Ukrainian UAV strikes on the airfield in Engels as an indicator of the extreme vulnerability of aviation at base points

48
Ukrainian UAV strikes on the airfield in Engels as an indicator of the extreme vulnerability of aviation at base points

The issue of vulnerability aviation at airfields has already been repeatedly raised by the author on the pages of the Military Review. For example, in the material Survival of military aviation on airfields under the influence of long-range precision weapons the conclusion was formulated that two advanced adversaries with high-tech armed forces would be able to destroy most of each other's combat aircraft on airfields at the very beginning of the conflict, even before they could fight in the air. The reasons why the armed forces of the Russian Federation (RF Armed Forces) could not fully solve this problem on the territory of Ukraine were also considered.

And so, we got an object lesson. Of course, we are talking about the attack by the Ukrainian Armed Forces (APU) on the strategic aviation airfield in the city of Engels using the modernized Soviet unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) Tu-141 Strizh. The very fact of striking to a depth of 600 kilometers, and even against a strategic object, is simply discouraging, especially considering that this was done not by a hypersonic munition, not by an inconspicuous cruise missile (CR), but by an “ancient” UAV with a huge effective dispersion surface ( EPR).




Who would have thought that this junk could be effectively used against Russian strategic aviation? Image by wikipedia.org

Of course, it can be assumed that striking a Russian airfield at such a depth is an isolated case.

But while this material was in the process of being prepared, another blow was dealt to the airfield in Engels. According to the information from the RF Ministry of Defense, the enemy UAV was destroyed by means of air defense (air defense), however, three servicemen were killed. And a few days later, the air defense systems of the airfield in Engels destroyed another air attack weapon (AAS) ...

Or maybe the situation is justified by the fact that this has never happened before, and that no one expected this? But wait, how was this not expected?

We are having a full-fledged war with the active involvement of US and NATO structures, and the enemy does not hesitate to use any means. But what if the United States decided / decided in complete secrecy to provide the Armed Forces of Ukraine with several dozen low-observable JASSM-ER missiles with a firing range of about 1000 kilometers? So you can generally lose all strategic aviation.


It will be an order of magnitude more difficult to repel a KR JASSM strike. Image by wikipedia.org

But what if the escalation of the situation continues, and that the United States itself decides to strike at Russian aviation?

Yes, in order not to provoke an exchange of nuclear strikes, the United States will not strike at government facilities, critical infrastructure, strategic nuclear forces (SNF) - even the bombers in Engels will not be touched, but the rest of the aircraft will be subjected to a massive attack by means of air attack.

To understand the situation, let us once again consider what force the US Armed Forces can strike.

US military long-range precision weapons


It is unlikely that anyone has any doubts that the United States has significant capabilities to create and deploy high-precision weapons long range. More than two thousand units of JASSM air-launched missiles alone have been produced, of which half are JASSM-ERs with a flight range of about a thousand kilometers. Also in service with the US Armed Forces is about eight thousand sea-based Tomahawk cruise missiles. To deplete and break through the Russian air defense (air defense), the enemy will definitely use false targets ADM-160A / B MALD, capable of imitating the radar signature of various air defense systems.


ADM-160A MALD decoys can significantly complicate the operation of air defense systems. Image by wikipedia.org

As carriers of guided weapons, Riper UAVs, of which about three hundred are in service with the US Armed Forces, as well as other existing and promising UAVs, can be used. This arsenal will be replenished and expanded both at the expense of existing and advanced types of weapons, including land-based, sea-based and air-based hypersonic weapons.

Thus, there are more than 10 long-range air defense systems in service with the US Armed Forces, and potentially this figure could be several times higher.

Launchers of ground-based complexes of long-range precision weapons will be located as close as possible to Russian borders, and new types of carriers will be adapted for IOS, for example, transport aircraft equipped with parachute-dropped launchers. Surface ships and submarines of the US Navy will come closer and closer to the maritime borders of the Russian Federation.


Presentation of the Rapid Dragon program - the launch of tens to hundreds of cruise missiles from transport aircraft

A key characteristic affecting the ability of the US military to ensure the defeat of Russian aircraft at airfields is their advanced constellation of reconnaissance satellites, supplemented commercial structures providing Earth remote sensing services.

In the future, the US capabilities to destroy targets deep in enemy territory will be significantly expanded by retargeting long-range precision-guided munitions in flight. So far, this issue is at the initial stage of its resolution, but there is no doubt that it will be resolved positively - low-orbit satellite constellations will make it possible to implement this function even on tactical-level UAVs.

