Would flak towers ever work in the modern day if you replaced

Why would you want all of your AAA clustered in giant, easy to find structures? That's just begging to get hit by guided missiles.

A defused network of AAA platforms which are concealed until they are fired works much better.

>>33932686
Would a large structure easily identifiable as a AAA installation loaded with Surface-Air Missiles work in a world where bombers give a scant fuck about AAA?

Probably not, but it'd be cool as shit until it exploded.

One of the greatest improvements in modern air defense is high mobilty, so no, OP, it's a bad idea to bolt them to the roof of your autistic son's minecraft castle

The only effect the flak towers really had was to give the civilian populace of Berlin a safe place to bunker-up. At the time they were nigh-impervious to even heavy guns. These days we have plenty of ordinance that would fuck them up in short order. Much more efficient to keep that shit mobile.

make 1000's of 3-d models of real SAM emplacements, and plaster them all over the country all the fucking time to confuse your enemy and limit his first strike options
-sun zoo

>>33932774
Or do what they've always done. Cut down trees and paint them white

Would flak towers ever work in the modern day if you replaced the guns with SAMs?

No. Flak towers were impervious to all but a direct hit with the heaviest bombs, and covered in flak guns, so it wasn't feasible to try and actually drop one directly on it.

Now we've got guided bombs and stealthy cruise missiles and shit and could slap that shit from a safe distance.

Or more likely, just ignore it and blow up whatever it's guarding, like they did in WW2

File: 1481599347521.png (1MB, 710x949px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 710x949px

>>33932774
>only his SAMs are 3D models
>his entire military isn't made of 3D models so peace is ensured through perceived deterrence
Sun Tzu never was very good at 4D chess.

>>33932721
>Probably not, but it'd be cool as shit until it exploded.
Yeah, probably this.

>>33932686
Let me ask you this, do you think there is a way to protect the radars you would need to utilize those SAMs with a flak tower?

Fuck the haters. You need hardened defense elements for large urban centers. If it was designed properly it would work fine. This means a flak tower of metres of reinforced concrete with active protection systems to intercept including missiles and bombs with some degree of effectiveness. I don't see how it would be an easy target by any means, when supported by other mobile SAM weaponry.

>>33933089
Unless you have actual radar facilities in the tower it'd be a static missile launch site, which would mean it'd be far more effective and efficient for an enemy to take out the mobile radars. If you have radar on the tower it would get destroyed pretty quickly as APS could only stop so many incoming missiles and bombs. God forbid enemy artillery gets close enough to shell you, they could shower you in dummy rounds to bleed out your APS.

>>33932751
>The only effect the flak towers really had was to give the civilian populace of Berlin a safe place to bunker-up
I'd disagree. The flak towers also acted as extremely capable strongpoints. Fires from those flak towers did add materially to the defense of the areas where those fires could cover. Given that they were not able to be reduced, those are quite useful.

However, I would agree that with nuclear weapons and stealth aircraft, and partially with conventional weapons such as the MOP, a stationary target like this would be less ideal.

>>33933254


is there any advantage mobile systems are going to offer? they will surely have intelligence to find mobile assets in defense of a certain area, such as a large city or industrial zone to defend. And these mobile assets will be far more vulnerable to strike, than a well-known, but resilient, target. I mean, flak towers are cool, but obviously they are just one piece of the puzzle.

>>33933347
>they will surely have intelligence to find mobile assets in defense of a certain area
This is your fatal mistake here. You assume this to be true, but if it is not, your argument falls apart. I would argue that no, it is definitely not guaranteed to have perfect ISR, and the defender is going to do his best to prevent the opponent from getting that ISR, which isn't really feasible even without him doing it.

>>33933347
Mobility is the advantage mobile systems offer. By constantly moving around and hiding they protect themselves from attack and require constant tracking by the enemy. You can't armor a radar system.

The problem with a static target, no matter how resilient, is that the enemy can keep you under constant attack. It doesn't matter how many defensive systems you have in the tower, you're hard-limited by space constraints while your enemy is not. If they're able to, they will throw more firepower than you. Once the bunker busters start hitting you start hurting bad.

File: T-62 with S-125.png (508KB, 776x600px) Image search: [Google]

508KB, 776x600px

>>33933347
>is there any advantage mobile systems are going to offer?

Well first off you won't lose a large area of your air defense network to a single MOP.

Assumptions about an enemy's SIGINT capabilities aren't an excuse to pile everything together. You're literally presenting the Pickett's Charge of the AA world; throw it all into one pot and hope it works. Last time I checked, the USAF has had a much harder time performing SEAD missions on scattered, even independently operating air defense systems than they had with more organized and centralized ones.

