3 ms·
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 r
by 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 agoAbsolutely. 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.