8 ms·

So all airbase runways are destroyed but the planes are untouched? This is a dumb waste of money.

by coryrc 3y ago

fooker 3y ago
It is a lot easier to hide planes than to hide runways. It could be a dumb waste of money either way, but your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premise. Consider the current Russia/Ukraine war, Russia destroyed the vast majority of the runways Ukraine could have used but Ukraine still has an air force.
- coryrc 3y ago
  > but Ukraine still has an air force. That's a generous statement.
  - anikan_vader 3y ago
    It is not, as the Ukrainian air force continues to conduct regular sorties and has successfully prevented the Russian air force from every gaining air supremacy. The Russian air force has taken massive losses, both in terms of planes and pilots, but it also continues to exist, from a non-generous and factual perspective.
    - vGPU 3y ago
      The Air Force with an estimated strength somewhere stern that of algeria and chile? Last I checked, they literally had more trainer aircraft than actual combat jets left.
      - CydeWeys 3y ago
        You got a source for that? They've had MiGs donated by other Eastern European countries as well.
      - _kbh_ 3y ago
        > The Air Force with an estimated strength somewhere stern that of algeria and chile? It’s amazing that such a small airforce manages to prevent russia from gaining air superiority and even manages to effectively conduct sorties isn’t it. Just shows you how different it is when your the invading force. russias airforce losses largely outsize Ukraines even though Ukraine has a smaller airforce and they older planes.
      - anikan_vader 3y ago
        >> with an estimated strength somewhere stern that of algeria and chile? You have named two countries with credible and substantial air forces. Critically, both the Algerian air force and Chilean air force exist (the claim that I initially defended). Indeed, both Chile and Algeria have similarly-sized economies to Ukraine, and both countries operate sizeable air forces relative to other countries in South America and North Africa. It is worth noting that the Ukrainian air force has 50+ F-16s scheduled for delivery in the near future. >> Last I checked, they literally had more trainer aircraft than actual combat jets left. They did have a relatively impressive number of L-39 jet trainers at the beginning of the war, as you alluded to. It is difficult to assess how many have survived the war. I would presume that you are correct to estimate that trainer aircraft have a lower attrition rate than combat jets during war.
      - rewmie 3y ago
        > The Air Force with an estimated strength somewhere stern that of algeria and chile? Some rankings list Algeria right below Russia, and above Spain and Canada in terms of air power, and Chile is ranked above Korea and Norway. https://www.wdmma.org/ranking.php https://www.wdmma.org/ranking.php Also, apparently that's all it takes to ground the self-described second army of the world. I'm not sure you thought your argument through.
    - notfromhere 3y ago
      The reason Russia doesn’t fly much over Ukraine because of its AA network, not because the Ukrainian Air Force is a particularly good opponent. Can’t exactly fly combat sorties when the whole country is littered in NASAM and Patriot systems
      - anikan_vader 3y ago
        I agree that ground anti-air has played a larger role in denying either side air supremacy than fighter jets. But it is important to note that Russia failed to establish air supremacy over Ukraine during the almost year before western anti-air arrived. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian air force effectively carried out anti-air missions (including against drones) and even some ground attack sorties. So, tellingly, the Russian air force failed to establish supremacy over Ukraine when Ukraine fielded only Soviet-era aircraft and anti-air (and in comparatively small numbers). Which strongly suggests that the Russian Air Force is not a particularly good opponent either. But critically, the Ukrainian Air Force continues to exist as a fleet-in-being. So while it may not currently be capable of much force projection (I would argue that the Russian air force is also not capable of much force projection against a serious adversary), it does force its adversary to strategically deploy anti-air. As Russian anti-air systems become depleted (which may be sooner or may be later, but due to the rapid destruction of S-400 systems of late, my money is on sooner), it is quite possible that the Ukrainian air force will play a larger role, especially given that training on F-16s commence in a handful of weeks.
        haldujai 3y ago
        Pretty sure Ukraine had one of the better GBADs in Europe going into the war, especially as that’s not an area the West invests a great deal in. The CNA and RUSI have both released excellent reports on the VKS challenges and performance. SEAD/DEAD missions seem to be much harder than the US has made them look in the past (granted against much weaker GBADs than Ukraine or Russia have). https://www.cna.org/reports/2023/04/Russian-Combat-Air-Strengths-and-Limitations.pdf https://www.cna.org/reports/2023/04/Russian-Combat-Air-Stren...
        3y ago
  - pvaldes 3y ago
    drones definitely should count as air force.
nradov 3y ago
This is more about enabling expeditionary operations in areas where there are no airbases at all.
rewmie 3y ago
> So all airbase runways are destroyed but the planes are untouched? You should read the news regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Ukraine has been operating their air force out it's highways and is making a fool out of Russia's armed forces with opsec tricks like fixing airways and hangars bombed by Russia but printing tarps with images of the bombed out runways to fool it to believe they are still decommissioned. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/04/11/to-dodge-russian-missiles-the-ukrainian-air-force-went-on-the-road-literally/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/04/11/to-dodge-ru... Ukraine has been playing Russia so masterfully that they led Russian intelligence into believing Ukraine's air force was operating out of a secret network of tunnels.
- coryrc 3y ago
  If the USA's airbases are all bombed there's nothing going to be left on the planet. It's not a credible scenario. There may be other reasons, but this is a dumb one.
  - SonicScrub 3y ago
    The F-35 is owned and operated by many nations besides the US. For example, those in the article itself (Norway).
  - WrongAssumption 3y ago
    The US operates 750 bases in 80 countries. I don't know why you are fixated on US operations, when military operations primarily take place outside of the US.
    - CydeWeys 3y ago
      And we don't necessarily want to start the nuclear war that ends the world just because a small outlying base was hit ..
  - psd1 3y ago
    Space-based weapons should make you uneasy about America's home-soil impunity. This increases when rival powers gain heavy-lift capability. If you can lift a few tons into orbit, you can drop rocks on targets. Not sure if there's much a target can do about that, other than not be there when it falls. It's not quite as apocalyptic as nuclear holocaust, which is nice.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> So all airbase runways are destroyed but the planes are untouched? Yeah, you can move and hide planes and put them in hardened bunkers, its kind of hard to do any of that with airbase runways, so that is one scenario for it. But mostly its “we want to operate in an area and haven’t built/don’t control purpose-built airbases there yet”
ImJamal 3y ago
Any jet in the air or on ships (I don't think F35As are on ships, only B and Cs) would presumably be untouched if runways were destroyed.
doikor 3y ago
Planes in Finnish airbases are stored in hardened bunkers deep in the bedrock. There really isn't much outside of a direct nuclear hit that would take out the planes. Though without a runway getting them back into air is going to be really hard. Though ideally you want the planes in air before the bombs lands. With that scenario these hundreds of temporary runways all over the country make much more sense.

