How effective are underground hangars?

[Officer of Engineers]

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]

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]

going back to the runways and cratering them what would they uses conventional bombs or the duranals? or dont they exist anymore?

[s_qwert63]

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]

makes sense so they would have to come back after about 2 hours

[Officer of Engineers]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

http://www.defense-update.com/directory/THEL.htm

It shot down over 20 rockets plus an artillery round.

[tomas]

cool would use the link but it is restricted under weapons.