And this is just the beginning - we will consider the prospects for further building up the enemy’s potential for delivering strikes with long-range precision weapons in a separate article, but for now we will focus on today’s bottom.

How many targets - Russian combat aircraft and helicopters on airfields - must be destroyed by the US Armed Forces?

Russian Air Force (VVS)


According to open data, about 3000 units of aviation equipment are currently in service with the Russian Air Force, of which (data rounded):

- 1000 fighters, interceptors, front-line bombers and attack aircraft;
- 140 - strategic and long-range bombers;
- 300 military transport aircraft;
- 130 aircraft for the transport of personnel;
- 75 special aircraft - long-range radar weapons (DRLO), tanker aircraft and reconnaissance aircraft of various types;
- 250 training aircraft;
- 1000 helicopters of all types.

Even if we assume that the enemy attacks everything he can (except for strategic bombers), and half of the attacking ammunition will be destroyed by air defense systems (which is unlikely), then he will spend about half of his long-range HTO arsenal on destroying all (!) Aviation of the Russian Air Force . In addition, the open location of Russian aviation equipment at airfields "side by side" will allow one cruise missile with a warhead (warhead) weighing 500 kilograms to destroy two or three units of aviation equipment at once, which means that the United States will be able to "save".


The fleet of the most modern combat vehicles in the Russian Air Force is about five hundred aircraft. Image by wikipedia.org

With the simultaneous launch of all precision-guided munitions, one cannot rely only on air defense systems, they will simply be overloaded in terms of the number of guidance channels and will quickly exhaust their ammunition load, and when they are reloaded, it will be too late. In addition, knowing the location of air defense systems and using high-precision 3D surface maps, the enemy will plot the flight path of the air defense systems in such a way as to minimize the time they spend in the field of view of radar stations (RLS) and hit by anti-aircraft guided missiles (SAM).

They probably won't help here. over-the-horizon radar stations (ZGRLS) - using space means of electronic intelligence (RTR), the enemy can detect gaps in coverage areas or even create them artificially (so far this is from the field of assumptions, but the operation of the ZGRLS is based on the reflection of radio waves from the ionosphere), and who knows what results were obtained on the complex HARP ionospheric research.


ZGRLS "Container" and the principle of its operation (left), as well as the "ionosphere research complex" HARP (right). Image by wikipedia.org

However, without touching on "complex matters", RTR satellites can simply determine when the next ZGRLS will be on preventive maintenance and will be turned off, and hit into the resulting gap.

Minimization of consequences


In another article on the topic - Cover, Evade, Defend: Ensuring the Survival of Combat Aviation on Airfields Under the Influence of Precision Weapons Measures were considered to reduce the losses of their aircraft at home airfields in the event of a massive strike by the enemy with high-precision weapons.

One of the most important measures considered is the construction of shelters for aircraft of all classes. We can say that the end of 2022 clearly confirmed the highest priority of work in this direction.

After all, what's the problem? Russia is rebuilding cities to replace those destroyed by the war in Ukraine, building huge bridges, Olympic facilities and stadiums, tens to hundreds of kilometers of barrier lines with concrete structures with an unknown degree of usefulness, but cannot build several thousand arched shelters and prefabricated hangars?

Arched shelters for combat aircraft and helicopters are a long-term investment in the safety of the most sophisticated high-tech aviation equipment. Generations and types of aircraft will change, but protected shelters for them, with proper care, can last for decades, or even centuries. Moreover, the use of modern construction methods leads to a decrease in the cost of objects under construction, while the cost of aviation equipment only grows from generation to generation and will certainly continue to grow in the future.

If we talk about transport and strategic aviation, that is, about large aircraft, for which it will be difficult to build concrete shelters, then even pre-fabricated hangars will play their role, especially since they can and should be built in excess, shuffling aircraft and, for example, , airfield equipment. The enemy will have to spend much more time on reconnaissance and use much more long-range AOS, since instead of the strategic bomber chosen as the target, there may well be only snowplows in the hangar.


Arched shelters and prefabricated hangars can significantly reduce the loss of aircraft and helicopters at home airfields or even force the enemy to abandon such a strike due to its potentially low effectiveness.

Conclusions


It was necessary to cover all Russian combat and auxiliary aviation already yesterday, but since this was not done earlier, it is necessary to accept the strike of Ukrainian UAVs on the airfield in Engels as a "sign from above." The production capabilities of the Russian Federation make it possible in 2023 to provide shelters for all modern military equipment - about 1000 vehicles, and then, in 2024-2025, to drive into hangars and all other aircraft and helicopters available in the Russian Air Force.

