[Goose]

The obvious answer here seems to be to build more 100k enclosures to protect 50-200 million dollar aircraft. I suspect even without drone strikes it's worthwhile just to keep them in the garage, as most owners of far less fragile sports cars can attest.

The enclosure required for a single B-52  costs much much more than 100K. The other more serious problem is real estate. The land area required to allow housing all US aircraft would be absurd. Once a building is built, it is permanently in the way. You can't get a towbar and move it. Even when it is empty, other aircraft can't drive through it. Essentially all current air bases couldn't do it. Not near enough space. Air bases located in northern areas that are snowy and cold have a larger proportion of hanger space to flightline space, but even they have to store some aircraft outdoors.

The USAF has 841 F-16s in active service. Also, unlike most sports car owners that have multiple vehicles it is impractical to store these F-16s "offsite" because they get driven "a lot", and when they aren't in active use they are usually undergoing some type of maintenance. Lots of that maintenance happens outdoors out of necessity. That is just F-16s. The USAF has 408 F-35As, about 300 F-15s, 218 A-10s, 76 B-52s, 45 B-1s, 19 B-2s, 396 KC-135s, 89 KC-46s, 279 C-130s, 146 C-17s, and 52 C-5s. There are also many "odds and ends" that increase the number further. That is a LOT of hanger space. It also must be recognized that these aircraft do not return to their "home" base every night. They will spends months supporting other activities in other places. They would need hanger space in those locations as well. Imagine if all the aircraft involved in Red Flag had to have hangers. Totally impossible.

As you say they can they can't be indoors 100% of the time, but it would make coordinating a big attack like this impossible. 

That said, well done Ukraine!

Given the standoff nature of the air war and the fact they're probably more limited by missle supply then airframes, this may not have a brobdingnagian impact on the front lines, but politically the impact is massive.

One would think that would be the case, but according to Ukraine it is not. Take a look at https://united24media.com/latest-news/ru...o-few-8644. There is no question that Russia is launching "too many" ALCMs into Ukraine, but possibly fewer than Russia is actually building. As the article says, there are many possible explanations for this.

This attack, while extremely bold and clever, is not going to stop Russia's barrage upon Ukraine. If it could be frequently repeated it would certainly make a much bigger dent. Unfortunately it clearly cannot be replicated easily. The war goes on. Ukraine hangs in there.

[Goose]

The obvious answer here seems to be to build more 100k enclosures to protect 50-200 million dollar aircraft. I suspect even without drone strikes it's worthwhile just to keep them in the garage, as most owners of far less fragile sports cars can attest.

The enclosure required for a single B-52  costs much much more than 100K. The other more serious problem is real estate. The land area required to allow housing all US aircraft would be absurd. Once a building is built, it is permanently in the way. You can't get a towbar and move it. Even when it is empty, other aircraft can't drive through it. Essentially all current air bases couldn't do it. Not near enough space. Air bases located in northern areas that are snowy and cold have a larger proportion of hanger space to flightline space, but even they have to store some aircraft outdoors.

The USAF has 841 F-16s in active service. Also, unlike most sports car owners that have multiple vehicles it is impractical to store these F-16s "offsite" because they get driven "a lot", and when they aren't in active use they are usually undergoing some type of maintenance. Lots of that maintenance happens outdoors out of necessity. That is just F-16s. The USAF has 408 F-35As, about 300 F-15s, 218 A-10s, 76 B-52s, 45 B-1s, 19 B-2s, 396 KC-135s, 89 KC-46s, 279 C-130s, 146 C-17s, and 52 C-5s. There are also many "odds and ends" that increase the number further. That is a LOT of hanger space. It also must be recognized that these aircraft do not return to their "home" base every night. They will spends months supporting other activities in other places. They would need hanger space in those locations as well. Imagine if all the aircraft involved in Red Flag had to have hangers. Totally impossible.

As you say they can they can't be indoors 100% of the time, but it would make coordinating a big attack like this impossible. 

That said, well done Ukraine!

Given the standoff nature of the air war and the fact they're probably more limited by missle supply then airframes, this may not have a brobdingnagian impact on the front lines, but politically the impact is massive.

One would think that would be the case, but according to Ukraine it is not. Take a look at https://united24media.com/latest-news/ru...o-few-8644. There is no question that Russia is launching "too many" ALCMs into Ukraine, but possibly fewer than Russia is actually building. As the article says, there are many possible explanations for this.

This attack, while extremely bold and clever, is not going to stop Russia's barrage upon Ukraine. If it could be frequently repeated it would certainly make a much bigger dent. Unfortunately it clearly cannot be replicated easily. The war goes on. Ukraine hangs in there.