Military jets takeoff / landing on highway

Rgbeard said:
I heard it was an A-10 powered by an Audi TDI.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif

2joK0ub
 
wilkersk said:
Conspiracy nuts' wet dream.
Click to expand...

Yeah, which is kind of ridiculous, but nothing new.

JADE HELM is a US Army Special Forces Unconventional Warfare (UW) exercise. In layman's terms, UW would best be described as guerrilla warfare, eg. the development and support of resistance movements. UW is nothing new, and has been a primary mission set since SF was founded in the early 1950's to conduct partisan warfare behind the lines in the event of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe.

Because UW is conducted in a denied environment where the enemy has control, it involves a lot of Hogan's Heroes type clandestine activity by troops that don't look or act like conventional military forces. That gets the conspiracy theorists worked up. JADE HELM and exercises like it have been conducted annually for decades. SF has been liberating "Pineland" during Exercise ROBIN SAGE every few months since 1974. I did it in '93.

1_VhhQ_KOsI-DP12Ih6vFZnw.jpeg

The A-10 landings were actually a part of NORTHERN STRIKE, a thoroughly conventional exercise designed to train Guard and Reserve forces on joint interoperability. It is hosted by the Michigan National Guard. I have no knowledge of the war plans that this exercise supports, but can infer from press releases that participating forces must be allocated to reinforce NATO in the Baltics.

That would explain the highway landings. The Soviets and Warsaw Pact nations definitely built stretches of highway for dual purpose use as emergency airfields. I have seen numerous such roadways in the Baltics and in Yugoslavia, and was taught back in the 80's that this was part of Soviet doctrine. Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia are all very concerned about a resurgent Russian capability.
 
Last edited:
Warlock said:
This is exactly what the Army Aviation does well in theory and practice…The forward rearm and refuel process is critical to the Army mission but not part of the other branches critical infrastructure. A dedicated III/V platoon is the largest sub unit within an Attack Battalion with Fuel and Ammo Haulers plus all the necessary equipment to set up in a field location. When properly equipped they can run five rearm and separate refuel points augmented by the Armament technicians found in the maintenance company. A good unit can break down and jump the FARP in a couple of hours…
Click to expand...

Tilt rotors will relieve some of the logistical requirements with a jump FARP but not enough to be a game changer. Still gonna need HEMTTs pushing forward with ground forces along the FLOT. Speed and range help but really only critical for deep strikes and long range MEDEVAC.
 
Miss me some Viggens.

 
soviet block countries have constructed their highways with that in mind for years. while on approach to Havana cuba, you will see a highway that has a section that looks just like a runway in the middle of a straight section.
 
“This is believed to be the first time in history that modern Air Force aircraft have intentionally landed on a civilian roadway on U.S. soil,” said Air Force Col. James Rossi,”

If the key point is “US soil,” I’m puzzled.

I suppose the scenario they’re practicing is landing when they cannot return to a base on US soil. For example, if the aircraft or base is battle-damaged.

I could understand practicing this with interceptor aircraft, but why an aircraft that’s intended for ground support? Who envisions ground combat on our soil, and why suddenly now?
 
we're the interstates built with this in mind by Eisenhower?
 
NoHeat said:
“This is believed to be the first time in history that modern Air Force aircraft have intentionally landed on a civilian roadway on U.S. soil,” said Air Force Col. James Rossi,”

If the key point is “US soil,” I’m puzzled.

I suppose the scenario they’re practicing is landing when they cannot return to a base on US soil. For example, if the aircraft or base is battle-damaged.

I could understand practicing this with interceptor aircraft, but why an aircraft that’s intended for ground support? Who envisions ground combat on our soil, and why suddenly now?
Click to expand...

The only truthful answer I could give would take this to the spin zone and get me a POA timeout…
 
NoHeat said:
“This is believed to be the first time in history that modern Air Force aircraft have intentionally landed on a civilian roadway on U.S. soil,” said Air Force Col. James Rossi,”

If the key point is “US soil,” I’m puzzled.

I suppose the scenario they’re practicing is landing when they cannot return to a base on US soil. For example, if the aircraft or base is battle-damaged.

I could understand practicing this with interceptor aircraft, but why an aircraft that’s intended for ground support? Who envisions ground combat on our soil, and why suddenly now?
Click to expand...

I don’t think the US soil comment has anything to do with preparing for war on our territory. Just a training event that hadn’t happened here til now.

