Operating Aircraft in austere conditions

[junglierating]

So....with all this unpleasantness in central/eastern europe it seems to me that airfields are a bit of a plum target.

In days of old, fast jets such as Jaguars,Viggen and of course harrier all had an 'off road' capability and the support infrastructure able to up sticks quickly and go elsewhere. Rotary obviously still have this ability to a greater or lesser extent...dont get me going on that one.

So I wonder if the powers at be are giving this capability a re think.

I know a couple of typhoons did a quick rough and ready dispersal to Macrihamish recently so I guess that's a start.

Discuss....20 marks 😁

[Mike]

No politics though folks.  Remember

 

EDIT: changed the a/c to Aircraft in the title, as I was initially thinking Aircon

[junglierating]

34 minutes ago, Mike said:

No politics though folks.  Remember

 

EDIT: changed the a/c to Aircraft in the title, as I was initially thinking Aircon

No Politik...absolutely...

Aircon ...seriously Mike😄mind you 🤔

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

Rough field performance is quite an expansive topic really - I'm sure you're WELL aware that being able to put a plane down on an unprepared strip is one thing, but also having off-road capable fuel bowsers and tractors to pull weapons trolleys and somewhere to erect an operations centre is another. If they can't be operated in the fullest sense of the word, then what's the point?

 

I must admit when I read the thread title I assumed the content within was going to be about austere economics - the revelations about Russian front line pilots getting about 8 flying hours a month on average was quite an eye opener and goes a long way to explaining the levels of competence we're seeing - especially when that average includes the long range strategic bomber crews and their sorties.

[Antti_K]

Hello guys,

 

the first highway-bases were first built in Finland in the 1960s. Since then they have been used by MiG-21s, SAAB Drakens, DC-3s, BAe Hawks, Fouga Magisters, F/A-18s and even Il-28s. All this has been possible thanks to a through planning well in advance. This means that "an air base" was fully planned at the same time with the road. Electricity supply, fuel storage, communications lines, dispersal areas, ammunition storage areas and so on. For example a fully equipped ATC is built in a container that can be delivered to the site by a lorry. Then simply open the hatches covering the power and comm. lines and you are ready for the first take-off. And all the time everything has to be camouflaged and hidden from view. An addition introduced with F/A-18s was the cable arresting system into highway air bases. Hornet's engines are designed for smooth surfaces and therefore a special brush and vacuuming systems were designed and built. Finnish Air Force has written off several GE F-404 engines when they've ingested a single bristle from a cleaning machine. Snow removal is an important item in countries like Finland and Sweden. And it takes hundreds of men and women to protect a single airbase all the time.

 

I would say that an air force can utilize highway strips only if these have been prepared for the task. Without all the supporting equipment and staff it is impossible to operate a flight of fighters from a temporary base.

 

MiGs, Drakens and Il-28s weren't especially sensitive to "dirty" surfaces.

 

Here is a very nice video showing a modern highway air base in Finland:

https://www.facebook.com/Ilmavoimat/videos/baana-20-hosion-maantietukikohta/927732964303116/

 

And here's an older example showing Drakens in action. At 0:22 Senior Lieutenant Hannes Bjurström is seen as a simulator instructor. I worked together with "Bjusa" in Finnair. Scenes from a highway base at 01:40 and on:

 

 

As you can see, it takes a lot of preparation, equipment and staff to efficiently run one flight out of an highway airbase. I think that the Ukrainians may use highway strips in emergency, but if there is no prepared infrastructure that's all they can do. Highway strips can also be used as emergency runways (for take-offs only) if the runway in an air base is bombed and there is a taxiway between these two.

 

It also takes extra training for pilots as you tend to be late with flare out. On final it always seems that you are hopelessly high but that's just an illusion. The road is narrow when compared to proper runways. And the trees are tall and very close.

 

Cheers,

Antti

 

 

 

 

 

[John B (Sc)]

3 hours ago, junglierating said:

I know a couple of typhoons did a quick rough and ready dispersal to Macrihamish recently so I guess that's a start.

