Passive protection of airfields

Wingman

Wingman

Junior Member
IDonT said:
Damaging a runway can prevent an airforce from flying for hours. Destroying aircraft can prevent an airforce from flying for good.
Click to expand...
True, but my point is it's best to destroy the parked aircraft while the airfield's runway is disabled. That way the planes can't escape or scramble to intercept while you send followup sorties to attack them or the runway repair crews. Runways are hard to protect but they're vital. Even if planes are under shelters they're sitting duck if the runway is disabled.

I think the reason China is not using aircraft shelters is probably because they don't expect strikes on the mainland. Maybe their strategy is "the best defence is offence:" disable all of Taiwan's airfields right at the beginning by using some of its 700 missiles pointed at them. And the US? Dunno, maybe they've come up with something to attack the carriers.

Edit: Wait a second, some of China's airbases do seem to have aircraft shelters. Or maybe they're just normal hangars, it's hard to tell.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Edit: Oh and another thing, some Chinese airfields have aircraft in range of Taiwan, but not US CVBGs, unless they sail right up against China's coast. See this:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

F/A-18E/F operated by USN have combat radius of about 720 km. If the CVBG is to operate from a safe distance, the hornets can only hit the airfields near China's coast
 
Last edited:
crobato

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
During Mao's time, China did build a number of underground, more like inside mountain shelters big enough to put H-6s and H-5s in. A J-8II fits inside no problem. There is a number of pictures of these in the CDF, including J-8IIs going inside. Mao was essentially paranoid and literally built the country to fight a guerilla war.
 
C

cabbageman

New Member
There are some aircraft shelters in China, just not that common.

IDonT said:
I would say different strategy and doctrine. Maybe the PLAAF is using a dispersal strategy as opposed to constructing known hardened hangers that can be easily destroyed by TLAMs or JDAMs.
Click to expand...

PLAAF's logistic reforms have enabled the dispersal tactics. They have emergency mobile refueling system for reserve airfields and highway strips. Many exercise features the dispersion scenario during war time.
 
A

akinkhoo

Junior Member
using google earth you can see a large number of airfield
it isn't logically to go into such expensive defenses.

you can move planes deeper into the country, and move only those in operation to forward bases, those planes in the front would be busy fighting and rearming that i doubt it a hangar has much use.

building such defenses means that airfield has more importance, this would only complicate matter if there was a need to redeploy forces; it's defense became a liability than a strength as now you will fear losing your investment.

expendable airfields are better for china, mobility is the key to defensing a large country, you don't want fix structures that you can't afford to lose. you want to allow your forces to move forward and withdraw without too much concern.
 
Roger604

Roger604

Senior Member
I think Totoro's idea is excellent in light of recent developments.

China definitely needs some hardened hangars now that the US is looking to use SSGN as global strike platforms.

Imagine if some SSGNs manage to get lucky and sneak up close enough to lauch a coordinated sneak attack. They would be able to target many airbases and destroy the planes on the ground within 15 minutes of launch. This would give the Chinese side little if any time to save its airforce. SAMs like Tor-M1 can catch some but not all of the incoming missiles.

China should start hardening its hangars.
 
bd popeye

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Roger, I read a couple of years ago that the PRC was building hardend and underground hangars much like middle eastern countries do.

15 minutes later..

I can't find the story..It may have been some neo-con ramblings. But it described the construction of underground bases and hangars. Any of you other guys read about that?

ps We all know about the submarine cave...
 
C

chicket9

New Member
PLAAF certainly can utilize caves and tons of natural cover for passive protection.

Hmmm, concrete and hardened aircraft shelters.

Could probably withstand exploded debris that may damage exposed aircraft, and withstand a bomb hit.

But with new technologies like the emphasis of LGBs and other PGMs to penetrate concrete and hardened shelters, i guess the effectiveness of hardenedshelters was gone since the 80s.

However, at least with hardened shelters, you'll have to take the planes out one by one, rather than bombing one and hoping explosions and fire would catch the rest of them parked nearby.

ANd runways...there has been no capable passive defence for runways as such. wonder what solutions there maybe in the futuer though?
 
