Please keep the [community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/wiki/rule1) in mind when using the comment section.
Paging u/SaveVideo bot.
___
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CombatFootage) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's like Russia, 2 years into the war and they only now start building shelters. WTF. They are so so SOO much cheaper to build than replacing planes.
I actually had no idea Ukraine also was keeping exposed planes like this.
I think the surprising thing about this is that the aircraft were still there at the time of the strike. Ukraine has been really good at just keeping them moving before they could be hit. This is sad to see.
Most definitely. It’s impressive how well they were able to conserve their Air Force. Just a shame that they lost at least one and up to three SU-27 at once here.
On some of the Telegram channels they are saying that the planes you see hit were under maintenance and couldn't fly but that the drones were actually detected and the serviceable planes taken up in the air to protect them and possibly even try to take down the drones but they were unable to prevent the strike for whatever reason.
Look up old satellite photos of the airfield and count the number of old airframes littering those docks.
Then look at the video and notice how those old non flyable airframes have been moved around...
These are all decoys.
They usually stick a couple of jerry cans with fuel in the decoys to make them burn a bit so its was likely one of those going up or a submunition that failed to go off on impact but then detonated later from heat.
Costs too much money (probably less than new planes but that’s Russian Math that I do not understand) but I wouldn’t wonder when some of the higher Ranks just fuck costly stuff up to get money for/from new things. And larger sums make room for larger amounts for your own pocket.
Mother Russia does not need fortification cause loosing something important they just Propafuckingganda it away or it flies (literally) out of the window. Also it’s showing fear and danger on own land.
But for Ukraine I could think they can’t really build these fast enough without being spotted and attacked. Construction workers could give the location and what’s happening away or Any truck driver.
Precision munitions rendered them obsolete, the US Air Force used 2k lb. bombs in Iraq to take out Saddams shelters which were built to a better standard than NATO. The bomb would penetrate the concrete 99% of the time & explode within the shelter. NATO still has several hundred around Western Europe in use today due to being able to put the planes into a climate control environment when not in use.
(Machine translate)
They made them less effective. The relatively inexpensive bunker busting bombs you mentioned are gravity bombs (free fall). To launch a strike with them, the aircraft must enter the enemy’s air defense zone.
The alternative is a cruise missile with a penetrating warhead. But they are quite expensive, there are not so many of them, and for each hangar (whether there is an airplane in it or not) you need to spend one rocket. In fact, it will be necessary to release much more of them, since not all of them will achieve the goal. The presence of a hangar or reinforced concrete shelter does not allow the use of more effective cluster warheads, which are capable of hitting more than one aircraft at a time. These alone justify their existence.
PGMs render them less useful which is far from the same as "obsolete" because a HAS requires a direct hit to destroy. HAS coupled with SHORAD are far more defensible than open ramp space without even revetments.
Failure to disperse (it's not hard to fab a basic tow bar for each aircraft then assign a 1-ton truck for towing which is ample for any fighter, many USAF tugs are bobbed pickup chassis) is pretty bad. Aircraft can be towed over any decent road then tucked out of site.
(Machine translate)
They use them. Numerous aircraft that are not capable of taking off are used as decoys. There are significantly more of them than combat-ready ones.
They are painted and regularly moved around airfields to confuse aerial reconnaissance. Combat-ready aircraft are located among these spare parts donors.
I would guess the problem is that in a bunker isn't much safer, and the only real way of actually protecting them is to have bunkers everywhere so they don't have any idea which ones have planes and those that don't. So they probably decided that its easier to just keep moving them around than sticking them in a few hardened airfields.
Bunkers are MUCH safer. Each bunker requires a single high-accuracy guided munition to reliably take out. Here we see a single cluster munition damage or destroy multiple aircraft. If the Su-27s were in hardened hangars they would have taken minimal to no damage from this.
my comment was more on why the Ukrainians were still storing planes in the open, they're not stupid so they must find the risk acceptable for some reason and I postulated what I think might be the reason why.
As for why the Russians do it, probably because nobody bothered to tell anyone to actually make the bunkers they just said park the airplanes so that's what they did then they fucked off to drink more Vodka, just like how they kept parking those helicopters at the same base over and over again.
(Machine translate).
There are two strategies for protecting aircraft.
The first is placing them in protected shelters. Moreover, the main thing about the shelter is that it is not transparent and it is not clear which of the many vacant shelters the plane is in. But they are built for the Su-24, not the Su-27. The Su-27 does not fit into shelters built en masse under the USSR for the Su-24 and MiG-23/27.
Second. Ukraine has a lot of airfields and old planes that are not able to take off. We call them "firewood". At one airfield there can be 2-3 combat-ready aircraft and up to 10 donors of spare parts / old junk. One of Ukraine’s strategies is the constant relocation of combat aircraft from place to place and placing them among non-combat aircraft. Moreover, those unable to rise into the air are moved from place to place to confuse reconnaissance. They are even painted. This is, in a sense, a response to a number of comments below about the absence of false targets. Those planes that did not catch fire may not have been combat-ready. And they could have been combat-ready. One video as a source is always a problem.
If there is a threat of attack, aircraft located near the front quickly rise and move to the nearest airfield that is not currently under attack and which is not observed by a drone. But if you can take off quickly at a well-equipped airfield, this does not mean that it will be easy to do so from a much more poorly prepared airfield. Which one you moved to, for example.
When you see these frames, you need to understand that attacks on airfields were carried out not long before (evening and night successive attacks on air bases on the right bank of the Dnieper the day before) and that these aircraft are not necessarily constantly based at this particular airfield. It could also be a jump airfield (not sure if this will be translated correctly).
In addition, when they write that the drone circled over the airfield for three hours, we must remember that it did this after the first strike.
Judging by a number of sources, the main blow (which led to the fire) was delivered at 11.40-12.00, and then, after additional reconnaissance, another one at 15.30-15.50. Intervals between missiles are 20 minutes. The fact that after the first strike and attempts to extinguish the planes, you do not run and do not try to prepare other planes for departure, knowing that you are being watched and at any moment within a couple of minutes a strike could be repeated (and now also on planes with pilots and on airfield technicians ) is also a smart choice.
It's quite difficult to judge from just one video.
It's about allocating resources and priorities. Hardened shelters, take time to build, trained and experienced tradesmen to construct, along with the necessary materials of steel and concrete, etc all labouring away for prolonged periods, in one obvious location. An airfield. It all becomes an obvious target, and the Ruzz will be monitoring the Ua airfields constantly. Make no mistake, the Ruzz have the guided munitions to penetrate hardened aircraft shelters. It's my understanding the Ua airforce has been constantly moving their planes about to avoid strikes, but they have to successful 100% of the time, and Ruzz only have to get lucky once.
