Arming a light attack / jet trainer (Aero L-39 Albatros) to intercept & shoot down swarms of low-cost drones

[Supreme Allied Condista]

The Aero L-39 Albatros light attack variant, L-39-ZA, needs a modification so that it can intercept and shoot down swarms of low-cost drones, like the Shahed-136, which flies at 185 km/h, aiming most carefully by flying at the same speed as the drones while firing its 23mm cannon, which it can do because its stall speed with flaps extended is 158 km/h to 163km/h

Wings-level stall speed ranges from 88 to 100 KIAS, depending on flap setting.

L-39 Albatros Pilot Report, by Buck Wyndham, L-39 Instructor Pilot

Its stall speed is 158km/h.

L-39 Albatros Trainer / Ground Attack Aircraft

But -

"Firing is not possible at a speed lower than 350 km/h, in order not to suck exhaust fumes into the engine when firing."

quote from The L-39 website, mostly in Czech, so google-translated into English.

So if I add custom "muzzle brakes" to the twin gun 23m calibre barrels, ejecting the gunshot fumes downwards, that should solve the risk of fumes being sucked into the air intake, allow the automatic block on firing to be safely disengaged, the L-39-ZA to fly slow and shoot at the same time.




OK, that's the easy part of the design project. What I also want to do is to design an upgrade for L-39 jet trainers to turn them into a ideal, purpose-designed drone hunter-killer aircraft.



The L-39-ZA light attack variant's 23mm cannon only carries 150 rounds limiting the number of drones that can be shot down in one sortie but to increase the number of rounds without increasing the weight of ammunition you'd have to use a smaller calibre machine gun and ammunition.

12.7mm or .50 inch calibre is what most American fighters used in their mostly subsonic dogfights in WW2 so I'm sure that that smaller calibre is plenty powerful enough for range and damage against a slow-flying drone. The 23mm cannon is better for ground strafing but I think it is overkill for shooting down drones. So I'm recommending the .50 Caliber Gatling Gun from General Dynamics, Ordnance and Tactical Systems with 500+ rounds of ammunition and I think I am good for weight.

In this case, to avoid gun fumes being sucked into the jet engine, a muzzle break couldn't be so easily directed to exhaust only downwards because the barrels in a Gatling gun are rotating so the solution I propose is to angle the whole gun downwards at 30 degrees as is routinely done by the SPPU-22 pods, which are used for other aircraft using the same 23mm cannon as is used in the L-39-ZA for the purposes of strafing ground targets.





So then you'd need to attach a camera to the gun-sights & fix the gun at a downward angle of ~30° as per the SPPU-22, with multiple advantages -

avoids sucking gun fumes into the engine at low speed
firing down makes the drones a bigger target
both L-39 pilots can be gunners

OK, well I don't do this kind of thing for a living so if there are any professionals or gifted amateurs out there who want to review my design and offer a few pointers, please do.

Catch up with me on Twitter where I am @SCondista.

 

[tomo pauk]

Have you considered the AA missiles? The R-60M are dozen-a-dime, and can be cued via the helm-mounted sight.

 

[riggerrob]

Last year, Saudis used manned jet fighters to intercept drones fired by Yemenis Houthi rebels at a refinery in Saudi Arabia. Using full-sized, manned fighters to chase drones was considered over-kill and too expensive.
Mind you, the alternative - a wrecked refinery - might be even more expensive.

 

[TomS]

Last year, Saudis used manned jet fighters to intercept drones fired by Yemenis Houthi rebels at a refinery in Saudi Arabia. Using full-sized, manned fighters to chase drones was considered over-kill and too expensive.
Mind you, the alternative - a wrecked refinery - might be even more expensive.

It's probably the best solution they can find because the defended areas are quite large. Cruise missile defense needs elevated sensors, if not also elevated shooters.

The trouble I see using a slow plane to counter drones is that getting to the right intercept geometry is hard, even against a relatively slow target like Shahed-136. And it gets even worse if you have to set up for a tail chase with guns, and then do it over and over again.

Maybe APKWS, which has demonstrated an ability to engage air targets.

 

[tomo pauk]

Combine the Hydra 70 with the front section from the Stinger and add the proximity fuse? Sorta fire-and-forget counterpart for the APKWS.

 

[riggerrob]

Dear Tom S,
That is why most modern jet fighters have air brakes ... to slow down during the later stages of interception. They still need to be able to fly supersonic to intercept a drone on the far side of their area of operations, but once close, need to slow down to get more seconds on the target ... especially with guns.

 

[TomS]

Dear Tom S,
That is why most modern jet fighters have air brakes ... to slow down during the later stages of interception. They still need to be able to fly supersonic to intercept a drone on the far side of their area of operations, but once close, need to slow down to get more seconds on the target ... especially with guns.

It's not getting slow that is the problem, it's getting into a good guns position first. And then doing it repeatedly with a platform like the proposed Albatross that isn't many times faster than the target.

To use the Saudi example, they're not using guns much, if at all, even with F-15s that do have a huge speed advantage, because the hit probability is terrible and it takes way too long to position for attacks in on multiple targets. They're actually mostly using AMRAAM, because the IR presentation of small drones like these is not great even for modern Sidewinders.

This is likely why MHTK and other C-UAS interceptors are radar guided one-way or another. Even a fairly low-power radar can see small drones much better than an IR seeker.

Combine the Hydra 70 with the front section from the Stinger and add the proximity fuse? Sorta fire-and-forget counterpart for the APKWS.

No need to reinvent the wheel here. Air-to-Air Stinger already exists, and the Stinger back end is already a 70mm rocket., just different from Hydra. But see above; it may be that RF rather than IR is preferred for these kinds of targets.

 

[Supreme Allied Condista]

Have you considered the AA missiles? The R-60M are dozen-a-dime, and can be cued via the helm-mounted sight.

Sure. The L-39 can lift off carrying another 200Kg of weapons on its wing pylons - so for example 4 x R-60Ms could be carried and used to shoot down the first 4 drones in the swarm.

The question is what do you do after that? That's when arming a light attack aircraft like the L-39 with a machine gun or cannon could make all the difference between shooting down all the drones and some getting through to their targets.

 

[GTX]

Using something like a L-39 to shoot down drones would be ridiculously hard and expensive. Much better to use ground based defences (be that soft or hard kill) or another drone.

 

[Supreme Allied Condista]

Last year, Saudis used manned jet fighters to intercept drones fired by Yemenis Houthi rebels at a refinery in Saudi Arabia. Using full-sized, manned fighters to chase drones was considered over-kill and too expensive.
Mind you, the alternative - a wrecked refinery - might be even more expensive.

It can also be more dangerous for the full-sized manned fighters after the pilot has fired all his missiles successful but then tries to shoot down drones using the fighter's fixed cannon because of the high relative speed between the fast jet and slow drone could cause the pilot to career into the exploding debris of the drone - unable to pull away in time.

Ukraine says its MiG-29 jet ‘downed by kamikaze drone shrapnel’

 

[bobtdwarf]

This might be a better job for Cessna's as in civil light aircraft with a gunner in the back seat; a medium machine gun should be able to do the job. You just need something fast enough to pull along side and give it a burst I would think

 

[Fluff]

.50 cal MG £2000
Camera system £2000
Remote control system £5000
Arduino £300

Call it £10K

A team of 2 men, could look after 20 systems.

Gives you 40 miles of your line defended.

Radar system would be another few grand, but we arent looking too far.

 

[jstar]

Hydra 70 flechette?

 

[tomo pauk]

Sure. The L-39 can lift off carrying another 200Kg of weapons on its wing pylons - so for example 4 x R-60Ms could be carried and used to shoot down the first 4 drones in the swarm.

The question is what do you do after that? That's when arming a light attack aircraft like the L-39 with a machine gun or cannon could make all the difference between shooting down all the drones and some getting through to their targets.

45 years ago, it was capable of carrying 1150 kg worth of bombs/rockets. From Wikipedia:

L-39ZO (Z for Zbraně – weapons) Interim weapon trainer variant for export. Four pylons stressed for 500 kg (1,100 lb) (inboard) and 250 kg (550 lb) (outboard), with total external load of 1,150 kg (2,500 lb).[20] First flew 25 June 1975, with initial deliveries to Iraq in 1977. 337 built.

This version carried no cannon.

Further on, again from Wikipedia:

L-39ZA Significantly upgraded L-39ZO for armed training and light attack, employing sturdier landing gear, a higher payload (total 1,290 kg (2,844 lb))[20] and notably provision for a GSh-23L 23-millimeter twin-barreled cannon attached in a conformal pod under the pilots' compartment, having a 150-round magazine within the airframe. Outer pylons wired to carry K-13 or R-60 air-to-air missiles. Two prototypes, with first flying on 29 September 1976. 208 aircraft delivered.

I'd say a lot of small AA missiles can be carried on a L-39. That are supposed to fly in units (pairs, flights, squadrons hopefully) in order to deal with mass attack.

 

[Supreme Allied Condista]

Last year, Saudis used manned jet fighters to intercept drones fired by Yemenis Houthi rebels at a refinery in Saudi Arabia. Using full-sized, manned fighters to chase drones was considered over-kill and too expensive.
Mind you, the alternative - a wrecked refinery - might be even more expensive.

It's probably the best solution they can find because the defended areas are quite large. Cruise missile defense needs elevated sensors, if not also elevated shooters.

The trouble I see using a slow plane to counter drones is that getting to the right intercept geometry is hard, even against a relatively slow target like Shahed-136. And it gets even worse if you have to set up for a tail chase with guns, and then do it over and over again.

Maybe APKWS, which has demonstrated an ability to engage air targets.

Talking about the right intercept geometry for a tail chase with guns, here's one I did earlier.



A fully loaded L-39ZA light attack jet can reach a maximum speed in level flight of 610 km/h at sea level - which is 3.3 times faster than the 185 km/h the Shahed-136 flies at.

It's the drone that is "slow", not the light attack jet. Not as fast as a supersonic jet but maybe of more use when it gets there.

The L-39 is favoured by aerobatics display teams so in the right hands it could be quickly setting up for the next drone to be shot down.

The price of a APKWS is comparable to the price of a Shahed drone - so that's an improvement on the price of some of the missiles which have been used to shoot these drones down.

APKWS needs an operator to highlight the target with a laser designator so I'm not sure what advantage that offers over heat-seeking missiles which are fire-and-forget?

 

[Supreme Allied Condista]

Using something like a L-39 to shoot down drones would be ridiculously hard and expensive. Much better to use ground based defences (be that soft or hard kill) or another drone.

For those drones which appear within range of ground based systems - Gepard SPAAG, for example - interceptor aircraft not required and would be ridiculous and be more of a danger to themselves getting hit by friendly-fire.

But ground-based systems are not everywhere and so an air-to-air defence is needed to plug the gaps in the ground-based defences.

 

[Supreme Allied Condista]

This might be a better job for Cessna's as in civil light aircraft with a gunner in the back seat; a medium machine gun should be able to do the job. You just need something fast enough to pull along side and give it a burst I would think

Cessnas etc. are not a bad idea and one that has been suggested to me often.

The point to note is that the Shahed-136 warhead is about 40Kg and so you don't want to get too close when shooting at it in case it blows you up.

The heavy machine guns like the .50 inch 12.7mm calibre guns have a significantly further range than the medium machine guns - 7.62mm so I would advise against the medium.

 

[bobtdwarf]

This might be a better job for Cessna's as in civil light aircraft with a gunner in the back seat; a medium machine gun should be able to do the job. You just need something fast enough to pull along side and give it a burst I would think

Cessnas etc. are not a bad idea and one that has been suggested to me often.

The point to note is that the Shahed-136 warhead is about 40Kg and so you don't want to get too close when shooting at it in case it blows you up.

The heavy machine guns like the .50 inch 12.7mm calibre guns have a significantly further range than the medium machine guns - 7.62mm so I would advise against the medium.

12.7's would be preferable... there are a number of single engine COIN props with side door min guns of varying calibers that could be useful.. heck OV-10's might not suck at this either

 

[tomo pauk]

I'd also suggest here the turboprop military trainers, like the Tucano or Pilatus types. Very frugal wrt. cost of flying hour and maintenance vs. flying hour, two seater by default (backseater can operate sensors' suite while pilot does the flying and killing - yes, same goes with the L-39 or Hawk), the Stinger/Mistral/Igla will have less problems with high speed of the slipstream, can carry a pair of .50 or 20mm guns, and something like AA-8 is not too heavy for them. A small radar pod will be needed. HCMS for the pilot?
Such an aircraft will also be in position of launching the MANPADS against faster bogies, like the subsonic cruise missiles, better than the infantrymen on the ground. Granted, such outfitted L-39 or Hawk is even better. A nod for carrying a mix of better AAMs (IRIS-T, MICA IR, AA-11, AIM-9L/X) and AA-8s or MANPADS - talk 2 + 4-6?

 

[Nik]

By analogy with RAF experience tackling V1 'Buzz-bombs', you do not want to be close behind when you shoot them.

Sounds like a job for a tail-gunner, perhaps with AI to lock IR / Vis sensors onto target: Over-fly, gun-pod acquires auto-lock, engage...

Post gun-camera footage on Social Media to cheer up locals...

Yes, yes, the next drones will then be re-programmed to zig-zag rather than fly straight and level. Gun-pod AI learns, recognises and anticipates evasion pattern, lets target fly into kill-zone...

 

[Supreme Allied Condista]

Sure. The L-39 can lift off carrying another 200Kg of weapons on its wing pylons - so for example 4 x R-60Ms could be carried and used to shoot down the first 4 drones in the swarm.

The question is what do you do after that? That's when arming a light attack aircraft like the L-39 with a machine gun or cannon could make all the difference between shooting down all the drones and some getting through to their targets.

45 years ago, it was capable of carrying 1150 kg worth of bombs/rockets. From Wikipedia:

L-39ZO (Z for Zbraně – weapons) Interim weapon trainer variant for export. Four pylons stressed for 500 kg (1,100 lb) (inboard) and 250 kg (550 lb) (outboard), with total external load of 1,150 kg (2,500 lb).[20] First flew 25 June 1975, with initial deliveries to Iraq in 1977. 337 built.

This version carried no cannon.

Further on, again from Wikipedia:

L-39ZA Significantly upgraded L-39ZO for armed training and light attack, employing sturdier landing gear, a higher payload (total 1,290 kg (2,844 lb))[20] and notably provision for a GSh-23L 23-millimeter twin-barreled cannon attached in a conformal pod under the pilots' compartment, having a 150-round magazine within the airframe. Outer pylons wired to carry K-13 or R-60 air-to-air missiles. Two prototypes, with first flying on 29 September 1976. 208 aircraft delivered.

I'd say a lot of small AA missiles can be carried on a L-39. That are supposed to fly in units (pairs, flights, squadrons hopefully) in order to deal with mass attack.

Thanks. Here's the data I misquoted.

• L-39ZA weights and outputs are given for the following configuration:
  
  • one pilot
  • installed GŠ-23 cannon with cartridges
  • 2 suspended bombs of 100 kg each
  • 2 additional tanks of 350 liters each

Which was just one example out of many possible configurations carrying heavier loads.

So I will quote it in full for future reference.





