Landing of hope and glory

[Troberg]

In an article ( http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/airstrip.asp ) on the main site, the myth that highways in the US are made to be used as airfields in case of war is debunked.

I'd like to add some comments on the issue. Despite the fact that this is not how it's done in the US, the logic is faulty and it is used in other countries.

Belief in this crazy idea should fail anyone's logic test. It makes no sense to render inoperable the Interstate highway system during times of domestic crisis, moving troops and supplies on the ground would be too important an activity to curtail just to land planes. The U.S. is riddled with any number of small, private airfields that could be pressed into service if the need arose, with that need being dependent on some foreign power having first knocked out an almost uncountable number of major airports plus those airstrips on military bases, not to mention the American fleet of aircraft carriers. Folks who commit to believing this crazy notion of highways doubling by design as airstrips are letting the romance of a "cool fact" blind them to what their common sense should be blinking at them in bright neon letters.

Sweden has exactly this kind of system. Why?

* It makes it harder to destroy the air force on the ground.
* It makes it harder to gues where our aircraft are (we have more airfields that we have aircraft, which isn't that many (probably around 1000)).
* It makes quick interception easier, as the aircraft are spread out and each field only houses two or four aircraft.

The road stretches are carefully selected with many parameters in mind. There must be alternate routes (to avoid blocking), they must be somewhat clear of civilian buildings, usually there is some forest nearby to provide camouflage possibilities and so on. Of course, they also have to be wide, straight, long and level enough.

Small, private airfields can be used, but they often have too short runways and not sufficient facilities.

Actually, this system was a major reason Sweden has decided to build our own fighter/attack aircraft for several generations instead of buying aircraft like Mig-29, Su-27, F-16 or F-14. These aircraft are not capable of operating on our shorter fields, and rebuilding this entire airfield system would be too expensive.

My home town has two such air fields, in addition to a small international airport. Look at these coordinates in Google Earth (sadly, the resolution is not good enough to show the "parking pockets" where the aircraft are parked to be ready for takeoff by the side of the road, refuling tanks and that stuff are underground, so only a few pipes can be seen above ground):

* 60°25'17.19"N 15°30'59.86"E (Airport)
* 60°24'8.95"N 15°33'49.75"E (Smaller airstrip in the forest, was once a road but not any longer. Also occasionally used for drag racing.)
* 60°25'57.59"N 15°30'58.15"E (Start of one runway on a longer road airfield, the coordinates point at the parking pockets which can barely bee seen)
* 60°24'36.43"N 15°34'2.63"E (Start of the other runway on the road airfield)

Airfields like this are all over Sweden, and you can't drive any longer distance on major roads without passing one. They are easily recognisable because the forest is cleared further from the road and the tell-tale parking pockets are there (usually paired, sometimes with two pairs or a pair at opposite ends of the runway). Railings, if used, are of a design that allows them to be removed within a few hours. From the air, you can also see buildings in the forest and radio masts are common (allthough they are usually lowered). Usually, they are clustered around air bases, to benefit from the logistics and communications there and to keep the pilots in familiar surroundings. I could easily have pointed out twenty such airfields, but I think I'll leave Sweden with some military "secrets".

Sweden also have a very different defence situation. We have a large country with few people and attacks can be made anywhere along the borders as we are not allied with anyone (on the other hand, we are not enemies of anyone either). US, on the other hand, have little to fear as far as invasions go, intercontinental invasions are a logistical impossibility if you don't have a foothold nearby (such as USA had in Britain in WW2). In other words, there is little need for a real defence against immediate attacks on the nation. Sweden, on the other hand, has no such protection. An attack can be mounted quickly and maintained with high pressure, and that requires a very different strategy.

So, don't throw the concept out on the basics of logic, it can be a logically sound solution given the right circumstances. Most important, it is a system that is not only viable, it is actually in active use and has been since before WW2.

[rangerdog]

They are also in Germany (As Barbara indicated, "other countries"). I did Site Surveys on them in a past job assignment.

[Troberg]

As Barbara indicated, "other countries"

Mr Lazy Reader strikes again, I missed that part.

[snopes]

Despite the fact that this is not how it's done in the US, the logic is faulty and it is used in other countries.

"Other countries" are not the U.S.; the topography and infrastructure conditions of the U.S. at the time the interstate highway system was built were quite different than those in other parts of the world.

