Russian special military operation in Ukraine #22

Turning off the power plant will not do anything. Ukraine wants to destroy nuclear waste storage facilities located on the territory of the NPP.

Isos wrote:
This armchair genius. They libe up their aircraft so that one hit destroys plenty of them.

So how many Russian aircraft have been destroyed so far? Oh wait...just saw it is 223 and counting!

But yes you have a point, but I can mention there were some serious plans announced (MOD) to rectify this issue but then the conflict happened.
Problem is all the Cold War hardened shelters are too small for the Su-27 family. It will be an expensive undertaking, but there are plans already.

GarryB wrote:

It turns out the missile parts from a few days ago was not a British Brimstone, but a first generation American Hellfire missile.

The Brimstone is based on the American Hellfire and they modified everything in it so I would guess they probably modified old stock missiles to make Brimstone because anything important was being replaced with their own bits so even ancient Hellfires could be used... in fact they would be cheaper so I suspect they would be preferred.

The obvious other comment is that Britain said it was supplying Brimstone (based on Hellfire) Have not heard of any other country offering Hellfires of any type...

I think the Swedes offered their anti-ship version?

Talks with Erdogan and the UN Secretary began in Lviv.

Mir wrote:

But yes you have a point, but I can mention there were some serious plans announced (MOD) to rectify this issue but then the conflict happened.
Problem is all the Cold War hardened shelters are too small for the Su-27 family. It will be an expensive undertaking, but there are plans already.

No plans, but all the new or rebuilt bases are made with prefabricated shelters.
Some of you guys live like 70 years ago I see.
All those shelters you are yapping about have been made in another century.
Those had a clear goal, which was securing the planes from possible nuclear strikes.
Ever been to this type of shelter, any of you?
A military grade airfield?
That is a damn serious question.
And the answer is crystal clear - either you have never been there, or didn't realize what you see due a lack of competence. Sorry.
Most of them are sealed with solid, armored doors to withstand a nuclear blast.
Or aerial heavy class bombardment, let it be with a ballistic missile barrage or aviation.
In the era of precision-guided, stand-off, and concrete piercing ammo, these constructions become irrelevant.
Iraq had tons of heavy aircraft shelters, that has been struck by the GBU type of ammo.
For 30 years now, those shelters are obsolete. You can strike any single of them from thousands of km, using top attack cruise missiles that will pierce them as a hot knife does to butter.
And the cost of making them is simply enormous.
Sure the size case adds up either, a shelter that was built for MiG-21 won't host a Su-30, that is for obvious.
PAF stations the most valuable F-16 at ex-German airport, where the hangars have 100 - A HUNDRED - years.
It is a huge barn with a wooden roof.
We talk about Keiser Germany and the 1st World War era.
And guess what? F-35 will be stationed there either  
Today's standard is a prefabricated, metal construction fast assembling hangar of a light construction, that gives practically ZERO coverage from any type of ammo It secures from snow, rain & wind. That's it.
In the well-prepared maintenance bases, this construction is combined with industrial-grade doors, made of plastic materials.
Some of them are - now focus - made of strengthened canvas. Yup, in the 21st century. Canvas. You can make a sail with it.
So just stop this thing about "shelters", because you are just showing an absolute lack of clue.

Mir wrote:
I think the Swedes offered their anti-ship version?

The Griffin is just same story with a different name, but as far as I know & saw it, Swedes are using just a standard Hellfire missile on the light weight speedy crafts, and the whole concept is a "wolfpack" like tactics and stay hidden in the picterouse shore as long as they can

@Alamo

Yes, like Isos you also have a good point, but if you have some air defense systems you can protect those shelters as well. Look at Trump's cruise missile attack on the Syrian airbase - nearly 100? cruise missiles were launched but only very few broke through a mainly 1960's era SAM umbrella.

The shelters that were erected on the Khmeimim Air Base in Syria would be a good start. It does offer some protection and it keeps the aircraft in the shade.

Mir wrote:@Alamo

Yes, like Isos you also have a good point, but if you have some air defense systems you can protect those shelters as well. Look at Trump's cruise missile attack on the Syrian airbase - nearly 100? cruise missiles were launched but only very few broke through a mainly 1960's era SAM umbrella.

