Why cant planes be made to be able to land on any flat surface?

Why cant planes be made to be able to land on any flat surface?
Why does every plane have to be designed to land on costly runways made with tarmac?

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Some planes land on grass, dirt, snow, ice but not heavy jets

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Some heavies can land on anything but it is more convenient for them to have a way to take off again.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes and also it's best to not have debris that can be sucked in the powerful air intakes

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why is OP such a fucking retard?

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Most planes can land on any flat surface. Whether or not they can take off again is another mater.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    swedish planes have been able too land on normal roads for like 50 years now

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Swedish "normal" roads are purpose built.
      Aircraft like Viggen are god tier at landing on roads.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Like roads, for example?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Jaaag.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Most Antonov s can land and take off from a semi-flat field

    Except our beloved chungus, of course (RIP)

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In Finland there are a lot of road bases that can be put to use during wartime. Basically a piece of road that is wider than normal and straight. Our Hornets can use them and i think our upcoming F35 A will also be able to

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The entire US interstate highway system is like this. If the geography allows it they will have a straight section long enough and reinforced enough to land a B52 every 20 miles.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This is a myth. They are straight because it is the most efficient. And it doesn't really matter to a plane going 1 mile every 5 seconds if every 5 miles of highway can be landed on. Structurally, almost any road can take the pressure of a plane, it does not have to be specifically designed for it.

        >This myth is widespread on the Internet and in reference sources, but has no basis in law, regulation, design manual—or fact. Airplanes occasionally land on Interstates when no alternative is available in an emergency, not because the Interstates are designed for that purpose.

        https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/interstatemyths.cfm?fbclid=IwAR2t_pefSQUWgVEwV2cWfKHAoaqOHd1IWpOHAn8d-meuhl_CqYpnC9y2B6U#question1

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Straight might be the most efficient construction wise, but some nation (I want to say the Germans? Sounds appropriate at least) did research on this shit and found out that deliberately adding otherwise unnecessary curves to make the road gently snake back and forth significantly improves driver awareness, making the road ruler straight increases driver fatigue and the risk of falling asleep at the wheel.

          • 3 weeks ago
            sage

            >making the road ruler straight increases driver fatigue and the risk of falling asleep at the wheel.
            Me driving through fucking Texas. I fucking hate Texas.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              from east texas to LA….
              >>Hit halfway point….
              >>we are still in Texas…

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >making the road ruler straight increases driver fatigue and the risk of falling asleep at the wheel.
            Me driving through fucking Texas. I fucking hate Texas.

            There's a stretch of road in Virginia that's called the widow maker because it's so straight and featureless that highway patrol guys would keep falling asleep towards the end of their shift.

            I think the meta is podcasts.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That...doesn't seem right, but I don't know enough about the US interstate system to dispute it.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          See

          This is a myth. They are straight because it is the most efficient. And it doesn't really matter to a plane going 1 mile every 5 seconds if every 5 miles of highway can be landed on. Structurally, almost any road can take the pressure of a plane, it does not have to be specifically designed for it.

          >This myth is widespread on the Internet and in reference sources, but has no basis in law, regulation, design manual—or fact. Airplanes occasionally land on Interstates when no alternative is available in an emergency, not because the Interstates are designed for that purpose.

          https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/interstatemyths.cfm?fbclid=IwAR2t_pefSQUWgVEwV2cWfKHAoaqOHd1IWpOHAn8d-meuhl_CqYpnC9y2B6U#question1

          I remember being told that exact same myth by my dad decades ago, I didn't think much beyond "oh, neat".

          Googling it leads to all sorts of "yes, but actually no, but maybe yes?" sorts of answers which leads us to this piece of folklore being so pervasive.

          Of course, there's also the very straightforward "no" answers that are the truth, but for the sake of folklore I like keeping the story alive in a sort of "well, they CLAIM it isn't true, but..." way

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Consider the weight of a plane and the g force of the landing impact. Larger planes will damage most surfaces if not hard enough.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    U wot m8?