My question "what do you do after your sortie runs out of missiles carried and there are drones still flying or what do you do if the country runs out of money to buy more missiles?" remains?

I think aircraft with machine guns is the cost-effective solution for shooting down slow, cheap drones - though limited to certain places only - well away from the front line and Russian air defences - and steering clear of Ukraine's own active ground-to-air defences.

 

[tomo pauk]

My question "what do you do after your sortie runs out of missiles carried and there are drones still flying or what do you do if the country runs out of money to buy more missiles?" remains?

I think aircraft with machine guns is the cost-effective solution for shooting down slow, cheap drones - though limited to certain places only - well away from the front line and Russian air defences - and steering clear of Ukraine's own active ground-to-air defences.

Nobody forbade the light attack-trainer aircraft to carry both guns and missiles.
6 missiles might give you 5 kills. One gun/cannon might give you two kills if you're amazing shooter? There is also no need to slow down in order to shoot a missile, and in one go several drones can be attacked.

Shooting the drones with MANPADS is a cost-effective solution. So is shooting them down with AA missiles produced years, or many years ago. Especially if the alternative is that drone(s) destroy a powerplant, factory or residential building.

 

[Supreme Allied Condista]

By analogy with RAF experience tackling V1 'Buzz-bombs', you do not want to be close behind when you shoot them.

Sounds like a job for a tail-gunner, perhaps with AI to lock IR / Vis sensors onto target: Over-fly, gun-pod acquires auto-lock, engage...

Post gun-camera footage on Social Media to cheer up locals...

Yes, yes, the next drones will then be re-programmed to zig-zag rather than fly straight and level. Gun-pod AI learns, recognises and anticipates evasion pattern, lets target fly into kill-zone...

V1 warhead was 850 Kg at least 16 to 20 times the weight of that of a Shahed-136 - 30Kg to 50 Kg.

The safe distance behind a V1 850 Kg warhead would be a lot further away than the safe distance behind a Shahed-136.

The highest scoring fighter pilot in the world, German Major Erich Hartmann, set the wing guns (later cannon) of his Bf 109 to converge at 50 m (160 ft) because of his preference for waiting to attack until very near his opponent. - Gun Harmonisation, Wikipedia

However there is simply no need to get within 50 metres of a Shahed-136 to shoot it down because unlike in a dog fight the drones fly straight and level and so you can afford to stay further back - miss a few rounds before you hit it.

Do you think "start shooting at 500 metres from the Shahed and if you haven't got it by 300 metres go around for another attack vector pass rather than risk getting any closer" would be too risky, too cautious or just about right?

 

[Supreme Allied Condista]

My question "what do you do after your sortie runs out of missiles carried and there are drones still flying or what do you do if the country runs out of money to buy more missiles?" remains?

I think aircraft with machine guns is the cost-effective solution for shooting down slow, cheap drones - though limited to certain places only - well away from the front line and Russian air defences - and steering clear of Ukraine's own active ground-to-air defences.

Nobody forbade the light attack-trainer aircraft to carry both guns and missiles.
6 missiles might give you 5 kills. One gun/cannon might give you two kills if you're amazing shooter? There is also no need to slow down in order to shoot a missile, and in one go several drones can be attacked.

Shooting the drones with MANPADS is a cost-effective solution. So is shooting them down with AA missiles produced years, or many years ago. Especially if the alternative is that drone(s) destroy a powerplant, factory or residential building.

Why do you say only the "two kills from a gun/ cannon"? If you are carrying 500 rounds of .50 calibre ammo isn't there the possibility to shoot down a lot more than 2?

 

[tomo pauk]

Why do you say only the "two kills from a gun/ cannon"? If you are carrying 500 rounds of .50 calibre ammo isn't there the possibility to shoot down a lot more than 2?

