Time for Prop driven CAS in the Ukraine as anti drone defence

[On the way]

Planes like the Embraer EMB 312 Super Tucano, armed with machine guns internally, and externally in pods and with a centerline external fuel tank could loiter over towns and vital installations in the rear in Ukrainian territory and shoot down drones. The Super Tucano can also carry Sidewinders and Pythons on wingtips and probably Stingers too. So any array of Russian jet power or prop driven heavy UAVs could be shot town. The planes can do standing CAP over high value targets or towns and be directed by ground control to the likely path of the UAVs and shoo them there. The cockpit can be configured for night ops. At this point, what have the Ukrainians got to lose? They can't stop enough of the UAVs. These aircraft have longer endurance and faster speed that then helos, which the Ukrainians are using now. They can be positioned as the first line of defence against UAVs, and then have ground based missiles and anti aircraft gun take over closer to the target. Not for battlefield small lightweight drones but for the heavier ones like Shahed, Garpiya, Geran 2, Lancet, etc. 

The US should be supplying them with these prop planes now. Less politically controversially then letting the UKR have F-16s.

[James1978]

Not sure about the Embraers. Seeing as how Brazil is the "B" in BRICS and seems to have taken a neutral stance regarding the Russia-Ukraine War and favors a negotiated end to the war.

But if the US is paying, AT-6s seem possible.

[Olof Larsson]

AT-6 with APKWS. But AT-6 would require new production. Existing jet trainers might be a better bet. The Swedish Sk60 for instance (that we are retiring this year), should be capable of carrying a T-pod and 7 or 19 APKWS. Same with L-39, while BAE Hawk is much more capable. There might also be a drone solutions, though drones that can carry the relevant armament, tend to be optimized to fly far higher and far slower then desired.

[Stuart Galbraith]

There arent enough Hawks for RAF usage, I dont believe we are going to be supplying any abroad.

Course, there might be foreign buys whom might pony some up. I think Finland was using them IIRC.

[Markus Becker]

There could be a complication or two. 

Russian SAMs and AAMs have a HUGE range and they also shoot them from Belarus. Winnyzia in central(-western) Ukraine is 430 km from Russia but only 270 from Belarus. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

TBH, I dont think platforms are the problem. Theys till have drones like Bayraktar. The real problem to my mind is they need more stand off weapons, properly integrated with the platforms. Giving them a load of light coin aircraft is going to do nothing for them, if they dont have things like laser guided mavericks or Brimstone hung on them, and properly integrated with the airframe.

[Mighty_Zuk]

Props can be really useful if you can position one sufficiently close by. But one big issue is speed. A prop isn't going to be significantly faster than a drone, so getting to it in time may be a serious issue. One or two drones will be easy targets but when you got a swarm of 30 of them, it won't be easy or fast to dash to the next one. 

You're also putting a high RCS object right next to low RCS objects that if ground teams feel is time sensitive - might try to shoot at them and end up hitting your proppy. Even more dangerous if you're matching your speed to the drone to line up for a shot, inadvertently giving a similar doppler return as a drone. I'd rather not trust IFF systems, but that's just me.

Missiles are one solution, yes, but if you're going to be sending them off at such high rates, you may as well just go for a jet at that point, as the relative part of the aircraft's cost in the total air defense mission will quickly diminish. This will also solve the issue that missiles have a very short range against low signature targets, as you need a good tone to make sure you're actually engaging something and not just sending an explody stick to self detonate over some village - or worse - inside the village.

[Olof Larsson]

12 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

TBH, I dont think platforms are the problem. Theys till have drones like Bayraktar. The real problem to my mind is they need more stand off weapons, properly integrated with the platforms. Giving them a load of light coin aircraft is going to do nothing for them, if they dont have things like laser guided mavericks or Brimstone hung on them, and properly integrated with the airframe.

