7 ms·

This has a significant deterrence effect because it means you can’t just massively attack all airbases and expect the Air Force to be disabled. Even if you dest

by ipnon 3y ago

This has a significant deterrence effect because it means you can’t just massively attack all airbases and expect the Air Force to be disabled. Even if you destroy all runways there will still be air units with all manner of destructive weapons in action, at least for a long enough time to massively retaliate in kind.

rewmie 3y ago
> This has a significant deterrence effect because it means you can’t just massively attack all airbases and expect the Air Force to be disabled. I'd be very surprised if being able to land/takeoff from highways wasn't one of the most basic design requirements for a project as massive as the F-35. If highways are already designed to be usable as ad-hoc airfields, it would make no sense at all to design new airplanes to keep them compatible.
- ipnon 3y ago
  Absolutely, that's why STOVL is the defining feature of the F-35B. It's common knowledge where American and allied air bases are, by making them able to base anywhere with modern infrastructure it makes "zerg rushes" untenable. The astute reader will note recent examples of countries with outdated airframes being vulnerable to massive surprise attacks.
  - dragontamer 3y ago
    Both F-35B and F-35C are the variants that can liftoff from a Carrier (aka: Navy) or WASP-class Assault Ship (aka: Marines) respectively. F-35A is the one that needs the full runway. This is a big deal, as the F35A has the best performance overall but needs the nicest conditions to launch. If the "hardest to launch" variant can be flown from a highway, then the other two models will do even better. This is a "steelman argument". We're demonstrating the worst F35 at this job. All other variants will do even better.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > Both F-35B and F-35C are the variants that can liftoff from a Carrier (aka: Navy) or WASP-class Assault Ship (aka: Marines) respectively. Other way around: F-35B is the Marine Corps STOVL variant, F-35C is the Navy CATOBAR variant. (No reason an F-35B couldn’t take off from and land on a regular carrier, too, but its the C that is made to launch with a catapult and catch an arrestor hook to land.)
      - CydeWeys 3y ago
        And the simple mnemonic to remember it is that the F-35A is for the [A]ir Force and the F-35C is for [C]arriers.
        fragmede 3y ago
        And the F-35B is the one that does [B]rief Take Off and Landing
        psd1 3y ago
        Or [B]oo! Made You Jump.
    - 3seashells 3y ago
      Could a F-35A be launched from a near vertical catapult rail?
      - t0mas88 3y ago
        No. The acceleration would be far above the design limits of the airframe.
  - coryrc 3y ago
    So all airbase runways are destroyed but the planes are untouched? This is a dumb waste of money.
    - fooker 3y ago
      It is a lot easier to hide planes than to hide runways. It could be a dumb waste of money either way, but your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premise. Consider the current Russia/Ukraine war, Russia destroyed the vast majority of the runways Ukraine could have used but Ukraine still has an air force.
      - coryrc 3y ago
        > but Ukraine still has an air force. That's a generous statement.
        anikan_vader 3y ago
        It is not, as the Ukrainian air force continues to conduct regular sorties and has successfully prevented the Russian air force from every gaining air supremacy. The Russian air force has taken massive losses, both in terms of planes and pilots, but it also continues to exist, from a non-generous and factual perspective.
        vGPU 3y ago
        The Air Force with an estimated strength somewhere stern that of algeria and chile? Last I checked, they literally had more trainer aircraft than actual combat jets left.
        CydeWeys 3y ago
        You got a source for that? They've had MiGs donated by other Eastern European countries as well.
        _kbh_ 3y ago
- nicholasbraker 3y ago
  It's not only a matter of having a runway available. The F-35 is very data-centric and is very dependable on IT-systems which need connectivity also on remote sites. This can be easily solved by using modern 4G/5G networks (either dedicated MoD ones or public ones) with the "right" encryption running over it cleared for military use, but it is a constraint which needs to be taken into consideration. In the Gripen/Viggen days, you probably only needed a few trucks with equipment/fuel and conscripts. Now you need additional "datacenters in a box" to make this work.
  - actionfromafar 3y ago
    Gripen days are not over.
rhuru 3y ago
Isn't this a very common requirement though ? India mostly has Russian planes but most new major Indian highways have several stretched that can be used as runways and Air Force also does test landings from time to time.
sacnoradhq 3y ago
It's primary for forward tactical, war-time refueling because you can't just drive a jet from a hardened bunker on an air base to a random road far away. Wingspan and trees and such get in the way. Finland, Poland, etc. roads fit the criteria where it makes sense to have emergency alternate landing sites than first-to-be-destroyed fixed bases. An adversary such as Russia undoubtedly already designates straight, manicured roads in Eastern Europe for anti-runway demolition as secondary targets. Also, given Russia's hypersonic capabilities, they undoubtedly possess something between JP233 and DRDO SAAW: stand-off anti-runway and hardened target attack with area denial.
- rnk 3y ago
  It would make sense that russia has ability to destroy roads, and airbases, but why aren't they using these effectively when attacking Ukraine? It's a lot smaller than all of Europe, should be easier to figure it out.
  - konart 3y ago
    Initially Russian expectations missed the reality. The was no "one week of bombing " fase. Then Russia had to spend enourmous ammouts of rockets\artillery (mostly due to lack of planning and lack of military education\experience in the army) to have at least some results. Right now Russia's abilities are very limited.
    - risyachka 3y ago
      The main reason is that Russian military is rotten to the core, corrupt and has zero discipline (this has been the case for hundreds of years, probably due to mentality).
      - sacnoradhq 3y ago
        An associate of mine was a USAF Major who came into possession of a Soviet Belarussian MiG-21. He stashed it in a hangar in Germany and told absolutely no one outside his inner circle of war buddies about. The only person he ever showed if off to was a fairly high-up Russian who he mistakenly thought was "cool". Guess how long it was before the cockpit avionics were stolen, rendering it un-refurbishable? Sigh Never trust a Russian officer farther than you can throw them unless their name was Stanislav Petrov.
chakintosh 3y ago
This is where the F35's VTOL becomes handy. If you had a few jets stashed away or survived the attack on an airbase, they just take off vertically.
- adwww 3y ago
  That's only the B variant, which only UK and Italy will operate in Europe. I've never seen that use case discussed for the F35, but that was indeed the primary purpose of the Harrier - before it was eventually deployed onto small carriers.
- ajuc 3y ago
  F35A (the one from the article, and the one almost everybody is buing) isn't VTOL. F35B will likely melt the asphalt if it tried to take-off vertically from a regular highway.
  - rambambram 3y ago
    I believe they had to cover the tarmac with some kind of protective mats in order to do this.
- LtWorf 3y ago
  What's the fatality rate for failed vertical take offs?
ajuc 3y ago
Yes, but it's also possible with most older planes, including Mig-29 and F-16. https://bnn.network/world/poland/natos-resilient-runway-initiative-polish-f-16-fighter-jets-take-over-the-highway/ https://bnn.network/world/poland/natos-resilient-runway-init... The highways have to be built with that in mind though (and many are). In Poland it's called DOL and there have been 21 of them built, but only 1 is used regularly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_strip#Poland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_strip#Poland

