What caused the explosions at the Russian airbase in Crimea?
The blasts at Saki airbase in Crimea are bound to change the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. How and what could be the cause?
By Pavel Aksyonov
The explosions at Saki airbase in Crimea are bound to change the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The nature and cause of the blasts has so far not been established, or officially disclosed, but for the first time Russian targets have been damaged deep behind the lines – more than 200 km beyond the Ukrainian front.
Ukraine has stated more than once that it intends to retake Crimea. It has been said, too, that future strikes might target the strategically important bridge that links the peninsula with Russia.
Meanwhile Crimea, which had a high concentration of military sites back in Soviet times, has always been thought of as well protected from any kind of attack, and especially from the air.
Saki airbase is one such site. It was established before WW2, and in the late Soviet period was adapted as a training base for aircraft carrier planes. It included a specially-built simulation of a ship’s deck. As well as that, there’s a three-kilometre runway, taxiing paths and guarded bays for planes.
Since 2014, the airbase has hosted the 43rd Naval Assault Aviation Regiment of the Black Sea Fleet’s air force. In a Google satellite image created this summer, when greenery is visible, Su-24M bombers and Su-30 fighters can be seen along with other aircraft.
On the morning of August 10th, the Ukrainian air force said nine Russian planes based at Saki had been destroyed.
As far as can be judged from the Google satellite images, aircraft bays were individually protected by earthworks. Some military aircraft however were located in the open next to one another.
One of the difficulties in working out what happened in this part of Crimea is that there’s little public information about the capabilities of Ukraine’s armed forces. Many expert estimates assume that Ukraine may have received equipment or modified existing one, but there’s no proof.
Locals told the Reuters news agency that they heard at least 12 explosions around 15.20 local time. In some of the videos that appeared on the internet you can see individual blasts, while in others they appear to come in pairs. But in both cases, the explosions are seen against thick black smoke already pluming in the sky.
In one video clip, a man’s voice can be heard saying “there have been five bangs already and it’s ablaze all over the place.” After that, you can hear another explosion go off. But from the videos alone it’s hard to tell exactly in how many places there were blasts at the airbase.
What do satellite images show of the explosions’ aftermath?
Photos from the US company Planet Labs show wide patches of burned land, evidently from the fire that followed the blasts. The runway seems to be intact, but at least eight aircraft look to have been destroyed or at least seriously damaged.
There’s also a series of craters grouped in the part of the airbase where planes were parked in the open rather than hidden in hangars.
These photographs from Planet Labs, which covers hundreds of satellite channels monitoring Ukraine, were the first independent proof of the damage done to the Russian airbase. But details about the extent of the damage are few. It’s not simple to gauge how many aircraft have been destroyed and how many damaged from the photos alone.
Russia’s explanation of events - and Ukraine’s
On Tuesday evening, a statement from Russia’s defence ministry, carried by the Interfax agency, blamed events on “the detonation of several units of aircraft armaments.” No external attack had taken place, according to the Russian military.
There has been no clear confirmation of what may have caused the blasts from Ukraine’s armed forces. However the president, Volodymyr Zelensky, noted that “this Russian war on Ukraine, and on the whole of free Europe, began in Crimea; and will end there with its liberation”.
Ukrainian Defence Ministry commented on Facebook that it could be caused by ‘smoking in places where it is not allowed’ (hinting at previous explanations by Russian officials).
Presidential advisor Mikhail Podolyak said that Ukraine had played no role in the airbase explosions, but that they may have been the work of Crimean partisans.
A Washington Post source indirectly confirms the idea that some kind of armed unit may have been behind it all. The US newspaper quoted an unnamed Ukrainian government representative as saying the explosions were caused by a Ukrainian special forces operation.
There’s no detail about the unit concerned, but in the past western media have said that Ukrainian operations by sabotage groups are being conducted deep behind the lines, including on Russian held territory.
Both explanations – from the Russian Ministry of Defence, and the ideas of partisans or special forces conducting sabotage – seem doubtful. Armaments stores can certainly burn and explode, but it’s hard to believe that such fires could happen together in different places, and that the explosions would happen at the same time.
The version about a sabotage groups is also hard to credit, given that such a large airbase would have been guarded and that there would be no way to gain access without combat, which in turn would have been heard beyond its borders.
More than that, a series of blasts of such strength would have required a quantity of explosives that would be hard to get into the airbase unnoticed.
