Cage armour for hardened hangars?

[Moon]

I have a question, in an era of smart munitions capable of striking hangars with precision unheard of even a decade ago, why can't a cage/slat armour be developed for hangars that prematurely detonates the warhead of the bomb?
Now before someone says it's a daft idea, hear me out:
A hangar unlike a tank isn't limited by weight, mobility or stealth. A cage armour with multiple layers of cages spanning a metre or two higher can prematurely detonate any anti airfield munition out there and negate the penetrative ability of its warhead or even the tandem warhead. And can significantly reduce the damage on the main hangar structure, allowing for increased survivability in case of an attack by any stand off munitions/smart bombs.

Essentially this, but on top of a hangar, and multilayered, as in a layer of cage every foot or so.

It may sound bogus, but I think it could work really well.

Would really like to hear your opinion on this.

 

[aziqbal]

Simple

The cage can stop a light 50kg anti tank round

a cage cannot stop a 4,000lb bunker buster whose fuse goes off at much harder impact

 

[Trango Towers]

Simple

The cage can stop a light 50kg anti tank round

a cage cannot stop a 4,000lb bunker buster whose fuse goes off at much harder impact

50 kg anti tank round??

 

[CriticalThought]

Simple

The cage can stop a light 50kg anti tank round

a cage cannot stop a 4,000lb bunker buster whose fuse goes off at much harder impact

That just means you need a thicker cage.

 

[Moon]

Simple

The cage can stop a light 50kg anti tank round

a cage cannot stop a 4,000lb bunker buster whose fuse goes off at much harder impact

Not even if the cage is several meters high? And is multilayered? As in multiple cages, one below another essentially making 6-7 layers of cage armour, with wider bars (more surface) and crisscrossing one another? Won't that trigger a premature detonation? What if the uppermost layer is of concrete?
It doesn't have to stop the bunker buster, it just has to trigger the fuse (or disable it) away from the main shelter.

 

[TsAr]

what's up with the latest fascination of cages on PDF?

 

[Sayfullah]

Use that money to build underground hangers instead or hangers inside mountains

 

[denel]

I have a question, in an era of smart munitions capable of striking hangars with precision unheard of even a decade ago, why can't a cage/slat armour be developed for hangars that prematurely detonates the warhead of the bomb?
Now before someone says it's a daft idea, hear me out:
A hangar unlike a tank isn't limited by weight, mobility or stealth. A cage armour with multiple layers of cages spanning a metre or two higher can prematurely detonate any anti airfield munition out there and negate the penetrative ability of its warhead or even the tandem warhead. And can significantly reduce the damage on the main hangar structure, allowing for increased survivability in case of an attack by any stand off munitions/smart bombs.

Essentially this, but on top of a hangar, and multilayered, as in a layer of cage every foot or so.

It may sound bogus, but I think it could work really well.

Would really like to hear your opinion on this.

This is a good post young man.

If you have a look at a hangar - I assume you are implying a hardened bunker where an aircraft is kept?

If yes, then no, as @aziqbal notes there are specialised munition that are far powerful; this will have no effect. If you have access to civil engineering books; you can look at how concrete bunkers are constructured; especially the cylinder shape remains the most strongest and defects outwards; ps - i am not a civil engineer and will request our colleagues who are knowledgable in this area to contribute to this thread.

 

[Beny Karachun]

It can actually work,provided the cage is thick enough to detonate the bomb prematurely.
However, aircraft hangars are more against unguided rockets, artillery and gun runs. There are loitering munitions that could easily enter the garage and destroy the jet etc. Also dropping a bomb near the hangar's opening would likely destroy any aircraft inside

 

[JawadKKhan]

I have a question, in an era of smart munitions capable of striking hangars with precision unheard of even a decade ago, why can't a cage/slat armour be developed for hangars that prematurely detonates the warhead of the bomb?
Now before someone says it's a daft idea, hear me out:
A hangar unlike a tank isn't limited by weight, mobility or stealth. A cage armour with multiple layers of cages spanning a metre or two higher can prematurely detonate any anti airfield munition out there and negate the penetrative ability of its warhead or even the tandem warhead. And can significantly reduce the damage on the main hangar structure, allowing for increased survivability in case of an attack by any stand off munitions/smart bombs.

