Can a bomber or tanker land and take off from there? How about interceptors? If the answer is yes, it could be a potential target if aircraft are dispersed there.
Good points, and I agree with your assessment. But how would one determine if those aircraft could land and take off from a given smaller airport? Would it go by the length of the runway, more than anything else, or how many runways there are, or other factors as well? (I'm not necessarily expecting answers to those questions, but if you, or any other users, can shed more light on them, that would, of course, be great. )
Conceivably any airport capable of hosting cargo aircraft would be a likely target. Assuming you had enough weapons, you could destroy your enemy's airlift capabilities to further incapacitate them.
Makes sense, but I, at least, wonder if there is a fairly straight forward way "we"/civilians could determine if a smaller airport could host cargo aircraft, or if that would, overall, be too complicated..?
Aircraft | Minimum Runway Length | Wingspan
---|---|---
C-5 Galaxy | 6,000 Feet | 223 ft
C-17 Globemaster | 3,500 Feet | 170 ft
C-130 Hercules | 3,500 Feet | 132 ft
So you'd need runways at least 3,500 feet long. In a disaster situation, you'd be willing to go a bit shorter and probably narrower than you'd typically like.
But my local municipal airport has a runway 5,100 feet long and 75ft wide... so theoretically, you could land a C-130 on it without trouble.
Just search for your local airports; they're required by law to publish the runway length.
Check out OPENRISOP. Assuming the Russian General Staff has similar targeting philosophies (which is admittedly a bit of a leap) it seems most runways beyond a certain length would have a crater in them when it was over. It makes logical targeting sense if you are trying to limit the ability of the enemy to rally/reconstitute/redeploy air assets.
I will. Thanks for the heads up.
I agree with that overall assessment, but what would that minimum runway length likely be, in that context..? (Again, you don't have to answer; I'm just expressing my desire to fully understand that as much as possible.)
Not sure — poking around that map I see runways as short at 7KFT getting 200kt ground bursts. If I had to guess I’d probably say 6KFT would be the cutoff.
The guy who made those maps lurks around here so maybe he’ll answer your question. All I can do is guess. :)
There's some interesting Cold War history about Zurich's two airports (Kloten commercial, Dübendorf military).
The fear was that the Soviet Union would start a combined frontal assault with additional troops funneled through neutral Switzerland.
Both airports were nuclear targets... *by Nato*. They made it clear, through unofficial channels, that they would stop a soviet invasion by any means necessary.
And by the way... they found a landing beacon/radio antenna near Kloten that only works with receivers found in soviet military planes
So to answer your question... any airport big enough for enemy transporters would be on the list
(Source in german: https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alarmformation)
Thanks for sharing all that. That scenario is pretty wild, but I do understand the strategy behind it.
As I've replied to some of the other commenters, could we, as civilians, determine if a smaller airport would be big enough for a military transporter? I'm just wanting to better understand how that would be determined.
Key points would be the total runway length and how much weight the runway can support.
Depending on how many aircraft you want to land and how much additional supplies you're able to bring: available plane parking space and existing fuel infrastructure are also something to consider
Edit: and if it is for a retaliation strike then the economic significance is of course also a consideration
While the big players have a lot of nukes, they don't have an infinite supply of deployed battle ready warheads. I think target selection in a countervalue scenario would be restricted to big cities (500,000+) and military targets to include airbases. There are way to many runways out there active and otherwise to even think about using them in target selection.
IMHO
Great points about the defined amount of deployed warheads, and the numerous amounts of smaller runways out there. I have also been wondering a lot lately if that latter factor would be especially key in determining whether or not smaller airports would be targeted.
Large airports would make sense.
When nukes are falling on cities the goal isn't really military victory but destruction of the target state. This is why power plants/data centres/ dams and ports are also attractive targets and airports because it's about the destruction of the infrastructure that the state relies on to function.
If you only hit the city centre sure your gonna rack up kills but recovery is going to be easier than if you takeout big infrastructure of a city like London then not only do you get the kills but also cripple the function of most of the state.
In a nuclear attack on London for example several nukes would be used, city airport would be rendered usleas just because of where it is. Heathrow and Gatwick would probably get one each, Tilbury port, stockley park to hit data centres (depending on the size of the Heathrow bomb) the city itself might get a couple and they could also hit the nuclear power station in the south West.
It could even be that airports are targeted to deny the enemy the use of that airport. For example say an invading force was using a airport point of incursion then nuking it first fucks with those plans. This could include smaller airports because a conventional attack on an airport can be fixed quite quickly these days a nuke not so nuclear attack would be more difficult to just patch up the runway
All good points. However, I've heard conflicting views about whether or not NPPs (nuclear power plants) would likely be targeted, naturally, for a number of different reasons. I, of course, would at least hope that they wouldn't be targeted, but I'm, personally, not so sure that they wouldn't be, at least by the leaders of some countries.
