Cold War ALternate Basing

In article ,
David Lesher wrote:

There's a long-standing Urban Legend that the Interstate Highway
system was designed to serve as replacement airfields The Day After.

See "One-Mile-in-Five"
http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/airstrip.asp
&
http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/mayjun00/onemileinfive.htm

I seek to debunk this UL on an engineering basis. I think the
Interstate is unusable for multiple reasons, one of which is a 2-lane
highway is simply not wide enough for B-52/B-57, much less a B-36,
gear.

However, much of the system was just dandy for pretty much anything
except the big bombers, and most of the fighter aircraft of the Cold War
would have had little or no problem flying from some of the wider
Interstate highway sections.

You should also note that some parts of the more remote Interstate
system were wider than two lanes in places that really didn't
technically need two lanes for the traffic involved. If you're
addressing the engineering aspect, you should look at why they built the
Interstates so much wider and thicker than trucks of the day needed, by
a large factor.

I think it's more of a case of "plan on using roads for temporary
fighter fields if we need to." The bombers had enough range to be able
to fly from a much more restricted system of bases or airports, while
the fighters, especially those of the time, would have needed a more
comprehensive list of places to fly from, especially out in the middle
of the less-populated Western and Central states.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
David Lesher wrote:


There's a long-standing Urban Legend that the Interstate Highway
system was designed to serve as replacement airfields The Day After.

See "One-Mile-in-Five"
http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/airstrip.asp
&
http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/mayjun00/onemileinfive.htm

I seek to debunk this UL on an engineering basis. I think the
Interstate is unusable for multiple reasons, one of which is a 2-lane
highway is simply not wide enough for B-52/B-57, much less a B-36,
gear.


However, much of the system was just dandy for pretty much anything
except the big bombers, and most of the fighter aircraft of the Cold War
would have had little or no problem flying from some of the wider
Interstate highway sections.

You should also note that some parts of the more remote Interstate
system were wider than two lanes in places that really didn't
technically need two lanes for the traffic involved. If you're
addressing the engineering aspect, you should look at why they built the
Interstates so much wider and thicker than trucks of the day needed, by
a large factor.

I think it's more of a case of "plan on using roads for temporary
fighter fields if we need to." The bombers had enough range to be able
to fly from a much more restricted system of bases or airports, while
the fighters, especially those of the time, would have needed a more
comprehensive list of places to fly from, especially out in the middle
of the less-populated Western and Central states.


The primary purpose behind the Eisenhower National Highway System, IIRC,
was to provide a strategic highway network for moving military goods and
troops. If you look on the DOT pages for the NHS you will find a map
showing most of the strategic highways and they are interstates that
lead to the US borders and strategic points including ports. I think the
aircraft landing portion was just incidental and possibly deliberate in
the more desolate areas.

I was in my mid to late teens when the system was started and ISTR that
the original purpose was as described above. Regardless of reason for
building there are some states and areas within states that it is almost
worth your life to drive the IH system due to poor maintenance. I
certainly wouldn't want to land an aircraft around here in Louisiana
where I live now. Of course we've got enough closed AF bases that we
have lots of big, long runways now. VBG

George

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. ..
If you're
addressing the engineering aspect, you should look at why they built the
Interstates so much wider and thicker than trucks of the day needed, by
a large factor.

I think it's more of a case of "plan on using roads for temporary
fighter fields if we need to."

Actually, the engineers who designed the roadbeds thought ahead to heavier
/bigger vehicles using the highway systems.

I've scanned the laws that brought the highway system into being, and there
isn't ONE, not ONE, reference to using them as runways for military
operations. There are references to making sure they were X feet wide and
could support vehicles of Y weight, but they were thinking about Army
equipment being transported and not airplanes.