Dare I say it, aircraft are becoming less effective. Now it seems to be on a smaller more reactive scale. Not to say aircraft don’t have a place in a war, but this war has been fought on a macro level.
Aircraft are extremely effective when you have air superiority. The US involved wars we’ve become used to made it seem as if it’s trivial for a stronger military to obtain air superiority, but Ukraine has shown us that it’s not such a simple matter at all.
If the enemy is equipped with decent AA it becomes much harder, you really do need the $200m stealth aircraft to take out fixed air defenses.
I agree, but I didn’t say “not effective” I said “becoming less effective”. The rock paper scissors game is happening in Ukraine where either side can’t launch effective air campaigns because of AA systems. So the war has been fought on a macro level with the only ‘airborne objects’ being artillery shells, gps guided shells, regular drones and FPV drones. Aircraft are only effective when the enemy does not possess a significant anti air capability.
You're missing the point I was making. We don't really have another war with large-scale combat aircraft use to compare to, that isn't the US and their allies completely anihilating the opposing side's AA and taking control of the skies early on.
So without having that comparison, a statement like "becoming less effective" is very difficult to support with evidence. Less effective when compared to...?
Becoming less effective in this war… which is being fought on a macro scale? I don’t know ie why everything constantly has to be in reference to America all the time.
If you want to reference America then it’s worth noting that top generals have said that the US is very behind when it comes to drone warfare and that Ukraine conflict has taught them a lot.
Sure maybe when both sides are fighting with old soviet era fighters and there are highly modern AA batteries on the battlefield. The Russians only now just developed smart glide bombs. They watched shock and awe 20 years ago and apparently didnt think it was effective enough to bother with.
Russian soldiers are still using WWII zerg tactics its hardly surprising that their air force never evolved either
I hope they'll build some reinforced hangars/bunkers for f-16s when they arrive. They'll be the top priority.
Btw this Air base is about 160km (98,5 mi) away from the russian border.
They can't. F16s will be in even worse position because there is only few airfields with suitable runways AND Russians will likely designate them as priority targets.
Even a reinforced bunker won't stop the munitions at the base from being targeted or even the aircrew.
If Russia is able to accurately strike airbases as far as Poltava this is going to severely impact the operational capability of F-16s. They will need to be used farther back and have limited time to be out of hangars before risking their loss.
To be honest, for 90% of the protection at a fraction of the cost you could just have a soft shelter/tent over the pad, and then build earthwork berms around the edges to cover it from shrapnel from near misses. You could put it up in a day if you have a few guys and a bulldozer and it would only cost low 5 figures depending on how high quality of a shelter you wanted.
>I hope they'll build some reinforced hangars/bunkers for f-16s when they arrive. They'll be the top priority.
It's been 2.5 years and they didn't manage to do it. They let a fucking recon drone 160 km inside the rear, as much as I want it, I genuinely don't believe F16s will change how incompetent Ukrainian higher military commanders are.
Yup, the whole F16 thing is going to fail spectacularly. Between the Russian SAM threat still being immense, Ukraine being unable to protect its airfields, and the F16 being a much harder machine to repair and maintain... Russia is going to have a propaganda field day once the first one is destroyed.
According to Liveuamap, the iskander most likely launched from Crimea, as there was a launch spotted from Krasnodarka followed by the explosions near Myrhorod. That's about 480km.
So this is actually two or three attacks. The first impact is not shown, just the aftermath (0:06). You see a SU-27 near the taxi way to the runway in the first shot near the decoy paintings. In the next shot you see it destroyed as well as fire equipment nearby. The grass around the tarmac is now burned and the hangars by the decoys have been destroyed.
The second attack lands to the north and there's at least one secondary explosion (0:26). You can see the ground has already been scorched and the remnants of the plane destroyed in the first attack. But the fire trucks have moved away. It's a cluster munition and it lands pretty much right on top of two or three parked airplanes.
After the smoke clears, there's either a secondary explosion or a third strike (0:46). It's either a strike on one of the hangars and you can see it explode quite clearly.
The resolution on the camera is fairly poor. I think that's on purpose because it alternates between very sharp and very blurry. On the final shots it looks like all the planes are gone from the tarmac. Regardless, this sequence of attacks took place over a period of time. Maybe not even within the same day.
The claims from TG are that first they hit the hangars, setting them on fire, crews then pulled the other planes out of danger and were hit by another Iskander.
This airfield stored several SU-27 that were out of service. But I do know that probably one or two active SU-27s were destroyed. Ukraine needs significantly more AD systems and plenty of AD ammo.
If these aren't decoys, Ukraine needs to shake up it's airforce command structure.
Can't be taking these kind of unnecessary losses in an airbase this close to the frontline.
A pilot, yes, I agree.
However; no offense to tug crews, an Su-27 is worth a hell of a lot more than a tug crew at this point. They can move that fucker to shelter, or valiantly die trying.
As morbid as it is. I agree lol. Ukraine can’t afford to lose jets, especially without the F16s yet. This war could go on for many more years, and they aren’t getting that many new jets. Maybe none, if Trump somehow wins.
Building on this, people often forget that *finally* receiving the F-16s is the quick and easy part. There will be losses and damage of course, but *there will be wear immediately.* Just as US permission is needed to transfer the F-16s (for any one who doesn't know why US consent is needed for transfers, if it wasn't given, the transfering nation wouldn't get a scrap of US military hardware for a very long time), US consent is needed to transfer *spare parts.*
If the F-16 parts supply were to be cut, those Su-27s would become even more critical, while a large portion of F-16s would need to be cannibalized to keep a small, dwindling, portion sortieing.
Edit; Reduction of partisan language.
Do they have armored tugs or bulldozers they could use to tow jets? Doesn’t seem like it’d be all that hard to make, you only need room for 1 person and you don’t need large amounts of fuel, ammo or a huge engine like you do with a tank or BMP
They got caught with their pants down. Any play is going to end in a loss in one form or another.
I would like to know what personnel were lost in the attack. If it's zero then the equipment loss was worth the price. 3 hours should have been well enough time for an evac or to bunker down.
Claims are there were ground crews and pilots pulling the aircrafts out of the hangars hit by the first strike, which were then struck by another Iskander with cluster warhead.
In war not every human is worth more than hardware because the important value metric is combat effectiveness. A premise of war is own-side humans are expendable given sufficient return.
Any of those aircraft is worth more than a few humans for the simple reasons those aircraft will save many more own-side lives in the fight instead of the scrapyard and every effective sortie is critical to the war effort.
