biggest military airport in the world

[David Anderson]

Does anyone know which military airport has the most runways and which
one has the longest runway? The Rogers Lakebed portion of Edwards Air
Force Base in Southern California has at least 15 (paved and unpaved)
runways, one of which has a paved length of more than 15,000 feet
(~4,500 metres) with an unpaved overrun of almost 10,000 feet (i.e.,
an additional 3,000 metres). Another (unpaved) "runway", number
17-35, is more than 7 miles long (~39,000 feet or ~11,700 metres in
length). Does anyone know of a military (or civilian) airport with
more runways or a longer runway? I believe the longest paved runway
in North America is Runway 16R-34L at Denver International Airport at
16,000 feet long (~4,800 metres); the airport with the longest paved
runway in the world is Banda Airport in eastern Tibet at 18,045 feet
in length (~4,400 metres); this one is also said to be the highest
airport in the world at a field elevation of 15,548 feet (~4,650
metres) above sea level.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
(David Anderson) wrote:

> Does anyone know which military airport has the most runways and which
> one has the longest runway? The Rogers Lakebed portion of Edwards Air
> Force Base in Southern California has at least 15 (paved and unpaved)
> runways, one of which has a paved length of more than 15,000 feet
> (~4,500 metres) with an unpaved overrun of almost 10,000 feet (i.e.,
> an additional 3,000 metres). Another (unpaved) "runway", number
> 17-35, is more than 7 miles long (~39,000 feet or ~11,700 metres in
> length). Does anyone know of a military (or civilian) airport with
> more runways or a longer runway? I believe the longest paved runway
> in North America is Runway 16R-34L at Denver International Airport at
> 16,000 feet long (~4,800 metres); the airport with the longest paved
> runway in the world is Banda Airport in eastern Tibet at 18,045 feet
> in length (~4,400 metres); this one is also said to be the highest
> airport in the world at a field elevation of 15,548 feet (~4,650
> metres) above sea level.


A few years ago, I was invited to the Edwards AFB Open House and landed
to the west. I was able to make the first taxiway; otherwise, I would
have had to taxi a mile to the first turnoff.

[Cub Driver]

I once calculated that a man standing at one end of Rogers Dry Lake
couldn't see a man at the other end, because of the curvature of the
earth.

Of course, with that hot weather, you *need* a bit of extra length....


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Ken Duffey]

David Anderson wrote:

> Does anyone know which military airport has the most runways and which
> one has the longest runway? The Rogers Lakebed portion of Edwards Air
> Force Base in Southern California has at least 15 (paved and unpaved)
> runways, one of which has a paved length of more than 15,000 feet
> (~4,500 metres) with an unpaved overrun of almost 10,000 feet (i.e.,
> an additional 3,000 metres). Another (unpaved) "runway", number
> 17-35, is more than 7 miles long (~39,000 feet or ~11,700 metres in
> length). Does anyone know of a military (or civilian) airport with
> more runways or a longer runway? I believe the longest paved runway
> in North America is Runway 16R-34L at Denver International Airport at
> 16,000 feet long (~4,800 metres); the airport with the longest paved
> runway in the world is Banda Airport in eastern Tibet at 18,045 feet
> in length (~4,400 metres); this one is also said to be the highest
> airport in the world at a field elevation of 15,548 feet (~4,650
> metres) above sea level.

The main runway (VPP-4) at Ramenskoye - now called Zhukovski - near
Moscow, is 5403 m (17,726 ft) in length.

Width is 84m (276 ft). Depth is 85cm (33.5 in) - another runway - VPP-1 -
is 180cm (5ft 11in) thick!!!

According to Volume 7 of International Air Power Review - page 87 - VPP-4
is the world's longest concrete runway.

The whole complex at Zhukovsky covers 2.5 million sq m - (618 acres).

What does 'paved' mean in your reference to Banda airport ?? - also if
5403 metres translates to 17,726ft - how come your 4650 metres converts to
18,045 ft ?? Typo ??

I'm just asking - I haven't done the math................

I suppose we also ought to define 'paved' - as opposed to 'concrete' ??

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++

[James Hart]

Ken Duffey wrote:
> David Anderson wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know which military airport has the most runways and
>> which one has the longest runway? The Rogers Lakebed portion of
>> Edwards Air Force Base in Southern California has at least 15 (paved
>> and unpaved) runways, one of which has a paved length of more than
>> 15,000 feet (~4,500 metres) with an unpaved overrun of almost 10,000
>> feet (i.e., an additional 3,000 metres). Another (unpaved)
>> "runway", number 17-35, is more than 7 miles long (~39,000 feet or
>> ~11,700 metres in length). Does anyone know of a military (or
>> civilian) airport with more runways or a longer runway? I believe
>> the longest paved runway in North America is Runway 16R-34L at
>> Denver International Airport at 16,000 feet long (~4,800 metres);
>> the airport with the longest paved runway in the world is Banda
>> Airport in eastern Tibet at 18,045 feet in length (~4,400 metres);
>> this one is also said to be the highest airport in the world at a
>> field elevation of 15,548 feet (~4,650 metres) above sea level.
>
> The main runway (VPP-4) at Ramenskoye - now called Zhukovski - near
> Moscow, is 5403 m (17,726 ft) in length.

Who designs things like this? I can understand them building one 5000m long,
maybe add 400m more for luck but why stick that last 3m on there?

--
James...
www.jameshart.co.uk

[Tex Houston]

"James Hart" > wrote in message
...
> Who designs things like this? I can understand them building one 5000m
long,
> maybe add 400m more for luck but why stick that last 3m on there?
>
> --
> James...


3m...isn't that suspiciously close to ten feet?

Tex

[James Hart]

Tex Houston wrote:
> "James Hart" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Who designs things like this? I can understand them building one
>> 5000m long, maybe add 400m more for luck but why stick that last 3m
>> on there?
>>
>> --
>> James...
>
>
> 3m...isn't that suspiciously close to ten feet?

If we're going off the imperial measurements then it's 17,726. Who put the
extra 26 foot on.

--
James...
www.jameshart.co.uk

[Cub Driver]

>Who designs things like this? I can understand them building one 5000m long,
>maybe add 400m more for luck but why stick that last 3m on there?

A lot of American airports are multiples of 1000 feet, plus one foot.
It is believed that it has to do with insurance.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"James Hart" > wrote in message
...
>
> Who designs things like this? I can understand them building one 5000m
long,
> maybe add 400m more for luck but why stick that last 3m on there?
>

Perhaps it was measured on a warm day.

[Pete]

"Ken Duffey" > wrote

>
> The main runway (VPP-4) at Ramenskoye - now called Zhukovski - near
> Moscow, is 5403 m (17,726 ft) in length.
>
> Width is 84m (276 ft). Depth is 85cm (33.5 in) - another runway - VPP-1 -
> is 180cm (5ft 11in) thick!!!

Is that the design thickness, or the actual, finished construction
thickness...:)

Pete

[EB Jet]

How long is the runway at Groom Lake?

[Ken Duffey]

Pete wrote:

> "Ken Duffey" > wrote
>
> >
> > The main runway (VPP-4) at Ramenskoye - now called Zhukovski - near
> > Moscow, is 5403 m (17,726 ft) in length.
> >
> > Width is 84m (276 ft). Depth is 85cm (33.5 in) - another runway - VPP-1 -
> > is 180cm (5ft 11in) thick!!!
>
> Is that the design thickness, or the actual, finished construction
> thickness...:)
>
> Pete

Again, according to IAPR Vol 7..........

"In 1949 the thickness of concrete cover of some segments of the VPP-1 achieved
30-32 cm (11.8 - 12.6in)................

In 1986-1990 VPP-1 was rebuilt, changing its lateral section from concave to
convex. After years of reconstruction and modernisation, Zhukovskiy's runways
now boast an astonishing structure. For instance, 10 layers of concrete have
been laid on VPP-1 and in its central parts it is 180cm (5ft 11in) thick.