- snopes

[ganzfeld]

Troberg, someday if you get a chance, check out how many unused and private airfields there are in the US. I did and I couldn't believe that there were five or six airfields very close to my own home. As the main site article mentions, "The U.S. is riddled with any number of small, private airfields that could be pressed into service if the need arose..." I guess for a time the US just went airfield crazy and built them everywhere. This site documents over a thousand unused airfields but I think that's just the tip of the iceberg:

http://www.airfields-freeman.com/

You might think they are too small for fighters and other combat aircraft but many of them are big enough.

Even further we have a lot less "active" military bases than we did at the height of the cold war - or even early in the cold war (much less even more recent military cuts). There are many airfields that were built to accomodate huge bombers like the B-36, which were de-commissioned shortly after the planes.. but the airfields for various reasons have been maintained. There are lots of cases where "local country airports" which host nothing but hobbiest cessnas, have runways big enought that a cessana w/ full flaps could practically land across the runway... and in many cases the length could accomodate the larget of today's aircraft (albeit sometimes not the fully loaded weight). Not all are suited to today's high performance dual use runway cleaning equipment/fighter aircraft - but in more cases than not, they can be made usable in hours.... not just for fighters but in many cases for heavy airlift/bombers.

Obviouls electronics, ATC etc are issues if they were to be sustainable fields - but that's relativly easy compared to laying the concrete...

Warlok

[Delta-V]

We have quite a number of large, decomissioned fields nearby capable of handling B-29's (6,500ft runways). They were built here and flown to the auxilliary fields for completion. F-15/F-16 runway requirements are around 4,000ft fully loaded, the A-10, considerably shorter. Many municipal airports are at least that long, but the general aviation fields aren't very long.

ATC isn't a problem. The Air Force can set up ATC capability in a matter of minutes.

[Troberg]

It's too bad all you see now is snow (and that my back currently looks like a painful question mark), otherwise I'd go and snap a few images on how it looks.

"Other countries" are not the U.S.; the topography and infrastructure conditions of the U.S. at the time the interstate highway system was built were quite different than those in other parts of the world.

I realize that, and adressed it in my first post on the subject. My point is that it may be worth mentioning that things might be different in other countries, and why they are different. If nothing else, a bit more background information on the subject is always interesting.

Troberg, someday if you get a chance, check out how many unused and private airfields there are in the US. I did and I couldn't believe that there were five or six airfields very close to my own home. As the main site article mentions, "The U.S. is riddled with any number of small, private airfields that could be pressed into service if the need arose..." I guess for a time the US just went airfield crazy and built them everywhere. This site documents over a thousand unused airfields but I think that's just the tip of the iceberg:

http://www.airfields-freeman.com/

You might think they are too small for fighters and other combat aircraft but many of them are big enough.

The situation is the same in Sweden, It's common for clubs or individuals to have their own strips, but many of the private airfields are either too short, have grass runways, or lack the necessary military facilities for refueling, communications and so on. We also have a legal situation that might be slightly different, as it's not that easy for the military to just take private property, even in case of war.

Even further we have a lot less "active" military bases than we did at the height of the cold war - or even early in the cold war (much less even more recent military cuts).

It's the same here. Times have changed, instead of many cheap (on a relative scale) aircraft, a few expensive ut more capable aircraft are used. Sweden is probably also fairly uncommon in that we have no bombers at all (since after WW2 or so, and neaver any heavy bombers), as our defence is only for defence, and there is little sense in bombing withing your own borders. Our airforce consists only of transports, fighters, attack aircraft, recon and anti-submarine aircraft.

I found this additional snippet of information from a co-worker who worked on the JAS project (the latest Swedish fighter/attack aircraft): Due to our emergency airstrip system, the requirements were for it to be able to operate (fully loaded) from a 9m x 800m runway, and from the very beginning, an outline of that size was painted on the runway of the airfield used for tests and all test flights were flown assuming this outline was the actual runway.

To give some sense of scale, 8m is the smallest width normally used for paved streets in Sweden (some exceptions exist when historical buildings and other constraints don't allow more). Just one meter wider for a jet fighter, and all Swedish military aircraft for the last 50 years or so has been able to operate from these fields. I'm pretty jaded after seeing my father fly from gravel roads in the forest, but this is pretty darn impressive!

[Majorsam]

Howdy Troberg!

I am curious about this. I know that the US Interstate system wouldn't make a good airfield because, wonder that it is, it is not built to specifications that would allow a modern aircraft to land very many times before the pavement would be demolished. In the airfields I designed in school (forced to..I never liked that block of instruction...) we had to include an extra-thick block at the threshold to support, say, an F-16 smacking down. So I'm curious if these road/airfield combinations include bits of road that are significantly built up at the starting point of the "straight" part where a runway would be.

Just curious...I'm always a little fascinated by the European fusion of the martial in with the civil engineering. Very alien to us over here.