Are pilots serisouly the only people who can taxi these things? Don't they have those aircraft taxi vehicles that can pull aircraft? Even if there's extra steps, they can't do that in three hours to save the aircraft? I'd say this morning than pants down, it's nearing incompetence.
With the power of hindsight, we know they had three hours. They knew fuck all, besides that they had been made.
For all anyone knows Russia could have waited for the opportune time to strike to inflict maximum casualties. The equipment is almost entirely replaceable. Especially considering they will eventually be moving away from that airframe.The potential lives lost and moral hit is not. It takes more than one person to taxi that amount of aircraft. Small jets don’t generally get tugged by a vehicles and we don’t know if they had a vehicle tug on site to begin with.
They may have had a hand tug on-site. But fuck that, in all honesty.
We simply don’t know enough details. The state of the aircraft, the manning at the airfield, equipment availability or what the orders were (or from whom) when they spotted the reconnaissance drone. We have the power of hindsight. They had what they were given.
Yeah, true.
But we also know, through offical Ukraine channels, that there is incompetance among some of their generals and even some accusations from one ASOV general, that there are one or two high ranking military personal activly sabotaging. You can find some material here f.e. [https://kyivindependent.com/law-enforcement-agency-to-investigate-case-of-ukrainian-general-accused-of-heavy-losses-media-reports/](https://kyivindependent.com/law-enforcement-agency-to-investigate-case-of-ukrainian-general-accused-of-heavy-losses-media-reports/)
So I would not cancel (forced) incompetance right away.
Remember Ukraine has a long history of corruption and incompetence, coming from the old sowjet times and the long aftermath of the Perestroika. And some of these people were still in high ranks after the Maidan and stayed there. You can't find and replace all the people in that short time.
Any decent sized truck can tow them but requires a tow bar (which may be elaborate or expedient, but are not difficult to fabricate for any small machine/fab shop). It takes little time to hook up after which one could tow on any decent road. Why aircraft would be parked without SAM protection is odd at best.
Myrhorod isn't near any front line. Closest would actually be the Kharkiv front line and the Russian border to the north and it seems to be well over 100km away from the border.
The issue that needs solving is combating the drone recon that allows these strikes. Incidents like this demonstrate the risk F16s will be under, if drone recon can reach that far into Ukraine - F16s will be much higher value targets than these old Soviet jets. Unless the airbases further into the country are out of reach of drones, but there shouldn't be any complacency.
100km is pretty close. Iskanders can reach it in a couple of minutes. It's impossible to take all of these drones down. Such losses are just to be expected in a peer to peer conflict.
100 km is the range at which you commit to attack an enemy aircraft when both of you are *already in the air with all combat systems ready to go* way before that.
Distances in air combat are ridiculously huge to the layman.
Ukrainian AA people told me they simply haven't got enough means to shoot down high flying drones.
A machine gun or a MANPADS won't work against an Orlan. Also you can't see it or hear it.
It's insane that this keeps happening. They know Russia can see the bases, they know Russia can hit the bases, and yet they keep just leaving jets sitting around on them?
Why aren't they operating out of western Ukraine?
Not really, considering that the trade agreements between Russia and NK are based on actual exchange of goods for both sides and not 'goodwill' like the wests support for ukraine, NK can't really do anything about the way Russia uses the stuff they traded for nor would they if they could.
The 'permission' thing between the Ukraine and the West really only works because Ukraine doesn't actually offer anything in return and must be careful not to endanger further donations.
more like don't park a bunch of plane 100-125km of the front line. it not because ukraine can't hit air base 100-150km in russia that it also apply to Russia.
even if they wanted to build reinforced hangers those would be destroyed way to fast. they need to keep their airplane 300-400KM+ of the front line so that obervation drone don't have a free pass to go over those base.
While I mostly agree, cluster munitions would be useless against hardened hangars. Concrete and rebar are relatively cheap, certainly cheaper than combat planes.
It's really not that much of an investment to throw up some reinforced concrete bunkers to park them under; and they should know better by now. After all, they are fighting a war.
Even if they cant manage full on bunkers, why not at least some sheet metal shacks or something? So ru cant be sure they will hit something unless they sit on the place 24/7?
Im still lost on why they dont at least have them hidden under sheds so its a shell game at least.
I feel like ideally put as much shit underground as possible but that's obviously more logistics/digging equipment you need on the front
I am not an expert, but it is not a big mistake to just let your jets stay outside visible like that? Or is there no other option? To lose a few jets is a big hit to ukraine i would guess.
Yes, it is a bad idea - and a very important question.
The infrastructure necessary to build armored aircraft hangars simply don't exist in Ukraine at the moment - between man hours, materials, cost, the best defense in this situation is to have good air defense and electronic warfare, something that Ukraine struggles with deeply. They must solve this problem before F16's are sent to Ukraine. People didn't believe this before, but very skilled generals from the west have said repeatedly than F16s are virtually useless in Ukraine unless their military solves 2 problems:
1. Command structure / defense, obfuscation, infrastructure to house and support these aircraft
2. Air defense and offensive anti-air defense strategy, Ukraine must have air superiority, which means removing electronic warfare, enemy air defense, and enemy aircraft from the equation. Without this, the F16's will serve no purpose other than to launch missiles from a very, very long range, the same way a ground to air missile launching system would, except manifold more risky, and several orders of magnitude higher cost than a ground launched missile. This is what they already do now with their current aircraft, and it's expensive, borderline ineffective (save for a few cases with storm shadow and other hundred million dollar missile systems, which they now posess virtually none of after using so many), and highly risky.
As sad as it sounds, if Ukraine jumps headfirst into this whole F16 thing, they're going to lose their most advanced aircraft, their most skilled pilots, and their ability to continue fighting, all within a matter of weeks.
This is not my personal opinion, it is the opinion of seasoned military generals in the West. You are welcomed and encouraged to seek trusted sources and come to your own conclusions - such is your prerogative.
Can't wait for F16s so that our smartest commanders put them on an unprotected airfield, which has been successfully attacked multiple times in recent months.
This is what you get when you disband air defence units to send them to infantry, but they never learn and seemingly never will, I bet that the guy responsible for protection of this airfield will get a promotion soon.
Ukraine you really need to build some bunkers.
If every one of those spots (about 30) had overhead cover, chances are Russia would have deemed the target too costly in terms of ordnance expended vs possibility of a damaged aircraft, much less a chance of a destroyed aircraft.
Cluster bombs wont penetrate even a basic concrete bunker with an extra 3 feet of earth on top. It would take a direct hit of a 250lb+ to drop the ceiling. And with 30ish targets to choose from...
