Runway Destruction vs. Repair

[gsmith63]

I hadn't seen this brought up in a previous post so thought I'd start the debate. Should runways (and for that matter runway entry points, taxiways, etc) be able to be completely and fairly easily destroyed? For example, in testing I hit a 8,000 foot runway with three GBU-31 (2,000 lb) guided bombs and totally destroyed it.

I frankly liked the Harpoon model of runway repair, although it was somewhat optimistic. Now mind you, if I hit a 8,000 foot runway with 16 2,000 lb bombs I would expect it to be basically destroyed forever (something you couldn’t do in Harpoon). However, if I hit it with three 2,000 lb bombs I would expect it to be completely unusable for 12-24 hours, but then gradually more usable for larger and larger aircraft as time goes on. Is there any plan to add this type of feature to the game?

Gregg

[Dimitris]

Yes, we want to make a better model for this. The trick is to come up with reasonable repair rates taking into account a number of RL factors.

[El Savior]

Runway repair is quite easy task. IF repair team and supplies are there impact craters can be repaired fast. The main problem is if damage is severe / several craters. But minimal strip conditions are even then sometimes easily achieved. It would be nice if damage to runways would change it's length. C-130 and modern short-takeoff jets need short runway, but repairing whole runway should take much longer.

Here's picture - we see 30+ impact craters, but still it takes minimal repair effort to fix few craters to make minimal operational strip for short-takeoff/land aircrafts. Filling 500 kg bomb crater could take only two hour (if rapid repair kit is available). Unexploded ordnance could be bigger problem. Of course IRL planning repair etc. is added to time so 12-24h time for repairing only few impact craters should be quite realistic.





More info: http://www.fauntrackway.com/images/stor ... repair.pdf
http://www.fauntrackway.com/trackway-so ... way-repair

[Dimitris]

Very nice, thanks! Keep 'em coming if you have more info.

[jdkbph]

Wow, yeah. This would also bring into play the tactic of peppering the area with delayed time cluster bombs or AP mines after you've dropped your Durandals.

JD

[dillonkbase]

That chart seems a little unrealistic to me.. Especially the cut out heave... Seems like that in particular requires more than just a backhoe, that it would take some time to get a saw of the type required to cut the slabs and heave them out of the way.

Another thing not mentioned here is how navigation tools are damaged in these events. Sure you repair the strip, but you cannot repair arresting gear, IFR landing systems, control towers, runway lighting, ect... in 24 hours and would need to consider those in any reduced function mode...

[El Savior]

Chart is from runway fast repair kit seller's webpage. So if they are selling and advertising these figures true time could be longer [:D]. Just giving one reference for this subject. 2-4 hours per crater seems ok time to repair runway only. This is when engineers, supplies and machinery is available. It's totally different story if these are not available.

Dillionkbase,

You're quite right that repairing arresting gear, lights, control towers all other stuff takes much time. I was mainly offering one reference for crater repairing on runways only. And to tell how easy it is make runway operational again after severe strike. Not whole air base repaired 100% but at least base is able to launch some aircrafts. But lights, control tower and other fancy stuff are not truly always needed in war time. Additional emergency spare lights should be available in reserve for night time landings. It would be cool if damaged air bases are more dangerous to land during night time and operational loses could happen.

IMHO small air bases should take much longer to repair and large air bases could take shorter time. This would simulate on site engineers, repair kits, machinery etc. Or if possible make scenario designers able to choose is repairing air base possible and how effective it is (example repair rate: none, slow, medium, fast).

BTW. This company http://www.rapidrunwayrepair.com/ sells Rapid Runway Repair kits (fiberglass mat) too and they have strip marking systems (lights etc) available too.

[Jakob Wedman]

From Anbas Ffarbkomp [Swedish]
"Each runway repari plt can, with several days endurance repaire an damage area with 5 large craters (10 diameter) and 50 smaller craters (1 m diameter) within 10 hours. This assumes, however, that no particular problems due to soil conditions exist and that the repair materials (gravel) are within 3 km."

("Varje pluton kan, med uthålllighet i flera dygn, reparera ett skadeområde med 5 stora kratrar (10 diameter) och 50 mindre kratrar (1 m diameter) inom 10 h. Detta förutsätter dock att inga särskilda problem p g a markförhållanden föreligger samt att reparationsmateriel (grus) finns inom 3 km.")

[navwarcol]

This also brings in the tactic of trying to knock out the relevant buildings where the repair teams would be based, and where their equipment would be stored. In the days when WW3 was expected to occur, a lot of attention was paid to that, from an offensive viewpoint, and paid to defending against it, through decoys and other tactics, from the defensive side.

[StellarRat]

Repairing a bomb crater seems like it would be very easy and quick specially if you have heavy equipment available. A dump truck, front end loader, gravel and a supply of hot asphalt or steel mats would be very quick. I'm not talking about "perfect" repairs just ones good enough to allow operations to continue. Two hours doesn't seem unreasonable at all. You'd be far better off trying to destroy fuel storage and maintenance faciliities if you really want to take a base down for a long time. Then you've converted it from an airbase to just an emergency landing strip.

[guanotwozero]

Perhaps a reasonable approximation would be to divide each runway into a number of segments, and each would have several levels of condition, e.g. perfect, damaged, destroyed, grass, etc.

Fast jets and big iron may need the whole runway to be in perfect condition, but rugged aircraft could still operate on lesser conditions e.g. a quick-fix filled-in crater. STOL aircraft could still use a runway shortened by damage.