Interceptors don’t need to operate from austere conditions and aren’t designed for that mission set. CAS (A-10/AV-8), transport (C-130 / C-17) and helo assists need to operate as close to the battle as possible. They have to respond quickly to the ground commander’s requirements, therefore they train for remote, unimproved strips. During initial stages of a war (initial push) that could be critical but once we’ve “setup shop”, not so much needed.

https://theaviationist.com/2014/05/01/a-10-mud-lake-pix/
 
Last edited:
NoHeat said:
I could understand practicing this with interceptor aircraft, but why an aircraft that’s intended for ground support? Who envisions ground combat on our soil, and why suddenly now?
Click to expand...

Because they are not practicing for ground combat on our soil. Most likely they are practicing to reinforce NATO in the event of a Russian incursion into the Baltics, Poland, or Western Ukraine. That makes the reason for the use of "tank buster" aircraft obvious.

As others have pointed out, sections of highway built to function as airfields were very common in the USSR and Warsaw Pact nations. In a fight, both sides would expect their existing air bases to be hit early and often by missile strikes. Having the ability to quickly establish alternate bases and FARPs close to the front lines allows ground attack aircraft to quickly rearm, refuel, and get back into battle, with less time spent in transit.

The publicizing of this particular event could be meant as a message to Putin, that we are prepared to fight for the territorial integrity of our NATO allies, and will not stand by and watch a repeat of the Crimea campaign. Or it could just be some guard guys doing a mission analysis and saying "this would be cool!"
 
I'm pretty sure that whoever thought that this was a good idea is taking a bit of heat and there's got to be some face-palming going on in the Air Force PR department. I mean, who would have thought that an A-10 could land on a straight piece of highway that looks suspiciously like, well... a runway? It's not as if something was proven here and it's completely unclear why the Air Force thought it was okay to close down a public highway and shut people's power off while they had a thrill doing their "Flying Cowboy" thing. I'm surprised they didn't pull into the ampm and top off the tanks. They could burn diesel in a pinch right? :rolleyes:
 
NoHeat said:
“This is believed to be the first time in history that modern Air Force aircraft have intentionally landed on a civilian roadway on U.S. soil,” said Air Force Col. James Rossi,”

If the key point is “US soil,” I’m puzzled.
Click to expand...
Im more puzzled by the juxtaposition of “modern” and “A-10.”
 
Sluggo63 said:
Im more puzzled by the juxtaposition of “modern” and “A-10.”
Click to expand...

i worked on the A-10 Development Program in the early ‘70’s, only 50 years ago:cool:.

I suppose it’s “modern” compared to a WW I Spad or a P-47. Although update to avionics, weapons, reskining the wings, and other changes might lead one to think parts of the Warthog are actually modern:D.

The Guard is sometimes rightly accused of hyperbole.

Cheers
 
NoHeat said:
“This is believed to be the first time in history that modern Air Force aircraft have intentionally landed on a civilian roadway on U.S. soil,” said Air Force Col. James Rossi,”
Click to expand...
They used to land all the time outside England AFB on dirt roads in the gunnery range all the time so I guess those were not "civlillian roadways"
 
Just think of all the new landing options if we could land light planes on stretches of closed highways? I’m talking non-emergencies.
 
sourdough44 said:
Just think of all the new landing options if we could land light planes on stretches of closed highways? I’m talking non-emergencies.
Click to expand...

You can in Michigan as a civilian...with permission.
 
Originally built with no auto pilot…really cutting edge…
 
sourdough44 said:
Just think of all the new landing options if we could land light planes on stretches of closed highways? I’m talking non-emergencies.
Click to expand...

EdFred said:
You can in Michigan as a civilian...with permission.
Click to expand...

I've seen it coordinated in North Dakota for the crop dusters. Granted... it is ND and half the population relies on farming. They got it approved with the County/State and then put it in the papers.
 
Kind of off topic. I read long ago, that when Pres. Ike was building the interstate system, he was lobbied by Bill Piper to also consider building small air strips parallel to the hwy under construction. A lot of things come together when building a 4-lane. (1) Land procurement. (2) Equipment is on site. (3) A steady stream of crushed rock and concrete. (4) noise complaints minimal. Mr Piper was thinking about 2,000' strips near off ramps.

Times sure have changed since my National guard Birddog days. NY Highway Patrol was never completely sold on this idea of A/C and hwys.
 
