Military Review

Paravan Guardian: Barrier Aerostat Control System

14
Paravanics were aircraft devices intended to divert (cut off) a sling of barrage balloons. The devices were cables pulled from the nose of the aircraft to the ends of the wings, on which cutting mechanisms could be installed. During World War II, these devices were installed and used on Junkers Ju.88A6, Heinkel He-11, and in the USSR on the Para-Tu-2, Paravan, Pe-2.


Paravan Guardian: Barrier Aerostat Control System


During World War II, among quite a successful means of defense were considered barrage balloons. If the bombers did not die in the collision with the fields of aerostats covering the object, then they went to much greater heights, from which the aimed bombing was difficult. This type of defense is actively used in the Soviet Union and in the United Kingdom. In the midst of the Great Patriotic War, our military didn’t scare them, because the British were allies, but when the war began to end, the question of post-war Europe began to float in the air, the British “Stalin falcons” began to look more closely at British balloons ...

By request of the military Tupolev Design Set "Paravan" device on its planes. Designed system Starkov I.A. In September, 1945 was installed on two serial Tu-2 ASH-82FN devices. The "Paravan" served to protect the aircraft from collisions with barrage balloons and was a six-meter-long cone installed in the forward fuselage, from which 13,5-mm metal cables were pulled to the wingtips. Wing tips increased. On the steel end fairings of the wing were placed special locks with squibs, designed for cutting the cables of balloons in order to avoid accidental impact on the tail fin with a cable. According to other data, the tips on the leading edge had sharp cutting edges. In order to maintain acceptable centering, a weight of 150 kg was placed in the rear fuselage.



In October-November 1948 the Tu-2 ASH-82FN "21 / 57" aircraft passed state tests. During the test, the following results were obtained:
Take-off weight - 10759 kg.
Maximum speed at the height of 5450 m - 537 km / h.
Climb at km 5 - 11 minutes.
Practical ceiling - 9150 m.

At the Air Force Research Institute, the following conclusion was made on the basis of the test data:

“1. Installation on the Tu-2 No. 21 / 57 of the Paravan device on the flight data, piloting technique, controllability and stability of the aircraft has little effect.

2. Tu-2 No.21 / 57 with the Paravan protective device can be allowed to fly after increasing the centering weight of the cargo in the tail section of the aircraft ... "

However, this system was not innovative. Back in 1936 at the training camp of the commanding staff aviation The special purpose task was to find ways to destroy barriers balloons. First Lieutenant Gurov M.D., the commander of the Seventh Cruising Squadron, presented his solution to this problem. The essence of Gurov’s proposal was to install a safety device - a paravan with scissors on the wing consoles for cutting the cables that connected the aerostat to the ground winch.



In the same year, in the workshops of the Rzhev aviation unit, a protective device was urgently equipped with reconnaissance aircraft P-6 (serial number XXUMX). The flight tests of the Air Trawler took place in the summer of 3167 of the year at the Air Force Scientific Research Institute, at the Chkalovskaya airfield (Schelkovsky airfield). In March 1937, after minor modifications, continued the flight tests of the “Air Trawler” P-1938, which showed that the aircraft could successfully cut cables with a diameter up to 6 millimeters. At the same time, the working team for SAT tuning of aircraft has been established. However, tests have shown that the installation Paravan increased drag.

Based on materials:
www.rulit.net
alternathistory.org.ua
www.nnre.ru
Author:
14 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. igordok
    igordok 26 December 2013 08: 36
    0
    Can barriers be considered an effective weapon against cruise missiles (CR)? If so, is it worth creating paravanes from the Kyrgyz Republic?
    1. Old_kapitan
      Old_kapitan 26 December 2013 08: 49
      +1
      Can barriers be considered an effective weapon against cruise missiles (CR)? If so, is it worth creating paravanes from the Kyrgyz Republic?
      Even for subsonic KR, a collision with a line of a death paravan is similar. But where did you see the barrage balloons? Their time is gone. IMHO, of course.
      1. igordok
        igordok 26 December 2013 09: 01
        +4
        Quote: Old_Kapitan
        Their time is gone.

