I don't understand how all the technology used in the defense of an aircraft carrier/ CBG wouldn't work in a permanent fortification better then it would on a mobile platform which has weight and space restrictions. mobile platform might have the advantage of not having a known location unlike a fortification but if the defense systems of an aircraft carrier/CBG doesn't completely rely on being undetected to function then they should work just as well on a static fortification if not better.
There are still places in the world where permanent fortifications could be used, I don't see why or how a country like Taiwan wouldn't benefit significantly from having an aircraft carrier battlegroup build on land made out of concrete.
How are Permanent Fortifications Obsolete?
Ryder Nelson
Isaac Parker
Because the main defence of any carrier or ship is not been found in the first place.
All those other defences are for if you've fucked up.
Thats why fortifications are not great. It relies purely on the final step, and not the massive quantity before it of not being known about, not being seen, not being targeted, and not being present to response if you are.
Sebastian Lewis
> aircraft carrier battlegroup build on land made out of concrete.
it's called airbase.
Chase Johnson
>aircraft carrier battlegroup build on land made out of concrete.
That a airbase user.
James Miller
because a static target can be targeted much more easily by any munition at any range, while a moving (even slowly), and probably smaller target is much harder to score hits on unless you are within its defensive perimeter.
Adrian Bell
Funny way to spell strategic bombing target
Justin Kelly
>"I don't know what an airport is"
Jace James
>the airbase will let bombers get near.
shut the fuck up and die.
Gabriel Taylor
If the main defense of a CBG is to remain undetected then how can we believe the CBG format is viable for the foreseeable future?
Also you can make decoy fortifications which probably work far better they anyone gives credit for.
Would you call a lone aircraft carrier a full carrier battle group? An aircraft carrier is a critical competence to a CBG but its not the CBG itself, the same logic also applies to building a CBG on land.
Is there any airbase on earth that has had as much money, time, and personal invested into it as the nearest CBG?
I don't think you really thought this out. A static fortification can be dispersed over a very large area so that it requires many more precisely targeted strikes to even partly destroy.
Jordan Watson
Hunter James
Uhh, depends on who is attacking and os defending?
Israel bombs Syrian bases with impunity and knocked out Iraq and Syria's heavy defended reactors in the 2000s and 1980s, no problems.
Gabriel Cruz
And it's not like they didn't have air defense or fighters, they paid quite a bit for thier army, Saddam in particular.
But better jets with good tactics let you knock out the AA
Chase Garcia
Nice try Chang. The fact that a lan/‘abased fortified defense is static is evidence enough. Gen 4 wayfarer is based on maneuver. Static stains are
For ICBM, not for CSGs or Strategic/tactical units.
Adrian Peterson
>If the main defense of a CBG is to remain undetected then how can we believe the CBG format is viable for the foreseeable future?
the main defense of almost any weapon system, from planes to tanks to SAMs is to remain undetected. It is a fundamental concept in warfare.
>Also you can make decoy fortifications which probably work far better they anyone gives credit for.
CSGs do this too. Take a ship or E-2 plane off-axis, and radiate like a CV is nearby to trick the enemy into believing the CV is in the wrong place.
>Would you call a lone aircraft carrier a full carrier battle group? An aircraft carrier is a critical competence to a CBG but its not the CBG itself, the same logic also applies to building a CBG on land.
Is there any airbase on earth that has had as much money, time, and personal invested into it as the nearest CBG?
dude just put Patriots around it its so easy it depends on mission and threat level
also CSG composition is based on mission, they add or remove ships and planes assigned based on mission like any sane military
>I don't think you really thought this out. A static fortification can be dispersed over a very large area so that it requires many more precisely targeted strikes to even partly destroy.
say that to Iraq's air defense network
kill the C2 and the radars and you're done. dont need to hit every target like a retard. thats why we have PGMs
Christopher Long
>he subscribes to generational warfare theory
Tyler Sanchez
The 70s are
Eli Gonzalez
>implying all those aren't 70s tech
Sebastian Lee
This is such a misconception that it's actually really sad that the history of the Maginot line has been completely written off like this.
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
Anthony Kelly
Movement and aggression is everything in warfare. The moment you dig in and pick a spot you let the enemy control the tempo of the battle. A smart enemy will either find a weakness, attack from stand off range or simply go around. It's like playing chess and being black.
Nicholas Jenkins
So you're telling me it wasn't just "heh, these defensive structures will substantially delay tanks" and then "I surrender; who could have guessed that combat engineers exist and that tank units weren't stupid enough to just immediately drive directly over the anti-tank structures"
Jordan Long
>the main defense of almost any weapon system, from planes to tanks to SAMs is to remain undetected. It is a fundamental concept in warfare.
