MANPADS against piston aircraft. MANPADS. dangerous skies of Afghanistan. "cube", "square" and others
In the post-war period, with the advent of the “jet era,” combat aircraft with piston engines remained in service for quite a long time in the United States and Great Britain. Thus, the American piston attack aircraft A-1 Skyraider, which made its first flight in March 1945, was used by the American armed forces until 1972. And in Korea, along with jet Thunderjets and Sabers, piston-powered Mustangs and Corsairs flew. The fact that the Americans were in no hurry to abandon seemingly hopelessly outdated aircraft was due to the low efficiency of jet fighter-bombers when performing close air support missions. The too high flight speed of jet aircraft made it difficult to detect point targets. And the initially low fuel efficiency and small payload did not allow it to surpass the machines created during the Second World War.
In the 50-60s, not a single combat aircraft designed to operate over the battlefield and fight armored vehicles in conditions of strong anti-aircraft opposition was adopted abroad. In the West, they relied on jet fighter-bombers with a cruising speed of 750-900 km/h.
In the 50s, the main attack aircraft of NATO countries was the F-84 Thunderjet. The first truly combat-ready modification was the F-84E. The fighter-bomber with a maximum take-off weight of 10,250 kg could carry a combat load weighing 1,450 kg. The combat radius without PTB was 440 km. The Thunderjet, which first flew in February 1946, was one of the first American jet fighters to have a straight wing. In this regard, its maximum speed near the ground did not exceed 996 km/h, but at the same time, due to its good maneuverability, the aircraft was well suited for the role of a fighter-bomber.
2
F-84G
The Thunderjet's built-in armament consisted of six 12.7 mm machine guns. The external sling could carry aerial bombs weighing up to 454 kg or 16 127 mm NAR. Very often during combat operations on the Korean Peninsula, the F-84 attacked targets with 5HVAR missiles. These missiles, put into service in 1944, could be successfully used to combat tanks.
F-84E strikes NAR target in Korea
Due to the high efficiency of 127-mm unguided missiles during combat operations, the number of suspended unguided missiles on the F-84 was doubled. However, the losses of North Korean tank crews directly from combat air strikes of the UN Troops were relatively small.
T-34-85 on a bridge destroyed by American aircraft
The offensive impulse of the military units of the DPRK and the “Chinese people’s volunteers” dried up when the supply of ammunition, fuel and food stopped. American aircraft successfully destroyed bridges, crossings, and destroyed railway junctions and transport convoys. Thus, not being able to effectively fight tanks on the battlefield, fighter-bombers made their advance without proper logistics support impossible.
F-86F
Another fairly common Western fighter-bomber was the Saber modification of the F-86F. In the mid-50s, the United States had already begun production of supersonic combat aircraft, and therefore subsonic fighters were actively transferred to the allies.
On four hardpoints, the F-86F could carry napalm tanks or aerial bombs with a total weight of up to 2200 kg. From the very beginning of mass production of a fighter of this modification, it was possible to carry 16 unguided 5HVAR missiles; in the 60s, units with 70-mm Mk 4 FFAR unguided missiles were introduced into its armament. The built-in armament consisted of 6 heavy machine guns or four 20 mm cannons. The aircraft with a maximum take-off weight of 8,230 kg reached a speed of 1,106 km/h at the ground.
The main advantage of the Saber over the Thunderjet was its greater thrust-to-weight ratio, which gave it a better rate of climb and good takeoff and landing characteristics. Although the flight performance of the F-86F was higher, the striking capabilities of the vehicles were approximately at the same level.
An approximate analogue of the Thunderjet was the French Dassault MD-450 Ouragan company. The aircraft with a maximum take-off weight of about 8000 kg accelerated to 940 km/h at the ground. Combat radius - 400 km. Built-in armament included four 20 mm cannons. Two hardpoints carried bombs weighing up to 454 kg or NAR.
MD-450 Ouragan
Although the total production run of the Hurricanes built was approximately 350 units, the aircraft actively participated in combat operations. In addition to the French Air Force, it was in service with Israel, India and El Salvador.
The British Hawker Hunter had good potential in the fight against armored vehicles. This subsonic fighter, which first flew in the summer of 1951, was supposed to carry out air defense of the British Isles, receiving commands from ground-based radar stations. However, as an air defense fighter, due to the increased speed of Soviet bombers, the Hunter very quickly became obsolete. At the same time, it was relatively simple, had a durable, well-made airframe and powerful built-in weapons, consisting of a four-barrel battery of 30 mm Aden cannons with 150 rounds of ammunition per barrel and good maneuverability at low altitudes. The Hunter FGA.9 fighter-bomber with a maximum take-off weight of 12,000 kg could take a combat load weighing 2,700 kg. The combat radius reached 600 km. The maximum ground speed is 980 km/h.
Launch of a missile launcher from a Hunter fighter-bomber
The conservative British retained in the Hunter's armament the same unguided rockets that the Typhoon and Tempest pilots used to destroy German tanks. The Hunter fighter-bomber had significantly superior anti-tank capabilities to the Saber and Thunderjet. This aircraft performed very well in the Arab-Israeli and Indo-Pakistani conflicts, remaining in service until the early 90s. At the same time as the Hunters, the Soviet Su-7B fighter bombers were in service in India and the Arab countries, and it was possible to compare these two vehicles in real combat operations, including when striking armored vehicles.
It turned out that the Hunter, with a lower maximum flight speed and due to better maneuverability, is more suitable for operations at low altitude as a close air support aircraft. It could take more bombs and rockets and, with equal caliber guns, had a larger salvo mass. In the Indian Air Force in the early 70s, the existing “Hunters” were adapted to carry 68-mm cumulative French-made missiles and Soviet cluster bombs equipped with PTAB. This in turn significantly increased the anti-tank potential of the fighter-bomber. When attacking a point target, the visibility from the Hunter's cockpit was better. The combat survivability of the vehicles turned out to be approximately the same level, but the Su-7B, due to its higher flight speed, could quickly leave the anti-aircraft artillery coverage area.
Strike variants of the Hunter were valued for their reliability, simple and relatively inexpensive maintenance, and unpretentiousness to the quality of runways. It is noteworthy that the former Swiss Hunters are still used by the American private military aviation company ATAK to simulate Russian attack aircraft in exercises.
Until the early 60s, the air forces of NATO countries were mainly dominated by American and British-made combat aircraft, which in no way suited European aircraft manufacturers. In France, the MD-454 Mystère IV and Super Mystère, which traced their ancestry to the Hurricane, were used as fighter-bombers.
Fighter-bomber Super Mystère B2
The French “Misters” were solid averages; they did not shine with very high flight performance or original technical solutions, but they fully corresponded to their purpose. Although the French first generation fighter-bombers performed well in both the Indo-Pakistani and Arab-Israeli wars, they did not find buyers in Europe.
“Super Mister,” loaded to capacity with fuel and weapons, weighed 11,660 kg. At the same time, he could take up to a ton of combat load. Built-in weapons are two 30-mm DEFA 552 cannons with 150 rounds of ammunition per barrel. The maximum flight speed at high altitude, without external suspensions, is 1250 km/h. Combat radius - 440 km.