It would mean that the segments should be available as distinct targets, and the runway length/condition logic would have to allow/deny use for different types of aircraft.

I agree that including repair facilities is a good idea, and there could be options to perform either quick fixes or slower high-quality repairs.

[navwarcol]

Usually a strike on an airfield would not be trying to get an "all or nothing" destruction in the modern (and cold war) world. You may want to close an airfield down for a couple of hours to fly a strike package or a specops helo nearby without the aircraft based there being able to interfere, when actually destroying the base or its aircraft would be politically risky, etc. Something like the 1986 movie "Iron Eagle" comes to mind.

[cwemyss]

ORIGINAL: navwarcol
Something like the 1986 movie "Iron Eagle" comes to mind.

Well that's a first.... I'm fairly sure Iron Eagle has NEVER been cited as a source.

[dillonkbase]

Maybe I have a skewed opinion based on my field experience in Afghanistan, but I think that it takes pretty special locations to safely launch and land aircraft. I am not an expert on manned aircraft, but outside of helicopters, A-10s, and C-130 the list of aircraft that can reliably launch from FO ridden locations for a significant portion of time would be pretty limited. Furthermore, figuring out acceptable load outs for these chancy takeoffs and landings seems pretty difficult.

As for "Repairing a bomb crater seems like it would be very easy and quick specially if you have heavy equipment available. A dump truck, front end loader, gravel and a supply of hot asphalt or steel mats would be very quick." I just have to disagree unless the strip is not made of reinforced concrete. If the concrete is buckled in any significant way you just can't have a airplane rolling over it without driving munitions or a wingtip into the ground. Concrete saws are pretty slow tools... Furthermore, I think that the presence and operation of navigation and landing aids is a pretty big driver of an landing strips capacity.

anyway just my two cent's. I worked off a dirt runway with UAV's and we spent a significant amount of time(and sometimes were unable to operate) keeping it maintained and fixing our aircraft after they took damage from landing. If it would have been big enough to land a manned aircraft, I think they would have thought twice before doing so.

[mrfeizhu]

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/concrete/pubs/07030/ Concrete Pavements will take about 7 days to cure, that's the ideal time, i doubt the can get it done in a 24 hour time frame, the concrete wont be dry in that amount of time, 2000 pound bombs make a big hole.

[navwarcol]

LOL the movie is not a source. A potential scenario based on the same idea was what I was referring to.

ORIGINAL: cwemyss

ORIGINAL: navwarcol
Something like the 1986 movie "Iron Eagle" comes to mind.

Well that's a first.... I'm fairly sure Iron Eagle has NEVER been cited as a source.

[guanotwozero]

ORIGINAL: dillonkbase
I am not an expert on manned aircraft, but outside of helicopters, A-10s, and C-130 the list of aircraft that can reliably launch from FO ridden locations for a significant portion of time would be pretty limited. Furthermore, figuring out acceptable load outs for these chancy takeoffs and landings seems pretty difficult. [...] If the concrete is buckled in any significant way you just can't have a airplane rolling over it without driving munitions or a wingtip into the ground.

There's a good example of that being the intended result; the Black Buck missions of 1982 put a single well-placed bomb on the middle of Stanley runway. The crater was quickly filled in but the quality of repair meant that fast jets could not use it for laden takeoffs, though Hercs and STOLS could still operate. There were plans to ship materials to make a better repair, but the submarine threat meant it never happened before the end of hostilities. It meant that strike missions had to be launched from the mainland at the edge of their operational range, a distinct disadvantage. Thus the delay time for properly repairing a strategic runway can have a significant effect on a conflict.

[Blu3wolf]

plenty of short field aircraft out there... the Caribou is one such example, the C-27J another.

modern fighter jets dont need all that much runway compared to older stuff like the F-104... : D

[jdkbph]

ORIGINAL: mrfeizhu

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/concrete/pubs/07030/ Concrete Pavements will take about 7 days to cure, that's the ideal time, i doubt the can get it done in a 24 hour time frame, the concrete wont be dry in that amount of time, 2000 pound bombs make a big hole.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that a repair to pristine, pre-damage conditions can be quickly accomplished. You'd be looking for a functional, short term, quick-fix type repair, such as filling in the hole and putting a steel or fiberglass mat over it.

The concrete question came up because, depending on the type of damage, large sections of damaged concrete may need to be removed before the above can be accomplished. In fact damaging concrete is such a way as to make this necessary is exactly what the BLU-107 Durandal was designed to do.

JD

[dillonkbase]

ORIGINAL: jdkbph

The concrete question came up because, depending on the type of damage, large sections of damaged concrete may need to be removed before the above can be accomplished. In fact damaging concrete is such a way as to make this necessary is exactly what the BLU-107 Durandal was designed to do.

THIS! Removing large sections of buckled slap is not a two hour job, and depending on the thickness and amount of reinforcement(rebar) requires a pretty slow tool(a large concrete saw)

furthermore, while I know there are a bunch of short field aircraft out their, a caribou or c-130 J aren't going to fly a CAP. And your modern fighter jets still don't like to eat FO... The perfect example is the 8 June 1982 crash of RAF GR3 (XZ989) of No. 1 Squadron damaged beyond repair landing on a metal strip runway at San Carlos, Falkland Islands.

Add a jet inlet to the damaged runway I think you have to model takeoff incidents(not sure random engine failure is part of the sim at this time?)