This is misleading, Being undetected is the first and most effective defense but it's not the "main" defense for most systems in the same way being undetected is the main defense for stealth bomber.
>dude just put Patriots around it its so easy it depends on mission and threat level
How is this an argument against permanent fortifications? Do you actually think a system like Patriot wouldn't be apart of a modern permanent fortification.
Having Patriot in hardened and soft positions puts the enemy in a catch 22 situation where the weapons that take out the hard targets can't take out the soft targets which prevent the hard targets from being attacked and visa versa.
>say that to Iraq's air defense network
>kill the C2 and the radars and you're done. dont need to hit every target like a retard. thats why we have PGMs
Because Iraq's C2, radar, and air defenses were a model for the rest of the world until then right? Are you next going to tell me Iraq was better off not investing in air defense and radar to protect their C2?
Also how is the Patriot air defense system any different from Iraq's?
>implying you're always the aggressor or have the choice to choose your battles.
This is why I mentioned Taiwan in the OP, Where the fuck is Taiwan going to fight China except on their boarder?
It's a whole lot more like "these defensive structures substantially delayed even the tanks despite high command abandoning and sabotaging every advantage the defensive structures offered them."
Zachary Martin
>This is misleading, Being undetected is the first and most effective defense but it's not the "main" defense for most systems in the same way being undetected is the main defense for stealth bomber.
maybe not in the tactical sense, but in the operational sense it is for CSGs.
>How is this an argument against permanent fortifications? Do you actually think a system like Patriot wouldn't be apart of a modern permanent fortification.
Having Patriot in hardened and soft positions puts the enemy in a catch 22 situation where the weapons that take out the hard targets can't take out the soft targets which prevent the hard targets from being attacked and visa versa.
putting your air defense in static positions is the worst thing you can do, since it makes the enemy's job of killing you easier. the best way to keep your AA assets alive and fighting is constant relocation, decoys, and a good, resilient (can take damage), and mobile C2. tying your AA to static positions just guarantees they get HARM spammed and DEADed. the actual important components in a good AA network (aka Radars) cannot be fortified or armored, and they will die fast. theres a reason why Signals soldiers and radar crews always joke about being the first to die in a srsface war.
>Because Iraq's C2, radar, and air defenses were a model for the rest of the world until then right? Are you next going to tell me Iraq was better off not investing in air defense and radar to protect their C2?
Also how is the Patriot air defense system any different from Iraq's?
no im saying that unresilient AA networks like the one defending Iraq will die fast against a serious air force. look at how the Russian air defense units do it: always relocate, always decoy, camoflague everything, terrain is your friend. theyre one of the best in the business when it comes to landbased air defense, so see how they do it.
Hunter Morales
>maybe not in the tactical sense, but in the operational sense it is for CSGs.
In the operational sense having a known location doesn't preclude or prevent a permanent fortification from doing its job.
A free PDF that is very relevant to this and even talks about Iraq is "Fixed Permanent Fortifications at the Operational Level of War" so is "aircraft-carrier-invulnerability".
>putting your air defense in static positions is the worst thing you can do-
Having zero mobile systems is the worst thing you can do for the reasons you stated but don't think that having any hardened positions alongside your mobile systems makes you easier to kill.
A static position only need to be tough enough to resist the weapons which take out the mobile systems, Further investment on toughness might not have the same returns and would be better spent on more mobile and hardened systems.
The mobile or hardened positions shouldn't be designed to rely on each other but instead function alongside each other so that attacking one systems brings down the other.
> the actual important components in a good AA network (aka Radars) cannot be fortified or armored, and they will die fast.
Wrong. Safeguard comes to mind with the concrete pyramid missile site radar, Apparently the Cavalier Air Force Station still operates the one perimeter acquisition radar from safeguard that was finished and I am sure that huge thing is armored.
I don't know if a radar can be built to the rule of "tough enough to resist the weapons which take out the mobile systems" but I bet it can if they can be made nuke resistant.
>no im saying that unresilient AA networks like the one defending Iraq will die fast against a serious air force.
Resilient? Do you mean unchanging?
Jeremiah Hughes
It's obsolete because if it isn't then China is doing the correct way by building airbases on its islands.
Ayden Morales
>In the operational sense having a known location doesn't preclude or prevent a permanent fortification from doing its job.