J

Jeep King

Just Hatched
Registered Member
Hello this is my first post. About the "lack of protection", I want to know what thier electronical countermeasures are to thier C4SI, because remember in the wars in Iraq the US would first go after the command and control, so that the Iraqis couldn't communicate. (For an example the US would cut communication lines from the radar posts to the airfields, so they wouldn't know of the pending attack.) I was just wondering if China would be able to withstand a electronical attack, before the bombs would fall on thier airbases. Because if the Chinese can't communicate about the incoming attack, then thier fighters and other protection would be rendered useless, right?:)
 
T

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
Runways are next to impossible to protect passively. That is why no one is really trying to protect them. Instead, the direction has gone into quick repair. Special modular surfaces are used to comprised the runway off, i know US themselves use some simple metals for the material. China too has some metal covered runways. Basically when a bomb hits, you clear the debris, fill the hole with ground, level it, and put new modular chunks of runway in place where old ones that are damaged were. With a good ground crew you can repair the runways in matter of hours. Actually more time consuming process for the repair crews can be dealing with any possible scattered mines over the runway/apron. Iraqis, back in 1990 were known to repair their runways and continue with air sorties in matter of hours, too.

Iraq is also a good example of how you don't want have your command system to be designed. Paranoid as Saddam was, he didn't want any commanders communicating with each other, everything had to go through central comm centers, to be monitored, in case of rising disobediance. And perhaps they did rely on radio communication too much, prone to jamming.

A good example, on the other hand, is Serbia in 1999, which had greatly decentralized command and communcations structure, with much more redundant ground line comm network and many substitute means of communications, from regular cell phones (much cheaper than radios, much more abundant, with multiple phones they had open lines of comm on multiple frequencies) to simple car/motorcycle curriers. Its two different wars, really. Iraqis tried to put up a fight and defeat the invaders, Serbians did everything to minimize damage while waiting for opportunity to strike back when attackers got careless.

Another idea for protection of planes themselves around the airbase. Make a simple metal box, 20*20 m big, 8m tall. Make it out of smaller sheets for quick assembly/disassembly & replacement, maybe even put wheels underneath the sides of it for greater mobility around the airbase. Make the box armored enough to withstand most cluster munitions. Put the plane inside. :D

Then, for added kicks, make same sized, same shaped boxes with simple, cheap materials and a metallic coating over it to act as decoys. They should be faster, cheaper and quicker to make than decoys of actual airplanes and could be deployed in far greater numbers.

Whole idea is somewhere half way of the original idea, not nearly as expensive as building many hardened shelters but also not resistant to the likes of small diameter bombs. Then again, being mobile, SBDs (and any other GPS guided munitions) would have a much harder time against them.
 
Roger604

Roger604

Senior Member
Totoro said:
Runways are next to impossible to protect passively. That is why no one is really trying to protect them. Instead, the direction has gone into quick repair. Special modular surfaces are used to comprised the runway off, i know US themselves use some simple metals for the material. China too has some metal covered runways. Basically when a bomb hits, you clear the debris, fill the hole with ground, level it, and put new modular chunks of runway in place where old ones that are damaged were. With a good ground crew you can repair the runways in matter of hours. Actually more time consuming process for the repair crews can be dealing with any possible scattered mines over the runway/apron. Iraqis, back in 1990 were known to repair their runways and continue with air sorties in matter of hours, too.

Iraq is also a good example of how you don't want have your command system to be designed. Paranoid as Saddam was, he didn't want any commanders communicating with each other, everything had to go through central comm centers, to be monitored, in case of rising disobediance. And perhaps they did rely on radio communication too much, prone to jamming.

A good example, on the other hand, is Serbia in 1999, which had greatly decentralized command and communcations structure, with much more redundant ground line comm network and many substitute means of communications, from regular cell phones (much cheaper than radios, much more abundant, with multiple phones they had open lines of comm on multiple frequencies) to simple car/motorcycle curriers. Its two different wars, really. Iraqis tried to put up a fight and defeat the invaders, Serbians did everything to minimize damage while waiting for opportunity to strike back when attackers got careless.

Another idea for protection of planes themselves around the airbase. Make a simple metal box, 20*20 m big, 8m tall. Make it out of smaller sheets for quick assembly/disassembly & replacement, maybe even put wheels underneath the sides of it for greater mobility around the airbase. Make the box armored enough to withstand most cluster munitions. Put the plane inside. :D

Then, for added kicks, make same sized, same shaped boxes with simple, cheap materials and a metallic coating over it to act as decoys. They should be faster, cheaper and quicker to make than decoys of actual airplanes and could be deployed in far greater numbers.

Whole idea is somewhere half way of the original idea, not nearly as expensive as building many hardened shelters but also not resistant to the likes of small diameter bombs. Then again, being mobile, SBDs (and any other GPS guided munitions) would have a much harder time against them.
Click to expand...

Great idea Totoro! I'd like to add something.

Camoflage them to make them difficult to identify by reconnaissance satellite. Moreover, make the "boxes" irregular so that shadows don't give away their non-natural shapes. To an automated spy recon satellite, they should appear as pixelated fuzzy mounds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top