Seanaldinho said:
Granted... it is ND and half the population relies on farming. ...
Click to expand...

sidejack of the thread: I had to laugh (not being snarky or snide)... anyway... I think the entire population relies on farming...
 
Bob Noel said:
sidejack of the thread: I had to laugh (not being snarky or snide)... anyway... I think the entire population relies on farming...
Click to expand...

Most people just get their food from grocery stores, duh!
 
This is what they mean when they say, “patrolled by aircraft”.
 
Warlock said:
This is exactly what the Army Aviation does well in theory and practice…The forward rearm and refuel process is critical to the Army mission but not part of the other branches critical infrastructure. A dedicated III/V platoon is the largest sub unit within an Attack Battalion with Fuel and Ammo Haulers plus all the necessary equipment to set up in a field location. When properly equipped they can run five rearm and separate refuel points augmented by the Armament technicians found in the maintenance company. A good unit can break down and jump the FARP in a couple of hours…
Click to expand...

I don't remember the doctrinal terms anymore, but basically the Army has executive authority for theater logistics from the shoreline in. The big green machine has a massive bulk logistics capacity, large enough to support our largest war plans, which might include 2-3 corps and 6-9 heavy divisions.

Jeff767 said:
The problem with operating fighters from roads or other austere sights is you have to provide support in terms of fuel, maintenance and ammo. In practice that is nearly impossible to accomplish. Each sortie might easily need 15,000 lbs of resupply. It makes for nice news stories but is of little practical use. The same applies to forward basing VSTOL aircraft. Resuppply becomes the critical issue.
Click to expand...

A-10 logistics are easily supportable within the larger theater logistics capacity. A squadron of A-10's has 18 aircraft. Each aircraft holds 1500 gallons of JP8. Assuming 3 sorties per day, with 2/3 of fuel load expended each day, that is a required supply rate of 54,000 gallons per day.

A US Army heavy division has 354 M-1 Abrams tanks. Each tank holds 600 gallons of JP8. Assuming daily resupply during offensive operations with 1/2 of fuel supply expended, that is a required supply rate per day of 106,000 gallons for tanks alone, not to mention the fuel requirements of the other 2000-plus armored vehicles and 108 helicopters in the division. An Army division maintains sufficient organic capacity to resupply itself with fuel in the field for up to 3 days ON THE MOVE.

Ordinance math is similar. An A-10 has a 14,000 pound payload. Sounds like a lot. 3 sorties a day for a squadron is a supply rate of 756,000 pounds of ordinance a day. But the daily planning factor for an artillery tube in moderate combat is roughly 20,000 pounds of ammunition. Per tube. There are 18 tubes in a battalion, with 3 battalions in a heavy division. That is a supply rate of over a million pounds per day, just for artillery rounds. Now add in all the tank ammo, small arms ammo, mortars, etc.

I went to school with most of the guys currently commanding US Army divisions and corps. I GUARRANTEE you they would find the assets to keep those A-10's supplied.
 
The difference in everything you post is that ground assets can drive to resupply and refueling points. Tanks also require limited fuel supplies unless on the move. Fixed Wing Aviation assets don’t have that luxury and are always in a max sortie mode. You also omit that parts resupply is critical for aircraft and requires large amounts of stores. Refueling and rearming helicopters is also considerably different than fixed wing especially when you consider ordnance bring back capabilities. It’s especially poor with VSOL assets. Lastly nothing is easier to interdict than fuel supplies. We always tend to fight the last war. In the next war we may not have air superiority. US forces have no real concept of fighting without complete air superiority.
The Marine Corps has put more effort into the concept of forward deployed air assets than any other military. They have concluded for most situations investing in air tanker assets is a better concept. They actually considered going with conventional only F35 assets however in a odd reversal of roles found the Navy pushing hard for the VSTOL version of the F35 to resurrect the old light carrier concept as large deck carriers dwindle in numbers.
 
Last edited:
Well no doubt, future wars we probably won’t have the dominance we have now. Forget air superiority, our enemies are making great strides in hypersonic missiles, EW / EMI weapons, GPS denial, ADA systems etc. Heck, unimproved airstrips with FARPS are vulnerable to indirect fire as well. In that regard, they’re no different than massive coalition bases (Bagram, Kandahar, etc) located within the country.

So what do you do? Don’t train to a mission task because you might have casualties because our enemies are catching up to us? No, it’s still a critical mission so you adapt the best you can and just accept the fact that it’s no Afghanistan or Iraq. You’re gonna take losses.

Below is what the Army and the Marines train for. It’s not antiquated. The concept of providing CAS as close to the FLOT (if there is one), is crucial. Saw first hand AH-64s and OH-58s (Op Strong Eagle) engaging in multiple hostiles, flying only 5 minutes to a FARP and within 5 minutes back in the fight. Doesn’t matter is that fight was 10 years ago, today or 10 years from now. That capability is critical. Which is why the speed and range of tilt rotors matters little. You need assets close to the fight. Now, has that capability been used for FW CAS in wars of the last 20 years? Nope, but that doesn’t mean it won’t be used in future wars though.

https://www.15thmeu.marines.mil/New...llers-provide-crucial-service-for-marine-air/

Marines operating off a remote island (IeShima) in the pacific. C-130s, AV-8s, AH-1s, UH-1s. MAGTF total package forward deployed.

910BB08F-3491-4B2A-9A2B-76F9E3064095.jpeg E55854F8-E48C-4134-8729-64897B4C93AF.jpeg
 
Velocity173 said:
Haven’t seen this posted yet but this is crazy. Brrrrrt! By the way, anyone heard of the new Black Fly aircraft?...
Click to expand...
I'm confused (again). What does a personal drone-like ultralight with 8 electric motors have to do with this A-10 thread?
 
The AV8B has a very poor combat record with one of the highest loss rates per sortie in the first Gulf War. The Marines relied on F18’s for CAS supported by tankers in the higher threat areas. The AV8’s could not sustain operations when faced with simple hand held surface to air missiles. As a consequence they were removed from operations in those envelopes.
Hopefully the F35B will have better survival rates.
 
Army trucks fuel and ordinance to improvised airfields and FARPs. Air Force lands there. C-130's bring parts and ground crew. Use it for a day or two, then jump forward (or back) to a new field as the ground situation changes. The Army has plenty of logistics capability to support this, especially in a developed theater such as Europe, with massive infrastructure such as ports, railways, highways, and civilian trucking assets.
 
The Marines are not built for a heavy force scenario, and neither is the AV8. The A-10 is specifically designed for that fight.

Funny you should bring up the first Gulf War. A-10s flew 8000 sorties destroying 900 tanks, 2000 other vehicles, and 1000 artillery pieces, with a loss of 4 aircraft.
 
Domenick said:
I'm confused (again). What does a personal drone-like ultralight with 8 electric motors have to do with this A-10 thread?
Click to expand...

I was making a joke about the various threads that were started when the Black Fly came out a couple years back. Just like the several threads about the A-10.

Of course I’d never intentionally start a thread knowing full well a thread already exists on the subject. Completely unintentional, but mine just happens to be better than the half dozen other copy cat threads. ;)
 
We used to run “Fat Cow” operations as well…using fuel bladders and CH-47s to Jump FARPs for an Attack Company…many of these tactics have been lost in the last 20 years working out of fixed bases…

I can also tell you if you get a Tank Brigade Commander 0-6 type roll up with a company of M-1s…they have no problem sucking your FARP dry…try to tell them it’s aviation fuel..lol…happened to me one Reforger…
 
Well no one has ever praised the AV-8 for survivability but 6 losses vs 18 for A-10s ain’t bad. Of course you’d have to dig into number of hours flown, what specific threat areas they operated in, etc, to form any real opinion on one ac vs another. Either way, I don’t see the Marines getting rid of expeditionary airfields with the F-35.

http://rjlee.org/air/ds-aaloss/

I can say that on my “CAS card” AV-8s were overhead just as much as any other coalition aircraft. Those guys had a high op tempo in both OEF and OIF. They have their weaknesses (loiter time / weapons load) but they still performed admirably. Good book by the way.
https://www.amazon.com/Nightmares-P...rds=a+nightmare+prayer&qid=1628436622&sr=8-3#

Personally, I think the majority of the FW CAS that’s occurred in the last 20 years could have easily been done by RW CAS. The approval process with FW was ridiculous…seen that first hand.:( Doesn’t take a 2,000 lb bomb when a Hellfire will do…doesn’t even take a 250 lb SDB for that matter. Gun runs from a fixed cannon from several thousand feet up vs a chain gun slewed to the pilot’s helmet. Seen a single Apache absolutely annihilate about 30 troops in the open with the chain gun. But, I’m a little biased so take my assessment with a grain of salt. ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top