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because the terrain might crumble under the weels and risk to tip over.
    You might be able to design a modern aircraft that lands anywere, but, these aircraft need, hangars, maintenance crew, a fence around the airport to avoid animals getting into your way, atc tower,munitions depot, lots of fuel and security. If you have to put all of this shit anyways you might aswell make a runway to reduce the likelyhood of a crash+ night operation are easier to do.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They can and do, but here's a fun fact. Planes are expensive, really expensive. So whats cheaper landing a plane on cheaply maintained airports that could damage landing gear, put stress on frames, and potentially get debris into critical systems, or just paving a flat area after clear cutting a bunch of shit. The answer should not surprise you

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    For most of its history, the United States has had the luxury of fighting its wars from safe havens. No major international battles have taken place on the continental United States in more than two centuries, and its offshore territory has not suffered a serious attack since Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in World War II. For the past few decades, even US bases on foreign soil have faced few conventional military threats.

    The unprecedented immunity has enabled a particular American way of war that involves massive assaults launched from nearly invulnerable and geographically removed sanctuaries. In recent wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Serbia, for example, the US military used secure bases and logistics networks stretching from the US heartland to the enemy's borders. From these vast safe spaces, the military was able to pick its battles strategically and churn out air and missile strikes with industrial efficiency. As a result, the outcomes of the immediate wars—if not their aftermaths—were never in doubt.

    In future wars, the U.S. military will have nowhere to hide. Rival great powers, such as China and Russia, will be able to carry out precise and devastating attacks on US military bases and logistics networks, even including those located within the United States itself. Advances in the fields of aerospace, robotics, machine learning, 3D printing, and nanomaterials are creating new classes of missiles and lethal drones that can be launched discreetly, travel great distances, and hamstring massed forces—all for a fraction of the cost of traditional manned weapons.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      New hypersonic missiles, for example, combine the speed and range of ballistic missiles with the maneuverability and accuracy of cruise missiles. Unmanned aerial vehicles and underwater gliders have achieved transoceanic range. Algorithms can coordinate swarms of more than 1,000 drones. Carbon 3D printers can produce 1,000 drone bodies a day for less than $10 per copy, and nanomaterials can equip drones with warheads that are twice as powerful as conventional explosives.

      The diffusion of these technologies will render the United States' current way of war obsolete. Armed with large and growing arsenals of long-range missiles and armed drones, China and Russia are increasingly capable of denying the US military operational sanctuary. In previous technological eras, striking America's bases required daring raids, which were typically too small and sporadic to dent US combat power, or nuclear missile strikes that would trigger a massive retaliation in kind. Now, however, China and Russia can send hordes of conventional missiles and expendable drones to wreak havoc on America's networks, destroying US weapons platforms while they are on base, cutting US communications links, and wiping out vital fuel and ammunition dumps.

      The US military would have trouble quickly responding to such attacks because it is so unprepared for them. Most bases have few, if any, missile defense systems or hardened shelters. Combat aircraft and warships often are parked in the open, side by side. Communications between command centers and soldiers in the field rely heavily on satellites that follow predictable orbits and on undersea cables that are mapped in open sources. The US logistics force consists mainly of unarmed steam-powered vessels, most of which are due to be retired within 15 years, and US warships and submarines cannot be reloaded at sea, so in wartime they have to commute between the combat theater and a handful of ports on US and allied territory.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >US warships and submarines cannot be reloaded at sea
        Despite being a copypasta, thats a new one. I guess the TAO class ships dont exist

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Rival great powers, such as China and Russia
      >Russia
      lol.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/62dUNo0.jpg

      New hypersonic missiles, for example, combine the speed and range of ballistic missiles with the maneuverability and accuracy of cruise missiles. Unmanned aerial vehicles and underwater gliders have achieved transoceanic range. Algorithms can coordinate swarms of more than 1,000 drones. Carbon 3D printers can produce 1,000 drone bodies a day for less than $10 per copy, and nanomaterials can equip drones with warheads that are twice as powerful as conventional explosives.

      The diffusion of these technologies will render the United States' current way of war obsolete. Armed with large and growing arsenals of long-range missiles and armed drones, China and Russia are increasingly capable of denying the US military operational sanctuary. In previous technological eras, striking America's bases required daring raids, which were typically too small and sporadic to dent US combat power, or nuclear missile strikes that would trigger a massive retaliation in kind. Now, however, China and Russia can send hordes of conventional missiles and expendable drones to wreak havoc on America's networks, destroying US weapons platforms while they are on base, cutting US communications links, and wiping out vital fuel and ammunition dumps.