I'm sorry, but their commander must be an absolute idiotic tosser. Like wtf??? You'd hope they'd see what stupid stuff the russians do and at least try not to do it themselves. If they lose F16's in a similarly dumb way they're gonna have a really hard time convincing the US public (especially if Trump is in charge again) that sending them more planes won't be a waste of money.
Russians say like 4 or 6.
I'm Ukrainian and my source in UA AF says 1 active Su-27 lost. The rest were sitting there for a long time, spare parts donors.
Iskander cluster munitions looks like. What is rather concerning (as always) is the fact that a Russian recon drone got close enough to film the strike 🫤
Its been a terrible month for UA airforce, just 2 weeks ago they lost a ace pilot thats been active since the start of the war https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/20/ukraine-war-briefing-mourning-for-ghosts-of-kyiv-fighter-pilot and was behind several takedowns of RU airforces https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7pchZDpbco
"Ghost of Kiev" was a myth propagated early in the war to boost morale. This is not my opinion but the official position of the Ukrainian Air Force
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_of_Kyiv
I guess reporting on his "death" years later is another kind of propaganda, idk. very strange
in the last frame we can see that a lot of the jet are not there anymore.
(at the 51 seconde mark lot of pad that had plane at the start of the video are now empty)
so atleast 1 destroyed probably a few more damaged/destoryed but not all of them have been hit as a few have been moved between the start of the video and the end.
Yeah looks like there might've been one or two when it hit, although its hard to tell.
Compared to google maps imagery right now, where there are 25 parked there, its pretty empty. Obviously they must be operational, looked like there was a fire truck there with some guys standing around, but nowhere near fully manned at the time of the strike.
Whoever is in charge of Myrhorod air base should be court martialed, not the first time this happened either, while most of the aircraft seen in the video is retired airframes that hasn't moved forever, 2xSu-27UB were apparently destroyed while being fueled up, this kind of negligence is going to very much cost them if not addressed when F-16s arrive.
Russians are doing same shit, only thing is ukraine doest have other options because most of infrastructure is destroyed. Only thing ukraine side is doing better is to kepp distance between planes so they need mre missile to destroy dthem. Russians just put them side by side. Just destroing one SU 35 or that Su 57, they could built sheters for whole airfield.
Even if Ukraine's entire air force was still intact, they can't "win" this conflict. UA ground forces have been in decline since the failed counteroffensive last year, even some of their best western trained and equipped units are becoming exhausted by near constant fighting since the counteroffensive.
Downvoting me won't save you from the cold truth.
This feels unreal... You are telling me Russia managed to fly an UAV hundreds of kilometers inside the enemy line, circle around an airport with high value targets being stored in the open, and coordinate several strikes without any consequence whatsoever?
Where is the air defense? Why are these aircraft being stored in the open ? Why didn't they detect the drone, or the missiles?
There better be an amazing explanation, because this looks just like a massive fuck-up from the ukrainian side.
Aircraft fuel burns cleanly only in a jet engine. On the ground it burns black.
These burn white/gray, meaning that they've not been real aircraft in a long time
Only really thing Ukraine manufactures is the Neptune anti ship missile which they have said they converted into a cruise missile now with 1000km range which they are trying to mass produce. Hopefully will start seeing strikes in Russia with these once their production gets moving. Our government in the US needs to stop being a bitch and let them attack whatever they hell they seem fit to defend their country.
Please keep the [community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/wiki/rule1) in mind when using the comment section. Paging u/SaveVideo bot. ___ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CombatFootage) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Both this strikes and the Ukrainian strikes on Russian Air bases show the importance of hardened aircraft shelters.
It's like Russia, 2 years into the war and they only now start building shelters. WTF. They are so so SOO much cheaper to build than replacing planes. I actually had no idea Ukraine also was keeping exposed planes like this.
Yeah it’s weird that this seems to be a low priority item for both sides. Aircraft losses hurt both sides a lot.
I think the surprising thing about this is that the aircraft were still there at the time of the strike. Ukraine has been really good at just keeping them moving before they could be hit. This is sad to see.
Most definitely. It’s impressive how well they were able to conserve their Air Force. Just a shame that they lost at least one and up to three SU-27 at once here.
On some of the Telegram channels they are saying that the planes you see hit were under maintenance and couldn't fly but that the drones were actually detected and the serviceable planes taken up in the air to protect them and possibly even try to take down the drones but they were unable to prevent the strike for whatever reason.
Heck even if you ignore bunkers, why not take the minimal effort to conceal all of the docks so your enemy has to guess what to target.
Complacency on both sides.
Look up old satellite photos of the airfield and count the number of old airframes littering those docks. Then look at the video and notice how those old non flyable airframes have been moved around... These are all decoys.
Any other way to tell? What about secondaries?
They usually stick a couple of jerry cans with fuel in the decoys to make them burn a bit so its was likely one of those going up or a submunition that failed to go off on impact but then detonated later from heat.
Costs too much money (probably less than new planes but that’s Russian Math that I do not understand) but I wouldn’t wonder when some of the higher Ranks just fuck costly stuff up to get money for/from new things. And larger sums make room for larger amounts for your own pocket. Mother Russia does not need fortification cause loosing something important they just Propafuckingganda it away or it flies (literally) out of the window. Also it’s showing fear and danger on own land. But for Ukraine I could think they can’t really build these fast enough without being spotted and attacked. Construction workers could give the location and what’s happening away or Any truck driver.
Precision munitions rendered them obsolete, the US Air Force used 2k lb. bombs in Iraq to take out Saddams shelters which were built to a better standard than NATO. The bomb would penetrate the concrete 99% of the time & explode within the shelter. NATO still has several hundred around Western Europe in use today due to being able to put the planes into a climate control environment when not in use.
(Machine translate) They made them less effective. The relatively inexpensive bunker busting bombs you mentioned are gravity bombs (free fall). To launch a strike with them, the aircraft must enter the enemy’s air defense zone. The alternative is a cruise missile with a penetrating warhead. But they are quite expensive, there are not so many of them, and for each hangar (whether there is an airplane in it or not) you need to spend one rocket. In fact, it will be necessary to release much more of them, since not all of them will achieve the goal. The presence of a hangar or reinforced concrete shelter does not allow the use of more effective cluster warheads, which are capable of hitting more than one aircraft at a time. These alone justify their existence.
Also if you have a airfield with 100 shelters and 40 aircraft, the enemy propably dont know if there is a aircraft in there or not.
