The Genius Method US Uses to Fly its Most Feared Aircraft From Middle of Nowhere
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2024
- Welcome back to the Fluctus Channel for a feature about how the US and other air forces are getting ready to launch fighters from damaged runways, highways, or beeches. Manufacturers of state-of-the-art fighters from around the world are showing interest in making their fighters capable of operating on dispersed air bases.
Fluctus is a website and TH-cam channel dedicated to sea geeks. Whenever you are curious or an incorrigible lover of this mysterious world, our videos are made for you !
We publish 3 videos a week on our TH-cam channel and many more articles on our website.
Feel free to subscribe to not miss any of our updates and visit our website to discover additional content.
Don’t forget to follow us on twitter:
/ fluctusofficial
Please keep the comments section respectful. Any spam, insults or troll will be deleted.
To contact us, make sure to use our email in the about section of this channel.
RAF harriers were doing this in the seventies. I was on a few exercises in Germany when they were deployed to the forests off base and used their vertical take off. We were responsible for their protection and it was awesome seeing them rise above the treeline
Yes. AUSOM TOO SEE
Hello from Switzerland, actually landing/taking off on highways has been something we have practiced during maneuvers for decades (currently, I don't know about the F/A-18, but I thought I remembered it about the F-5 Tiger, with the earlier aircraft types anyway), as a bonus, often passes under a bridge at the end of the braking distance. The C-130 is not an issue anyway, it was designed to be able to take off and land on virtually any runway (which makes perfect sense for an aircraft like this), I also think the A-10 is a moderate challenge, after all it has it a probably lower landing speed than normal fighter jets like F-16, F/A-18 or F-35.
I think, from my point of view, that's where the challenges start, where nothing is as comfortable as what you have at your home airport, i.e. difficult approaches, shorter runways, etc. Simply choosing a highway that runs straight for 10 km, well, there Depending on the circumstances, airline pilots can probably do it too.
Another challenge is how quickly you can get all the logistics there; Sure, if it's planned, you send people there beforehand, no problem, what about surprise missions? A plane without fuel, ammunition... difficult.
Similar concept by Sweden, Norway and Finland, using public highways to launch and land military aircraft complete with ground crews. Late in coming for US as its not giving business to greedy military contractors in building bases , hangars etc.
1950s interstate highway program required vast stretches be unobstructed as contingency airfields.
Demand for convenience of getting quicker from point A to B resulted overpasses cutting through those alt runways. Many low center highway dividers allowed wings not be obstructed have given way to high center dividers in the name of traffic safety. Other areas have used open space in the middle of a freeway to plunk down commuter rail lines.
One thing to land on a highway, but getting fuel and weapons to such a landing site requires precision logistics and planning.
For the roadside resupply trucks use the same exact vans as the local post office and package delivery companies. Best camouflage on the open road.
Nice use of Star Trek's TNG red alert
Yes, this is not a new concept. Not only Scandinavian countries, but the Soviet Union also had.many such roadway dispersal sites prepared during the Cold War. I have most of them marked on a Google Earth file somewhere in my archives.
Civilian pilots have been doing this since the dawn of flight for all sorts of reasons!
❤❤❤❤❤ KC Krichanat Chanthachon 🎉
Indeed: Swiss, UK and Sweden and Finland did since Cold War👍🏼
Genius method? The UK produced VTOL capable Hawker Harrier was designed to operate from short lengths of roadway and clearings in forests back in the 60's...... The thinking behind the VTOL concept was that fighter operation would still be possible, even after airbases had been rendered unusable. A potential foe would need to spend a considerable amount of time destroying every inch of major roadway, and area of usable level ground - football pitches and parks etc - before Harrier operation would have to cease......
NATO forces, particularly in Germany in the 1970s and 80s were doing this exact same thing one aircraft that the RAF could adapt that much easier of course was the Hawker Siddeley Harrier, jump jet?
The A-10 should never be retired there will always be a need somewhere in the world for this aircraft maybe not now but some point there will be look at everything going on in the world right now
i remember Singapore did a lot of these training (annually, during ARMY RESERVES RE-CALL program) way back in the 90s....
(it's very cool to watch from far....)
not sure if they still doing this today or not.....
Good thing they are not asking Boeing to make their planes... If they asked Boeing it will crash before taking off..
As previously mentioned this is why many german autobahns were constructed the way they are so there are thousands of miles if instant airfields available with comms capabilities. Only sensible for the us to copy the idea
I doubt an A-10 is going to be crucial in any attack in the US since they are ground attack planes. I don't think Canada or Mexico are going to mount an assault and an invasion by Russian and Chinese ground forces in a seaborne assault would be detected within a very few hours of departing their home ports. Where this is needed is in Europe, Japan, Korea, and possibly Australia. Any air war over the US will be by F-16, F-22, F-35, or drone aircraft. And instead of a few practice take offs and landings provisions will have to be made to make fuel available on short notice and having maintenance and repair crews working off the base that may have to handle dozens of flights a day in a dozen locations that may change every day or two. But it is a good idea to work on contingency plans to support alternative temporary bases. Some European countries have been doing it for decades.
I dont think China will attack anyone... China forces are only used for defense... In the history of Human kind... China has not attacked or initiated war on anyone. Its likely America will attack China... Like all their Sanctions on China. We hear Americans keep talking about China attacking but they never say anything about attacking anyone. We have to understand that. The only people who does the attacks are America and Americans want China to attack but they dont want to.. Look at the international waters .. American ships and military base is all over the world policing the world. But other countries have no interesting in international affairs.
A genius is a person! Sort yourself out!
Saab needs to start building cars again. How does that sound?
1950s interstate highway program required vast stretches be unobstructed as contingency airfields. Demand for convenience of getting quicker from point A to B resulted overpasses cutting through those alt runways. Many low center highway dividers allowed wings not be obstructed have given way to high center dividers in the name of traffic safety. Other areas have used open space in the middle of a freeway to plunk down commuter rail lines.
The biggest issue for this is FOD.
Sweden should watch this
We were in Sweden somewhere in the nineties. One day we drove a normal road through the woods, when suddenly the road became much wider. It turned out to be an airbase, including facilities ihidden in the trees. So nothing new for the Swedes...
Eisenhower planned for this with the construction of the Interstate highway system. Designed to include straight portions of road to act as runways.
Wait? This hasn't already been a thing?
It has. For a while now if we're hearing of it
I read about this program in the 1980s. When I was a kid in my books on aircraft , The Swedish have a program similar . They may have de emphasized the program for a while at the end of the cold war
The US interstates were originally designed with this capability in mind. Nowadays, this training is mainly useful in the case of the US military forces against its own citizens. In a distant second place, as far as usefulness, this training would somewhat translate to operations on continents with similar highway infrastructure, however, the ground support in these varied locations would differ greatly. in a distant third place, as far as usefulness, is the very unlikely possibility of a foreign land invasion that is opposed by the US military, (as imagined at the beginning of the cold war). note that it is far more likely now that any foreign (or UN-based) invasion will actually be supported by the US military.. (see the first usefulness case at the beginning of this paragraph).
Sweden has done this since the 60’s taking of from standard roads.
Likely will be used in the Philippines for their hundreds of airfields to attack PLA.
Amen to Dellx below. Not a new idea. NATO been doing it since I was flying in Europe in late 1960s. In fact, driving on the highways today, you can observe the pull outs for parking and reloading.
👍👍👍
О американский стройбат. Первый раз вижу.
Old news, it’s been a thing in Europe for decades
Comment numero uno boy!
SUP!!!!
US?
Surely america's most feared aircraft is the "spooky" or the B-52.
The Svenska flygvapnet have been doing this with Gripens and the RAF Harrier force have been doing this for years. Oh I forgot its the USA, copy someone else idea and claim you invented it
As I guess all Nato Countrys had the concept it seems that Germany abandoned the idea as all Autoban renovations during the last 20 years got fixed concrete divigings in the middle.
Say "austere" one more time.
if this guy say's "ostear" 2 more time.. -_-
In the US Marine Corps, you get used to it. At least, in my time. (:
It IS annoying as hell though…
"No right turn on red." (:
You do know at the 1:12 mark you are showing the reason why you do not need to land on a highway. Those aircraft shown are the KC-10 Tankers, the same ones i was an air refueler in from 1986-1999. Trust me, a situation where landing on a runway is required, it has to be a major problem with the aircraft. Tankers are more safer to the fighters than austere landing locations. FACT.
How is a KC-10 going to reload weaponry and ammo, and perform some kind of maintenance on a jet, in flight?
The Idea is to be able to do a re-arm w/o having to return to a base, as well as an alt place to land if the base is damaged. It's always better to have a plan in place just in case.
Instead of running down stairs and putting on flight suits, why not have guys sitting suited up and ready sitting in the cockpit in shifts? Plane, fuelled, armed and ready to go Surely that would be much faster. Turn it on and go if the alarm goes off.
I imagine it’s because sitting too long is bad for their bodies health (long-term) but also their mental health. Since our government spent MILLIONS on training them it only makes sense for them to want their pilots to be at their best for the longest amount of time possible
The Grippen looks better from its nose to the rear of the delta wing. The Rafael looks better from the rear of the delta wing to the turkey feathers. Don’t care for the hemorrhoid looking tail section of the Gripen JAS 39.
Could this make littering on the highway basically treason if you don't know where these pop-up airfields will be erected?
is this Genius???????? Sweden have than this sens the -50 to now!!!!!!
I WANT TO GO HOME! GET ME OUT OF HERE!
Aircraft feared by whom?
If you have to ask….
Hi big brother, I was simply trying to explain through an analogy that he’s less than. Hope you understand😮
what? most feared? The 23 is more scary than fat Betty... seriously
Old news
LMAO, nobody fears the F35.
اول شي تعلم تكتب عربي
How was this the "most feared" aircraft?
Nothing new. Serbian air force did this during 1999. when nato bombarded Serbia.