In the second half of the 50s, a competition was announced for a single NATO light attack aircraft. The generals wanted a light fighter-bomber with the flight characteristics of the American F-86F, but better suited for low-altitude operations and better forward-downward visibility. The aircraft had to be able to conduct defensive air combat with Soviet fighters. The built-in armament was to consist of 6 heavy machine guns, 4 20 mm cannons or 2 30 mm cannons. Combat load: 12 unguided 127-mm rockets, or two 225 kg bombs, or two napalm tanks, or two suspended machine-gun-cannon containers, weighing up to 225 kg each.
Much attention was paid to survivability and resistance to combat damage. The cockpit of the aircraft from the front hemisphere was to be covered with front armored glass, and also have protection for the lower and rear walls. Fuel tanks had to withstand 12.7-mm bullets without leaking, fuel lines and other important equipment were proposed to be placed in places least vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire. The avionics of the light attack aircraft were designed to be as simple as possible, allowing them to be used during the day and in normal weather conditions. The minimum cost of the aircraft itself and its life cycle was specifically stipulated. A prerequisite was the possibility of basing on unpaved airfields and independence from complex airfield infrastructure.
Interested European and American aircraft manufacturing firms took part in the competition. The projects were financed by the USA, France and Italy. At the same time, the French were vigorously pushing their Dassault Mystere 26, and the British were counting on the Hawker Hunter to win. To their great disappointment, the Italian Aeritalia FIAT G.91 was declared the winner at the end of 1957. This plane was in many ways reminiscent of the American Saber. Moreover, a number of technical solutions and components were simply copied from the F-86.
The Italian G.91 turned out to be very light, its maximum take-off weight was a record low - 5500 kg. In horizontal flight, the aircraft could reach a speed of 1050 km/h, the combat radius was 320 km. Initially, the built-in armament included four 12.7 mm machine guns. Four hardpoints under the wing carried a combat load weighing 680 kg. To increase the flight range, instead of weapons, two jettisonable fuel tanks with a capacity of 450 liters were suspended.
Military tests of the G.91 pre-production batch, conducted by the Italian Air Force in 1959, demonstrated the aircraft’s unpretentiousness to basing conditions and the ability to operate from poorly prepared unpaved runways. All ground equipment necessary for flight preparation was transported on regular trucks, and could be quickly deployed to a new location. The aircraft engine was started by a starter with a squib and did not require compressed air or a power connection. The entire cycle of preparing a fighter-bomber for a new combat mission took no more than 20 minutes.
According to the “cost-effectiveness” criterion in the 60s, the G.91 was almost ideally suited for the role of a mass-produced light fighter-bomber and fully complied with the requirements for a single NATO attack aircraft, but due to national egoism and political disagreements, it did not receive wide distribution. In addition to the Italian Air Force, the G.91 was adopted by the Luftwaffe.
West German G.91R-3
German light attack aircraft differed from Italian vehicles in their reinforced built-in armament, consisting of two 30-mm DEFA 552 cannons with 152 rounds of ammunition. The wing of the German vehicles was strengthened, which made it possible to place two additional weapons pylons.
Operation of the G.91 in Germany continued until the early 80s; pilots loved these simple and reliable machines and subsequently reluctantly switched to supersonic Phantoms and Starfighters. Thanks to its good maneuverability, the G.91 was superior not only to many of its peers in its ability to destroy targeted targets, but also to much more complex and expensive combat aircraft that appeared in the 70-80s. During exercises, Luftwaffe light attack aircraft more than once demonstrated their ability to accurately fire from cannons and rocket launchers at decommissioned tanks at the training ground.
Confirmation that the G.91 was indeed a very successful aircraft is the fact that several machines were tested at flight research centers in the USA, Great Britain and France. Italian cars received positive reviews everywhere, but things did not go further than that. However, it is difficult to imagine that in the 60s, even a very successful combat aircraft, developed and built in Italy, would be adopted into service in the leading Western aviation countries. Despite the declared unity of NATO, orders for their own air forces have always been too tasty a morsel for national aircraft corporations to share with anyone.
On the basis of the more durable and capacious two-seat trainer G.91T-3, in 1966 the light fighter-bomber G.91Y was created with radically improved flight and combat characteristics. During test flights, its speed at high altitude came close to the sound barrier, but flights in the altitude range of 1500-3000 meters at a speed of 850-900 km/h were considered optimal.
G.91Y
The aircraft was equipped with two General Electric J85-GE-13 turbojet engines, previously used on the F-5A fighter. Thanks to the use of a wing of increased area with automatic slats along the entire span, it was possible to significantly increase maneuverability and takeoff and landing characteristics. The strength characteristics of the wing made it possible to increase the number of suspension points to six. Compared to the G.91, the maximum take-off weight has increased by more than 50%, while the mass of the combat load has increased by 70%. Despite the increased fuel consumption, the aircraft's flight range increased, which was facilitated by an increase in the capacity of the fuel tanks by 1,500 liters.
Thanks to the combination of low cost and good flight and combat characteristics, the G.91Y aroused interest among foreign buyers. But relatively poor Italy could not supply aircraft on credit and exert the same political pressure as the overseas “big brother”. As a result, apart from the Italian Air Force, which ordered 75 aircraft, there were no other buyers for this rather successful aircraft. It is safe to say that if the G.91 had been created in the USA, it would have become much more widespread, could have participated in many armed conflicts and, perhaps, would still be in service. Subsequently, some technical and conceptual solutions developed on the G.91Y were used to create the Italian-Brazilian AMX light attack aircraft.
In the 50-60s, the improvement of combat aviation followed the path of increasing speed, altitude and flight range and increasing the weight of the combat load. As a result, the main attack vehicles of the US Air Force in the early 70s were the heavy supersonic F-4 Phantom II, F-105 Thunderchief and F-111 Aardvark. These vehicles were optimally suited for delivering tactical nuclear bombs and striking with conventional ammunition at enemy concentration areas, headquarters, airfields, transport hubs, warehouses, fuel storage facilities and other important targets. But for providing direct air support, and even more so for fighting tanks on the battlefield, heavy and expensive aircraft were of little use.
Supersonic fighter-bombers could successfully solve the problem of isolating the battlefield, but to directly destroy armored vehicles in combat formations, relatively light and maneuverable combat aircraft were required. As a result, for lack of a better name, the Americans were forced to retrain the F-100 Super Saber as a fighter-bomber. This supersonic fighter was the same age and an approximate analogue of the Soviet MiG-19. The aircraft with a maximum take-off weight of 15,800 kg could carry up to 3,400 kg of bombs or other weapons on six underwing pylons. There were also four built-in 20 mm cannons. Maximum speed -1390 km/h.
Launch of a missile launcher from an F-100D at a target in Vietnam
The Super Saber was very actively used by the US Air Force during combat operations in Southeast Asia and the French Air Force in Algeria. Compared to the F-4 and F-105, which had a larger payload, the F-100 demonstrated much better airstrike accuracy. Which was especially important when operating near the line of combat contact.
Almost simultaneously with the F-100 fighter, the A-4 Skyhawk light attack aircraft, developed for the US Navy and Marine Corps, was put into service. Despite its relatively small size, the single-engine Skyhawk had a fairly high combat potential. The maximum speed was 1080 km/h. Combat radius - 420 km. With a maximum take-off weight of 11,130 kg, it could carry 4,400 kg of payload on five hardpoints. Including four four-charge LAU-10 launchers for the 127-mm Zuni unmanned aerial vehicle. These missiles are similar in weight and size characteristics, launch range and damaging effect of the high-explosive fragmentation warhead to the Soviet NAR S-13.