This will reduce the likelihood and effectiveness of both single sabotage strikes by the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the massive use of long-range air attack by the United States. An additional advantage will be an increase in the efficiency of storage and maintenance of modern military equipment, and as a result, a decrease in the likelihood of non-combat losses due to emergencies.
Our news channels

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

48 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +15
    January 6 2023
    A wise person learns from the mistakes of others, a smart person learns from his own, a fool does not learn at all. If you failed to be wise, don't be a fool.
    I hope that the strikes on the airfield in Engels will at least teach Russia something.
    1. +11
      January 6 2023
      So now think what you want about CBO - this is a curse or a chance to practice on "cats". Although if the "untrained" remain in command, then certainly a curse ...
    2. +16
      January 6 2023
      Yes, it also flew from the outskirts to Engels. Our truth explained that the unextinguished cigarette butt was to blame. Even from the beginning of the operation there was no earthen dump, and here we are talking about hangars. To begin with, at least the land was raked around the aircraft. And work on the bugs was carried out regularly, and they did not hush up the problems, giving rise to new ones. And as I understand it, Engels, with three arrivals, showed the absence of air defense systems to the Saratov region. Therefore, the outskirts can safely bomb energy facilities as far as Saratov. hi
    3. +3
      January 6 2023
      At least for the duration of the NMD and the decision to disperse part of the strategic and long-range bombers to Chkalovsky, etc., under the protection of the Moscow air defense zone.
    4. +9
      January 6 2023
      Well, as it were .. "We taught .. We posted an inscription for the satellite at the airfield .. Death to Nazism .. Here we must seriously draw conclusions and start working on building shelters .. And not play in the sandbox. By the way, let me remind you .. In Balakovo -and it’s nearby, the nuclear power plant is located .. What kind of fate of the country is becoming scary
    5. +9
      January 6 2023
      As long as these people are at the helm in the Kremlin, nothing will teach anyone anything. It is necessary to change these inmates, they have shown themselves, what they are worth, we all see very well and they are leading the country to disaster by a straight road.
    6. AAK
      +4
      January 6 2023
      If a district or region of the Russian Federation is not adjacent to the LBS, then none of the "big stars" will study there themselves and will not teach others ... their favorite sport is rake jumping ... if units entirely from mobilized are still preparing for the front , without a holding and tightening frame from those who have already fought - then what else to talk about ...
  2. +1
    January 6 2023
    Of course, you need to cover aviation. Only if the Americans strike at our aviation, then it is necessary to respond with atomic bombs, only in this case there will be no such strike.
    And finally, the operation in Ukraine showed that manned aviation has outlived its time, maybe only strategic manned aircraft will remain, and all other battlefield aircraft should be unmanned, and most importantly massive and cheap.
    1. +2
      January 6 2023
      The operation on the outskirts showed that low-speed propeller-driven aircraft of the size used in the Second World War proved to be very effective and difficult to detect. And if you hang a dozen more drones on such planes! Here ten propellers flew up and each released ten low-speed drones. Air defense will work? Or miss a beat? Judging by the bouquets of Geranium, drones fly through air defenses like flies through a fishing net. What about the cost of flowers? This is not stuffed combat helicopters and jet planes for you! Penny drones inflict damage on rubles with many zeros! Rust did not fly to Moscow on a jet plane at the time. Some really say that by the time Rust arrived at his landing site, even the trolleybus wires were removed. It was like a conspiracy from above.
      1. +14
        January 6 2023
        Quote: North Caucasus
        Rust did not fly to Moscow on a jet plane at the time.

        Rust flew to Moscow only because there was no person among the authorities who would give the command to destroy him.
        1. +1
          January 9 2023
          Yes, don’t talk nonsense a couple of years before that, a Korean Boeing was shot down and nothing terrible happened.

          green ✓ April 20, 1978 - a Boeing 707 passenger aircraft (number HL-7429, Korean Air Lines, South Korea) with 97 passengers on board, operating flight 902 on the route Paris - Anchorage - Seoul, deviated from its route by 2000 km and invaded the airspace of the USSR in the region of Murmansk. Being intercepted by the Soviet Su-15TM (pilot - Bosov), he did not react to the signals, and tried to escape towards Finland (according to the Soviet version, which was rejected by the Boeing commander, Kim Changyu). The interceptor fired two missiles at the intruder, one of which hit the target. The Boeing successfully made an emergency landing on the ice of the frozen lake Korpijärvi near the village of Loukhi. 2 people were killed and 13 people were injured[17]. See South Korean Boeing Incident (1978).

          green ✓yellow ✓❌❌ June 21, 1978 - Four CH-47 Chinook (Iranian Air Force) transport helicopters entered Soviet airspace over Turkmenistan. They were intercepted by a MiG-23 fighter (pilot - Shkinder), who shot down one helicopter with missiles (8 crew members died), and damaged another helicopter with cannon fire. Damaged CH-47 made an emergency landing on the territory of the USSR. Subsequently, the car and crew members were returned to Iran. See Iranian Chinook Incident (1978).

