Are the “Ganships” back?

51


During the Vietnam War in the United States, a unique type of specialized combat aircraft was created, the main task of which was to combat guerrilla formations, mainly at night. The concept of this armed aircraft, which received the name of "ganship" (eng. Gunship - artillery ship), implemented in 1964 year, implied the installation of one side of a powerful machine-gun armament. The fire is fought when the plane is in a bend, and the target appears to be in the center of a huge imaginary funnel.

Initially, the carrier of machine guns of caliber 7,62 mm was the aircraft AC-47, which was based on the well-known military transport C-47. The licensed version of this machine is known in the USSR under the name of Lee-2.

After a fairly successful application of the first "ganships" in the specific conditions of Indochina, the US military expressed a desire to get more high-speed and lifting machines with weapons of larger caliber. The basis for such aircraft became military transport: C-119 and C-130. The caliber of the cannon armament mounted on them was continuously increasing. Rifle-caliber machine guns replaced the 20-mm automatic cannon with the АС-119. On the four-engine turboprop AC-130 in 1972, they were supplemented with 40-mm Bofors L / 60 and 105-mm howitzer. The most advanced search and aiming-navigation systems of that time were installed on the aircraft.

The following tasks were assigned to the "ganships": direct aviation support of troops; patrolling and disruption of enemy communications; striking at pre-identified enemy targets or at targets targeting them during patrols; providing defense of their bases and important facilities at night.

As the experience of military operations showed, the “ganships” operated very successfully at night in areas where there were no air defense systems and anti-aircraft guns with radar guidance. Attempts to use "ganships" over the well-covered air defense system "Path of Ho Chi Minh" led to serious losses. Also at the final stage of the conflict was unsuccessful experience of their use against units armed with light rifle weapons in the daytime. In the 1972, even small Viet Cong units often had Soviet-made Strela-2 MANPADS. The last shot-down aircraft of the Vietnam War was the "gunship" of the AU-119 South Vietnamese air force, hit by a MANPADS missile during the day.

After the completion of the "Vietnamese epic" in the US Air Force, the AC-130H modification aircraft remained in service. The end of hostilities for a long time left them out of work, the crews spent the ammunition only during shooting at the firing range. The opportunity to shoot from airborne guns at real targets was next introduced in October 1983 of the year during the US invasion of Grenada. The Ganships suppressed several small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery batteries, and also provided fire cover for the landing of marines.

The next operation with their participation was “Just Cause” - the US invasion of Panama. In this operation, Rio Hato and Paitilla airbases, Torrijos / Tosamen airport and Balboa port, as well as a number of individual military targets, became targets of AC-130. The fighting did not last long — from December 20 1989 to January 7 1990. Aircraft acted as a landfill. The US military called this operation intended specifically for "ganshipov." The almost complete absence of air defense and a very limited conflict area made the AU-130 "kings of the air." For aircraft crews, the war turned into training flights with shooting. In Panama, the crews of the “ganships” practiced the tactics that had become classic: two aircraft went into a turn in such a way that at a certain point in time they were at two opposite points of a circle, while their whole fire converged on the ground in a circle with a diameter of 15 meters, destroying literally everything that happened in the cannon firing sector. During the fighting aircraft flew during the daytime.


AC-130Н


The conditions in Iraq during the “Desert Storm” turned out to be completely different. There acted 4 aircraft AC-130H from the 4 squadron, which performed 50 sorties, the total flight time exceeded 280 hours. The main objective of the "gunships" was the destruction of the Scud ballistic missile launchers, radar detection of air targets and Iraqi communications. But they did not cope with the tasks. During the operation, it turned out that in the desert conditions, in the heat and the air saturated with sand and dust, the infrared systems of the aircraft were completely incapacitated, they simply gave one large glare on the screens. Moreover, one AC-130H during a combat departure to support ground forces in the battle for Al-Khafi was shot down by an Iraqi air defense missile system, the entire crew of the aircraft was killed. This loss confirmed the well-known truth from the time of Vietnam - in areas saturated with air defense systems, such aircraft have nothing to do.

In 1987, a new modification of the “flying cannon” appeared - АС-130U. By order of the Special Operations Forces Command (SOCOM), the aircraft was developed by Rockwell International. It differs from previous modifications by increased combat capabilities, due to more advanced electronic equipment and weapons. In total, by the beginning of the 1993 of the year, the X-NUMX of the AC-12U aircraft was delivered, which were to be replaced in the regular AC-130H. Like the previous modifications, the AC-130U was created by retrofitting the C-130H Hercules military transport aircraft. The AC-130U armament includes a five-barreled 130-mm cannon (25 ammo ammo, 3000 firing rate / min.), 6000-mm cannon (40 projectiles) and 256-mm (105 projectiles). All guns are movable, so pilots do not have to strictly maintain the trajectory of the aircraft to ensure the required accuracy of fire. Despite the large mass of the 98-mm cannon itself (compared to the 25-mm Vulcan cannon) and its ammunition, it provides an increased initial velocity and mass of projectiles, thereby increasing the range and effectiveness of firing.

A wide range of aim-navigation and radio-electronic equipment was mounted on the plane, which was supposed to increase the impact potential of the AC-130U, including when performing combat missions in adverse weather conditions and at night. To ensure good performance of the crew in a long flight in a soundproof compartment behind the cockpit there are places for crew members.


AC 130U


The AC-130U aircraft was equipped with air refueling systems and built-in controls, as well as removable armor protection, which is installed in preparation for the implementation of particularly dangerous tasks. According to American experts, due to the use of promising high-strength composite materials based on boron and carbon fibers, as well as the use of Kevlar, the mass of armor can be reduced by about 1000 kg (compared to metal armor). Particular attention was paid to equipping the aircraft with effective systems of electronic countermeasures against air defense systems and the emission of false targets.

The updated version of the “ganship” was successfully run in the 90 in the Balkans and in Somalia. In 2000, these machines successfully operated in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, many thought that the time of "winged battleships" ends. In the US Congress against the background of enthusiasm for "high-precision weapons" began the debate about the need to decommission existing machines and stop financing the construction of new ones.

In addition, a new "superweapon" has appeared - combat armed remotely controlled Drones, capable of patrolling for a long time, inflicting high-precision strikes on identified targets. The progress made in the field of miniaturization of electronics and the creation of new lightweight and durable composite materials has made it possible to create unmanned remotely piloted strike vehicles with acceptable characteristics. The main advantages of the UAV, of course, are remote control, which eliminates the risk of death or capture of the pilot and lower operating costs.

