Lets say a flanker costs PLAAF $50 million, with extras. Sitting on the tarmac its completely unprotected. Not only is it clearly visibile to the enemy, ready to be struck, but a large bomb falling and detonating 100-200 m away may do enough damage to render it inoperable.
With many planes parked on the tarmac, be half of them just decoys made out of wood, enemy will probably use some sort of cluster munition, wiping out dozens of planes in one attack.
Lets look at taiwan. Even using google earth its clearly visibile they have many hardened shelters for their planes. On the other hand, PLAAF doesn't even employ earth/concrete revetments in great numbers and where they do exist it seems a policy to make em large enough to cram 2-3 fighters in one. That makes a nice fat target for a bomb, which could afford itself a 15 m CEP and still fall inside the revetment. Hardened shelters are almost non existant.
So lets get back to that 50 million flanker. Wouldnt it make sense spending another million to build a bunker to make it safer? For a million, you could build a fortress in china. (less so in, say, US) Definitely stronger than what SDB can penetrate. SDB's force at penetration is some 30 000 Newtons, with 50 kg of explosive.
Not only couldn't the enemy use very efficient cluster munitions but it would force it to get back to heavy hitters, at least 1000 lbs jdams. That effectively means at least four times less targets per aircraft in one sortie and/or shorter range.
Furthermore, and this i see as even more important, you can not hit what you can not see. So, in addition to decoy targets, one could simply create vast covered surfaces under which you would build the hardened shelters. If you have, say, 200 by 200 meter homogenous surface with no way of knowing where exactly underneath it are targets parked - you'd need lots more bombs to systematically cover the whole area. Cheap to do with carpet bombing, yes, but very pricey with precision guided munitions.
Alternatively, one could simply build several dummy shelters for every real hardened one but i believe the first solution is not only cheaper but requires less surface.
Of course protecting planes isnt enough. fuel tanks, fuel lines, ammo depots, etc should all be burried under the ground, not so much to make them hardened /that too, of course) but to hide their exact location from the enemy. Those parts which must be visible should be made in great numbers, made highly redundant. In the end, is one time investment of %100 million extra too much for such a protected airbase? You may think it is, i think it is not. China raised its official budget by 5 billion this year. a third goes to PLAAF. So why not rebuild 5 airbases per year for half a billion, each year? Budget increases would still be great even without that money.
With many planes parked on the tarmac, be half of them just decoys made out of wood, enemy will probably use some sort of cluster munition, wiping out dozens of planes in one attack.
Lets look at taiwan. Even using google earth its clearly visibile they have many hardened shelters for their planes. On the other hand, PLAAF doesn't even employ earth/concrete revetments in great numbers and where they do exist it seems a policy to make em large enough to cram 2-3 fighters in one. That makes a nice fat target for a bomb, which could afford itself a 15 m CEP and still fall inside the revetment. Hardened shelters are almost non existant.
So lets get back to that 50 million flanker. Wouldnt it make sense spending another million to build a bunker to make it safer? For a million, you could build a fortress in china. (less so in, say, US) Definitely stronger than what SDB can penetrate. SDB's force at penetration is some 30 000 Newtons, with 50 kg of explosive.
Not only couldn't the enemy use very efficient cluster munitions but it would force it to get back to heavy hitters, at least 1000 lbs jdams. That effectively means at least four times less targets per aircraft in one sortie and/or shorter range.
Furthermore, and this i see as even more important, you can not hit what you can not see. So, in addition to decoy targets, one could simply create vast covered surfaces under which you would build the hardened shelters. If you have, say, 200 by 200 meter homogenous surface with no way of knowing where exactly underneath it are targets parked - you'd need lots more bombs to systematically cover the whole area. Cheap to do with carpet bombing, yes, but very pricey with precision guided munitions.
Alternatively, one could simply build several dummy shelters for every real hardened one but i believe the first solution is not only cheaper but requires less surface.
Of course protecting planes isnt enough. fuel tanks, fuel lines, ammo depots, etc should all be burried under the ground, not so much to make them hardened /that too, of course) but to hide their exact location from the enemy. Those parts which must be visible should be made in great numbers, made highly redundant. In the end, is one time investment of %100 million extra too much for such a protected airbase? You may think it is, i think it is not. China raised its official budget by 5 billion this year. a third goes to PLAAF. So why not rebuild 5 airbases per year for half a billion, each year? Budget increases would still be great even without that money.