American rockets
For more than two months, Ukraine’s armed forces have been using HIMARS multiple rocket launchers against Russian rear guard targets, and more recently MLRS systems. They use GMLRS rockets which can relatively accurately hit weapons dumps, buildings and bridges, for example.
That’s why one explanation – that the airbase was targeted from territory controlled by the Ukrainian army – appeared immediately following news of the explosions.
GMLRS-type rockets with different payloads can reach targets 70 km distant. The manufacturer Lockheed Martin is developing rockets with an even longer, 150 km range. But the nearest position from which Ukraine could have fired GMLRS rockets at the airbase is at least 200 kilometres away.
There’s another weapon for the HIMARS and MLRS systems – the operational-tactical rocket ATACMS, which has a 300-km range. Ukraine has said it would like such rockets, but there has been no information about their delivery in public sources.
Some experts believe this is because the US administration is concerned that providing such rockets might result in a sharp escalation of the conflict.
But were ATACMS rockets to be part of the Ukrainian army’s weaponry, the range would indeed permit the targeting of Saki airbase.
Yet there’s reason for doubt here, too – and not only because Washington has not said (at least publicly) it has supplied such rockets to Kyiv.
The Reuters news agency mentioned twelve explosions and the author of one of the videos spoke of six. Even in the latter case, and supposing the rockets were fired from around Mykolaiv, they would have triggered air defence systems for interception.
And even if they hadn’t done so, their in-bound flight would have been visible and perhaps even recorded on video – after all, some of the blasts were captured on film at the time.
Cruise missiles
Unlike ballistic missiles, cruise missiles can fly close to the earth - and Ukraine has some at its disposal. The Russian cruiser ‘Moskva’ was struck, it is thought, by Ukrainian ‘Neptune’ anti-ship rockets. Likewise, US-manufactured ‘Harpoon’ rockets are claimed to have struck the ‘Vasily Bekh’ Russian Black Sea Fleet tug boat.
The range of both rockets exceeds 200 kilometres. Both fly low and can be launched from the ground.
But this version is also doubtful, not least because of the guidance mechanism of such rockets. They use a kind of in-built radar which allows them to manage the final flight stage autonomously. It’s effective when used against a boat in open seas, but works far less well with land-based targets that have a hard background and are surrounded by other objects.
You would have to have modernised the guidance system of such rockets. That’s not impossible, but there’s no evidence that Ukraine has done so, or received the ability to do so from the US.
The other reason for doubt is that cruise missiles are relatively easy to see in flight. The Saki airbase is located next to beaches crowded with tourists in summer. Somebody would have noticed a squadron of cruise missiles, but apparently nobody did.
And last, the anonymous source quoted by the Washington Post suggested that the attack on Saki was conducted independently by Ukraine, without recourse to US-supplied weapons.
Boats and planes
One could compensate for the range of a GMLRS rocket if you could get the launch system closer to the target. Theoretically this could be achieved by placing a HIMARS or MLRS on the deck of a ship that could come within 70 kms of the airbase.
But such an operation would be very risky – Russian radar would have noted the launches, after which the ship would have been hunted by naval aviation, Black Sea vessels and shore-based defences.
It’s possible, too, that rockets were launched at the airbase by a Ukrainian aircraft. There’s information circulating on the internet recently suggesting Ukraine’s air force has managed to fire anti-radar AGM-88 HARM rockets from MiG-29 planes.
Some military experts reckon that Ukranian MiG or Sukhoi jets could have been modified for the launch of X-35 rockets – the basis of the ‘Neptune’ missile that was initially designed as an air-to-ground system.
The shortcoming of this explanation is that there’s virtually no information about any such works; or indeed of their possibility in time of war.
Drones
One credible theory for the blasts is the idea that the attack was launched by ‘kamikaze drones’.
On July 31st, a small drone struck the headquarters of the Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol. It proved that such attacks are possible on Crimean territory. The theory is further supported by the fact that kamikaze drones are fairly small – making them easier to deliver to Crimea, and explaining why none were detected by observers.
Ukraine has received a substantial amount of such weaponry, and has used them effectively against ground targets such as infantry and armoured vehicles.
In addition, such devices can be set in flight many kilometres from the location of the operator. They use built-in warheads to attack a tank directly from overhead.
But there’s a problem with this explanation, too. The payload of such a drone is relatively small - yet the blasts at the airbase were fairly powerful. And the fact that there were several explosions suggested that the attack was massed – and there have been no reports to date of multiple drones seen in the skies above Saki.
Read this story in Russian here.
Translated by Chris Booth.