Are the “Ganships” back?

UAV MQ-9 Reaper


At the beginning of the XXI century, the Middle East became the main region of the combat use of American unmanned aerial vehicles. In the operations of the American armed forces in Afghanistan and then in Iraq, the UAV, in addition to intelligence, carried out target designation of means of destruction, and in some cases attacked the enemy with their airborne weapons.

The first drone of the UAV was the reconnaissance MQ-1 Predator, equipped with AGM-114C Hellfire missiles. In February, 2002, this unit first struck a SUV that allegedly belonged to Osama bin Laden's accomplice, Mullah Mohammed Omar.

With the help of the UAVs, a real hunt for al-Qaeda leaders was organized. A series of Al Qaeda commanders in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen were eliminated in the course of “targeted strikes”.

However, strikes on Pakistani territory, as a result of which "civilians" were killed, caused numerous protests. Under pressure from the Pakistani side, the Americans were forced to withdraw their MQ-9 Reaper from Pakistan, where they were based at Shamsi airfield.

During the operation of the UAV revealed the weaknesses of these weapons. Despite the predictions of many "experts", the drones were unable to fully perform most of the tasks of combat aircraft. These devices, which are absolutely necessary and useful in their niche, were demanded primarily as a means of reconnaissance and surveillance in the specific conditions of the struggle against various Islamic "terrorist groups" that do not possess modern anti-aircraft weapons and EW equipment. But in terms of their strike potential, the UAV armament remained very limited; during real combat missions, they, as a rule, carried ammunition consisting of a pair of Hellfire missiles. That was sufficient to destroy small point targets or vehicles, but did not give the possibility of prolonged "fire pressure" on the enemy in order to hinder his actions or destroy area targets.

The vulnerability of UAVs against the fire of anti-aircraft weapons and dependence on meteorological factors turned out to be higher than that of manned vehicles. Starting from the combat use of attack and reconnaissance UAVs in Afghanistan, until the end of 2013, more than 420 vehicles were lost in various incidents. The main reasons were mechanical failures, operator errors and combat losses. Of these cases, 194 was categorized as A (loss of a drone or damage to the device in the amount of more than 2 million USD), 67 accidents occurred in Afghanistan, 41 in Iraq. Predator type UAVs suffered 102 category A accidents, Reaper - 22, Hunter - 26. Moreover, as noted in the media, in relation to UAVs, taking into account losses, the same approach was used as in relation to manned aircraft. In the category of casualties did not enter the cars that came under fire and received damage, but not shot down immediately. If such an aircraft crashed due to damage when returning to base or landing, it is believed that it was broken as a result of a flight accident. The total cost of the lost UAVs was higher than the savings from lower operating costs compared with manned aircraft.

Communication lines and data transmissions of American UAVs were vulnerable to interference and interception of the transmitted information, which in some cases led to the loss of vehicles or unwanted publicity of the details of the covert operations conducted.

Accumulated experience in the use of UAVs allowed them to assess their current capabilities and nullified the initial euphoria. The views of the military on their prospects for development and application have become more balanced. In other words, real hostilities have proven that at the moment there is no alternative to combat manned aircraft. For all their merits, drones can only be considered as a very useful addition.

The global war against “Islamic terrorism” that began in the 21st century gave rise to a new surge of interest in “anti-partisan” warplanes, but now they are called “counter-terrorism”.
Against this background, the debate about the necessity of abandoning the AU-130 aircraft in the USA somehow subsided. Moreover, as the early versions of the AC-130 are written off, new ones are ordered based on the most modern version of the C-130J with an extended cargo compartment. The command of special operations of the US Air Force even plans to double the number of heavily armed C-130J aircraft, their number is planned to be increased to 37 units.

The American special forces also expressed the desire to have, in addition to heavily armed “flying cannoners”, more versatile airplanes capable of performing other than fire support and other tasks.


MC-130W Combat Spear


Earlier in the US, several modifications of special operations support aircraft MC-130 were created and put into service. They were armed with four squadrons and were used for deep raids into the depths of the enemy’s territory with the aim of delivering or receiving people and goods during special operations.



In 2010, the 12 MC-130W retrofit and retrofit program was launched to increase the combat capabilities of the aircraft. During the modernization, the aircraft were equipped with new search-reconnaissance, navigation and sighting systems, and mounted on them weapons consisting of an 30-mm GAU-23 automatic cannon with bilateral ammunition feed, developed on the basis of the XMUMX “Bushmaster II” ( Bushmaster II).



In addition to the gun, the aircraft can carry 250 pound (113,5 kg) GBU-39 or small-sized (20 kg) guided bombs GBU-44 / B Viper Strike. A suspension of AGM-176 Griffin or AGM-114 Hellfire guided missiles is provided.



Such a composition of armaments, despite the absence of large-caliber guns on board the aircraft (such as on the AU-130) makes it possible to hit field fortifications and armored vehicles. In addition to the shock functions, the aircraft, which received the designation MC-130W Combat Spear after the upgrade, can also be used as a transporter or tanker, which significantly expands the range of its application and makes it truly universal.


Cockpit MC-130J Commando II


In addition to retrofitting and upgrading previously released MC-130W aircraft, in 2009, the Lockheed Martin plant in Marietta, Georgia began production of a new MC-130J Commando II modification.


MC-130J Commando II


Due to the elongated fuselage and more powerful and efficient engines, the aircraft has a higher payload and range. In total for the special operations forces it is planned to purchase 69 aircraft MC-130J. Other countries have expressed interest in acquiring such aircraft, especially those that are located adjacent to the areas of "anti-terrorist operations" or have problems with all sorts of insurgents.

However, the multi-purpose “hunt” on the basis of the newest C-130J turned out to be too expensive for many states, and besides, the USA was not ready to supply it to all countries. In this regard, the specialists of Aleniya Aeromacchi started the development of a C-27J Spartan tactical military transport aircraft. New shock modification received the designation MC-27J. At the Paris Aerospace Salon 2013, the Italian “ganship” was already shown as a full-fledged prototype.


MC-27J


C-27J has excellent take-off and landing characteristics; the “ganship” created on its base will be able to work without problems from field airfields and airfields with limited runways. It is characterized by high fuel efficiency, ease of operation and very low operating costs for aircraft of this class.



The main difference between the “ganship” and the base machine is the presence of a modular combat system installed in the aircraft’s cargo compartment, including the GAN-30 23-mm cannon and the corresponding weapon control system.