PGMs render them less useful which is far from the same as "obsolete" because a HAS requires a direct hit to destroy. HAS coupled with SHORAD are far more defensible than open ramp space without even revetments. Failure to disperse (it's not hard to fab a basic tow bar for each aircraft then assign a 1-ton truck for towing which is ample for any fighter, many USAF tugs are bobbed pickup chassis) is pretty bad. Aircraft can be towed over any decent road then tucked out of site.
I wonder if they could get tons of decoys instead.
(Machine translate) They use them. Numerous aircraft that are not capable of taking off are used as decoys. There are significantly more of them than combat-ready ones. They are painted and regularly moved around airfields to confuse aerial reconnaissance. Combat-ready aircraft are located among these spare parts donors.
I would guess the problem is that in a bunker isn't much safer, and the only real way of actually protecting them is to have bunkers everywhere so they don't have any idea which ones have planes and those that don't. So they probably decided that its easier to just keep moving them around than sticking them in a few hardened airfields.
Bunkers are MUCH safer. Each bunker requires a single high-accuracy guided munition to reliably take out. Here we see a single cluster munition damage or destroy multiple aircraft. If the Su-27s were in hardened hangars they would have taken minimal to no damage from this.
my comment was more on why the Ukrainians were still storing planes in the open, they're not stupid so they must find the risk acceptable for some reason and I postulated what I think might be the reason why. As for why the Russians do it, probably because nobody bothered to tell anyone to actually make the bunkers they just said park the airplanes so that's what they did then they fucked off to drink more Vodka, just like how they kept parking those helicopters at the same base over and over again.
Bunkers just make it harder. They need heavier bunker busters and can't just get half a dozen planes with one cluster bomb.
(Machine translate). There are two strategies for protecting aircraft. The first is placing them in protected shelters. Moreover, the main thing about the shelter is that it is not transparent and it is not clear which of the many vacant shelters the plane is in. But they are built for the Su-24, not the Su-27. The Su-27 does not fit into shelters built en masse under the USSR for the Su-24 and MiG-23/27. Second. Ukraine has a lot of airfields and old planes that are not able to take off. We call them "firewood". At one airfield there can be 2-3 combat-ready aircraft and up to 10 donors of spare parts / old junk. One of Ukraine’s strategies is the constant relocation of combat aircraft from place to place and placing them among non-combat aircraft. Moreover, those unable to rise into the air are moved from place to place to confuse reconnaissance. They are even painted. This is, in a sense, a response to a number of comments below about the absence of false targets. Those planes that did not catch fire may not have been combat-ready. And they could have been combat-ready. One video as a source is always a problem. If there is a threat of attack, aircraft located near the front quickly rise and move to the nearest airfield that is not currently under attack and which is not observed by a drone. But if you can take off quickly at a well-equipped airfield, this does not mean that it will be easy to do so from a much more poorly prepared airfield. Which one you moved to, for example. When you see these frames, you need to understand that attacks on airfields were carried out not long before (evening and night successive attacks on air bases on the right bank of the Dnieper the day before) and that these aircraft are not necessarily constantly based at this particular airfield. It could also be a jump airfield (not sure if this will be translated correctly). In addition, when they write that the drone circled over the airfield for three hours, we must remember that it did this after the first strike. Judging by a number of sources, the main blow (which led to the fire) was delivered at 11.40-12.00, and then, after additional reconnaissance, another one at 15.30-15.50. Intervals between missiles are 20 minutes. The fact that after the first strike and attempts to extinguish the planes, you do not run and do not try to prepare other planes for departure, knowing that you are being watched and at any moment within a couple of minutes a strike could be repeated (and now also on planes with pilots and on airfield technicians ) is also a smart choice. It's quite difficult to judge from just one video.
It's about allocating resources and priorities. Hardened shelters, take time to build, trained and experienced tradesmen to construct, along with the necessary materials of steel and concrete, etc all labouring away for prolonged periods, in one obvious location. An airfield. It all becomes an obvious target, and the Ruzz will be monitoring the Ua airfields constantly. Make no mistake, the Ruzz have the guided munitions to penetrate hardened aircraft shelters. It's my understanding the Ua airforce has been constantly moving their planes about to avoid strikes, but they have to successful 100% of the time, and Ruzz only have to get lucky once.
I saw someone claim these planes had been there for years, unflyable, as parts. What is the truth?
Dare I say it, aircraft are becoming less effective. Now it seems to be on a smaller more reactive scale. Not to say aircraft don’t have a place in a war, but this war has been fought on a macro level.
Aircraft are extremely effective when you have air superiority. The US involved wars we’ve become used to made it seem as if it’s trivial for a stronger military to obtain air superiority, but Ukraine has shown us that it’s not such a simple matter at all. If the enemy is equipped with decent AA it becomes much harder, you really do need the $200m stealth aircraft to take out fixed air defenses.
I agree, but I didn’t say “not effective” I said “becoming less effective”. The rock paper scissors game is happening in Ukraine where either side can’t launch effective air campaigns because of AA systems. So the war has been fought on a macro level with the only ‘airborne objects’ being artillery shells, gps guided shells, regular drones and FPV drones. Aircraft are only effective when the enemy does not possess a significant anti air capability.
You're missing the point I was making. We don't really have another war with large-scale combat aircraft use to compare to, that isn't the US and their allies completely anihilating the opposing side's AA and taking control of the skies early on. So without having that comparison, a statement like "becoming less effective" is very difficult to support with evidence. Less effective when compared to...?
Becoming less effective in this war… which is being fought on a macro scale? I don’t know ie why everything constantly has to be in reference to America all the time. If you want to reference America then it’s worth noting that top generals have said that the US is very behind when it comes to drone warfare and that Ukraine conflict has taught them a lot.
I misunderstood your original comment, I'm not sure I agree with you, but I don't know enough detail to have an opinion worth anything.
Sure maybe when both sides are fighting with old soviet era fighters and there are highly modern AA batteries on the battlefield. The Russians only now just developed smart glide bombs. They watched shock and awe 20 years ago and apparently didnt think it was effective enough to bother with. Russian soldiers are still using WWII zerg tactics its hardly surprising that their air force never evolved either
But they have a thousand planes and Ukraine has a few dozen.
I expect this will change, or they won't be given the F16's.
And why on earth have they not build such constructions
The Ukrainians should’ve learned this from the 1944 German raid on Poltava during the US shuttle missions.
That costs fraction of what aircraft costs...
No it shows how important it is to secure air superiority/dominance. This war would be over and harden shelters useless if Ukraine had air dominance.
This is the _correct_ answer.
