4 ms·

I think an underground airbase is much cheaper than a destroyed airbase. The situation in Ukraine showed how unprotected airplanes sitting on the ground are.

sudosysgen 5y ago
Underground airbases can still be destroyed. You just have to attack the entry and exit points. There are also specific munitions you could use. You could even fly a cruise missile through whichever entry is used for planes to leave.
- FredPret 5y ago
  That’s harder though
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Sure, but once they're destroyed, you're irretrievably fucked and so is everything that was inside. You can endure a fair level of damage on a regular airbase.
- simne 5y ago
  Have you hear about works on underground systems of tunnels for icbm? They are extremely expensive, but large networks seem nearly impossible to destroy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_Great_Wall_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_Great_Wall_of_Chin...
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Sure, but ICBMs aren't airplanes.
    - simne 5y ago
      Technically, many planes could been used as ICBMs, from silo. For example, F-35 have needed capabilities. Other notable examples - Harrier and its relatives. Basically, all modern fighter jets are capable to start from catapult, some need additional gunpowder accelerators (also possible to use as brake). Landing is harder, for it need big enough runway, or some sort of aircraft carrier flight deck, or plane capable of vertical landing (some F-35 modifications are capable).
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        An ICBM is typically at 2m in diameter. The F35B has a length of 15m. You will need even more margin due to vortices. This proposal is unfeasible. You will not be able to have a silo for each airplane. If you don't, it's again easier to destroy and impossible to rebuild.
        simne 5y ago
        > An ICBM is typically at 2m in diameter. Yes and no. 1. Diameter of silo is much larger than diameter of ICBM, if used start from silo, because part of diameter used for exhaust. Only first ICBMs, use lift, so rocket lifted to surface, and practically started from platform on surface, not from silo. 2. Plane could also use lift. And many planes used on carriers, have folding wings, and they usually moving from storage to flight deck with folded wings, and unfold wings just before acceleration. Also plane does not need to move via vertical tube horizontally, it could been tied to some platform and turn to have smallest possible cross section. - Civil planes may be not strong enough for such maneuvers, but all navy fighters all perfectly fitted for this.
        sudosysgen 5y ago
        I know that the silo has to be greater than the diameter of the object holding them. This is much more true for an airplane than for a missile. I know that planes have folding wings. The issue is the length, not the wingspan. That's why I quoted the length of the plane. None of those planes have folding nosecones. I am considering vertical takeoff. The maneuver you are suggesting would not work, because the airplane would stall unless you accelerated it to over 300km/h. To do this in an aircraft carrier, without having to worry about gravity, is already hard enough that you either need massive steam boilers or an extremely expensive EMALS system. These catapults cost around 800 million dollars, by the way. Accelerating a 30 ton object to hundreds of kilometers an hour in slightly more than a second is extremely expensive. If you were to do it any slower, you'd need your silo to be over a hundred meters deep. Then you have the issue of trying to prevent the airplane from crashing as its wings are unfolding. Without thrust vectoring, vertically, almost at stall speeds, there is little chance the tail will be able to handle the task.
akyu 5y ago
Underground airbases do exist. Ukraine had one during the Cold War.
- thedrbrian 5y ago
  Sweden had one too https://travelblogeurope.com/deep-inside-cold-war-aircraft-hangar/ https://travelblogeurope.com/deep-inside-cold-war-aircraft-h...
heavenlyblue 5y ago
What is even cheaper is an airbase you don’t need
simne 5y ago
Carrier is the answer :) Even considering, it is possible to destroy Carrier, it is constantly moving, so exact place unknown and it is extremely hard to destroy it. But to be more strict, Carriers are not travel alone, they all time accompanied by few tens other ships. We in Ukraine constantly invite Carriers to Lviv sea port.
simne 5y ago
And for countries with limited sea access, possible airborne Carriers, even US developed this technology few decades ago. Sure, for our case, should talk about underground Carrier.

sudosysgen 5y ago

Underground airbases can still be destroyed. You just have to attack the entry and exit points. There are also specific munitions you could use. You could even fly a cruise missile through whichever entry is used for planes to leave.

FredPret 5y ago
That’s harder though
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Sure, but once they're destroyed, you're irretrievably fucked and so is everything that was inside. You can endure a fair level of damage on a regular airbase.
simne 5y ago
Have you hear about works on underground systems of tunnels for icbm? They are extremely expensive, but large networks seem nearly impossible to destroy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_Great_Wall_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_Great_Wall_of_Chin...
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Sure, but ICBMs aren't airplanes.
  - simne 5y ago
    Technically, many planes could been used as ICBMs, from silo. For example, F-35 have needed capabilities. Other notable examples - Harrier and its relatives. Basically, all modern fighter jets are capable to start from catapult, some need additional gunpowder accelerators (also possible to use as brake). Landing is harder, for it need big enough runway, or some sort of aircraft carrier flight deck, or plane capable of vertical landing (some F-35 modifications are capable).
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      An ICBM is typically at 2m in diameter. The F35B has a length of 15m. You will need even more margin due to vortices. This proposal is unfeasible. You will not be able to have a silo for each airplane. If you don't, it's again easier to destroy and impossible to rebuild.
      - simne 5y ago
        > An ICBM is typically at 2m in diameter. Yes and no. 1. Diameter of silo is much larger than diameter of ICBM, if used start from silo, because part of diameter used for exhaust. Only first ICBMs, use lift, so rocket lifted to surface, and practically started from platform on surface, not from silo. 2. Plane could also use lift. And many planes used on carriers, have folding wings, and they usually moving from storage to flight deck with folded wings, and unfold wings just before acceleration. Also plane does not need to move via vertical tube horizontally, it could been tied to some platform and turn to have smallest possible cross section. - Civil planes may be not strong enough for such maneuvers, but all navy fighters all perfectly fitted for this.
        sudosysgen 5y ago
        I know that the silo has to be greater than the diameter of the object holding them. This is much more true for an airplane than for a missile. I know that planes have folding wings. The issue is the length, not the wingspan. That's why I quoted the length of the plane. None of those planes have folding nosecones. I am considering vertical takeoff. The maneuver you are suggesting would not work, because the airplane would stall unless you accelerated it to over 300km/h. To do this in an aircraft carrier, without having to worry about gravity, is already hard enough that you either need massive steam boilers or an extremely expensive EMALS system. These catapults cost around 800 million dollars, by the way. Accelerating a 30 ton object to hundreds of kilometers an hour in slightly more than a second is extremely expensive. If you were to do it any slower, you'd need your silo to be over a hundred meters deep. Then you have the issue of trying to prevent the airplane from crashing as its wings are unfolding. Without thrust vectoring, vertically, almost at stall speeds, there is little chance the tail will be able to handle the task.

akyu 5y ago

Underground airbases do exist. Ukraine had one during the Cold War.

thedrbrian 5y ago
Sweden had one too https://travelblogeurope.com/deep-inside-cold-war-aircraft-hangar/ https://travelblogeurope.com/deep-inside-cold-war-aircraft-h...

heavenlyblue 5y ago

What is even cheaper is an airbase you don’t need

simne 5y ago

Carrier is the answer :) Even considering, it is possible to destroy Carrier, it is constantly moving, so exact place unknown and it is extremely hard to destroy it. But to be more strict, Carriers are not travel alone, they all time accompanied by few tens other ships. We in Ukraine constantly invite Carriers to Lviv sea port.

simne 5y ago

And for countries with limited sea access, possible airborne Carriers, even US developed this technology few decades ago. Sure, for our case, should talk about underground Carrier.