Russia and Ukraine use old anti-aircraft guns to deal with low-flying aircraft

The Russian and Ukrainian militaries both found that they needed a lot of air defense systems, including old anti-aircraft guns, to deal with jets, helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and missiles in the skies over Ukraine.

Anti-aircraft artillery of the Ukrainian army. Photo: AFP.

The economic efficiency of anti-aircraft artillery against low-altitude aircraft

Anti-aircraft artillery dates back to World War I, when machine guns and artillery were used to shoot down then-new aircraft. During World War II, half of the Allied bombers shot down over Germany were victims of “flak” – an abbreviation of the German term for anti-aircraft artillery (or anti-aircraft fire).

However, in the 1950s, the advent of fast, high-altitude fighter aircraft made anti-aircraft artillery less effective than guided missiles - capable of flying at Mach 4 and reaching altitudes of 30km.

Russia is now attacking Ukrainian cities and power plants with missile launches.UAVand cruise missiles. Ukraine uses UAVs to monitor and ambush Russian tanks and artillery.

In the new situation, using large, long-range, expensive surface-to-air missiles to intercept small, cheap UAVs is like using a knife to kill a buffalo to slaughter a chicken. The attackers' increasing reliance on slow, low-flying missiles and aircraft has caused the price of anti-aircraft artillery to "go up" again.

“Anti-aircraft artillery has been overlooked, but we can no longer ignore it,” Nick Reynolds, a land warfare expert at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), a UK think tank, told Business Insider.

Reynolds is co-author of a new RUSI study on the air war in Ukraine, which analyzes what Ukraine needs to counter the large numbers of Iranian suicide drones being used by Russia.

The study urges Western countries to send Ukraine more self-propelled anti-aircraft guns, such as the German-made Gepard, and short-range man-portable air defense systems such as the US-made Stinger.

“Generally, artillery systems are preferred over missiles due to lower cost and availability of artillery ammunition compared to surface-to-air missiles or man-portable air defence missiles,” the RUSI report said.

Russia and Ukraine both use S-60 anti-aircraft guns dating back to the 1940s. However, these weapons, as well as more modern Soviet anti-aircraft guns such as the ZSU-23-4 Shilka and 2S6 Tunguska (also used by both sides), are said to be of little use against UAVs.

RUSI's report stated: "Because Iran's Shahed-136 UAV is relatively small in size, has a low flight path, and low speed, self-propelled anti-aircraft guns such as Shilka and Tunguska have difficulty shooting down this UAV."

RUSI rates the German Gepard gun (with twin 35mm barrels) as “highly effective”.

Germany has pledged 50 Gepard guns as part of a package of Western anti-aircraft missiles and guns for Ukraine. Some experts have also urged the US to send Ukraine 20mm Vulcan guns mounted on 1960s-era M113 armored personnel carriers.

Old weapons, new dilemmas

RUSI research shows Ukraine is in an air defense dilemma.

Western-made SAMs are effective against Russian aircraft and cruise missiles, but Ukraine has not received enough surplus anti-aircraft missiles to maintain its current high rate of fire. Man-portable anti-aircraft missiles are also effective against suicide UAVs and even cruise missiles, but their short range and the 1,000-mile frontline mean that Ukraine needs large numbers of them to protect its troops at the front and its infrastructure behind them. Anti-aircraft artillery is a cost-effective solution against UAVs, but its range is limited.

Ultimately, the report concludes that the Shahed-135 UAV is “simple and not too difficult to intercept” but “most platforms that do so are either too expensive or require unacceptably large numbers that other defense missions also require.”

Older anti-aircraft guns also offer political advantages. Ukraine’s backers have been reluctant to supply some high-tech weapons, including fighter jets and long-range missiles that can strike deep into the country.Russiafor fear of causing discord with Russia.

Nevertheless, the RUSI report still argues that old-fashioned anti-aircraft guns are a safe choice. “Neither man-portable air defence missiles nor self-propelled anti-aircraft guns should be considered politically sensitive as they are basic defensive weapons that are required to protect infrastructure effectively without the need for the latest technology.”

Even when sophisticated anti-aircraft weapons are deployed, anti-aircraft guns are still useful, albeit to a more limited extent.

Anti-aircraft guns had proven deadly effective in the Middle East during the October War in 1973, when Israeli planes diving to avoid Arab SAMs were shot down en masse by Shilka and other anti-aircraft guns.

When used in conjunction with newer air defense systems, anti-aircraft guns remain highly effective against helicopters, attack aircraft, and low-altitude UAVs.

“Medium- and long-range surface-to-air missiles are most effective when complemented by a network of powerful anti-aircraft guns that can threaten any aircraft flying low to avoid high-altitude threats,” Reynolds told Insider. “Creating dilemmas for adversaries through multiple layers of defense is an essential part of an integrated air defense network.”