          1980-e
          green ✓ July 18, 1981 - the Soviet Su-15TM interceptor (pilot - Valentin Kulyapin) rammed a CL-44 transport aircraft (number LV-JTN, Transportes Aereo Rioplatense, Argentina), which was making a secret transport flight en route Tel Aviv - Tehran and inadvertently intruding into the airspace of the USSR over Armenia. All 4 crew members of the CL-44 were killed, including a British citizen. Kulyapin successfully ejected, for ramming he was awarded the Order of the Red Banner. See Argentine CL-44 Incident (1981).

          green ✓ September 1, 1983 - a Boeing 747-230B passenger plane (number HL-7442, Korean Airlines, South Korea) deviated significantly from its course and was shot down by a Su-15 interceptor (pilot - Gennady Osipovich) over Sakhalin. 269 ​​people died. There are numerous unofficial versions of this incident, according to which the flight of the Boeing 747 was part of a large-scale operation by American intelligence agencies. See the article South Korean Boeing Incident (1983).

          ❌ August 9, 1984 - in the course of pursuing the intruder Airbus A310, the Soviet Su-15 interceptor, according to the Swedish side, deepened 50 km into Swedish airspace. It was also claimed that, according to radio interception, the Su-15 was ready to open fire on Airbus. The Soviet side denied the Swedish information about this incident two and a half months later.

          28 in May 1987 - Cessna-172 Skyhawk aircraft (D-ECJB number), piloted by German citizen Mathias Rust, flew out of the capital of Finland, Helsinki, and landed on Red Square in Moscow. As a result of the incident, a number of senior officers of the USSR Armed Forces were removed from their posts, including Minister of Defense Sokolov, Air Defense Commander Koldunov and Air Force Commander Efimov.

          ❌ May 1988 - Cessna-152 light aircraft, piloted by Norwegian Andreas Sommers, went deep into Soviet airspace for 30-40 km, but after being intercepted by a Soviet Su-27 fighter, returned to Finnish airspace. In the days that followed, Sommers made several more unsuccessful attempts to violate Soviet airspace.[18]

          1990-e
          ❌ June 9, 1990 - a Cessna light-engined sports aircraft under the control of the German Hans Ulrich Schneider made an unauthorized landing at the Batumi airfield. The pilot left a package with a message and a bouquet of flowers on the runway and flew off towards Turkey in less than a minute. The air defense systems of the USSR did not respond to the intruder's flight[19].

          August 25, 1990 - A J-6 fighter (China Air Force) invaded Soviet airspace and landed at the Knevichi airfield near Vladivostok. The pilot of the plane asked for political asylum in the USSR. Both the aircraft and the pilot were returned to China.
  3. +2
    January 6 2023
    Quote: certero
    and all other aircraft on the battlefield must be unmanned

    Unsubstantiated argument...
    I think it is necessary to change the concept of using pilot aviation ... drones should be the first to go into battle, opening the enemy’s air defense, and then, after suppressing the air defense batteries, you can iron the enemy’s positions with impunity with conventional aircraft.
    1. +3
      January 6 2023
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      Quote: certero
      and all other aircraft on the battlefield must be unmanned

      Unsubstantiated argument...
      I think it is necessary to change the concept of using pilot aviation ... drones should be the first to go into battle, opening the enemy’s air defense, and then, after suppressing the air defense batteries, you can with impunity to iron enemy positions with conventional aircraft.

