Russian-Made Crash Notification

Only Engels strikes were done with Strizh. All other attacks, one or two Tu-22M3, 2 Il-276 and planes from Saki airbase were destroyed by pimped up Alibaba drones. Ukrainians destroyed several hundred million worth of planes with $500 fpv or drones that dropped grenades. But, lets post pics of hardened shelters and throw shit at anyone that mentions shelters, because there's no real reason some steel hangars couldn't be built even before this war.
Since picture is worth more than thousand words, this is, more or less, what we're talking about here.

Vks get a batch of 4, but they lose 3

They make what they think they need and always try to keep losses to a minimum... you can cry and claim they are stupid, but at least they are doing something to stop US occupation of Russia. Your moaning on the internet on a website of people who support Russia is doing more for your enemies... I am sure more than a few Russia supporters read your pussy whining and complaints and wonder why they care if Russia gets fucked over again or not.

You are moody like a woman, and don't understand why others don't follow your special pattern of moods... simple... because we aren't fking mental.

It's already poor quantity they have of fighters,

Their fighters appear to be doing a great job, and their air defence is something the west is really going to struggle with.

A drone with a tiny RCS is actually harder to deal with than a stealth fighter or stealth bomber that uses coatings and shapings to hide its RCS, because different frequencies render stealth useless, but that doesn't really help with tiny targets and other solutions need to be found... while under fire...

But you know what? by MOD logic, it's dangerous for the plane to be in the hangar, because it might collapse

So if it gets taken out by a drone, at least we saved money on the hangars guys

Spending billions on all these hangars is only worth while if they are kept shut all the time so drones cannot fly in to them... and that is not going to happen.

Planes spend most of their time on the ground so yeah hangars are a must have.

Even in airfields in the west that have all sorts of hangars, most of the time operational aircraft spend their time out on the flight line where there are no hangars and hangars offer no protection at all.

This tinny window for attacks when it is accessible can be overcome by increasing patrol around airfield and turning on jammers to forbid the access to operators or drones.

But for every aircraft you are going to need lots and lots of hangars because aircraft can be redeployed at short notice to forward airfields that don't have hangars, or don't have enough.

These are opportunist attacks... they don't care what they hit... they just want to hit something, so hitting anything is their goal... so spending billions on new hangars will result in them occasionally hitting an aircraft or two and pussies whining that they need more hangars and better hangars... after they already spend billions on new hangars... and all for the cost of a few cheap drones... talk about value for money.

Long range drones don't have camera and man in the moop.

Long range weapons like Iskander and Kh-101 have a camera and in the terminal part of their attack they use image processing software together with their location from their INS navigation system and any working GLONASS signals and they can target buildings and vehicles and locations in their field of view.

Most of the drones we are talking about, that the air defences have trouble with are tiny so their payload is going to be tiny.

The reason they use tires is not just to hide their radar signature, but also a tiny drone with a tiny bomb hits an unprotected aircraft wing and blows a hole in the outer layer and sets fire to the fuel inside... which starts a fire that destroys the aircraft. Put a couple of tires on top and the rubber absorbs the small explosion and prevents the skin of the aircraft from being ruptured... no fire no plane destroyed.

Protect the aircraft,

Very simple concept,

Okay?

Very true, but protecting your car from damage by putting it into a garage is spending a lot of money considering most of the operational time that garage will have its door left open...

But that's what conscripts are for, to be used for base security, the VKS needs security at bases, personnel to assist with bringing planes in and out of the hangars

Stop being ridiculous... have you never seen a drone before? They are tiny and the area of an air base is enormous... having men standing out in the airfield with rifles or even machine guns would be a terrible waste of man power and as we see with Gerans hitting targets in Ukraine even with Gepards there they are not effective most of the time...

And il78 is needed, but MOD don't want to spend money on fuel tankers, in their logic is better to base tu22m3 close by, with tires on the wings, and lose them in drone attacks

It is not just about money... the German attacks on London failed because of the distance the German aircraft had to fly to reach the target area... if they could have been based closer they could have performed rather more attacks and delivered vastly more ordinance and spent less time just flying to the target area... which is vulnerable dangerous time that is not damaging the enemy.

But it's laziness a very persistent bad habit of the MOD

Those missiles do not fly direct routes and their ranges are for long range attacks where most of their flight time is spent at altitude... for attacks deep inside Ukraine it has to fly low level most of the way which means routing the flight path around known locations of SAM defences...

As for friendly fire, I thought PVO was supposed to be subordinate to VKS now, so wtf?

Yeah, a flick of a switch and everything is fixed... it is a problem for everyone... remember those allied aircraft the Patriot shot down, and the allied aircraft that took out a Patriot in the process of shooting it down?

Hangar is not a do all, it just represents one step in better protection of planes that are worth tens if not hundreds of millions.

So spend like the west and do like the west because the west really knows how to run a war on the cheap?

Not to mention that hangars protect planes from inclement weather, which is known that it can be very harsh in those parts.