The gun is mounted on the left side, and as the embrasure is the rear fuselage door, which is usually used to drop parachutists. Moreover, the gun on a special machine is mounted on a standard cargo pallet, which facilitates installation and disassembly.



According to the calculations of the specialists of the development company, in a typical combat scenario, the MC-27J will operate at an altitude of about 3000 m, and the slant range of the cannon in this case will be about 4500 m. It is noted that if necessary, the 40-mm Bofors L70 cannon can be installed . This gun has a great firing range.



Special attention is paid to protecting the aircraft from MANPADS. For this purpose, suspended containers electronic countermeasures ALJS system. The basis of the system is an automatic laser jamming station that generates coded multi-spectral interfering radiation in a wide infrared range. It leads to the illumination of the infrared receiver of the GOS of the rocket and the formation of a false signal that deflects the rudders of the rocket, which leads to a breakdown of the rocket pointing at the chosen target.

In the future, it is planned to place air-to-surface guided missiles and other precision-guided munitions on the aircraft. It has been announced that it will be adapted for use on the promising Italian “guandes” of an AGM-176 Griffin guided bombs, which, if used from land or ship launchers, are equipped with a rocket engine and are classified as guided missiles, and a GBU-44 / B Viper Strike guided bombs. The ammunition data will be discharged either through an open rear ramp or through launch tubes, which will be built in the rear cargo door flaps and will thus preserve the tightness of the cargo compartment.

At the same time, MC-27J retains the ability to transport and paratrooper paratroopers or cargo of various purposes, in addition, it has the ability to solve the tasks of conducting reconnaissance, observation and reconnaissance. According to the developers, the aircraft will be able to solve a wide range of tasks: providing combat support to its forces (especially special operations forces), support for "counterterrorism operations", and ensuring the evacuation of military personnel and civilian personnel from crisis areas.

Interest in this aircraft showed: Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Qatar and Colombia. Aleniya AeroMacci predicts a significant increase in global demand for ganship-class airplanes, so the company expects to deliver at least 20 such airplanes for the next 25-50 years.

The 32 th air squadron, subordinated to the Command of Special Operations of the Armed Forces of Jordan, is armed with two multi-purpose aircraft AC-235, which were upgraded from the basic transport variant CN-235 by the American company ATK.



The planes are armed with 30-mm M230 cannon (similar to the cannon mounted on the AN-64 Apache combat helicopter), 70-mm NAR, APKWS guided missiles with semi-active laser guided AGM-114 Hellfire missiles. In addition, jamming systems, electro-optical and infrared aiming systems, laser designators and synthetic aperture radar stations were installed on the aircraft.



In addition to these airplanes, a similar conversion is being carried out by one of the two C-295 military transport aircraft that are part of the Jordanian air force.



According to the views of the Jordanian military, "artillery aircraft" will be a powerful and effective addition to the combat potential of the armed forces of the kingdom. Aircraft can provide direct aviation support for special forces, conduct armed reconnaissance, search and rescue in combat conditions.

Some time ago in China, the Chinese "ganship" was tested. The aircraft is based on the Shaanxi Y-8, which is a licensed copy of the Soviet military transport An-12.





Unfortunately, the composition and characteristics of the weapons of this aircraft are not known. And the very appearance of such a machine in the PRC is puzzling, there are no particular problems with insurgents in the PRC. The fight against the Uygur separatists is successfully conducted by ordinary police methods. Perhaps the plane was created with export prospects.

As can be seen from the above, the interest in "anti-terrorist aircraft" in the world has recently increased significantly. It is often suggested that “armed transport workers” are nothing more than targets over a battlefield. This is certainly true of an enemy with a medium-range air defense system or at least anti-aircraft artillery with radar guidance. As a rule, such air defense systems are absent for all kinds of “illegal armed formations” (the example of DNR and LC is an exception). The maximum that such formations have is MZA and MANPADS. The range and height reach of modern MANPADS theoretically make it possible to fight against "ganships", however, in practice, for a number of reasons, this does not occur.



Proper use of "ganshipov" allows you to successfully avoid losses. For more than 20 years, the USAF has not lost a single vehicle of this class from combat damage, having flown many thousands of hours and spent thousands of shells in “hot spots” all over the world. MANPADS and MZA calculations are unable to perform aiming, capture and shelling the target at night. At the same time, the onboard equipment AC-130 allows you to operate successfully at any time of the day. The airplanes themselves are equipped with powerful electronic countermeasures and numerous “heat traps”. Currently developed and mass-produced laser automated systems of optical-electronic suppression (AN / AAR-60 MILDS), which can effectively protect a large aircraft from missiles with thermal guidance.

http://defense-update.com
http://www.aereo.jor.br
http://www.aviationnews.eu
51 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. ICT
    +6
    17 September 2014 09: 53
    by the way the biggest gun spike
    1. +6
      17 September 2014 10: 08
      Quote: TIT
      by the way the biggest gun spike

      This is of course not a gunship, but the most common military transport Il-76. The video is quite interesting, but the firing accuracy from the stern defensive installation was not impressive. In the 80s, such feed installations were repeatedly used during takeoff and landing by An-12 and Il-76 shooters in Afghanistan, to suppress the positions of ZGU and MANPADS.
      1. ICT
        +3
        17 September 2014 10: 17
        Quote: Bongo

        This is certainly not a gunship, but the most common military transport Il-76


        It's clear
        just forgot to add
        lol
      2. ICT
        0
        17 September 2014 10: 19
        Quote: Bongo
        repeatedly used during take-off and landing by the arrows An-12 and Il-76 in Afghanistan, to suppress the positions of the PGI and MANPADS.


        maybe once it was somewhere, but it was not part of the system, not before the shooting they were there
        1. +7
          17 September 2014 10: 32
          Quote: TIT
          maybe once it was somewhere, but it was not part of the system, not before the shooting they were there

          After the mass use of MANPADS in Afghanistan began and several military-technical vehicles were shot down, such a phenomenon as shooting from defensive installations at suspicious places in the vicinity of airfields during takeoff and landing was very common.
          1. ICT
            0
            17 September 2014 15: 22
            Quote: Bongo
            in suspicious places around the aerodromes during takeoff and landing was very common.

