Covert Sabotage at an airforce base with round the clock patrols, cameras and sensors?
You are aware it isn't easy to just break into a base like that without being noticed, right? They are rather outside living areas so it would be rather easy to spot someone approaching, day or night.
And also dead in middle of Russia too right?
Please guys, stop playing Call of Duty.
Personally I haven't played any Call of Duty for about 10 years but anyway...
I will try and reiterate my point:
I am fully aware
of how remote of a possibility covert sabotage like this is, which is the entire reason I prefaced the statement in my first post with "I don't know how realistic of a scenario this is..."
. In case you are not a native English speaker (and I am not trying to bash I literally do not know) when someone says something like that before they make a statement it means "I don't think that this is a realistic scenario".
My point is that if the shelters are as cheap as ZoA claims relative to the cost of what they are protecting
then it is still worth it to put them up to protect even against extremely remote possibilities such as sabotage, or even something like unusually bad weather, lightning striking, or anything else really remotely
possible but still possible regardless.
I look at Shelters for only one reason for their existence these days - to help preserve the aircraft and protect it from the outside elements. Shelters aren't cheap, and they can also take resources too if you need to properly heat or treat them. Now mind you, there are new shelters which are created for Yak-130 aircrafts, but they are not the typical hard shelter you would think. I promote the shelter idea only on the basis that its to preserve the aircraft and possibly reduce wear and tear on it.
Sabotage on an airbase is a different case. I have visited airbases in what would be classified as 3rd world countries (only 2 of them I been to) and in both cases, I was quite ways away from the base taking some photos of the surrounding area to say "hey mom and dad, looks where I am" and it was not long, on both occasions that I was almost apprehended. They essentially told me to delete the photos of the base itself or anything considered sensitive. I did just that. Point I am getting at is that I was in a rather corrupt country with lack of proper set of laws, yet the military was still on point in preventing any potential concept of sabotage or leaking of sensitive information. I gave them props for that, plus I didn't want to get my ass blasted in a 3rd world prison either.
Russia may look lax compared to a lot of places, and it rather is. I mean, lack of shelters, and what not. I figure that the reason why is that after the cold war, majority of the shelters in place were built for older jets that were rather small, and the big jets didn't get them. I guess they were just given daily maintenance and they would fly, land and what not. The shelters worked back in the day when if you wanted to drop something to damage the shelters, you had to fly almost overhead and drop it. Now days, that isn't the case anymore. As well, Russian military only recently started to get the proper funding it needed to modernize itself. Will they get the budget to do it? Maybe, maybe in the next couple of years because majority of the money allocated for the infrastructure side of things, are being developed for other purposes.
When a base is frontline though, much like the Russian airbase in Syria, I would agree with you guys in the building of shelters. Simply because as proven before on the attack on the base, it wouldn't be hard for enemies to sneak in artillery of some kind that has enough range to strike at the base. Apparently there were damages to aircraft (although, no real followup on the claimed destroyed aircraft, so it was rather heavily questions about the effectiveness of the attack). But if the shelters were in place, at least it would guarantee that no aircraft would have been damaged since they built shelters in the past that were reinforced concrete. I mean, Syria has a lot of shelters for their aircrafts.
But when it comes to Russia, its different in the country itself. A lot of their airforce bases aren't within artillery range from borders of potential enemy states. They are a ways away from the borders. Close enough that they can guard the borders from long range missile attacks and what not, but far enough that what would be the threat for them would only be some short range BM's (depending which airbase and where the enemys base is located) or cruise missiles. In both cases, shelters wouldn't be of any use and those shelters, unless built in a mountain, would be destroyed and the aircraft, personnel and equipment all along with it. In this case, the bases are now heavily armed with Pantsir systems and other SHORADS designed to protect the base from incoming missiles/rockets and what have you. They also have automated systems for sensors and what not to of course prevent the idea of sabotage. I mean, there is ALWAYS the case of a potential sabotage, but even with shelters in this regard, they will still be able to cause damage.
So if the bases are closer to the enemy front, then yeah, I agree - shelters are a must have and I am rather surprised they didn't do that yet at khmeimim airforce base in Syria.