Today, two runways are used at Ramenskoye, VPP-1 and VPP-4. There are no weight
limitations and they can easily accomodate any aircraft in the worls - including
a space shuttle."

there is lots more - in fact a whole article with photos - and a great satellite
photos of the whole complex.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++

[Air Force Jayhawk]

Not military (anymore), but Salina Kansas airport is 13337 ft long.
Used to be Schilling AFB, rumor has it the runway was extended to
support B-70 ops until the program was canceled and the base was
closed and turned over to the city.

Ross "Roscoe" Dillon
USAF Flight Tester
(B-2, F-16, F-15, F-5, T-37, T-38, C-5, QF-106)


On 4 Jan 2004 17:00:16 -0800, (David
Anderson) wrote:

>Does anyone know which military airport has the most runways and which
>one has the longest runway? The Rogers Lakebed portion of Edwards Air
>Force Base in Southern California has at least 15 (paved and unpaved)
>runways, one of which has a paved length of more than 15,000 feet
>(~4,500 metres) with an unpaved overrun of almost 10,000 feet (i.e.,
>an additional 3,000 metres). Another (unpaved) "runway", number
>17-35, is more than 7 miles long (~39,000 feet or ~11,700 metres in
>length). Does anyone know of a military (or civilian) airport with
>more runways or a longer runway? I believe the longest paved runway
>in North America is Runway 16R-34L at Denver International Airport at
>16,000 feet long (~4,800 metres); the airport with the longest paved
>runway in the world is Banda Airport in eastern Tibet at 18,045 feet
>in length (~4,400 metres); this one is also said to be the highest
>airport in the world at a field elevation of 15,548 feet (~4,650
>metres) above sea level.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Air Force Jayhawk" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not military (anymore), but Salina Kansas airport is 13337 ft long.
> Used to be Schilling AFB, rumor has it the runway was extended to
> support B-70 ops until the program was canceled and the base was
> closed and turned over to the city.
>

I think you'll find the runway was lengthened to better accommodate the B-52
and KC-135 that were scheduled to replace the B-47 and KC-97 at Schilling.

[Ron]

>Not military (anymore), but Salina Kansas airport is 13337 ft long.
>Used to be Schilling AFB, rumor has it the runway was extended to
>support B-70 ops until the program was canceled and the base was
>closed and turned over to the city.
>
>Ross "Roscoe" Dillon
>USAF Flight Tester
>(B-2, F-16, F-15, F-5, T-37, T-38, C-5, QF-106)
>

Many old SAC B-52 runways are 13,000ish by 300' wide. Thats a lot of concrete.

I have landed at Salina Kansas before, Flowers Aviation has some rather
attractive females working there.

I remember seeing a Connie there at the airport, couldnt tell if it was
airworthy or not, also saw a Luftwaffe Tornado.


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[Cub Driver]

>Many old SAC B-52 runways are 13,000ish by 300' wide. Thats a lot of concrete.

The former Pease AFB is a couple miles across Great Bay from my house.
When SAC left many years ago, it became home to the NH Air Guard, but
remained an Air Force Base. One summer they moved all the KC-135s to
New York state and resurfaced the runway. What bliss for three months!

Of course you know what happened next: Pease was closed down. All that
concrete was sold to a "tradeport" authority for a dollar.

The KC-135s are still there, however, and still noisy in the summer.
So I guess the guvmint got something out of its investment.

(And the air traffic controller still says: "Check landing gear down
and locked.")

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[vincent p. norris]

>(And the air traffic controller still says: "Check landing gear down
>and locked.")

You mean he says it to you? (Or are you NORDO?)

vince

[Peter Stickney]

In article . net>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:
>
> "Air Force Jayhawk" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Not military (anymore), but Salina Kansas airport is 13337 ft long.
>> Used to be Schilling AFB, rumor has it the runway was extended to
>> support B-70 ops until the program was canceled and the base was
>> closed and turned over to the city.
>>
>
> I think you'll find the runway was lengthened to better accommodate the B-52
> and KC-135 that were scheduled to replace the B-47 and KC-97 at Schilling.

Actually, that doesn't hold up, at least in the B-52/B-47 matchup.
B-47s were horrendously underpowered. A heaviweight B-47, on a
standard day, without JATO, would be using something on the order of
11,000' of runway. The equivalent B-52C/D (The worst for takeoff),
would be off the ground in 8,000'.

Hmm. At one point, for about 10 years, there were 90 B-47s at
Pease. with about 12,000' or runway. It's rather amazing that Great
Bay didn't get filled up with B-47s running off the runway during
rejected takeoffs.

Data from the Standard Aircraft Characteristics, B-47E-IV, and
B-52C/D.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
>
> Actually, that doesn't hold up, at least in the B-52/B-47 matchup.
> B-47s were horrendously underpowered. A heaviweight B-47, on a
> standard day, without JATO, would be using something on the order of
> 11,000' of runway. The equivalent B-52C/D (The worst for takeoff),
> would be off the ground in 8,000'.
>
> Hmm. At one point, for about 10 years, there were 90 B-47s at
> Pease. with about 12,000' or runway. It's rather amazing that Great
> Bay didn't get filled up with B-47s running off the runway during
> rejected takeoffs.
>
> Data from the Standard Aircraft Characteristics, B-47E-IV, and
> B-52C/D.
>

Nevertheless, the runway was lengthened in 1959-60, between B-47/KC-97 and
B-52/KC-135 operations at Schilling, and long before the B-70 would have
been operational.

[Tex Houston]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
>
> Nevertheless, the runway was lengthened in 1959-60, between B-47/KC-97 and
> B-52/KC-135 operations at Schilling, and long before the B-70 would have
> been operational.

Even though the preparations were made for B-52 operations there it did not
happen. See:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/facility/schilling.htm

From which the following paragraph is quoted.

On 19 November 1964, the Department of Defense announced that Schilling
along with 574 other bases around the world would be closed. At this time
the base was home to approximately 5,090 men. Within the next six months,
all planes and men were relocated, including the Atlas F ICBM Squadron, and
the base was closed on 30 June 1965.

End quote.

I was TDY to Schilling AFB in January 1965, visited the Command Post several
times and watched an exercise, and I assure you the bombers in the unit were
still B-47s. My home base at the time was a B-52 base and I assure you I
knew the difference. They started the closing shortly after I left.

Regards,

Tex Houston

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>
> Even though the preparations were made for B-52 operations there it did
> not happen.
>

So, then, the runway was lengthened to better accommodate the B-52
and KC-135 that were scheduled to replace the B-47 and KC-97 at Schilling.
I believe I said just that in an earlier post.

[Tex Houston]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Tex Houston" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Even though the preparations were made for B-52 operations there it did
> > not happen.
> >
>
> So, then, the runway was lengthened to better accommodate the B-52
> and KC-135 that were scheduled to replace the B-47 and KC-97 at Schilling.
> I believe I said just that in an earlier post.

Yes, the preparations were made (about $160 million) but when the base
closed it was still a B-47 unit. I suspect it was also still KC-97s but
just don't remember.

Tex

[WaltBJ]

When I was in the 326FIS at Richards-gebaur AFB just south of KC MO
highway 71 was our war-emergency auxiliary runway. It ran parallel to
our longest runway 17-35 and was about 3 miles east of it. I don't
recall how much was the straightaway but it was quite a few miles, a
lot more than our F102s needed.
Walt BJ

[Nick Pedley]

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> >
> >
> > Nevertheless, the runway was lengthened in 1959-60, between B-47/KC-97
and
> > B-52/KC-135 operations at Schilling, and long before the B-70 would have
> > been operational.
>
> Even though the preparations were made for B-52 operations there it did
not
> happen. See:
>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/facility/schilling.htm
>
> From which the following paragraph is quoted.
>
> On 19 November 1964, the Department of Defense announced that Schilling
> along with 574 other bases around the world would be closed.

Whoa! *574* bases closed around the world?! I could believe 57 or 74, but
574 seems like a typo. Or did they include dozens of tiny little radio
shacks on Pacific islands with perhaps 5 personnel manning each one?
I know of Bong AFB in Wisconsin being closed before completion in 1961 but
that doesn't really count here...

Nick