      Unsubstantiated argument...
      tongue drinks
      The CBO showed that if every second enemy has a conditional stinger, then the departure of the same helicopters will be a "one-way ticket" crying From 1 or 2, the helicopter will still be able to dodge, but from a dozen 200 percent, no ...
      1. +1
        January 6 2023
        Stingers are good at altitudes up to 4 km ... and then another air defense is already working ... that's what you need to crush with drones.
        1. 0
          January 11 2023
          Well, it's still 4000m. Having the experience of guidance through Starlink, the rocket can be made heavier, and the GOS simpler - only for the final section.
          Kmk, in the coming years we will see their Stinger-2 at a distance of 10-15 km.
          In general, all this Starlink is a very serious weapon.
      2. 0
        January 6 2023
        For Stingers, the range is limited for missiles, and indeed for all wearable systems with a range of no more than 5-7 km and in height up to 3-4 km. And it is almost impossible to increase this range and altitude without changing the weight and dimensions, this makes the installation unliftable for the operator. And our helicopters are now quietly operating outside this range, from a distance of 7-10 km. Moreover, our helicopters have warning and protection systems against such missiles, which are very effective for combating MANPADS. Stingers and similar complexes are relatively effective if the launch is carried out in close proximity, it is somewhere between 0.5 and up to 2 km. This involves setting up ambushes on the routes of probable approach, or, well, the case when, for one reason or another, the helicopter turned out to be at such a distance from the operator. Jet aircraft with protective equipment against MANPADS are generally a difficult task to defeat and their shooting down is only a matter of chance or incorrect (not skillful or poor training) actions of the pilot or crew.
        1. -1
          January 6 2023
          Quote: svoroponov
          For Stingers, the range is limited for missiles, and indeed for all wearable systems with a range of no more than 5-7 km and in height up to 3-4 km. And it is almost impossible to increase this range and altitude without changing the weight and dimensions, this makes the installation unliftable for the operator. And our helicopters are now quietly operating outside this range, from a distance of 7-10 km. Moreover, our helicopters have warning and protection systems against such missiles, which are very effective for combating MANPADS. Stingers and similar complexes are relatively effective if the launch is carried out in close proximity, it is somewhere between 0.5 and up to 2 km. This involves setting up ambushes on the routes of probable approach, or, well, the case when, for one reason or another, the helicopter turned out to be at such a distance from the operator. Jet aircraft with protective equipment against MANPADS are generally a difficult task to defeat and their shooting down is only a matter of chance or incorrect (not skillful or poor training) actions of the pilot or crew.

          You are right today what you wrote, tell our helicopter pilots, even though the guys will laugh heartily tongue drinks
    2. +10
      January 6 2023
      Aha! It seems that something on drones is planned for February 25th. Like, they will decide who, what and how many drones will be released. In five years, a decree may come out. It is also necessary to formulate the terms of reference, agree on the budget and allocate the necessary manufacturers to connect which subcontractors must also be found, and those resources for production. Just in five years, everything will be decided, and maybe later. Everything will go from the speed of allocation and the speed of development of the budget! Pavda's budget may not be enough, but new talented businessmen may appear!
      1. +1
        January 6 2023
        Change the manuals, they are outdated. Decisions have already been made. Several enterprises have already switched to the mass production of attack and reconnaissance UAVs. For a number of promising types that have been tested in the combat zone, decisions have also been made and manufacturers have been selected up to the enterprises of the Far East.
    3. 0
      January 9 2023
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      I think it is necessary to change the concept of using pilot aviation ... drones should be the first to go into battle, opening the enemy’s air defense, and then, after suppressing the air defense batteries, you can iron the enemy’s positions with impunity with conventional aircraft.

