"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
Plus it never ceases to amaze me the number of folks who think that (a)
bringing in enough aluminum matting (and we don't use PSP anymore) to build
a fighter strip is a piece of cake (and trying to support a C-5 on one is a
mean proposition), (b) installing the matting is all there is to it (no
cut/fill, drainage work, or subbabse and base course prep required),
getting the requisite engineer equipment and units into the site is an easy
matter, and (d) this will all happen over a matter of a day or two. Laying
in a fighter-length strip from scaratch is a *major* engineer operation, and
quite different from that required to construct a minimum length rough field
C-130 strip.

Compare this with the effort needed to create HMS Sheathbill in the
Falklands (which was a basic "land, refuel, leave or GLI" strip).

Uh-huh. Minimum size for a C-130 capable airstrip is considered to be 3,000' x
60'. AM-2 weighs 140 lb. for a 12' x 2' strip, not counting attachments and
holddowns. HMS Sheathbill was relatively convenient, being almost right on the
shoreline. It was recce'd by the head of the Engineer Squadron on D+1 (he'd also
examined an old Auster strip at San Carlos settlement, but it was too soft for
Harriers even with AM-2), the 11,000 AM-2 planks needed were unloaded from RFA
Stromness beginning on D+2, and it was finished on D+12. It was only 860 feet
long with two VL pads and a parking/fueling loop for 4 a/c, and fuel bladders
both on shore and floating in San Carlos Water, topped up from the RFAs (the rest
of the AM-2 matting to expand the runway/parking area, as well as much a/c spares
etc. went down in Atlantic Conveyor).


It's
*much* easier to pick a stretch of highway, fly in fuel bladders and
maybe ordnance & first-line servicing - than to build a fixed-wing CTOL
strip from scratch (lots of supplies and equipment needed just to build
the runway before anything else arrives)

To be precise, quoting now from the MEF Planning Manual Staff Planning Factors:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Expeditionary Airfield (EAF). The EAF consists of two hundred and eighty
containers of equipment and provides the capability to build a notional EAf
2000. This capability is designated to include: 96 foot wide by 3,850 ft. long
runway, 75 parking spaces for tactical aircraft, 3 parking spaces for tactical
aircraft, fueling area and revetments, airfield lighting and visual landing aids,
and arrester gear. The EAF is normally spread to three ships in the
[pre-positioning] squadron in three modules, which support the following:

"Ship 1: 471,683 SQFT. Parking, R/W [Guy: Rotary wing] Fuel Pit, Runway to
support 18 CH-53s, 18 MV-22s/CH-46s, 24 A/UH-1s.

"Ship 2: 445,000 SQFT. Parking, R/W Fuel Pit, Runway to support 12 CH-53s, 12
MV-22s/CH-46s, 12 A/UH-1s.

"Ship 3: 445,000 SQFT. Parking, F/W [Fixed-wing] Fuel Pit, Runway to support 20
AV-8Bs, 14 F-18.

"Any reduction in the equipment identified will result in an equivalent reduction
in capability (e.g. shorter/narrower runway, less parking, or no arrester gear).
Three ships together can be configured to support C-5 aircraft."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Going all-STOVL a/c means no need for arrester gear. It took the brits a couple
of weeks to install arrester gear at Port Stanley airfield in the immediate
aftermath of the war, owing to the mud, lack of drainage, and cold weather.

And how long does it take to put a FARP/FOB together, if they have to lay a
runway? Let's take a representative example, one for AV-8Bs:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
72' x 960' runway with 2 integral 96' x 96' VTOL pads. Parking hides for 11
AV-8B (designed for 32' x 56'). Net explosive weight of 3,000 lb. considered for
each a/c. Subgrade prepared to a minimum of CBR 25. Requires

(1 each) F70 - Field Tool Kit
(267 pieces) F71 - 12' AM2 Mat
(267) pieces F72 - 6' AM2 Mat.
(6 sets) Anchors and Accessories
(6 sets) F77 - H-connectors

Site preparation: A crew of 15 working 10 hrs per day can complete in 5 days
with:

2 graders
2 dump trucks
2 compactors
1 D7 dozer
2 TRAMs w/buckets
3 6-10k forklifts

Installation: A crew of 36 working 10 hrs a day can complete in 3 days.

Note: The EAF concept allows for an infinite number of configurations. The
three configurations used in this table [I've left out the other two] do not
represent any standard airfield configuration. There is no standard EAF
configuration. Per the AM-2 Tech Manual, a 16 man crew can install 3,300 ft.^2
per hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

You could go somehat narrower for a FARP and do without the hides, but needless
to say laying down a runway and parking pads boosts the logistic and time burden,
which is why you don't want to do it if you don't have to. This is one reason
why the Marines are looking at a V/STOL transport with the load capability of a
C-130.


The USMC's AV-8Bs did this to
very good effect in 1991, for instance.

Using a helicopter airfield with a 6,000 foot runway in very poor repair, about
half of which was usable. They also operated from poor condition forward
airfields in Iraq this past year, with fuel, weapons and sparesapparently brought
in mostly by truck.

Guy