The shelters that were erected on the Khmeimim Air Base in Syria would be a good start. It does offer some protection and it keeps the aircraft in the shade.


 

Those shelters don't come out of anywhere bro, those are prefabricated products of the Russian military construction units.
And new bases and modernized ones get those.
But that wouldn't do a single difference for a storage blast next by. Sometimes even opposite, as the whole structure would fall down burying the plane that would have survived the blast otherwise.

Arrow wrote:Talks with Erdogan and the UN Secretary began in Lviv.

Happy looking bunch

Isos wrote:Those are peace time airbases. The one on the picture is in Crimea close to the front line where ukrops can attack.


Also go check nato airfields. They have  ashitton of hangars and you will almost never see aircraft outside. On your picture they lined them just to take some nice pictures.

B-57B bombers at Bien Hoa Air Base:


Bagram Air Base:



Keeping your aircraft in a line on an airbase it's something everyone does... even in wartime

ALAMO wrote:

Those shelters don't come out of anywhere bro, those are prefabricated products of the Russian military construction units.
And new bases and modernized ones get those.
But that wouldn't do a single difference for a storage blast next by. Sometimes even opposite, as the whole structure would fall down burying the plane that would have survived the blast otherwise.

Yes I know - there was nothing there to start with. These were constructed a couple years ago to protect the aircraft from swarm attacks and the sun.
I won't classify them as hardened but they do look sturdy enough to handle a fairly large explosion?

franco wrote:
Happy looking bunch

Read my lips, no more free Bayraktars, as you are just crushing them and spoiling all the commercial campaigns!

Mir wrote:

Yes I know - there was nothing there to start with. These were constructed a couple years ago to protect the aircraft from swarm attacks and the sun.
I won't classify them as hardened but they do look sturdy enough to handle a fairly large explosion?

It would cover from a top attack with the use of improvised ammo like hand grenades or small caliber mortar bombs, but that's it.
The side panels are most probably a sandwich made of steel sheets filled with PUR foam, it is an inexpensive construction panel with quite good strength parameters and can be disassembled if needed. But expect resistance of a shipping container, not more than that. Any military-grade ammo blast will just tear that apart.

Belisarius wrote:

B-57B bombers at Bien Hoa Air Base:

Did not end too well for the Americans though - they lost a huge number of planes on that base.

Mir wrote:

Belisarius wrote:

B-57B bombers at Bien Hoa Air Base:

Did not end too well for the Americans though - they lost a huge number of planes on that base.

The point is, that you can't protect the plane in a bunker in the third decade of the XXI century, against a serious opponent.
That is impossible. Too many means of attack are too accurate.
The only way is to intercept the incoming or accept the losses.
The planes at that particular airport were actually quite well protected, as covered with sidewalls of dirt/sandboxes. If hit by an improvised drone carried ammo, only one would have been seriously affected.
But what we had there, is ammo and/or fuel detonation at a quite big scale, happening by either negligence or sabotage.
Shit happens, and that is the only sane comment considering the situation.

Did not end too well for the Americans though - they lost a huge number of planes on that base. wrote:

This shows that even today aviation is vulnerable to missile attacks. NATO's aviation, i.e. its main power, is very vulnerable to missile attacks. Considering NATO's air defense is weak. In addition, Russia already has a hypersonic weapon, which apart from the inability to intercept such missiles also gives a very short reaction time, and additional kinetic energy to hit even reinforced targets. Russia has hundreds of maneuvering missiles, now also hypersonic, which can strike NATO air force at bases and airports. Missiles such as Cirkon can reach their target in minutes, as well as Kinzhal or some new missiles for strategic aviation.

ASB Military News
Russian Defense Ministry reports that Tomorrow, drones will broadcast online from the Zaporozhye Nuclear power plant.

Russia claims that Ukrainian troops are preparing a provocation aimed at the nuclear power station.

Intel Slava Z
Russian Defense Ministry: Three MiG-31 aircraft with Kinzhal hypersonic missiles have been deployed to the Kaliningrad Region as part of additional strategic deterrence measures.

Their round-the-clock combat duty will be organized.

-----------------------------------

Maybe related topics? Russia seems to be sensing a major provocation being prepared by UKUS. A nuclear reactor in UK would be an easy picking for the antibunker capacities of the Kinzhal, just in case the psychos in the city are not up to date with Russian weaponry...