Majorsam

What you are describing is the specs for an operational runway designed for repeated and sustained use. Even in the hypothetical highway situation, aircraft would very seldom land in the same place twice. Admitedly, they could not handle large aircraft like transports (keeping in mind that some like C-130s land on packed sand)... but the specs for F-16 only and relativly limited use, really wouldn't be the much different than sustained use by fully loaded semi tractor/trailors... which actually outweigh even a fully loaded F-16 by a pretty good factor. Remember any active AF and most civil airfields are designed for light and up to limt, heavier aircraft...

Warlok

[bl76km81]

While stationed in Germany, I heard that the autobahn is 3 army tanks wide.

There is also a lake, can't remember the name of it, near Nurnberg, that can be drained in a matter of minutes, and used to land military aircraft.

I am guessing both of these to be urban legends.

Are there any other stories out there, that people stationed in Germany have heard?

[Majorsam]

Howdy Warlock!

I'm not sure I agree. Although a fully-loaded big-rig is darn heavy, a fully-loaded aircraft hitting the tarmac will produce a greater live load moment. You are probably right that if these fields were only to be used in emergencies for limited use the point is moot, I was just wondering if they were designed for more extensive use.

bl76km81, although I never saw it myself, when I had a runway repair class I was told that the parking lots next to some of the major airfields (i.e. Rhein-Main) had been built out of many of the repair modules. That way if the airfield was bombed you could move a couple of cars, pick up one of the slabs, and move it to the crater and plop it down. Obviously a little more complex than that, but you get the point

The definate UL I heard during my time there during the cold war was a large explosive planted under ground that could be blown to create a trench to prevent the Red Army from crossing. I give it about an 0.0003 in the believability scale

[Troberg]

One more try, one of my ADSL modems overheated and shredded the previous one.

I am curious about this. I know that the US Interstate system wouldn't make a good airfield because, wonder that it is, it is not built to specifications that would allow a modern aircraft to land very many times before the pavement would be demolished. In the airfields I designed in school (forced to..I never liked that block of instruction...) we had to include an extra-thick block at the threshold to support, say, an F-16 smacking down. So I'm curious if these road/airfield combinations include bits of road that are significantly built up at the starting point of the "straight" part where a runway would be.

Yep, they are reenforced to take the load. Every decade or so, the airforce visits the national road administration and goes over their road database to find potential candidates for these airfields. Then such reenforcements are scheduled into the normal maintenance cycles.

Admitedly, they could not handle large aircraft like transports (keeping in mind that some like C-130s land on packed sand)...

We have C-130s, but they operate from grass or even farmland if need be.

The definate UL I heard during my time there during the cold war was a large explosive planted under ground that could be blown to create a trench to prevent the Red Army from crossing. I give it about an 0.0003 in the believability scale

It might be a legend there, but Sweden has shitloads of land mines along our northeastern border, which can be activated in event of a war. That's why Sweden is always curiously silent during international talks of bans on land mines.

[Majorsam]

Originally Posted by Troberg

It might be a legend there, but Sweden has shitloads of land mines along our northeastern border, which can be activated in event of a war. That's why Sweden is always curiously silent during international talks of bans on land mines.

Thanks for the info, Troberg!

On the landmine issue, that sounds kind of odd. Do you mean the mines are physically planted in the ground and just have to be activated? Or do you mean that there are stockpiles near the borders & the minefields pre-planned so that in the event of hostilities the fields can be rapidly planted?

Sam

[Troberg]

On the landmine issue, that sounds kind of odd. Do you mean the mines are physically planted in the ground and just have to be activated? Or do you mean that there are stockpiles near the borders & the minefields pre-planned so that in the event of hostilities the fields can be rapidly planted?

As I've understood it, they are already planted and can be activated electronically. We have similar arrangements outside some of our strategically important coastlines.

A good incentive to turn off your mobile phone...

Basically, it all boils down to Sweden being a big country, with few people, especially in the north. We can't really defend all our borders through ordinary measures in the event of a big conflict, so we need to resort to this kind of measures. We relly have little hope of winning against the possible attacks (both NATA and the Warsaw pact (our defense was designed against these threats) had us pretty much outgunned), so we just hope we can make it expensive enough to make it too much trouble. The most likely scenario would be a big conflict in central Europe, where either side would try to take a shortcut through Sweden. If we put a price tag on it that is too big, it will not justify removing that much resources from the main front line, and they'll leave us alone.