            I'm saying that I have not heard about it, maybe where it was

            1. before entering the airfield they were even forbidden to shoot traps from a certain height (this is from personal communication). and then shooting around the airfield
            you can just hook your
            2.several PTS were shot down,there the whole system was created from helicopter cover to raids in the vicinity
    2. badger1974
      +2
      17 September 2014 19: 01
      class. Well, the AK-630 ship gatlings work in approximately the same sound. We also called the signal (combat number at the signal post) grater. more like a stick on a grater herachit, sensible clip, offset
  2. +3
    17 September 2014 10: 02
    Weapons - colonialists!
    1. SergeyM
      +2
      17 September 2014 17: 40
      The perfect weapon against unarmed Aboriginal people. If the Americans began to increase the number, it seems that in the Amazon they liked something.
      1. +3
        17 September 2014 20: 15
        And why in the Amazon? They are now planning to fight ISIS. They will gouge the air defense and begin to drive through the deserts of the Arabs through the deserts ...
    2. +1
      25 March 2015 09: 32
      We would have come in handy in Chechnya too
    3. 0
      25 March 2015 09: 32
      We would have come in handy in Chechnya too
  3. +4
    17 September 2014 10: 06
    In Chechnya, it would be nice to go at night. And in Afghanistan would be useful.
    1. +4
      17 September 2014 10: 13
      Quote: AYUJAK
      And in afghan would be useful

      He came in handy, but not to us, and much later.
    2. +11
      17 September 2014 10: 14
      Quote: AYUJAK
      In Chechnya, it would be nice to go at night. And in Afghanistan would be useful.

      What for? Most of the territory of Chechnya was shelled by all-weather, round-the-clock and free-of-charge on standby artillery. We need adequate reconnaissance means, not "gunships"
      1. +5
        17 September 2014 10: 20
        Quote: Spade
        We need adequate reconnaissance means, not "gunships"

        The modern "gunship" is primarily a means of reconnaissance and surveillance. Including the "rocketship" Cessna AC-208B Combat Caravan. This vehicle was originally created as a multipurpose platform for reconnaissance, observation and target designation, the shock functions are secondary for it.
        1. 0
          17 September 2014 10: 31
          Israeli "Heron" is able to hang in the observation area for 46 hours without refueling. This is not available to any "gunships" and other manned vehicles.
          1. +5
            17 September 2014 11: 00
            Quote: Spade
            Israeli "Heron" is able to hang in the observation area for 46 hours without refueling. This is not available to any "gunships" and other manned vehicles.

            In the article, it seems, about the advantages and disadvantages of drones, the author painted everything in detail and in an accessible manner, with figures, why crush water in a mortar?
            1. +4
              17 September 2014 11: 19
              You can find out for a long time which is better, snowshoeing or skiing. In detail to paint both those and others, and with numbers. However, all these arguments can be equated to zero when describing the applicability of skis and snowshoes for moving around a summer swamp.

              The American "heavy" motorized infantry brigade has 16 self-propelled guns and 14 CM. The Russian motorized rifle brigade has 36 self-propelled guns, 18 MLRS and 18 mortars. Plus, we don't have to drag it all across the ocean. So it is clearer why we don't need "gunship"?

              Here, for example, Israel does not build them either, it manages with drones. And while not a single wedding failed. Why do you think so?
              1. +4
                17 September 2014 14: 35
                Quote: Spade
                You can find out for a long time which is better, snowshoeing or skiing.

                As for me, it's better when there is both at home.
                1. +1
                  17 September 2014 14: 43
                  And also a snowmobile. However, it all costs money. Which will have to be torn off from those who really need them. For example, those same flyers who can’t get normal weapon systems on their Su-25s.
      2. +5
        17 September 2014 13: 57
        Quote: Spade
        What for? Most of Chechen territory was bombarded with all-weather, round-the-clock and free-of-charge artillery in standby mode.

        I disagree. The positions of the artillerymen in the mountains were not frequent; they were all located near large settlements, under guard. And the roads are not very good there. Deep in the mountains, there was no artillery cover and the blind aviation was not able to independently detect the enemy and worked in squares with no corresponding result. The reaction time was long, and upon the arrival of aircraft, the enemy left that square. Therefore, a "gunship" equipped with a powerful ECO hanging in the sky for a long time would be oh so handy.
        1. badger1974
          +2
          17 September 2014 14: 25
          Nayhas - it's a pity that you forgot that the Caucasus below 3000 meters is not the Caucasus, I mentioned MANPADS, but about the fact that the engines "grab" less air with a height, and even more oxygen do you know? Is it worth reminding that at an altitude of 4000 meters an aircraft (flying device) becomes "sluggish", it can be thrashed from a PC, let alone a gunship of any manufacturer, but for fun in dill and you know how the aircraft is called-LETAL APPARATUS, then the outcome to aeronautics for hohlobus is ... .......
          1. Zeus
            +3
            17 September 2014 15: 46
            Quote: badger1974
            it’s a pity that you forgot that the Caucasus below 3000 meters is not the Caucasus




            But Amer didn’t prevent Toru Bor from kneading with ganships, although there the height is not lower than the Caucasus ..
          2. +4
            17 September 2014 19: 00
            Quote: badger1974
            Nayhas - it’s a pity that you forgot that the Caucasus below 3000 meters is not the Caucasus

            Come on, 3 km. no one lives there, all villages are at a maximum of 1,7 km., and for any transport worker (and not only) 7000 m. not a problem. The "lethargy" at this height with their wing area is rather controversial. Well, at the expense of the PC on the plane (albeit at an altitude of 1 km.) From the category of fantasy ...
            1. badger1974
              0
              21 September 2014 09: 28
              only ambush groups are sitting on the hills, and those who need to be fired are sitting in the gorges, it is here and it is necessary to go down, where they are fired from the hills with all available types of weapons, even firing pechalas, and besides, such a colossus will unfold in the gorge clearly a problem, if at all possible
        2. 0
          17 September 2014 14: 37
          Quote: Nayhas
          Deep in the mountains there was no artillery cover

          And at the same time, all sorts of colonels went on promotion. They were not fired. Although the artillery, which was under the ass of the "West" grouping (created on the basis of headquarters 58A), with the correct placement, could control the entire western part of Chechnya.

          Vladikavkaz alone had 9 2S19 batteries, 6 2S3 batteries, 3 Gradov batteries, one Smerchi and one Tochki. The latter ("Tornadoes" and "Points"), by the way, remained on the eastern outskirts of Vladikavkaz all the time, they did not move closer to the DB area.
          1. +2
            17 September 2014 18: 51
            Quote: Spade
            Although the artillery, which was under the ass of the "West" grouping (created on the basis of headquarters 58A), with the correct placement, could control the entire western part of Chechnya.

