Security of Russian air bases

Isos wrote:Detecting means half of the work done. You still need to intercept it.

Syria is a bad exemple. It is at war and the hmeimim air base is the only big one so you can be sure it has at least 10 or 20 layers of defences, plus it is in the area fully controled by Assad withpopulation watching also.

A base in the middle of nowhere is harder to protect. If the guy comes and hides in the hoods he can easily launch its drones and get away on a motorcycle. In peace time it's even easier to launch a surprise attack.

If you are a small/medium country with lesd than 10 big air bases where all your air force is, then 20 guys with 2 drones each armed with 3 or 4 grenades can decimate your air force.

Actually it's not the big drones that are changing the war but the small civilians which are very easy to use and very nasty.

You are correct on that. But don't think for a moment they have not figured this out. Hence why they are so active in anti drone technology these last few years. They would have taken all of this into consideration. And Pantsir is perfect system that is used heavily in airforce bases for this very reason.

https://mobile.twitter.com/RALee85/status/1177640891877675008

Russian building hangar shelters similar to those in Syria in its manland bases for its fighters.

They clearly saw the danger of small improvised suicide drone against airport. They can easily destroy main airforces assets in mater of hours. Bad perf of pantsir are also playing in this decision IMO.

You are correct on that. But don't think for a moment they have not figured this out. Hence why they are so active in anti drone technology these last few years. They would have taken all of this into consideration. And Pantsir is perfect system that is used heavily in airforce bases for this very reason.

A shelter provides 24/7 protection against such threats. A pantsir can't but it can provide cover when the plane goes out.

In term of cost, 4 walls that cost maybe 2 or 3k$ to build can protect your 20 million $ jets.

2 or 3 pantsirs costing 15 million $ each manned by crews can't protect always and as good as the shelter the sukhois.

It's time to build hundreds of those shelters. And I would also build some for A-50 which are valuable targets.

Isos wrote:https://mobile.twitter.com/RALee85/status/1177640891877675008

Russian building hangar shelters similar to those in Syria in its manland bases for its fighters.

They clearly saw the danger of small improvised suicide drone against airport. They can easily destroy main airforces assets in mater of hours. Bad perf of pantsir are also playing in this decision IMO.

The best Western SAMS couldn't protect the Saudi-Mights (who have an unlimited budget) from drones from 1,100km away. Iron Dome is mediocre, costs $100k per missile, and still struggles to defeat unguided Qassam rockets, which costs $200 per rocket.

https://www.russiadefence.net/t1878p875-pantsir-s1-news-thread#251600

You seem to forget Pantsir Russian IAD anti-drone work:

Pantsir s1 had bad result against slow drones.

Isos wrote:https://mobile.twitter.com/RALee85/status/1177640891877675008

Russian building hangar shelters similar to those in Syria in its manland bases for its fighters.

They clearly saw the danger of small improvised suicide drone against airport. They can easily destroy main airforces assets in mater of hours. Bad perf of pantsir are also playing in this decision IMO.

This has nothing to do with drones

They are finally building shelters for their aircraft to keep them away from weather when not in use

That commie system of leaving your aircraft to rot and rust outside is something that should have been abandoned decades ago but instead they only now managed to start using their brains

Isos wrote:Pantsir s1 had bad result against slow drones.

I'm going to repost this for you, because your eyes seem to be missing from your skull:

3 drones destroyed they were flying at a speed of 110km/hour, another drone destroyed which was flying at 120km/h, another at 60km/h, another at 147km/h, 2 that were flying at 90km/h, another at 100km/h, and another at 75km/h. Use your eyes, or am I going to repost this image again?

I don't think he understands the writing....the column under 2017 (speed of target km/h)

Cyberspec wrote:I don't think he understands the writing....the column under 2017 (speed of target km/h)

I'm not fluent in Russian either. As a non-Russian speaker, even I can laymen decipher , even with no google translate.

Isos wrote:Pantsir s1 had bad result against slow drones.

Tell that to terrorists, which constantly try to bomb Hmeimim with drones. And which complex shot down more drones in real combat? We could debate here about Tor-M2, which is also in Hmeimim. But Syrians shot down drones with Pantsir, UAE shot down drones with Pantsir in Lybia and Yemen, etc.