"On the way" mentioned specifically anti-drone use, and there turboprops could be useful v.s. the long ranged kamikaze drones. On the other hand, Ukraine seems to handle that threat well enough as it is. The problem Ukraine have in air defence is mainly countering high speed missiles (cruise and ballistic) and aircrafts dropping glide bombs. There the only solutions are more Patriot batteries & more missiles, 4th of 5th gen fighters and especially long range offensive weapons to strike russian airfields, weapon depots and factories. We are however unlikely to see any changes there (good or bad) until after november 5th. And the fact that Olaf "Neville Chamberlain" Scholz is a spineless anxious coward doesn't help eighter.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Just now, Olof Larsson said:

"On the way" mentioned specifically anti-drone use, and there turboprops could be useful v.s. the long ranged kamikaze drones. On the other hand, Ukraine seems to handle that threat well enough as it is. The problem Ukraine have in air defence is mainly countering high speed missiles (cruise and ballistic) and aircrafts dropping glide bombs. There the only solutions are more Patriot batteries & more missiles, 4th of 5th gen fighters and especially long range offensive weapons to strike russian airfields, weapon depots and factories. We are however unlikely to see any changes there (good or bad) until after november 5th. And the fact that Olaf "Neville Chamberlain" Scholz is a spineless anxious coward doesn't help eighter.

I think thats the best use of them. That they were even using a Yak52 for the role, and a Mi8 with the nose gun, shows that even relatively slow platforms have a role to paly here.

Interesting thing, Slovakia supposedly was talking about giving up their purchase of AH1s, so they can be supplied to Ukraine. Equipped with Helfire, I think they are long ranged enough to make a major difference against tanks. I dont think we really need light prop aircraft for any role than anti drone work.

[Markus Becker]

15 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Props can be really useful if you can position one sufficiently close by. But one big issue is speed. A prop isn't going to be significantly faster than a drone, so getting to it in time may be a serious issue.

Huh? They can do ~500 kph at sea level, that's double the speed of a Shahed. 

Then, they deal with these things well enough by using Maxim guns. And they seem to have LOTS of Maxims. 

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, Markus Becker said:

Huh? They can do ~500 kph at sea level, that's double the speed of a Shahed. 

Then, they deal with these things well enough by using Maxim guns. And they seem to have LOTS of Maxims. 

Doing double the speed is something I'd definitely consider "not significantly faster". Point is to dash between lots of them in a swarm.

[Dawes]

Some strategically positioned Gepards might be more cost effective. Although you'd need a lot of them.

[Ssnake]

7 hours ago, Olof Larsson said:

And the fact that Olaf "Neville Chamberlain" Scholz is a spineless anxious coward doesn't help eighter.

That's not entirely fair. The Scholz administration has established lockstep with the US. If Biden dithers, so does Scholz. The US is the leading nation in NATO. It's just that it doesn't lead properly.

Britain and France have a bit more leeway (Stormshadow/SCALP) because

a. They have independent nuclear deterrence

b. Their CMs have substantially less capability than Taurus

c. Their CMs do not need their direct involvement for targeting.

Taurus would offer much higher range than ATACM, would require more direct involvement. It's a tad unfair to blame Scholz that the US and Britain are unwilling to lift restrictions on their weapons usage. Short of the US, no other country has delivered more and more effective material support than Germany.

[Ssnake]

2 hours ago, Dawes said:

Some strategically positioned Gepards might be more cost effective. Although you'd need a lot of them.

Splendid idea.

Convince Brazil and Romania to give up theirs.

[James1978]

8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I think thats the best use of them. That they were even using a Yak52 for the role, and a Mi8 with the nose gun, shows that even relatively slow platforms have a role to paly here.

Interesting thing, Slovakia supposedly was talking about giving up their purchase of AH1s, so they can be supplied to Ukraine. Equipped with Helfire, I think they are long ranged enough to make a major difference against tanks. I dont think we really need light prop aircraft for any role than anti drone work.

I believe it's more that Slovakia thinks the money might be better spent on something else, like F-16s, and Ukraine wants them if Slovakia doesn't.

[Ol Paint]

What does a prop-driven trainer aircraft bring to the fight that something like an A-10, MI-24, or AH-1 doesn't in the context of a Ukraine conflict?  As much as things like the Piper Enforcer or Air Tractor may be cool, the capability is too limited.  If things like Su-25s and attack helicopters struggle to be effective, what's the point of a prop aircraft that mixes the disadvantages of both?

More useful might be M45 Maxons (or TCM-20), M42 Dusters, Avengers, or the like.  Cheap and simple enough to be plentiful. 

Doug

[urbanoid]

Since the AD is also hunting Shaheds, not shooting down your own prop aircraft doing the same might require a level of coordination that can be hard to achieve.

[Stuart Galbraith]

3 hours ago, Ssnake said:

That's not entirely fair. The Scholz administration has established lockstep with the US. If Biden dithers, so does Scholz. The US is the leading nation in NATO. It's just that it doesn't lead properly.

Britain and France have a bit more leeway (Stormshadow/SCALP) because

a. They have independent nuclear deterrence

b. Their CMs have substantially less capability than Taurus

c. Their CMs do not need their direct involvement for targeting.

Taurus would offer much higher range than ATACM, would require more direct involvement. It's a tad unfair to blame Scholz that the US and Britain are unwilling to lift restrictions on their weapons usage. Short of the US, no other country has delivered more and more effective material support than Germany.

Just to be strictly accurate, Britain and France have already approved their use. It's Biden dragging his feet by not allowing access to the non degraded targeting capability of GPS, not Britain, which has dragged his ass, and most of Europe, across many of the early red lines on weapon supply, not least supply of long range strike weapons, tanks and rpgs. We would be still waiting if we hadn't took the lead on all those.

I don't see it's lack of access to nuclear weapons that is driving Scholtzs policy either. If you don't have confidence in a NATO article 5, then that is a pretty serious admission, particularly  as you have access to the NATO tactical nuclear stockpile.

[Markus Becker]

11 hours ago, Olof Larsson said:

And the fact that Olaf "Neville Chamberlain" Scholz is a spineless anxious coward doesn't help eighter.

That's very unfair towards Neville Chamberlain. He got very bad intel giving him the impression the Allied defensive position would improve if the outbreak of the war was kicked down the road. 

Scholz is just a career party creature and not yet convicted accessory in grand tax evasion. 

[DB]

1 hour ago, Ol Paint said:

What does a prop-driven trainer aircraft bring to the fight that something like an A-10, MI-24, or AH-1 doesn't in the context of a Ukraine conflict?  As much as things like the Piper Enforcer or Air Tractor may be cool, the capability is too limited.  If things like Su-25s and attack helicopters struggle to be effective, what's the point of a prop aircraft that mixes the disadvantages of both?

More useful might be M45 Maxons (or TCM-20), M42 Dusters, Avengers, or the like.  Cheap and simple enough to be plentiful. 

Doug

Operating costs, usually shorter runways, lower training requirement for turbo-prop trainers compared to other aircraft types.

These would be specifically for local defence against relatively low-speed drones. I can't see how a twin-engined aircraft like the A-10 that has been out of production for 40 years would be cheaper to run, and helicopters offer even less performance than any cheap turbo-prop trainer.

Wikipedia has the Shahed 136 at about 115mph cruise. A Super Tucano manages 320mph cruise, again from its Wikipedia entry. I wonder, does 3x the speed count as enough?

[Yama]

I don't see a point of acquiring prop-CAS aircraft for drone hunt, or indeed any developed world conflict (and iffy nowadays even for Third world conflict). It's just too much money for little capability and very vulnerable against enemy air defences.

Now, if you happen to have high-performance trainer aircraft and they have flight hours to spare, then there might be some point to arm them for Shahed hunt, or some other marginal combat functions. Obviously requiring a good coordination between flying and ground based platforms, a forever dilemma for air defences.

[Ol Paint]

2 hours ago, DB said:

Operating costs, usually shorter runways, lower training requirement for turbo-prop trainers compared to other aircraft types.

These would be specifically for local defence against relatively low-speed drones. I can't see how a twin-engined aircraft like the A-10 that has been out of production for 40 years would be cheaper to run, and helicopters offer even less performance than any cheap turbo-prop trainer.

