I had thought that the problem of using fighter jets to combat drones is that they are too fast in comparison which makes it more dangerous to the pilot (plus the relative cost of a jet vs the drones they are destroying).
Are these crop dusters somewhat faster and more maneuverable than the drones they are facing? And if so, could they be outfitted with machine guns and hunt the drones like WW1 & WW2 fighters?
Great question, Conor. Short answer: yes, Ukraine’s converted crop dusters are faster and more maneuverable than the Iranian-made Shahed drones they’re hunting. The Shahed cruises at around 115–120 mph (190 km/h) with the agility of a flying refrigerator. The Zlin crop duster Ukraine modified can hit closer to 180 mph (290 km/h), with better climb and turn performance. So in theory, they’ve got the speed and maneuvering advantage.
But here’s the catch: unlike WW1 and WW2 fighters, these aircraft don’t have radar or sophisticated targeting systems. Spotting a small, low-flying drone visually, especially at night, is a needle-in-a-haystack problem. That’s why Ukraine strapped infrared-guided missiles to them instead of just machine guns. A missile seeker head can pick up the drone’s heat signature, lock on, and do the hard work of aiming while the pilot keeps the drone in the cone of fire. Could you mount machine guns and dogfight drones like it’s 1917? Technically, yes, but practically, it’s not ideal. Even with guns, you’d need to get close, track the target precisely, and spray it with enough rounds to knock it down. That’s easier said than done against a small drone the size of a surfboard. Missiles, even old Soviet R-73s or Western Sidewinders, give you much better odds.
I also appreciate these articles. I don’t understand the technology but I’ve noted several times in my writings of the innovativeness of the Ukrainian people & you’ve just proved my point. Slava Ukraini!!
I enjoy these hardware articles, Wes. But you've become one of the proponents of the every-sentence-of-the-article-is-a-clickbait-headline school of writing. OK, there are others who do it even more densely, but the impact wears thinner with every overstatement, e.g. “Nothing is sacred; everything is weaponized” which doesn't actually mean much, and besides you've already explained it. With less desperation to retain followers, you'll retain more of them.
Thanks for reading, Roger. It really depends on my mood and how caffeinated I am when I write a particular article. Some pieces are decidedly more subdued. Others are celebratory of a new piece of technology. I can tell you that I write how I speak, so I would likely annoy you were we to ever meet in person. lol. Have a great Air Force day!
Yes, you're right, Roger. Wes can get a little arch. Nevertheless, his grammar is better than most, he writes about things others don't, and he has a good grasp of dramatic phrasing: "...aerodynamic charisma of a dump truck." I respect his style.
Probably there are lots of “old Mc Donalds” around to man these things.
Great article. I think the title deserves an award!
Slava Ukraini!
Love your enthusiastic take on Ukrainian ingenuity, some of the best writing on this platform. Thanks. 🇨🇦 🇺🇦 🇺🇸 🚀🚀
I had thought that the problem of using fighter jets to combat drones is that they are too fast in comparison which makes it more dangerous to the pilot (plus the relative cost of a jet vs the drones they are destroying).
Are these crop dusters somewhat faster and more maneuverable than the drones they are facing? And if so, could they be outfitted with machine guns and hunt the drones like WW1 & WW2 fighters?
Great question, Conor. Short answer: yes, Ukraine’s converted crop dusters are faster and more maneuverable than the Iranian-made Shahed drones they’re hunting. The Shahed cruises at around 115–120 mph (190 km/h) with the agility of a flying refrigerator. The Zlin crop duster Ukraine modified can hit closer to 180 mph (290 km/h), with better climb and turn performance. So in theory, they’ve got the speed and maneuvering advantage.
But here’s the catch: unlike WW1 and WW2 fighters, these aircraft don’t have radar or sophisticated targeting systems. Spotting a small, low-flying drone visually, especially at night, is a needle-in-a-haystack problem. That’s why Ukraine strapped infrared-guided missiles to them instead of just machine guns. A missile seeker head can pick up the drone’s heat signature, lock on, and do the hard work of aiming while the pilot keeps the drone in the cone of fire. Could you mount machine guns and dogfight drones like it’s 1917? Technically, yes, but practically, it’s not ideal. Even with guns, you’d need to get close, track the target precisely, and spray it with enough rounds to knock it down. That’s easier said than done against a small drone the size of a surfboard. Missiles, even old Soviet R-73s or Western Sidewinders, give you much better odds.
🤦🏻♂️ I forgot most of the drone attacks happen at night.
Thanks for your answer.
Awesome article, brother!! I hadn’t heard about this yet.
“And if you’re a Shahed pilot, well, bad news, bro.”
I thought they were unmanned, hence, drones.
“Shahed launcher and expeditor” doesn’t have the same ring to it
I also appreciate these articles. I don’t understand the technology but I’ve noted several times in my writings of the innovativeness of the Ukrainian people & you’ve just proved my point. Slava Ukraini!!
I enjoy these hardware articles, Wes. But you've become one of the proponents of the every-sentence-of-the-article-is-a-clickbait-headline school of writing. OK, there are others who do it even more densely, but the impact wears thinner with every overstatement, e.g. “Nothing is sacred; everything is weaponized” which doesn't actually mean much, and besides you've already explained it. With less desperation to retain followers, you'll retain more of them.
Thanks for reading, Roger. It really depends on my mood and how caffeinated I am when I write a particular article. Some pieces are decidedly more subdued. Others are celebratory of a new piece of technology. I can tell you that I write how I speak, so I would likely annoy you were we to ever meet in person. lol. Have a great Air Force day!
Yes, you're right, Roger. Wes can get a little arch. Nevertheless, his grammar is better than most, he writes about things others don't, and he has a good grasp of dramatic phrasing: "...aerodynamic charisma of a dump truck." I respect his style.