      The most interesting thing is that this scheme was quite effectively used against an air defense system built according to Soviet patterns back in 1982. It was called "Operation" Medvedka 19 ".
  4. +7
    January 6 2023
    Here the conversation should be conducted not about what we have, but what we can reproduce in the terrible years. The years of the Second World War are often recalled here. Although it would be nice to recall the experience of the peaceful days of the USSR. After all, over all the secret points there was a special corridor for flying vehicles. I remember in childhood, we watched the exercises of air defense systems. For two hours, gaps flashed in the sky. It was in the evening. It was good to see. We lived modestly, but were confident in our safety.
  5. +1
    January 6 2023
    Ukrainian UAV strikes on the airfield in Engels as an indicator of the extreme vulnerability of aviation at base points
    . When the enemy has, serious weapons systems appear, you can / have to expect the most .... different, unpleasant, or even catastrophic!
    However, even without them, a stubborn, skillful enemy can cause significant harm, with the skillful use of simple, but no less effective means !!! If you allow ... in general, you can’t clap your ears, you will be punished severely.
    1. +11
      January 6 2023
      And the article made a depressing impression on me.
      Before that, I was in full confidence that we were fighting on Ukrainian territory with NATO. This is what all our media, all TV announcers assured me of.
      And you see how it is ... It turns out that not a single Tomahawk, not a single OTRK missile with a range of at least 300 km has yet entered into single combat with us. Not to mention the other "Abrams", "Leopards", F-16/18, AUG, etc.
      And why is NATO fighting in Ukraine then? And in general, does the bloc know that it is fighting there? Or has he not started yet?
      1. 0
        January 6 2023
        Already now we can draw the first conclusions: the methods of warfare have changed a lot.
        1. Attack aircraft and fighter-bombers are very vulnerable, so in Ukraine aviation is not heard or seen. Bottom line: the emphasis should be on UAVs.
        2. Tanks and armored personnel carriers are too vulnerable to Javelins and their counterparts, so we do not see the use of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, as during the Second World War.
        3. Non-self-propelled artillery is highly vulnerable and noticeably lacks high-precision weapons.
        4. The role of drones - strike and reconnaissance - has greatly increased.
        Therefore, the production of tanks, aircraft and towed artillery should be reduced, and the production of UAVs and high-precision weapons should be increased.
        1. -1
          January 10 2023
          It's not about weapons systems, but about politics. Tanks are initially NOT SUITABLE for breaking through defense in depth. Tanks in this conflict are mainly used as self-propelled guns or infantry support assault guns - fired at direct fire, disappeared. The tank must work in the operational space.
          NWO is a limited conflict with limited goals (for me personally - very vague) like the Winter War.
    2. 0
      January 6 2023
      You're right. And I'll add. At the airfield, where there are AIRCRAFT with suspended missiles with nuclear weapons heads, no one would strike, because our defense doctrine on the use of nuclear deterrents immediately comes into effect. And the answer would have flown far away from Ukraine. Well, for your information. The airfield in Engels did not have its own air defense systems before the first raid. There WAS not numerous focal air defense around, covering slightly different objects. After the first strike, cover appeared, as did the result. In general, it is impossible to foresee everything in a war with a high-tech enemy. As a rule, counteraction is already developed during the conflicts themselves, when the threats are obvious.
      1. +1
        January 10 2023
        in general, it is impossible to foresee everything in a war with a high-tech enemy

        To cover the base of STRATEGIC aviation with air defense means - you don’t have to be a strategist for this ...
  6. +2
    January 6 2023
    Who would have thought that this junk could be effectively used against Russian strategic aviation?

    It was necessary to measure seven times in order to start the CBO without being prepared. So that later shortcomings would not come out both in air defense and in uniforms and equipment of troops.
    1. +5
      January 6 2023
      For the Tu-95, Tu-16, due to their size, it is impossible to build a more or less reliable closed shelter, the maximum is a hangar through the roof of which it is not visible from space what is in it, the only way out is dispersal over airfields, maybe even civilian ones,
      A radical solution to the current problem of vulnerability would be to think about the question of what types of existing transport and passenger aircraft can be converted into cruise missile carriers.,
      1. +1
        January 6 2023
        Quote: agond
        the only way out is dispersal over airfields, maybe even civilian ones,

        This dispersal is not enough - the article shows that
        enemy
        will spend about half of its long-range WTO arsenal on the destruction of all (!) Aviation of the Russian Air Force.