by ipnon 3y ago

rewmie 3y ago

> This has a significant deterrence effect because it means you can’t just massively attack all airbases and expect the Air Force to be disabled. I'd be very surprised if being able to land/takeoff from highways wasn't one of the most basic design requirements for a project as massive as the F-35. If highways are already designed to be usable as ad-hoc airfields, it would make no sense at all to design new airplanes to keep them compatible.

ipnon 3y ago
Absolutely, that's why STOVL is the defining feature of the F-35B. It's common knowledge where American and allied air bases are, by making them able to base anywhere with modern infrastructure it makes "zerg rushes" untenable. The astute reader will note recent examples of countries with outdated airframes being vulnerable to massive surprise attacks.
- dragontamer 3y ago
  Both F-35B and F-35C are the variants that can liftoff from a Carrier (aka: Navy) or WASP-class Assault Ship (aka: Marines) respectively. F-35A is the one that needs the full runway. This is a big deal, as the F35A has the best performance overall but needs the nicest conditions to launch. If the "hardest to launch" variant can be flown from a highway, then the other two models will do even better. This is a "steelman argument". We're demonstrating the worst F35 at this job. All other variants will do even better.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Both F-35B and F-35C are the variants that can liftoff from a Carrier (aka: Navy) or WASP-class Assault Ship (aka: Marines) respectively. Other way around: F-35B is the Marine Corps STOVL variant, F-35C is the Navy CATOBAR variant. (No reason an F-35B couldn’t take off from and land on a regular carrier, too, but its the C that is made to launch with a catapult and catch an arrestor hook to land.)
    - CydeWeys 3y ago
      And the simple mnemonic to remember it is that the F-35A is for the [A]ir Force and the F-35C is for [C]arriers.
      - fragmede 3y ago
        And the F-35B is the one that does [B]rief Take Off and Landing
        psd1 3y ago
        Or [B]oo! Made You Jump.
  - 3seashells 3y ago
    Could a F-35A be launched from a near vertical catapult rail?
    - t0mas88 3y ago
      No. The acceleration would be far above the design limits of the airframe.
- coryrc 3y ago
  So all airbase runways are destroyed but the planes are untouched? This is a dumb waste of money.
  - fooker 3y ago
    It is a lot easier to hide planes than to hide runways. It could be a dumb waste of money either way, but your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premise. Consider the current Russia/Ukraine war, Russia destroyed the vast majority of the runways Ukraine could have used but Ukraine still has an air force.
    - coryrc 3y ago
      > but Ukraine still has an air force. That's a generous statement.
      - anikan_vader 3y ago
        It is not, as the Ukrainian air force continues to conduct regular sorties and has successfully prevented the Russian air force from every gaining air supremacy. The Russian air force has taken massive losses, both in terms of planes and pilots, but it also continues to exist, from a non-generous and factual perspective.
        vGPU 3y ago
        The Air Force with an estimated strength somewhere stern that of algeria and chile? Last I checked, they literally had more trainer aircraft than actual combat jets left.
        CydeWeys 3y ago
        You got a source for that? They've had MiGs donated by other Eastern European countries as well.
        _kbh_ 3y ago
nicholasbraker 3y ago
It's not only a matter of having a runway available. The F-35 is very data-centric and is very dependable on IT-systems which need connectivity also on remote sites. This can be easily solved by using modern 4G/5G networks (either dedicated MoD ones or public ones) with the "right" encryption running over it cleared for military use, but it is a constraint which needs to be taken into consideration. In the Gripen/Viggen days, you probably only needed a few trucks with equipment/fuel and conscripts. Now you need additional "datacenters in a box" to make this work.
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  Gripen days are not over.