>A free PDF that is very relevant to this and even talks about Iraq is "Fixed Permanent Fortifications at the Operational Level of War" so is "aircraft-carrier-invulnerability".
there's a saying that goes, if it is worth protecting, it is worth destroying. you wont bother to fortify unimportant or worthless stuff, but you will fortify important assets. unfortunately, the enemy is usually able to muster enough firepower to overcome those defenses and fortifications (especially if youre fighting the good old US of A). this is why the best defense is to either: move them out of reach of the enemy, or hide them to prevent them from being targeted. ever notice why those huge ass airbases the US has in Korea or Japan has relatively few planes stationed at any given time instead of crammed to the gills with planes to counter the inevitable Chinese/Best Korea plane spam? PACAF knows that planes can be easily surged there when needed, we'll wait till they get hit first before putting more planes there to prevent their destruction. Repairs to the infrastructure are still needed tho( yes i know there are also logistical reasons why PACAF has planes out this way).
>Having zero mobile systems is the worst thing you can do for the reasons you stated but don't think that having any hardened positions alongside your mobile systems makes you easier to kill.
A static position only need to be tough enough to resist the weapons which take out the mobile systems, Further investment on toughness might not have the same returns and would be better spent on more mobile and hardened systems.
The mobile or hardened positions shouldn't be designed to rely on each other but instead function alongside each other so that attacking one systems brings down the other.
as i said, the important bits of a good AA network CANNOT be meaningfully fortified. cont.
Kayden Perry
>Wrong. Safeguard comes to mind
m8 you know i mean the radars on stuff like the US patriots and the russkie S-series
if they go down your firing platforms are blind
>Resilient? Do you mean unchanging?
no i mean capable of taking damage and continuing to function at albeit degraded effectiveness. i bring this up since same happened in iraq, C2 went down, every shooter was blind and on their own.
Eli Peterson
this means that airbases on land are fucked since they cant relocate. the enemy knows theyre there, so theyre free to muster up enough firepower to destroy them. carriers can move, as can mobile AA, so doing the above is more difficult. hide them and and make sure they only find out youre there by the first shot you make.
Tyler Young
to summarize, the disadvantage of fortifying is that anything worth fortifying is usually really important, and the enemy will try to hit it. the enemy has the luxury of knowing theyre there(since theyre static), so theyre free to muster up enough firepower to destroy them. also some shiny bits that are essential to overall defense (radar) cannot be meaningfully fortified( that safeguard thing? hit the radar face and its dead), and the loss of those bits ruins the whole defense (see iraq) so yeah if they can move and hide you bet its more difficult for the enemy to target AND THEN gather the firepower to kill them
Hunter Cruz
>I don't understand
You don't say.
Read literally anything written on warfare in the last hundred years. It will be edifying.
Zachary Martinez
How about you look at things from the point of view of Taiwan instead of Japan or the US.
>as i said, the important bits of a good AA network CANNOT be meaningfully fortified. cont.
Why not though? And why is "tough enough to resist the weapons which take out the mobile systems" not meaningfully fortified?
>this means that airbases on land are fucked since they cant relocate.
Then why does anyone build airbases including those who can't afford to build more airbases then aircraft that could fill them?
>the enemy knows theyre there, so theyre free to muster up enough firepower to destroy them
Forcing your enemy to muster up firepower for a defensive position is to your advantage though because it's obvious, expensive, and time consuming.
If you force them to adopt mission specific weapons to deal with you then all you have to do is deny that weapon system and their will offensive will fail.
Again how does having a hardened static AA system ALONGSIDE a mobile AA system denigrate the performance of the mobile system instead of enhance it?
I do though, "Fixed Permanent Fortifications at the Operational Level of War" and "aircraft-carrier-invulnerability" are two examples.
Evan Edwards
>"Fixed Permanent Fortifications at the Operational Level of War"
That document literally says what everyone itt has been saying: without a highly mobile force supporting the static fortification, they're worse than worthless, even at the operational level. At the strategic level they are a waste of resources.
Finally, I don't know who the fuck actually thinks that airbases are fortifications.
Zachary Murphy
>That document literally says what everyone itt has been saying: without a highly mobile force supporting the static fortification, they're worse than worthless, even at the operational level. At the strategic level they are a waste of resources.
Everyone itt is saying static fortifications are obsolete because they need a mobile component not that their worthless without a mobile component, That pdf agrees with me not everyone else that static fortifications aren't obsolete.
Where the fuck have I said a static fortification doesn't need a mobile component? Static fortifications have ALWAYS need a mobile component.
>Finally, I don't know who the fuck actually thinks that airbases are fortifications.
I agree but I'm not sure how I would define how it isn't a kind of fortification.
Michael Parker
ITT:
Total fucking autism all around.
Everyone stop posting now, please.
Adam White
The Chinese have 3000 miles of underground tunnels, rumors have it that some are so large you can send bombers from one airbase to the other, that's as good a fortification as you'll get today.
Jeremiah Foster
*bombs major entrances*