Aircraft inside hangars are useless... the equivalent of aircraft in the hangars on an aircraft carrier... on a land airfield the hangars are normally enormous distances from the runway... it would probably take 5 minutes just to open the bloody heavy protected doors, and then you arm and fuel them outside the hangars and then you get them to the flight line and then they sit and wait for their time to take off... sounds like the ideal time to attack them where their heavy strong expensive powerfully build hangars become bloody useless.

You cannot stop 100% of enemy attacks, that is impossible, no one has ever done it and no one will. If you think that if Russia strictly follows a script on how to conduct a military operation made by you, casualties will end, you are sadly mistaken. No one has ever fought a war without suffering losses, and this applies not only to those who lose the war but also to those who win the war.

Totally agree... these are occasional slips through gaps in the protection, it is not like they are losing aircraft at the rate of Kiev, or their rate of loss of soldiers every day... this is a fringe loss that is not worth spending billions on.

Especially when you talk about saving money... each hanger to protect each aircraft would cost more than some of the aircraft are even worth if you want them made right.

Too much thunderbird syndrome with secret underground hangars for all your aircraft.

Solid airplane shelters and military vehicle parks have been obsolete for decades.
Every single army in the world is building its modern infrastructure with modular, soft skinned, and light prefabricated elements.
Why?

It is about cost return... spending trillions of rubles to save a few million rubles in aircraft that are in serial production where the pilots and crews are not injured or put at risk means not building lots of heavy concrete monuments to MIC corruption like they did in the west makes sense.

Of course for Russia you could argue that the concrete piercing weapons that are the real threat to aircraft inside hangars are quite big and would not get through Russian air defences... it is the tiny drones with the tiny payloads that essentially set aircraft or fuel storage tanks on fire that are the problem and hangers would help with that.... as long as you kept all your planes in there and kept the door shut all the time... because any time it rolls out of that hangar a tiny drone can land on it and go boom and the enemy get their one burned plane hit every 18 months to prove Russia is weak and nazism always wins in the end.

Maybe you are looking at this the wrong way... Ark and Caveat... have you guys just invested in a shed making company that wants to expand to aircraft hangars?

It makes absolute sense to protect aircraft, only a cultist would argue otherwise

On an aircraft carrier in combat the aircraft are stored on the deck ready to fuel and arm and be used, the only aircraft that are taken down into the hangars are damaged or in need of repair or upgrade.

No one here argued against the need to protect aircraft, what was in fact argued here is against the supposed incompetence of Russian authorities, regarding the defense of their bases, given that there is no infallible defense and
that the protection methods proposed here do not guarantee 100% effectiveness against enemy attacks.

Not a single russian aircraft was destroyed by chechen terrorists in 1995-1999 by infiltrating airbase perimeters and planting explosives on them, despite russia nearing failed state status then, with a myriad of officers willing to take bribes and airport security being nonexistent. Let that sink in.

lancelot wrote:

limb wrote:Not a single russian aircraft was destroyed by chechen terrorists in 1995-1999 by infiltrating airbase perimeters  and planting explosives on them, despite russia nearing failed state status then, with a myriad of officers willing to take bribes and airport security being nonexistent. Let that sink in.

The Chechens did not have drones.

Those ka-52s in the pskov repair plant and those several russian aircraft in moscow were destroyed by explosives put by hand by saboteurs infiltrating the airfields

limb wrote:
Those ka-52s in the pskov repair plant and those several russian aircraft in moscow were destroyed by explosives put by hand by saboteurs infiltrating the airfields

Story about Ka-52s from Pskov plant, as well as Moscow airport are highly unlikely and based on some statements without hard evidence.
If you simply scratch Ka-52 or A-50U doesn't mean it has been destroyed.

Yes Ukrainians had some success with modern toys, but in reality that doesn't change anything on the battlefield.
Those limited success gave them some PR wins and ability to fabricate similar stories for rising moral.

Lessons will be learned and Russia will adopt quickly.
What solution would be is up to them to find out, hangars or EW systems or something third...is up to them.

To ordinary people hangars seems the easiest option, however when you have 1000+ airplanes and helicopters it becomes complicated....but we will see.

off topic, Pentagon was hit with the big passenger plane and that had no impact on US army except from bad reputation.
US army lost 134 helicopter, 33 fixed wing aircraft and 27 contractors aircraft.

Not a single russian aircraft was destroyed by chechen terrorists in 1995-1999 by infiltrating airbase perimeters and planting explosives on them, despite russia nearing failed state status then, with a myriad of officers willing to take bribes and airport security being nonexistent. Let that sink in.

Russian aircraft didn't stop the brave Chechen terrorists attacking theatres in Moscow or schools in Beslan so they weren't a high priority for them.

In comparison Russian aircraft are destroying lots of nazis and their HATO enablers will be ordering their nazi underlings to stop the haemorrhaging of their uberweapons because if they don't it looks bad... almost like the Russians can cope with HATO super weapons... and have better weapons in each category and are not really scared... just initially surprised and then they learn how to deal with the problem.

A problem because Russian drones have created a situation where the nazis don't want to go anywhere in vehicles or outside and of course inside is not exactly safe either... the most safe is surrender.

