Best way to destroy a air base?

[LoBlo]

Suggestions?

Is it hitting the runway or the taxi points or the hangers?

[Cik]

airbases are all incredibly different- you will need to post a specific airbase to get useful advice.

the real answer is: it depends entirely on the underlying structures- you will need to identify how the base functions, determine it's weakest point and then strike.

much also depends on what your objective is- do you want to simply render the base inoperable, target enemy munitions, planes? is it a diversionary strike? etc

[CCIP-subsim]

The short answer is: depends on the air base, and on your (or the scenario's) definition of "destroy" [:)]

As far as shutting down operations, the rule of thumb for me is: if there are very few runway access points, hit the runway access points. If you have an airport with, say, 3 or less runway access points - that's the way to shut it down which requires the fewest weapons/sorties, and in my observation the access points actually take longer to repair than runways. So take a look at the ratio between the number of runways/runway-capable taxiways vs. access points, and decide from there. The fewer access points, the better they are as a target.

There's rarely a real lack of parking space at airbases and typically many of them will be reveted or reinforced, meaning you're unlikely to outright destroy them.
However, if your mission involves not just shutting down the airfield but also asks you to take out the aircraft, that might be a different story. It could be key to winning the scenario - but that really depends on your tasks as per briefing/scoring.

As for everything else on the airfield - unless you have a specific task to attack things like buildings, tower, ammo or fuel dumps... don't bother with them. Destroying those will have no effect on the airbase insofar as its ability to launch aircraft (at least in the short-term, and at the moment pretty much all CMANO scenarios are short-term).

[AlphaSierra]

Assuming you have orders to obliterate the base rather than a surgical strike. Some simple rules I like to follow:

If you are conducting a preemptive (surprise) airfield strike good intel is essential.

1. Determine where the planes on the ground are parked (spys, sats, overflights etc)
2. Know the whereabouts of any enemy AEW or CAP (airborne) (can they shoot back)
3. Have a way out or an alternative home base (sometimes you can't go back the way you came)

The last thing you want to happen during your surprise attack is for the enemy to get airborne

1. Hit the Hangars or parked aircraft and radar Hard (use several dif loadouts and aircraft to test the best approach)
2. If you have ordinance remaining hit the access points next
3. If you have an unlimited multiple squadron overkill air force (unlikely) then just bomb the hell out of everything

Timing is critical, slip in when the CAP is at extreme range.

Diversions work well to get a CAP to intercept your decoy.

I was able to kill 75+ grounded aircraft on 7 islands in one strike
20 some subs docked (killed)
15 or so ships docked (killed)
completely eliminate their radar/sam sites
render any rearming or refueling useless

Using 4 surface ships
4 submarines Edit(there is a 5th attack sub available)
and 12 bombers

All under 3 hours

Stealth, Deception, Intel and above all timing

Good Luck

[HalfLifeExpert]

Ideally: Destroy the runways and Taxiways with anti-runway munitions.

But of course that is not always the case, you don't always have those munitions.

Using alot of more conventional ordinance on Runways and taxiways, and access points, are generally good enough to at least slow down operations. Depending on the size of the base, you can target the hangars and anything else that aircraft are stored in, but there may be too many to target effectively.

[LoBlo]

I'm just trying to render is inoperable.

How can I tell if a munition is anti-runway?

[Gunner98]

How can I tell if a munition is anti-runway?

Check the database for the munition, about 2/3 of the way down it tells you the target types - if runways are on the list it is anti-runway.

If your new to the game try out these tutorials: tm.asp?m=4300402

They're still being tested but I think it is #3 that looks at airbases.

B

[Dysta]

Blow up some fuel tanks and ammo caches and enjoy the metal bird barbecue... not that simple, some airfields has underground fuel/ammo pits and quite persistent against non-drilling ordinances.

I remember the game does support to show all aircrafts on air facility as long as not covered in hangar or roof, but I don't know if taxing/landing aircrafts can be locked on with AAM or AGM to destroy them. But I am sure some aircrafts will get damaged and/or destroyed with a bomb run and/or missile strike against taxiway and hangar under use.

[Tailhook]

Few hangars and open parking? Hit all hangars and any occupied parking spots.