Back in ww2, Luftwaffe reckoned that hit probability against the B-17 was 5%; we'd agree that B-17 is a wee bit bigger than a drone. So the every 20th burst will hit home. One-second burst from the GAU-19 at 1000 rd/min = 16-17 rounds. 500 rds / 16.5 = 30 one-second bursts.
I'd reiterate that it will take a darned good shooter to kill more than two drones before the ammo is out.

 

[bobtdwarf]

anyone know if the drones motor is fuel injected or uses a carb? Silly idea about using plain old water out of a drogue to drown the sucker: Engines like people die if you drown them.

 

[Supreme Allied Condista]

Why do you say only the "two kills from a gun/ cannon"? If you are carrying 500 rounds of .50 calibre ammo isn't there the possibility to shoot down a lot more than 2?

Back in ww2, Luftwaffe reckoned that hit probability against the B-17 was 5%; we'd agree that B-17 is a wee bit bigger than a drone.

The B-17 was armed for self-defence against German fighters with no less than 13 x .50 calibre machine guns. Hence the haste and the distance from which those German rounds were fired, reducing the hit rate.

It will be different for light attack jets operating in the rear. Yes the drones will be small but additional means can be employed to-assist targeting - LED spot-lights, remote cameras with telescopic and laser gun sights etc. to compensate for the small size of target.

So the every 20th burst will hit home.

I think that's pessimistic but thanks for your opinion.

One-second burst from the GAU-19 at 1000 rd/min = 16-17 rounds. 500 rds / 16.5 = 30 one-second bursts.
I'd reiterate that it will take a darned good shooter to kill more than two drones before the ammo is out

But if the aimed bursts are 3 rounds each and it takes only 3 bursts and a total of 9 rounds on average to shoot down one drone then

500 rounds / 9 rounds/drone = 55 drones shot down.

 

[Nik]

My V1 shoot-down analogy, respecting warhead size, was that piston-engined fighter aircraft 'often' emerged inverted, and peppered with debris.

IIRC, Jet engines have a much greater tendency to ingest FOD-fare, and a much lower tolerance for damage...

I'm not saying 'Do not engage with front guns', but 'tail-gunner' shoot-downs would be far less traumatic...

Due Care, please ??

 

[flateric]

Can't you just use something much cheaper and handy for hunting dumb swarms instead of jet on a verge of stall speeds? Like Hind for example.

 

[tomo pauk]

Can't you just use something much cheaper and handy for hunting dumb swarms instead of jet on a verge of stall speeds? Like Hind for example.

A light helicopter will do. Strap a small, modern radar on something like OH-58, several pairs of MANPADS, and go drone hunting.
A similar outfit on a turboprop trainer will also do. Even the tiny airforces have these trainers.

 

[bobtdwarf]

The more I think about this the more I like a mix of light civil aviation using gun pods and OV-10's who can have a rear gunner as well as a 20mm gun pod on the centerline.

The light civil aviation has the advantage of allowing a whole lot of older Western owner/pilots to volunteer if they wish

 

[kaiserd]

I think much of the discussion above is rather misconceived.

If you are dealing with large numbers of relatively cheap drones/ cruise missiles you can’t realistically pick a relatively slow aircraft and engagement with guns as the ideal approach. You have a limited time-scale to shoot down these incoming targets and you don’t have the time for the relatively slow aircraft to repeatedly catch up with widely dispersed aerial targets and make large numbers of repeated deliberate gun runs. And what happens if this is all occurring in bad weather or conditions of low light or darkness? Mark 1 eyeballs aren’t going to cut it.

Beyond scope for better ground based defences, there may be scope for a niche of smaller lower cost air to air missiles (potentially radar or combined radar/heat-seaking, based on combat experience) specifically designed for the anti-drone role and that can be carried, in larger numbers than AMRAAMs and Sidewinders and their direct equivalents, by existing state of the art fighter aircraft that already have the performance and sensors to identify, reach and attack such drones across dispersed flight paths and locations in all weather conditions.
And such missiles would reduce the cost of killing each drone/ cruise missile without sacrificing mission effectiveness.

