I know that Russia generally doesn’t have hangar facilities to park their aircraft in, that this is one disadvantage that they have to live with.
But I have a hard time believing that they couldn’t get some kind of pavillion-type temporary structure or something. It seems like a major issue from an intelligence standpoint.
Like, if those aircraft vanished into a hangar and then came out two months later, maybe they’ve had parts swapped and they’re a good, new aircraft. We wouldn’t be able to tell from a satellite.
But because we can see all the work that Russia does on their warplanes, we can make some pretty good inferences about what they’re doing, even with low resolution. So that makes the problem a lot simpler – just identify which ones are the ones that we know don’t function. I suspect that it’s probably possible to – especially with military recon satellites, rather than the commercial stuff being used above – distinguish between individual aircraft, like by getting a side view of their tail sections.
For some stuff, they can maybe fly the aircraft to a facility that does have hangars. But they can’t do that if the aircraft was damaged badly enough that it can’t fly.
It sounds like they are, in fact, building a number of them, so maybe they’ve done the same calculus and come to the same conclusion.
This move follows increased threats from Ukrainian attack drones and missiles. According to sources, the hangars are intended to protect aircraft from ATACMS ballistic missile submunitions. Additionally, these structures prevent satellites and other optical detection systems from determining whether a hangar is empty or occupied, enhancing operational security.
I know that Russia generally doesn’t have hangar facilities to park their aircraft in, that this is one disadvantage that they have to live with.
But I have a hard time believing that they couldn’t get some kind of pavillion-type temporary structure or something. It seems like a major issue from an intelligence standpoint.
Like, if those aircraft vanished into a hangar and then came out two months later, maybe they’ve had parts swapped and they’re a good, new aircraft. We wouldn’t be able to tell from a satellite.
But because we can see all the work that Russia does on their warplanes, we can make some pretty good inferences about what they’re doing, even with low resolution. So that makes the problem a lot simpler – just identify which ones are the ones that we know don’t function. I suspect that it’s probably possible to – especially with military recon satellites, rather than the commercial stuff being used above – distinguish between individual aircraft, like by getting a side view of their tail sections.
For some stuff, they can maybe fly the aircraft to a facility that does have hangars. But they can’t do that if the aircraft was damaged badly enough that it can’t fly.
I also don’t get it. How much could a quonset hut cost, compared to fighter jet?
Plus, I kind of suspect that maintaining aircraft outdoors when there’s sleet coming down or whatever is no fun.
And I dunno what they do when hail comes. Maybe that’s not as much of a thing in Russia.
checks map
Ah, apparently the Great Plains in the US are pretty much the global center of hailstorms, so I guess that they dodged that one.
https://eos.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/2019RG000665-Figure-21-map-and-legend-sized-for-Eos-800-wide.png
kagis
It sounds like they are, in fact, building a number of them, so maybe they’ve done the same calculus and come to the same conclusion.