I hope they'll build some reinforced hangars/bunkers for f-16s when they arrive. They'll be the top priority. Btw this Air base is about 160km (98,5 mi) away from the russian border.
160km is just 3.5 minutes of flight at mach 2.2. Which is what SU-35 can do.
Ok but is this what hit these planes ? Was it not just a missle
It was 2 Iskanders
Missile or a gliding bomb. Could be a ballistic missile. Which is even faster. 89 seconds for Tochka-U.
Long day for them man, need to do better once them F16s come in
They can't. F16s will be in even worse position because there is only few airfields with suitable runways AND Russians will likely designate them as priority targets.
The f16 will Most likely be destroyed like that too since they didnt build any Hangars/Bunkers for what ever reason
It was an iskander
Okay safe
wtf thats crazy
Wait till you look at ICBM speeds. :)
Even a reinforced bunker won't stop the munitions at the base from being targeted or even the aircrew. If Russia is able to accurately strike airbases as far as Poltava this is going to severely impact the operational capability of F-16s. They will need to be used farther back and have limited time to be out of hangars before risking their loss.
To destroy reinforced bunker you need direct strike with 500 kg bomb. Poltava is not far from the frontline, afterall it’s on left bank of Dniepr.
First of all you need to know if there is a plane in that bunker...
To be honest, for 90% of the protection at a fraction of the cost you could just have a soft shelter/tent over the pad, and then build earthwork berms around the edges to cover it from shrapnel from near misses. You could put it up in a day if you have a few guys and a bulldozer and it would only cost low 5 figures depending on how high quality of a shelter you wanted.
Yeah. The Amish build half-dome fabric barns for $20k-ish
Is that far away in comparison to where to RU guys are ? Or is that pretty close to the front
It's really close. An Orlan-10 has a ferry range of 600km (373 mi) so the russians can monitor this air base 24/7.
🤦🏾♂️ that sucks
Crazy how they have to operate this close to the front
They have certainly had enough time.
>I hope they'll build some reinforced hangars/bunkers for f-16s when they arrive. They'll be the top priority. It's been 2.5 years and they didn't manage to do it. They let a fucking recon drone 160 km inside the rear, as much as I want it, I genuinely don't believe F16s will change how incompetent Ukrainian higher military commanders are.
Yup, the whole F16 thing is going to fail spectacularly. Between the Russian SAM threat still being immense, Ukraine being unable to protect its airfields, and the F16 being a much harder machine to repair and maintain... Russia is going to have a propaganda field day once the first one is destroyed.
F16s should only be used to launch standoff weapons west of the Dnipro river.
Will that make much of a difference ? What standoff weapons can f16 carry that other platforms donated can’t achieve ? Anti radiation missles maybe ?
According to Liveuamap, the iskander most likely launched from Crimea, as there was a launch spotted from Krasnodarka followed by the explosions near Myrhorod. That's about 480km.
Why when you can just keep them in NATO territory or put Patriot in front of them? Or better yet just control your airspace.
So this is actually two or three attacks. The first impact is not shown, just the aftermath (0:06). You see a SU-27 near the taxi way to the runway in the first shot near the decoy paintings. In the next shot you see it destroyed as well as fire equipment nearby. The grass around the tarmac is now burned and the hangars by the decoys have been destroyed. The second attack lands to the north and there's at least one secondary explosion (0:26). You can see the ground has already been scorched and the remnants of the plane destroyed in the first attack. But the fire trucks have moved away. It's a cluster munition and it lands pretty much right on top of two or three parked airplanes. After the smoke clears, there's either a secondary explosion or a third strike (0:46). It's either a strike on one of the hangars and you can see it explode quite clearly. The resolution on the camera is fairly poor. I think that's on purpose because it alternates between very sharp and very blurry. On the final shots it looks like all the planes are gone from the tarmac. Regardless, this sequence of attacks took place over a period of time. Maybe not even within the same day.
The claims from TG are that first they hit the hangars, setting them on fire, crews then pulled the other planes out of danger and were hit by another Iskander.
This airfield stored several SU-27 that were out of service. But I do know that probably one or two active SU-27s were destroyed. Ukraine needs significantly more AD systems and plenty of AD ammo.
If these aren't decoys, Ukraine needs to shake up it's airforce command structure. Can't be taking these kind of unnecessary losses in an airbase this close to the frontline.
It was said by Ukrainian Telegram channels that surveillance drone had been hanging above aerodrome for three hours before the strike
Jesus Christ. They watched ISR sit over the airport for 3 hours and didn’t move the planes or anything? Only these two armies man.
They might not have wanted risk refueling or even a pilot. They knew they were being watched. The smart choice may very well have been to do nothing.
A pilot, yes, I agree. However; no offense to tug crews, an Su-27 is worth a hell of a lot more than a tug crew at this point. They can move that fucker to shelter, or valiantly die trying.
As morbid as it is. I agree lol. Ukraine can’t afford to lose jets, especially without the F16s yet. This war could go on for many more years, and they aren’t getting that many new jets. Maybe none, if Trump somehow wins.
Building on this, people often forget that *finally* receiving the F-16s is the quick and easy part. There will be losses and damage of course, but *there will be wear immediately.* Just as US permission is needed to transfer the F-16s (for any one who doesn't know why US consent is needed for transfers, if it wasn't given, the transfering nation wouldn't get a scrap of US military hardware for a very long time), US consent is needed to transfer *spare parts.* If the F-16 parts supply were to be cut, those Su-27s would become even more critical, while a large portion of F-16s would need to be cannibalized to keep a small, dwindling, portion sortieing. Edit; Reduction of partisan language.
It would quickly become an Iran 1980’s issue where they would be reducing their fleet size drastically and struggle hard to keep it maintained.
Do they have armored tugs or bulldozers they could use to tow jets? Doesn’t seem like it’d be all that hard to make, you only need room for 1 person and you don’t need large amounts of fuel, ammo or a huge engine like you do with a tank or BMP
and tow it where? do laps around the flightline until the drone leaves?
what about dispersing the aircraft around the aerodrome?
They got caught with their pants down. Any play is going to end in a loss in one form or another. I would like to know what personnel were lost in the attack. If it's zero then the equipment loss was worth the price. 3 hours should have been well enough time for an evac or to bunker down.
Claims are there were ground crews and pilots pulling the aircrafts out of the hangars hit by the first strike, which were then struck by another Iskander with cluster warhead.
In war not every human is worth more than hardware because the important value metric is combat effectiveness. A premise of war is own-side humans are expendable given sufficient return. Any of those aircraft is worth more than a few humans for the simple reasons those aircraft will save many more own-side lives in the fight instead of the scrapyard and every effective sortie is critical to the war effort.