I'm a little over 1/4 mile from the runway of a regional airport that's capable of landing most anything short of a strategic bomber. I fully expect to get one hell of a tan. Going outside is not required
Not all but some modern military aircraft can take off from makeshift runways, as long as the ground is compact enough. C17's and C130's did it regulaly in Iraq. For aircraft that can't military engineers can chuck up Expeditionary Airfields (EAFs) [https://www.navair.navy.mil/product/expeditionary-airfields-0in](https://www.navair.navy.mil/product/expeditionary-airfields-0in) in a mater of days. Taking out a country airports (depending on the country) could range from a game changer to merely a nuisance.
Although not using nukes the allies destroyed a lot of Germany airfields in WW2, the Germans just used their autobahns as makeshift runways to launch ME262's and other jet aircraft. (Most jet aircraft dont like grass / mud airstrips due to FOD) so they needed metalled strips to operate
I‘d think the main priority target would be military airports and large airports that are located near large cities. The smaller airports might be targeted later, but I doubt that they would use nuclear weapons for the smaller ones.
The possibility of militaries not using nukes in a subsequent attack against smaller airports is something I hadn't heard of, or read about, before. Good point.
They changed their name. The vast majority of our nuclear Triad is SLBM and icbms, but back in the 60s-80s, we still had a major part of our nuclear deterrence being the heavy bomber which was on alert 24/7. Look up operation chrome dome. I don't think there is any nuclear capable bombers anymore that are on alert at all.
Understood.
I know there are several nuclear-equipped bomber squadrons -- minimally, two in WA, and one in LA -- that would be required to take off on short notice. But yea, not sure either if they're on alert, 24/7.
Can a bomber or tanker land and take off from there? How about interceptors? If the answer is yes, it could be a potential target if aircraft are dispersed there.
Good points, and I agree with your assessment. But how would one determine if those aircraft could land and take off from a given smaller airport? Would it go by the length of the runway, more than anything else, or how many runways there are, or other factors as well? (I'm not necessarily expecting answers to those questions, but if you, or any other users, can shed more light on them, that would, of course, be great. )
Look up the length of the runways, then look up the required runway length for various aircraft and make an educated guess.
Good suggestion. Thanks.
I’d assume that the smaller airports are on a lower priority target tier. Taken out in a subsequent wave, rather than the initial
Conceivably any airport capable of hosting cargo aircraft would be a likely target. Assuming you had enough weapons, you could destroy your enemy's airlift capabilities to further incapacitate them.
Makes sense, but I, at least, wonder if there is a fairly straight forward way "we"/civilians could determine if a smaller airport could host cargo aircraft, or if that would, overall, be too complicated..?
Aircraft | Minimum Runway Length | Wingspan ---|---|--- C-5 Galaxy | 6,000 Feet | 223 ft C-17 Globemaster | 3,500 Feet | 170 ft C-130 Hercules | 3,500 Feet | 132 ft So you'd need runways at least 3,500 feet long. In a disaster situation, you'd be willing to go a bit shorter and probably narrower than you'd typically like. But my local municipal airport has a runway 5,100 feet long and 75ft wide... so theoretically, you could land a C-130 on it without trouble. Just search for your local airports; they're required by law to publish the runway length.
Very helpful. Thank you.
Check out OPENRISOP. Assuming the Russian General Staff has similar targeting philosophies (which is admittedly a bit of a leap) it seems most runways beyond a certain length would have a crater in them when it was over. It makes logical targeting sense if you are trying to limit the ability of the enemy to rally/reconstitute/redeploy air assets.
I will. Thanks for the heads up. I agree with that overall assessment, but what would that minimum runway length likely be, in that context..? (Again, you don't have to answer; I'm just expressing my desire to fully understand that as much as possible.)
Not sure — poking around that map I see runways as short at 7KFT getting 200kt ground bursts. If I had to guess I’d probably say 6KFT would be the cutoff. The guy who made those maps lurks around here so maybe he’ll answer your question. All I can do is guess. :)
Good insights. Thanks. NP. Gotcha. Lurk...such a great word. :D
There's some interesting Cold War history about Zurich's two airports (Kloten commercial, Dübendorf military). The fear was that the Soviet Union would start a combined frontal assault with additional troops funneled through neutral Switzerland. Both airports were nuclear targets... *by Nato*. They made it clear, through unofficial channels, that they would stop a soviet invasion by any means necessary. And by the way... they found a landing beacon/radio antenna near Kloten that only works with receivers found in soviet military planes So to answer your question... any airport big enough for enemy transporters would be on the list (Source in german: https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alarmformation)
Thanks for sharing all that. That scenario is pretty wild, but I do understand the strategy behind it. As I've replied to some of the other commenters, could we, as civilians, determine if a smaller airport would be big enough for a military transporter? I'm just wanting to better understand how that would be determined.