The Pentagon secretly handed over air-launched anti-radar missiles to Kyiv

The US continues to "pump up" the Armed Forces weaponsaggravating and prolonging the conflict in Ukraine. At the same time, as it turned out, weapons officially announced by Washington are not always delivered to Kyiv.

Thus, the Pentagon, without any publicity, handed over high-speed missiles to Kyiv to destroy radars. This became known at the beginning of this month thanks to Russian bloggers. They found fragments of AGM-88 HARM fragments at the site of the defeat of the Russian air defense system.

It is worth noting that information from bloggers could be considered unreliable, as is often the case. However, a little later, the Pentagon confirmed the fact of deliveries of AGM-88 HARM to Ukraine.

Recall that the aforementioned high-speed anti-radar missiles are designed to destroy air defense systems, as well as anti-battery radars. The ammunition is equipped with a homing head that reacts to radar radiation.

Commenting on the supply of AGM-88 HARM missiles to Kyiv, the deputy head of the Pentagon stressed that the ammunition was transferred to Ukraine not as part of the last package, but earlier. At the same time, he did not talk about the number of missiles delivered to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, only specifying that this weapon is intended for air launch.

Thus, it is likely that the batch of anti-radar missiles delivered to Ukraine was previously modernized for use on board by Soviet-style fighters. But Ukraine has few of them left. Earlier, Eastern European partners promised to supply their MiGs.

It is worth adding that the Business Insider portal, which raised this topic, is confident in the short-term effect of such supplies. Experts believe that the Russian army quickly adapts to new conditions, so the advantage of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, due to the use of the AGM-88 HARM, will not last long and will not have a serious impact on the course of hostilities.

https://en.topwar.ru/200496-pentagon-bez-oglaski-peredal-kievu-protivoradiolokacionnye-rakety.html

Mir wrote:

Isos wrote:
This armchair genius. They libe up their aircraft so that one hit destroys plenty of them.

So how many Russian aircraft have been destroyed so far? Oh wait...just saw it is 223 and counting!    

But yes you have a point, but I can mention there were some serious plans announced (MOD) to rectify this issue but then the conflict happened.
Problem is all the Cold War hardened shelters are too small for the Su-27 family. It will be an expensive undertaking, but there are plans already.

During the events on the two pictures I showed, at least 8 aircraft were lost. Which just too much against a country that lacks airpower and long range weapons in meaningful quality and quantity.

Belisarius wrote:

Isos wrote:Those are peace time airbases. The one on the picture is in Crimea close to the front line where ukrops can attack.


Also go check nato airfields. They have  ashitton of hangars and you will almost never see aircraft outside. On your picture they lined them just to take some nice pictures.

B-57B bombers at Bien Hoa Air Base:
[url=https://servimg.com/view/20436982/106][imtps://i.servimg.com/u/f11/20/43/69/82/800px-10.jpg[/im/url]

Bagram Air Base:
[url=https://servimg.com/view/20436982/107][imhttps://i.servimg.com/u/f1/20/43/69/82/bagram10.jpg[/im/url]


Keeping your aircraft in a line on an airbase it's something everyone does... even in wartime

Yeah but not the same war. North vietnamese and iraqi had no weapons or planes to really attack those bases.

Ukraine is known to have Toshka and probably US ballistic missiles for himars. They also have real time intel from US satelittes to attack at the good time with those weapons that have a precision of 10m or so.

Russians should have adaptated their bases close to the front to not let ukrainians take out so many stuff at once. In one attack they destroyed 7 aircraft. That's a huge loss.

Isos wrote:

Mir wrote:

Isos wrote:
This armchair genius. They libe up their aircraft so that one hit destroys plenty of them.

So how many Russian aircraft have been destroyed so far? Oh wait...just saw it is 223 and counting!    

But yes you have a point, but I can mention there were some serious plans announced (MOD) to rectify this issue but then the conflict happened.
Problem is all the Cold War hardened shelters are too small for the Su-27 family. It will be an expensive undertaking, but there are plans already.

During the events on the two pictures I showed, at least 8 aircraft were lost. Which just too much against a country that lacks airpower and long range weapons in meaningful quality and quantity.

