Analyzing Impacts of the March 2024 Taganrog Drone Attack
According to a March 2024 report by FT, Ukrainian officials claimed that two Russian A-50 long-range radar detection aircraft were damaged in a Ukrainian drone-wave attack on March 9, 2024 at the Taganrog Beriev Aviation Scientific and Technical Complex – an aircraft production and repair facility located inside Russian territory on the northeastern coast of the Azov Sea.
Using imagery provided by the Frontelligence Insight project, this Offbeat Research article will expand on Frontelligence’s analysis by reviewing the potential damage caused at the Taganrog facility hangar using satellite imagery and 3D damage mapping to project potential damage done to any aircraft which may have been parked inside the hangar at the time of the strike.
STRIKE BACKGROUND
In the early morning hours of March 9th, 2024, the Russian city of Taganrog awoke to a series of heavy explosions. Russian air defenses were active throughout the city, shooting down an incoming Ukrainian aerial attack of an initially unidentified nature. It was only in the coming hours that the target of the attack became clear: The Beriev Aviation Scientific and Technical Complex – a high-value production and repair facility located on the coast of the Azov Sea.
As with many attacks carried out in close proximity to populated areas, footage of the incident from numerous sources quickly reached social media and other public online spaces.
Most of these videos, saved from local Taganrog-based Telegram channels, were quickly deleted by channel administrators. These videos were geographically located to within Taganrog city.
Some of these videos also showed potential evidence of impact, with explosions emanating from the ground and a tall explosion cloud visible in several frames; the footage was geographically located near the Beriev Aviation Scientific and Technical Complex.
Russia claims it downed 47 Ukrainian drones that night, but provided no visual proof. With no reporting on the Ukrainian side to corroborate the precise nature of the attack, we can not definitively conclude how many drones were launched; however, based on Telegram footage analysis and post-strike geolocations, some drones did apparently reach within the vicinity of their intended target(s).
The Beriev Aviation Scientific and Technical Complex is a large joint-use airfield facility that repairs specialized Beriev-series aircraft, which include floating submarine-hunter airplanes, large transport airplanes, and even amphibian aircraft. More importantly, and likely the main reason for attacking the facility, is the fact that it repairs and services the Beriev A-50 (NATO reporting name: Mainstay).
The A-50 is Russia’s primary Airborne Early Warning and Control System (AWACS). In a sense, it is the Russian military’s “eyes and ears” in the sky, particularly over the Black Sea. The aircraft is specialized in radar and electronic surveillance, has a tracking range of up to 650km (400 mi), and can command and coordinate up to 10 fighter aircraft for anti-air or ground attack missions. With the integration of electronic warfare and attempted air supremacy into Russia’s battlefield formula, the A-50 has emerged as vital to Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine, and to sustaining Russian military efforts in the country. The A-50 is also very important for spotting incoming Ukrainian long-range munitions, such as drones and cruise missiles. At the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion, the Russian government fielded 9 functional A-50s.
These aircraft are both rare and expensive, and have a very limited crew pool, since trained operators for the high tech equipment exist in very few numbers. At the time of this article’s publication, Russia is confirmed to have lost at least 2 A-50 aircraft, as well as one being potentially damaged in a small drone attack while it was positioned at an airfield in Belarus. It was even reported that the A-50 damaged in Belarus was still being repaired at the Beriev Aviation Scientific and Technical Complex the night of the attack.
Satellite imagery reviewed and published by the The Frontelligence Insight project shows a clear image over the facility in the following sunlight hours after the attack. Noticeable scorch marks are seen on the roof of the main hangar. To get a better picture of the potential damage that could have been inflicted against any vehicles stationed inside the hangar, we can also examine older photographs of the Beriev Aviation Scientific and Technical Complex. The roof structure is not heavily reinforced, and is apparently composed of aluminum and scaffolding. Depending on the kind of drone warhead used, the angle of impact, and the positioning of any aircraft stored inside the hangar, the type of damage incurred could vary.
Frontelligence Insight analysis showing likely points of impact.
Apart from damage to the main hangar, the satellite imagery shows clear damage to the auxiliary building next to the hangar. Upon closer inspection, a section of the wall appears to have crumbled, and a noticeable scorch mark is visible on the side of the building, likely from the drone impact. The exact nature and use of this structure is not yet known; however it cannot be excluded that it was of some value and purposefully targeted.
Another important factor revealed by the Frontelligence Insight analysis is that at least one S-300/400 battery was stationed at the Beriev Aviation Scientific and Technical Complex, at the left end of the runway. The inability of this primary anti-air asset to stop the incoming attack points at a significant failure in Russian anti-air capability.
In recent months, Ukraine’s army of long-range unmanned vehicles has scored several unexpected victories against valuable Russian assets far behind the front lines. These include sea-borne drones that have sunk several ships, including Ropucha-class ships like the one we covered in our report on the September 2023 Sevastopol dry dock strike. Ukraine has also utilized long-range aerial drones for strikes deep inside Russian territory and far away from the front lines. It is also important to note that many drone programs are crowdfunded by public campaigns from ordinary Ukrainian citizens and donors from all over the world. Crowdfunded naval and aerial drones are a significant component of these long range attacks, and it can not be precluded that a combination of different types of long-range aerial drones executed the attack on the Taganrog airfield, including drones that were procured or built with resources from crowdfunding.
The proliferation of the drone has been a distinct feature of the war in Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion, with drones becoming a quintessential part of most military operations. Consequently, the number of different drones in both the Ukrainian and Russian arsenals is very large, especially with medium and small-sized varieties, making it difficult to determine the specific variant(s) used in the Taganrog attack. However, we do know that at least one type of propeller-driven drone was used; this can be heard in social media posts on the strike, as well as from the released photograph of supposed debris from one of the downed drones that Russian telegram pages provided. It is not impossible that drones with reactive jet propulsion were also used for the attack, although there is no direct evidence or signs of this. The depth of the strike and the importance of the facility being targeted could hint at more advanced drones being used.
Photo of debris from a Ukrainian drone downed over Taganrog on the night of the 9th of March, 2024.
HANGAR MAPPING
Diving deeper into the available open source data, we created a 3D projection using a mockup of the hangar to visualize the possible damage done to different airframes that could have been inside the hangar. The hangar model was created using satellite images and several old photographs from the struck hangar. We then applied the model of the damaged roof onto the 3D model of the hangar with realistic sizes. Using this 3D model we can see the relative potential damage projected into the hangar space inside. This way we can have a rough understanding of what could have happened inside.
Initial reports stated that up to two A-50 surveillance aircraft were damaged or destroyed. Our analysis shows that this is technically possible at varying degrees, depending on the type of aircraft station inside and in which position. The hangar struck at the Beriev Aviation Scientific and Technical Complex is no more than 48 meters in width, while the A-50 wingspan is 50 meters wide. This means that a straightforward parallel park is not possible. The aircraft would either have to be carefully maneuvered at an angle to fit inside the hangar; or, less likely, could have had its wing tips removed. This Offbeat Research analysis considers both possibilities and shows the potential results. The possibility of the A-50s being parked even further down the hangar were considered as well. We marked these layouts as options A, B, and C.
We also explored the possibility of other aircraft being stationed inside the Beriev Aviation Scientific and Technical Complex Hangar. The Be-200 is one such aircraft, it was often housed at this facility, and there are images that show Be-200s parked inside the hangar in various configurations and positions. We used two of the more common parking positions we see in open source photographs to simulate our model. We labeled these options D and E.
A-50 DAMAGE PROJECTIONS
Using the mapped hangar and roof damage we created a very simplified damage projection. This does not simulate actual physical effects or any warhead properties. The mapping is done to simply illustrate a rough visual estimate of where a projected warhead would be directed.
It is also important to note that any type of explosive damage inside the hangar would potentially be devastating, especially since aircraft are not armored and require very little damage to deem them non airworthy, even by Russian military standards. A shaped charge or directional warhead making direct contact with any aircraft inside the hangar would cause severe damage.
