Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Sun 10/28/2007 View Sat 10/27/2007 View Fri 10/26/2007 View Thu 10/25/2007 View Wed 10/24/2007 View Tue 10/23/2007 View Mon 10/22/2007
1
2007-10-28 China-Japan-Koreas
Lack of fuel grounds North Korean Air Force's 300 biplanes
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by gromky 2007-10-28 12:23|| || Front Page|| [11134 views ]  Top

#1 Not hand grenandes, commandoes.
Posted by Thomas Woof 2007-10-28 13:11||   2007-10-28 13:11|| Front Page Top

#2 That's really pathetic.
Posted by gorb 2007-10-28 13:15||   2007-10-28 13:15|| Front Page Top

#3 It's really kind of sad.
Posted by bigjim-ky 2007-10-28 13:30||   2007-10-28 13:30|| Front Page Top

#4 Meanwhile, somewhere in South Korea:
Posted by DMFD 2007-10-28 13:32||   2007-10-28 13:32|| Front Page Top

#5 

Snoopy is not impressed...
Posted by Raj 2007-10-28 13:34||   2007-10-28 13:34|| Front Page Top

#6 My mother HAS a WW1 "Practise" bomb, it's inert, made into a lamp and is beautiful. about 2 inches diameter and a foot long it greatly resembles those very early science fiction rocket illustrations, (Looks much like that blimp above, but slimmer, no belly bulge, four stubby fins, it's made of aluminum with a screw off nose cap of bronze, for when it gets dented supposedly)
Posted by Redneck Jim 2007-10-28 13:56||   2007-10-28 13:56|| Front Page Top

#7 The AN 2, light transport, looks like this,
Posted by GK 2007-10-28 13:59||   2007-10-28 13:59|| Front Page Top

#8 Notice the windows. Not only can you infiltrate South Korean airspace but it looks like you could drop a half-dozen special operators behind our lines with that thing.
Posted by crosspatch 2007-10-28 14:09||   2007-10-28 14:09|| Front Page Top

#9 Not to worry. Miz Rice is working on getting the fuel to NK.
Posted by g(r)omgoru 2007-10-28 14:11||   2007-10-28 14:11|| Front Page Top

#10 An-2s have seen considerable combat action. Soviet forces used them heavily in utility roles at all times, and as battlefield spotters during the Hungarian invasion of 1956 and the Afghan War of the 1980s. Apparently some An-2s were used to dump riot gases on Chinese forces during border squabbles in the late 1960s.

The North Vietnamese used the type in their war with the Americans, employing it to haul cargos, sometimes into South Vietnam, and on occasion as an improvised attack aircraft. US records suggest the An-2 was not well-suited to the strike role, since mentions of encounters with armed An-2s usually state they were shot down. Vietnamese An-2s were used in later conflicts as spotters and utility aircraft. An-2s have been used by North Korea to insert spies and saboteurs into South Korea. An-2s have played roles in the wars of the Balkan and Soviet successions.

During the 1960s a An-2 attempting to engage South Vietnamese naval units was shot down by a F-4 Phantom under the control of an Air Intercept Controller (AIC) on the USS Long Beach (CGN-9).
Posted by Besoeker 2007-10-28 14:25||   2007-10-28 14:25|| Front Page Top

#11 non-pressurized cabin? Another reason why they're low and slow....
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2007-10-28 14:27||   2007-10-28 14:27|| Front Page Top

#12 The cutting edge of Stalinist technology.

As fielded by this world's only dynastic communist state.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-28 15:07||   2007-10-28 15:07|| Front Page Top

#13 They could grow their own ethanol?
Posted by Skunky Glins5285">Skunky Glins5285  2007-10-28 15:22||   2007-10-28 15:22|| Front Page Top

#14 ..When I was at Kunsan AB 84-85, we were repeatedly told that our first warning that a war had started might be one of these 'outdated' aircraft dropping NKSF troops near the base, just before the air/missile strikes started. They may sound funny, but they are mostly wood and with skilled pilots at the stick stood a good chance of getting through the air defense nets and at least getting close to their targets.