        The remaining half of the arsenal, he can spend on the destruction of the runway dispersal airfields.
        It is necessary to increase the number of takeoff sites, as well as create aircraft with vertical (or shortened) takeoff and vertical landing (VTOL). The cost of building a runway for VTOL aircraft is much cheaper than the cost of building a full-scale airfield.
    2. +1
      January 6 2023
      For your Wishlist, it was necessary to immediately transfer the country to martial law, especially in advance. Well, the result could have been the same or we would have had huge losses. And who knows what the US and NATO would have done after our victory and such losses to us. Well, you should not forget about the Ukrainian people themselves. In this case, no one canceled the mass of those who hate us.
  7. +4
    January 6 2023
    When we talk about the destruction of targets on approach, the second question that needs to be solved is "stop who is flying?". We already have a bunch of small aircraft, and without answering machines, and I suspect so without flight plans, even notification ones. So look at the UFO mark on the radar, and think who's there - the maize pilot decided to roll a lady or a drone (or maybe a kamikaze) with a ton of explosives. Yes, it is possible to close areas for flights, but firstly it will be in densely populated areas, and they will still fly, and secondly, who will take responsibility for shooting down a UFO with the corresponding political consequences?
    1. +5
      January 6 2023
      Everything is decided by the relevant legislation.
      For example. If the sentry shoots the violator of the border of the post, while observing the rules, he will receive incentives and go on vacation. It doesn't matter who gets shot.
      So it is in aviation - they declared a no-fly zone and that's it. If someone was shot down there, a reward is calculated. The victim is to blame.
    2. 0
      January 6 2023
      Also you are right. The survey locator pinpoints the object and decides what it is. Then the order to destroy and that's all the time. Moreover, far from the entire area is covered by air defense inside the country, and an object can go beyond the range of a division or installation, and there is simply no one nearby to transfer it to escort and defeat. This is especially true for high-speed low-flying targets.
  8. +2
    January 6 2023
    Long-range aviation is based openly in accordance with the signed agreement to increase confidence. The US believes in God, and we trust the US. In a nuclear war against the United States, aviation will not be needed. The USSR disappeared without any hostilities at all, and thanks to whom we still do not know: it has not been established by a court order that has entered into force.
  9. -5
    January 6 2023
    You can hide and you can disperse. As a rule, regimental commanders of combat units or their high command stationed at airfields have plans for such a dispersal and new deployment points or measures that need to be implemented. Although with the advent of new types of weapons, these measures, or new ones, should be updated.
    As for aircraft covers. If they can quite protect from fragments, if missiles are for hitting targets hidden in hangars and caponiers, then it is doubtful.
    And further. Those missiles that are long-range high-precision, the Americans will not transfer to Ukrainians. Their transfer and use is a war with the United States.
    In this case, ours will strike US bases in Europe and then the US, the conflict will escalate .. The Americans have been warned about this at the highest level. And Putin, if he said, he will do it.
    Americans are afraid of him in the full sense of the word. They understand that if there is a blow to America, then it will no longer be. And no one will help her. And the bases on the territory of different natives, those with pleasure, because there will be no help from the metropolis, are liquidated. There is no love for the USA, only fear of their Sun and financial dependence. With the destruction of the United States, the debts of these countries to the United States are reset to zero and the US Armed Forces are destroyed (funding stops).
  10. +3
    January 6 2023
    north caucasus (north caucasus), dear, I already noted in the comments on the site that the regiment - the 121st Guards Red Banner Sevastopol tbap is the same, only the planes and people are different in the USSR and the Russian Federation. In the USSR, the TU-22 was flown from the Machulishchi airfield, which is just south of Minsk, if you open Yandex maps, we will find the streets: Druzhnaya, Priozernaya, Sevastopolskaya, Aviators, which grew up on the site of taxiing, which were in the shape of a pentagon. Caponiers were piled around these taxiings, on which trees grew. The caponiers looked in different directions. Cars could drive up to the plane in a caponier. Yes, they were open from above, but at least some protection. Yes, the 1st and 2nd AEs were hidden in the caponiers, the third squadron, the VKP and transport An-12s stood on the main taxiway, which is still going on today in Machulishchi near the runway. But the missile carriers were dispersed and slightly, but covered. The air defense regiment on the MiG-23 had 3 parking lots at different ends of the runway. Two lanes from the southern end are still visible on the maps today ... In Engels, Tu-160s stand, like soldiers on parade, almost wing to wing, they were not even stretched in different directions, it seems to be lazy for contract soldiers and officers to drive a couple of kilometers along the airfields .. .Only the media are ringing about the ATS experience. But there the gabions were covered with sand quickly. In Engels, the airfield was modernized for several years. But even from the gabions, they did not bother to put up shelters for aviation equipment of the regiment and vehicles of the base. I don’t even want to talk about reinforced concrete shelters, it seems that the question of them was not raised during the reconstruction of the airfield. We only replaced stoves and lighting equipment .... We are not preparing to fight, we are waiting for a pension ...
    1. +2
      January 9 2023
      Quote: Tests
      Only the media are ringing about the ATS experience. But there the gabions were covered with sand quickly.

      That's the thing, it's not fast. The first caponiers for aircraft (concrete + gabions) appeared in Khmeimim only at the beginning of 2018 - after the well-known UAV raid. In the same year, they began to build covered shelters, which were highlighted in the 2020 video.
      And before that, for two and a half years, the planes stood in traditional open parking lots "wing to wing". In the war zone.
  11. +3
    January 6 2023
    You look how I was downvoted in an article about the first arrival in Engels, where I "dared" to hint at the shelter of the Tu 160 in the hangars !!! laughing
  12. +1
    January 6 2023
    To prevent anything from flying in, we need a legal document of the Russian Federation that defines the NWO in Ukraine. Gentlemen, deputies, senators, the President of the Russian Federation, adopt a Law in which it is stated that the territory of Ukraine is an integral part of Russia. The law will stop many people, because the supply of weapons and support for the separatists in Ukraine will be considered an undeclared war against Russia. All this "elite" is dominated by the fear of being responsible for the state coup in the 1990s in the USSR.
  13. -3
    January 7 2023
    Will they provide cover? Modern concrete-piercing ammunition will break through the ceilings, complicating the location of shelters is also not an option with the presence of numerous satellites, all the more so it will not be difficult to detect logistics (entrances, warehouses, etc.), it is probably still more correct to separate air defense systems.
    1. +2
      January 7 2023
      Quote from: 1razvgod
      will they provide shelter?