Bunch of hangars/revetments/shelters (never quite sure if you can get recon from a weather shelter, I think you should be able to)? Runways/Taxiways. Go overkill if you have to

[AlphaSierra]

Anything less than 500kg will pretty much bounce off a runway
don't forget the runway grade taxiways

basically what i'm saying is unless you have a LOT of bullets don't even bother with runways

[kevinkins]

Runways: Wasn't the British Tornado almost specifically designed for this role and part of Nato's overall plan in case of WW3?

Kevin

[ExNusquam]

ORIGINAL: kevinkin

Runways: Wasn't the British Tornado almost specifically designed for this role and part of Nato's overall plan in case of WW3?

Kevin

Not specifically designed for the Anti-runway role, but it was a mission the Tornado could do. They'd carry the JP-233 sub-munition dispenser (runway cratering and anti-personnel/vehicle mines). This was used to some success in Desert Storm, although the Tornado's took some losses while doing it. They switched to using LGBs from medium altitude as soon as the high-altitude SAM threat was reduced.

[Gunner98]

basically what i'm saying is unless you have a LOT of bullets don't even bother with runways

I'm not sure I agree with this one - you just need a couple of the right type of bombs, Durandals or a couple of 2000lb penetrators do a pretty good job - and that allows you to take the rest of the base apart in peace.

B

[LoBlo]

I see that there's a lot of different techniques here and no one method. [:)]

[Dysta]

ORIGINAL: LoBlo

I see that there's a lot of different techniques here and no one method. [:)]

Like first two replies said, that is really depends. You need to value those targets based on the mission, their size of the Air Force units and your available ammunitions. If you are rich with Tomahawks and JDAMs then it's surely a barbeque party to raze down the airfield until no plane can take off from it. If not, some thoughtful plans must be devised.

[glappkaeft]

ORIGINAL: ExNusquam
Not specifically designed for the Anti-runway role, but it was a mission the Tornado could do. They'd carry the JP-233 sub-munition dispenser (runway cratering and anti-personnel/vehicle mines). This was used to some success in Desert Storm, although the Tornado's took some losses while doing it. They switched to using LGBs from medium altitude as soon as the high-altitude SAM threat was reduced.

The JP-233 related Tornado losses turn out to be a commonly repeated myth based on incorrect news reporting at the time. Only one Tornado was lost carrying the JP-233 and it's believed that the loss was caused by controlled flight into terrain some time after delivering the weapon.

[ExNusquam]

I'd count operational losses due to low-altitude operations as a reason to avoid using the tactic. Ceteris paribus it's safer to deliver weapons from 15,000' than 200'. The other Tornado's lost early in the war were flying low-level deliveries of 1000lb bombs (and at least one of them was likely CFIT as well).

[Gunner98]

it's safer to deliver weapons from 15,000' than 200'

Depends entirely on the SAM threat. Since the end of the Cold War medium to high level has been the chosen method because of the reason you say. But the Tornado and other low level bombers and bombing techniques were designed with a high SAM threat in mind which keeps them low. The risk of low level flying or getting fragged by debris and AAA was a much better bet than surviving a swarm of SAMs.

[Dysta]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

it's safer to deliver weapons from 15,000' than 200'

Depends entirely on the SAM threat. Since the end of the Cold War medium to high level has been the chosen method because of the reason you say. But the Tornado and other low level bombers and bombing techniques were designed with a high SAM threat in mind which keeps them low. The risk of low level flying or getting fragged by debris and AAA was a much better bet than surviving a swarm of SAMs.

This kinda reminded me the WW1-style low altitude bombing, that subsided as counter-dogfight technique -- the bomb has a delayed fuse when it lands the surface, hoping for blasting the chaser when it is detonated.

[ExNusquam]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

it's safer to deliver weapons from 15,000' than 200'

Depends entirely on the SAM threat. Since the end of the Cold War medium to high level has been the chosen method because of the reason you say. But the Tornado and other low level bombers and bombing techniques were designed with a high SAM threat in mind which keeps them low. The risk of low level flying or getting fragged by debris and AAA was a much better bet than surviving a swarm of SAMs.

You dropped out the first part of my statement (ceteris paribus - "with other things being equal"). You're completely correct about balancing the risk from SAMs vs Operational risks from operating at low altitude and SHORAD. My original point is that JP233 was very quickly replaced with medium altitude PGM deliveries as soon as the later was possible.