PDA

View Full Version : How effective are underground hangars?



Blademaster
10 Feb 04,, 18:59
In today's modern warfare, how effective are the underground hangars? Can they function like a real airbase, capable of sustaining heavy sortie rates while under heavy bombardments?

Here is a link to the KeyMags Military Aviation Forum thread,
Underground hangars (http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21093)

Officer of Engineers
10 Feb 04,, 22:53
Same as any other hanger. May not guarrantee a hard kill but a soft kill (ie cratering the runways) would still render the hanger moot.

Blademaster
10 Feb 04,, 23:14
How long and easy is it to repair the craters in the runway? Using USAF as gold bard of the premier attacking force, how many times can they bomb you when you are busy trying to maintain the airfield as a viable launching platform for your combat planes?

Officer of Engineers
10 Feb 04,, 23:17
Really depends on the enemy. Both Soviet and American doctrine calls for bombing the runway, wait 5 hours and then come back to kill the engineers who are repairing the runway.

Depending on weather conditions and the amount of damage. An engr sec can fill a 20 ft crater and apply quick dry cement to get it operational within 10 hrs (dry conditions) to 24 (wet conditions).

That is assuming that the engrs live to do their jobs.

Ironduke
16 Feb 04,, 06:25
Originally posted by Blademaster
In today's modern warfare, how effective are the underground hangars? Can they function like a real airbase, capable of sustaining heavy sortie rates while under heavy bombardments?

Here is a link to the KeyMags Military Aviation Forum thread,
Underground hangars (http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21093)
Not very effective against the United States.

Ray
16 Feb 04,, 09:48
Ironman.

And why not?

Just curious.

Ironduke
16 Feb 04,, 19:09
Because the US would have a pretty easy time taking them out.

Officer of Engineers
16 Feb 04,, 19:16
Really depends.

I strongly doubt the USAF would have an easy time with the Swiss and Swede fortifications, especially with an active AD net.

Praxus
16 Feb 04,, 21:16
This may not be exactly on topic...

How effective do you think the X-45C would be against say Swiss or Swede Air Defense?

Officer of Engineers
16 Feb 04,, 22:18
Originally posted by Praxus
This may not be exactly on topic...

How effective do you think the X-45C would be against say Swiss or Swede Air Defense?

As far as I am concerned, the X-45 is on par with a cruise missile. Therefore, it should be treated as such. In this case, not very effective at all.

The problem is that you're trying to replace a pair of eyes on the ground with a 2 inch lense 2000 feet into the air. There is simply no way for the remote operator (I wouldn't call him pilot) to have the same situational awareness.

UAVs and UCAVs have their roles as newly defined by the technology and the doctrine but these are not the battlestars Galactica.

Like any war, there are two axioms that apply here.

1) Find the enemy.
2) Kill the enemy.

For the Swiss and Swedish AD nets, they would include passive systems (stealth, decoy, burial, terrain) as well as active (SAMs, MANPADs, AAA). Those forts are hidden and buried within mountain ranges and very difficult flying. Therefore, any aircraft would have to come down low, fly through a wall of steel, find his target, and bullseye it (a near miss would not count).

The USAF can achieve this. The numbers simply ain't on the Swiss nor Swedish side but it would be awefully expensive.

There are enough modern precedent to state the very difficulties. The Kosovo War and the Taliban War. The Kosovo War shown the ineffectiveness of high altitude bombing on precision attacks. The Taliban War shown how mountain sides provide a very effective shield against even the heaviest of bombs (OP ANNACONDA).

Operations ANNACONDA and HARPOON had shown you need ground forces to find and fix the enemy for airpower to be effective and here is where another problem for the US to take on the Swedes or the Swiss. We don't have enough recee assets that can act in that high altitude, at least not without 3-4 months aclimatization.

Praxus
16 Feb 04,, 22:26
As far as I am concerned, the X-45 is on par with a cruise missile. Therefore, it should be treated as such. In this case, not very effective at all.

Yah your right, because afterall it is preprogramed to go to a target drop it's payload and leave. So it's like a Cruise Missile that happens to come back to base.

What do you think it would be most effective against?

Fixed Targets I would guess?

Officer of Engineers
16 Feb 04,, 23:24
I was under the impression that it can accept new programming in flight.

Its missions effectiveness would depend on what kind of ordnance load, its loiter time, and its target acquisition capability.

However, I doubt it is as effective as an A-10 or an Apache in dealing with targets of oppertunity.

Jay
16 Feb 04,, 23:49
Colonel,
InAF also used high altitude aerial bombing in Kargil. From media sources, I heard the Mirages lived up to expectations and the attacks were successful. Though the militants and regulars didnt have fortifications as you descrive for Swedes, still Himalayas is as formidable as Alps. Ray sahab can give us more public info on the strikes.

I also heard China has airbases in the ranges as well their missile silos. So I guess USA/NATO will have a definite action plan on this, right ?

Blademaster
17 Feb 04,, 00:02
Jay.

Those units were fixed by the IA ground units. What Colonel is talking about is that you need ground units to fix the enemy forces into place and then the air force can do the job. If the airforce tries to fix the enemy ground force into place, it will end up in failure.