It's like saying that body armor won't protect you from mines or artillery, so don't wear it

No, you are saying sitting in 250 ton armoured vehicles that are mine protected is the only way to be safe from mines so if the enemy has mines then every soldier in the Russian army or fighting on their side needs their own personal 250 ton mine vehicle that will protect them 100% from all mines... and I am saying that the mines are not grown in a field, they are designed and built and if their enemy has 250 ton vehicles then their new mine designs will be optimised to set them on fire or immobilise them, with other mines to kill the people when they climb out of their disabled mine protected vehicles.

If Russia spent billions building new hangars for their aircraft it would take 10 years and forward deployed aircraft wont have hangars anyway because you don't want to be building anything near the front line. Any hangar build would be a challenge to the enemy so all they would need to do is fly a small drone into the open door of a hangar and score their little pointless victories you seem to get so upset about.

All that money wasted on hangars can't be spent on new aircraft and ammo to obliterate these nazis... who are close to collapse by the way... Russia has trained up a large force that they will be using for a counter attack... what is that going to do to the remaining nazis forces?

They are not going to be able to move their forces around like the Russians have and by attacking at lots of points at once then their line is going to fail at several places at once and they will either runaway, die, or surrender... and any of that is good for Russia to be honest... but you complain that Russian tanks don't reverse fast enough and they don't keep all their planes in big fixed structures that missiles like Scalp and Storm shadow and Taurus were designed to hit.

Imagine an airfield with 300 planes and lets say 300 hangars... an operational airfield will be using those aircraft all day long and sometimes at night too so planes might spend hours in those hangars with the doors closed but probably a dozen of those hangars will have their doors open, while aircraft out on the flight line will be getting armed and fuelled up... the tiny drones they are using are successful because they are near invisible to almost all sensors and all equipment they use to detect threats because these drones are actually physically small.

Normally the defence wouldn't care about such threats because they might start a fire somewhere or break some glass but most of the time they are harmless, but these drone operators are not idiots and they will have information about where to hit to get fuel tanks on aircraft and helicopters in the hopes to start a fire and burn the aircraft and that is what they are doing. Do you think when they see all these concrete hangars they will give up and go home?

They will of course target the aircraft on the flight line or even taking off.. try to get sucked into an engine or something where their tiny HE charge might destroy an engine on takeoff and cause a crash.

The point is that spending billions of dollars preventing an ineffective type of attack means not having the money to spend on things that actually work... a few of those BTR vehicles with twin 23mm cannon and radar and EO systems looks rather interesting and could be rather useful with air burst ammo to destroy the tiny drones that are the problem. Of course another part of the problem with tiny drones is that their short range gives very little time to actually do anything but having high velocity 23mm cannon shells being spat out at 1,000 rpm at 1,000m/s is a great way to cover a decent area of airspace quickly... the 23 x 152mm ammo is not expensive and the new ammo would be very useful for the job.

Conversely on a western airfield all the metal fragments the air burst ammo releases would probably make the airfield inoperable because of the danger of ingesting metal fragments and drone fragments during takeoff and taxiing.

Those new laser systems would also be interesting too.

off topic, Pentagon was hit with the big passenger plane and that had no impact on US army except from bad reputation.
US army lost 134 helicopter, 33 fixed wing aircraft and 27 contractors aircraft.

Indeed for a time period the Taliban became better equipped than some HATO allies...

JohninMK wrote:Engine failure on take-off.

I can't even begin to imagine the devastation and desperation in those last few seconds the aircraft is going down.

Makes you wonder though with a four engined aircraft losing one engine on takeoff... was there no chance of recovery, or even just maintaining flight speed so that some of those on board could bail out with parachutes?

Hard to say without knowing all the details of course... it had just taken off and many transport aircraft carrying payloads take off at aircraft weights where it is not safe to land so losing an engine means they can't maintain height and speed and they are too heavy to land until they have burned off a bit of fuel...

GarryB wrote:Makes you wonder though with a four engined aircraft losing one engine on takeoff... was there no chance of recovery, or even just maintaining flight speed so that some of those on board could bail out with parachutes?

Hard to say without knowing all the details of course... it had just taken off and many transport aircraft carrying payloads take off at aircraft weights where it is not safe to land so losing an engine means they can't maintain height and speed and they are too heavy to land until they have burned off a bit of fuel...

Landing max weight is very different, its more to do landing gear and structural capacity to contend with max landing G's. You can land over max weight and not damage the plane IF you grease the landing. I am not sure how old this plane is but perhaps as a military plane the req to be able to gain alt with one engine loss is not applicable, or maybe they made a mistake in procedures. It was an outer engine and you can see they were already struggling with the trust assymetry, they seem to have got the fire out, but if they did not handle the thrust assymetry or the fire caused a structural or control failure it maybe have been what doomed them.

Su-34 during training in North Ossetia crashed and both pilots died. Preliminary inquest states it was malfunction.

Tu-22M3 crashed in Irkutsk oblast. All crew members survived.

https://t.me/Aviahub34/3674

caveat emptor wrote:Tu-22M3 crashed in Irkutsk oblast. All crew members survived.

https://t.me/Aviahub34/3674

Update, one died in hospital,