So all airbase runways are destroyed but the planes are untouched? This is a dumb waste of money.

by coryrc 3y ago

So all airbase runways are destroyed but the planes are untouched? This is a dumb waste of money.

It is a lot easier to hide planes than to hide runways. It could be a dumb waste of money either way, but your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premise. Consider the current Russia/Ukraine war, Russia destroyed the vast majority of the runways Ukraine could have used but Ukraine still has an air force.

coryrc 3y ago
> but Ukraine still has an air force. That's a generous statement.
- anikan_vader 3y ago
  It is not, as the Ukrainian air force continues to conduct regular sorties and has successfully prevented the Russian air force from every gaining air supremacy. The Russian air force has taken massive losses, both in terms of planes and pilots, but it also continues to exist, from a non-generous and factual perspective.
  - vGPU 3y ago
    The Air Force with an estimated strength somewhere stern that of algeria and chile? Last I checked, they literally had more trainer aircraft than actual combat jets left.
    - CydeWeys 3y ago
      You got a source for that? They've had MiGs donated by other Eastern European countries as well.
    - _kbh_ 3y ago
      > The Air Force with an estimated strength somewhere stern that of algeria and chile? It’s amazing that such a small airforce manages to prevent russia from gaining air superiority and even manages to effectively conduct sorties isn’t it. Just shows you how different it is when your the invading force. russias airforce losses largely outsize Ukraines even though Ukraine has a smaller airforce and they older planes.
    - anikan_vader 3y ago
      >> with an estimated strength somewhere stern that of algeria and chile? You have named two countries with credible and substantial air forces. Critically, both the Algerian air force and Chilean air force exist (the claim that I initially defended). Indeed, both Chile and Algeria have similarly-sized economies to Ukraine, and both countries operate sizeable air forces relative to other countries in South America and North Africa. It is worth noting that the Ukrainian air force has 50+ F-16s scheduled for delivery in the near future. >> Last I checked, they literally had more trainer aircraft than actual combat jets left. They did have a relatively impressive number of L-39 jet trainers at the beginning of the war, as you alluded to. It is difficult to assess how many have survived the war. I would presume that you are correct to estimate that trainer aircraft have a lower attrition rate than combat jets during war.
    - rewmie 3y ago
      > The Air Force with an estimated strength somewhere stern that of algeria and chile? Some rankings list Algeria right below Russia, and above Spain and Canada in terms of air power, and Chile is ranked above Korea and Norway. https://www.wdmma.org/ranking.php https://www.wdmma.org/ranking.php Also, apparently that's all it takes to ground the self-described second army of the world. I'm not sure you thought your argument through.
  - notfromhere 3y ago
    The reason Russia doesn’t fly much over Ukraine because of its AA network, not because the Ukrainian Air Force is a particularly good opponent. Can’t exactly fly combat sorties when the whole country is littered in NASAM and Patriot systems
    - anikan_vader 3y ago
      I agree that ground anti-air has played a larger role in denying either side air supremacy than fighter jets. But it is important to note that Russia failed to establish air supremacy over Ukraine during the almost year before western anti-air arrived. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian air force effectively carried out anti-air missions (including against drones) and even some ground attack sorties. So, tellingly, the Russian air force failed to establish supremacy over Ukraine when Ukraine fielded only Soviet-era aircraft and anti-air (and in comparatively small numbers). Which strongly suggests that the Russian Air Force is not a particularly good opponent either. But critically, the Ukrainian Air Force continues to exist as a fleet-in-being. So while it may not currently be capable of much force projection (I would argue that the Russian air force is also not capable of much force projection against a serious adversary), it does force its adversary to strategically deploy anti-air. As Russian anti-air systems become depleted (which may be sooner or may be later, but due to the rapid destruction of S-400 systems of late, my money is on sooner), it is quite possible that the Ukrainian air force will play a larger role, especially given that training on F-16s commence in a handful of weeks.