        Everything has its time. If it turns out to be effective, they will remember.
      2. Airman
        Airman 26 December 2013 13: 45
        +2
        [quote = Old_Kapitan] [[/ quote] Even for subsonic CD, a collision with a death paravane sling is similar. But where did you see the barrage balloons? Their time is gone. IMHO, of course. [/ Quote]
        Paravan is designed to cut the ropes of balloons. And for the fight against paravanes and airplanes, a small caliber bomb was suspended from a balloon to a balloon. When trying to cut the cable, the bomb detached and slid along the cable to the wing of the plane, where it exploded.
        1. Johnagle
          Johnagle 26 December 2013 20: 13
          0
          Quote: Povshnik
          ... for the fight against paravanes and airplanes, a small caliber bomb was suspended from a balloon to a balloon. When trying to cut the cable, the bomb detached and slid along the cable to the wing of the plane, where it exploded.

          and the plane with the paravane had to hang at the moment of circumcision and wait for the bomb to slide towards its wing?
          I heard that charges were simply suspended from the cable and they exploded in a collision with a steam engine or an airplane
    2. Canep
      Canep 26 December 2013 09: 44
      +3
      Quote: igordok
      Can barriers be considered an effective weapon against cruise missiles (CR)? If so, is it worth creating paravanes from the Kyrgyz Republic?

      Aircraft of the 30s had a large wingspan, usually greater than the length of the aircraft, for example, B-17 length - 22 m, wingspan - 31 m. BGM-109 Tomahawk has a wingspan of 2.6 m. For such a target, there is a chance of a collision with a balloon rope 15 times less. To effectively combat the Kyrgyz Republic, it will be necessary to increase the density of aerostat ropes by 15 times. But this will not help either. KRs can simply take advantage of the passages in the balloon barriers left for their aircraft.
      1. Hey
        Hey 26 December 2013 10: 23
        +4
        Between the ropes you can hang a network. In principle, reflectors, antenna fields and other things can be hung to distort the background.
        1. Aryan
          Aryan 26 December 2013 11: 05
          -1
          look at the root!
          you have to pick up homeless people in air defense:
          before the bonba falls
          and they are already dragging her for scrap good
        2. The comment was deleted.
      2. Rus2012
        Rus2012 26 December 2013 11: 19
        +2
        Quote: Canep
        But this will not help either. KRs can simply take advantage of the passages in the balloon barriers left for their aircraft.

        ... dear colleague, this is not so.
        Currently, aerostatic barriers against the Kyrgyz Republic pay special attention. According to rumors, there are experiments with their application, for example, in Iraq. They were placed in rocket-hazardous directions (ravines, hollows were blocking). And not just a cable from the speakers, but a whole system of cables with sensors or a coarse network of 3x3, 4x4 meters of glassy carbon ropes that the speaker lifts. Lift height 50-300 meters, and further guards a Shilka-type ZPU
    3. Rus2012
      Rus2012 26 December 2013 11: 12
      +2
      Quote: igordok
      Can barriers be considered an effective weapon against cruise missiles (CR)? If so, is it worth creating paravanes from the Kyrgyz Republic?