A land based variant of such a missile may also have a role.

You could also potentially use such missiles from sub-fighter performance aircraft but you would still need that aircraft to have equivalents avionics (radar, plus IR or equivalent tracking system/ pod) as a state of the art fighter to be able to locate and engage such targets (and the relative lack of performance would still detract from effectiveness in this anti-drone role).

 

[TomcatViP]

Aero flies first production standard L-39NG light attack jet trainer

Aero Vodochody has flown for the first time a production standard L-39NG (Next Generation) aircraft, the Czech manufacturer announced on 24 April.

www.janes.com

 

[Anduriel]

I'd say that as to shoot Shaheds and other drones like that one the best system would be a... Pantsir with new small missile - like SAM.
The reason is simple - Pantsir has simple radiocommand missiles that have little of electronics as possible thus lowering cost of single unit. You don't need ultrafast speeds for missile to shoot drone, so smaller engine would be enough, as well as smaller warhead.
PESA array in mm band allows multi-target capability good detection of small targets (short wavelength).
For shooting drone in transit to target any combat plane or even helicopter would do.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Replace the 2x23mm with 1x30mm, add proximity fuzed ammunition. Add a switch to turn the engine ignitors on when you pull the gun trigger, and leave the ignitors on for ~0.5sec after firing stops.

 

[carvalho2008]

The best plane for this type of mission must be the Super Tucano

It has a better flight hour cost

Flight time of up to 6 hours, which is essential for this type of mission

It already has two internal .50 machine guns integrated into the wings.

It already has integration with AIM-9L air-to-air missiles

The best weapon would be 70 mm rockets with proximity fuses. It would be very cheap and could carry two pods of 7, 12 or 17 rockets each, ranging from a total of 14 to 34 rockets in total.

It is also already integrated with APKWS if you need 14 rockets with surgical precision at a cost of US$ 20 thousand per laser-guided rocket. The Americans successfully tested the APKWS on the F16 against cruise missiles, which should be predicted since both cruise-missile and drones would be similar.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The best plane for this type of mission must be the Super Tucano

Is it fast enough to get from wherever it was loitering to where the drones are?

Does it carry sensors to guide the pilot onto the drones from a distance?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Why do you say only the "two kills from a gun/ cannon"? If you are carrying 500 rounds of .50 calibre ammo isn't there the possibility to shoot down a lot more than 2?

In WW2, it usually took ~50 rounds to get the first hits on a fighter sized target; between wind, lead, target maneuvers, own-ship maneuvers, and ordinary gun dispersion. 4-8 guns, all shooting at 900rpm (for the .50cal AN-M2s), delivering 60x-120x rounds per second total. Further, all the guns were usually set to converge into a "single point*," usually 200 yards ahead of the plane. The exception to the convergence rule is the P-38, where all the guns were in the nose already and set to fire parallel to each other.

Call it a half-second burst per target to get a couple of hits per gun, if you have radar helping out on the ranging and a target that isn't maneuvering.

A single GAU-19 shoots about 1200rpm, so 20 rounds per second, 10 rounds per burst per gun. But you will need to be very close to make sure that the .50cal dispersion circle is not larger than the target, call it 200 yards max.

Until the target starts jinking. Then the shots-per-hit ratio goes way, way up.

* all guns adjusted to put their cone of fire into the same place at whatever distance the pilot requested, as guns throw shells into a rough circle not stacking them all on a single point.

 

[Graugrun]

Another possible contender...

Paramount adds counter-drone capabilities to Mwari aircraft​

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/various-aviation-projects-from-south-africa.20122/post-575240

 

[Scott Kenny]

Another possible contender...

Paramount adds counter-drone capabilities to Mwari aircraft​

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/various-aviation-projects-from-south-africa.20122/post-575240

Not much details in what AAMs are being used, and even a relatively cheap AIM-9X is more expensive than a Shaheed.