Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

FlightDreamz

When the bean-counters run the show.. There are some kit still around and some people, allegedly, with the know-how. Just not enough to make it a viable option even for a short period of time even for a small fraction of the air force. Defense is just not a priority nowadays. The cuts have been brutal, there's no other word to describe it. And it's the same across all three services.

F-16.net Sponsor

muir wrote:

FlightDreamz
Defense is just not a priority nowadays. The cuts have been brutal, there's no other word to describe it..

Which I think is best described as criminal mismanagement on the part of civilian leadership. Those guys don't 'represent' anything. I'd like to see some more folks on the Hill who actually think with their hearts and minds, not their bank accounts.

As for highway strips, it COULD be useful in a Red Dawn scenario, but how likely is that? Not especially. The kind of conflict we're talking about is simply not going to happen. Either we have our normal infrastructure mostly intact, or we're in a MAD scenario where you're going to have next to nothing. There is very little in the middle. The US isn't in a position where an enemy land or amphibious invasion which could render normal AFBs unsurvivable is remotely likely.

Geogen

Well, the short answer is: That spirit is dead and buried.

Most of the Swedish defense industrial base has already been flogged off to foreign owners. SAAB is pretty much whats left in Swedish hands. However, we do still have plenty of manufacturers of knäckebröd so all is not lost. Wink

IF roadway operations is desirable, IMHO, you need to design a fighter with that in mind. Preferably light, preferably one engine, one of the highest priorities must be ease of maintenance. All routine maintenance needs to be possible in the field, ideally everything short of major overhauls. All complexity is your enemy here, you'll have your hands full just with the complexity of the basic logistics. The next step is that you'll need to get everything needed to keep your aircraft flying mobile, the smaller the trucks needed the better. If there's a single thing you can't get on trucks you lose cause then you'll be stationary and back to square one. Turnaround times are essential, you don't wanna be caught on the ground. IMHO, anything F-15-like, under those conditions, would be a nightmare, too large, two engines, drinks too much fuel, carries too much ordnance.

The point is not to gain air supremacy or even contend for superiority, it's to deny the enemy those and hopefully keep "parity-ish" conditions. If you worry about missile strikes on air bases there are better ways to deal with that. Much larger, more spread out bases with more runways, separate hardened shelters with plenty of room between etc. Just my two cents..

Deleted

falcon17 wrote:

Pardon me for not clarifying my post. What I meant by operate is if a raptor can take off or land on a highway strip.

Any aircraft can operate from a given straight and fairly level space provided:

1. The surface is of sufficient length and width for operations, considerations for safety must be met.

2. The surface must have areas for turn-around/turning radius, or aircraft handling. This could be added fairly easily provided the towing/taxi surface is made in regard to the points below.

2a. The surface must have a parking area/ramp sufficient for the number of aircraft deployed to that location.

3. The surface is strong enough to withstand the ground pressure (PSI) of the aircraft's weight. (pressure =(roughly)= aircraft gross weight / gear contact area.) Most likely a concrete surface of sufficient thickness. This is often the one thing that will kill the possibility of operating a specific aircraft type from said surface.

4. The surface is free enough from defects (cracks, potholes, seams, etc) so that the tires will not be damaged/destroyed. For the most part, this can be repaired/replaced/modified as required.

5. The surface is clear of obstructions, approach/departure, sides - no trees, poles, utility lines, etc.

6. The surface is clean enough to not FOD out engines. (F-16s would have more issue with this than F-15, F-22, F-35, etc. based on inlet placement and intake suction.) Almost any surface can be properly cleaned and kept that way; we've operated our vipers from some of the worst areas (AORs) in the world; it's a matter of FOD vigilance.

7. The 'rules' pertaining to such military use of civilian roads, and military instruction allowed such usage. (In a war time emergency who would even ask...)

Other than this I wouldn't see why you couldn't land a B-2 on an interstate highway given proper conditions.

Given this though, I would expect the USAF would 'occupy' civilian airports of sufficient length before they would opt for utilizing the nation's concrete interstate highways, especially in regards to fighter operations.

My Two Cents

TEG

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

PS:
http://www.2space.net/news/article/374816-1313460601/
http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/rok03.jpg
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-a ... rways.html

southernphantom wrote:

muir wrote:

FlightDreamz
Defense is just not a priority nowadays. The cuts have been brutal, there's no other word to describe it..

Which I think is best described as criminal mismanagement on the part of civilian leadership. Those guys don't 'represent' anything. I'd like to see some more folks on the Hill who actually think with their hearts and minds, not their bank accounts.

As for highway strips, it COULD be useful in a Red Dawn scenario, but how likely is that? Not especially. The kind of conflict we're talking about is simply not going to happen. Either we have our normal infrastructure mostly intact, or we're in a MAD scenario where you're going to have next to nothing. There is very little in the middle. The US isn't in a position where an enemy land or amphibious invasion which could render normal AFBs unsurvivable is remotely likely.