            Perhaps it could be so on the plain. There, to the border with Georgia, artillery was located only at the Itum-Kalinsky border. detachment, controlling the fork in the roads from Itum-Kale to Veduchi and Tazbichi. Well, the mortar battery at the repeater on the mountain above the village itself. There was no more artillery, huge areas facing the border were not covered by anything (and there were practically no roads there), the aircraft worked there.
            1. 0
              17 September 2014 21: 51
              Everywhere. Take a card and a compass. And draw circles
      3. +5
        17 September 2014 20: 16
        Good question! What for? The corrector sees the goal only from the position of the advancing. Constantly hanging - satellites? Do not make me laugh!
        Such an airplane, every one over a company of airborne air forces in 2000, would save more people.
        1. -3
          17 September 2014 20: 55
          Quote: Vorlon
          Such an airplane, every one over a company of airborne air forces in 2000, would save more people.

          Yeah. I would crumble it. Both ours and fighters. Nothing would have changed.

          Oil painting: two Su-25 over Bamut. The positions of the 1st company of 503rd MRP are all in orange smoke, for some reason our aviation "loved" them very much. An entire Air Force major is trying to aim planes at a celibate on the outskirts. They don't see. They do not perceive target designation given from the ground. The result is a complete zero. In the afternoon in cloudless weather.

          And you are trying to assert that the "gunship" could help in the mess that happened to the paratroopers ... To put it mildly, you are being very cunning.

          Quote: Vorlon
          The corrector sees the goal only from the position of the advancing.

          Is your intelligence knowledge limited to spotters? It’s sad. Their main function is not reconnaissance of goals, but the implementation of interaction.

          Well, artillery has a lot of intelligence. At least it should be. Ground-based optical-electronic reconnaissance equipment, radar guns for reconnaissance of firing positions, ground-based radar guns for reconnaissance of moving targets, sound, sound-thermal and sound-seismic reconnaissance means, RTR means, aeronautical reconnaissance means: helicopters and spotters, helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles , UAV optical reconnaissance with multispectral sensors. All this is combined into a single automated system, exchanges data with the combined-arms intelligence network and ASUV

          This is what it should be. And it will be a universal system, not a highly specialized one, like these "ganships". Which the United States needs primarily because they do not fight on their own territory. And in the south of Canada or the north of Mexico, their troops also do not participate in hostilities.
      4. The comment was deleted.
  4. 0
    17 September 2014 10: 11
    Based on the results of the use of the "counter-guerrilla" Cessna AC-208B Combat Caravan in Iraq, it is necessary to create "rocketships" on the basis of transport workers. A huge number of "Helfaers" have recently managed to shoot.
  5. +4
    17 September 2014 10: 29
    the fact of the matter is that such a little thing is effective only in the absence of air defense and fighters. And so - a very easy target.
    1. +7
      17 September 2014 11: 12
      Quote: Dimka off
      the fact of the matter is that such a little thing is effective only in the absence of air defense and fighters.

      The same can be said about helicopters and UAVs.
  6. badger1974
    +8
    17 September 2014 10: 34
    sensibly, but the latest events in Donbass speak of the opposite, the loss of such "anti-partisan" thorns will be in the nature of just zips, more the three-band Needle is capable of hitting it in 1 case out of 1 (100) despite the interference (if you throw it off for marriage, then 99,9) That is, it is possible to "chase" camels and donkeys, but in a special operation with a definitely powerful enemy, it is a complete cross, but what does the financial expenditure of maintaining ganships have to do with just a song, whereby you can just keep some country in Africa by keeping one gangercules,

    article of norms, Seryoga, as always intelligibly and clearly, and most importantly without addiction to a certain belief, glad
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    1. +7
      17 September 2014 11: 09
      Quote: badger1974
      Seryoga, as always, is intelligible and understandable, and most importantly, without an addiction to a certain belief, I’m glad

      Thanks Volodya! If you read carefully, then the publication has a remark
      (an example of the DNI and LC is an exception)
      ... Of course, the "gunship" has not many chances there, except for the "Eagle" there is a much more serious weapon. But in the absence of systemic air defense, these machines can be very useful.
      1. -4
        17 September 2014 11: 30
        Quote: Bongo
        But in the absence of systemic air defense, these machines can be very useful.

        "It is not good to put on the Lord what can be done by a good police" (C). Honestly, I don’t understand the rationale for reworking a rather expensive and not adapted for such purposes transport aircraft, when there are much more effective means of struggle - attack aircraft, light counter-partisan attack aircraft, and so on. At one time, there was a lot of criticism about using the IL-76 DLRO aircraft as an aircraft, while the same staffers or the Israelis use much more distant and cheap converted passenger aircraft in this capacity. The end in this (ganship) case does not justify the means. And helicopters are much better suited as a rescue vehicle.
        1. +3
          17 September 2014 14: 01
          Quote: inkass_98
          Honestly, I don’t understand the reason for reworking a transport aircraft that is quite expensive and not suitable for such purposes, when there are much more effective means of combat — attack aircraft, light counter-guerrilla attack aircraft, and so on.

          Time ... Helicopters, of course, are a good thing, but the patrol time is very limited, and the speed leaves much to be desired. Attack aircraft are fast, but again the patrol time is short. Here Ganship has advantages in everything, both in combat load, and speed, and in patrol time, not to mention that there are limitations on reconnaissance. he has no equipment and the number of operators identifying targets.
      2. badger1974
        +1
        17 September 2014 11: 56
        I personally don’t see the point in such devices (Crimean is still there), especially since MANPADS spread around the world like cockroaches, which aren’t present, and RBS and Blow and Stingy about Strela and Igly are silent at all, it’s enough that the presence of a grid in the PGO RPG- 7 allows you to knock down air targets with an angled approach at an altitude of 500-600 meters (otherwise the ganship is ineffective just like the MI-24), then there is only one conclusion, the ganship is a cross and a point
        1. +4
          17 September 2014 14: 02
          Quote: badger1974
          , it is enough that the presence of a grid in the RPG-7 PGO allows you to knock down air targets with an angled approach at an altitude of 500-600 meters (otherwise the ganship is ineffective just like the mi-24), then there is only one conclusion, the ganship is cross and point