NAR Zuni
Apart from the piston-powered Skyraider, of all the aircraft available in the American armed forces, by the beginning of the Vietnam War, the Skyhawk was best suited for providing fire support to ground units and destroying moving targets on the battlefield.
Launch of Zuni rocket launcher with A-4F
However, during the Yom Kippur War in 1973, Israeli A-4s operating against Syrian and Egyptian tanks suffered heavy losses. Soviet-style air defense revealed the high vulnerability of light, unarmored attack aircraft. If the American Skyhawks were mainly intended for use on aircraft carriers, then in Israel, which became the largest foreign customer (263 aircraft), these machines were considered exclusively as attack aircraft, intended for operations on the front line and near the enemy’s rear.
For the Israeli Air Force, a special modification of the A-4H was created on the basis of the A-4E. This vehicle was equipped with a more powerful Pratt & Whitney J52-P-8A engine with a thrust of 41 kN and improved avionics; a number of measures were implemented on this modification to increase combat survivability. In order to increase the anti-tank potential, the 20 mm American guns were replaced by two 30 mm ones. Although 30-mm armor-piercing shells were ineffective against Soviet T-55, T-62 and IS-3M tanks, they easily penetrated the relatively thin armor of the BTR-152, BTR-60 and BMP-1. In addition to onboard guns, Israeli Skyhawks used unguided missiles and cluster bombs equipped with cumulative submunitions against armored vehicles.
To replace the A-4 Skyhawk, deliveries of the A-7 Corsair II began in 1967 to the US Navy's carrier-based attack squadrons. This vehicle was developed on the basis of the F-8 Crusader carrier-based fighter. Compared to the light Skyhawk, it was a larger aircraft, equipped with advanced avionics. Its maximum take-off weight was 19,000 kg, and the possible weight of suspended bombs was 5,442 kg. Combat radius - 700 km.
Dropping bombs from an A-7D
Although the Corsair was created by order of the Navy, due to its fairly high characteristics it was adopted by the Air Force. The attack aircraft fought very actively in Vietnam, flying about 13,000 combat missions. In squadrons specializing in search and rescue of pilots, the jet Corsair replaced the piston-powered Skyraider.
In the mid-80s, as part of a project to develop a promising anti-tank attack aircraft designed to replace the A-10 Thunderbolt II based on the A-7D, the design of the supersonic A-7P began. A radically modernized attack aircraft with a fuselage of increased length due to the installation of a Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-200 turbofan engine with an afterburner thrust of 10,778 kgf was supposed to be turned into a highly effective modern battlefield combat aircraft. The new power plant, combined with additional armor, was supposed to significantly increase the aircraft's combat survivability, improve its maneuverability and acceleration characteristics.
The Ling-Temco-Voot company planned to build 337 A-7P attack aircraft, using elements of the airframe of the serial A-7D. At the same time, the cost of one aircraft was only $6.2 million, which is several times less than the cost of purchasing a new attack aircraft with similar combat capabilities. According to the designers, the modernized attack aircraft should have maneuverability comparable to the Thunderbolt, with much higher speed data. During tests that began in 1989, the experimental YA-7P exceeded the speed of sound, accelerating to 1.04 Mach. According to preliminary calculations, an aircraft with four AIM-9L Sidewinder air combat missile systems could have a maximum speed of more than 1.2M. However, after about a year and a half, due to the end of the Cold War and a reduction in defense spending, the program was closed.
In the mid-60s, Great Britain and France entered into an agreement to create a joint close air support aircraft. At the first stage of creating a new attack vehicle, the parties strongly disagreed regarding the technical appearance and flight characteristics of the aircraft. Thus, the French were quite happy with an inexpensive light attack aircraft, comparable in size and capabilities to the Italian G.91. At the same time, the British wanted to have a supersonic fighter-bomber with a laser rangefinder-target designator and advanced navigation equipment, ensuring combat use at any time of the day. In addition, at the first stage the British insisted on a variant with variable wing geometry, but due to the rise in cost of the project and the delay in development time, they subsequently abandoned it. However, the partners were unanimous on one thing - the plane had to have excellent forward-downward visibility and powerful strike weapons. Construction of prototypes began in the second half of 1966. The UK has placed an order for 165 combat and 35 two-seat trainer aircraft. The French Air Force wanted to receive 160 combat aircraft and 40 twins. Deliveries of the first production vehicles to combat squadrons began in 1972.
French fighter-bomber "Jaguar A"
The aircraft intended for the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and the French Armée de l'Air differed significantly in the composition of their avionics. If the French decided to take the path of reducing the cost of the project and make do with the minimum necessary sighting and navigation equipment, then the British Jaguar GR.Mk.1 had a built-in laser rangefinder-target designator and an indicator on the windshield. Externally, the British and French Jaguars differed in the shape of the nose; the French had it more rounded.
Jaguars of all modifications were equipped with the TACAN navigation system and VOR/ILS landing equipment, meter and decimeter radio stations, state identification and radar exposure warning equipment, and on-board computers. The French Jaguar A had a Decca RDN72 Doppler radar and an ELDIA data recording system. British single-seat Jaguar GR.Mk.1 were equipped with Marconi Avionics NAVWASS PRNA with information displayed on the windshield. Navigation information on British aircraft, after processing by the on-board computer, was displayed on the “moving map” indicator, which significantly facilitated the aircraft’s approach to the target in poor visibility conditions and when flying at extremely low altitudes.
During long-range raids, fighter-bombers could replenish their fuel supply using an in-flight refueling system. At first, the reliability of the propulsion system, which consisted of two Rolls-Royce/Turbomeca Adour Mk 102 turbofans with afterburning thrust of 2435 kgf and 3630 kgf - in afterburner, left much to be desired. However, by the mid-70s, the main problems were eliminated.
British Jaguar GR.Mk.1
There were certain differences in the composition of the weapons. French fighter-bombers were armed with two 30-mm DEFA 553 cannons, and British 30-mm ADEN Mk4 with a total ammunition load of 260-300 rounds. Both artillery systems were created on the basis of German developments during World War II and had a rate of fire of 1300-1400 rounds/min.
A combat load weighing up to 4763 kg could be placed on five external nodes. On British vehicles, air combat missiles were placed on pylons above the wing. "Jaguars" could carry a wide range of guided and unguided weapons. In this case, the main anti-tank weapons were 68-70 mm NAR with cumulative warheads and cluster bombs equipped with anti-tank mines and miniature cumulative bombs.
The aircraft was adapted for operations at low altitudes. Its maximum ground speed was 1300 km/h. At an altitude of 11000 m - 1600 km/h. With a fuel reserve of 3337 liters in the internal tanks, the combat radius, depending on the flight profile and combat load, was 560-1280 km.
The French were the first to test Jaguars in combat in 1977. In the 70-80s, France became involved in a series of armed conflicts in Africa. While in Mauritania, Senegal and Gabon, bombing and assault strikes against various kinds of guerrilla formations were carried out with great efficiency without losses, then in an attempt to counter Libyan armored vehicles in Chad, three planes were shot down. Libyan units operated under the air defense umbrella, which included not only anti-aircraft artillery, but also mobile Kvadrat air defense systems.
