Cover, Evade, Defend: Ensuring the Survival of Combat Aviation on Airfields Under the Influence of Precision Weapons

52

In the previous article - Survival of military aviation on airfields under the influence of long-range precision weapons we considered the trend of increasing risks for combat and auxiliary aviation in terms of the possibility of its destruction by the enemy in their bases with the help of high-precision weapons long-range, receiving target designation from space reconnaissance means (in the first place).

USA vs Russia


As already mentioned in the above material, Russia has approximately 1300 combat aircraft, while the United States has from 5000 to 15 long-range precision weapons, and possibly more. In the event of a conflict between the United States and the Russian Federation, our adversary, due to the developed constellation of reconnaissance satellites, will have much greater opportunities to destroy Russian combat aircraft in their bases than Russia currently has during a special operation in Ukraine.



It can be assumed that the intervals between the passages of US reconnaissance satellites are much shorter, and in the future they will gradually decrease until reconnaissance information is received in 24/365 mode or close to it. Combined with the ability to retarget in flight some samples of American high-precision weapons, saving equipment by simply moving it from one position to another will not work.

You should not rely on anti-satellite weapons either, it will be extremely difficult to shoot down all reconnaissance satellites, and the more there are, the more difficult it will be to solve this problem. This issue has been discussed in detail in articles Достучаться до небес и Orbital Cleaners.

It is also worth mentioning Elon Musk's answer to a press question:

“What happens if the Russians and the Chinese target satellites? Will this be a threat to Starlink?"

The answer was this:

“It was interesting to look at the Russian anti-satellite demonstration* a few months ago in the context of this conflict. Because it caused a lot of controversy among satellite operators. It even posed some danger to the space station where the Russian cosmonauts are located. So why did they do it? This was a message before the aggravation of the situation in Ukraine. If you try to disable Starlink, it won't be easy because we already have over 2000 satellites. That means a lot of anti-satellite missiles. I hope we don't have to test this in practice, but I think that we can launch satellites faster than they can shoot them down with anti-satellite missiles. "

We will argue with this statement in a separate article, but even depriving the enemy of a significant part of the constellation of reconnaissance satellites will not exclude the possibility of delivering massive strikes with long-range precision weapons.

Of course, even the United States will not be able to destroy all Russian aircraft on airfields, just as Russia could not achieve this in Ukraine, but what will the loss of, for example, half or even two-thirds of the fleet of combat aircraft mean? How effective will the Russian Air Force be after this, given that we are already lagging behind in terms of the quantity and quality of aviation equipment in service?

It can be assumed that, as in the case of Russia and Ukraine, the US will have many other targets in Russia, so the relative impact on the Russian Air Force will decrease. However, it is necessary to understand that it is the Air Force that is the most mobile and aggressive force capable of operating at great depth and destroying objects in the depths of enemy territory, seizing air supremacy and preventing the enemy from capturing it.

By destroying or significantly weakening the RF Air Force, the enemy will secure a significant advantage for himself, will not allow the RF Armed Forces to conduct active offensive operations, and will deprive him of the initiative. That is why, in a number of scenarios, the Russian Air Force may become the main priority for the US Armed Forces.

There is an opinion that any massive launch of cruise missiles by the enemy will be detected by over-the-horizon radars (ZGRLS) and will cause Russia to launch a massive nuclear strike in response. It is far from certain that this will be the case, especially if the enemy openly declares in advance that strategic nuclear forces facilities and command centers will not be attacked.

You should not rely only on anti-aircraft missile systems (SAMs) - their capabilities are limited, with a simultaneous attack by hundreds of ammunition from one air base, SAMs will intercept part of the attacking cruise missiles (CR), maybe quite a large part of them, but there is no doubt that the enemy will to form a missile attack squad precisely taking into account the opposition to it with the help of air defense systems.

Then how can Russian aviation be saved at base airfields?

take cover


First of all, as already mentioned on the pages of the Military Review, all aviation equipment of the RF Armed Forces should be stored in arched shelters. There is a huge difference between defeating openly standing planes and helicopters, and the same planes and helicopters, but standing in camouflaged concrete shelters. In the first case, one cluster munition is enough to destroy a dozen or several dozen aircraft units, in the second case, at least one precision-guided munition must be spent on each arched shelter.

Moreover, the the number of arched shelters should be several times greater than the number of aircraft potentially placed in them. For example, if the air base hosts 100 combat aircraft and helicopters, then the number of arched shelters should be 300 units. Wasteful?

In no case. An arched shelter is a long-term investment. They can be based as aircraft of the fourth generation, as well as the fifth, sixth and so on. Their construction does not require microcircuits and thermal imaging matrices, satellites and launch vehicles, that is, some kind of high technology, which is currently in short supply. Built today, tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, they will last for decades or even centuries.


Arched shelters can serve the Russian Air Force for many decades. Image by wikipedia.org

A similar logic can be traced in the "square-nested" placement of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) in silo launchers (silos), which was previously considered in articles The evolution of the nuclear triad: prospects for the development of the ground component of the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation, The evolution of the nuclear triad: generalized composition of the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation in the medium term, Nuclear math: how many nuclear charges does the US need to destroy Russian strategic nuclear forces? There comes a time when protection is more important than stealth.

Arched shelters will protect aircraft not only from fragments of cluster munitions - it is far from a fact that they can be hit by small-sized ammunition of modern unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which can also be used to destroy Russian aviation, and indeed, depending on the execution, they will break through far from any air bomb or rocket.

As the capabilities of satellite reconnaissance increase and they enter the 24/365 mode of operation, the enemy will have more and more data on which arched shelter planes or helicopters will be covered in, and which will be empty. This will require additional action from aerodrome personnel. In particular, movements between arched shelters of decoys - mock-ups of airplanes and helicopters can be periodically carried out.

There are ways to further confuse the reconnaissance of a potential enemy. So, arched shelters can accommodate not only aircraft and helicopters that are in service, but also put into reserve (taking into account what we talked about earlier - the construction of an excess number of arched shelters). Even if some aircraft has not been flying for a long time, but can potentially be restored, or it is generally only suitable for “cannibalizing” spare parts, but in any case, it can still serve as a false target for the enemy’s CR. In addition to distracting enemy reconnaissance from real targets, reserve or "collapsible" aircraft and helicopters will be kept in better conditions, which will either allow them to be restored with less effort, or to keep spare parts in better condition.

As an additional measure of informational countermeasures, light mobile shelters can be provided, hiding in which particular arched shelter the landed aircraft is hidden. The mobile shelter must be transported together with the airfield tractor (integrated with it?) over the covered aircraft or helicopter, while the tractor can drive up to several arched shelters in turn - go and understand in which particular protected object was hidden.

It is clear that large-sized transport aircraft and strategic missile-carrying bombers cannot be hidden and placed in this way, although, perhaps, some shelter options can be invented for them. For example, by analogy, combat vehicles withdrawn to the reserve can be used as decoys.

In addition, concrete partitions with a light roof above them can be erected between the bases of large-sized aircraft. Firstly, when one aircraft is hit on the ground, when the enemy ammunition explodes on the ground, and not in the air, there is a chance that neighboring aircraft will survive. And secondly, light shelter will make it difficult to determine the presence of an aircraft in it, as well as identifying its type and technical condition.


Su-34 and Su-35S aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Forces at the Khmeimim airbase (Syria) - even such partitions may well protect adjacent aircraft when a mini-UAV-kamikaze or a mortar mine is blown up. Image: Mikhail Khodarenok, gazeta.ru

dodge


There are two ways to dodge an enemy attack. The first is to change your location, the second is to deflect the enemy's blow.

The first method includes changing the location of the target aircraft (airplanes, helicopters, UAVs) as within the same air base, as we discussed above - an excessive number of arched shelters, which makes it difficult to determine in which particular one the target aircraft is located , and by increasing the number of air bases on which aircraft of various types can be based. In this way, we will not only reduce the number of potential targets within one air base, but also create uncertainty for the enemy - on which of them how many aircraft will be located at any given moment.

After taking off from one air base and completing a combat mission, the aircraft can land on one of three, four, or five others, the tired pilot will be replaced by another, the aircraft will be refueled, serviced, re-armed, and it will again, without delay, enter the battle. What else does this say? The fact that there should be more pilots than aircraft, by analogy with the replacement crews for nuclear submarines in the United States.

As for deflecting the enemy's strike, you can try to implement this scenario by influencing the navigation aids and the means of guiding the attacking ammunition. Long-range attack precision munitions may contain several types of navigation aids and guidance aids. For example, the following can be used as navigation aids: a GPS satellite navigation system, an inertial navigation system (INS) and a TERCOM type terrain flight correction system.

The inertial navigation system has limited capabilities, with it alone, without GPS and TERCOM systems, high-precision ammunition is unlikely to reach the target. We will not be able to influence the work of the INS.

It is also unlikely to jam the GPS signal over a large area, and if it is jammed near the air base, then the accuracy of the INS will be enough for the high-precision ammunition to overcome the remaining distance and reach the target with the required accuracy.

Thus, it is necessary to understand that with a high probability, long-range precision-guided munitions of the enemy will be able to reach the area of ​​the attacked air base.

Potentially, the option of replacing GPS coordinates can be considered, and this substitution should be insignificant so that the algorithms of smart ammunition do not recognize it (if any). It is not necessary to take the enemy missile too far, it is enough to bring it to false targets, the positions of which can be equipped near the air base.

Such false positions can include mock-ups of aircraft as well as easily erected mock-ups of arched shelters. In times of peace, false arched shelters can be used to store supplies of little value such as building materials or the like. Additional activity around decoys will only confuse enemy reconnaissance. The technical implementation of the possibility of replacing GPS coordinates is questionable, especially since the enemy is constantly improving the noise immunity of satellite navigation systems, nevertheless, Russian electronic warfare (EW) systems are also developing and improving.


Aircraft inflatable models. Image rusbal.ru

Looking ahead, it can be predicted that from a certain point on, ANNs based on the principles of quantum physics will become so perfect that precision-guided munitions will be able to do without external sources of correction along the entire flight route, but this is a matter for the next 5-10 years, or even several decades. .

If the enemy's precision-guided munitions have reached the air base, then it is necessary to minimize the probability of their hitting pre-planned targets.

In the final section, precision-guided munitions can use optical and / or radar homing heads (GOS). They can be countered by placing decoys, mockups, and devices that prevent them from working properly.

As such, we can offer shipborne systems for setting up metallized smoke and aerosol screens used by the naval fleet (Navy) of the Russian Federation, or specialized aerosol camouflage systems designed specifically for the protection of ground facilities, capable of largely closing the air base from the "look" of enemy missiles. Of course, this will not protect the air base from missiles in principle, since navigation systems will already bring them to the target area, but it may well protect specific objects from destruction, and it will make it difficult to orient precision-guided munitions in the final flight segment.


Autonomous aerosol camouflage complex "Pelena-B". Image inprokom.ru


Installation of protective curtains by a surface ship. Source wikiwand.com

Defend


Of course, first of all, this is a layered defense with the help of air defense systems. Yes, they will not shoot down all missiles. Yes, the enemy will form a squad to hit targets, based on the presence of air defense systems at the facility. However, without air defense systems, the enemy will be able to attack air bases with much smaller forces, redirecting the remaining "free" ammunition to other targets.

In addition, the presence of an air defense system will force the enemy to make maximum use of the terrain to hide the approach of attacking ammunition. And knowing this need will allow you to deliver another blow to the enemy.

There is such a type of weapons as anti-aircraft mines. Currently, they can only hit objects moving at limited speeds, up to about 400 kilometers per hour. Already in this version, they can be useful for repelling strikes inflicted by UAVs capable of making their way to the protected air base at low altitude. And in the future, it is possible to increase the range of speeds of targets hit by anti-aircraft mines, and then anti-aircraft mines placed on probable attack routes with long-range precision-guided munitions can cause significant damage to them.

And finally, the last frontier - Air defense active defense systems (KAZ-PVO). In this article, they should first of all be focused on hitting small, low-speed targets. To destroy long-range cruise missiles, specialized systems with high-power destructive ammunition are needed.


Conceptual images of KAZ-PVO

Air defense active protection systems should be located directly next to the arched shelters intended for the storage of aviation equipment. Their impact will make it possible to maximally weaken the enemy's strike in the final flight segment of long-range precision-guided munitions.

Conclusions


Keeping aviation at home airfields is of paramount importance, given the impact that the air force has on the effectiveness of combat operations by the armed forces as a whole.

The limited amount of modern aviation combat equipment makes its loss at home airfields an unacceptable luxury.

Ensuring the comprehensive security of the Russian Air Force at base airfields should become one of the priorities in the construction of the Russian Air Force.

Improving high-precision munitions and constellations of reconnaissance satellites of our potential adversaries will potentially require profound changes in the structure of the Russian Air Force, the performance characteristics of advanced aviation systems and support systems.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

52 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    April 6 2022 05: 02
    It is far from certain that this will happen, especially if the enemy openly declares in advance that strategic nuclear forces facilities and command centers will not be attacked.
    Yeah, how gullible do you need to be to listen to such "statements"?

    Do not rely on anti-satellite weapons either, it will be extremely difficult to shoot down all reconnaissance satellites
    Even in peacetime, they can be blinded with lasers, and temporarily or irreversibly. And Russia has powerful mobile lasers - hypersonic "cartoons" will not let you lie.
    1. -3
      April 6 2022 12: 12
      Well, as it were, pour out a bucket of bolts in orbit, and the number of working satellites will drastically decrease. True, all, but, again, in proportion to availability.
      And the same effect will be from the destruction of the satellite. So Musk was stupid when he promised to withdraw even more - there would be nowhere to withdraw.
      1. -2
        April 6 2022 15: 23
        Quote: U. Cheny
        Well, as it were, pour out a bucket of bolts in orbit, and the number of working satellites will drop sharply.

        Cleverly, you won’t say anything, the merikatos in the early 60s also offered to do this.
    2. +1
      April 6 2022 15: 40
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      Even in peacetime, they can be blinded with lasers, and temporarily or irreversibly. And Russia has powerful mobile lasers - hypersonic "cartoons" will not let you lie.

      we have only one Peresvet, which is located on only one base of the Strategic Missile Forces.
      At the far end.
      That's all.
      There is nothing more.
      Zilch.
      1. -2
        April 6 2022 15: 51
        Quote: SovAr238A
        we have only one Peresvet, which is located on only one base of the Strategic Missile Forces.

        And one "Dagger" and that one has already ended.
  2. -3
    April 6 2022 05: 50
    The Chinese recently, an insolent mattress scout was blinded by a laser. There was a screech ... And he can play against the UAV
  3. +1
    April 6 2022 06: 28
    And by that time there will be someone to launch and defend ??? fellow
  4. -1
    April 6 2022 07: 56
    There is no money for arched shelters, everything was spent on yachts with palaces.
  5. -4
    April 6 2022 08: 33
    The USSR worked on it. One option is VTOL. The same Yak-141. He doesn't need a base.
    1. +7
      April 6 2022 15: 46
      Quote: Veniamin Taskaev
      The USSR worked on it. One option is VTOL. The same Yak-141. He doesn't need a base.


      Yes Yes.
      He can and knows how to sit down in the field, only here is where to get it in the field:
      1. Tankers for 10 tons of fuel...
      2. From five to a dozen specialized BAO machines, with the help of which (and nothing else) it is prepared for departure and served.
      3. Stock of components and spare parts, special fluids to replenish the resource.
      4. With a couple of dozen BAO personnel.
      5. Canteen and cooks to feed the pilot and everyone else.
      6. Yes, and sleep somewhere ...
      7 And most importantly - a weapon for the aircraft to hang what is needed for the next task ... Explosive rockets (Near, medium radius), PRLR, outboard fuel tanks, outboard RTR and EW modules ... Shells for the same gun ...

      Isn't this the base?
      No?
      1. +2
        April 6 2022 16: 35
        He can and knows how to sit down in the field, only here is where to get it in the field:

        Yes, in the same place where the "Peresvets" are, blind enemy satellites .... There should be a lot of things in general. Wealthy place...
  6. +4
    April 6 2022 09: 17
    And what to paint.
    Recipes have long been known, have been described since WW2.
    Dispersal. False targets. Covers, both protective and camouflage
  7. +12
    April 6 2022 10: 30
    First of all, as already mentioned on the pages of the Military Review, all aviation equipment of the RF Armed Forces should be stored in arched shelters.

    They showed how a small-sized American UAB breaks through an arched shelter and destroys its contents. To complete a mass raid, small mobile missile defense systems with an effective firing range of 3 km and computer-controlled millimeter-wave radars are needed. Such a radar is quite compact and cheap, so you can make a lot of them.
    1. -2
      April 6 2022 13: 19
      Quote: riwas

      They showed how a small-sized American UAB breaks through an arched shelter and destroys its contents. To complete a mass raid, small mobile missile defense systems with an effective firing range of 3 km and computer-controlled millimeter-wave radars are needed. Such a radar is quite compact and cheap, so you can make a lot of them.

      Only more missiles will be needed to destroy caponiers for each missile, and if in an open area, you can get by with several missiles with fragmentation warheads. That is, relatively speaking, 24 caponiers, for each missile + air defense of the airfield, it is necessary to destroy a total of 50 cruise missiles per airfield, but here's the problem, after all, you can strike at an empty airfield, there may not be planes in caponiers. The result is 50 cruise missiles, 50 million dollars spent, but the planes were not destroyed.
      As for air defense, there was information that Morpheus short-range air defense systems were being developed, but several years have passed, and it is still gone.
      1. +3
        April 6 2022 15: 49
        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
        but here's the problem, after all, you can strike at an empty airfield, there may not be planes in caponiers. The result is 50 cruise missiles, 50 million dollars spent, but the planes were not destroyed.


        In modern warfare, this is only the case for those who do not have satellites in sufficient numbers.
        For our adversary with all his NATO, Japan, Australia, with all their military and private satellites of specific intelligence - it is unrealistic to create a deception.
        So sorry, but your fantasies are, alas, just fantasies in 2022.
    2. 0
      April 6 2022 15: 22
      Quote: riwas
      small American UAB

      Of course small-sized, but weighs 130 kg. Those. not particularly suitable for arming drones.
      1. +2
        April 6 2022 16: 39
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        Quote: riwas
        small American UAB

        Of course small-sized, but weighs 130 kg. Those. not particularly suitable for arming drones.


        Just a drone should be considerable.
        For example the MALE class.
        type, MQ-9 Reaper.
        which has the ability to use much heavier ammunition: GBU-12 Paveway II and GBU-38 (227kg).
        GBU-53B and GBU-39B are also in his arsenal.

        As well as external fuel tanks.
        1. -4
          April 6 2022 17: 17
          Quote: SovAr238A
          Just a drone should be considerable.

          Drones, especially of this class, are useless with unsuppressed air defense. Under the terms of the article.
          1. +3
            April 6 2022 19: 46
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            Quote: SovAr238A
            Just a drone should be considerable.

            Drones, especially of this class, are useless with unsuppressed air defense. Under the terms of the article.


            These drones would have proven themselves excellently in combat operations in Ukraine... 16 hours in the air, at altitudes of 10 km - with the highest-class electronics...
            If there were at least a couple of dozen of them, they alone would have completely done the entire psychological component of the war for the enemy.
            For any movement of the enemy anywhere in the country of the enemy would be controlled and destroyed ...
            What is the use of the fact that ours destroyed all the fighters?
            It is still necessary to destroy ground targets with manned vehicles from low altitudes, because we do not have weapons that allow us to do this from high altitudes.
            Our Urya-patriots, from Syria, they threw caps into the air, as we take out all the barmaley with a cast-iron ...
            Only now, the new barmaley, in Ukraine, are stuffed with Stingers and other things so that only helicopters fly below 5 km, which are knocked down very regularly, and in fact there is no Su-34 Ponto with its cast iron ...
            It does not create anything in the military sense.
            Puff one.
            Everything again came down to infantry confrontation and artillery preparation.
            In a real war ...
            Syria is not equal to Ukraine.
            1. -1
              April 7 2022 03: 16
              Quote: SovAr238A
              These drones would have proven themselves excellently in combat operations in Ukraine... 16 hours in the air, at altitudes of 10 km - with the highest-class electronics..

              Well, Yeshe would, the air defense is suppressed!
              Quote: SovAr238A
              It is still necessary to destroy ground targets with manned vehicles from low altitudes, because we do not have weapons that allow us to do this from high altitudes.
              You seem to be confusing the current times with the Afghan war.
              Quote: SovAr238A
              Only now the new barmaley, in Ukraine, are stuffed with Stingers and other things so that only helicopters fly below 5 km, which are knocked down very regularly
              8 a day?

              Quote: SovAr238A
              Everything again came down to infantry confrontation and artillery preparation.
              Those. Do you imagine that artillery strikes are delivered over areas without reconnaissance and target designation from UAVs?
  8. +10
    April 6 2022 10: 42
    After taking off from one air base and completing a combat mission, the aircraft can land on one of three, four, or five others, the tired pilot will be replaced by another, the aircraft will be refueled, serviced, re-armed, and it will again, without delay, enter the battle. What else does this say? The fact that there should be more pilots than planes

    And who will fill it, serve it, equip it?
    This suggests that there should not be more pilots, but there should be more l / s of full-fledged aviation regiments, not even regiments, but garrisons with all parts of support.
  9. -1
    April 6 2022 11: 39
    A massive launch of enemy weapons should AUTOMATICALLY cause a weighty strike by the nuclear triad of the Russian Federation. And NATO must clearly understand this.
  10. +7
    April 6 2022 12: 27
    I have repeatedly written, on the VO forum, about the negligent, to say the least, criminal attitude towards the safety of storing equipment at front-line airfields, I mean the air base in Syria, the absence of elementary caponiers, the replacement of arched shelters with huts, you can’t call it otherwise. Beautiful linear arrangement of equipment. And the reason on the surface, the commander of the airborne forces, we never had anything to do with the airborne forces. Maybe he is a good general, I don’t argue. But the specifics and importance of this direction speaks by itself. Sincerely. Krylov.
    1. +6
      April 6 2022 15: 22
      Quote: Vasily Krylov
      I have repeatedly written, on the VO forum, about the negligent, to say the least, criminal attitude towards the safety of storing equipment at front-line airfields, I mean the air base in Syria, the absence of elementary caponiers, the replacement of arched shelters with huts, you can’t call it otherwise. Beautiful linear arrangement of equipment. And the reason on the surface, the commander of the airborne forces, we never had anything to do with the airborne forces. Maybe he is a good general, I don’t argue. But the specifics and importance of this direction speaks by itself. Sincerely. Krylov.

