"Naval Fortresses: An Old Concept for a New Era?" Topic

"Naval fortresses were once a major feature of naval warfare. That era passed with the start of the Cold War, when coastal installations were eclipsed by a combination of nuclear weapons and U.S. naval hegemony.

Historically naval fortresses played a critical role in several wars, such as the Port Arthur fortress in the Japan-Russia War and the Singapore Fortress in the Malayan Campaign of the Second World War. With the development of nuclear weapons for tactical applications during the Cold War, fortresses became obsolete because of their vulnerability to nuclear warheads. The mature anti-ship missiles of the 1960s presented a reasonable alternative to coastal defense as mobile deployment increased survivability. Additionally, U.S. naval hegemony and power projection through a global military presence have slashed the strategic value of fortresses, especially in the face of new U.S. technology, such as the GBU-28 Bunker-Buster…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

I would expect naval fortresses to have a place in the future. Part of my reasoning is the same as the old infantry argument. A tank (ship/submarine) can take land, but only infantry (fortress) can hold it.

A fortress dominates an area. If the fortress has it's own air support,that power can cover a large area. It can carry more and heavier equipment and supplies. It can take more 'punishment.'

Better surveillance from space etc means that the advantages of mobile systems such as ships and subs will be reduced as they can be tracked easier than in the past.

One thing that would need to be watched – fixed fortresses are often seen as defensive. Fine, but that way you tend to lose out. The best use of fortresses is to dominate an area – and that means it needs to be offensive in nature.

I agree with Garrison.

Including current events….Israel has proven out the "Iron Dome" technology. This is a joint U.S. technology so I wonder if the Bunker-Buster can defeat it or not. In any case if you can defeat the vast majority of the air based attacks, why not have a bunker at key locations.

We have naval fortresses today!

They're just mobile and called 'Carrier Groups'.

Agree with Garrison too!.

Amicalement
Armand

'They're just mobile and called 'Carrier Groups'.'

They can also be sunk and have a limited capacity to carry supplies.

A land based fortress is not sinkable and you can offload as many supplies and munitions as you like.

I suspect mobile launchers will probably carry the day, instead of fixed fortresses, for all the usual reasons, provided they can be married with a decent OTH (Over The Horizon) radar, or a satellite tracking and fire control system.

How come the previous fortresses listed are famous for falling into enemy hands? "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man." G. Patton.

The problem is that long-range missiles make shore-based naval forts just about worthless. Fixed fortifications have a limited ability to see beyond the horizon, while ships can have their long-range search antennas 150+ feet above sea level.

Shore-based defenses need seriously exotic over-the-horizon radars to deal with the horizon problem, and OTH-backscatter or the fancier Relocatable Over the Horizon-Backscatter (ROTH-B) radars actually have a ~250mile 'myopic zone' where they can't see anything. An OTH-B radar covering the Gulf of Mexico needs to be based in Arkansas, for example. Some nations don't have that much space, and now you need to guard the radar installation, too.

As far as carrier groups not carrying much in terms of supplies goes, well, that's what supply ships like the AORs are for. Fast enough to actually keep up with a nuclear-powered carrier, and then they carry months plural of supplies like fuel and spare parts. Since the US has a couple of AORs for every carrier, the AORs can trade out in the middle of a deployment, head to the nearest US/NATO base, reload themselves, and then head back out to the carrier group. And this doesn't count the Maritime Pre-Positioning Ships that basically float around in the middle of nowhere waiting for carrier groups to call and say 'hey, I need a pair of F18 engines' or 'hey, I need more titanium fuel/hydraulic tubing.'

One photo and the enemy can pretty much target all the valuable bits to be blasted into the great beyond by long range missiles, aircraft, and guns. Fixed fortifications are a monument to stupid.