What is the most cost-effective way to stop cheap "dronitized" small-frame aircraft from carrying ~300kg of explosives into sensitive factories and refineries >1200km into your country?
Pic related. Ukranian E-300 drone.
What is the most cost-effective way to stop cheap "dronitized" small-frame aircraft from carrying ~300kg of explosives into sensitive factor...
This is quite literally what anti aircraft guns were designed for
I love that we're reliving all aircraft tech improvements starting from WW1 all over again, just with drones this time
the russian factories and refineries could be protected rather cheaply but they are moronic to figure that out
same for ukraine, they could protect their infrastructure but they are too moronic to figure it out
>I love that we're reliving all aircraft tech improvements starting from WW1
it just shows how absolutely moronic both sides are
>moron who never fought in any war giving his two cents on air defense
>it just shows how absolutely moronic both sides are
I mean what the frick are you expecting them to do? Ukraine relies on either left-over soviet shit or Western air defense systems that they refuse to send over in any large amount. Yes, Russia is able to make some pretty decent defense systems but not in any large amount because their economy is the size of italy and they're too scared to go full war economy
Also, Russia has to deal with being the biggest fricking country on earth despite such a shit economy. Israel's Iron Dome system only works because their country is fricking tiny
Ukraine isn’t launching drone attacks from fricking Kazakhstan
them being launched from kazakhstan is less ludicrous than them being launched from russia or even ukraine
They are according to Russian politicians.
Russia gonna invade Kazakhstan soon, to crush the Nazis there?
Israel looking mighty different
Hmm. Maybe the largest country in the world should focus on leaving Ukraine instead and maybe it wouldn't have these problems.
Don't throw stones when you live in a massive glass house.
literally the only reason this war continuous is to save face for Putin, or for his own life. hes the most selfish bastard on the planet..
I think your map of Israel needs updating, the last time Israel and that landmass where the same country was almost 2000 years ago.
140 000 ZU-23-2 were produced in the USSR alone, how hard is it to get a few conscripts or even rosgvardiaya/internal affairs grunts to guard the most important factories, or even just cordon off the Ukrainian border? It's not like the Ukrainians are flying drones through the Baltics, it seems most of the stuff is passing through the well known hot areas
>a few conscripts or even rosgvardiaya/internal affairs grunts to guard the most important factories, or even just cordon off the Ukrainian border?
To protect Belarusian and Ukrainian border(because we know that they can just flew through Balrus) Russia will need about 1,100 guns and 8800 soldiers for three shifts, that's for evenly spaced ONE gun every 1km. and they are supposed to stop all drones that are flying in the night and will be in range for about minute or two
>Russia will need about 1,100 guns and 8800 soldiers for three shifts
that honestly is totally doable if Russia were competent
Which wraps back around to
You can have whatever toy you want. It’s all irrelevant if you’re incompetent. Which Russia is
They throw that away every month for marginal gains around small villages.
If they don't capture small villages how would they say they're winning?
yeah and it will be one gun with two guys every 1km, so no chance of detecting shooting down all those drones
1km means drones would be 0.5 km away at most. Here's a video of a Ukrainian shooting down a shashneed which is at least more than 0.5km away (i'm guessing from the amount of time the sound from the explosion took to reach)
Yes they can shoot drones over 500m distance, I've said that this line will have two-three minutes to detect and destroy a drone, every drone using their mark 1 eyeballs
The DPRK has over 1000 radar guided AAA batteries (batteries not individual guns) on active service at all times and something like 35-40k 14.5mm barrels alone, it is possible if you are even slightly competent.
>The DPRK has
DPRK says it has*, which is completely different thing than having it
12K alone are just the mounts on VTT-323s, 3-4k on tanks.
Let me guess, they aren't real? Just like their last six nuclear tests weren't real either? And those aren't real shells they are selling to Russia, it was a cardboard bodykit cargo cult fusion trigger they tested, a mockup torpedo that sank that RoK ship and it's a fake cargo cult satellite NASA says is over our heads at this very moment i assume?
>14.5mm barrels
kys asiaticshill I know it's you
When DPRK has operated said AAA batteries and 35k 14.5mm barrels for 2 years in a war against an entity roughly 10 times its size, it would be a reasonable comparison. DPRK's anti air assets just aren't in use to the same degree as Ukraine's (or indeed Russia's lol).
Wrong. The DPRK is better off than both. When it comes to experience Russia/Ukraine clearly have more experience however those assets need to exist in the first place toget that experience. The DPRK has more low level air defense, specifically guns (including shit like dozens of KS-19 batteries) than anyone else on earth. I am pretty damn sure that after two years of using them they would get good at using them. The assumption is that no nation can protect everywhere in their nation with multiple overlapping AAA batteries and except one case that is true. The DPRK is the one exception, they have that many AAA guns and are small enough to do it.
>against an entity roughly 10 times its size
Russia has only 6x the population of the DPRK and Ukraine has barely 1.5x. The comparatively small physical size of the DPRK works in it's favor, it concentrates their absurd number of guns into a a compact area. Against either they would be able to concentrate their defense in a very narrow front.
Hitting Pyongyang with crap like Shasneeds would not be a realistic option even before they filled that fricking hotel with a few hundred AAA guns.
But will these AAA batteries actually stop the US and Worst Koreans from bombing them? The reason they don't get desert stormed is because they have a pile of nukes and chemical weapons, not because they have a pile of obsolete anti-aircraft guns
We finally got a Nork equivalent of Armatard I guess. Juchetard?
The norktard first appeared at the end of 2022 with their new tanks with abrahams bodykit.
>He thinks all of them work anymore and they have the ammo production for them
Kek
>how hard is it to get a few conscripts or even rosgvardiaya/internal affairs grunts to guard the most important factories
Can you even begin to imagine the friendly fire and civilian casualties.
how is that russia's issue?
Just supply them with enough vodka that they stay passed-out drunk most of the time.
It's very hard because all the ZUs are in Ukraine awith the FSB and National Guard. And let's not get into all the ZUs spread through out the whole planet.
A ton of these got scrapped years ago (the amount of demilitarization happening prior to 2014 is hard for you Black person to fathom), or sold, or ended up in other post-USSR regions. For example, Ukraine literally had to purchase such crap from Azerbaijan. Also, if you start using these in any significant quantities, you'll need a ton of ammo for them. Is that ammo produced anymore by anyone that's not russia? Also, you underestimate just how many of them would be required to defend even specific objects, let alone trying to cover the border. Shit often flies in even from the sea, because cruise missiles and drone usually have fricked up routes programmed into them to try and avoid AA.
in the case of Ukraine, they just don't have enough AA (let alone top tier AA to track small drone swarms) to cover all assets
you can make very simple AA systems using a very simple radar, especially against drones
>you can make very simple AA systems using a very simple radar, especially against drones
And what will that AA fire?
Against a fricking Eastern-bloc version of a Cessna? Even 12.7mm HMG fire could do that.
First you need to find the target to shoot at, then you actually need to hit the target. Both tasks aren't automatic.
In this case it's not a cruise missile moving at high subsonic speeds. Hitting it wouldn't be that hard. An ancient quad .50 mount could rip one of these to shreds presuming the gunner was halfway trained. The problem is of course having the system in the right spot at the right time. And even if it is you still need some degree of early warning, which the Russians are very clearly lacking.
As for finding the target? Well you should have defenses around something like a factory so they're coming to you. But yet again the Russians are incompetent despite attacks on airbases within Russia and other targets. Those should have clued them in that the Ukrainians are going to try to reach out farther with whatever they can buy or improvise.
That's the point, sure you can technically shoot them down with machine guns and such, but it's not easy. You do realize how big of a pain it still is for AFU to do that? There's a ton of those mobile groups with pickup trucks with machine guns, light (since russian launch most of their sheeit drones at night to make them harder to detect) and all that. And even they can't cover everything everywhere. Because the window to shoot it down is pretty small, the targeting is hard, and that only becomes applicable when you've actually found it. It's not like this is a bomber flying 10km up in the air and easily viewable on radar.
Damn, dumb Germans,British and US are wasting millions building anti-drone 30mm systems when all knowing moron here already has plans to build same thing for few thousands dollars. Why won't you monetize this idea? You will be paid millions for that
We aren't talking about obnoxious small drones doing their bullshit though. That's a different matter and covers a wide spectrum of different systems ranging from cheap Chicom quadcopters rigged with grenades or RPG warheads to quality loitering munitions and everything in-between. Of course those have rather limited range.
Now this? This is just a fricking Cessna copy wired with remote controls and some explosives. If the Russians can't defend against this level of basic shit can you imagine what some real cruise missiles would do to them? Cruise missiles which the Russians have proclaimed they'd be able to easily stop for decades now. No wonder the Soviets were shitting their pants over the threat of Tomahawks with nuclear warheads back in the '80s.
You think this thing is intended to take down Fpv drones and not Shaheds?
It's intended to take down all sorts of different targets. The sensors it has won't have trouble picking up small drones. The problem is you don't want to burn through all of the ammunition on those, meaning EW methods and directed energy weapons (lasers and microwaves) are more ideal for that particular class of target. And they are working on those. You will need such a mix of different capabilities to defend both a maneuvering force and static targets that are at risk.
Speaking of lasers, was that Israeli drone kill ever confirmed to be legit?
You're fricking flip-floping around this shit holy frick. Skynex and the like multi-million dollar systems intended to blow up Shahed and Sesna-like drones, there no fricking "cheap gun" with "cheap radar" that costs few thousands dollars that can reliably detect and destroy all those drones
I'm not even the guy who started this line of discussion. All I was saying that when it comes to this sort of Cessna-type aircraft turned into a poor-man's cruise missile it would be very easy to shoot down. You just need a guy in the right spot with some sort of relatively basic AA machine gun or light cannon mount. Such weapons have shot down plenty of light observation aircraft before.
But yes to deal with the entire spectrum of drone threats you need a much more sophisticated system. The OP however was specifically talking about this particular type of improvised unmanned aircraft.
>here's what we're going to do, chaps
>cheap mobile guns directed from a shed, fed information by cheap sensors strewn all over the approaches
>(in unison) Total Luftwaffe Death
> t. Hugh Dowding
Works against manned air forces because they'll give up when losing 5-20% of their attack force repeatedly. Drones always lose 100% of the attacking force, and that's an 80-95% hit rate which is really good
>If the Russians can't defend against this level of basic shit
Remember Mathias Rust
>imagine what some real cruise missiles would do to them
We've seen tomahawks demolish shit in Syria
It's not that they're moronic, it's that they'd have to 1. admit that it's a war and not just a Special Military Operation 2. Bring troops and vehicles and ammo that is in Ukraine to Russia.
you could make a very simplistic anti drone system for a few thousands dollars
you would think at least ukraine would make something with the constant attacks
>you could make a very simplistic anti drone system for a few thousands dollars
>you would think at least ukraine would make something with the constant attacks
So why haven't Americans made one to stop drone attacks on Saudis?
That would cut into our Patriot missile sales
>same for ukraine, they could protect their infrastructure but they are too moronic to figure it out
You're just a moron. How do you protect Kharkiv from S300 and other (often ballistic) missiles? With flak cannons? You're delusional.
>it just shows how absolutely moronic both sides are
Nah it shows that MIC digged themeself into a dead end with gold plated jets.
Absolutely moronic take.
Ukraine has Su-24 and Mig-29 but they ain't hitting targets in Russia, instead it is literally WWI tier prop planes, it shows that somewhere in the past air force desingers lost connection with reality and took wrong turn.
>planes are introduced in ww1
>can be shot down by rifles
>get bigger and faster
>AA artillery is introduced to shoot them down
>get jet engine, fly too fast and high for AAA to shoot them
>radars and missiles get developed to spot and shoot down
>AAA get phased out because it has nothing to shoot down on battlefield
>people find a way to combine AI, drone technology and prop planes to reintroduce older variant of planes but even smaller, cheaper and expendable because it doesn't have a pilot
>WHY AA THAT DESIGNED TO COUNTER SU-24 AND MIG-29 CAN STOP THEM FROM BOMBING TARGETS IN PUCCIA BUT THEY CAN'T DEAL WITH LOW FLYING EXPENDABLE PROP PLANES, DEVELOPED IN PAST 10 YEARS AND BEING FIRST MAJOR WAR UTILIZING THEM ON LARGE SCALE?! AIR DEFENSE HAS LOST TOUCH WITH REALITY!
Your IQ is bellow room temperature
>WHY AA THAT DESIGNED TO COUNTER SU-24 AND MIG-29 CAN STOP
>AND BEING FIRST MAJOR WAR
>bellow
So you have zero arguments?
How about you write more than one sentence without it devolving into ESL babble
Address the arguments presented
Why would I respond to any of your arguments? I'm not the guy you were responding to
Maybe I would consider anything you say if you managed to put it in proper English, but you lack the skill
You're fricking moronic though anon, there's no point in "addressing the arguments presented" as they're fundamentally flawed. What do you think the velocity gate on a modern air defense radar is?
Are you this anon?
Because if yes then you're not allowed to complain about moronic arguments since it's the most moronic argument in last two days on /k/, following morons who tried to prove barrier troops are common tactic outside Russia and good thing
I'm not that anon, and I asked you what you think the velocity gate on a modern air defense radar is. Answer the question.
You think there's enough radars to cover whole border against low flying planes?
I see, you are moronic.
so is your mom
>he still thinks he's talking to one guy
>when everyone is making fun of him
wew lad
not one of the other annons
but there are other ways to intercept air treats than slamming one of your S-400 or S-300 launchers into a cruise missile or drones fuse
if you are worried about a slow moving low flying unidentified contact
You'd normally scramble an interceptor to get a visual id on it and try to hail it or considering how slow and low it's going you'd probably be able to intercept it with a helicopter.
And you know use your cannon's to blast it to bits
or even roll one off the much vaunted pansir out to a likely intercept point and blast it using it's guns
The problem the russians have is that you if can't have AWACS up 24/7 there will be holes in your radar coverage that you can sneak those low and slows trough.
So sucks to suck the russians probally shouldn't have lost as many AWACS as they did or pick on a people that can innovate.
now go shit up an other board or website
>there are other ways to intercept air treats than slamming one of your S-400 or S-300 launchers into a cruise missile
The reality of things is that S-300 and S-400 have issues with hitting cruise missiles, as proven by Syria, because the real world detection and engagement range for low-flying targets drops too much, compared to what's advertised by pidors.
>DEVELOPED IN PAST 10 YEARS AND BEING FIRST MAJOR WAR UTILIZING THEM
Cruise missiles were developed and successfully employeed long before that.
And a cruise missile is easier to shoot down with a MANPADS than by deploying radar AAA everywhere.
The assumption is that the cruise missile will fly through at high subsonic speed at low altitude, and following a pre-determined path to evade defenses. So unless you're switching back and forth your AAA emplacements on a daily basis, the cruise missile will slip past the AAA using terrain features and treelines to spend the least amount of time possible within AAA engagement range.
The slow prop-driven drone being hard countered by AAA doesn't mean that somehow the high subsonic turbojet cruise missile is hard countered by the same type of defenses.
>And a cruise missile is easier to shoot down with a MANPADS
>you cant shoot down WWI plane with MANPADS
>The slow prop-driven drone being hard countered by AAA
It isn't though. You can only hit the prop plane with AAA if there is AAA in its path. Russia is fricking huge, and these drones are quite cheap. Unless you stick radar guided multi-layered air defenses on literally everything that can potentially be of value, some will always get through.
Air defense has never once in history been able to achieve complete airspace denial, only deterrence through high casualty rates. Drones don't give a shit.
AWACS plus fighter planes, but whatever.
Russia does not have thousands of fighter planes. The cost is always in favor of the drone.
>Tatarstan attacks was made by thousand drones
>this is what vatniks believe
Maybe they could if they flew low enough and were willing to die by crashing into a building. But thats not the best use for such a jet. The only thing that made this possible was Russian incompetence. One fricking guy on a ZU-23 could have shot it down if they had thought they might try to hit this factory with such an aircraft. Its not that hard to pick it up on radar so the fact they didnt detect it is just an embarassment.
>Maybe they could if they flew low enough and were willing to die by crashing into a building. But thats not the best use for such a jet
That is the point. Such risks were ok if you have thousands, tens thousands planes like in WWII, but gold-plated jets reduced numbers to double digits at best and you absolutely can't afford lose them and as result you don't use them at all.
On the other hand WWI planes can penetrate Air Defense with some losses but these losses they can afford.
These points flew above MIC boomers who only had gold and diamonds in their dreams.
no, because pilots are worth more than planes, and autonomous drones dont kill people when they explode
you're a fricking idiot.
not only improvements
its the return of trench warfare and some ww1 equipment too, cant wait to se a mk iv rolling down the fields again
Stop trying to suck your own dick, samegay.
How long until we start putting anti-aircraft sights on rifles again?
It's weirdly hilarious. The first drone-on-drone kill I saw was a ram, which lines up exactly with the first plane-on-plane kill on record.
Behold the return of ubiquitous, dispersed flak.
fpbp
most big suicide drones are on the level of WW1 planes. no need to rediscover the wheel, just use modern detection system to improve response time and aim
What exactly is the point of making these drones high wing?
Fun!
they are repurposed airplanes
T posing.
because it's cheaper to take existing design and turn it into drone than build a new one
Because the factory that makes them high wing already exists.
R&D for an optimal planner could take years + a fun factor for a civil aviation and air defense
High wings are connected to the fuselage with (largely) tensile joints which are easier to make and more demountable. Easier to take the wing off and truck your drone near front line increasing its effectiveness.
Improved visibility to the ground for the two Boris Johnsons that pilot it.
Where would you prefer the wing be located? High wing has the stability advantage since the heavy fuselage and engine and payload are all underneath.
Mid-wing means you have to stick the main spar straight through the middle of whatever you're putting inside.
Low wing is a little more maneuverable, but these things aren't going to be dodging SAMs or attacking moving targets, they're for blowing up fixed-position assets like refineries. Low-wing is a little more aerodynamically efficient and so can have a slight range improvement.
A flying wing is technically more efficient but then you're limited in how much explosives you can cram in.
Stability I imagine
Have competent air defense.
jammers, AA guns, light interceptors, treetop search radars, integrated air defense, etc.
what are the advantages of having drones resemble as closely as possible to missiles except instead of a rocket motor, it's propeller driven?
basically what's the advantages/disadvantages of propeller-driven missiles vs rocket-driven missiles?
Speed.
pound for pound I assume prop-drones can travel longer distances than rocket-drones.
i'm not so sure if prop-drones are more stealthier than rocket-drones.
fuel efficiency, availability, simplicity
anyone can build a drone that can fly to moscow
can you build a cruise missile?
Rocket-powered systems are capable of much higher flight speeds, and thus need far less wing area for the same amount of lift or control authority.
Prop-driven systems are much more fuel efficient, and thus capable of flying much longer and more complex routes, at the cost of speed and evasion ability.
has anyone asked what air defense doing?
the air defense cuckold is watching
the buns are reddened
Intercept them with factories and refineries. The Russians have already figured this out.
That plane is fricking unoptimized. It is overly complex to build, with too many resources. The only way this is excusable is if those are pre-existing units that were shrink wrapped in fabric and loaded with explosives. (plausible).
A low wing would allow for a greater payload, use of ground effect for short take offs, and simplified construction. The traditional tail setup could have been simplified with a V-tail ruddervator.
you piss with the dick ya got. Give it 6-9 months and im sure we will see something better
>The only way this is excusable is if those are pre-existing units that were shrink wrapped in fabric and loaded with explosives. (plausible).
Guess what the scenario is genius
V-tails are way more complex than conventional tails. You need to design a mixer (ideally with software, to avoid aero force feedback) and the loads are a lot more complex.
>t. Designer of a v-tail aircraft
>That plane is fricking unoptimized. It is overly complex to build, with too many resources.
Black person, you're delusional, it's a locally produced ultra-light plane which a few years ago could be bought in retail for $32K. Optimized is the name of the game.
The options available to you are
>build a whole new production line for your fully custom optimally designed drones
or
>fill a cessna with bombs and shrink wrap it
Now choose.
That light sport aircraft was optimized for having a pilot and maybe a passenger, depending on whether it was the one-seat model or the two-seat model. They retailed for something like $65,000. I forget the company name, it got posted a few days ago when the attacks were fresh. Cute little plane, tubular metal framework with a shitload of plexiglass and bubble doors so that whoever was inside had great views.
So this is what they used to hit that drone factory in Russia
literally a single second world war era anti aircraft gun
Ukrainians are claiming 6 aircraft destroyed, 8 damaged, and at least 20 personnel killed btw. No imagery yet.
The airfield attack was a different attack. The huge drones in OP's pic were used to attack the "Geran"/Shahed-clone factory in the middle-of-fricking-nowhere Puccia, IIRC it was in Tatarstan or some such shithole -- a place so far out of the way that they don't even have reindeer for Basedgoo to herd.
>The huge drones in OP's pic were used to attack the "Geran"/Shahed-clone factory in the middle-of-fricking-nowhere Puccia, IIRC it was in Tatarstan or some such shithole
I've seen claims that a plane of the type in OP's pic was responsible for the Shasneed factory bombing, but if you look at the video of the plane crashing, I don't think it holds up. The section between the wings and the tail is far too thin to match up, as can be seen around 0:03 in the attached .webm.
The other explanation I've seen is that it was a modified Aeroprakt A-22, which I think matches far better with the video evidence.
The most cost effective way is not invade other countries to begin with. Go home, end the conflict.
>muh frickhuge spaags
>muh ww1 aa emplacements
>muh jammers
>muh DEWs
you're all wrong
xbox kinect plugged into an m230 chaingun on a pickup truck
>Toyota M230
Why aren't arabs buying that?
Because they're stupid?
>xbox kinect
Active illumination depth cameras don't work outside. Short range and sun fricks them.
t. Computer vision researcher, work with them daily
Well if you're not a shit country, you'd be able to detect and track aircraft that big, make them file a flight plan, seee if they deviate, etc.
You do understand that in the US, aircraft that size usually don't file flightplans, unless they are relying on radar guidance or flying in instrument conditions.
I know Russia also had a decent general avation community, though I am not sure how their flight planning is regulated. This development may lead to civilians getting shot down or collapse of Russian general avation. Even if you put an exclusion zone around the border, if one of these drones slips through, it won't be shot down, thinking it is civilian.
>BUT THINK ABOUT THE CIVILIAN AVIATION!
Frick off dumbass.
It's something to think about in the long term, because having no civilian aviation hobbyists will inevitably mean a smaller pool of pilots for the military.
>may lead to civilians getting shot down
good, actually great. that's what they get for starting a war then pretending it didn't happen.
Test
At what point does it stop becoming a plane and starts becoming a cruise missile? Like this thing apparently has TERCOM even. Might as well call them budget garage Tomahawks.
based
I want to see the return of the V-1. Fifty screaming pulsejets powering fifty tons of explosives right into Shoigu's Japanese-style mansion, blowing up his wood collection.
just pull back from Ukraine, and beg for peace
what language would they even speak in a situation like that? like frick can putin undestand chinese and there's no reason for xi to learn russian.
They use translators and whatever common language they have for casual comments, probably English or French. For instance Kim Jong Un can talk to Trump even if he has a really bad accent, he speaks basic English, French, Russian and Chinese.
Not knowing bits of multiple languages is sort of a US President thing, the last president we had who was fluent in another language was Bush Jr who speaks very good Spanish.
Spanish mind you, not Mexican.
>Buy old 737's about to be scrapped
>Fill them up to the brim with explosives and configure the autopilot
>Paint them in Aeroflot liveries
>Send them straight to all the most important targets in Russia
Could weaponized 737's be a thing /k/?
yeah, just ask CIA
>Could weaponized 737's be a thing /k/?
No
No.
Jet fuel can't melt steel beams.
Earth is flat.
Hillary didn't store secret documents on her personal computer.
Free Palestine!
>Jet fuel can't melt steel beams
Unreal how many people can ve moronic to such a degree.
It nice to see that you agree with other points!
Just what the frick
How do you a Cessna on autopilot
Is that an actual fricking question
I'm lost
Are Russians really struggling with shooting down known Ukrainian cessna's flying on autopilot thousands of kilometers over there area
What the frick. What. Just what. It's a fricking Cessna. It's not FRICKIKG hard.
Do you find it annoying when every gun in the news is called an AK or an AR-15 even when they're not, or when movies call things by the wrong name?
I know it's not a Cessna but Russians are simple. I used to fly a piper t lance.
I can't believe they actually have problems with a prop plane that goes 160 kms that can be shot down with a pistol.
It's just ridiculous they'd even ask. You could drop a clip from a pistol into that plane and take it down. The engines will have to be near perfect and are incredibly "weak" a 22 rifle could take one down
>I used to fly a piper t lance.
Turbo Lance? Or just "t" for the T-tail? They're supposed to be a little rocket ship
Turbo lance and a T tail. They are insanely fast. I've flown various cessnas and props off and on for years. It was a decade ago however I didn't keep up but know the planes in a general term. If they Russians can't shot this thing down they have no actual air defense
Sorry *Shoot*
I learned mostly on Cessnas - 172 and 150-series - but got a few hours in doing aeros in a CAP-10 which was fun, and have a few odd hours in a couple other bits and pieces. Never flown a Piper though, maybe one day
Pipers are heavier and you can feel the power. The smaller cessna's you can bob up and down. Besides the speed I'd see stick with little cessnas. You'll be wrestling with controls at times. Pipers really dig into the air, it's like driving a truck at times
Lol you probably have more knowledge on how to stop them than Russians, they really don't understand airplanes at all.
I'll add on
Prop planes are built like birds they have to be for weight.
A .22 round going through the bottom of the engine would destroy it. It would punch a little hole In the engine and it would tear itself apart.
These planes will crash if they it larger birds sometimes that's why you want to get high very fast.
An Ak 47 round would just crush this things engine, probably most of its flight controls in the wienerpit and if you hit the frame anywhere they airplane aluminum will start shredding off the wing "frames" meaning you'd just have a wire frame but no actual wing or surface to create life. The bullet hole would create a gap wind would catch them start peeling metal off the wing
It's so insanely easy to tear these things apart
>A .22 round going through the bottom of the engine would destroy it.
no it wouldn't. aircraft engines are heavily built because they are dogshit old air-cooled designs. this makes them less delicate than water cooled engines. what do you think you are going to get through with a 22 after passing through the cowling? Almost all of the jibbly bits are on the top, protected from below.