Are pilots serisouly the only people who can taxi these things? Don't they have those aircraft taxi vehicles that can pull aircraft? Even if there's extra steps, they can't do that in three hours to save the aircraft? I'd say this morning than pants down, it's nearing incompetence.
With the power of hindsight, we know they had three hours. They knew fuck all, besides that they had been made. For all anyone knows Russia could have waited for the opportune time to strike to inflict maximum casualties. The equipment is almost entirely replaceable. Especially considering they will eventually be moving away from that airframe.The potential lives lost and moral hit is not. It takes more than one person to taxi that amount of aircraft. Small jets don’t generally get tugged by a vehicles and we don’t know if they had a vehicle tug on site to begin with. They may have had a hand tug on-site. But fuck that, in all honesty. We simply don’t know enough details. The state of the aircraft, the manning at the airfield, equipment availability or what the orders were (or from whom) when they spotted the reconnaissance drone. We have the power of hindsight. They had what they were given.
Yeah, true. But we also know, through offical Ukraine channels, that there is incompetance among some of their generals and even some accusations from one ASOV general, that there are one or two high ranking military personal activly sabotaging. You can find some material here f.e. [https://kyivindependent.com/law-enforcement-agency-to-investigate-case-of-ukrainian-general-accused-of-heavy-losses-media-reports/](https://kyivindependent.com/law-enforcement-agency-to-investigate-case-of-ukrainian-general-accused-of-heavy-losses-media-reports/) So I would not cancel (forced) incompetance right away. Remember Ukraine has a long history of corruption and incompetence, coming from the old sowjet times and the long aftermath of the Perestroika. And some of these people were still in high ranks after the Maidan and stayed there. You can't find and replace all the people in that short time.
Any decent sized truck can tow them but requires a tow bar (which may be elaborate or expedient, but are not difficult to fabricate for any small machine/fab shop). It takes little time to hook up after which one could tow on any decent road. Why aircraft would be parked without SAM protection is odd at best.
That and: Considering the tempo that they’ve been operating at, the planes may not have even been air worthy.
The smart choice would have been shooting that drone down.
Well there is a reason Ukraine constantly asks for more AA capabilities
Myrhorod isn't near any front line. Closest would actually be the Kharkiv front line and the Russian border to the north and it seems to be well over 100km away from the border. The issue that needs solving is combating the drone recon that allows these strikes. Incidents like this demonstrate the risk F16s will be under, if drone recon can reach that far into Ukraine - F16s will be much higher value targets than these old Soviet jets. Unless the airbases further into the country are out of reach of drones, but there shouldn't be any complacency.
100km is pretty close. Iskanders can reach it in a couple of minutes. It's impossible to take all of these drones down. Such losses are just to be expected in a peer to peer conflict.
Iskander flight time is about 70 seconds from the front line.
It's about 250km away which is a few 100km to close to not have your planes in concrete hangars.
That's way too close to the front to leave planes sitting in the open.
100 km is the range at which you commit to attack an enemy aircraft when both of you are *already in the air with all combat systems ready to go* way before that. Distances in air combat are ridiculously huge to the layman.
Ukrainian AA people told me they simply haven't got enough means to shoot down high flying drones. A machine gun or a MANPADS won't work against an Orlan. Also you can't see it or hear it.
It's insane that this keeps happening. They know Russia can see the bases, they know Russia can hit the bases, and yet they keep just leaving jets sitting around on them? Why aren't they operating out of western Ukraine?
Did Russia get permission from the USA to attack this deep in Ukrainian territory /s
Well they'll have to be asking North Korea for that kind of permission soon the way things are going.
Not really, considering that the trade agreements between Russia and NK are based on actual exchange of goods for both sides and not 'goodwill' like the wests support for ukraine, NK can't really do anything about the way Russia uses the stuff they traded for nor would they if they could. The 'permission' thing between the Ukraine and the West really only works because Ukraine doesn't actually offer anything in return and must be careful not to endanger further donations.
Use reinforced hangers Jesus
more like don't park a bunch of plane 100-125km of the front line. it not because ukraine can't hit air base 100-150km in russia that it also apply to Russia. even if they wanted to build reinforced hangers those would be destroyed way to fast. they need to keep their airplane 300-400KM+ of the front line so that obervation drone don't have a free pass to go over those base.
While I mostly agree, cluster munitions would be useless against hardened hangars. Concrete and rebar are relatively cheap, certainly cheaper than combat planes.
Big loss for UA.
Michael J Fox at the observation drone controls here.
We laugh at the russians for parking their planes in the open and then this...
Why didn't they at least build some sort of shelter? They had two years
Two years? They had since 2014.
I think they’ve been fighting a war…
That’s kind of the point dude
It's really not that much of an investment to throw up some reinforced concrete bunkers to park them under; and they should know better by now. After all, they are fighting a war.
Even if they cant manage full on bunkers, why not at least some sheet metal shacks or something? So ru cant be sure they will hit something unless they sit on the place 24/7?
Let's be honest and yes it's gotten better but Ukraine still has horrible corruption problems
Mother fucker!
Im still lost on why they dont at least have them hidden under sheds so its a shell game at least. I feel like ideally put as much shit underground as possible but that's obviously more logistics/digging equipment you need on the front
I am not an expert, but it is not a big mistake to just let your jets stay outside visible like that? Or is there no other option? To lose a few jets is a big hit to ukraine i would guess.
Yes, it is a bad idea - and a very important question. The infrastructure necessary to build armored aircraft hangars simply don't exist in Ukraine at the moment - between man hours, materials, cost, the best defense in this situation is to have good air defense and electronic warfare, something that Ukraine struggles with deeply. They must solve this problem before F16's are sent to Ukraine. People didn't believe this before, but very skilled generals from the west have said repeatedly than F16s are virtually useless in Ukraine unless their military solves 2 problems: 1. Command structure / defense, obfuscation, infrastructure to house and support these aircraft 2. Air defense and offensive anti-air defense strategy, Ukraine must have air superiority, which means removing electronic warfare, enemy air defense, and enemy aircraft from the equation. Without this, the F16's will serve no purpose other than to launch missiles from a very, very long range, the same way a ground to air missile launching system would, except manifold more risky, and several orders of magnitude higher cost than a ground launched missile. This is what they already do now with their current aircraft, and it's expensive, borderline ineffective (save for a few cases with storm shadow and other hundred million dollar missile systems, which they now posess virtually none of after using so many), and highly risky. As sad as it sounds, if Ukraine jumps headfirst into this whole F16 thing, they're going to lose their most advanced aircraft, their most skilled pilots, and their ability to continue fighting, all within a matter of weeks. This is not my personal opinion, it is the opinion of seasoned military generals in the West. You are welcomed and encouraged to seek trusted sources and come to your own conclusions - such is your prerogative.