Discuss....20 marks 😁

 

Interesting - must have been rough and ready since I think only part of the old airfield is still in use.

 

I'd think several of our European may be looking at the Finnish and Swedish off airfield capabilities. That offers good dispersal opportunity, at least for short term operations. I think this war also shows that lower performance front line aircraft can have  a role to play in some circumstances; the highly expensive F-35s and Typhoons may be useful to clear airspace and deter the high end opposition, but may be too rare and costly to risk routinely at battlefield level in confused situations. 

 

Much though I (still!) dislike the look of them, this is the sort of circumstance for which the A-10 was designed. Rugged, good survivability, manoeuvrable and well armed. Would  a modern equivalent be worth considering as a lower cost battlefield attack aircraft? Perhaps - but not with the delay levels the MoD seem to manage to build in to projects ! 

 

( And like Jamie, I was astonished at the low flying hours Russian pilots are, or were, getting. 8 hrs a month is barely enough to maintain basic flying skills in a complex aircraft, let alone any operational competence and capability. )

 

John B

Edited March 17, 2022 by John B (Sc)

[Paul J]

Liked the video. Reminded of seeing pics etc of the Winter  and continuation wars where similar rough operating conditions  occurred. 

[junglierating]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/raf-to-deploy-aircraft-to-remote-scottish-islands/

 

My bad...Stornaway ....not Macrihamish....close🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

Mind you the rot set in there when a junglie sea king taxied in to a hangar ....it went something like clear....clear....clear ....thunk ....oops 

[TimB]

The issue is not deploying the ac - sorry, Mike, aircraft.  Moving fuel, munitions spares and GSE forward is a pain.   You also need secure, reliable comms., to get your mission planning, int, tasking, etc.   The distance makes a difference - the RAF Germany Harrier Force moved most of its support 100km or so forward, but took 500-700 vehicles to do so.  Much of the thinking was that roads between the deployment area and Gut would have been impassible in a war, so pretty much everthing would move as early as possible - and then was on wheels to move short distances to keep the enemy guessing on site locations.  Anything much further and you either need confidence in your roads or dedicated logistics airlift - the latter if you are in the Outer Hebrides!  Rotary needs a lot less support, and the RN, Junglies and AAC are very good at supporting small detachments.  Even so, moving an AH regiment plus workshops and logs is not a a small endeavour, and once you are into larger numbers lean support is no longer beautiful but limiting.  It can be done, but it is not cheap to buy or to practice... 

Regards

Tim

 

 

[Bozothenutter]

The swedes do the same as the Finns, they have some suspiciously large 'resting spots' on most of the highways. 😉

[John B (Sc)]

One thing I seem to recall Sweden has done is to have several offsite locations near their airfields. Far enough to be hard to take out with the main fields but bear enough for simpler support reach.

As for Stornoway ('close', says junglierating - tsk, for shame ! ) it has been a forward base for RAF operations for quite a few years, to help cover the North West sea area and the Iceland Gap.  Not perhaps so needed now with Lossie as the main base but useful when Leuchars was in use and we had shorter legged interceptors.

 

The Ukraine conflict is showing that quite low tech drones can be very useful and awkward for an enemy, even though they haven't the punch of the high tech ones.

[junglierating]

53 minutes ago, Bozothenutter said:

The swedes do the same as the Finns, they have some suspiciously large 'resting spots' on most of the highways. 😉

So do the Yanks on interstate highways....think it was eisenhower IKE who realised that there was no easy way to move troops from one side of the country to the other 

[tempestfan]

45 minutes ago, Bozothenutter said:

The swedes do the same as the Finns, they have some suspiciously large 'resting spots' on most of the highways. 😉

Many of Germany's motorways designed in the 70s were intended as forward/dispersal operating strips, hence there are/were sections with suspiciously few bridges and a continuous surface for all lanes. The suspiciously large resting spots however were intended for Dutchmen with their camper trailers 😜