French "Jaguar A" of squadron 4/11 Jura during a flight over Chad
Although the Jaguars during their combat career demonstrated very good resistance to combat damage, in the absence of armor protection and special measures to increase survivability, the use of aircraft of this type in the role of anti-tank attack aircraft was fraught with large losses. The experience of using French, British and Indian Jaguars against an enemy with an organized air defense system demonstrated that fighter-bomber pilots achieved the greatest success when striking troop concentrations with cluster munitions and destroying high-value targets using high-precision aircraft weapons. The main anti-tank weapon of the French Jaguars during Desert Storm was the American-made MK-20 Rockeye anti-tank cluster bombs.
MK-20 Rockeye cluster bomb
The 220-kg cluster bomb contains about 247 small-sized Mk 118 Mod 1 cumulative fragmentation submunitions, weighing 600 g each, with armor penetration along the normal 190 mm. When dropped from a height of 900 m, one cluster bomb covers an area approximately the size of a football field.
Preparation for combat use of the BL755 cluster bomb
British fighter-bombers used 278 kg of BL755 cassette, each of which contained 147 cumulative fragmentation elements. The moment of opening of the cassette after the release is determined using a radar altimeter. In this case, small-sized bombs weighing about 1 kg are pushed out at certain intervals from cylindrical compartments by a pyrotechnic device.
Depending on the opening height and the frequency of ejection from the compartments, the covering area is 50-200 m². In addition to cumulative fragmentation bombs, there is a BL755 variant equipped with 49 anti-tank mines. Often, both options were used simultaneously when striking Iraqi armored vehicles.
In the mid-70s, the main striking force of the Luftwaffe was the American-made F-4F Phantom II and F-104G Starfighter fighters. If the main “childhood sores” of the Phantom had been eliminated by that time and it really was a fairly advanced combat aircraft, then the use of the Starfighter in the role of a fighter-bomber was absolutely unjustified. Although its own Air Force, after a short period of operation as a fighter-interceptor, abandoned the Star Fighter, the Americans managed to push the F-104G as a multi-role combat aircraft into the German Air Force.
F-104G
The Starfighter, which had swift outlines, looked very impressive during demonstration flights, but the aircraft with short, thin, straight wings had an unprecedented wing load - up to 715 kg/m². In this regard, the maneuverability of the thirteen-ton aircraft left much to be desired, and low-altitude flights, typical for a fighter-bomber, were a deadly task. Of the 916 F-104Gs delivered to the Luftwaffe, approximately a third were lost in accidents and disasters. Naturally, this situation could not suit the West German generals. The Luftwaffe needed an inexpensive and simple combat aircraft capable of operating at low altitudes against the tank wedges of the Warsaw Pact armies. The Italian-German G.91 fully satisfied these requirements, but by the beginning of the 70s it had become morally and physically obsolete.
At the end of 1969, an agreement was reached between France and Germany on the joint development of a light attack twin-engine subsonic combat aircraft, which could also be used as a trainer. The machine, developed on the basis of the Breguet Br.126 and Dornier P.375 projects, received the designation Alpha Jet. At the first stage, it was planned that 200 aircraft would be built in each country participating in the project. The requirements for the tactical and technical characteristics of the Alpha Jet were developed based on the characteristics of combat operations in the European theater of operations, where there were more than 10,000 units of Soviet armored vehicles and powerful military air defense, represented by both self-propelled anti-aircraft artillery systems and mobile medium- and short-range air defense systems. And the course of hostilities itself had to be characterized by dynamism and transience, as well as the need to combat landings and block the approach of enemy reserves.
The construction of light attack aircraft was to be carried out in two countries. In France, the Dassault Aviation concern was identified as the manufacturer, and in Germany, the Dornier company was identified. Although the aircraft was initially planned to be equipped with American General Electric J85 turbojet engines, which had proven themselves well on the T-38 and F-5 fighter jets, the French insisted on using their own Larzac 04-C6, with a thrust of 1300 kgf. To avoid being hit by one shell, the engines were spaced as far apart as possible on the sides.
A simple and reliable hydraulic control system provides excellent piloting in all altitude and speed ranges. During test flights, pilots noted that it was difficult to put the Alpha Jet into a spin, and it came out of it on its own when the force was removed from the control stick and pedals. Taking into account the specifics of the aircraft's use and flights at low altitudes in a zone of increased turbulence, the structural safety margin was very significant, the maximum calculated overloads range from +12 to -6 units. During test flights, the Alpha Jet repeatedly dived above the speed of sound, while maintaining adequate control and not exhibiting a tendency to roll over or be pulled into a dive. In combat units, the maximum speed without external suspension was limited to 930 km/h. The maneuverability of the attack aircraft made it possible to successfully conduct close-in air combat with all types of fighters available to NATO in the mid-70s.
The first production Alpha Jet E entered service with French squadrons in December 1977, and Alpha Jet A in the Luftwaffe six months later. The aircraft intended for operation in Germany and France differed in the composition of their avionics and weapons. The French focused on using two-seat jet aircraft as trainers. But the Germans, first of all, needed a full-fledged light anti-tank attack aircraft. In this regard, the aircraft built at the Dornier enterprise had a more advanced sighting and navigation system. France ordered 176, and Germany 175 aircraft. Another 33 Alpha Jet 1B avionics very similar in composition to the French Alpha Jet E were delivered to Belgium.
Light attack aircraft "Alpha Jet", owned by the Luftwaffe
The equipment of the German Alpha Jet includes: navigation equipment of the TACAN system, a radio compass and blind landing equipment. The composition of the avionics allows for flights at night and in poor visibility conditions. The weapon control system, with a laser rangefinder-target designator built into the nose, makes it possible to automatically calculate the point of impact when bombing, launching unguided rockets and firing a cannon at ground and air targets.
27 mm Mauser VK 27 cannon
On Luftwaffe aircraft, a 27-mm Mauser VK 27 cannon with 150 rounds of ammunition is suspended in a suspended ventral container. With a gun weighing about 100 kg without shells, it has a rate of fire of up to 1,700 rounds/min. An armor-piercing projectile with plastic leading belts weighing 260 g leaves the barrel at a speed of 1100 m/s. An armor-piercing projectile with a carbide core is capable of penetrating 40 mm of armor at a normal distance of 500 m. In the head of the projectile in front of the core there is a crushable part filled with cerium metal. At the moment of destruction of the projectile, soft cerium, which has a pyrophoric effect, spontaneously ignites and, when penetrating the armor, gives a good incendiary effect. The armor penetration of a 27-mm projectile is not enough to confidently fight medium tanks, but when firing at lightly armored vehicles, the effectiveness of destruction can be high.
Early version of the Alpha Jet A weapon
The armament of West German aircraft, placed on five external hardpoints with a total weight of up to 2500 kg, can be very diverse, which allows them to solve a wide range of tasks. When selecting the attack aircraft's armament, the West German command paid great attention to anti-tank capabilities. To combat Soviet armored vehicles, in addition to the cannon and NAR, cluster bombs with cumulative ammunition and anti-tank mines are designed. The Alpha Jet is also capable of carrying suspended containers with 7.62-12.7 mm machine guns, aerial bombs weighing up to 454 kg, containers with napalm and even sea mines. Depending on the mass of the combat load and the flight profile, the combat radius can be from 400 to 1000 km. When using external fuel tanks during reconnaissance missions, the range can reach 1,300 km. With a fairly high combat load and flight range, the aircraft turned out to be relatively light, with a maximum take-off weight of 8000 kg.
The aircraft was well suited for deployment at field unpaved airfields. The Alpha Jet did not require complex ground equipment, and the re-flight time was reduced to a minimum. In order to reduce the length of the run on strips of limited length, landing hooks were installed on Luftwaffe attack aircraft, which clung to brake cable systems during landing, similar to those used in carrier-based aircraft.
French aircraft were mainly used for training purposes. Since the Jaguar was the main attack vehicle in the French Air Force, weapons were rarely mounted on the Alpha Jet E. However, it is possible to use a 30-mm DEFA 553 cannon in the ventral container, NAR and bombs.
From the very beginning, the French side insisted on designing only a two-seat vehicle, although the Germans were quite happy with a single-seat light attack aircraft. Not wanting to incur additional costs for the creation of a single-seat modification, the Luftwaffe generals agreed with a two-seat cabin. The layout and placement of the cabin provided good forward-down visibility. The seat of the second crew member is located slightly higher than the front one, which provides visibility and allows for independent landing.
Later, during aerospace shows where the Alpha Jet was exhibited, it was repeatedly stated that the presence of aircraft controls in the second cockpit increases survivability, since in the event of failure of the main pilot, the second one can take control. In addition, as the experience of local wars has shown, a two-seater vehicle has a significantly greater chance of dodging an anti-aircraft missile and avoiding being hit by anti-aircraft artillery fire. Since the pilot's field of view is significantly reduced during an attack on a ground target, the second crew member is able to inform about the danger in time, which gives a reserve of time to perform an anti-missile or anti-aircraft maneuver, or allows one to evade a fighter attack.
Simultaneously with the entry into flight units of the Alpha Jet A attack aircraft, the remaining G.91R-3s were decommissioned. Pilots who had experience flying Fiats noted that with a comparable maximum speed, the Alpha Jet is a much more maneuverable aircraft with significantly greater combat effectiveness.
The Luftwaffe pilots especially liked the ability of the attack aircraft to outmaneuver fighters in aerial combat. With proper air combat tactics, the Alpha Jet could become a very difficult opponent. Repeated training air battles with F-104G, Mirage III, F-5E fighters and even with the newest F-16A at that time showed that if the attack aircraft crew detected the fighter in time and then took a turn at low speed, It became very difficult to aim at him. If the fighter pilot tried to repeat the maneuver and was drawn into the battle on turns, he himself would soon come under attack.
In terms of horizontal maneuverability characteristics, only the British Harrier VTOL aircraft could compare with the Alpha Jet. But with comparable combat effectiveness against ground targets, the cost of the Harrier itself, its operating costs and preparation time for a combat mission were much higher. Despite the seemingly modest flight data compared to supersonic machines stuffed with complex electronics, the West German light attack aircraft fully met the requirements for it and demonstrated very high performance in terms of the “cost-effectiveness” criterion.
Although the maneuverability characteristics of the Alpha Jet on the ground were superior to all existing NATO combat aircraft at that time, the saturation of military air defense systems in the European theater of operations made the survivability of the German attack aircraft problematic. In connection with this, a program to increase combat survivability was launched in the early 80s. Measures were taken to reduce radar and thermal signature. The modernized aircraft were equipped with devices for shooting heat traps and dipole reflectors, as well as American overhead equipment for active jamming of anti-aircraft missile guidance stations. The weapons included American AGM-65 Maverick guided missiles, capable of destroying point targets on the battlefield, beyond the range of anti-aircraft guns.
It must be said that the Alpha Jet’s resistance to combat damage was initially quite good. A well-thought-out layout, a duplicated hydraulic system and spaced-out engines, even if the Strela-2 MANPADS were damaged, gave them a chance to return to their airfield, but tanks and fuel lines required additional protection from gunfire.
Calculations showed that if the two-seater cabin was abandoned, the released mass reserve could be used to increase security. The single-seat version of the attack aircraft was designated Alpha Jet C. It differed from the basic two-seat modification by an armored cabin that could withstand fire from 12.7 mm machine guns and a straight wing with six hardpoints and more powerful engines. Fuel tanks and fuel lines were supposed to hold armor-piercing rifle-caliber bullets. It was assumed that the combat effectiveness of a single-seat attack aircraft would double compared to Alpha Jet A. If the project were implemented, the Luftwaffe could produce an attack aircraft comparable in its characteristics to the Soviet Su-25. Dornier specialists carried out a fairly in-depth study of the design documentation, but when the question arose about building a prototype, there was no money in the German military budget for this.
The mention of the first case of the use of MANPADS in Vietnam dates back to August 1969. From the review of E. Ponamarchuk it follows that, according to the Soviet side, the North Vietnamese carried out a total of 589 launches of Strela-2 MANPADS, of which 204 reached targets, but without detailing the latter in relation to effectiveness (only a hit or the aircraft was shot down). The figure of 204 hits was once again confirmed in the press in 2011 directly by S.P. Invincible, General Designer (since 1988; since 1965 - Chief Designer) of the Mechanical Engineering Design Bureau, developer of MANPADS.
At the same time, this review notes that the first cases of the use of MANPADS against them, confirmed by the Americans themselves, date back to the period of the “Easter Offensive” of the North Vietnamese Army, which began at the end of March 1972. The first reliably recorded launch dates back to April 29, when one missile was fired at an F-4 fighter-bomber north of Quang Tri City (Military Region I), but did not reach the target. E. Ponamarchuk emphasizes that “after the loss of four aircraft during May 1–2, the Americans began to take measures to counter MANPADS, including the use of heat traps and design changes aimed at reducing the infrared signature of aircraft and helicopters. The “missile boom” continued during May-June, after this period losses decreased significantly and were sporadic until the signing of the Paris Agreement in January 1973, when the United States withdrew from the war.” The total number of aircraft lost by the Americans as a result of the use of MANPADS for the period May 1972 - January 1973 was 24 units, of which 14 were aircraft, mostly piston and turboprop, and 10 were helicopters. Thus, MANPADS were effectively used against low-speed targets, mainly aircraft and helicopters assigned to provide direct air support to troops, and transport aircraft. As E. Ponamarchuk notes, “the results of using Strela are ambiguous. They did not reliably hit any of the most modern American jet aircraft (F-4, A-6, A-7), helicopter losses were moderate, and in general the appearance of MANPADS did not lead to a turning point in the fight against aviation in South Vietnam. At the same time, Strela... made it difficult to use attack aircraft.”
The above conclusions about the use of MANPADS in the final phase of the Vietnam War should be correlated with those changes in the technology and tactics of combat aviation that were associated with the beginning of the massive use of guided weapons during the Vietnam War, which began to have sufficient accuracy characteristics when used at a significant distance from aircraft. carrier from the target and from high altitudes. As F. Davidson writes, “The best example of increased efficiency is the episode with the bridge at Thanh Hoa. Between 1965 and 1968 Navy aviation (USA - Author's note) lost 97 aircraft over it, but was never able to destroy the object. In 1972, the problem was solved on the first pass with one smart bomb weighing 2,000 pounds (907 kg).” As a result of the emergence of new capabilities, a significant part of the tasks could now be solved by aviation without directly working on targets, and, accordingly, without entering the range of not only MANPADS, but also heavier anti-aircraft systems.
On November 27, the press service of the Kolomna state enterprise “KB Mashinostroeniya” (KBM) reported that the 9K333 “Verba” man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) produced by this enterprise began to enter service with the Russian army. The Ground Forces received a brigade set, and the Airborne Forces received a divisional set of MANPADS. In just one year, the Russian Armed Forces received two brigade and two divisional sets of these weapons. Representatives of the manufacturer also reported that KBM had previously signed a contract with the Russian Ministry of Defense for the supply of these weapons and had already begun their serial production.
Man-portable anti-aircraft missile system "Verba"
topwar.ru
MANPADS are small-sized anti-aircraft missile weapons designed to be transported and fired by one person. Thanks to its light weight and size, it is very convenient to use, camouflage, transport and store. At the same time, MANPADS have sufficient warhead power to shoot down any air target within range - from small unmanned aerial vehicles to transport aircraft. The predecessors of modern MANPADS were portable anti-aircraft missiles of the Second World War period, produced in Germany.
9K333 MANPADS and 9M336 missile
topwar.ru
The Verba portable complex was developed in 2007, at the same time it passed flight tests and was supposed to be supplied to the Russian Armed Forces in 2008. Additionally, the MANPADS underwent state tests in 2009-2010, military tests in 2011, and another test for effectiveness in conditions of abnormally low Arctic temperatures in 2014.
Modernization of the Verba MANPADS consists of using an improved homing system, which is one and a half to two times more effective than all existing systems. This improvement gives MANPADS missiles unusual resistance to active thermal or electro-optical interference created by aircraft in order to disorient the missile and lead it off course towards false targets. The Verba PRZK missile identifies a target using three parameters (optical, infrared and ultraviolet), and therefore the probability of a miss is minimized. The Verba MANPADS confidently “holds” and overtakes even low-emitting targets, such as UAVs.
The Verba MANPADS missile ignores false targets
simhq.com
Most experts agree that modern MANPADS are the most effective anti-aircraft weapons against airplanes, helicopters, and UAVs. It is almost impossible to detect a shooter with MANPADS on the ground by means of aerial reconnaissance. In this case, an attack with such a weapon is carried out, as a rule, unexpectedly for the enemy and hits the target with high accuracy. As a result, combat aircraft can no longer dominate at altitudes accessible to MANPADS, despite the fact that it is from these altitudes that their attacks are most effective. To increase their survivability when attacking ground targets, airplanes and helicopters are forced to use various technical and tactical techniques (such as active jammers, firing thermal decoy missiles, flying at ultra-low altitudes) or operate from heights inaccessible to MANPADS, which significantly reduces the accuracy of airstrikes . In addition, the very fact of the appearance of MANPADS on the battlefield forces the enemy to sharply reduce the number of combat sorties in order to avoid catastrophic losses of expensive aircraft. As a result, his ground forces are deprived of air support and cover, as a result of which their effectiveness is significantly reduced.
MANPADS "Igla" works against aviation
lemur59.ru
The Verba MANPADS is a development that embodies technical advances that make this weapon more effective than its predecessors, the Russian Strela and Igla MANPADS. In addition, the manufacturer claims that Verba is superior to the best foreign analogues - such as the American Stinger, French Mistral, Chinese QW-3, British Starstreak, Swedish RBS 70. The Verba complex is capable of hitting air targets at altitudes from 10 to 4500 meters, distant from 500 to 6400 meters and moving at speeds up to 500 meters per second. For comparison, the Stinger’s parameters do not look so impressive: altitude – up to 3800 meters; destruction range – from 200 to 4800 meters. Despite the fact that in certain indicators (for example, in the power of the warhead) some foreign analogues may be superior to the Russian design, in terms of its main characteristics - height, range, speed and noise immunity - the Verba MANPADS is beyond competition.
MANPADS "Stinger" in the hands of an Afghan Mujahideen
vichivisam.ru
For the first time, MANPADS began to be actively used during the Vietnam War, later in the War for the Falkland Islands, but this type of weapon gained particular popularity during the Afghan War. There is an opinion that it was the large-scale American supply of Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to the Afghan Mujahideen and training them in the use of these weapons that helped the Islamists win the war against the Soviet Union. According to some researchers, Soviet aviation began to suffer such significant losses that eventually the leadership of the USSR decided to withdraw from the conflict and withdraw troops from Afghanistan. Military statistics do not support this theory, since the percentage of planes and helicopters shot down by MANPADS was relatively small and amounted to 10 to 20% of Soviet aviation losses. For example, the 40th Army of the Soviet military contingent reported 16% of lost aircraft that were shot down by MANPADS. However, these data are not entirely accurate, since it would be correct to calculate the percentage of losses as a result of hits from Stingers not from the amount of equipment lost during the entire war, but only for the period when MANPADS were widely used by the enemy.
Mobile missile launcher MANPADS "Startric"
vpk.name
Being a convenient and effective weapon, MANPADS enjoy deserved popularity among rebel and extremist movements, which willingly use it as a hand weapon for single shooters, and also mount anti-aircraft missile launchers on various stationary or mobile platforms. Developed countries and international organizations are making significant efforts to establish control over the proliferation of these weapons in the world due to their great danger to civil aviation, but it has not yet been possible to make this control effective. In fact, today in the world there are from several hundred to several thousand portable anti-aircraft systems operating illegally, stolen from military warehouses during revolutions and riots. Russia also participates in international projects to control the proliferation of this type of weapon - in particular, it is reported that Verba MANPADS are not exported.
On September 26, 1986, Soviet aviation in Afghanistan for the first time came under attack from a new weapon - the American Stinger man-portable air defense system (MANPADS). If earlier Soviet attack aircraft and combat helicopters felt like complete masters in the Afghan sky, now they were forced to operate at extremely low altitudes, hiding behind rocks and folds of the terrain. The first use of the Stinger cost the Soviet troops three Mi-24 helicopters; a total of 23 combat vehicles were destroyed by the end of 1986.
The appearance of the Stinger MANPADS in service with the Mujahideen not only seriously complicated the life of the Soviet and Afghan Air Forces, but also forced the command of the limited contingent to change tactics in the fight against partisans. Previously, special forces units were used to fight partisan groups, which were dropped by helicopters into the desired area. New MANPADS made such raids very risky.
There is an opinion that the appearance of the Stinger MANPADS seriously influenced the course of the Afghan War and significantly worsened the position of the Soviet troops. Although, this issue is still highly controversial.
Largely thanks to the Afghan war, the Fim-92 Stinger MANPADS became the most famous portable anti-aircraft system in the world. In the USSR, and then in Russia, this weapon turned into a real symbol of that war, it found its way into literature, and several films were even made about the Fim-92 Stinger.
The Fim-92 Stinger MANPADS was developed by the American company General Dynamics in the late 70s, and the system was adopted by the US Army in 1981. The Stinger is the most famous and popular weapon of its class: since the start of production, more than 70 thousand complexes have been manufactured, and it is currently in service with thirty armies around the world. Its main operators are the armed forces of the United States, Great Britain and Germany. The cost of one MANPADS (in 1986) was 80 thousand US dollars.
The Stinger passed through a huge number of hot spots. In addition to Afghanistan, this weapon was used during hostilities in Yugoslavia, Chechnya, Angola, and there is information about the presence of the Fim-92 Stinger among Syrian rebels.
History of creation
Man-portable anti-aircraft missile systems appeared in the early 60s and were first used en masse in the Middle East during the next Arab-Israeli conflict (1969). The use of MANPADS against low-flying aircraft and helicopters turned out to be so effective that later MANPADS became the favorite weapon of various partisan and terrorist groups. Although, it should be noted that the anti-aircraft systems of that time were far from perfect, their characteristics were insufficient to reliably destroy aircraft.
In the mid-60s, the ASDP program was launched in the United States, the purpose of which was to develop the theoretical basis for the creation of a new portable anti-aircraft system with a missile equipped with an all-angle seeker. It was this program that gave rise to the creation of a promising MANPADS, which received the designation Stinger. Work on the Stinger began in 1972, carried out by General Dynamics.
In 1977, the new complex was ready, the company began manufacturing a pilot batch, tests were completed in 1980, and the following year it was put into service.
The first armed conflict in which Stingers were used was the Falklands War of 1982. With the help of this portable complex, an Argentine Pucara attack aircraft and an SA.330 Puma helicopter were shot down. However, the real “finest hour” of the Fim-92 Stinger was the war in Afghanistan, which began in 1979.
It should be noted that the Americans for a long time did not dare to supply the latest (and very expensive) weapons to poorly controlled detachments of Islamic fanatics. However, at the beginning of 1986, the decision was made, and 240 launchers and a thousand anti-aircraft guided missiles were sent to Afghanistan. The Mujahideen were already armed with several types of MANPADS: the Soviet Strela-2M supplied from Egypt, the American Redeye and the British Blowpipe. However, these complexes were quite outdated and not very effective against Soviet aircraft. In 1984, with the help of portable anti-aircraft systems (62 launches were made), the Mujahideen managed to shoot down only five Soviet aircraft.
Fim-92 Stinger MANPADS could hit airplanes and helicopters at a range of up to 4.8 km and altitudes from 200 to 3800 meters. By setting up firing positions high in the mountains, the Mujahideen could hit air targets located at much higher altitudes: there is information about the Soviet An-12, which was shot down at an altitude of nine kilometers.
Immediately after the appearance of the Stingers in Afghanistan, the Soviet command had a strong desire to get to know these weapons better. Special detachments were formed and tasked with obtaining captured samples of these MANPADS. In 1987, one of the Soviet special forces groups was lucky: during a carefully prepared operation, they managed to defeat a caravan with weapons and capture three Fim-92 Stinger units.
Soon after the Stingers began to be used, countermeasures were taken that proved to be quite effective. The tactics of using aviation were changed; planes and helicopters were equipped with systems for jamming and shooting false heat traps. To put an end to the dispute about the role of the Stinger MANPADS in the Afghan campaign, we can say that during the fighting, Soviet troops lost more planes and helicopters from conventional anti-aircraft machine gun fire.
After the end of the Afghan War, the Americans faced a serious problem: how to get their Stingers back. In 1990, the United States had to buy MANPADS from former Mujahideen allies; they paid $183,000 for one complex. A total of $55 million was spent for these purposes. The Afghans transferred part of the Fim-92 Stinger MANPADS to Iran (there is information about 80 launchers), which is also unlikely to please the Americans.
There is information that Stingers were used against coalition troops in 2001. And even about an American helicopter shot down using this complex. However, this looks unlikely: in more than ten years, the batteries of the MANPADS would have run out and the guided missile would have become unusable.
In 1987, the Fim-92 Stinger was used during the military conflict in Chad. With the help of these systems, several Libyan Air Force aircraft were shot down.
In 1991, UNITA militants in Angola shot down a civilian L-100-30 aircraft using a Stinger. Passengers and crew members were killed.
There is information that the Fim-92 Stinger was used by Chechen separatists during the first and second campaigns in the North Caucasus, but this data causes skepticism among many experts.
In 1993, with the help of this MANPADS, a Su-24 of the Uzbekistan Air Force was shot down, both pilots ejected.
Description of design
The Fim-92 Stinger MANPADS is a lightweight man-portable anti-aircraft missile system designed to destroy low-flying air targets: airplanes, helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles and cruise missiles. Air targets can be engaged both on oncoming and catch-up courses. Officially, the MANPADS crew consists of two people, but one operator can fire.
Initially, three modifications of the Stinger were created: basic, Stinger-POST and Stinger-RMP. The launchers of these modifications are absolutely identical, only the missile homing heads differ. The basic modification is equipped with a missile with an infrared seeker, which is guided by the thermal radiation of a running engine.
The seeker of the Stinger-POST modification operates in two ranges: infrared and ultraviolet, this allows the missile to avoid interference and more confidently hit air targets. The Fim-92 Stinger-RMP modification is the most modern and has the most advanced characteristics; its development was completed in 1987.
MANPADS of all modifications consists of the following elements:
- anti-aircraft guided missile (SAM) in a transport and launch container (TPC);
- trigger mechanism;
- sighting device for searching and tracking a target;
- power supply and cooling unit;
- “friend or foe” detection system, its antenna has a characteristic lattice appearance.
The Stinger MANPADS missile defense system is made according to the canard aerodynamic configuration, with four aerodynamic surfaces in the front part, two of which are controllable. In flight, the missile defense system is stabilized by rotation; to impart rotational motion to it, the launch accelerator nozzles are located at an angle relative to the central axis of the rocket. The rear stabilizers are also located at an angle, which open immediately after the missile exits the launch container.
The missile defense system is equipped with a solid-fuel dual-mode propulsion engine, which accelerates the missile to a speed of Mach 2.2 and maintains its high speed throughout the flight.
The missile is equipped with a high-explosive fragmentation warhead, an impact fuse and a safety-actuating mechanism that ensures self-destruction of the missile in case it misses.
The missile defense system is located in a disposable fiberglass container, which is filled with inert gas. The front cover is transparent, which ensures that the missile is guided by IR and UV radiation directly in the launch container. The shelf life of a rocket in a container without maintenance is ten years.
A trigger mechanism is attached to the TPK using special locks, and an electric battery is installed into it in preparation for firing. Also, before use, a container with liquid nitrogen is connected to the launch container, which is necessary for cooling the seeker detectors. After pressing the trigger, the rocket's gyroscopes are launched and its seeker is cooled, then the rocket's battery is activated and the starting engine begins to operate.
The acquisition of an air target is accompanied by a sound signal, which lets the operator know that a shot can be fired.
The latest versions of MANPADS are equipped with an AN/PAS-18 thermal imaging sight, which makes it possible to use the complex at any time of the day. In addition, it operates in the same IR range as the missile seeker detector, so it is ideal for detecting airborne targets beyond the maximum missile range (up to 30 km).
Ways to combat Stinger MANPADS
The appearance of the Fim-92 Stinger MANPADS in Afghanistan became a serious problem for Soviet aviation. They tried to solve it in different ways. The tactics of using aviation were changed; this applied to both attack vehicles and transport helicopters and airplanes.
Flights of transport aircraft began to be carried out at high altitudes, where the Stinger missile could not reach them. Landing and takeoff from the airfield took place in a spiral with a sharp gain or loss of altitude. Helicopters, on the contrary, began to hug the ground using ultra-low altitudes.
