How effective are underground hangars?

[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

[Officer of Engineers]

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]

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]

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]

Re: How effective are underground hangars?

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

Not very effective against the United States.

[Ray]

Ironman.

And why not?

Just curious.

[Ironduke]

Because the US would have a pretty easy time taking them out.

[Officer of Engineers]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.