          Proper use of "ganshipov" allows you to successfully avoid losses. For more than 20 years, the USAF has not lost a single vehicle of this class from combat damage, having flown many thousands of hours and spent thousands of shells in “hot spots” all over the world. MANPADS and MZA calculations are unable to perform aiming, capture and shelling the target at night. At the same time, the onboard equipment AC-130 allows you to operate successfully at any time of the day. The airplanes themselves are equipped with powerful electronic countermeasures and numerous “heat traps”. Currently developed and mass-produced laser automated systems of optical-electronic suppression (AN / AAR-60 MILDS), which can effectively protect a large aircraft from missiles with thermal guidance.
          1. badger1974
            0
            17 September 2014 14: 56
            so not one? I’m ashamed to lie, it smacks of Ukrainian community, dill have no losses, but 20000 with a dick is a soldier not available for return, how? we dispute7 chi, how, chi sho, they completely shook the bayonet up; the reasons were read carefully in the article; everything is thoroughly described there, do not anger me
    2. +3
      17 September 2014 11: 31
      Quote: badger1974
      olkovo, but the latest events in Donbass speak of the opposite, the loss of such "anti-partisan" thorns will be in the nature of just zips, more a three-band Needle is capable of hitting it in 1 case out of 1 (100) despite the interference (if you throw it off for marriage, then 99,9) , that is,

      Ganshipu climb 3500 meters and you can even shoot all sorts of needles before stupefaction.
      1. badger1974
        +4
        17 September 2014 12: 15
        saag - are you sure that from a height of 3500 meters you will complete the combat mission? and let's take into account the load, respected moles - the departure of such a ganship (I don’t take IL-76, let An-8 eat less fuel, well, like a merkul) -almost 15 tons of kerosene (jet fuel is the difference between aviation and just kerosene) plus the crew, who receives a monthly plus for sorties, plus a ground crew that serves this something, plus air control services (this is also dough), which ensures its movement in the atmosphere (also a lot of dough) plus take control at the aircraft level, etc.- but now I'm asking you ---- not up to x .. is it important to this shit? I’m glad if you answer, I’ve counted everything for a long time
        1. +2
          17 September 2014 13: 00
          From the article
          Calculations MANPADS and MZA are unable to carry out aiming, capture and firing at night.

          Combat height, m ​​1680 - 3200
          http://www.airwar.ru/enc/attack/ac130h.html

          that it is expensive you are right. But they are designed for use in the absence of air defense or at night. More suitable for supporting special forces.
        2. +5
          17 September 2014 13: 13
          When in the war did they count money for the departure of one plane? This is nonsense, a combat mission is being set and options for its most effective implementation are being considered, rather than considering a price tag, this is not a supermarket.
          1. badger1974
            0
            17 September 2014 15: 01
            flying 3500 meters above the ground and spit expensive property nowhere, HA-HA _XA-I would have looked at your shoulder straps, smarter right away, in the first flight of such a ganship, and you’ll be smarter in the best case for the title lower, and at the moment, a kick in the ass with the air force, and actually with the sun
      2. -1
        18 September 2014 09: 37
        Many MANPADS have a working height of more than 3500, the same "stinger" has a ceiling of 4200-4500.

        Let's see the slant range from a height of 3500 - with a sharp turn at an angle to the horizon of 45 degrees, it will be 5200 m. Needless to say, that any aircraft artillery systems will be ineffective at such a distance? Those. The badger was right - the working height of the use of gunships does not exceed 1000-1500m, otherwise the use of airborne weapons is excluded.
        1. +4
          19 September 2014 06: 03
          Quote: goose
          Many MANPADS have a working height of more than 3500, the same "stinger" has a ceiling of 4200-4500

          After reading this, I doubted my knowledge, "climbed" to look no, it turns out everything is correct, I have not forgotten everything. The maximum target height of the latest modification of the Stinger: 3800 m . But it seems to me in reality much less.
          Quote: goose
          the working height of the use of gunships does not exceed 1000-1500m, otherwise the use of airborne weapons is excluded

          Here you are also mistaken, this publication says this.
      3. The comment was deleted.
    3. +4
      17 September 2014 14: 07
      Quote: badger1974
      recent events in Donbass indicate the opposite, the loss of such "anti-partisan" thorns will be in the nature of just zips, more a three-band Needle is capable of hitting it in 1 case out of 1 (100) regardless of interference

      Modern "gunships" operate from heights inaccessible to MANPADS, and in reality they are no longer Ganships, but ROCKETShips. Flying arsenals with deadly weapons striking directly at the target, with a set of ammunition of different calibers, from 100 kg. bombs up to 20kg. missiles. If the Armed Forces of Ukraine had such vehicles, the militia would not be sweet, first of all, they would have lost all armored vehicles and artillery left with grenade launchers and machine guns ... not to mention the fact that checkpoints and road control would have to be forgotten ...
      1. badger1974
        -5
        17 September 2014 15: 17
        Nayhas Modern "gunships" operate from heights inaccessible to MANPADS, and in reality they are no longer Ganships, but ROCKETShips.

        if you know what a sliding EM wave is and how to assemble this uncomplicated device to bring such an effect "on the knee", then your UAVs in the barn as exhibits that no one needs (I wanted to put it more expressively), and the frontal EM impulse is good old MR- 500 will easily shatter all your attempts
        now at the expense of the DNI and LNR, what are you writing about. a costly business, but simply in the form of your dreams, as Igor Rasteryaev sang, "We saw temperatures higher"
        1. +2
          17 September 2014 19: 05
          Quote: badger1974
          and the frontal EM impulse, the good old MP-500, easily throws all your efforts,

          Please give an example of such a "stumbling" ...
          1. badger1974
            -1
            17 September 2014 22: 16
            Amer UAV landing on Iranian territory, maybe those about different ... missions to list. read my friend in my native yearbook Jane, I have had a lot of money for him in recent years, but read archives-weight for you and for jane crazy
      2. 0
        17 September 2014 22: 23
        Quote: Nayhas
        If the APU had such cars, the militia would not be sweet
        If the Ukrainian Armed Forces had gunships, they would have driven a Buk from the Voentorg .. I got the Boeing .. recourse
        1. +2
          18 September 2014 09: 40
          However, it is not a fact that a Boeing was shot down by a rocket. The video has a lot of round holes in the fuselage. Beech in particular is not capable of doing this.
        2. The comment was deleted.
  7. +3
    17 September 2014 11: 53
    Quote: Bongo
    (an example of the DNI and LC is an exception)

    in Donetsk only in August the wasp appeared, if the Americans had fussed from the very beginning, everything could have ended badly.
    1. badger1974
      0
      17 September 2014 12: 31
      there is an opinion, and it, the opinion, consists in the following,
      "Squeezing" (grabbing from the dill) is a half measure, and "squeezing" the air defense system is a matter of nadot someone to guard and looking to protect those who know how to work on this air defense system (even though turn on the machine), what energy costs? so the screams about the air defense missile system are not with, but the MANPADS have mastered quite specifically that the "scallop" would be brought down one from one, there is already a Su-24 in the "asset" (I hope the performance characteristics of the Su-24 should not be announced)
  8. +3
    17 September 2014 13: 05
    Quote: Spade
    Quote: AYUJAK
    In Chechnya, it would be nice to go at night. And in Afghanistan would be useful.

    What for? Most of the territory of Chechnya was shelled by all-weather, round-the-clock and free-of-charge on standby artillery. We need adequate reconnaissance means, not "gunships"


    But what about when artillery isn’t enough? Far from the troops.
    But, yes, this is a very subtle tool to use. Everywhere will fail.
    1. +2
      17 September 2014 14: 20
      Quote: AYUJAK
      But what about when artillery isn’t enough? Far from the troops.

      If in low-intensity conflicts the artillery is missing somewhere, it means that it is placed incorrectly, and it is necessary to kick comrades from the MFA control structures into civilian life under the article "non-fulfillment of the contract by the military personnel"

      It’s just that we are not rich enough to develop, manufacture and supply highly specialized weapons to the troops.

      Although the military-industrial complex of any country has a great desire to do this. At public expense. As an example: Enhanced Mortar Targeting System. Everything seems to be cool, a mortar with a horizontal firing sector of 60-00 (360 degrees)
      However, it is applicable only in local wars and only for stationary installations at advanced operational bases. And this development was commissioned by the command of the American MTR in 11.7 million bucks. Only development. The usual carriage in essence. The mortar itself was taken ready.
  9. +2
    17 September 2014 13: 09
    That would be on the basis of the An-74, probably, sensible ganship would have turned out ... It is a pity that this is all happening and the ties between Ukraine and Russia are broken. Because of these amers, the bastard .... whose, so many projects this year broke.
    1. 0
      17 September 2014 14: 09
      Quote: nvn_co
      That would be based on the An-74, probably, sensible ganship would have turned out ...

      too expensive and overly large.
  10. 0
    17 September 2014 13: 14
    The most interesting thing is that these Amerikos- Attack those who can’t give back too much. Therefore, they advertise their ganships. But in fact, they are just slow-moving cows.
    1. +4
      17 September 2014 14: 04
      Quote: pravednik
      .And in fact it’s just sedentary cows.

      It looks like you have not read the article to the end.
      1. badger1974
        0
        17 September 2014 15: 23
        Yes, he read the norms, it is, but those Bayonet, it was not bad to shoot at the shooting range, for money. and not at home in the budget, when it’s for money, then there’s sweat from the forehead, and so we shake it. in the military, where everything turns out to be meaner, didn’t you find a pattern by chance?
  11. 0
    17 September 2014 15: 08
    American weapons, like American tactics, are designed to fight unarmed
    1. +3
      17 September 2014 16: 59
      When our landing company in Chechnya was dead and no one could really help, such a ganship would be very useful.
      1. badger1974
        -3
        17 September 2014 19: 17
        come in handy for what? what would you watch as a downed ganschship in a gorge collapses? Are you a maniac, or were shepherds with berdanki holding you? the chenas must have needles bought from people like you in a company of 50 fighters, so it’s good that the Russian Federation didn’t come up with such a madhouse in aviation as a gunship
  12. +2
    17 September 2014 15: 26
    Quote: AYUJAK
    In Chechnya, it would be nice to go at night. And in Afghanistan would be useful.


    In-in for Chechnya and Afghanistan it is.
    1. badger1974
      0
      17 September 2014 15: 52
      tovarisch - at TTX heights of aircraft engines do you know? don’t be dumb, this is not the Internet resource where you need language in the bare ass, show it,
      at an altitude of 1500 meters above sea level, what is the capacity of the 117 gas turbine engine? while the 117 theater at sea level "row" at a nominal 1300 kW per second? a question for you to fill in, I know. but in the internet you can not search, there is no it, think with your brain, if you have it
  13. +2
    17 September 2014 22: 40
    The article is interesting, as is the opinion of the authors of the comments. I believe that the concept of "gunship" in modern conditions can find only very limited application. The Russian Federation has its own fairly simple "gunship" - An-74, which is used by the maritime border service. I must say that if the crews of MANPADS and MZA have problems when operating at night, then for pilots night flights are not at all "high". In my opinion, UAVs, for all their shortcomings, are preferable: they are cheaper, compact and have significant room for improvement.
    1. badger1974
      0
      18 September 2014 12: 18
      rubin6286 - the key to a successful assignment is the calculation of the Forces and Means of the unit headquarters. who are entrusted with fixing the problem, and so, pinning their hopes on the UAV in taking into account this notorious calculation of Forces and Means - a bet on a UAV is approximately like playing a trynka in a bluff, but in combat, as in a trynka, there is such a thing as "crush the bank ", well, those are approximately the same alignment, then e, rely on what you have, and then do the calculations,
      for example, I completely agree with Lopatov
      "Yeah. Would have crushed. Both ours and the militants. Nothing would have changed.

      Oil painting: two Su-25 over Bamut. The positions of the 1st company of 503rd MRP are all in orange smoke, for some reason our aviation "loved" them very much. An entire Air Force major is trying to aim planes at a celibate on the outskirts. They don't see. They do not perceive target designation given from the ground. The result is a complete zero. In the afternoon in cloudless weather.

      And you are trying to assert that the "gunship" could help in the mess that happened to the paratroopers ... To put it mildly, you are being very cunning. "
      at the time, it was better to include counterguerrilla aviation in the calculations of the Forces and Means for such supports, by the way, these calculations were published on the VO, the discussion was normal
      1. +1
        20 September 2014 19: 56
        I didn’t understand something. You read my last comment. Is there something about the paratroopers, the calculation of forces and means? I did not write about it.
        I don’t remember ever playing "trynka", prefs or poker, wherever it went, but this! You gotta fall so low! In short, do not drink bad moonshine and do not eat onions on it!
  14. 0
    19 September 2014 16: 28
    It is very simple to check this product for professional suitability by sending it to New Russia, I think the question of its effectiveness will disappear by itself.
    1. badger1974
      +2
      20 September 2014 12: 23
      If hypothetically, it is possible to imagine that the State Department will allocate a few "old" gangbangs to the parachute, then we still need to find crews for them, which I am not at all sure about, the only thing is if for the crews of these ghans we drive in horse doses of pills of "courage", though there is 1 to one the probability that this will be the first and last flight into the skies of Novorossiya
      1. +1
        20 September 2014 13: 43
        Quote: badger1974
        the truth is there is 1 to one chance that this will be the first and last flight to the sky of New Russia


