Runway Destruction vs. Repair

[Felcas]

Unless I escaped any comment (I tried to read all before post) I didn't see anyone talking about using taxiways to launch planes.
There are cases of airbases that took that into consideration during construction. I dont remember the names of the ABs but I remember seeing this.
They are not reinforced otherwise you would have just another runway that airplanes use to taxi, but they can be used as a LIMITED runway.

I noticed people talking about crater diameter, but not talking about crater deepness, (please correct me if I am wrong) but deepness is a much more serious damage to runways then diameter, at least thats what is stated along a number of militar flight simulators that I have been flying (Falcon, DCS, etc...) and for this weapons have big impact on this too, dont know if CMANO simulate this but I can damage a runway either with a MK84 or a penetration bomb, but how much damage they make, is there diference? One does more then the other (not considering diameter or deepness in this question, just play damage potential).

[comsubpac]

The German airforce did upload a video about it a while ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmVroVowHgI

The runway is supposed to be operational within 3 hours.

[Gunner98]

The 'runway capable taxiway' is already a facility in the game' and many military airfields have them - that's one option but they can still be damaged
 
As pointed out - there are a lot of variables.  To implement something like this would be tricky but the Dev's have shown that they are up to tricky issues in the past.  My thoughts:

• you would need a 'facility' added for Runway repair team, probably different capabilities some with just gravel and Hvy Eqpt, some with temporary decking, some with concrete, some with asphalt
• the runway would need to be re-modeled to include resilience to certain 'runway busting' munitions vs. standard munitions (or maybe the munitions need a tweak)
• the runway would need to be scalable based on damage - this might be as simple as a 50% damage has 50% of the length but I doubt it would be that simple - the segmented option mentioned above looks interesting
• AC would need an indicator if it could use a 'robust' runway 
• The repair algorithm then needs to take into account a whole bunch of time & capability factors
• To fully implement, the Airbase Fuel question and how that should be modeled would need to be settled, as mentioned above, that is usually easier to destroy
• Also the Airfield control facilities, tower, ATC, runway lights etc should be more accurately modeled, probably with a longer takeoff, landing and perhaps ready time being the effect of degradation
• Perhaps further 'facilities' for back-up control, lighting etc could be added to the DB to make an airbase more robust - these and the repair teams above should be non-auto detectable  

All quite interesting and would be an added level of depth to the game but I'm not sure where it would fit in the priority.
 
Anyway my .02 CAD
 
 

[Gunner98]

Oh, and I forgot.  Probably need a Doctrine on how much 'Risk' to damage a side is willing to take. i.e.

• The Hordes are at the wall (all out Cold War turns hot) - max risk acceptable
• COIN such as Afghanistan etc - minimal risk acceptable
• something in the middle

This should then be factored into the aircrafts ability to use more robust strips and a check made every time an AC takes off - failure on take-off AC destroyed, failure on landing AC permanently on Maintenance.
 
B
 

[RoccoNZ]

Perhaps modelling runway repair as an attribute to ground units, with a cumulative effect on damaged facilities in an area, up to a maximum limit. Ground units could be attacked to degrade capabilities.

Along with improvements in the EW model, I think aircraft damage and repair has the highest payoff for improving realism.

[jarraya]

I think this was mentioned already, but you can always use the road just outside the airfield.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNuVCvIGKxE

[Gunner98]

Those are specialy built sections of highway. I think Finland, Sweeden, Germany (west) and I think Switzerland and maybe some others had them set up for forward dispersal. They built for 60's/70's era fighters, this looks almost like a test of a certification or something for the F-18 - the guy in the vidio didn't seem too happy to land on it though. Cool, thanks for sharing

B

[comsubpac]

Germany no longer has them. You could identify them when a long part of the Autobahn was straight and the middle was concrete.

[chrisol]

Hi,

I'm rather out of my depth here, so might not be speaking sense... but isn't much of this possible within a scenario with LUA etc ?

For example, at a certain damage level, the runway (or air base) is removed
And after a certain time (determined by the scenario designer, ?with a random element) it can be restored as needed and in line with considered opinion about how fast repairs might take.

Chris

[StellarRat]

If you want to knock an airbase quickly and completely, but not for a long time target the runways. If you want to knock at an airbase for a long time you have to target the fuel and arms storage and repair facilities.

[smudge56]

That's where the good old JP233 would be great. Although we (the UK) have now deemed it Illegal by signing the Land Mines Treaty.

[kgambit]

The problem with using LUA in that fashion is that removing the runway makes it impervious to further attacks while it's being repaired. It prevents the attacker from continuing to heap additional damage on it.