melior
      I wonder if Israel still has any A-4 Skyhawks in storage anywhere?

      No, Israel doesn't store any old aircraft at all. Obsolete or worn-out aircraft are decommissioned, sold to foreign buyers, or donated to museums.
  7. +3
    28 October 2025 10: 00
    Quote: Evgeny64
    Given our experience in creating attack aircraft, we are well within our capabilities to create a modern IL-2. The engines have become much more powerful, the materials are stronger and lighter.

    What attack aircraft are you talking about? We can't even replicate the An-2 at a modern level!
  8. +1
    28 October 2025 11: 57
    There is a more interesting option - Pilatus PC-9.
    1. +4
      28 October 2025 13: 28
      Quote: Melior
      There is a more interesting option - Pilatus PC-9

      The aircraft mentioned in this publication is no longer new. As a light attack aircraft, the Super Tucano has no advantages over the EMB-314.
      1. +3
        28 October 2025 13: 41
        It's actually mentioned. I saw the PC-7, but I missed the fact that it's being used as the base for the T-6 Texan II. By the way, does the wonder tractor have ejection seats?
        1. +4
          28 October 2025 13: 46
          Quote: Melior
          By the way, are there no ejection seats on the miracle tractor?

          The "miracle tractor" is believed to glide well and be capable of making an emergency landing safely for the crew, should an emergency arise. Furthermore, it's unlikely that ejection seats could be installed on this aircraft without changing the layout and significantly increasing the cost.
          1. +1
            28 October 2025 13: 48
            Israeli pilots will be very inspired by this! laughing
            1. +2
              28 October 2025 15: 44
              Quote: Melior
              Israeli pilots will be very inspired by this!

              No more than Apache crews.
          2. +3
            28 October 2025 16: 04
            It is believed that the "miracle tractor" glides well and is capable of making an emergency landing, if necessary, safely for the crew.
            It reminds me of a Storch in some ways. That one glided well, too, and in a strong headwind it would hang in the air.
            1. +5
              28 October 2025 16: 07
              Quote: 3x3zsave
              He reminds me of Storch in some ways. He was also a good planner.

              But the Fieseler Fi 156 Storch could not carry 4 tons of bombs and had no ballistic protection.
  9. Des
    +4
    28 October 2025 19: 39
    This is a normal article.
    Even "déjà vu" - as I read in the 80s "ZVO").
    But there was always and still is a question: - How did this freak become so popular and good!?
    Okay for agricultural work (closer to us it was used normally in the Polish People's Republic), but for everything else... OA-1K Skyraider II - Dromedary)).
    1. +1
      29 October 2025 09: 06
      Quote: Des
      This is a normal article.

      Much depends on the individual author. There was already an article about this aircraft on VO:
      https://topwar.ru/264268-a-on-chudak-ne-mog-ponjat-nikak-kuda-uletat.html. Сравните манеру изложения и выводы.
      Quote: Des
      But there was always and still is a question: - How did this freak become so popular and good!?

      The Skyraider 2 is capable of operating with equal or greater combat effectiveness than helicopters, while its flight-hour cost and flight preparation time are significantly lower.
      1. +2
        29 October 2025 18: 01
        Quote: zyablik.olga
        The Kairaider-2 is capable of operating with the same or greater combat effectiveness than helicopters.

        It's twice as fast as the Apache, meaning its response time from the duty zone is faster. It wasn't developed for the Ministry of Defense, meaning the military only pays for the production itself, without the R&D cycle, which significantly reduces the overall lifecycle cost. It uses generally standard weapons and surveillance systems...
  10. +1
    28 October 2025 20: 31
    The answer is simple: in the absence of air defense systems, inoculating the Palestinians is much more economical.
  11. +4
    28 October 2025 21: 04
    A decent, informative article. And without the sweeping, fact-free ridicule of these planes' "ugliness," as Roman Skomorokhov recently did in his article "And he, the weirdo, couldn't figure out where to fly..." from 11/05/25. I'm giving this article a star rating.
  12. 0
    30 October 2025 00: 34
    Thank you for the article! Very interesting.

    We would really need such aircraft for air defense against drones, it’s a pity that there is nothing like that.