        So it would most likely be, here I agree with you Volodya! But to say that such machines are useless and they have no prospects is not right. Under certain conditions, they can be quite useful. By the way, with the fact that in Chechnya, at night, they would be, simply, targets I cannot agree. The militants had few MANPADS, in general, there were even fewer competent users, and there were no MANPADS with an aim to search for and capture a target at night.
        1. badger1974
          0
          20 September 2014 19: 19
          The LPR militias shot down an IL-76 in Lugansk on June 14, 2014 at 00:51, it's not just dark time of the day, it's night, you can argue that they were waiting in ambush, but in this case, such ambushes were packed on the Caucasian high-rises full and MANPADS are identical to Strela and Igla, to everything we must add the shot down Su-24 in Chechnya from MANPADS, and he, 24, is more resourceful and more advanced than any gunship, "scallops" with a survivability complex and those died, at which they were seconds nevertheless fact
          1. +1
            21 September 2014 02: 10
            Quote: badger1974
            militia of the LPR was shot down by IL-76 in Lugansk 14 June 2014 in 00: 51 is not just dark at night, it's night

            Volodya Il-Xnumx was shot down near the airfield while landing on the glide path, and there were no countermeasures. Thermal visibility of turbojet engines is many times greater ... etc.

            Quote: badger1974
            , "scallops" with a survivability complex and those perished ...

            Su-24 and Su-25 were used exclusively during the day and were usually struck by repeated approaches to the target.

            "Ganship" is primarily a special forces and checkpoint support aircraft at night, and in this role it is very successful. It is no coincidence that interest in such machines all over the world has increased, as they say: "practice is the criterion of truth." Over the past 20 years, in a combat situation, as already mentioned, not a single such aircraft has been lost.
    2. +1
      20 September 2014 13: 46
      Quote: STALGRAD76
      It is very simple to check this product for professional suitability by sending it to New Russia, I think the question of its effectiveness will disappear by itself


      Have you tried to hammer nails with a microscope and then talk about the "professional suitability" of this product? The Islamists in Iraq and Afghanistan can best tell about the professional suitability of the "ganships".
      1. badger1974
        0
        20 September 2014 19: 38
        Well, Seryoga, there are indisputable facts, everything is just the same transport workers should not hammer "nails", at the expense of the Islamists, does the jester know him? in the Wet Kong, they were "removed" from the assignments as a result, a failure, in Iraq, to ​​speak, I am not very well informed, but a third of Iraq is under the brutal Islamists, and they do not tell, and the bosses are cut and buried alive, and the territory of Afgan, after each successful raid of ganships, turns red from the opium poppy even more - even I don't really like this tendency of their "effectiveness"
        1. +1
          21 September 2014 02: 20
          Quote: badger1974
          well, Seryoga, there are indisputable facts, everything is just the same transport workers should not hammer in "nails"

          Not Volodya’s transporters, but armed vehicles based on them, which are also equipped with very advanced surveillance and reconnaissance equipment, as well as powerful jamming and electronic countermeasures systems.
          Quote: badger1974
          in the Wet Kong from tasks "suspended" as a result of failure

          Why do you think so? They operated very effectively until the last day of the war. The last aircraft shot down in this war was the "gunship". Flying at low altitude during the day, he tried to delay the advance of the North Vietnamese tanks.
          Quote: badger1974
          but a third of Iraq under the brutal Islamists ...
          While there AU-130 were Islamists were afraid to raise their heads.
          Quote: badger1974
          and the territory of Afghanistan, after every successful raid of ganships, blushes with opium poppy e

          Do you think that "gunship" are fighting poppy crops? The problem lies in the inability and reluctance of the current Afghan authorities to fight the drug business.
          1. badger1974
            0
            21 September 2014 09: 16
            While there AU-130 were Islamists were afraid to raise their heads.

            -this is temporary, these thugs are quite rich, so soon conclusions will be made, and coalitions disappointing for all aviation

            Do you think the "gunship" are fighting poppy crops?
            - Speaking about the poppy, I, first of all, pointed to the factor of replenishing the budget of various gangs of majahideen,

            the inability and unwillingness of the current Afghan authorities to fight the drug business.

            -Afghan power ends with the borders of Kabul, therefore I wouldn’t take it into account at all, that's why the NATO there, and it was they who took upon themselves this burden of struggle, including with drug trafficking and the production of this infection, and ganships, judging by the spread all sorts of radical movements and gangs in Afghanistan due to the poppy, the weather was not done, the situation is only getting worse
            1. +1
              21 September 2014 09: 31
              Quote: badger1974
              it’s temporary, these thugs are quite rich, so soon conclusions will be made, and coalitions disappointing for all aviation

              It is doubtful that besides MANPADS, they will have long-range or medium-range complexes no matter how rich they are.

              Quote: badger1974
              Ganships, judging by the spread of all kinds of radical movements and gangs in Afghanistan due to the poppy, did not make weather, the situation is only getting worse

              There are no Ganshipovs and Afghans now, they have been withdrawn for political reasons, which the US military strongly opposed, especially the command of special operations.
              1. badger1974
                0
                21 September 2014 15: 59
                Yes, they do not even need heavy air defense systems, the performance characteristics of modern MANPADS are enough, it’s another thing when they have early warning means, and indeed an extensive airborne detection network, then the situation will change radically, everything goes to this

                if not now, then they were not needed there

                For example, I don’t even imagine who you can scare with ganships, except for Bushmen or someone else similar who is already harmless-
                but the fact that they (the gan) are, is not a luxury allowed to everyone, too inflated,
                Well, time will tell, wait
                1. +1
                  22 September 2014 09: 23
                  Quote: badger1974
                  Yes, they do not even need heavy air defense systems, the performance characteristics of modern MANPADS are enough, it’s another thing when they have early warning means, and indeed an extensive airborne detection network, then the situation will change radically, everything goes to this


                  Volodya, I served in the 11th Air Defense Army for more than one year. What is the "early detection" network? As soon as the Islamists have radar stations, "Kharms" will fly in their direction. Radar posts need protection and the Islamists, of course, do not have specialists. Modern MANPADS above 3500 m do not work and cannot be used effectively at night at the moment, the article says about this by the way.