Wikipedia has the Shahed 136 at about 115mph cruise. A Super Tucano manages 320mph cruise, again from its Wikipedia entry. I wonder, does 3x the speed count as enough?

The thing is the prop planes sit in a bracket between attack helicopters and heavier aircraft like the A-10. Which really restricts their apparent utility in the UAF.

The propeller plane needs more runway than a helicopter, can't fly nap-of-earth, and is strictly limited to performing the anti-drone mission.  But it is also slower, less survivable, with less payload than aircraft like the Su-25 and A-10.  And, although the A-10 has been out of production for a while, it is available in relatively large numbers as about half the fleet is sitting in Davis Monthan--if this was really the route that needs to be taken.*  The lower operating cost only really comes into play if the aircraft is going to be used for other missions, as well (like primary training), since there's also the cost of introducing another aircraft type with the attendant logistics, maintenance, and support chain and personnel demands.

*If the mission is solely slow, small drone hunting in Ukraine, I still think issuing out gun-based systems in volume makes more sense than introducing a one-trick pony like the A-29 or AT-6A.

Doug

P.S.  I didn't think about it at the time of my earlier post, but going down the manned anti-drone fighter plane route would be well suited to the A-37B...

 

[Ssnake]

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Just to be strictly accurate, Britain and France have already approved their use.

Big deal to approve of it now --- 90% of what was handed over has been spent on targets of lower value already. The British and French administrations are good in creating headlines, but the actual effectiveness is no better than what Germany does.

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I don't see it's lack of access to nuclear weapons that is driving Scholtzs policy either. If you don't have confidence in a NATO article 5, then that is a pretty serious admission, particularly  as you have access to the NATO tactical nuclear stockpile.

That is, again, a very British (and possibly French) view on the situation. You can afford putting "full confidence in NATO article 5" because you have a plan B if NATO collapses. It's not a very good plan B, but is is a plan. There's some hope that nuclear deterrence will work.

The German chancellor doesn't have that luxury. If the current or next US president decides that he'd rather disengage from challenging Russia - for whatever reason, and both the incumbent president and at least one of the presidential candidates have impliccitly or explicitly signalled that their commitment to the alliance might not be as unwavering as the impression that US presidents in the past created - then Germany would hang high and dry, be even higher on Putin's shit list, and possibly have given away much of its conventional deterrence, as threadbare as it may be already, to Ukraine. Then what? We know very well how much solidarity to expect from the rest of the EU, and how quickly the EU reacts to dynamic situations. It's easy to be hawkish when you have comparatively little skin in the game.

[seahawk]

You get about 15-20 pick-ups with anti-drone systems for the price of one EMB, and the crews are trained in 2 weeks not 6-12 months.

[Ssnake]

Please do the math at least once.

Per geodetic horizon formula, at 20m relative elevation a ground-based air defense can't have more than 16km line of sight; usually obstructions in the vicinity and other hills in the distance reduce that by 60%, so .4 x Pi * 8² = 320km² is the upper limit for a ground-based system that 

a. immediately detects a drone and

b. has a 16km effective range (which both appear as very generous assumptions to me)

A simple jet aircraft (like a jet trainer with 70mm rocket pods (rockets with laser-based PGK)) will fly at 900km/h; assuming a 30min phase to vector an already flying aircraft to target (without ever going supersonic), that single plane covers an operational area of 630,000km²; IOW, one plane replaces nearly 2,000 ground-based systems. Even a propeller-driven aircraft (and I don't think that they are the answer for reasons already discussed) at half the speed of the jet still replaces 500 ground-based systems. Even at factor 20 cost-wise, the system is between 50 and 100 times cheaper than ground systems. In practice, the ground system will have only maybe 4km range rather than 16, which tilts the balance in favor of the airplane by another factor of 16. Based on cost alone you could afford reducing the vector time for a jet platform to just five minutes and still be slightly ahead, and that would mean a ridiculous number of jets and airfield density.