Well you saw the picture above of the B-57's at Bien Hoa Air Base. The NVA claimed to have destroyed nearly 60 aircraft in just one raid using a couple of mortars! At best the Saki incident was a special forces raid and no super missile attack and the damage was not really that bad after all. My first thought was "accident" and I think there is a high probability that it was.

Isos wrote:
During the events on the two pictures I showed, at least 8 aircraft were lost. Which just too much against a country that lacks airpower and long range weapons in meaningful quality and quantity.

They lack it NOW.
Yet a while back, they had more planes than let's say Poland and Germany, combined.
And the air defense of Poland, France, and Germany, combined.
The artillery they had, doubled or tripled the whole arsenal on the European disposal, adding some systems none of NATO countries has.
Nobody in Europa has neither Smerch, Uragan, nor Tochka either.
You still have an issue of getting that shit on a right scale, my friend.

You are way too young to remember a similar level of conflict, for your entire life.
Our lives.
The only conflict of a similar scale - considering the potential difference - was the Korean and Vietnam wars.
And that is hardly applicable, as the huge other differences were applied to both of those. The
Korean war was carried out by UN armies, having unlimited stock of weaponry left after the war. China could just throw more cannon fodder to cover that - some similarities are here, obviously.
Vietnam is a much closer match, but the potential - theoretical - difference was much lower rather than now.

Holly Christ, Russkie decomposed the biggest army in Europe.
The heaviest one.
In the biggest European country.
It is a done fact.
There is nothing more to discuss, no matter how many separate entrances the propaganda channels can unleash on Twitter.
It does not matter. One would say that the Ukros are the Chinese of the 50s, who can cover the distance with technical potential with human blood - but that hardly applies as there are 6x more Russkies now than the Ukros.
Just next by, turned on havoc, and thirsty to kill a nazi snake in his nest.
The easiness they did so, put all NATO propagandists into a stupor.

How a 8, 10, 20, or 50 planes applies here?!?

Mir wrote:

Isos wrote:

Mir wrote:

Isos wrote:
This armchair genius. They libe up their aircraft so that one hit destroys plenty of them.

So how many Russian aircraft have been destroyed so far? Oh wait...just saw it is 223 and counting!    

But yes you have a point, but I can mention there were some serious plans announced (MOD) to rectify this issue but then the conflict happened.
Problem is all the Cold War hardened shelters are too small for the Su-27 family. It will be an expensive undertaking, but there are plans already.

During the events on the two pictures I showed, at least 8 aircraft were lost. Which just too much against a country that lacks airpower and long range weapons in meaningful quality and quantity.

Well you saw the picture  above of the B-57's at Bien Hoa Air Base. The NVA claimed to have destroyed nearly 60 aircraft in just one raid using a couple of mortars! At best the Saki incident was a special forces raid and no super missile attack and the damage was not really that bad after all. My first thought was "accident" and I think there is a high probability that it was.

You just prove my point.

A bomb exploding by accudent and destroying plenty of aircraft around is even more shameful.

They lack it NOW.
Yet a while back, they had more planes than let's say Poland and Germany, combined.

No. Ukrainian ir force was always shitty since 2014. Counting training aircraft and unused rusting mig-29 is dumb.

The only conflict of a similar scale - considering the potential difference - was the Korean and Vietnam wars.
And that is hardly applicable, as the huge other differences were applied to both of those.

Best exemple is israeli 6 day war when they destroyed egyptian air force on the ground because they were dumb to let in in the open with no protection.

JohninMK wrote:Quid pro quo?

TEHRAN, Aug. 17 (MNA) – Media sources reported on Wednesday that the sound of massive explosions was heard in the Americans' base near the Al Jabseh oil field of Syria.

Heavy explosions occurred in the ammunition depots of the Americans' base near the Al Jabseh oil field in al-Shaddadi town in southern al-Hasakah Governorate, northeastern Syria, Sputnik reported quoting local sources.

Hit there Coca-Cola supply! They will leave immediately. 

Belisarius wrote:

B-57B bombers at Bien Hoa Air Base:

Ah, one of my favourite aircraft, the Canberra. Just about the only British plane that the US made under license, as the B-57. NASA still operate a handful.