In our model we show what a potential shaped munition hitting at a steep dive angle could do to any aircraft stationed inside the damaged hangar. To illustrate damage impact a red color is used. Any parts of the aircraft covered in red would receive extensive damage.
Option A shows the most probable parking positions of two A-50 aircraft. Damage projection shows that the A-50 closest to the hangar door may have received no direct damage from a directional warhead or a shaped charge. This doesn’t exclude the possibility of other types of post-penetration damage, but these are not covered in the scope of this analysis. The second A-50 parked further down the hangar received moderate to heavy damage directly from the strike. The frontal section, including a large portion of the cockpit, is caught in the direct blast, shown in red coloration. The right wing and both of the right engines are also been caught in the projection.
Option B considers the possibility of the A-50s parked even further down the hangar at an angle, with one of the airframes being right under the strike position. In this case the A-50 closer to the hangar door received substantial damage. With the projection, in red color, covering large parts of the airframe, most of the front is severely damaged, with both the left engines being fully covered. Large portion of the right wing also receives direct damage from the projected impact.. The rear section of the airplane’s tail is also hit.
Usually during repairs, the A50’s radar dish is removed from the plane. This is particularly likely at the Beriev Aviation Scientific and Technical Complex, since there is a separate facility for the repair of the A-50’s radar dish. However, if the radar dish was still attached, it would have also received severe damage from the penetrating warhead. Option B represents the highest potential damage to an A-50 out of our 3 hypothetical projections.
Option C takes into account the ability to remove the A-50’s wingtips. This makes the wingspan short enough to allow for a parallel park inside the hangar without the need to angle the aircraft. The damage projections cover the second A-50 deeper inside the hangar, with most of the front-right side receiving heavy damage. The cockpit and both right engines receive damage in varying degrees. Option C is the least likely of all the options, since removing the wing tips on the A-50 could result in structural instability and weaker wings after reassembly.
Be-200 DAMAGE PROJECTIONS
The Be-200 is a Russian amphibious utility aircraft. It can be seen more than once in public photographs at the Beriev Aviation Scientific and Technical Complex Hangars, and Offbeat Research selected it as a second option to model potential damage onto, in case there were no A-50s stationed inside the hangar.
Option D is modeled after one of the public photographs showing the Be-200 parked in this parallel position. Out of the 3 aircraft, only the central one receives directional damage from the hit. This would result in significant damage encompassing most of the aircraft’s fuselage and large portions of the wings, as shown by the red coloration in the image.
Option E is also modeled according to publicly available images of the Be-200 at this hangar, showing the aircraft were parked at an angle. In this projection, the Be-200 parked closest to the hangar door is most significantly affected. The projection shows severe to catastrophic damage to both sides of the aircraft: taking out both wings, both engines, and most of the rear section.
As with the A-50, any explosive and shrapnel damage inside the hangar would cause a lot of damage to the Be-200 that could take months to repair, even tiny fragments hitting the engines or perforating the fuselage require time, effort and skill to repair.
The hangar could have also been empty at the time of the strike, it is not impossible the Russians evacuated it right before the strike as well. However all the projections modeled by Offbeat Research show that if there had been any aircraft inside that hangar, then the likelihood of them being damaged was very high, especially from a direct hit.
The analysis done here by Offbeat Research only takes into consideration two of the impacts seen on the Frontelligence Insight satellite images. A third impact is seen over a walled off section of the hangar; this part of the hangar is probably used as office space, but without adequate publicly available information we cannot determine for certain the nature of the damaged area or the target. The nature of the 4th impact on the auxiliary building is also unknown.
Whatever the result of the strike on the night of the 9th of March, one thing is for certain, Ukraine’s long range attacks into Russia are improving. Russia’s advantage in anti-air assets time and time again is failing to stop Ukrainian attacks. Even attacks aimed at critical military infrastructure surrounded by concentrated air defenses, like the one in this article.
How much these attacks will have an impact on the front and the war as a whole is yet to be known, but with the release of American aid to Ukraine, and the introduction of the long range ATACMS missile, Russia’s rearlines and deep strategic facilities are becoming more vulnerable to attack.