      The US military would have trouble quickly responding to such attacks because it is so unprepared for them. Most bases have few, if any, missile defense systems or hardened shelters. Combat aircraft and warships often are parked in the open, side by side. Communications between command centers and soldiers in the field rely heavily on satellites that follow predictable orbits and on undersea cables that are mapped in open sources. The US logistics force consists mainly of unarmed steam-powered vessels, most of which are due to be retired within 15 years, and US warships and submarines cannot be reloaded at sea, so in wartime they have to commute between the combat theater and a handful of ports on US and allied territory.

      Thats a whole lot of copy paste for what amounts to a load of schizo bullshit

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/62dUNo0.jpg

      New hypersonic missiles, for example, combine the speed and range of ballistic missiles with the maneuverability and accuracy of cruise missiles. Unmanned aerial vehicles and underwater gliders have achieved transoceanic range. Algorithms can coordinate swarms of more than 1,000 drones. Carbon 3D printers can produce 1,000 drone bodies a day for less than $10 per copy, and nanomaterials can equip drones with warheads that are twice as powerful as conventional explosives.

      The diffusion of these technologies will render the United States' current way of war obsolete. Armed with large and growing arsenals of long-range missiles and armed drones, China and Russia are increasingly capable of denying the US military operational sanctuary. In previous technological eras, striking America's bases required daring raids, which were typically too small and sporadic to dent US combat power, or nuclear missile strikes that would trigger a massive retaliation in kind. Now, however, China and Russia can send hordes of conventional missiles and expendable drones to wreak havoc on America's networks, destroying US weapons platforms while they are on base, cutting US communications links, and wiping out vital fuel and ammunition dumps.

      The US military would have trouble quickly responding to such attacks because it is so unprepared for them. Most bases have few, if any, missile defense systems or hardened shelters. Combat aircraft and warships often are parked in the open, side by side. Communications between command centers and soldiers in the field rely heavily on satellites that follow predictable orbits and on undersea cables that are mapped in open sources. The US logistics force consists mainly of unarmed steam-powered vessels, most of which are due to be retired within 15 years, and US warships and submarines cannot be reloaded at sea, so in wartime they have to commute between the combat theater and a handful of ports on US and allied territory.

      I want to unsubscribe from Eurasian Times.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >No major international battles have taken place on the continental United States in more than two centuries
      I take it the Civil War doesn't count as "international"?

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    this is why

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Wtf is that a time-space conundruum disruption?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Isn't that one of those old Rhodesian jets?
      Would explain the modern state of the runway.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        does that look like a rhodesian roundel to you

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I have no idea and the visual memory of a goldfish.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's an ex-RAF Vampire.

        https://vampireflight.co.uk/aircraft-crew/

        You can literally google the tail number and find this information, anon.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Assuming you are 18 and have a driver's license...
    Have you ever tried to drive your car off the asphalt, on an unpaved surface? (Maybe just at a slightly higher speed...)

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Aircraft are heavy and move fast anon.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How much danger are VTOL in when landing on difficult terrain? Any chance they can intake debris?

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Many military aircraft can land and operate out of unimproved strips, or unpaved areas. The issue is there is a substantial weight cost in strengthening the gear and undercarriage of these aircraft to gain that capability. Weight being of course a major concern in any aircraft but especially in military aircraft as every pound of capability being used structurally is one that cannot be used for cargo or weaponry.

    Of note the US has had specialized units and engineering capabilities to set up an airstrip nearly anywhere in the world and be operable by nearly anything in the inventory in 72 hours.

    A flight of C-130s can land on a suitably flat piece of land, unload ATC, TACAN, Surface Materials, Refuel/Rearm logistics etc.

    These can all be set up, and then a flight of C-17s can fly in with even more stuff, and in 72 hours you've got a fully stocked and controlled airfield with a McDonalds.

    tl;dr: the US at least doesn't invest much in short-field or unimproved ops because it doesn't need to. Either we have the range and air-refueling capabilities to operate from friendly nations or CONUS, or we can build to our requirements rapidly.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *