I did mentioned it earlier and a better picture of it in the USAF PAVE COIN trials.
U.S. Military also haves other drone programs where retired aircraft like older fighters and such as made into target and experiment test drones. At least few of the tests was having 50s, and 60s era fighter drones squaring off against manned fighters in the 70s, 80s and 90s in simulated combat.
While we obviously need more details and numbers, this here is notable. MiG-31K variants have been the primary launch platform for the Kinzhal, so each one that gets taken out is a further burden lifted off of UA air defence's shoulders.
tl;dr: You don't see machine guns on drones (currently) because of concerns the drone will decide its time to starting firing and not stop, or miss a signal that it is time to stop firing.
Everyone always underestimates bandwidth an how often even unjammed comms drop out from drones for a second or two.
KGB zizters...
my multipolar world....
OK, that is a logical argument against machine guns on an unmanned vehicle.
You clearly missed the part where everybody else already agreed that actually pulling out WWII designs for drone interceptors is a stupid idea on every level, mainly because (but not limited to) the existence of far superior trainer aircraft with small caliber weapons, and the whole argument was purely academic.
Screenshots from the footage of these ACKs:
Clearly, Russia got the 3d flipper paint that looks like a real plane from a technology share with Iran.
You are correct. As @Optimus Prime points out, we've been agreeing with that. The only way it makes sense is you have a bunch of WWII interceptors and pilots trained on them, and the logistics to keep them flying.
No, I missed the part where flying them by remote control was a bad idea because of the trouble of making them shoot at the right time.
There's a lot more than that you've missed, obviously...
tl;dr Spaniel argues that all the ACKed Soviet-era rust buckets might be a blessing in disguise if Russia has burned through its now shitty dated Soviet-era stockpile to replace it all with military infrastructure/factories can produce one-way weapon systems that won't require much funding to keep running post-Ukraine war. Europe, in turn, is rather doubtful; France wants only funding within the EU (sorry,
What you really want is a synchronized machine gun firing *through* the propellor of a nice manoeuvrable biplane such as a Fokker or Sopwith Camel from ~1915. No cone of fire, but a simple iron sight on the engine cowling for intuitive aiming by the pilot at slow and non-evasive targets such as Shaheds.
Russia hasn't even admitted it's been in a war for four years. It simply does not have the capacity to suddenly bring such infrastructure online when almost half its oil processing economy has been blown to kingdom come.
It looks very suspect to me. Engines and nose also look "off" as well.
Russia has had more successful enemy strikes on its ships since the US attacked Iran than the US has.
So what both sides have been using are a mix of plywood and inflatable decoys.
Only thing I'm going to really say there is that Ukraine had shown us that even shitty cold war stockpiles are better than the alternative of "nothing".
Same. Its just a single poor quality IR image, but the engines look like they are "solid" and not open.
Fucking lol. Should have just gone with Chechen corrective rape videos to show recruits what they're really in for.
That's why was saying my "Milsperg Ideal" was a twin-engine or rear-mounted engine.
There ain't enough vintage WWII fighters in left in flyable condition nor are there any of them capable of doing combat missions to be any use to anyone. As the only viable way to make use of WWII fighter designs to is build brand new models of them. Which is why crop dusters and retired prop trainers are really the only game in town to function as aerial drone swatters.
That goes without saying, no way would any actual antiques from 80 years ago be viable combat platforms. The whole idea of why WWII designs would even be considered was how most of them would fare in relatively low-altitude dogfighting, but they'd need modernization since aviation technology for prop planes has evolved over those same 80 years.