reply to post by princeofpeace
Why are you so unpleasant to other people regarding their opinions? People have the right to have an opinion as much as you do, and they are not
stupid or morons just because it's not the same as yours.
Usually people who claim or act like they know the answer to everything are the same ones who are most ignorant.
In case you aren't aware, in order to actually disable a runway you have to bomb it several times. Mostly because combat aircraft can take-off in
relatively short distances, but also because one hole is easily fixed. If that is true to the runway, which needs to have a lot better pavement than a
taxi access, it's very easily achievable in access roads.
If you have a crater as wide as the taxi access, you just need to fill it with surrounding dirt, make it smooth and compact enough and then put
something on top that will prevent the aircraft that go through it from sinking into the hole, by applying weight to it. As long as the cover for the
hole (that is already filled) is larger than the hole itself, then it should be fine. Fighters are heavy, but they aren't heavy enough to make
craters while moving.
You also mention the impossibility of removing the aircraft due to collapsed doors or entrances. But you are dismissing a very important thing. The
fact that an entrance is possibly one of the strongest points of a structure. The same concept that makes doorsteps a emergency safe zone in case of
an earthquake in most buildings with good safety standards. If that concept is true to most civilian buildings, you can imagine how strong a
tunnel/bunker-like structure would be.
And if you try to cover the entrance by bombing it around, then you are faced with two problems:
1- Bombing the top of the structure and facing with the hard task of overcoming a natural obstacle, that is most provably reenforced from within,
taking advantage of the mountain strength.
2- Bombing the perimeter of the entrance, which goes back to the point that access roads can be easily repaired.
It's not something that the members that said it are making up on the spot. It's something that is a reality. Military forces are able to build
bridges between small gaps in a matter of minutes, not to mention other much more complex structures and operations.
Covering a hole in a expendable road isn't all that hard, considering the fact that it doesn't even need to be done by valuable manpower.
You make also a claim that, in my opinion, is a bit unrealistic.
You say that in order to null the repair efforts "all it takes" is a constant surveillance from the invading air force. I seriously think that you
aren't aware of the effort it takes to any modern air force.
If we are supposing it's not a super-power like the U.S. attacking, then it's a effort most air forces can't take. You need constant patrol above
the airfield, which exposes you to any AA defenses. Making a patrol raises an issue that U.S. pilots faced in Vietnam. You can fly-over a place and do
surveillance and get away with it, but if you fly above it twice or even more than three times, then your pattern is known, making any surveillance
effort an easy target, even against the most basic AA systems.
But you can argue that a country like the U.S. has a very sophisticated system for air operations. Which is true, that's why countries like Israel
depend on American solutions for their problems.
One of the problems with the patrols meant to prevent the repairs, is refueling. You either go back to an airfield with fuel for your
bombers/fighters, or you refuel mid-air. Refueling mid-air solves some problems, but causes others.
Instead of just exposing your aircraft to AA systems, you are now also exposing your refueling tankers, a very important air force asset that
shouldn't be put in compromising situations. Now you are faced with two more problems, avoiding an attack on your patrols, and avoiding a possible
attack when you are more vulnerable (while refueling).
If you don't make the decision of constant patrols, then you are just opening the door for the repairs to be made, and the chinese are actually very
good in fast-paced engineering problems.
