How vulnerable are US airbases to missile attack?

[armedupdate]

Title

How vulnerable are US airbases to missile attack? Ballistic and cruise missiles? Can Patriot batteries, AEGIS, and THAAD deployed stop it(and US fighters in the air that are scrabbled)

1. If Russia decided to engage a war lets say a dispute in Europe, I doubt it will go full MAD, can cruise missile and Iskanders strikes destroy US airpower to the point of impotence? Lets say Iskanders hitting airbases in Europe followed by naval cruise missiles on CONUS bases.
2. How about the same for China in the Pacific?

US fighters on alert can probably take off quickly and land and rebase in civilian airfields and road strips. Getting weapons, maintenece, refuel, I see is the hard part I think. Are supply depots protected by anything hardened(like weapons storage)
What about if those missiles are tipped with nukes? Because Russia and US have planned "limited nuclear engagement" probably the idea of not attacking civilians, where ICBMs will not be aimed at cities. Still I could still imagine bases being targeted by even ICBMs and SLBMs so they have little chance of being shot down. Of course if it went nuclear Russian airbases could be targeted as well. However the end result may be a ground war, one with no airpower, in lets say the Baltics, where Russia may do better.

[arian]

1) As discussed in the previous thread on nukes, there's not enough deployed nukes to go around for both taking out an enemy's nukes and his conventional forces. Nowhere near enough. So in any scenario where a nuke is dropped, the survivability of your airfield is probably the least of your worries.

2) It is unlikely that there are any nuclear warheads for weapons such as Iskander. I know, I know...every internet doomsayer says they are "nuclear capable" bla bla bla. But that doesn't mean that any nuclear warheads for it exist, and certainly none are deployed. Anything can be "nuclear capable", but the issue is whether or not there are warheads developed for it, and if they are still functional. Russian warheads don't have a particularly long lifespan. In fact, they have very short lifespans, so unless they have been secretly building new tactical warheads over the past few decades, its unlikely those in storage are very functional or reliable. And as a above, once nukes start falling, nukes start falling on Russia too. So not a good idea.

3) How many such launchers is Russia going to deploy in Kaliningrad? Very few, and certainly not enough to even take on 1 airfield. They are more likley to be used against things like AD sites and ground-based radars. Not enough of them to go around to carry out massed attacks on airfields. Missiles based elsewhere in Russia aren't a threat because they don't have the range to be threatening.

4) So given the few missiles deployed within range of NATO or potential US sites, how many PAC-3 batteries or SM-6 equipped ships will it take to defend against them? Probably not a lot.

[PhillyGuy]

The problem is proximity. Russia borders NATO's eastern flank. On this eastern flank are the countries that Russia wants to influence, occupy, or annex. Thus Russia as the aggressor enjoys several major advantages for war. Initiative, proximity, scale and size as well as a very centralized and quick decision making structure.

In any future conflict, the aim if the Russians will not be to march to Berlin or Paris. NATO and US aim will not be to occupy Russia. Thus the warring terrain and objective are areas such as the Baltic, Poland, Ukraine, Georgia etc... NATO forces in these countries are limited in several ways. Size, command structure, alertness, and basing. It would only take a few long range Russian strikes to quickly diminish our skeleton force structure in Eastern Europe.

Look at Crimea, it was taken overnight. Thousands of Russian forces crossed a non land border within a few days before anyone in the West or NATO could even so much as mobilize a statement, much less an army. And the nuclear scenario is real, especially for our European allies, who do not have their own nuclear weapons but rely on NATO (ie. the US).

The best thing we can do is give these countries their own nukes that way in any case of Russian aggression, they can nuke the hell out of Moscow and we can stay out of it. When we are involved, Russia knows that we will not trade US cities, for small capitals on Russia's doorstep. But if we remove ourselves and allow the Polish or Lithuanians nuclear capability, suddenly, Vilnius for St. Petersburg is not such an attractive trade.

[arian]

The problem is proximity. Russia borders NATO's eastern flank. On this eastern flank are the countries that Russia wants to influence, occupy, or annex. Thus Russia as the aggressor enjoys several major advantages for war. Initiative, proximity, scale and size as well as a very centralized and quick decision making structure.

In any future conflict, the aim if the Russians will not be to march to Berlin or Paris. NATO and US aim will not be to occupy Russia. Thus the warring terrain and objective are areas such as the Baltic, Poland, Ukraine, Georgia etc... NATO forces in these countries are limited in several ways. Size, command structure, alertness, and basing. It would only take a few long range Russian strikes to quickly diminish our skeleton force structure in Eastern Europe.

Look at Crimea, it was taken overnight. Thousands of Russian forces crossed a non land border within a few days before anyone in the West or NATO could even so much as mobilize a statement, much less an army. And the nuclear scenario is real, especially for our European allies, who do not have their own nuclear weapons but rely on NATO (ie. the US).

The best thing we can do is give these countries their own nukes that way in any case of Russian aggression, they can nuke the hell out of Moscow and we can stay out of it. When we are involved, Russia knows that we will not trade US cities, for small capitals on Russia's doorstep. But if we remove ourselves and allow the Polish or Lithuanians nuclear capability, suddenly, Vilnius for St. Petersburg is not such an attractive trade.

