Which of our fighters aren’t mission critical?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Europe under extreme duress
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
So if you were a drone operator and could pick 10 aircraft to destroy, would you destroy 10 fighters or 10 heavy bombers?
The answer of course is you would destroy 10 E-2Ds, the real high value unit.
It really doesn't matter... the argument is the same. We're not going to eliminate the drone threat by putting all of our high value toys in a concrete box. There are a variety of approaches that don't involve a trillion dollar investment in infrastructure that will take a decade to build. Maybe the smart people in DC should be writing think pieces about hanging up some netting first.So if you were a drone operator and could pick 10 aircraft to destroy, would you destroy 10 fighters or 10 heavy bombers?
The answer of course is you would destroy 10 E-2Ds, the real high value unit.
This is not to say that HAS don't have a place in the overall c/UAS scheme, but putting every INCONUS B-52 in one is a dumb idea.
Question is: as it all comes down to funding, which aircraft should have full hardened shelters and which should simply have some type of anti-drone netting?
I don’t think the status quo of parking aircraft in neat lines (think Hickam Field on December 6th) is acceptable going forward considering the amount of damage that both long range Shahed type drones and short range quadcopter drones could inflict.
GroundPounder
Well-Known Member
I'm connected to a civilian location that has a very robust anti drone capability. I'm surprised that .mil locations are not several generations past what we have.Some hardened shelters for mission critical equipment may be needed not just overseas, but also stateside.
'Multiple waves' of unauthorized drones recently spotted over strategic US Air Force base
A drone sighting that temporarily raised alarms at one of the United States Air Force’s largest airfields this month was potentially more dangerous than first reported.abcnews.com
You Homer Simpson?
Wrong question to be asking. The question is whether a HAS provides the level of risk reduction that would justify the expense of building ANY of them INCONUS. Your average regular hangar MILCON project costs about $200M. Making it reasonably attack-proof would probably add another $100M (at least). So that's $300M per aircraft, or $18B for the 60 or so B-52s we have. I think that's a conservative estimate.
When the COAs are presented to decision makers, you can understand why this price tag makes large scale construction of HAS to counter the UAS threat a non-starter. The cure would be worse than the disease. Now, keep in mind that these aircraft would still be vulnerable to attack any time they aren't in the HAS... taxiing, getting towed to the wash rack, opening/closing of HAS doors, etc. Even if we spent all that money and built all the HAS, the aircraft would still be at risk.
GroundPounder
Well-Known Member
I'm not yellow, and have a full head of hair, but I am portly. We do have a location within the area of responsibility that is " Sector 7G" but only a few of us are old enough to know how it got its name.
Our place has much better drone mitigation than does a nuclear plant.