Warning, mostly off topic rant

I don't think an American can comprehend the extent to which our forces have been completely gutted. You think you have it bad. When I served in the mid-90's there where 8 (two had just been closed) bases for the Swedish Air Force if memory serves me correct. All of those had at least two squadrons, some had three. All had at least two of those war bases I described somewhat earlier. There were nuclear-proof control bunkers deep in the mountains. There were large stockpiles of all kinds of supplies needed to keep the military going.

Today there's three bases and those suffer from a constant cash crunch. We struggled to get the personnel to support the mission in Libya and that was for 8 aircraft. Pretty much all mentioned above are gone, scrapped, sold of or at best mothballed. Pretty much brand new helos were put in storage and now we suffer from a shortage. To make things even worse, you think the air force have suffered? They're the ones who got off easy, mostly thanks the heavy investment in the Gripen. The army and navy have suffered even worse cuts. There were a whole branch of the army dedicated to air defense, all of it's gone, scrapped. The navy had a "coastal artillery" branch to defend our shores. Scrapped, gone... Take a look at map of the Baltic sea. Bang in the middle there's an island. In Swedish it's called Gotland, you can't find anything of bigger strategic importance in the area, from there you control more or less all of the Baltic sea. It's been completely demobilized. Compared to what we got running the military your politicians are freaking geniuses the lot of them.

Damn, it was good to get that of my chest.

Rant over.

I agree, I can't see any use of road operations for the US air force. There are literally no scenarios were it would make a serious difference, the money can be more useful in other areas.

Prinz_Eugn wrote:

I would think the tire pressure alone would annihilate the road surface.

Just had to add, I've operated a CAT 635 scraper doing highway work at 40+ mph with a loaded weight of about 120,000 lbs for days on end and spent 10 years as a paver. Highways are made to handle 100's of 90,000 lbs truck a day for 20 years with little repair. In the case of WWIII... I think she'd take it. My Two Cents

TSFG

The big problem with denting the surface will come at the moment of touchdown. At that instant the aircraft is not resting on all three struts, but is pushing down just the rear struts and is pushing off the ground to go from descending to level travel in a few feet of shock absorber travel and aircraft tilt.

Outside of the "Dukes of Hazard", autos seldom come flying down to land on the road.

hcobb wrote:

The big problem with denting the surface will come at the moment of touchdown. At that instant the aircraft is not resting on all three struts, but is pushing down just the rear struts and is pushing off the ground to go from descending to level travel in a few feet of shock absorber travel and aircraft tilt.

Outside of the "Dukes of Hazard", autos seldom come flying down to land on the road.

Most freeways are made of rubberized asphalt or reinforced concrete or both and are over 2 feet thick. Some are 3 to 4 feet. Well they may not last for flight after flight for a long time they would work fine for a few "WWIII" we have no where else to go landings and the autobahns in Germany are often dubble the thinkness of freeways in the US just for this reason. I will give you the fact some of our roads today are in sad shape.

Source=Years of making the roads you drive on. But not that one with all the pot holes on your way to work. Must have been that other guy. Wink

TSFG

I used to pour a lot of mud for buildings and highway mud has different specs but is probably in the 4,000 to 5,000 psi break strength class.

Do the math more exactly if you want but if each tire has at least 8"x8" = 64"^2 contact patch then even a loaded Valkyrie could land on a highway if given 2 miles...maybe less if he landed on an uphill grade.

I read the Ruskies sometimes land on dirt and that is usually rated at how ever many hundred or thousand pounds per square foot

The place to do highway ops is The Great War with China. (Coming any day now since 1953.)

F-22s launch on missile warning, and when they return their airfields have been shattered by IRBMs and J-20s.

hcobb wrote:

The place to do highway ops is The Great War with China. (Coming any day now since 1953.)

F-22s launch on missile warning, and when they return their airfields have been shattered by IRBMs and J-20s.

[sarcasm=thick]Because the thousands of suitable runways built across the USA, that have parking ramps, hangars, and fuel pumping will all be destroyed, but the straight interstates will still be untouched and better suited to land F-22s completely scattered across the country side? I'm sure everyone will be vigilant enough to push their disabled cars and trucks (shorted by EMP) from the roadways so they know the USAF Raptors have a safe place to land. [/sarcasm]

Rolling Eyes

TEG

If the Raptors are in the USA, then they ain't in the fight against China.

You see the Raptor really lacks for something called range.

B-2s fly from the United States to targets all over the world, while the F-22s have only a handful of bases in the Western Pacific.

Pity nobody ever invented some way to refuel planes in the air.

hcobb wrote:

If the Raptors are in the USA, then they ain't in the fight against China.

You see the Raptor really lacks for something called range.

B-2s fly from the United States to targets all over the world, while the F-22s have only a handful of bases in the Western Pacific.

True. We should be more concerned about highway strips in Japan, to be perfectly honest.

BTW, since when are J-20s and IRBMs going to be hitting the CONUS?? Laughing

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

F-22 highway operations incase of WWIII