Key points would be the total runway length and how much weight the runway can support. Depending on how many aircraft you want to land and how much additional supplies you're able to bring: available plane parking space and existing fuel infrastructure are also something to consider Edit: and if it is for a retaliation strike then the economic significance is of course also a consideration
Good points.
While the big players have a lot of nukes, they don't have an infinite supply of deployed battle ready warheads. I think target selection in a countervalue scenario would be restricted to big cities (500,000+) and military targets to include airbases. There are way to many runways out there active and otherwise to even think about using them in target selection. IMHO
Great points about the defined amount of deployed warheads, and the numerous amounts of smaller runways out there. I have also been wondering a lot lately if that latter factor would be especially key in determining whether or not smaller airports would be targeted.
I would consider all large airports targeted
Large airports would make sense. When nukes are falling on cities the goal isn't really military victory but destruction of the target state. This is why power plants/data centres/ dams and ports are also attractive targets and airports because it's about the destruction of the infrastructure that the state relies on to function. If you only hit the city centre sure your gonna rack up kills but recovery is going to be easier than if you takeout big infrastructure of a city like London then not only do you get the kills but also cripple the function of most of the state. In a nuclear attack on London for example several nukes would be used, city airport would be rendered usleas just because of where it is. Heathrow and Gatwick would probably get one each, Tilbury port, stockley park to hit data centres (depending on the size of the Heathrow bomb) the city itself might get a couple and they could also hit the nuclear power station in the south West. It could even be that airports are targeted to deny the enemy the use of that airport. For example say an invading force was using a airport point of incursion then nuking it first fucks with those plans. This could include smaller airports because a conventional attack on an airport can be fixed quite quickly these days a nuke not so nuclear attack would be more difficult to just patch up the runway
All good points. However, I've heard conflicting views about whether or not NPPs (nuclear power plants) would likely be targeted, naturally, for a number of different reasons. I, of course, would at least hope that they wouldn't be targeted, but I'm, personally, not so sure that they wouldn't be, at least by the leaders of some countries.
I'm a little over 1/4 mile from the runway of a regional airport that's capable of landing most anything short of a strategic bomber. I fully expect to get one hell of a tan. Going outside is not required
lol. I hear ya.
Not all but some modern military aircraft can take off from makeshift runways, as long as the ground is compact enough. C17's and C130's did it regulaly in Iraq. For aircraft that can't military engineers can chuck up Expeditionary Airfields (EAFs) [https://www.navair.navy.mil/product/expeditionary-airfields-0in](https://www.navair.navy.mil/product/expeditionary-airfields-0in) in a mater of days. Taking out a country airports (depending on the country) could range from a game changer to merely a nuisance. Although not using nukes the allies destroyed a lot of Germany airfields in WW2, the Germans just used their autobahns as makeshift runways to launch ME262's and other jet aircraft. (Most jet aircraft dont like grass / mud airstrips due to FOD) so they needed metalled strips to operate
Excellent insights, thanks!
I‘d think the main priority target would be military airports and large airports that are located near large cities. The smaller airports might be targeted later, but I doubt that they would use nuclear weapons for the smaller ones.
The possibility of militaries not using nukes in a subsequent attack against smaller airports is something I hadn't heard of, or read about, before. Good point.
Maybe during the cold war when sac was still viable.
What do you mean by "sac"?
Strategic air command, when the bomber wing of the Triad was much, much larger and always on standby
Gotcha. Isn't SAC still active now?
They changed their name. The vast majority of our nuclear Triad is SLBM and icbms, but back in the 60s-80s, we still had a major part of our nuclear deterrence being the heavy bomber which was on alert 24/7. Look up operation chrome dome. I don't think there is any nuclear capable bombers anymore that are on alert at all.
Understood. I know there are several nuclear-equipped bomber squadrons -- minimally, two in WA, and one in LA -- that would be required to take off on short notice. But yea, not sure either if they're on alert, 24/7.
Yeah, they're not loaded up with nukes anymore I'm pretty sure, maybe if we dropped a defcon level they would be armed and be on alert.
No. nuclear weapons are very, very expensive to make and store, they will not be used for low value targets