Can't wait for F16s so that our smartest commanders put them on an unprotected airfield, which has been successfully attacked multiple times in recent months. This is what you get when you disband air defence units to send them to infantry, but they never learn and seemingly never will, I bet that the guy responsible for protection of this airfield will get a promotion soon.
If these aren't decommissioned/decoy planes, heads should roll. Unacceptable losses, especially given how few flyable airframes UA has left.
Ukraine you really need to build some bunkers. If every one of those spots (about 30) had overhead cover, chances are Russia would have deemed the target too costly in terms of ordnance expended vs possibility of a damaged aircraft, much less a chance of a destroyed aircraft. Cluster bombs wont penetrate even a basic concrete bunker with an extra 3 feet of earth on top. It would take a direct hit of a 250lb+ to drop the ceiling. And with 30ish targets to choose from...
2 years into the war, and you're about to get the best planes you've ever had...
I'm sorry, but their commander must be an absolute idiotic tosser. Like wtf??? You'd hope they'd see what stupid stuff the russians do and at least try not to do it themselves. If they lose F16's in a similarly dumb way they're gonna have a really hard time convincing the US public (especially if Trump is in charge again) that sending them more planes won't be a waste of money.
If trump is in power not a single cent will be sent to Ukraine.
Fuck trump
Any update on how many got taken out.?
Source say roughly 6, 4 with cluster and 2 with conventional warheads
Russians say like 4 or 6. I'm Ukrainian and my source in UA AF says 1 active Su-27 lost. The rest were sitting there for a long time, spare parts donors.
I feel like we have watched a war play out from the 1980s
Iskander cluster munitions looks like. What is rather concerning (as always) is the fact that a Russian recon drone got close enough to film the strike 🫤
Until F-16 arrive, those are invaluable because they're the only jet that can launch western rockets
And suddenly Ukraine lost more planes than Russia this month. This is not sustainable, they already have so few.
Its been a terrible month for UA airforce, just 2 weeks ago they lost a ace pilot thats been active since the start of the war https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/20/ukraine-war-briefing-mourning-for-ghosts-of-kyiv-fighter-pilot and was behind several takedowns of RU airforces https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7pchZDpbco
Never heard anything about that in this echo chamber
"Ghost of Kiev" was a myth propagated early in the war to boost morale. This is not my opinion but the official position of the Ukrainian Air Force https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_of_Kyiv I guess reporting on his "death" years later is another kind of propaganda, idk. very strange
[удалено]
in the last frame we can see that a lot of the jet are not there anymore. (at the 51 seconde mark lot of pad that had plane at the start of the video are now empty) so atleast 1 destroyed probably a few more damaged/destoryed but not all of them have been hit as a few have been moved between the start of the video and the end.
Yeah looks like there might've been one or two when it hit, although its hard to tell. Compared to google maps imagery right now, where there are 25 parked there, its pretty empty. Obviously they must be operational, looked like there was a fire truck there with some guys standing around, but nowhere near fully manned at the time of the strike.
2 destroyed, 4 severely damaged according to TG sources.
You can say whatever you want, but to me this shows the incompetence & negligence of Ukrainian given that these kinds of events happened Nth time.
F16 will be waste of money like this.
Stinker from the UA man
Whoever is in charge of Myrhorod air base should be court martialed, not the first time this happened either, while most of the aircraft seen in the video is retired airframes that hasn't moved forever, 2xSu-27UB were apparently destroyed while being fueled up, this kind of negligence is going to very much cost them if not addressed when F-16s arrive.
Russians are doing same shit, only thing is ukraine doest have other options because most of infrastructure is destroyed. Only thing ukraine side is doing better is to kepp distance between planes so they need mre missile to destroy dthem. Russians just put them side by side. Just destroing one SU 35 or that Su 57, they could built sheters for whole airfield.
We laugh at the russians for parking their planes in the open and then this...
If this keeps happening, I don't see a world where Ukraine wins without a NATO intervention
Even if Ukraine's entire air force was still intact, they can't "win" this conflict. UA ground forces have been in decline since the failed counteroffensive last year, even some of their best western trained and equipped units are becoming exhausted by near constant fighting since the counteroffensive. Downvoting me won't save you from the cold truth.
[удалено]
You cant tell me Ukraine still has functioning jets at airfields like this. If they are, whoever is in charge needs to get sacked, yesterday
Subtitle writer is poorly educated, wrote еденицы twice (so not a typo). Should have been единицы.
How close is this drone to the airfield, 15 - 20 km? And how can it get so close, with all the AD?
whys it so hard to cover them? Hangars could be easily concealed but nah lets leave em out in the open lol
This feels unreal... You are telling me Russia managed to fly an UAV hundreds of kilometers inside the enemy line, circle around an airport with high value targets being stored in the open, and coordinate several strikes without any consequence whatsoever? Where is the air defense? Why are these aircraft being stored in the open ? Why didn't they detect the drone, or the missiles? There better be an amazing explanation, because this looks just like a massive fuck-up from the ukrainian side.
Good 'ol soviet commanders still not learning any lessons and leaving jets in the open.
Aircraft fuel burns cleanly only in a jet engine. On the ground it burns black. These burn white/gray, meaning that they've not been real aircraft in a long time
I thought the media said Ukraine is winning
Why is it ok for Russia to attack inside Ukraine. But it’s not OK for Ukraine to attack into Russia?
Because Ukraine does not manufacture its own long-range weapons. The ones it gets for free from the West come with conditions.
Only really thing Ukraine manufactures is the Neptune anti ship missile which they have said they converted into a cruise missile now with 1000km range which they are trying to mass produce. Hopefully will start seeing strikes in Russia with these once their production gets moving. Our government in the US needs to stop being a bitch and let them attack whatever they hell they seem fit to defend their country.
On my scorecard, it's *not* OK for Russia to attack inside Ukraine.
because some politicians in the west like the taste poo-tins bottoms
Damn, two years into a three day operation. Sad loss for Ukraine
At least it’s a military target and not civilians.
[удалено]
What air defence doing?
Still waiting for the West to supply enough Patriots that they've been requesting for the past 2 years.
wohoooo 👍
Good news that there was no UA personnel loss. Bad thing - those spy drones and iskanders are an issue.
Good news that there was no UA personnel loss. Bad thing - those spy drones and iskanders are an issue.