British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways • Hacker News Board

Re: British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways

#221

Post by sklargh » Mon, Jul 17, 2023, 4:31 PM UTC

wongarsu wrote: post #105

Cold-War West Germany had about 30 "Emergency Airstrips", about 3km long Autobahn sections that could be converted to airports for military use. Complete with parking lots designed for aircraft parking, mobile air control towers, etc. Large enough that we landed C-130 Hercules on them. Similar strips exist in Finland, Poland, Sweden and Switzerland. Though most of the German locations are now retired and removed.

This is an issue I care deeply about as I believe effective dispersal is a useful conventional deterrent to conflict.

To add - this is a more trodden upon path than many realize. The RAF trained extensively on establishing dispersed airfields for the Harrier force. They dedicated a lot of resources to being able to conduct dispersed operations from modified fields (fields, not airfields) https://youtu.be/QOf1AAf1yqc.

The US Marine Corps’ F-35B community has limited experience with what I’d semi-austere forward arming/refueling points(FARPs).

F-35B landing at FARP. https://youtu.be/le4W1Pk-Dn8

There is enough here about the challenges of fast jets off of roadways and poor condition airfields. I’ll just add that a jet is only as capable as its ground crew, spares, available munitions and fuel stores, so getting those things to a remote strip and protecting them is a big challenge and resource drain. The UK armed forces are already stretched quite thin for personnel so how operable this concept is TBD.

People with an interest in dispersal should watch this video https://youtu.be/MNak9lB_q00 and read this wiki - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bas_90. The nordics really expect much of their aviation infrastructure to be destroyed in a conventional conflict and plan accordingly.

Re: British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways

#222

Post by leetcrew » Mon, Jul 17, 2023, 4:33 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #192

hajile wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. If they add enough value to justify their existence, shouldn't they also turn a profit? In all other cases, you are just taxing people who don't benefit from those airports to subsidize the few people who do benefit.

> If they add enough value to justify their existence, shouldn't they also turn a profit? Only if you assume the nonexistence of (or perfect ability to internalize through regulation) externalities (specifically, here, positive externalities.)

why would you assume there are positive externalities though?

large airports overwhelmingly serve for-profit airlines and freight carriers. I'd argue a lot of this activity should really be moved to rail. but either way, it seems that the businesses involved should cover the cost to operate.

smaller airports are mostly used by hobbyists. while cool, this is not a particularly accessible hobby, and I don't feel it is worth subsidizing.

the only exceptions I can think of are airfields in remote communities (Alaska, islands, etc), and strategic locations that are desirable to the military.

Re: British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways

#223

Post by Bayart » Mon, Jul 17, 2023, 4:34 PM UTC

Wouldn't the F35-B be sensitive to random crap laying on the ground ? I don't know that its air intake was made for anything else than spotless surfaces. As far as I'm aware only the Soviets/Russians designed planes with that in mind.

Re: British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways

#224

Post by hajile » Mon, Jul 17, 2023, 4:34 PM UTC

albertopv wrote: post #24

darkclouds wrote: post #2

[flagged]

Tank days were numbered, and yet they still are heavily used

Tanks will have a new lease on life when we get a new design with more power (electricity) and a good point defense system (most likely laser based). If we remove drones and ATGMs from the equation, the only viable threats go back to being mines, artillery, and APFSDS tank rounds.

Re: British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways

#225

Post by chipsa » Mon, Jul 17, 2023, 4:34 PM UTC

gostsamo wrote: post #73

chipsa wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Boeing 787 needs 2.8km of high-quality concrete for a runway. A F-35 is known to have low maintenance stealth coatings, so you don't need extensive overhaul every flight. If you're fighting other countries from Czechia, the most likely countries to fight are either Russia, or it's minion Belarus. In which case you're probably not worrying about the politics of using civilian infrastructure.

Or you are part of a NATO operation against Serbia. Mentioning it, because the conflict in Kosovo is not resolved yet.

Do you expect Serbia to be able to conduct air strikes against Czechia? Last I looked at the map, there's at least two other countries in the way, at least one of which is a NATO member.

Re: British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways

#226

Post by smcl » Mon, Jul 17, 2023, 4:35 PM UTC

themgt wrote: post #213

heavenlyblue wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2008 Russia attacked Georgia

relations between Russia and Georgia began to deteriorate, reaching a full diplomatic crisis by April 2008, when NATO promised to consider Georgia's bid for membership. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War

I'm starting to see a pattern here - country seeks closer ties with NATO as a means of protection from Russia, followed by a war with Russia.

NATO has a pretty questionable history what with Operation Gladio and the like, but I'm not sure how these are examples of NATO aggression given that Russia was, y'know, the aggressor.

Re: British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways

#227

Post by ghaff » Mon, Jul 17, 2023, 4:35 PM UTC

phil21 wrote: post #125

koheripbal wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true in the US and Canada as well.

> This is true in the US As far as I could tell after a bar argument, this is more or less an urban legend[0]. While the referenced article only debunks the "Every 5 miles" myth, further (brief) reading led me to believe if there were ever any designed airstrips into the interstate system they were short-lived and likely very one-offish style programs. [0] - https://highways.dot.gov/public-roads/mayjune-2000/one-mile…

In general, the military connection to the interstate highway system is almost certainly overplayed. From what I've read, it's something Eisenhower wanted to do and the military aspect made it easier to sell to congress.

Re: British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways

#228

Post by sklargh » Mon, Jul 17, 2023, 4:36 PM UTC

sillywalk wrote: post #55

chinathrow wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder about FOD. i.e. all the crap in and around a highway that could damage the engines.. They would send out personal to remove FOD (foreign object debris) before any operations and before laying those mats, I assume.

Just some musing on the logistics and difficulties etc. of theoretical "distributed" highway F-35b operations.. [Numbers found by google search :_) ] 30 ISO containers for just the runway, = 30+ vehicles, + munitions, spare parts, maintenance personnel, that computerized logistics thing - ODIN/ALIS, food and water, security for the personnel, generators to power all the computers to support the aircraft, . would ther…

A lot of the Nordic strips are only semi-distributed and near a central logistics hub. This lends itself to caching. There is definitely a tradeoff in how dispersed one can be before they are completely expeditionary vs. simply dispersed. It’s a continuum.

Re: British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways

#229

Post by hajile » Mon, Jul 17, 2023, 4:38 PM UTC

lumost wrote: post #9

darkclouds wrote: post #2

[flagged]

the pilot isn't the expensive kit, although the flight-hours to train them may be. Even an unmanned NGAD will probably cost ~500MM.

I believe drones are actually projected to be smaller and MUCH cheaper.

We seem to be heading toward a plane with 1-2 people plus an AI that will cost $300M paired with 5-10 drones each costing around $30M. A real pilot nearby also reduces the efficiency of jamming to a large degree.

The idea is that smaller drones are harder to see on radar, they cost less, and they require many more missiles to fully intercept than one large drone.

Re: British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways

#230

Post by ata_aman » Mon, Jul 17, 2023, 4:43 PM UTC

wonderwonder wrote: post #209

I still have no idea what to expect from the F35. I'm not someone that knows a lot about fighter aircraft. The F22 was quickly hailed as the pinnacle of what it was designed to do, essentially unmatched today. Then they just stopped making them. Reviews of the F35 are vague. Israel is buying them but it's essentially getting them for free. So why not? Anyone have a true read on if the F35 is actually a dominant platf…

Short answer is different roles. F22 is specifically an air superiority platform, which is why only the Air Force has it. F35 is a multi role platform and a lot of its value comes from its ability to communicate with the infra surround its roles.