Russian defence against drone swarms

thegopnik wrote:Flight patterns shown the attack came from Estonia, if they have not hit Estonia back I absolutely guarantee Russian missiles won't hit NATO air bases if they start hosting Ukrainian f-16s to get resupplied to attack russia or russian troops in Ukraine. Maybe surovkin and the other dude quit because they can't deal with putins cuck warfare anymore which we have multiple proofs of.

Begome wrote:

thegopnik wrote:Flight patterns shown the attack came from Estonia, if they have not hit Estonia back I absolutely guarantee Russian missiles won't hit NATO air bases if they start hosting Ukrainian f-16s to get resupplied to attack russia or russian troops in Ukraine. Maybe surovkin and the other dude quit because they can't deal with putins cuck warfare anymore which we have multiple proofs of.

Care to enlighten us as to these "flight patterns"? The attack happened at night, so I doubt there's video showing drones crossing over from Estonia.

Why don't you take a chill pill and wait for further info. Even traitor Rybar is saying that an attack from Ukraine is more likely.

sepheronx wrote:Telegram and Twitter does help with finding things and providing intel, but unless there is evidence of where the drones flew from, rest is all hearsay.

While it sucks to lose 4 Il-76's, these jets are still made by Russia so they will just make 4 more.

flamming_python wrote:It does seem to me like a bad idea to station military aircraft at civilian airports though, I will say that.

I know dual-use civilian-military airports and airfields are a thing in Russia; but for the duration of the conflict such schemes should be abolished everywhere in Russia within reach of NATO drones launched from Ukrainian territory. The military aircraft at such airports should be relocated to nearby purely military airbases which should be expanded if needed, and where appropriate air defences and anti-drone measures can be concentrated.

sepheronx wrote:Telegram and Twitter does help with finding things and providing intel, but unless there is evidence of where the drones flew from, rest is all hearsay.

While it sucks to lose 4 Il-76's, these jets are still made by Russia so they will just make 4 more.

4 seem to have been hit but I'm not sure how many are a write-off. There was a tweet that hinted at only 2 but then again maybe I should take my own advice and wait for verified info instead of relying on Twitter.

franco wrote:It's a joint base with the military being the prime flyer. Supports the 76th Airborne division stationed across town and to the south of the Airport.

NATO satellites helped Ukrainian drones fly to Pskov, by Evgeny Pozdnyakov for VZGLYAD. 08.30.2023.

During the attack of the Armed Forces of Ukraine on the airfield in Pskov, four Il-76 aircraft were damaged. The big question was the trajectory of the UAV. There is a version that the route of drones could run through the territory of Belarus. How justified is this version, how did the UAVs reach Pskov, and what should be done to minimize the consequences of such attacks in the future?

The Armed Forces of Ukraine launched a mass attack using UAVs on several regions of Russia. So, in the Pskov region,  an airport was raided  . The governor of the region, Mikhail Vedernikov, said in his  Telegram channel  that he had personally been on the spot "since the beginning of the incident." There are no casualties reported as a result of the attack.

Later, Vedernikov  shared  a video with the work of air defense to repel an enemy attack. As a result of the incident, a decision was  made  to cancel civilian flights on 30 August. Also, four Il-76 aircraft were damaged at the military airfield in Pskov   . The attack that took place led to the start of a fire, the fire engulfed two aircraft.

Recall that on August 19, the enemy launched an attack on the Novgorod region. The purpose of the Armed Forces of Ukraine was also the airfield in the city of Soltsy, which housed the aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Forces. The head of the municipal district, Maxim Timofeev, noted in his Telegram channel that all the consequences of the attack were quickly and successfully eliminated.

It is noteworthy that the Pskov and Novgorod regions are located next to each other. The distance from the nearest cities of Ukraine is about 800–900 km. Such a distance can be overcome by several types of drones. However, the night attack on August 30 divided the expert community into two camps, because it was atypical in its nature and method of execution.

The geographical features of the area make the potential movement of the drone easier if it crosses the border with Belarus. So, corresponding member of the Academy of Military Sciences Alexander Bartosh notes that the UAV flight route through the territory of a friendly republic could well be implemented in practice.

“Belarus has a good and fairly modern system of defense against air threats. Nevertheless, their air defense was created to combat aircraft. UAVs are a relatively new weapon. And traditional anti-aircraft systems are not so well adapted to destroy drones,” he notes.

“Therefore, in order to effectively combat UAVs, it is necessary to adapt the air defense of Belarus to the new threat. It is necessary to develop electronic warfare systems that can disable the control and navigation systems of drones. And Russia can help the neighboring state in this,” the expert explains.

“However, there is a route option with a starting point in one of the northern regions of Ukraine. The problem is that any of these options creates additional threats to Russia's security,” Bartosz emphasizes.