      And before that, the commander of the equipment at the airfields, as at a parade, always stood that in the 41st they got stuck with this and then began to disperse, that after the Second World War they quickly forgot and again the rulers .... Apparently it’s easier to maintain, saving time and resources, but the offensive on the rake is our favorite pastime
      1. +2
        April 6 2022 17: 34
        My namesake, it’s funny, but my birthday coincides with him, he claimed about pies and boots, but apparently our commanders don’t read the classics, which is a pity. Another example from the classics, in this case the military one. A.V., who is Suvorov, said: military quartermasters who have served in one place for three years can be hanged without trial or investigation. I'm talking about huts. Sincerely, Krylov.
    2. -1
      4 June 2022 10: 40
      What does the commander of the Air Force have to do with it? At the airfield, the dispersal of equipment and its camouflage is the responsibility of the commander of the aviation regiment based at this airfield.
  11. -2
    April 6 2022 12: 38
    All these caponiers are destructible, by the way, in the USA they tested a small-sized SDB bomb and it breaks through. It is much more interesting to make a light fighter with vertical takeoff and landing. Thus, you can land at any edge, quickly cover with a camouflage net and do whatever you want, serve, replenish ammunition. And leave heavy fighters as they are and develop further the idea of ​​building highways with the possibility of using them as a runway.

    1. -1
      April 6 2022 17: 58
      Quote: Lt. air force reserve
      All these caponiers are destructible, by the way, in the USA they tested a small-sized SDB bomb and it breaks through.

      These bombs still have to be dropped by someone. Who? A sudden massive breakthrough of the F-35 deep into our territory? Too risky.

      It is possible, in principle, to equip an ordinary Tomahawk or other cruise missile with three or four such bombs. But then, before dropping, the rocket will have to gain a decent height (no less than a kilometer). At the same time, it will be clearly visible and vulnerable to any air defense system.
      1. -1
        4 June 2022 10: 57
        At one time, we saw a test of a special ammunition to destroy caponiers. If concrete or reinforced concrete is in the head, then as in the photo, penetration and defeat. But there was one caponier, where a huge and thick metal head was installed into the concrete from above - a special dome, 80 centimeters in steel (as explained). Inside on the sides there were two more pockets, a third longer than the layout. There, if necessary, it was possible to move the layout, moving it from the center of this shelter. With the gate open, the impression is that it is empty if the layout was moved to such a pocket. Yes, even the ceilings were covered with some kind of matter or fine mesh. They didn't let me see it and they didn't let me inside.
        All the concrete was scraped from above, and inside it cracked a little and hung on the reinforcement, but there was no through penetration and defeat of the model inside the caponier.
        It might be a little pricey, but it's probably worth building.
  12. -4
    April 6 2022 15: 02
    The future is for UAVs, not just for UAVs, but for very smart UAVs that can conduct air combat with the help of AI.

    We need several thousand orions who are able to keep hundreds in the air every day for 20 hours with microscopic maintenance costs, on some air-to-air missiles with external target designation, on others AFARs that see cruise missiles, helicopters and drones at ultra-low altitudes.

    Ground air defense must be cut off, except for the barreled 30-50mm with controlled detonation and the S-400.
  13. 0
    April 6 2022 15: 39
    Andrey Mitrofanov...

    Your only good idea is to create KAZ for hangars.
    But alas, it is inoperable.
    Due to the fact that a concrete-piercing bomb falling vertically, you will no longer turn off the path.
    And even such a baby as the GBU-39 cannot be taken away from the hangar.


    Looking ahead, it can be predicted that from a certain point on, ANNs based on the principles of quantum physics will become so perfect that precision-guided munitions will be able to do without external sources of correction along the entire flight route, but this is a matter for the next 5-10 years, or even several decades. .


    Have you completely forgotten what TERCOM is? After all, you yourself indicated it a couple of paragraphs above, but here .... Do you know exactly what Turkom is and the principles of its work?

    After taking off from one air base and completing a combat mission, the aircraft can land on one of three, four, or five others, the tired pilot will be replaced by another, the aircraft will be refueled, serviced, re-armed, and it will again, without delay, enter the battle. What else does this say? The fact that there should be more pilots than aircraft, by analogy with the replacement crews for nuclear submarines in the United States.

    Well, again, there is a certain amount of logic in your words ...
    Even the Americans train about 35 pilots per plane for the F-1,5.
    They dream of 2 pilots for a plane, but ...
    Logic and economics come into play.
    The logic is that there are after-flight aircraft maintenance operations that take hours.
    and they cannot be reduced.
    Accordingly, the principle of "sit down and go" - does not always work. Almost never. With rare exceptions, in which the exceptions prove the rules.
    Economy.
    we lived for 70 years without wars.
    During these 70 years, approximately 5 generations of pilots have changed.
    Those. we had to have all these 70 years 2 times:
    - more pilots
    - more technicians
    - more BAO vehicles,
    - more military schools and teachers,
    - more training aircraft.
    - more military camps and infrastructure.
    Double the number of pilots, this costs twice as much fuel, one and a half to two times the resource consumption of aircraft and engines (respectively, the purchase of new aircraft and engines, long before they become obsolete) ...
    Would anyone's economy have sustained such costs in peacetime?
    I think not.
    So it's kind of fantasy.
    The only thing that could help somehow is a partial copy of the American National Guard Air Force system. Where civilian and retired pilots are not allowed to "rest", regularly connecting them to combat aircraft.