      Only in less than four months of the raids of the German KR on London, the barrage balloons, as noted above, reliably destroyed the 231 rocket. This is about 3% of all fired missiles (it must be borne in mind that a significant part of the missiles did not reach London at all) and more than 8% of the total number of missiles shot down.
      Number of KR, damaged cables AZ was probably much greater. This can be assumed from the fact that 231 KR was reliably destroyed only by the London aerostatic barrier system. Balloon barriers were deployed to protect many cities, including those in which the Nazis attacked the Kyrgyz Republic right up to 29 in March 1945. Undoubtedly, there was also a certain percentage of KR damaged by AA cables and finished with antiaircraft artillery and fighter aircraft. In addition, since the V-1 was an areal-type weapon, it is impossible to analyze the number of CDs that deviated from the original route and did not hit the target after colliding with AZ cables.
      Interestingly, the modern CD differs from the V-1 only in the use of new materials, more advanced engines, greater flight range and higher pointing accuracy. Neither in terms of flight speed, nor in geometric dimensions, the German CUs practically do not differ from the same Tomahawk or the Russian CU X-55.
      Consequently, we can make a confident conclusion that aerostat barriers will be no less effective in the fight against modern cruise missiles.


      We read here in full - http://topwar.ru/35370-horosho-zabytoe-staroe-aerostaty-zagrazhdeniya-protiv-kry
      latyh-raket.html
  2. makarov
    makarov 26 December 2013 09: 01
    +2
    "Paravans were called devices of aircraft intended for diverting (cutting) lines of barrage balloons."

    Not only. The fleet also had and there are similar devices for cutting minreps.
    1. Old_kapitan
      Old_kapitan 26 December 2013 09: 20
      +2
      The fleet also had and there are similar devices for cutting minreps.
      And on submarines - for communication, VVABT "Paravan".
      1. Apollo
        Apollo 26 December 2013 11: 45
        +1
        quote-During the Second World War, these devices were installed and used on aircraft Junkers Ju.88A6, Heinkel He-11, and in the USSR on Tu-2 “Paravan”, Pe-2 “Paravan”.
  3. The comment was deleted.
  4. de bouillon
    de bouillon 26 December 2013 21: 44
    0
    Quote: Rus2012
    Quote: igordok
    Can barriers be considered an effective weapon against cruise missiles (CR)? If so, is it worth creating paravanes from the Kyrgyz Republic?

    Only in less than four months of the raids of the German KR on London, the barrage balloons, as noted above, reliably destroyed the 231 rocket. This is about 3% of all fired missiles (it must be borne in mind that a significant part of the missiles did not reach London at all) and more than 8% of the total number of missiles shot down.
    Number of KR, damaged cables AZ was probably much greater. This can be assumed from the fact that 231 KR was reliably destroyed only by the London aerostatic barrier system. Balloon barriers were deployed to protect many cities, including those in which the Nazis attacked the Kyrgyz Republic right up to 29 in March 1945. Undoubtedly, there was also a certain percentage of KR damaged by AA cables and finished with antiaircraft artillery and fighter aircraft. In addition, since the V-1 was an areal-type weapon, it is impossible to analyze the number of CDs that deviated from the original route and did not hit the target after colliding with AZ cables.
    Interestingly, the modern CD differs from the V-1 only in the use of new materials, more advanced engines, greater flight range and higher pointing accuracy. Neither in terms of flight speed, nor in geometric dimensions, the German CUs practically do not differ from the same Tomahawk or the Russian CU X-55.
    Consequently, we can make a confident conclusion that aerostat barriers will be no less effective in the fight against modern cruise missiles.


    We read here in full - http://topwar.ru/35370-horosho-zabytoe-staroe-aerostaty-zagrazhdeniya-protiv-kry

    latyh-raket.html



    8%

    Do you consider this effective?
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 27 December 2013 00: 04
      0
      Quote: de Bouillon
      8% do you think this is effective?

      Dear colleague, we recall the conditions for the application of the Fau-1:
      - height from 200 to 2000 meters
      - missile hazard - at a wide angle
      - KR did not copy the terrain along ravines to hollows at a height of 20-50 meters. If you even make modern CRs rise above the 500 meters, they are easily detected and destroyed by the ZU-23 and even ZPUs of the DShK type. About mining and detection sensors - on these mesh cables and I do not speak

      Moreover, 8% is actually confirmed data, but ck. they were not clarified - who knows?