If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Cold War ALternate Basing
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"David Lesher" wrote in message ... 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. But I have had little luck finding the gear footprint of such aircraft. Everyone talks wingspan. Suggestions/data? I'd also like to compare PSI loads for such aircraft with those of trucks. Check old copies of the US Army's TM 5-430, IIRC; one was titled "Planning and Design of Roads, Airfields, and Heliports in the Theater of Operations", and the various USAF aircraft were listed by type with data regarding pavement loading and minimum operating strip dimensions. Not sure that the current TM manual is the same as the older versions; ISTR the older ones were a 5-500 series pub, but that just may be due to hazy memory. AFPAM 10-1403 lists required runway and taxiway widths and lengths, as well as ACN requirements for each type of a/c. Not quite what you're asking for, but should get you going. fas.org has it online: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/usaf/...pam10-1403.htm Until recently all of the army FM/TM were online at TRADOC's website, including the one Kevin mentions, but it appears that it's now restricted to official use. Guy |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Kevin Brooks
Some European nations (especially Sweden) did indeed design roadways to handle dispersed aircraft operations, but that was aimed primarily at tactical fighters. Indeed. And most (all?) the Swedish jet fighters. An example of adoption for road bases is the unusual thurst-reversal engine exhaust of Viggen, which dramatically cuts the lenght of the landing run. In Finland too, the airforce planned (and still does) to operate dispersed from highway bases in war. There are also sections of highways specifically designed as bases, being wide, straight and with a runway profile and markings. While not designed for road bases, the fact that the current F-18's of the FAF are carrier planes, is helpful. For example, they do arrested landings on prepared highway strips. Some Soviet tac fighters, too, are well adapted for operations from improvized bases, even unpaved runways. MiG-29 being a good example: STOL, tough undercarriage and unusual alternative air intakes for take-off and landing for avoiding FOD. What really surprizes me, is that the US tac fighters of the cold war era stationed in Europe didn't, as far as I know, plan for dispersed operatons. Did they really think that their bases would survive in the 'big' war? And, consequently, the planes weren't (aren't) that well suited for such operations either (eg F-16, although I think that Norway operates its Vipers from road bases too). |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
What really surprizes me, is that the US tac fighters of
the cold war era stationed in Europe didn't, as far as I know, plan for dispersed operatons. Did they really think that their bases would survive in the 'big' war? And, consequently, the planes weren't (aren't) that well suited for such operations either (eg F-16, although I think that Norway operates its Vipers from road bases too). The South Korean equivalent of the Interstate highway system has wide spots all over it 200-300' wide and 12,000' long at a guess with taxiways as well. They exercize them from time to time, at least they used to. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
From: M *@*.*
snip What really surprizes me, is that the US tac fighters of the cold war era stationed in Europe didn't, as far as I know, plan for dispersed operatons. Did they really think that their bases would survive in the 'big' war? Actually there were several dispersment plans. Look at the autobahn, there were more sites than the Luftwaffe could use. I remember someone pointing out a rest stop near Stutgardt as being laid out as a parking ramp for fighters. We went back and looked at it and it seemed plausible to me. USAFE also had plans for deployment to other countries and civil airports. It is interesting to note West German bridges used to have orange signs showing maximum weight for tanks as well as trucks. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
What really surprizes me, is that the US tac fighters of
the cold war era stationed in Europe didn't, as far as I know, plan for dispersed operatons. Did they really think that their bases would survive in the 'big' war? I suspect the planners thought the aircraft would not.. At most bases in Europe the planes were dispersed around the taxiways all over the air patch. Most were parked in hardened shelters called Tab Vs complete with blast doors in front and high spped taxiways and IIRC many were sealed and filtered for chem-bio warfare.. . |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
alternate carb heat | Ray Toews | Home Built | 16 | October 29th 04 12:41 PM |
Cold War relic F/A-22 initially designed for air-to-air combat with Soviet MiGs | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 7 | April 2nd 04 07:05 PM |
Alternate Intersection Name in Brackets? | Marco Leon | Instrument Flight Rules | 7 | January 22nd 04 04:55 AM |
Alternate requirements | Anthony Chambers | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | September 17th 03 09:45 PM |
B-52 lands on Cold War enemy's airfield for show | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 1 | August 23rd 03 11:11 PM |