rhuru 3y ago

Isn't this a very common requirement though ? India mostly has Russian planes but most new major Indian highways have several stretched that can be used as runways and Air Force also does test landings from time to time.

sacnoradhq 3y ago

It's primary for forward tactical, war-time refueling because you can't just drive a jet from a hardened bunker on an air base to a random road far away. Wingspan and trees and such get in the way. Finland, Poland, etc. roads fit the criteria where it makes sense to have emergency alternate landing sites than first-to-be-destroyed fixed bases. An adversary such as Russia undoubtedly already designates straight, manicured roads in Eastern Europe for anti-runway demolition as secondary targets. Also, given Russia's hypersonic capabilities, they undoubtedly possess something between JP233 and DRDO SAAW: stand-off anti-runway and hardened target attack with area denial.

rnk 3y ago
It would make sense that russia has ability to destroy roads, and airbases, but why aren't they using these effectively when attacking Ukraine? It's a lot smaller than all of Europe, should be easier to figure it out.
- konart 3y ago
  Initially Russian expectations missed the reality. The was no "one week of bombing " fase. Then Russia had to spend enourmous ammouts of rockets\artillery (mostly due to lack of planning and lack of military education\experience in the army) to have at least some results. Right now Russia's abilities are very limited.
  - risyachka 3y ago
    The main reason is that Russian military is rotten to the core, corrupt and has zero discipline (this has been the case for hundreds of years, probably due to mentality).
    - sacnoradhq 3y ago
      An associate of mine was a USAF Major who came into possession of a Soviet Belarussian MiG-21. He stashed it in a hangar in Germany and told absolutely no one outside his inner circle of war buddies about. The only person he ever showed if off to was a fairly high-up Russian who he mistakenly thought was "cool". Guess how long it was before the cockpit avionics were stolen, rendering it un-refurbishable? Sigh Never trust a Russian officer farther than you can throw them unless their name was Stanislav Petrov.

chakintosh 3y ago

This is where the F35's VTOL becomes handy. If you had a few jets stashed away or survived the attack on an airbase, they just take off vertically.

adwww 3y ago
That's only the B variant, which only UK and Italy will operate in Europe. I've never seen that use case discussed for the F35, but that was indeed the primary purpose of the Harrier - before it was eventually deployed onto small carriers.
ajuc 3y ago
F35A (the one from the article, and the one almost everybody is buing) isn't VTOL. F35B will likely melt the asphalt if it tried to take-off vertically from a regular highway.
- rambambram 3y ago
  I believe they had to cover the tarmac with some kind of protective mats in order to do this.
LtWorf 3y ago
What's the fatality rate for failed vertical take offs?

ajuc 3y ago

Yes, but it's also possible with most older planes, including Mig-29 and F-16. https://bnn.network/world/poland/natos-resilient-runway-initiative-polish-f-16-fighter-jets-take-over-the-highway/ https://bnn.network/world/poland/natos-resilient-runway-init... The highways have to be built with that in mind though (and many are). In Poland it's called DOL and there have been 21 of them built, but only 1 is used regularly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_strip#Poland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_strip#Poland