    And most importantly, have a broader outlook - study those materials that you can sprinkle on the system: Stockings 90 it also Flygbassystem 90 it also Air Base System 90.
    This is the only system currently suitable in the Russian Federation, capable of preserving aviation for a short time ...

    And in conditions of total superiority of the enemy in satellites of specific reconnaissance, and not only the Pentagon, but also private companies, attempts to hide will be extremely problematic.
    Unlike us - they with their bunch of satellites - do not have "windows". They always have someone "hanging" and "watching".
    1. 0
      April 6 2022 17: 51
      Quote: SovAr238A
      Unlike us - they with their bunch of satellites - do not have "windows". They always have someone "hanging" and "watching".

      It's impossible. A surveillance satellite is a hefty and very expensive flying telescope. Launching them by the thousands, as Musk launches his mini-satellites, will not work. The field of view of this telescope is rather narrow, and accordingly, it scans a band that is not very wide.

      You can, of course, use many cheap low-resolution satellites, but it will not be difficult to deceive such satellites not only with inflatable mock-ups, but even with simple silhouettes of aircraft painted in white paint.
      1. -2
        April 6 2022 19: 05
        Quote: SovAr238A
        Your only good idea is to create KAZ for hangars.
        But alas, it is inoperable.
        Due to the fact that a concrete-piercing bomb falling vertically, you will no longer turn off the path.
        And even such a baby as the GBU-39 cannot be taken away from the hangar.

        And if we imagine that, for example, an anti-tank mine was lying on the roof of the arched hangar and the same bomb that is in the picture hit it, the question is this bomb overlap or what?
        1. +2
          April 6 2022 19: 22
          Quote: agond
          Quote: SovAr238A
          Your only good idea is to create KAZ for hangars.
          But alas, it is inoperable.
          Due to the fact that a concrete-piercing bomb falling vertically, you will no longer turn off the path.
          And even such a baby as the GBU-39 cannot be taken away from the hangar.

          And if we imagine that, for example, an anti-tank mine was lying on the roof of the arched hangar and the same bomb that is in the picture hit it, the question is this bomb overlap or what?

          Are you serious now?
          About the capabilities of an anti-tank mine, against a vertically falling bomb?
      2. +2
        April 6 2022 19: 28
        Quote: DenVB
        Quote: SovAr238A
        Unlike us - they with their bunch of satellites - do not have "windows". They always have someone "hanging" and "watching".

        It's impossible. A surveillance satellite is a hefty and very expensive flying telescope. Launching them by the thousands, as Musk launches his mini-satellites, will not work. The field of view of this telescope is rather narrow, and accordingly, it scans a band that is not very wide.

        You can, of course, use many cheap low-resolution satellites, but it will not be difficult to deceive such satellites not only with inflatable mock-ups, but even with simple silhouettes of aircraft painted in white paint.


        These satellites cannot be deceived simply by virtue of the fact that even with a separation of 0,5 m they will control any part of the Russian Federation. And especially airports.
        And you will not be able to "take and inflate" the layout, because your preparations and inflation are not 1 minute time. You will inflate a simple mattress for 10 minutes ... And a boat for 20 ....
        And the plane?
        Which needs to be brought in the form of a huge and very heavy lump of rubber, then unloaded with equipment, then pulled apart, then pick up compressors, then inflate for a long time. How long do you think it will take, and will they be able to see and analyze it with round-the-clock direct observation?
        Note that in most countries of the world, work to help the army is honorable, and tens of thousands of enthusiasts "to carry the wings of democracy" and other heresy will be engaged in it.
        They will do it and they have been doing it for a long time.
        A huge amount of third-party important information intelligence services receive from their citizens. who can see something that others have not noticed ...
        Because there are millions...
        And even 1% of their costs exceeds the work of thousands of professionals as a result.
        1. -1
          April 6 2022 19: 44
          Quote: SovAr238A
          These satellites cannot be deceived simply by virtue of the fact that even with a separation of 0,5 m they will control any part of the Russian Federation.

          0,5 meters is a very good resolution. The maximum possible is 0,3 meters, as far as I know. Constantly see the entire territory of the Russian Federation with such a resolution? It's still a fantasy. Sci-fi but fiction.
          1. +2
            April 6 2022 20: 19
            Quote: DenVB
            Quote: SovAr238A
            These satellites cannot be deceived simply by virtue of the fact that even with a separation of 0,5 m they will control any part of the Russian Federation.

            0,5 meters is a very good resolution. The maximum possible is 0,3 meters, as far as I know. Constantly see the entire territory of the Russian Federation with such a resolution? It's still a fantasy. Sci-fi but fiction.

            You are very out of touch with reality.
            Did you know that the civilian so-called Hubble Space Telescope is just a demilitarized version of the KH-11. Deployed away from the Earth. Who has been flying since the 70s, and who could recognize newspaper editorials?
            The KH-11 has a 2,4 meter mirror, its theoretical resolution in the absence of atmospheric distortion and 50% frequency-contrast response will be approximately 15 cm.
            Quote from an optics specialist who is not at all connected to the military-industrial complex, and was simply looking at a publicly available photo of the Iranian launch complex.
            For a mirror with a diameter of 2,4 m observing a wavelength of 500 nm, the Rayleigh criterion gives a diffraction-induced resolution limit of 0,05 arcseconds. At an altitude of 250 km, this translates into a resolution of 6 cm on the surface. It is worth considering that this maximum is theoretical, and in practice the resolution will be less due to atmospheric distortions and due to the fact that the satellite is unlikely to be exactly above the observed place. It turns out that with an estimated resolution of 10 cm, the Iranian photograph is within the calculated capabilities of the KH-11.
            Again, for reconnaissance of a potential enemy, it will not be difficult to carry out all these calculations and understand what the KH-11 can see. Especially considering that the US has been using spy satellites with this physical resolution for over 50 years. KH-8 GAMBIT, a film spy satellite launched in 1966, was also capable of viewing objects as small as 5 to 10 cm under ideal conditions.



            And it's not fake at all...
            James Webb, this is the same KH-11, but only the third generation, which have gone since 2015, with additional protective screens and powerful electronics and optics.
            Civilians - they really see 0.5m.
            There is nothing problematic for Western optics and Western electronics in this.


            You know, in relation to the Russian military-applied science, I remember some words of the professor of the Moscow Higher Technical School named after Bauman: "I know how it should work, but I don't understand how it works!" This military professor was talking about a typical civilian bottling line with a capacity of 300 packs per second. For not a single military equipment can work continuously for months and years at such a pace ... The military commissar is in many ways inferior to the civilian ...
            This has long been understood.
            1. -2
              April 6 2022 20: 49
              Quote: SovAr238A
              Civilians - they really see 0.5m.

              Civilians just see 0,3 meters.

              Quote: SovAr238A
              You are very out of touch with reality.

              You are way ahead of reality. Have you read that satellites "see" with such and such a resolution, and decided that they see with such a resolution the entire earth's surface accessible to them? Of course not. The swath for one pass can be about 10 kilometers.
        2. -2
          April 6 2022 19: 49
          Quote: SovAr238A
          Which needs to be brought in the form of a huge and very heavy lump of rubber, then unloaded with equipment, then pulled apart, then pick up compressors, then inflate for a long time. How long do you think it will take, and will they be able to see and analyze it with round-the-clock direct observation?

          Oh, how much text ... and how easy it breaks laughing

          - we build a hangar (shelter) for three to five aircraft
          - roll one or two infusions there
          - we also drag two or three rubber ones there, inflate them... satellites do not see us ...

          And then (wow!!!) we deliver all 3-5 airplanes to the caponiers.

          As a result, the enemy does not know how much and what is where. Bingo Yes
          1. +2
            April 6 2022 20: 37
            Quote: Repellent
            Quote: SovAr238A
            Which needs to be brought in the form of a huge and very heavy lump of rubber, then unloaded with equipment, then pulled apart, then pick up compressors, then inflate for a long time. How long do you think it will take, and will they be able to see and analyze it with round-the-clock direct observation?

            Oh, how much text ... and how easy it breaks laughing

            - we build a hangar (shelter) for three to five aircraft
            - roll one or two infusions there
            - we also drag two or three rubber ones there, inflate them... satellites do not see us ...

            And then (wow!!!) we deliver all 3-5 airplanes to the caponiers.

            As a result, the enemy does not know how much and what is where. Bingo Yes


            So you think that on the other side there are complete fools who will believe in such stupid ideas?
            Are you apparently one of those who consider it normal to change the terrain at night and dig the Black Sea?
            That is, the ancient Ukrainians are indestructible in your thinking?
            Bingo? does it mean you need to run for the second in KB?
            Caponiers will not be destroyed in principle? not?
            The experience of destroying caponiers in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yugoslavia - don't you know?
            Roll-out-roll-out - will we not embarrass anyone?
            What difference does it make to spend 45 Tomahawks or 55 Tomahawks to eliminate airfield infrastructure?
            If the main task of eliminating infrastructure is the destruction of the refueling complex system, and fuel storage facilities ...
            The second task is the elimination of weapons depots ...
            The third task is the elimination of BAO equipment and technology.
            The fourth task is the elimination of runways and taxiways.
            And only the fifth most important task is the elimination of aircraft and hangars and shelters for them ... (of course, it is the most beautiful in the photo and for thoughtless Internet warriors, but in fact it is in the fifth line) ...

            Know that!
            1. -3
              April 6 2022 21: 09
              Quote: SovAr238A
              That is, you think that

              You "letter you" have not yet been opened. Careful.

              Quote: SovAr238A
              Are you apparently one of those who consider it normal to change the terrain at night and dig the Black Sea?

              And what? Normal approach. While the enemy is studying the theater of operations, we are changing the terrain with the fighters. Radically wassat

              Quote: SovAr238A
              Caponiers will not be destroyed in principle? not?

              I undertake to build ten caponiers for the price of one aircraft. Specify a place and guarantee payment laughing

              Quote: SovAr238A
              Roll-out-roll-out - will we not embarrass anyone?

              Nope. Routine request

              Quote: SovAr238A
              What difference does it make to spend 45 Tomahawks or 55 Tomahawks to eliminate airfield infrastructure?

              those who have flown Tomahawk. In addition to "a lot of caponiers" - I want good air defense. I have the right Yes

              Cut the sturgeon... tenfold. Well, or add Tomahawks laughing

              Quote: SovAr238A
              And only the fifth most important task is the elimination of aircraft and hangars and shelters for them ...

              You started with her. You are not me. I just showed where you have a weak point in reasoning. You lost at this stage, why are you so killed (s)? laughing

              Quote: SovAr238A
              Know that!

              In much knowledge - a lot of sadness wink
              1. +1
                April 6 2022 21: 28
                Quote: Repellent
                Quote: SovAr238A
                That is, you think that

                You "letter you" have not yet been opened. Careful.

                Quote: SovAr238A
                Are you apparently one of those who consider it normal to change the terrain at night and dig the Black Sea?

                And what? Normal approach. While the enemy is studying the theater of operations, we are changing the terrain with the fighters. Radically wassat

                Quote: SovAr238A
                Caponiers will not be destroyed in principle? not?

                I undertake to build ten caponiers for the price of one aircraft. Specify a place and guarantee payment laughing

                Quote: SovAr238A
                Roll-out-roll-out - will we not embarrass anyone?

                Nope. Routine request

                Quote: SovAr238A
                What difference does it make to spend 45 Tomahawks or 55 Tomahawks to eliminate airfield infrastructure?

                those who have flown Tomahawk. In addition to "a lot of caponiers" - I want good air defense. I have the right Yes

                Cut the sturgeon... tenfold. Well, or add Tomahawks laughing

                Quote: SovAr238A
                And only the fifth most important task is the elimination of aircraft and hangars and shelters for them ...

                You started with her. You are not me. I just showed where you have a weak point in reasoning. You lost at this stage, why are you so killed (s)? laughing

                Quote: SovAr238A
                Know that!

                In much knowledge - a lot of sadness wink


                I think you're just a fat troll...
                Stupid, fat troll...

                Not a bit understanding of military affairs.
                Just a hired bot.
                Who was given the command to write according to manuals.
                For in none of your posts over the past 4 months - there is not a single glimpse of reason.
                1. -3
                  April 6 2022 21: 33
                  Quote: SovAr238A
                  I thinkthat you're just a fat troll...
                  Stupid, fat troll...

                  Well, what do you recommend... be baptized laughing

                  Quote: SovAr238A
                  Not a bit understanding of military affairs

                  Yes, where are we, scoops request

                  Quote: SovAr238A
                  in none of your post for the last 4 months - there is not a single glimpse reason

                  Alternative, a la yours? No, and it won't. I said (s).

                  About stop
                  1. +1
                    April 7 2022 00: 45
                    Quote: Repellent

                    About stop

                    so what did you have to say? Windbag? Because you never say anything...
                    You're just a dumbass!....
                    Tell me your nickname in past years in order to understand what you would say in the last five or six years ...
                    1. -1
                      April 7 2022 20: 34
                      Quote: SovAr238A
                      so what did you have to say? Windbag? Because you never say anything...
                      You're just a hollow!

                      Look in the mirror, everything is there, what you are trying to say.

                      Nafig, miracle, you are uninteresting Yes
    2. -1
      4 June 2022 11: 17
      Theory is theory. But if there is no weather, then the reconnaissance satellites do not see very well. There is a window, there is no window, but all the same, from the moment of observation to the adoption of a decision, the definition of a unit, the order of forces, taking into account the time of strikes from the moment of launch or take-off, this is time. The usual dispersal of aircraft, decoys from mock-ups to placing decommissioned aircraft in parking lots will already play a huge role in preserving equipment. During the construction of roads, it is possible to consider the issue of their expansion in separate sections for their use both in Soviet times for GDP, well, and minimal shelters nearby for radars and so on. But this should be done by specialists who understand this based on the capabilities and requirements for aircraft.
  14. 0
    April 7 2022 10: 03
    About the habit (since Soviet times) to neglect individual shelters for aircraft - I have to agree. Shelter is a fairly simple and cheap structure. For its construction, by and large, only reinforced concrete, soil, waterproofing and machine hours are needed. A hundred shelters costs less than 1 5th generation fighter. One shelter costs less than a precision-guided munition capable of penetrating it. Even if an empty shelter is defeated, it has already justified itself economically. Even in a nuclear war, such shelters increase the survivability of aviation (confirmed by satellite images of foreign "nuclear" air bases).
  15. 0
    April 8 2022 15: 13
    Hiding does not always mean becoming invisible. You can build a warehouse for rubber products. The main thing is that it is located next to the highway, on which there is a 5 km straight section. It can be used as an alternate airfield. And you can not use. And about bolts and nuts in orbit - will they also bring down their satellites? When you shoot yourself, it doesn't matter how the enemy feels.
    1. 0
      April 9 2022 09: 02
      Quote: agond
      And if we imagine that, for example, an anti-tank mine lay on the roof of an arched hangar and the same bomb that is in the picture hit it, the question is will this bomb break through the ceiling or what?

      As always, they minus without understanding the meaning, I explain
      For making bombs to destroy underground shelters, for example, they take a barrel from a 155mm howitzer M198 USA (they are being removed from service and the good does not disappear), they fill explosives, as a result, a strong and long structure is obtained that can penetrate deep into the ground without destruction, break through a layer of concrete or stones, but if on its underground path it meets a powerful mine and causes its detonation, then it will either explode itself, or its long body will be bent, or it will turn it sideways with a mine explosion, any movement of the bomb in the ground will stop. Based on what was said to protect the shelter of the arched type ( what we see in the picture with a soil embankment 2-3m thick), charges can be placed in the thickness of the soil embankment that will cause premature detonation of the head of the concrete-piercing rocket, by the way, it is much smaller and weaker than that of the bomb described above
  16. 0
    April 17 2022 13: 45
    Quote: Elon Musk
    ... we can launch satellites faster than they can shoot them down by launching anti-satellite
    rockets.

    belay
    And we will be able to destroy satellite launch points faster than they will have time to build themlaughing
  17. 0
    April 27 2022 22: 53
    On arched shelters, typical, as in Emari or in Nivensky.
    A small digression: if you wish, you can drive two MiG-21s into the standard Arch, but only one MiG-23, MiG-27. To drive the Su-24 is very jewelry, this means that each AT needs its own AU.
    Each leaf of 9 tons, closes on a conventional hook.
    Minke whales practiced hitting them back in the mid-70s, without any GPS or other innovations.
    the Americans built an analogue and practiced strikes against them.
    The point is that the leader struck at the location of the hook, the wings rolled out, the follower struck into the inside of the shelter.
    There was not even a point to destroy, how much to damage.
    In particular, this is precisely why the regiment, during the "alarm", scattered by squadron to alternate airfields.
  18. 0
    17 August 2022 20: 51
    In Russia, work is underway on the mass construction of special shelters for military aircraft

    https://topwar.ru/200400-v-rossii-vedutsja-raboty-po-massovomu-stroitelstvu-specukrytij-dlja-voennyh-samoletov.html

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"