[ganzfeld]

Troberg, I don't believe this story about Sweden's borders being mined with networks of electronically activated mines. I suppose there is no way to prove they aren't but your other statement, that Sweden is mysteriously "silent during international talks of bans on land mines," is one that can be checked. I don't think it holds up either. But I'd be willing to see any evidence to support it.

[Troberg]

Troberg, I don't believe this story about Sweden's borders being mined with networks of electronically activated mines. I suppose there is no way to prove they aren't but your other statement, that Sweden is mysteriously "silent during international talks of bans on land mines," is one that can be checked. I don't think it holds up either. But I'd be willing to see any evidence to support it.

As it is a military issue, evidence is hard to get.

It's two issues:

Land mines:
We are not talking about our entire borders, only the part between Sweden and Finland, as that's the bottle neck of the land route between east and west. I would suspect that it's the roads, railroads and immediate areas around them that are mined, perhaps some other areas that are suitable for transport as well. Remember, most of that area is just worthless and difficult wilderness, and there is a river forming much of the border between Sweden and Finland (in which, after an engine failure, my father once crashed an aircraft).

Naval mines:
These were mentioned extensively in media during the various submarine incidents in the eighties, the most famous being the U-137 incident ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U_137 ), as one popular theory was that mini submarines were used to map or even sabotage the network of mines. These theories were even put forwards by military representatives (but, of course, they were probably more out fishing for budget than for submarines). Our naval bases are placed behind archipelagos (outside Stockholm, Gothenburg and Karlskrona), which makes entrances easy to mine.

Sweden has also sold quite a few land mines, and carry a fair bit of the responsibility for the situation in Cambodia, which is something we are not proud of. We have strict laws against exporting weapons to countries which are at war or is likely to get in a war (but, for some reason, USA and some other "civilized" countries seems to be excempt from that rule), but in the case of Cambodia, these rules were circumvented through the use of a third party, and some even believe that this happened with the knowledge of the government. This is also a reason landmines are not considered a polite subject to discuss in Sweden.

[ganzfeld]

Okay, what I'm seeing is no support for either thesis. The first two are kind of speculative and the third has nothing to do with the claim: namely, that Sweden has been silent about banning land mines. For example, Sweden, unlike about 40 countries including Finland, the US, Russia, India, and China, has signed the Ottawa Treaty to ban landmines. Is Sweden one of the 64 signatories that have reserved the right to use mines in training or for countermeasures? I don't know but I don't think so. It seems to me that the scandal you mentioned was a scandal specifically because Sweden had been so vocal about landmines.

[Troberg]

Okay, what I'm seeing is no support for either thesis. The first two are kind of speculative and the third has nothing to do with the claim: namely, that Sweden has been silent about banning land mines. For example, Sweden, unlike about 40 countries including Finland, the US, Russia, India, and China, has signed the Ottawa Treaty to ban landmines. Is Sweden one of the 64 signatories that have reserved the right to use mines in training or for countermeasures? I don't know but I don't think so. It seems to me that the scandal you mentioned was a scandal specifically because Sweden had been so vocal about landmines.

The Cambodia thing was just me getting carried away with related information.

I don't know how our mines are justified with regards to the treaty. One guess, but that's just a guess, is that they make some grey area distinction that inactive mines are not mines, or that they are officially called something else such as "demolition charges". We skirt other issues in a similar way, for instance our Barrett M-82 sniper rifles are officially called "mine clearing rifles", since their caliber is too large to be allowed for sniper rifles here. In case of war, however, I would be surprised if those rifles were not used for their original purpose.

I found this link regarding naval mines:

http://compunews.com/s139/sp2.htm

It's fairly long, but it mentions them in passing:

"One day, the Navy let the press know that they had a midget sub trapped in the basin off Hårsfjärden. They claimed that the Sound was closed with nets and activated mine lines and that there was no way the midget sub could escape."

Sadly, the submarine hunt era was way before internet, so I can't find articles on it. There were plenty of drawings in the newspapers that showed how the mine system worked.

Edit: Given that we actually have submariners here, even if they are not Swedish, I think they know more about the subject than I do. Let's see if they pop in.

[Majorsam]

Howdy Troberg!

Thanks for the clarification again. Your initial post made me think that huge swaths of the Swedish frontier were mined & ready to go, but the chokepoints makes more sense. I still think that you're dealing with a rumor left over from the cold war. Such a system probably did exist (and seems prudent) but a field of electronically controlled mines in arctic conditions seems like an unnecessary expense in the post-cold war era. I have it on very good authority from my Finnish friends that they've given up their designs on your country

On another note, regarding the .50 cal sniper rifle...for what it's worth my EOD team did indeed have them specifically for the reason of mine/bomb clearing. They did very little sniping of people.