It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. Interstate sytem developed for military as well as commerce

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I think we are arguing semantics...when you said support, I did not think you said allow. Of course allowance needs to be made for the wingspan...I even said as much in my reply...




posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   
OP is essentially correct.
Ike saw the autobahns in post-WWII Germany and wanted them here.
The bill was presented as a defense measure for funding and custody; there was some debate about whether the federal gummint was authorized to build roads (this was back in the 1950s, remember) so the defense movement was used as justification (and certainly was a valid reason).

Little known story, related in Ike's book At Ease; after WWI he was tasked with leading a cross-country convoy of vehicles to examine the feasibility of motor transport for the military in conus. He was appalled at the poor state of roads and poor mapping. this was another motiviation for him.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


Yes, but supporting 50-60 tons is a lot different than supporting 76+ for a C-130, up to the published max take off weight of 400 for a C-5. You could probably get a few flights out of an interstate for a C-130, but a C-17 or C-5? Never.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


As I stated earlier, I do not believe it would ever be necessary for an interstate to be used in this fashion...there are so many military/international/national/regional airports in this country, it would take an extremely sophisticated and well concerted attack by an enemy to render them all useless; however, if it did happen, every geographical area of the US has at least several sections of interstate within the area that could handle any plane in the US inventory...you generally only need a 10 inch thick pavement...most interstates certainly fit this requirement...and like I said, the I-80/94/294 stretch through NW Indiana/South Suburbs of Chicago are over 20 inches thick of reinforced concrete...of course, this was, at one time, the busiest highway in the entire world.

If you can land a fighter aircraft on a moving ship in the ocean, what on earth would prevent you from landing it on an interstate? I mean, come on...

ETA:

Because airport pavement construction is so expensive, manufacturers aim to minimize aircraft stresses on the pavement. Manufacturers of the larger planes design landing gear so that the weight of the plane is supported on larger and more numerous tires. Attention is also paid to the characteristics of the landing gear itself, so that adverse effects on the pavement are minimized. Sometimes it is possible to reinforce a pavement for higher loading by applying an overlay of asphaltic concrete or portland cement concrete that is bonded to the original slab. Post-tensioning concrete has been developed for the runway surface. This permits the use of thinner pavements and should result in longer concrete pavement life. Because of the susceptibility of thinner pavements to frost heave, this process is generally applicable only where there is no appreciable frost action.

Runway

As you can see in the text, post-tensioning the concrete has been developed for runways...this, it should be noted, has also been in use for road construction for some time...a vast majority of newer road surfaces are now bulit of concrete, rather than asphalt, because the higher costs of petroleum (used in the production of asphalt) have resulted in higher cost-per-mile(CPM) of construction. Concrete roadways are, in some cases, much more cost effective.
edit on 6-6-2013 by totallackey because: further content



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


The fact that the ones that land on a ship in the moving ocean are stressed to land on a moving ship in the middle of the ocean. You'd have to make a short field landing, which means slamming down to the ground. Have you ever looked at an F-14 landing gear compared to an F-15 landing gear? There's no way that an Eagle could land on a ship, while a Tomcat did it all the time.

F-14:





F-15:





Just about all USAF fighters are built with similar landing gear. They weren't designed for short field operations. The only one that might be able to pull it off would be the A-10.

As for the roads, even the concrete roads are in bad shape after just a few years of trucks going up and down them. And those are only in the 40 ton range for the most part. Even with strengthening they're having to resurface the roads every few years.
edit on 6/6/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


You keep insisting that a landing on an interstate would be a short field operation...this is simply not an accurate description of reality...

The longest runway at O'Hare Intl Airport is just under 10,000 ft. O'Hare Intl Airport handles all types of lfihgt traffic, including military operations. Any plane that can land at O'Hare could land on a similar stretch of interstate. Just under two miles. Not to mention, the entire length of runway is very seldom needed...

In regard to the point of resurfacing every few years, I fail to see the substance...they also resurface the runways at airports every few years...
edit on 6-6-2013 by totallackey because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-6-2013 by totallackey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


Actually airport runways last a lot longer than interstates. At HNL they would go 10+ years sometimes, and they have a lot of traffic between the military and civilian side.

Any interstate operation would HAVE to be short field. Where are you going to park them after they land? Taxi them under overpasses that they'd barely fit under at best? You might start out with four miles for runway, but when you add maintenance area, weapons area, refueling area, and various other areas that four miles gets awfully small awfully fast. Even if you put the trucks and support on the other side of overpasses, the planes won't fit under them.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Okay, I now understand what you mean by short field...

As I stated, I doubt the interstate system would ever be pressed into handling regular flight traffic for substantial military operations. It would, more than likely, never be needed, as we have plenty of airports around the country to serve in case of emergency.

But, there is no question it could serve this purpose if need be and part of its intended original purpose was efficient and expeditious military transport (of all kinds) in case of national emergency.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join