How to Protect Grounded Aircraft from Modern Threats

In the theater of warfare, we often marvel at the high-flying spectacle of advanced fighter jets and missile systems that seem almost invulnerable when soaring at Mach speeds. Yet, this aura of invincibility quickly dissipates once these machines touch the ground. Surprisingly, or perhaps not, aircraft on the ground can be sitting ducks, exposed to a range of vulnerabilities that we ought to consider seriously — especially in the context of the ongoing Ukraine-Russia conflict.

A Multitude of Protection Strategies: But How Effective?

Aircraft on the ground are exposed to various threats that can damage or destroy these expensive and strategic assets. To protect them from enemy attacks, weather conditions, and accidental collisions, different methods have been developed over the years. Some of the traditional solutions include using camouflaged tents, reinforced hangars, and specialized bunkers to conceal and shield the aircraft from sight and impact. Another layer of protection is provided by air defense systems that are equipped with anti-missile capabilities, such as radar, lasers, or interceptors. However, these measures are not foolproof and may fail to prevent or mitigate some of the emerging threats in the modern battlefield. For instance, the recent use of Izdeliye-53 drones, an upgraded version of Lancet drones, by Russian forces against Ukrainian Mig-29s demonstrated the vulnerability of parked aircraft to low-cost and low-altitude drones that can evade radar detection and deliver precise strikes. Similarly, the ATACMS missiles launched by Ukrainian forces that struck Russian helicopters in Berdiansk showed the potential of long-range and high-precision missiles that can target aircraft on the ground with devastating effects. These examples highlight the need for more effective and innovative ways to protect aircraft on the ground from current and future threats.

Concentration vs. Dispersion: The Strategic Trade-Offs

The trade-off between concentration and dispersion of aircraft on various bases is a key dilemma that military strategists face in planning and executing air operations. Concentrating aircraft on a few bases can provide operational efficiencies, such as easier maintenance, logistics, and command and control, as well as quicker response times to launch and recover missions. However, it also exposes the aircraft to the risk of being destroyed or damaged by enemy attacks on the ground, where they are most vulnerable. Dispersing aircraft across multiple bases can reduce this risk, as well as complicate the enemy’s targeting and intelligence efforts. However, it also introduces challenges, such as increased fuel consumption, communication difficulties, coordination problems, and reduced sortie generation rates. Therefore, military strategists need to balance the benefits and costs of concentration and dispersion, depending on the threat environment, the availability of resources, the mission objectives, and the operational constraints. This dilemma has been studied by various researchers and organizations over the past decades, such as RAND Corporation, University of Washington, and NATO, and has been influenced by the evolution of technology, doctrine, and geopolitics.

The Ukraine-Russia conflict has exposed the vulnerability of grounded aircraft to enemy attacks. The Russians and the Ukrainians have both suffered losses of their planes and helicopters, which were destroyed or damaged by missiles, drones, or bombs. These attacks have not only reduced their air power, but also affected their morale and public opinion. The attrition of grounded aircraft can significantly weaken an air force, especially in a prolonged conflict like this one, where resource constraints are already a significant concern. Moreover, the lack of modern aircraft and air defense systems makes it harder for both sides to counter the threat of aerial attacks. Therefore, both countries are seeking to acquire more advanced jets and missiles to restore their air superiority.

The Implications for Western Defense

The recent attacks on grounded aircraft in Ukraine by Russian and Ukrainian forces have exposed the vulnerability of air power to low-cost and high-tech weapons. These incidents should not be seen as irrelevant to the West, but rather as a warning of the potential threats that could face its own air assets in a future conflict. One example of such assets are aircraft carriers, which are essential for projecting power and influence across the globe. However, aircraft carriers are not invincible, and they face many risks from various sources, such as reconnaissance satellites, long-range cruise missiles, hypersonic missiles, anti-ship ballistic missiles, very quiet submarines, and even small drones. These threats could target the carriers when they are most vulnerable, such as during moments of docking, resupply, or even during the launch and recovery of aircraft. Moreover, the West should not overlook the vulnerability of its air bases in foreign countries, which are often located far from home and in politically unstable regions. These bases could also be attacked by similar weapons, or by local insurgents or terrorists. In these situations, relying on traditional methods of protection, such as air defense systems, fighter jets, or satellites, may not be enough to ensure the safety and effectiveness of air power. Therefore, the West should learn from the lessons of Ukraine and invest in more innovative and resilient ways of defending and deploying its air assets in the face of evolving threats.

Decoys and anti-drone systems are emerging as new layers in a multi-tiered strategy for defending grounded aircraft from enemy attacks. Decoys can be inflatable, painted, or out-of-service aircraft that mimic the appearance and signatures of real aircraft, confusing the enemy sensors and diverting their fire. Anti-drone systems can be radar, jamming, or kinetic devices that detect, identify, and neutralize hostile drones before they reach their targets. The use of decoys and anti-drone systems could, at the very least, buy time during an attack, enabling a more effective response by the air defense forces. Some examples of decoys and anti-drone systems are:

• BAE Systems’ Fiber-Optic Towed Decoy (FOTD), a radio-frequency countermeasure system that lures enemy missiles away from the aircraft.
• Wave Engine Corporation’s Versatile Air-Launched Platform (VALP), a multi-mission, air-launched UAV that can be used as a decoy or a strike weapon.
• D-Fend Solutions’ EnforceAir, a cyber-takeover system that detects, identifies, and takes control of rogue drones, allowing safe landing or redirection.

Conclusion

As the technology of warfare evolves, so must our strategies for protecting vital military assets. If you’re interested in diving deeper into this subject, there are experts who offer extensive insights through their books and websites. But the bottom line is this: complacency is no longer an option. The attrition of grounded aircraft is not a theoretical risk; it’s a concrete reality that military planners and policymakers must address with urgency and innovation.

The future of warfare demands more than upgrades in airborne technology; it calls for a rethinking of how we protect these assets when they are most vulnerable — grounded. And for those of us watching from the sidelines, let’s not underestimate the intricacies of modern military strategy — it’s more than just a game of aerial dominance; it’s also about safeguarding our assets where they stand, quite literally.