 

As great a plane the Viggen is/was (and I had the great pleasure of covering my ears for them several times at Fairford), I don't think it has off-field capabilities - it has slim high pressure tires; Jaguar and Tornado had/have LP ones. And in my very humble opinion, an updated new-built Tornado benefiting from systems development over the past 45 years would be a much better answer to the Luftwaffe's strike requirement than F-35. Tornado has shown it is capable of the dirty work; F-35 falls overboard and goes diving instead

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

4 minutes ago, tempestfan said:

F35 falls overboard and goes diving instead

 

Let's be clear - there have been two incidents recently on two separate carriers concerning two separate variants. Investigations are still ongoing for both, but all indications point to human error for both.

[Mike]

5 hours ago, junglierating said:

Aircon ...seriously Mike😄mind you 🤔

I get hot so easily these days, maybe it's nearer the front of my mind than with most people

[John B (Sc)]

The Viggen was designed for short take-off from 500 metre runways including road surfaces - the Bas 60 concept - so it was part of the offbase planning, despite high tyre pressures. I believe Gripen uses the same facilities, though 800m runways developed as part of Bas 90.

 

(tempestfan - thanks for the Airfix Phantom info. VF74 it was, and Series 3.)

 

John B

[tempestfan]

3 minutes ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

 

Let's be clear - there have been two incidents recently on two separate carriers concerning two separate variants. Investigations are still ongoing for both, but all indications point to human error for both.

Take it as tongue in cheek to some extent. One month ago no one around here would have even dared timidly asking for large investment into military hardware of any kind, and now everyone excels with higher, faster, farther, where may we deposit the money.

I am not convinced about the merits of stealthiness, but then who am I. Tornado I think has proven to be up to all tasks it was challenged with so far, including a couple of hot wars; admittedly with perhaps not world-beating A/A capability. It's a small, compact airframe with great load capability and excellent performance even with the early 70s technology in it. Give it a state of the art avionics/electronics suite, and it will remain a top contender for my lifetime. I am aware that any new production would probably require a run of some 200 to 250 aircraft to be economically viable, but then Peace Divi has been thrown overboard on 23 February at the latest. If the RAF and AMI would join, such numbers could very easily be attained. A healthy mix of Typhoon and a revitalised Tornado would be the best and most deterring way forward - IMVHO.

[Tim R-T-C]

Interestingly the Ukrainian AF did perform highway landing training, even if the results could be rather dramatic.

 

https://theaviationist.com/2020/08/29/ukrainian-su-27-flanker-hit-a-road-sign-during-highway-landing-training/

 

Apparently Su24s did operate from highways too.

 

Not heard about any such operations during the current series of unfortunate events.

[tempestfan]

4 minutes ago, John B (Sc) said:

The Viggen was designed for short take-off from 500 metre runways including road surfaces - the Bas 60 concept - so it was part of the offbase planning, despite high tyre pressures. I believe Gripen uses the same facilities, though 800m runways developed as part of Bas 90.

 

(tempestfan - thanks for the Airfix Phantom info. VF74 it was, and Series 3.)

 

John B

Nothing to thank for - let's have René have his satisfaction 😉 As I said, I'm in with at least 25 € on the cost side; and I am always open for some trainee tasks in foreign jurisdictions - I am a fairly accomplished lawyer in general and employment litigation with some 20 years professional experience. And I know you know I am only writing this because Whisky only comes from Scotland. 🙂 

 

Off-base is not necessarily the same as off-field - yes Motorways but I don't think unpaved surfaces. But our Scandic friends will most likely set me straight.

[Greg B]

It’s a huge logistical, construction and infrastructure nightmare and that’s before you even get to the end point of someone walking up and down a strip checking CBR with a cone pentrometer. 
 

the last strip I had a major hand in was the initial Bastion runway. That was an Sapper ADR squadron effort and was designed for a set number of passes per week. Those numbers were broken on the first day and in between landings required significant plant effort to prepare for the next and this was for an aircraft designed for rough fields (Herc). The AN-12’s were even harder on the strip because of the lack of reverse props and heavy braking.