Also, you can droop a pretty much any manner of conventional weapon on a bunker and safely assume it will only damage or destroy the bunker. The same can't be said for radar equipment in some farmer's barn.

>>33933347
Static assets are easy to find and work around, especially when it's a radar. With static assets, it's very easy for the enemy to plan attacks against them - blind spots would be easy to find, and, as the enemy knows exactly where the assets will be when they attack, it'd be fairly easy for them to take them out in a surprise attack.

By using mobile assets (correctly), you add an element of uncertainty to the enemy's planning, making surprise attacks much more difficult and forcing intelligence gathering to be performed much closer to the actual mission date. Though it's always going to be possible to find the assets, if the enemy has to fly a recon plane in the area right before any attack, it allows you to prepare your forces for a coming attack.

Also, hardened assets are retarded in modern warfare, especially with air defenses. You cannot reasonably protect a radar from bombs and still make it functional.

>>33932686
with enough boolitz anything is possible.

>>33933089

I'd have sloped the sides and basically made a really large pyramid causing any hits to slide off to the side minimizing damage. Each corner has a single flak gun or SAM on a retractable turret radar is located at the highest part of the pyramid. Active protection systems such as land based CWIS covering all 4 sides with over lapping fields of fire.

>>33932686
CWIS would probably work better

>>33933600
First of all, it's CIWS you mong.

Second, a system like the Phalanx or AK-630 has an effective range of between 2000 and 4000m, less than half of the FlaK 41 at best, and a third of the 128mm Flak 40 guns that most Flak Towers were equipped with. Given that a B-52 has a service ceiling of 15,000m, I would say; No, a CIWS would not work better.

>>33933850

Combine the 2 systems together in a layered defensive system. Flak towers to shoot down cruise missiles and other precision weapons. Enough armor to shrug off all but a direct hit. MOAB is out of the question as it needs to be dropped from a C-130.

>>33933315

Yeah, I worded that poorly. They did add to the defense of Berlin, but their biggest contribution was giving the people a safe place to bunker-up while the Soviets sacked the city.

>>33933897
Unfortunately for you there are several other options when it comes to bunker busters outside the MOAB.

>>33932686
Fortresses were excellent back in the day when it was hard as fuck to bomb a singular target, but these days they're missile fodder.
It's more sensible to defend cities from air attacks with mobile AA, stealth/underground AA, and (my favourite) air superiority. It's more important in the modern day to avoid being hit than to tank hits.

>>33932686
Absolutely not. Mobility is key. Otherwise you're asking to get wrecked by cruise missiles or artillery.

>>33933897
Or, you know, you could not waste your money on building a huge concrete mausoleum for your air defense crews and put them on mobile platforms instead. These aren't tanks we're talking about here; there's no debate between the merits of "I probably will get hit but I can take it" vs "I probably won't get hit and I couldn't take it if I did." We learned before WWII was over that this is a bad idea. You're proposing what amounts to bullet proof vest to face down snipers and miniguns. It's probably better to just not be where the bullets (or bombs) are going in the first place.

>>33932879
Cover it in C-RAMs?

A SAM tower is only going to be worth expending so many million dollar cruise missiles. Even the flak towers weren't meant to be impenetrable, just very expensive.

File: Aircraft_preparation_-_S-300_SAM_mock_up_(3).jpg (3MB, 2250x1430px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2250x1430px

>>33932774
A Russian company makes inflatable S300s, T-80s and other military vehicles for exactly like that.

>>33934393
You don't have to use cruise missiles. It's a giant tower, it's not like it's hard to miss.

>>33934121

Nothing says you can't do both. Mobility is fine and all till you run out of gas. Ask the Germans in the Ardennes Forest the second they ran out of fuel the idea of mobile warfare went out the window. I'm not saying fixed defenses are perfect far from it but a properly constructed building can take just about anything short of a nuclear strike. Sloped sides to deflect any bombs plus an active defense CIWS could hold out for weeks potentially.

File: oVKZ4ku.gif (2MB, 374x213px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 374x213px

>>33932686
large stationary things that go bang bang are going to get totally fucked in the ass dry by flying boomy things in modern warfare.

Rail guns will become the new Flak. Post 4 of those on the tower, use the centralized, extremely fortified structure for its power grid and munitions magazine, and put APS/C-RAMs on it. Any aircraft that comes close enough to drop bombs will be almost assuredly killed by the rail guns, along with any munitions dropped by APS/C-RAMS. Any indirect weapons (mostly artillery here) will receive immediate counter-battery fire from the interlocking system as well also have it's munitions shot down. Cruise missiles will be defeated by the APS/C-RAMs faster than naval fleets can re-arm.