We don't really care about Ukraine, Georgia etc. We've obviously made that clear.

Thousands of Russians troops didn't occupy Crimea overnight or cross into Crimea overnight. They were already stationed there for years, and taking the ferry for the few miles connecting Crimea to mainland Russia in a couple of buses is hardly a master-stroke of strategic mobility.

The Baltics are a problem, yes, but hardly relevant to this thread of tactical ballistic missiles and airfields. We're not going to be relying on the 8 planes stationed in the Baltics, and certainly the Russian military can roll through an undefended country before we could get there (not so for Poland. Poland is hardly defenseless).

Now, if Russia promised that they would invade Berlin and liberate Germany from The Merkel, maybe we would re-consider letting them do it.

[vilters]

With the current relationships?

Trumpy might even say : You can have Mergel and France too.

But Putin has a problem; There is less Wodca in Germany, but France has good wine.

So he"ll have to take Germany in the morning to get a good wine in the afternoon;

Missiles? Putin does not need missiles, hes has enough Guns on Boots.

And by the time the "Europe Monster Institutions" finally starts thinking about discussing it in a gazillion workgroups?
it will all be over.

[arian]

With the current relationships?

Trumpy might even say : You can have Mergel and France too.

Russia is already involved in a war in the Middle East, so I'm not sure it wants to be involved in two more Middle Eastern countries like Germany and France. But otherwise, if they want them, they can have them.

[wil59]

The problem is proximity. Russia borders NATO's eastern flank. On this eastern flank are the countries that Russia wants to influence, occupy, or annex. Thus Russia as the aggressor enjoys several major advantages for war. Initiative, proximity, scale and size as well as a very centralized and quick decision making structure.

In any future conflict, the aim if the Russians will not be to march to Berlin or Paris. NATO and US aim will not be to occupy Russia. Thus the warring terrain and objective are areas such as the Baltic, Poland, Ukraine, Georgia etc... NATO forces in these countries are limited in several ways. Size, command structure, alertness, and basing. It would only take a few long range Russian strikes to quickly diminish our skeleton force structure in Eastern Europe.

Look at Crimea, it was taken overnight. Thousands of Russian forces crossed a non land border within a few days before anyone in the West or NATO could even so much as mobilize a statement, much less an army. And the nuclear scenario is real, especially for our European allies, who do not have their own nuclear weapons but rely on NATO (ie. the US).

The best thing we can do is give these countries their own nukes that way in any case of Russian aggression, they can nuke the hell out of Moscow and we can stay out of it. When we are involved, Russia knows that we will not trade US cities, for small capitals on Russia's doorstep. But if we remove ourselves and allow the Polish or Lithuanians nuclear capability, suddenly, Vilnius for St. Petersburg is not such an attractive trade.

what! France and england posses nuclear weapon! 380/320 head, on submarine launcher gear and airplane with nuclear missile for France, well enough to destroy the russia no need of 2000 head https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M51_(missile)

[arian]

Putting some perspective on the topic of tactical ballistic missiles:

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/poli ... weaknesses

According to Israeli military sources cited by Israeli analysts, several of a barrage of seven Iranian missiles (as compared to the six noted in other sources) actually landed in the Iraqi desert, with three other missiles missing their targets entirely and only one or two coming close. If these claims are accurate, they may indicate serious reliability problems with the Iranian missiles, which could only be exacerbated in future employment of Iran's longer-range and more complex missiles. All told, the latest Iranian strike should do little to enhance Iran's deterrence vis-à-vis its regional foes, which are being equipped with sophisticated antimissile systems. Even so, the ability of one or two missiles to hit within 50-150 meters of their targets, after having flown 600 kilometers, can be considered an achievement of sorts.

Iran launched between 6 and 7 SRBM/MRBM into Syria. Of these, only 2 appear to have actually gotten anywhere near the targets. Iran tried to BS their way by showing videos of the same missile from different angles and times, pretending it was 4 different hits.

The missiles are, supposedly, GPS and "electro-optically" guided, although the optical guidance appears only in one version of the missile.



But the failure of 4-5 of the missiles, plus the fact that even though they are claimed to have "10m CEP", but in fact landed 50 to 150m away from their targets, may put some perspective into how capable and realistic ballistic missiles from third world countries are as a threat.

Ballistic missiles are still, in my opinion, a poor-mans alternative to air power. Not a substitute.

[PhillyGuy]

what! France and england posses nuclear weapon! 380/320 head, on submarine launcher gear and airplane with nuclear missile for France, well enough to destroy the russia no need of 2000 head https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M51_(missile)

Ok what are you trying to say here? I specifically noted that Russia's aim is not the occupy central Europe, much less the UK. And the Russians have nuclear weapons as well, again, not sure how this changes anything. It's been this way for 60+ years and yet the threat of conflict is legitimate regardless. Nuclear weapons do not eliminate the threat of war in this scenario. Especially since we saw a territory of Europe annexed conventionally via armed military force.

Putting some perspective on the topic of tactical ballistic missiles:

Yeah that's why it's important to make sure Iran never develops nuclear weapons/warheads, or chemical/biological ones for that matter too. That's the only way they can really threaten the region/world besides funding proxies, selling arms and sponsoring terror.