Aitech Bizhev, Lieutenant General, ex-Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force for the Joint Air Defense System of the CIS member states, has a slightly different opinion. “Minsk is part of the unified air defense system of the CIS with a common information field. The army of Belarus is on duty at the borders around the clock, so any object that tries to fly through the territory of the republic will be shot down," the interlocutor is convinced.

“Belarus has a very powerful and modern air defense system. The army of the republic has already destroyed drifting balloons and drones invading their airspace. In addition, similar combat situations are regularly practiced in exercises. Therefore, Ukrainian drones that try to fly through the territory of our ally will definitely be shot down,” Bizhev notes.

Military expert Yuri Knutov agrees with this point of view. In his opinion, subject to "advance consideration of dangerous sections of the route," UAVs can maneuver on any part of the route. “The launch of a drone begins with studying a map of the area obtained thanks to the work of NATO satellites. Most often, this is necessary to understand the location of air defense and electronic warfare systems,” he said.

“Based on these data, “gaps” are being looked for through which the path of the device may be the safest. I note that in this case, the UAV does most of the flight without going on the air. The drone connects to GPS systems only at the last stage, during the maximum approach to the target,” the expert emphasizes.

“It is likely that such tactics were used by the Armed Forces of Ukraine in order to bypass the territory of Belarus. The technical characteristics of the drone allow it to cover distances of 800–900 km. Therefore, it would not be difficult for drones to get to Pskov from the territory of Ukraine,”, says the interlocutor. At the same time, Knutov focuses on the enemy's damage to four Il-76 aircraft. “Even in Soviet times, they tried to hide such important equipment from the eyes of the enemy. In particular, concrete shelters and caponiers were created. Smaller structures were covered with a chain-link mesh, which made it possible to reduce the risk from fragments,” the expert notes.

“I note that any of the voiced methods of protection is many times cheaper than the direct repair or construction of a new aircraft. This was well known in the army thirty years ago. At that time, we tried to cover every model, regardless of its size. There was no talk about the “feasibility” of such efforts,” he emphasizes.

“Unfortunately, after the collapse of the USSR, many practices of that time were revised. The shelter of aviation equipment was recognized as ineffective. By the way, the reason for such changes was the revision of relations with Western countries. Today, everything is returning to normal, and I hope that the experience of the Soviet years will be revived again," Knutov believes.

“Sheltering heavy transport aircraft is quite difficult. This requires large hangars. Just using a camouflage net is not enough. Attack drones in this case will still be able to hit the target,” said Vladimir Popov, Honored Military Pilot of Russia, retired Major General. “In Soviet times, front-line aviation at permanently based airfields was hidden in embankment caponiers or in special reinforced concrete buildings. However, the implementation of such a practice for heavy aircraft will require a colossal amount of funds,” the interlocutor explained.

However, the author of the Russian Engineer Telegram channel, Alexei Vasiliev, notes that the cost of building a hangar is much less than the production of new equipment. So, a concrete structure 50 by 50 meters, according to his calculations, will cost 25-35 million rubles, while the price of "a huge aircraft will be about 5-10 billion."

“Small planes are easier to defend. They can be covered with caponiers, a chain-link mesh or a camouflage net can be pulled over them. Such a tool can even help protect against certain types of ammunition. However, it should be remembered that it is impossible to protect all means of aviation: it is necessary to prioritize correctly and think about other means of protection,” he adds.

At the same time, Vasiliev notes that the creation of shelters is not a panacea. “Comprehensive measures are required: both air defense and electronic warfare. It is necessary to hide from enemy reconnaissance means the number and exact placement of equipment. In addition, it is important to make false shelters, ”the expert notes.

“Transport planes near Pskov were placed next to the civil airport. Therefore, it was very difficult for them to make shelters. In addition, due to lack of space, it was difficult to disperse them, which also played into the hands of the enemy. And now we need to take into account all these nuances in the future to prevent such attacks,” Popov sums up.

https://vz.ru/society/2023/8/30/1228152.html

Begome wrote:
Care to enlighten us as to these "flight patterns"? The attack happened at night, so I doubt there's video showing drones crossing over from Estonia.

Why don't you take a chill pill and wait for further info. Even traitor Rybar is saying that an attack from Ukraine is more likely.

flamming_python wrote:

In that case all civilian activities should be transferred elsewhere, and the same goes for other such bases too. There is no way to secure such airbases while they don't have a large restricted territory around them (the Russian term is ZATO) and have civilians coming to and from all the time. Then anti-drone measures and EW systems can be employed more freely. The lack of civilian air traffic will also clear the skies some more.

mnztr wrote:
Also a Grad rocket that deploys 4 subrockets with a net would take down a lot of drones.