Radar won't need any hard protection because nothing will hit it. Utilize these hard points for protection of military industry and strike back with aircraft, missiles and other assets with the air now clear of threats.

File: 1464032265515.webm (887KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

887KB, 640x640px

Terrible idea
Hardened structures are worthless in this day and age.

Best course of action is to feed the enemy counterintelligence and trick them into bombing a red cross hospital or orphanage or some shit while broadcasting it on live on social media so that their bleeding heart liberal populace starts protesting for the war to end and for the generals who ordered the strike to be fired.

>>33932686
No.
Guided thermobaric bunker busters are a thing. You want your shit spread out.

>>33932709

Guided missiles are shit at destroying buildings as modern urban warfare has shown, let alone fortified ones. You'd been actual artillery or bunker bombs to destroy these forts.

>>33932686

Now, WHY would you want to produce these things which would be a pain in the arse to repair even after doing their jobs when you can just plop down a SAM battery underground for less is beyond me. If you want to build an above-ground fort, you might as well get the most milage out of it and deck it out to take on surface threats.

>>33934938
I hate this post

But you're very right

>>33934931
And then you rapidly realize that railguns are not instant death rays, APS/CRAM are not foolproof, there are more missiles available than cruise missiles, SDBs have a range of 60 miles, jamming, decoys, and soon directed energy EW are available, and you're going to need some way to resupply your essentially heavily armed power plant which will be much easier to stop.

File: 929 4 urban_terrain.jpg (29KB, 420x288px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 420x288px

>>33932686

If you're really hellbent on the idea of fortifications, spread them out among several hundred buildings. A single fort with all the weapons massed together is easy to single out and target. A city where every skyscraper doubles as a guard tower is significantly harder to destroy. This was likewise the design philosophy of the Maginot, Hindenburg, and many similar "line" type bunker complexes.

>>33934738
This is the 21st century, faggot. When you run out of fuel, you lose the air war. Period.

Also, there's a lot saying you can't do both, because one of them is outdated and stupid. Here's the thing; you and OP aren't the first people to think "Gee, look at those Nazi things; they sure were cool. Why don't we try it!" The reason we don't see this isn't because nobody has come up with the idea; it's because it doesn't fucking work. Big, stationary targets are bad. End of story.

>>33934497
time to get one to piss off the neighbors

>>33934497
even bouncy-castles have evolved for modern mobile warfare.

/thread.

File: 0*xgQc_PZOp0t0AbWZ.jpg (106KB, 800x633px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 800x633px

>>33935530

>>33935610
>I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with inflatables.

File: article-1264317-0908F805000005DC-362_634x286.jpg (64KB, 634x286px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 634x286px

>>33935619
>but comrade, doesn't defense budget pay for plane?
>no comrade, we must inflate plane

>>33935188

You act like its some attacker with it's entire arsenal vs just the towers. The towers would be one aspect of a combine arms response to an attack.

>>33935784
The problem is that four railguns aren't going to cut it as either AA or an effective counter-battery measure, much less at the same time. Any competent attacker is simply going to avoid the towers.

>>33935885

We're not building a maginot line here, they're being utilized as hardpoints for key infrastructure and at natural chokepoints (terrain permitting, dependent on location).

Only one tower is not being utilized. There would be interlocking fields of fire with however many is deemed necessary based on a study of adversary arsenal and doctrine, more than likely with some added breathing room. With a navy projected range of 100mi, that's being able to hit shit in Waco, TX from Dallas. Assuming the rounds are the slightest bit smart (think Copperhead or those guided .50cal bullets) the Pk on just about anything is going to be really high.

This would then give ample advantage to any responding assets (infantry, armor, mobile artillery, air, etc.). If attackers route around the hardpoints, then that would channelize the enemy into known avenues and give the advantage to the defender. Once superiority is achieved (and/or during) a counter-offensive can be mobilized.

File: Battle_of_Aleppo.png (406KB, 401x3155px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 401x3155px

>>33935423

>Big, stationary targets are bad. End of story.

Which is why urban warfare is such a walk in the park and cities are indefensible stacks of dominoes waiting to be knocked down by a single bomber, yeah?

>>33935610

Spent way too long figuring out which was fake

>>33935176
It's basically a free casus belli

Static defence structures have no place in modern warfare, the locations of these sites would be reconne'd during peacetime and they would be hit by PGMs right on the start of hostilities, plus what would the advantage be? Modern theater air defence systems are mobile or semi-static and there would be little gain from making a static system.