Isos wrote:https://mobile.twitter.com/RALee85/status/1177640891877675008

Russian building hangar shelters similar to those in Syria in its manland bases for its fighters.

They clearly saw the danger of small improvised suicide drone against airport. They can easily destroy main airforces assets in mater of hours. Bad perf of pantsir are also playing in this decision IMO.

How do you know, that they are not using armor plates in roofs and walls? Against cruise missiles and bombs even those concrete hardened shelters will not help. Agaginst mortars and light drones armor plates are enough.

Isos wrote:Pantsir s1 had bad result against slow drones.

This is when you are supposed post source to that idiotic claim

One of these military experts/commentators (I think it was Viktor Murakovski) put up an article a few months ago, where he mentioned that the TOR was more efficient than the Pantsir in tests and in Syria...that's where all this internet talk started

Cyberspec wrote:One of these military experts/commentators (I think it was Viktor Murakovski) put up an article a few months ago, where he mentioned that the TOR was more efficient than the Pantsir in tests and in Syria...that's where all this internet talk started

I have no dobt, that Russian army sent Tor-M2 to Syria to test it in real combat conditions as well to engage the same targets as Pantsir did. They are both excellent and I would say equal to do their job. In Russia Pantsir and Tor-M2 have divided their markets. Pantsir went to air force PVO VKS and Tor-M2 went to ground forces PVO SV. In foreign markets, they are concurents to each other and are fighting for their market shares. This is how I see such claims from those experts, who maybe come from Kupol. This is marketing. Pantsir is excellent and proven, no doubt. But our Tor is even a little better, so we recomend you to buy our Tor.

Tor-M2 is excellent complex and I really like its arctic version Tor-M2DT, where you have in one vehicle both: combat module and living module.

Cyberspec wrote:One of these military experts/commentators (I think it was Viktor Murakovski) put up an article a few months ago, where he mentioned that the TOR was more efficient than the Pantsir in tests and in Syria...that's where all this internet talk started

It is another myth created from thin air, some time ago i explained with precision what happened, in brief: Виктор Мураховский never wrote anything similar to the demented content of that article on the supposed performance of short range SAM systems in Syria neither on facebook neither anywhere else.
What happened is very trivial: В. Мураховский had the habit to report on its account the link or the content of articles wrote by an high number of authors on subjects related to military deployment or employment of domestic systems; this time ,probably without even that it had controled the content, happened that one of the dozen of third party articles it had reported was one of the typical "click bait" article wrote on the basis of totally invented data by part of the writer, a random guy with zero access to any actual information .
Obviously when it realizeds that , like in several other similar instances , it removed the demented article from its page, but this time the opportunistic western PR machine had already activated to twist the facts in a true soap-opera    

Western PR machine had ,in facts, already arranged the story that "В. Мураховский had wrote an article where he had revealed the horrible performance of Панцирь-С in Syria but after a call by В. Путин was forced to cancel its article from its facebook page".

Sadly this authenticate garbage story survive still today (mostly among scarcely informed western public) and is a good eample at what kind of abyshmal level is capable to go wester PR operatives to damage in any way the image and reputation of superior and , by them, technically unchallengeable domestic military systems.

Performance of Панцирь-С batteies in Syria is, up to now, shining against all type of targets and ,if any , has surpised because it has operatively often surpassed the performances demonstrated in acceptance tests.

I would point out that the origin of the missiles is important.

The SA-19 from the Tunguska, which later developed into the Panstir was intended for shooting down both enemy helicopters, but also any missiles they might have launched at the tanks the vehicle was protecting.

The TOR system was from the outset intended to engage a wide variety of air to ground munitions used to attack vehicles and positions... including, but not limited to bombs... both dumb and guided, as well as rockets and missiles.

The Pantsir was developed for the Air Force and was intended to defend airfields from attack... both aircraft and standoff munitions of various types including cruise missiles.

Both are very good at what they do... and both use cheap command guided missiles that even poor armies can afford to make enormous numbers of missiles for.

The TOR had outstanding radars with rather impressive performance against a range of targets, and also has EO systems for detecting and tracking threats>

The Pantsir started getting longer ranged radars... both have electronically scanned tracking radars, so very high speed and very low speed targets are not problem.

Pantsir is getting much longer ranged missiles but also has a range of other features, like the four round tubes for swarm attacks at shorter ranges, as well as UAV rockets, and jammer rockets.

It is also related to the Hermes range of missiles which are air to ground rockets with various terminal guidance options which would probably be effective against air targets as well.

Pretty soon 57mm gun mounts with air burst and guided shells will also make air defence stronger too.

Isos wrote:https://mobile.twitter.com/RALee85/status/1177640891877675008

Russian building hangar shelters similar to those in Syria in its manland bases for its fighters.

They clearly saw the danger of small improvised suicide drone against airport. They can easily destroy main airforces assets in mater of hours. Bad perf of pantsir are also playing in this decision IMO.

What amazes me is that they only thought to build those shelters now.

Couldn't they foresee this problem? Mortar strikes, Grad rockets, UAVs... you'd think that they would studied the US experience in Afghanistan or some such.

It took a whole lot of expensive equipment getting damaged for them to clock onto the idea of shelters for their aircraft. And even these ones don't look particularly adequate; any exploding ordinance nearby will still hit the aircraft as the hanger seems to be completely open both ends.

But yeah, only deal with the problem when you encounter it. Never think ahead. Shopping mall burned down in Kemerovo with 70 people dead - hmmm time to think about enforcing fire codes. Ammo dump blew up spectacularly, hmm time to think about basic safety standards and training. Planes on the tarmac got damaged with some home-made UAVs dropping explosives - yes, time to think about a roof over their heads. Modern day Russia in a nutshell.

And I don't know what those new shelters in Voronezh are supposed to protect from. If it's cheap UAVs, mortar strikes, etc... then that's not a threat in Voronezh. If it's against precision penetration cruise missiles then a simple shelter or even a reinforced one won't give much protection. If it's against the elements - then why did they only think of it now, and have all those planes old and new, sit out on the tarmac with at maximum a tarp pull-over for all these decades?

Because that when the budget funds for upgrading the airbases (in Russia) were allocated

And I don't know what those new shelters in Voronezh are supposed to protect from. If it's cheap UAVs, mortar strikes, etc... then that's not a threat in Voronezh. If it's against precision penetration cruise missiles then a simple shelter or even a reinforced one won't give much protection. If it's against the elements - then why did they only think of it now, and have all those planes old and new, sit out on the tarmac with at maximum a tarp pull-over for all these decades?

Single terrorist can go there with a bike and launch some civilian quad rotor drones carrying grenades or gps programed drone. That's exactly what happens in Syria.

If a cruise missiles is used, it won't stop it but it will protect the other jets nearby from the impact. If there is no walls all the aircraft would burn out. Just look at images of Hmeimim and you will see all the jets parked close to each other so 1 cruise missile would equal to tens of destroyed jets.

Rain is also an enemy of high tech. The less they are explsed to it the more they will stay in service.

That's a cheap solution for many problems.

Modern day Russia in a nutshell.

You will be attacked on this tmr by many members. I advise you, if you want to answer to them, to provide only facts and not opinion.

Isos wrote:...Single terrorist can go there with a bike and launch some civilian quad rotor drones carrying grenades or gps programed drone. That's exactly what happens in Syria.

If a cruise missiles is used, it won't stop it but it will protect the other jets nearby from the impact.

Oh quit fantasizing already

They have fences and guards for terrorists, this isn't Syria. And if anyone tries something he will be peeled like an onion

If cruise missiles start flying it will be nuclear war

This about weather, nothing more

But yeah, only deal with the problem when you encounter it. Never think ahead. Shopping mall burned down in Kemerovo with 70 people dead - hmmm time to think about enforcing fire codes. Ammo dump blew up spectacularly, hmm time to think about basic safety standards and training. Planes on the tarmac got damaged with some home-made UAVs dropping explosives - yes, time to think about a roof over their heads. Modern day Russia in a nutshell.

All very valid criticisms, but I would say a human problem rather than just blaming Russia.

I mean after all these years of using ATGMs against armour and the US is looking at Israeli APS systems... Saudi Arabia has spent literally trillions on their military and the EU and US probably much more over the years and they have also been using drones and cruise missiles for as long or much longer than anyone else, yet the entire continent of Europe is fairly open and exposed to the primary first strike attack weapon NATO has been using for the last four decades.

At least they are not over reacting.