Essentially this, but on top of a hangar, and multilayered, as in a layer of cage every foot or so.

It may sound bogus, but I think it could work really well.

Would really like to hear your opinion on this.

A 2000 pounds bomb will just pass through many layers. and even if it stops the first bomb, second bomb will pass through. So, that's why maybe more effective means is potent air-defense system.

However, PAF's entire combat fleet is mostly stationed in about 12 air-bases. Perhaps increasing the number of air-bases / distributing the air-assets can be more beneficial. So, there shouldn't be heavy loss if a base comes under attack with SSMs / supersonic land attack cruise missiles.

 

[Moon]

Yep realising the flaws in the idea, I guess best thing against SOWs would be jamming the GPS signals, along with CRAM/CIWS on the base. Though I don't know how they'll likely perform with friendly aircrafts operating in the same theatre.
Of course dispersed bases are also a strategy.

 

[Pak Nationalist]

Not even if the cage is several meters high? And is multilayered? As in multiple cages, one below another essentially making 6-7 layers of cage armour, with wider bars (more surface) and crisscrossing one another? Won't that trigger a premature detonation? What if the uppermost layer is of concrete?
It doesn't have to stop the bunker buster, it just has to trigger the fuse (or disable it) away from the main shelter.

Energy should be channeled if the cages are in physical contact with each other. A solid medium would still be there for the transference of kinetic energy/momentum.

 

[Moon]

Energy should be channeled if the cages are in physical contact with each other. A solid medium would still be there for the transference of kinetic energy/momentum.

Yeah, but again a user pointed out that a bomb going off in front of the opening would do the same damage.
Completely left my mind that was a possibility.

 

[Invicta]

This is a good post young man.

If you have a look at a hangar - I assume you are implying a hardened bunker where an aircraft is kept?

If yes, then no, as @aziqbal notes there are specialised munition that are far powerful; this will have no effect. If you have access to civil engineering books; you can look at how concrete bunkers are constructured; especially the cylinder shape remains the most strongest and defects outwards; ps - i am not a civil engineer and will request our colleagues who are knowledgable in this area to contribute to this thread.

Correct, most of us when we think of explosions or bombs going off visualize the Hollywood version of a big fireball, actual explosions are very different to the big fireballs. Its all about the pressure wave generated by the explosion, this wave does the most damage.

A bunker buster is designed to use its kinetic energy to penetrate the outer shell of a bunker or building, using a fuse specially designed to withstand the high impact and go-off on a delay, the damage is then done by the shock wave generated by the explosion.

This theory has merit if the cage can catch the bomb, i.e. like a net under a trapeze - only in this case inverted, this denies any penetration by the bomb and provided the existing bunkers are very good at handing shock waves it might work. So the Myth Buster inside me says "Its Plausible".

Yeah, but again a user pointed out that a bomb going off in front of the opening would do the same damage.
Completely left my mind that was a possibility.

You can have blast doors protecting the opening of the Hangar.

 

[Moon]

Correct, most of us when we think of explosions or bombs going off visualize the Hollywood version of a big fireball, actual explosions are very different to the big fireballs. Its all about the pressure wave generated by the explosion, this wave does the most damage.

A bunker buster is designed to use its kinetic energy to penetrate the outer shell of a bunker or building, using a fuse specially designed to withstand the high impact and go-off on a delay, the damage is then done by the shock wave generated by the explosion.

This theory has merit if the cage can catch the bomb, i.e. like a net under a trapeze - only in this case inverted, this denies any penetration by the bomb and provided the existing bunkers are very good at handing shock waves it might work. So the Myth Buster inside me says "Its Plausible".

You can have blast doors protecting the opening of the Hangar.

That's what I initially thought, that maybe the bomb can be detonated a metre or two above the hardened hangar, that way a lot of its penetrating ability would've been wasted, essentially sparing the hangar. Because ultimately a hangar can stop the waves, but not the penetrating warhead used in such bombs.

As for hangars with doors, I've seen those coldwar style hangars, with concrete doors, they can be pretty useful I guess. Plus the cost of installing such a mechanism is cheaper than the plane inside, and that's all that matters tbh...