3 ms·

I'm inclined to agree, but am almost totally ignorant, would enjoy pointers to/reading critical takes on the role of dispersal. The reason I'm inclined to agree

I'm inclined to agree, but am almost totally ignorant, would enjoy pointers to/reading critical takes on the role of dispersal. The reason I'm inclined to agree is that war is a worst case scenario, and very uncertain (bottom of worst could fall quickly) so it seems odd to prepare to fight war under ideal (large intact airfields) rather than very ugly circumstances. Perhaps the cost efficiency in peacetime of centralization allows (the US anyway) such an overwhelming advantage that the correct calculus is to maintain that advantage rather than prepare for the worst? Here's another video talking a bit about the costs of dispersal, and costs basically being the reason for not doing it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-lcu2kBXQI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-lcu2kBXQI

sbierwagen 3y ago
Maintenance and munitions. The F-35 needs 9 ground labor hours per flight hour. It's cheap and easy to add a flight apron next to a straight section of highway, but if you only have one maintenance depot then knocking that out will ground your entire fleet. Setting up redundant hangars and staffing them with trained aircraft mechanics is way, way more expensive than just pouring some extra concrete. Stocking them with the missiles your F-35s are going to need to actually perform missions also requires staffing, perimeter security, hardened bunkers... It can be done, and is probably a good idea. But it's not a "one easy trick makes your air force invulnerable"-style lifehack.
- sklargh 3y ago
  The perimeter security element is often overlooked. You’ve got a lot more very valuable assets to secure. In the European (particularly Nordic ) scenario it’s really not implausible that special operations teams could be dispatched to hunt dispersed aircraft on the ground. In addition, it’s a much wider area to offer short range air defense of. I believe the targeting problem created by dispersal outweighs these downsides, but they’re real and have to be mitigated. That costs time, money and people.
  - sbierwagen 3y ago
    Absolutely. Hardened aircraft shelters got a bad reputation after the first gulf war, but considering the tradeoffs, one might easily conclude one way forward is much, much more spread out airbases with many separate runways ringed by aircraft shelters, so that you can at least try some air defense rather than let the cruise missiles rain down unopposed. (If Patriot batteries are a billion dollars a pop, then that's rather contraindicated to do full integrated AD for every roadside apron, isn't it...) Bas 90 had an extreme amount of dispersion because Sweden's threat model included nuclear weapon strikes with no way to retaliate. If you're a nuclear power and assume that nuclear attacks on military targets would automatically escalate to MAD, then you might feel better about doing a dozen megabases, rather than a gross highway airfields.

sbierwagen 3y ago

Maintenance and munitions. The F-35 needs 9 ground labor hours per flight hour. It's cheap and easy to add a flight apron next to a straight section of highway, but if you only have one maintenance depot then knocking that out will ground your entire fleet. Setting up redundant hangars and staffing them with trained aircraft mechanics is way, way more expensive than just pouring some extra concrete. Stocking them with the missiles your F-35s are going to need to actually perform missions also requires staffing, perimeter security, hardened bunkers... It can be done, and is probably a good idea. But it's not a "one easy trick makes your air force invulnerable"-style lifehack.

sklargh 3y ago
The perimeter security element is often overlooked. You’ve got a lot more very valuable assets to secure. In the European (particularly Nordic ) scenario it’s really not implausible that special operations teams could be dispatched to hunt dispersed aircraft on the ground. In addition, it’s a much wider area to offer short range air defense of. I believe the targeting problem created by dispersal outweighs these downsides, but they’re real and have to be mitigated. That costs time, money and people.
- sbierwagen 3y ago
  Absolutely. Hardened aircraft shelters got a bad reputation after the first gulf war, but considering the tradeoffs, one might easily conclude one way forward is much, much more spread out airbases with many separate runways ringed by aircraft shelters, so that you can at least try some air defense rather than let the cruise missiles rain down unopposed. (If Patriot batteries are a billion dollars a pop, then that's rather contraindicated to do full integrated AD for every roadside apron, isn't it...) Bas 90 had an extreme amount of dispersion because Sweden's threat model included nuclear weapon strikes with no way to retaliate. If you're a nuclear power and assume that nuclear attacks on military targets would automatically escalate to MAD, then you might feel better about doing a dozen megabases, rather than a gross highway airfields.