It is like closing off all the exits, leaving no manuever room and then you just flush them out the way you want them to go. Kosovo War proved that and Operation Anaconda & Harpoon reinforced that.

Praxus
17 Feb 04,, 00:11
I was under the impression that it can accept new programming in flight.

Its missions effectiveness would depend on what kind of ordnance load, its loiter time, and its target acquisition capability.

However, I doubt it is as effective as an A-10 or an Apache in dealing with targets of oppertunity.

Yah it can accept new programming in flight and can be flown "manually".

The main thing they want to use these things for is SEAD.

Officer of Engineers
17 Feb 04,, 01:54
Old Dinosaur starts talking here.

You know, with all these fancy new technology, it still doesn't address the question of how and where to find the enemy. Again, a 2 inch lense 2000 ft into the air does not beat a pair of eyes on the ground. If the Taliban War has shown anything that SOF is needed to ID the enemy and then to direct the air assets onto them. Airpower in the form of human pilots had enough trouble finding their targets, let alone these robotic thing with an EXTREMELY LIMITED situation awareness capability.

Old Dinosaur stops talking here.

Jay,

1st, let me qualify myself. There's no way in hell would this bellycrawler EVER heap praise onto the birdbrains.

This being said,


No aircraft in history has ever taken or held ground
USMC axiom

So, the question is, did the InAF helped the ground situation? Did they make it any easier or reduced the InA ground taskings? While the InAF did accomplish their taskings, the InA ground forces certainly didn't have it any easier.

Ok, that's the tactical situation.

Now, Kragil does not compare to the strategic situation in Switzerland nor Sweden. Those fortifications were designed to stop and destroy entire corps. Kragil was unattainable for the Pakistanis, especially when the InA became determined. The water situation alone was becoming critical. Both the Pakistani LOC and the LOG status was not sustainable and the stockpiles those bunkers stored were exhausted.

Ray
17 Feb 04,, 02:09
Jay,

I tend to agree with Colonel.

High Altitude plays tricks. Also Mountains tops and fortifications on mountain spines razor sharp where walking itself is difficult becomes difficult targets even for PGMs.

tomas
23 Feb 04,, 11:39
going back to the runways and cratering them what would they uses conventional bombs or the duranals? or dont they exist anymore?

s_qwert63
23 Feb 04,, 14:47
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
Really depends on the enemy. Both Soviet and American doctrine calls for bombing the runway, wait 5 hours and then come back to kill the engineers who are repairing the runway.

Depending on weather conditions and the amount of damage. An engr sec can fill a 20 ft crater and apply quick dry cement to get it operational within 10 hrs (dry conditions) to 24 (wet conditions).

That is assuming that the engrs live to do their jobs.

Aren't former Soviet runways made out of concrete rectangle plates, so in the case of the runway beig bombed the engineers cam quickly replace the damaged plates with new ones.

tomas
23 Feb 04,, 14:58
makes sense so they would have to come back after about 2 hours

Officer of Engineers
24 Feb 04,, 03:15
Originally posted by s_qwert63
Aren't former Soviet runways made out of concrete rectangle plates, so in the case of the runway beig bombed the engineers cam quickly replace the damaged plates with new ones.

There were two versions that I am aware of, concrete blocks and steel grades. Each has its advantages and disadvantage.

With the concrete block, you simply remove the damanged block(s) and replace it (them). The problem is that removal ain't that simple and the block may be jamned up the ying yang. And there is the question that do you have enough blocks stored up. Still very time consuming and very lift intensive.

Steel grades are laid over re-filled holes and then covered up by dirt. The problem with this system is that it has to be continually adjusted just about after every 2 to 3 take offs/landings as the grade is pounded deeper and deeper into the dirt. And mud magnaifies the problem.

Most Soviet bases that I am aware of uses both systems. Still, well within the time frame that the engrs would be exposed to a secondary strike.

tomas
24 Feb 04,, 13:09
sounds like they need a new solution to the problem like a new type of material what about concrete mixed with plastic ot titanium? call it hardcrete or something it may withstand the blast better.

Praxus
24 Feb 04,, 21:24
Why don't we design an active defense system. We shot down artillery shells before going well over the speed of sound with lasers. A bomb falling at an even slower rate you would think would be easier.

Officer of Engineers
24 Feb 04,, 22:23
If your airfield is within range of enemy artillery, you're in alot more trouble than that. It's time to get out of Dodge.

Seriously. if it were the case, enemy snipers would be taking pot shots at your planes already.

Praxus
25 Feb 04,, 00:26
I was talking more about bombs, I was just mentioning that we could take out an artillery round and since we can do that we could take out a dropping bomb with THEL considering the bomb would most likely be larger then an artillery round and move a slower speed.

tomas
25 Feb 04,, 11:33
Originally posted by Praxus
Why don't we design an active defense system. We shot down artillery shells before going well over the speed of sound with lasers. A bomb falling at an even slower rate you would think would be easier.

what? you mean a point defence laser!
i thought they were just theoretical

Praxus
25 Feb 04,, 21:18
http://www.defense-update.com/directory/THEL.htm

It shot down over 20 rockets plus an artillery round.

tomas
26 Feb 04,, 10:48
cool would use the link but it is restricted under weapons.

:mad: