IMO if the common folk on the internet realize that it is quite dumb to use tires as protection for aircrafts against drones then there is no way that people who have been handling strategic bombers for several years don't realize that too. There is incompetence in the Russian military no doubt about it. But the number one enemy to the Russian military is not incompetence, the main enemy has always been the lack of funds. I imagine puting those tires as protection was a pure act of desperation due to the lack of funds to that bomber airbase from the higher ups to build more apropriate protection. Russia uses a small military budget to build and maintain the third largest airforce plus operate the second largest number of SSNs/SSBNs after the US plus the largest ground force in Europe plus a massive strategic nuclear stockpile, add to that funds for R&D and for the surface fleet and the result is that all projects are under funded, delayed and imperfect.
I would argue also that Russia has had a much more difficult time navigating through military challenges than say China for example due to the fall of the USSR. They went from being a country that has around the same population as the US to less than half, then came a decade of catastrophic decline & corruption. Putin really only had 14 years to pick up the pieces from the ashes of the USSR.
I believe once the Ukraine war ends the Russian military will have to downsize to something more sustainable.
How much do you think a structure like this costs?
These are garage hangars. This hangar was designed to protect aircraft from the sun and rain and not from military attacks.
Furthermore, it allows greater comfort for the crew and ground staff during pre- and post-flight procedures. The aircraft were parked in the same location, but exposed to the elements, as were the personnel involved in the flight activity. Imagine having to solve a last-minute breakdown and the rain pouring in. Or changing a simple tire under the scorching sun. Aircraft without shelter from this type of hangar have even killed pilots. One of the causes of several accidents involving German F-104s was precisely the exposure of these planes to the elements.
Not to mention that it facilitates nighttime operations through artificial lighting. They should cost no more than US$5,000 each. You can add retaining walls to pieces for no more than $8,000 each. Russia could use to neutralize space reconnaissance through satellite images with which Ukraine massively supplies itself from the hundreds of them available.
In wars, modular hangars are used:
Again, how much do you think a structure like this costs?
Both models of hangars basically serve to protect planes against sun and rain. They are not expensive (in fact they are very cheap) and can be redone easily, or you can simply put the planes out of them as they were until the end of the 80s - which seems to be the current Russian standard.
In fact, today not even dispersion is an absolute guarantee of survival. But even so, survival increases with the use of camouflage, which would be the essential point of using these types of hangars.
With the widespread use of radars with advanced air-to-surface function (synthetic aperture and moving target indicator), in addition to increased processing capacity, which allows automatic target identification, combined with the widespread use of target designation “cocoons” With multispectral capability, scattering is no longer as effective as it was in the past. Even the use of camouflaged coverings is no longer a guarantee of concealment. It is necessary to use sophisticated decoys (false targets) and coverings capable of neutralizing radiation in the IR and radar spectrum. The Swedes use bases embedded in mountains and dispersion on highways (they are useful there), all very well defended by anti-aircraft. The difference is that Ukraine doesn't even have the capacity to overcome any of these obstacles, all they can do are drone launches.
Both types of hangars are acceptable if they were on dispersion bases, even so they should have a minimum of anti-aircraft defense. The most important thing is deception against space surveillance.
Now, a very different resource are hangars for strategic bombers. These should receive at least a basic reinforcement, otherwise they would become easy targets for everything available, from cannons, rockets, fragmentation bombs, Napalm, general purpose bombs with proximity fuzes, drones, FAE, etc. Also, in addition to better hangars, there must be a minimum anti-aircraft defense, with radar surveillance, so that they can deny the enemy at least the use of weapons as basic as these drones.
These last hangars cost money but the first hangar models above do not, in fact, they are very cheap. If VKS doesn't have money, it would be better to close its doors. Just to give you an idea, with a strong wind, the first improvised/modular hangars, with those thin and weak pillars, a strong wind easily knocks them down or completely destroys them. What is interesting for the Russians is the way in which the geolocated position of the aircraft in the bases is hidden, preventing the recognition of how many aircraft are on the apron as well as preventing the assessment of damage after the attacks. It's a win-win solution and would cost almost nothing for a force that costs billions of dollars to operate.
Now, the best type of hangar is the underground one, with reasonable ballistic protection, it will always be superior to any surface hangar and makes it difficult to see, it is immune to secondary explosions/shrapnel and close fires (the enemy needs to hit the hangar squarely with a large explosive power), would soon need to be attacked with more modern weapons and get closer, giving greater chances of reaction.
I'm not in the construction business, an underground hangar with fire protection, air-conditioned, with suction pump against flooding and 1.5 meter thick reinforced concrete walls + steel and + access ramp of about 15 meters, I don't think so it would be over $800,000, but I hope someone with more information and experience than me will argue this point.