Mike
Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2007-10-28 15:36||   2007-10-28 15:36|| Front Page Top

#15 Don't knock the AN-2. It can carry 15 commandos 350 miles and set down on any relatively flat surface at least 600 feet long. The Nork battle plan called for them to fly into SKor and drop a full parachute batallion deep behind the front lines. That's why they have 300+ of them.
Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot  2007-10-28 15:57|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]  2007-10-28 15:57|| Front Page Top

#16 Looks like it'd be a fun little plane for a hobbyist.
Posted by Abu Uluque6305 2007-10-28 15:58||   2007-10-28 15:58|| Front Page Top

#17 Old Patriot, that is why you never throw away old stuff like that. It is perfect for "out of the box" thinking.
Just imagine 300 plus paratroopers landing at your main C&C area right before war breaks out. Cause massive confusion for a few days at least.
Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader  2007-10-28 17:17||   2007-10-28 17:17|| Front Page Top

#18 Hey if they are still had it right about the Norks plan to infiltrate a large number of SpecOps behind the lines just before an invasion. The South Korean really feared this scenaio. Not sure of lately but they used to catch Nork Infiltraion team on a regular basis.
Posted by Cyber Sarge 2007-10-28 17:28||   2007-10-28 17:28|| Front Page Top

#19 The AN-2 is not a joke, it is a legend among aviators and aviation enthusiasts. The cabin was deliberately designed with the same cross section as the Douglas DC-3 (built in the Soviet Union as the Li-2) for compatibility on Aeroflot local routes. That is, it will seat 3 abreast with a center aisle, stand-up headroom and a lavatory. Useful load (including fuel) is on the order of 4500 pounds.

The biplane layout was a widely ridiculed anachronism when the plane was developed in the late 40s, but the AN-2 got the last laugh by remaining in production into the 1990s.

Production was transferred to PZL in Poland in the 60s and PZL still provides support for the aircraft. They have been used for almost every conceivable purpose in every part of the world and there are thousands of them still flying.

The 1000 hp Ash-62 engine is derived from the Wright R-1820 Cyclone built under license in the Soviet Union, and later Poland, from 1934 onward. They were used in dozens of different Soviet bloc aircraft. American Cyclones were under active development from the late 20s till the 60s, with output increasing from 525 to over 1500 hp during that time. They powered tens of thousands of aircraft between 1927 and the end of production in 1968. These ranged from late 20s biplanes to the S-2 Tracker and notably included the B-17 Flying Fortress.

I have flown the AN-2 and have about 30 hours in the type. It is easy to fly and responds well but is a little tail-heavy. You have to be constantly aware of its size on the ground or you'll bash something with a wing-tip, but visibility is excellent for both ground handling and take-off/ landing. Cruising speed is said to be 100 knots but it will thrum along happily at 80 or 120, depending on how much fuel you want to use.

Stall characteristics are phenomenol. It can be landed almost vertically in a strong headwind and it will actually hover in a 35 knot headwind. Fuel burn is usually 40-50 gph, but this can be reduced on long flights.
The AN-2 is not certified for commercial use in the United States primarily because PZL will not go to the effort and expense to certify the engine here. American AN-2s are therefore registered in the Experimental category and are consequently fairly rare here. In Europe and certain other areas, it is very popular for sky-diving because of its fast climb, large doors, slow drop speed, and general cost-effectiveness.
The USAF reportedly has a number of AN-2s for spec-ops in various parts of the world. They are operated by the 16th SOW at Hurlburt Field, FL.

The only thing it can't do is get somewhere in a hurry or impress the uninformed with its looks.
Posted by Lord Piltdown 2007-10-28 17:36||   2007-10-28 17:36|| Front Page Top

#20 A natural STOL one that stalled from 0 fuel. Haha.
Posted by Duh! 2007-10-28 18:19||   2007-10-28 18:19|| Front Page Top

#21 The AN-2 is a great plane. My mechanic works on one at the place where I tie down my plane every spring. It is a no-frills real stick-and-rudder bush plane. No curved, formed windshield, but rather pieces of flat plexiglass formed into shapes that overall are curved and streamlined, well, as streamlined as an old Soviet plane can be.

AN-2
Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul  2007-10-28 18:38||   2007-10-28 18:38|| Front Page Top

#22 Lord Piltdown---send me an email.
Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul  2007-10-28 18:39||   2007-10-28 18:39|| Front Page Top

#23 that said - how good against modern AA fire, radar intercepts, et al..... flying death traps
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2007-10-28 19:10||   2007-10-28 19:10|| Front Page Top

#24 Commodore Frank----It is more logistical than combat. Sort of a Purple Heart Box in today's modern battlefield.
Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul  2007-10-28 19:20||   2007-10-28 19:20|| Front Page Top

#25 Thanx for the pic RG.

It's an Iwan style Westland Lysander (http://www.warbirdalley.com/lysander.htm), I always loved this type of plane.
Posted by Drive by lurker 2007-10-28 19:40||   2007-10-28 19:40|| Front Page Top

#26 Sounds like it's designed to be used before the battle gets to the field. It's quite comforting to know the North Korean fleet is grounded for the duration except for a real emergency. That, and the revelations about Syria's little mess should be causing amusing conversations in Mr. Kim's drafty halls of power.
Posted by trailing wife">trailing wife  2007-10-28 19:55||   2007-10-28 19:55|| Front Page Top

#27 Hey, look, I never said that a biplane wasn't a good airplane. I was just implying that it's ridiculous in this day and age to have them in your military, much less a whole fleet of them.
Posted by gromky 2007-10-28 19:59||   2007-10-28 19:59|| Front Page Top

#28 An even better craft when your pushing it in the field and making motor noises with your mouth.
Posted by Slappy 2007-10-28 20:18||   2007-10-28 20:18|| Front Page Top

#29 hmmmm... I refuse to apologize for ridiculing our enemies for using bi-planes in a modern war, does that make me bad? Does that make my denigrators stupid? You make the call....
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2007-10-28 20:38||   2007-10-28 20:38|| Front Page Top

#30 It's not taking the place of a fighter, Gromsky, it's meant to take the place of a troop transport. Kinda like what we use helicopters for.
Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2007-10-28 20:40||   2007-10-28 20:40|| Front Page Top

#31 hmmmm... I refuse to apologize for ridiculing our enemies for using bi-planes in a modern war, does that make me bad? Does that make my denigrators stupid? You make the call....

Well, gee, Frank, if the fact of having two wings outweighs any realistic consideration of function and capability, then yeah, I think the call is pretty obvious.

This isn't a Sopwith Camel. This reminds of the numbskulls who ridicule the TU-95 Bear for having propellers, as though this alone puts it in the same class of capability as, say, a Mitsubishi Betty or a B-24, with no consideration for what it really is and will really do.

As for the AN-2's vulnerability in its assumed role of infiltration transport, how is it significantly more vulnerable than a helicopter? A chopper with the same payload would have more power and therefore a larger IR signature. It is also a lot noisier.
Are we stupid for using C-130s and the C-27s, neither of which has fighter performance either?

This is ridiculous, but it would become deadly if we saw the same kind of silliness and jumping to conclusions among military planners. That kind of thinking was prevalent before Pearl Harbor, in fact.
Posted by Lord Piltdown 2007-10-28 21:02||   2007-10-28 21:02|| Front Page Top

#32 These guys have the job of flying so low they collect branches on the landing gear, and slow enough that they look like a fast car.

In a war they become an easy target. But if they are used in their normal role of dropping a sick of commandoes off BEFORE the shooting starts, or just as it starts, then 300 of these would be very useful - and hard to catch them all if they go out and come back in from an unexpected angle in a surprise attack scenario.

Its simply a case of right tool for the job. WOudl IO recommend that we use them? No, we dont do mass sneak attacks wiht hundreds of SF types and consider them disposable.

But thats not how they swing it in Little Kim's land. They cannot top our tech, so the only they they can do is look for ways arouind it by using our biases against us.
Posted by OldSpook 2007-10-28 21:29||   2007-10-28 21:29|| Front Page Top

#33 Gee "Lord Piltdown". perhaps you'd be willing to pilot or paricipate in this flying coffin? I have no doubt it's a fine flying machine for it's period, to pretend it's an active war piece is to spin Zimbobwe's tank force, nice try, lose credibility... next nym?
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2007-10-28 21:42||   2007-10-28 21:42|| Front Page Top

#34 OK - you guys have convinced me. North Korea really has something going with these biplanes other than an utter lack of capability. How can the USAF get their hands on these wonder weapons, these workhorses of transport? If we cut a few V-22s, I'm sure we can afford some.
Posted by gromky 2007-10-28 22:03||   2007-10-28 22:03|| Front Page Top

#35 #29 hmmmm... I refuse to apologize for ridiculing our enemies for using bi-planes in a modern war, does that make me bad? Does that make my denigrators stupid? You make the call....



Mr Frank G,

HA!

You Western Bourgeois types can laugh but I invented the AN2's Back Up Power Source, Yes A Redundant Robust Rubber Band System!

HA!

I can assure you and any phony Western Powers that I will get the last laugh!

did I say HA! yet?

BTW the stinking pilots aren't flying, so I put them on Half Rations!
<:(
Posted by Kim Jong-il ">Kim Jong-il  2007-10-28 22:12||   2007-10-28 22:12|| Front Page Top

#36 *giggle*
Posted by trailing wife">trailing wife  2007-10-28 22:21||   2007-10-28 22:21|| Front Page Top

#37 Meeester Piltdown,

You've streched your credibility trying to compare a C-130 & C-27J to a AN-2s.

Both Aircraft are so much more capable than a AN-2 in Speed, Ceiling, anti-AA systems and can fly after one engine is knocked out.
Posted by Red Dawg">Red Dawg  2007-10-28 22:31||   2007-10-28 22:31|| Front Page Top

#38 and neither one can land in 600 feet.
Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2007-10-28 23:15||   2007-10-28 23:15|| Front Page Top

#39 and for the price Kim spends on those planes you could probably get four-five C130's.
Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2007-10-28 23:16||   2007-10-28 23:16|| Front Page Top

#40 Y'all need to ask y'allselves, if these things are so unbelievably inferior, how come none have been shot down to date, in spite of penetrating S. Korean airspace from time to time?
Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2007-10-28 23:24||   2007-10-28 23:24|| Front Page Top

#41 If Kimmie plans an invasion with special forces, he would use or crash 300 AN-2s and it would not make any difference to him. If he can insert 3000 to 4500 troops in, it is appropriate technology for him. The pilots could go in with the troops or they could die. No big deal to Kimmie. It is a lot cheaper to maintain AN-2s than a fleet of helos for the Norks.
Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul  2007-10-28 23:42||   2007-10-28 23:42|| Front Page Top

23:42 Alaska Paul
23:34 g(r)omgoru
23:24 Abdominal Snowman
23:16 Abdominal Snowman
23:15 Abdominal Snowman
23:14 ryuge
23:10 ryuge
23:08 Rich W
22:52 Zenster
22:35 Jan
22:31 Red Dawg
22:24 Anonymoose
22:21 trailing wife
22:20 trailing wife
22:13 trailing wife
22:12 Kim Jong-il
22:03 gromky
21:48 Crazyhorse
21:42 Frank G
21:39 JosephMendiola
21:32 JosephMendiola
21:29 OldSpook
21:19 Zenster
21:19 Duh!









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com