      - haldujai 3y ago
        Pretty sure Ukraine had one of the better GBADs in Europe going into the war, especially as that’s not an area the West invests a great deal in. The CNA and RUSI have both released excellent reports on the VKS challenges and performance. SEAD/DEAD missions seem to be much harder than the US has made them look in the past (granted against much weaker GBADs than Ukraine or Russia have). https://www.cna.org/reports/2023/04/Russian-Combat-Air-Strengths-and-Limitations.pdf https://www.cna.org/reports/2023/04/Russian-Combat-Air-Stren...
        3y ago
- pvaldes 3y ago
  drones definitely should count as air force.

nradov 3y ago

This is more about enabling expeditionary operations in areas where there are no airbases at all.

rewmie 3y ago

> So all airbase runways are destroyed but the planes are untouched? You should read the news regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Ukraine has been operating their air force out it's highways and is making a fool out of Russia's armed forces with opsec tricks like fixing airways and hangars bombed by Russia but printing tarps with images of the bombed out runways to fool it to believe they are still decommissioned. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/04/11/to-dodge-russian-missiles-the-ukrainian-air-force-went-on-the-road-literally/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/04/11/to-dodge-ru... Ukraine has been playing Russia so masterfully that they led Russian intelligence into believing Ukraine's air force was operating out of a secret network of tunnels.

coryrc 3y ago
If the USA's airbases are all bombed there's nothing going to be left on the planet. It's not a credible scenario. There may be other reasons, but this is a dumb one.
- SonicScrub 3y ago
  The F-35 is owned and operated by many nations besides the US. For example, those in the article itself (Norway).
- WrongAssumption 3y ago
  The US operates 750 bases in 80 countries. I don't know why you are fixated on US operations, when military operations primarily take place outside of the US.
  - CydeWeys 3y ago
    And we don't necessarily want to start the nuclear war that ends the world just because a small outlying base was hit ..
- psd1 3y ago
  Space-based weapons should make you uneasy about America's home-soil impunity. This increases when rival powers gain heavy-lift capability. If you can lift a few tons into orbit, you can drop rocks on targets. Not sure if there's much a target can do about that, other than not be there when it falls. It's not quite as apocalyptic as nuclear holocaust, which is nice.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> So all airbase runways are destroyed but the planes are untouched? Yeah, you can move and hide planes and put them in hardened bunkers, its kind of hard to do any of that with airbase runways, so that is one scenario for it. But mostly its “we want to operate in an area and haven’t built/don’t control purpose-built airbases there yet”

ImJamal 3y ago

Any jet in the air or on ships (I don't think F35As are on ships, only B and Cs) would presumably be untouched if runways were destroyed.

doikor 3y ago

Planes in Finnish airbases are stored in hardened bunkers deep in the bedrock. There really isn't much outside of a direct nuclear hit that would take out the planes. Though without a runway getting them back into air is going to be really hard. Though ideally you want the planes in air before the bombs lands. With that scenario these hundreds of temporary runways all over the country make much more sense.