>>33936658
The big issue conventional forces have in urban operations is knowing which buildings to destroy and how to do it while minimising damage to adjacent buildings, which has nothing to do with big, purpose built military structures which are obvious targets, there's plenty of strike videos where known ISIS controlled buildings get blown to hell by PGMs

>>33936658

Except the hard part about urban warfare is precisely because cities are massive and you often don't know the enemy is there until they start killing you. In a city, the buildings provide concealment to a defender so the attacker cannot simply target them from long range, cover against cluster munitions that might be used to target unseen enemies, and pre-dug underground facilities to; garrison men, store materiel and move to new positions unseen.

You've literally argued the complete opposite to your point

>>33932686

God damn flak towers make me moist

File: 1490754635539.jpg (13KB, 224x216px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 224x216px

>>33936658
>implying the entire city of Aleppo is one, singular target.

You're an idiot, and flak towers are idiotic. The end.

>>33936728
>Static defence structures have no place in modern warfare, the locations of these sites would be reconne'd during peacetime and they would be hit by PGMs right on the start of hostilities, plus what would the advantage be?

BM defense aka aegis ashore. Deep enough inland that it makes it tough to be struck by attack/fighter planes, but with enough range to kill the main thing that would kill it.

>>33936869
You realize that a flak tower, by nature, would be exactly where aircraft are attacking, right? You're comparing two completely different things.

Besides, ABMs are massively more complex and resource-intensive than SAMs.The nature of ABM operations requires a static point to track threats from with large radar and satellite receivers, as well as large and fragile missile systems. If we had the ability to put them on trucks and drive them around, we could.

If for some stupid reason you wanted to put all that above ground you could build some sort of flak tower shit, but that's stupid for a whole bunch of different reasons.

>>33936869
Well, I was a bit too hasty in saying that any point target could be destroyed, but these ABM sites are pretty much exclusive to superpowers with the ability to protect them from, and this protection is rather asset intensive

>>33936913
No, I agree with a flak tower concept nonviability, I take issue with his statements on static defenses in general.

>>33936925
Of course.

>>33932686
hey thats the flaktower in hamburg

>>33932686
Flak towers existed before modern guided missiles. Now they would just target the tower and adios AA defenses.

File: IMG_2773.jpg (21KB, 288x216px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 288x216px

>>33935423
Who needs fuel?

>>33935610
Damn, I kind of want one for my backyard.

>>33934938
ass

>>33937153
I want a war with only solar aircraft and stuff

File: RISE.jpg (942KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

942KB, 1920x1080px

>>33932686
It's the current year, OP: time to go mobile.

>>33935530
Dummy balloons were the shit in Gundam so many many years ago. It's not a new idea.

>>33932709
Because then you can protect your AA missile systems with gun turrets that shoot down incoming missiles.

>>33934393
>A SAM tower is only going to be worth expending so many million dollar cruise missiles.
Implying 63 tomahawks didn't get wasted on an airfield in Syria.

File: tmp_5910-Istiqlal-926393756.jpg (69KB, 982x415px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 982x415px

>>33932686
I think everybody misses the point: you can't win a war against the US so comparing it to the US military is pointless, the real question is: how useful would something like this be against Russia/France?

>>33932709
>Why would you want all of your AAA clustered in giant, easy to find structures?
Because then you know that enemies will always be sending their responses to those giant, easy to find structures.

You then give those structures the best armor and air defenses that money can buy. Laser weapons are going to flip the entire table on static versus mobile defensive setups. Send as many missiles as you like and as many as you can afford, and we'll see what the final Pk actually is.

Hint: 0%.

>>33932709
Diffuse. Not defused.

>>33932686
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UUbMWf-uZI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onDZLKie1Fg

>>33938006
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UUbMWf-uZI

Oh shit

>90% success rate sadist incoming nuclear missiles
> the last 21 tests had a 100% success rate

The US can start a nuclear war and survive unharmed.

>>33938164
>sadist
Meant to say "against".

>>33938164
>The US can start a nuclear war and survive unharmed.
t. kissinger

>>33932686


No. There is a reason all modern armies rely on very mobile SAM vehicles with top notch radar support. Only way to stay alive is to keep the element of surprise.

>>33932903
>Enemy spy infiltrates.
>"Holy shit this guy has no army!"
"The greatest deception is one with a grain of truth."

>>33933897
MOAB!?
Dude you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>33935639
>>33935610
>>33934497
I bet somebody has made a sex toy from one of those...

>>33934938
How? Those buildings would be marked, and if you used for military operations you voided their protection.

>flies above 30000 ft
>?????
>profit

>>33937507
That's because of derp particles.
I've never understood how the fuck Minovesky reactors work.
>Turn it on!
>Reactor fries itself and every computer.
>"But, but shielding!
Good I'll just have M-Particle HARM missles.