      They will immediately give the equipment protection from bad weather, that is, its durability will increase, and at the prices of aircraft, it is worth it. Aircraft technicians will not freeze and it will be easier for them to work, that is, better service. In the shelter, you can store loaders and ammunition carts, make a fuel line for refueling, and other communications that will not last long under the snow.
      You can store some kind of test stands of the "rack on wheels" type to check the aircraft systems, which will reduce the accident rate, and the stands themselves can not be dragged in the rain, and so on.
      You can covertly repaint the plane from satellites, or do something else in comfort.
      1. 0
        January 9 2023
        Quote: eule
        They will immediately give the equipment protection from bad weather, that is, its durability will increase, and at the prices of aircraft, it is worth it.

        This does not require arched shelters like the old 2A/13. Enough ordinary hangars.

        And yes, the era of protected shelters has passed with the advent of cheap UAB with satellite correction.
        Here is an example from 2011: three B-2 Spirit bombers from the 509th bomber wing dropped 45 2000-pound GBU-31 guided bombs on the Ghardabiya airfield near Sirte, plus they worked Tomahawks at the same airfield.
        The result - out of 80 shelters, only 5 remained visually intact. The gray "petals" on the taxiway are the armored doors of the shelters taken out by explosions.
  14. -1
    January 7 2023
    The enemy will have to spend much more time on reconnaissance and use much more long-range AOS, since instead of the strategic bomber chosen as the target, there may well be only snowplows in the hangar.

    Given the volume of the military budget and the satellite constellation, there is reason to believe that the United States may well monitor large military facilities, as they say, 24/7. This task is not God knows what, given that a certain period of time passes from the moment the aircraft lands to the moment it is put into the hangar. Thus, it is already now possible to keep track of what and where is located. Or start keeping such records ahead of time, for a certain pre-preparatory period before the operation.
    In the future, the possibilities of this kind of reconnaissance will only increase, including due to AI, which will analyze the satellite "image", changes on it and moving equipment somewhere (especially large). With a proper approach to the issue, these data can be compiled into a very convenient form, indicating both the degree of preparation from the concentration of enemy forces, and his intentions.

    As for "Engels" - I suspect that in addition to the fact that "everything turned out to be a little different as they poured into our ears for years," another significant factor is that we do not have martial law and, therefore, there is no scope for the military to give they have the right to shoot down certain "phantom" objects that are not GA aircraft. On the line of contact or near it, these issues have been worked out more or less, but the farther, the greater part of the air defense-missile defense will be in the "peace". This means that conditional settlements will have some rights only nominally, and other issues will be at an approximately "pre-war" level of regulation.
  15. 0
    January 8 2023
    Another good and fairly cheap way to deflect the blow from the strategists is to make exact copies. "Restless economy": remember such an old film about a false airfield during the war.
  16. +1
    January 10 2023
    Of course, I am not a pilot, but I completely agree with the author. Building shelters is logical and obvious. The beginning of the Second World War can serve as an example. Unfortunately, we don't even want to learn from our mistakes.
  17. The comment was deleted.
  18. +1
    January 12 2023
    But someone can say: what turned out to be in Russia ready for war? And then wherever you poke your finger - everywhere collapse, devastation, jambs and theft without responsibility. No, well - really ... That's WHAT WAS READY? At least 4+?
  19. -1
    January 28 2023
    Not invulnerability, but stupidity and blatant incompetence of these officials responsible for this area of ​​​​work. This is from the same series that a fly or a bird will not fly across the Crimean bridge, the murder of the unfortunate girl Dugina in the middle of Russia, the conduct of stupid mobilization and many many other things , saying that many officials in uniform relaxed at high salaries and don’t want to do anything, but wait for it to dissolve by itself. when they report any bullshit to him or officials live by the principle, he trusts us. A bad principle, trust but also check. How many such figures spinning near our president have sailed into the political distance.

"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; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"