Soon systems appeared that influenced the IR detectors of the missile seeker. Typically these are sources of infrared radiation. The traditional way to deceive a missile is to shoot thermal decoys (TLC) by airplane or helicopter. However, heat traps have many disadvantages (for example, they are quite fire hazardous), and it is quite difficult to deceive modern MANPADS using TLC.
Immediately after shooting off the TLC, the aircraft must perform an anti-missile maneuver, otherwise it will still be hit by the missile.
Another way to protect aircraft from damage by MANPADS may be to increase their armor. The creators of the Russian attack helicopter Ka-50 “Black Shark” took this path.
Characteristics
Below are the main performance characteristics of the Fim-92 Stinger MANPADS.
If you have any questions, leave them in the comments below the article. We or our visitors will be happy to answer them
I got a little tired of the public's reasoning and conclusions about how it was possible and how it was impossible to shoot down the plane of flight A321. Judgments like:
Passerby: The Americans didn’t even supply MANPADS to the Syrian rebels, much less ISIS. And you can’t reach an airplane from a MANPADS at an altitude of 9,000 m.
The ceiling is 5,000-6,000 m, while the Stinger is only 3,500 meters. Not otherwise, the Muslims rammed the Buk along the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea, and then dragged it on camels across the Sinai.
A “passerby” can be forgiven, a typical clockwork parrot repeating opinions from a box, although perhaps a paid troll (whom we don’t know anymore). But they based all these “conclusions” on someone else’s words. They relayed these experts and specialists.
For example these:
We asked military expert Viktor Litovkin to express his opinion on Radio Komsomolskaya Pravda.
I rejected the version with MANPADS. Judging by the latest data, the plane was flying at an altitude of 8300-something meters. The mountains there are not so high. Well, a thousand meters mountain, well, one and a half thousand meters. And MANPADS fire at a height of up to 5 thousand meters. Anything American or ours. One hundred “Stinger”, one “Strela”, one “Igla,” explained Viktor Litovkin
Or here’s another military expert:
According to the editor-in-chief of National Defense, Igor Korotchenko, the terrorists may have several MANPADS. However, these weapons are only effective at altitudes not exceeding approximately 6.7 km. Passenger planes fly over Sinai at a much higher altitude, TASS reports. Igor Korotchenko, editor-in-chief of the National Defense magazine:
“We admit that the IS (terrorist organization, as is known, is banned in the Russian Federation - ed) could have man-portable anti-aircraft missile systems in their hands. However, MANPADS cannot operate on an aircraft at an altitude of 10 kilometers; this is excluded. Therefore, we discard this version.”
Wow, they reject this version. How squeamish. Or maybe they don’t understand that war is the quintessence of strength and opportunity.
I didn’t want to arrange a beating of babies - these naive experts, but it will have to be done. Because how soon do these woodpeckers plan to fight? But they have already started, in the hope that it will be like in a movie, the enemy is running in crowds across the field, and the brave heroes are mowing them down, mowing them down with miracle machine guns that do not need to be loaded.
We ourselves are humanists, more in our worldview, in history, but in the absence of anyone in the foreseeable space, on behalf of the ARI editors, we will have to take on this function - figure it out, and give both experts and clockwork parrots small technical explanations on the fingers. (Although we assign primacy in understanding technology to our like-minded person and reader, expressed in the comments to the previous material).
Firing from the Stinger MANPADS
First, before we get to the main point, let's say that the easiest way to shoot down any plane is to put a bomb in your luggage.
Given the level of corruption in Egypt, I think this is the simplest and most reliable way. And not expensive. We believe that it was primarily the Islamists who could resort to it.
Now the main thing is what the experts disdain. How to use a portable anti-aircraft system, or MANPADS for short, to shoot down a passenger airliner at an altitude of 9000 meters.
Let's say right away that this is quite possible. Moreover, there was a case back in the Soviet Afghan company, at the dawn of the use of hand-held anti-aircraft systems. Then in 1987, an An-12 made an emergency landing at Kabul airport, shot down by a MANPADS near the city of Gardez, Afghan province of Paktia, at an altitude of more than 9000 m.
How was this done? Just. The Mujahideen used the top of a mountain for an ambush. And there are heights of about 3 thousand meters, from which they struck. This is the first thing.
And secondly, experts and specialists operate with data sheets of installations, which are often outdated or do not reflect the real capabilities of the system.
Their real potential is often higher. It also depends on weather and climatic conditions.
The height of the firing range from these installations also does not depend on the height above sea level, but is calculated on the surface from which the launch is carried out, since reaching the height depends on the operation of the rocket engine, about 8-10 seconds.
A rocket launched from a mountain 3,000 meters high will travel up the same 4,500 meters and reach a height of 7,500 meters, if you count from sea level. (I understand that I am writing in too much detail, but for woodpeckers I have to explain in detail). At the same time, the aircraft's flight altitude is calculated not from the surface, but from sea level.
That is, if flight 9268 from Sharm al-Sheikh flew at an altitude of 9,400 meters above sea level, then the plateau above which it was shot down has an altitude of 1,600 meters above sea level.
Yes, yes, Sinai is mountains. Accordingly, the relative altitude of the aircraft from the surface above Sinai is 7,800 meters (there is information that the aircraft was flying at an altitude of 8,411 meters, which gives an even lower relative altitude of 6,800 meters from the ground). And this is a slightly different caliber, especially taking into account the increased capabilities of MANPADS compared to the 80s of the last century (longer range, more powerful charge). The experts somehow didn’t think of this simple idea when calculating the aircraft’s reach.
However, although it is closer to reach, it is still a bit high. But this is also completely surmountable. It is only necessary to raise the MANPADS launcher even higher. To be on the safe side, another thousand for three or four meters. How? Elementary.
For this, it is quite possible to use Chinese quadcopters with a load capacity of up to 30 kg. For example, the one in the picture below.
You can buy one everywhere, including in Russia. This thing gains a height of 4,000 meters in about two minutes and can carry MANPADS such as “Stinger”, “Igla”, etc., which weighs 12-18 kilograms, depending on the model. The quadcopter has sharp control, a video transmission system, and stays in the air for quite a long time.
It is unnecessary to say that all components - MANPADS, quadcopter, video system are easily integrated into a single system with modern technologies.
That is, targeting and launching MANPADS does not present any difficulties. Then the missile, after locking on the target, does everything itself. A powerful charge, for example the Igla's 2.3 kg, leaves no chance even for a large aircraft.
To detect a target, for example, the Igla MANPADS complex has a portable tablet 1L15-1, which can be used to track a target in a square of 25x25 kilometers.
Domestic MANPADS: “Needles”
In total, the altitude of the El Tih plateau is 1600 meters above sea level, another 4000 meters will be given by a quadcopter, a total of 5600 meters.
If there is an aircraft at an altitude of 9,400 meters, the missile needs to rise only 3,800 meters to it, which is even less than the capabilities of modern MANPADS.
In addition to the quadcopter, you can use a suitable drone.
Thus, we find that, taking into account modern capabilities, it is not difficult for Islamists in the Sinai Peninsula to get a passenger plane flying at an altitude of 9400 meters above sea level.
To be on the safe side, you can deploy 4-5 anti-aircraft crews with quadcopters or drones along the air corridor; a plane flying in it can be guaranteed to be shot down.