 

kicking tin for rotary (they can’t go straight up when hot, high and heavy) takes lots of ground prep, lots of work and lots of maintenance and checking. Aircraft operators whether green, dark blue or crab like in motion will not risk airframes when it comes to dirt. Far easier to move to something a bit more robust as the effort involved to put in a rough field may not be worth the squeeze. Even Harrier was not expected to work from Tin if it kicked off. Roads and car parks were quicker for operating surfaces expected  to last a dozen passes before moving to the next because it’s either buggered by the aircraft or malleted by the enemy.

[Giorgio N]

Le Bourget 1979: Jaguar XX108, then used as demonstrator of the jaguar International variant, takes off for her daily show. On landing instead of using the runway she lands on the grass parallel to the runway, to demonstrate the type capability of operating from "rough fields". The strip had of course been prepared and yet at some point the nose gear catches a hole or something, collapsing and letting the aircraft rest on her nose. That demonstrates how one thing is to claim that a type can operate from unprepared bases, a totally different thing is to operate a type reliably from such bases in real life.

The Swedish and Finnish approach is different, their aircraft would operate from surfaced roads and even so problems can occur as described by Antti.

Also different is the Swiss approach, where the aircraft are protected in hangars dug in the mountains but they take-off and land from proper runways and in any case their bases also have all the required equipment to operate.

 

Apparently Ukrainian aircraft are at the moment partly operating from surfaces away from their original bases and from what I've heard this is taking a toll on the equipment. It's not only aircraft that can suffer, missiles are also sensitive to how they are handled and such improvised bases do not always allow a proper handling of the AA weapons, with the result of malfunctions. Of course in a situation of emergency an air force can adapt to operate away from conventional bases however this quickly reduces the combat capabilities.

Another important aspect is that even if aircraft survive thanks to the use of improvised or emergency airbases, it matter little if the rest of the air defence system is degraded by the destruction of control and communication centres.

 

So should we move to types capable of operating from improvised airstrips ? Really as others have explained earlier the logistics involved and the potential problems are such that it is something that may only make sense for smaller countries with a favourable terrain (hard to dig hangars in the mountains in say Libya), so to potentially deter an attacker. For countries with more resources it makes more sense to build up an air defence system capable ot imposing air superiority over the whole country to be able to defend the proper airbases.

 

 

[Giorgio N]

On 3/17/2022 at 6:23 PM, John B (Sc) said:

 

Interesting - must have been rough and ready since I think only part of the old airfield is still in use.

 

I'd think several of our European may be looking at the Finnish and Swedish off airfield capabilities. That offers good dispersal opportunity, at least for short term operations. I think this war also shows that lower performance front line aircraft can have  a role to play in some circumstances; the highly expensive F-35s and Typhoons may be useful to clear airspace and deter the high end opposition, but may be too rare and costly to risk routinely at battlefield level in confused situations. 

 

Much though I (still!) dislike the look of them, this is the sort of circumstance for which the A-10 was designed. Rugged, good survivability, manoeuvrable and well armed. Would  a modern equivalent be worth considering as a lower cost battlefield attack aircraft? Perhaps - but not with the delay levels the MoD seem to manage to build in to projects ! 

 

( And like Jamie, I was astonished at the low flying hours Russian pilots are, or were, getting. 8 hrs a month is barely enough to maintain basic flying skills in a complex aircraft, let alone any operational competence and capability. )

 

John B

 

If there is something that the current events are proving is actually the opposite: the Su-25s of both parts are the types suffering the highest losses because of their need to operate at low level, that in a theatre where MANPADs are plentiful means risking to take a missile anytime the aircraft approach a target. The Russians also lost a couple of higher performance aircraft that made the big mistake of going at low level to better identify the target.

Ukraine is not the Iraq or Afganistan of the US intervention era, where the enemy forces were insurgents that at best could field rifle-calibre MGs against aircraft. The current war is between two armies well equipped with SAMs of various types, going low in these conditions means risking aircraft and pilot any time and the warhead of many of these missiles can break an A-10 in two. The only way to avoid such losses is to be able to identify and attack targets from higher altitudes, away from the threat of portable SAMs and light AAA, that is what Western air forces have been doing for years.

 

 

 

21 hours ago, tempestfan said:

Many of Germany's motorways designed in the 70s were intended as forward/dispersal operating strips, hence there are/were sections with suspiciously few bridges and a continuous surface for all lanes. The suspiciously large resting spots however were intended for Dutchmen with their camper trailers 😜

 

As great a plane the Viggen is/was (and I had the great pleasure of covering my ears for them several times at Fairford), I don't think it has off-field capabilities - it has slim high pressure tires; Jaguar and Tornado had/have LP ones. And in my very humble opinion, an updated new-built Tornado benefiting from systems development over the past 45 years would be a much better answer to the Luftwaffe's strike requirement than F-35. Tornado has shown it is capable of the dirty work; F-35 falls overboard and goes diving instead

 

But what would be the point of "updating" a type that was designed in the '70s based on late '60s technology in aerodynamics and structures ? Anyone who had the task of designing a "new Tornado" today would do everything very differently, even without including the stealthiness factor. Just to start, there's a reason why variable-geometry has totally disappeared from aircraft designed after the '70s. F-15s and F-16s are already more advanced than the Tornado in several aspects even if they are now pretty old types themselves

Edited March 18, 2022 by Giorgio N

[John B (Sc)]

Interesting Giorgio. I must admit I was thinking more along the lines of the Ukrainians using A-10s or equivalent, but that was perhaps because the opposition seems to have been astonishingly poorly trained, supplied and led, so the threat from their short range AA may nit be so great. Tsk - sloppy thinking ! 

 

The Soviets demonstrated with their Il-2s during the Great Patriotic War how useful an ultra low flying, heavily armoured aircraft could be.  Getting down low and close is still  the best way to be accurate and minimise collateral damage. The poor results at times during the Balkan conflict demonstrated that, I thought.  

 

Low level is dangerous even in a well armoured aircraft, but all warfare is dangerous. The A-10 folk I spoke to some years ago seemed to believe they had  a good survival prospect, though admittedly aircrew always tend to have  a positive view of their own kit and their personal survivability.

 

I think tempestfan's point was that a cheaper aircraft could be produced using up to date equipment in an old airframe, to advantage.   Quantity has quality all of its own'.

 

I know plenty ex-Buccaneer folk who reckon an updated equipment new build Bucc would still be a winner ! 

[rob Lyttle]

54 minutes ago, John B (Sc) said:

I was thinking more along the lines of the Ukrainians using A-10s or equivalent,

I remember thinking that 40 mile convoy /traffic jam was a dream come true for any and every A10 pilot. But I don't think the US has ever supplied one to any other airforce or nation . And who could blame them?? 

When you consider the capability and sheer firepower of the beast, are you going to take the slightest risk of it ever being used against you? 

They will supply F 16 and 18, and this and that fancy piece of expensive aircraft, but when it comes to the A10 it's "whoa, buddy, we don't sell them!" 

John, I think you should build a kit and learn to love it. Every design element is derived from the function of the whole thing, and most essentially that GAU gatling gun.

By the time you've finished I think you'll love it 😎Personally I'd recommend the Indiana ANG Blacksnakes nose art and decor. It is Bad to the Bone!! 

But I don't think they are going to be touring in Ukraine any time soon 

[Richard E]

14 minutes ago, rob Lyttle said:

But I don't think the US has ever supplied one to any other airforce or nation

 

I believe the depleted uranium rounds used by the A-10's GAU-8 cannon may have been subject to export restrictions.