What's new

Underground Runways

Status
Not open for further replies.

shehbazi2001

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
580
Reaction score
0
I am starting this thread to understand and discuss the underground airstrips or runways and may be associated things like hangers, ventilation vents, ammo dumps, electrical generators etc.

Some days ago, there were reports of North Korea building underground runways and satellite pictures were shown as evidence.

Swiss and Taiwan are also said to have such hidden facilities in mountains. It would be beneficial to learn that how aircrafts takeoff and more importantly how they land. May be there is an arrangement that aircrafts land over the surface or land into a large opening that leads to underground runway.

Also its important to discuss that how the ventilation vents are safe from LGBs and overall the runway is safe from earth penetration powered-bombs like BLU-109 or Durandal etc

Daily NK - North Korea Constructs "Underground Runway"

N. Korea: North building underground runway, report says(doing what they do best)
 
thats a great idea, for paf !
i think that , we need underground bombing proof bunkers HANGERS,+ lifted services for fighters ,towards the runways.
it would be cool idea , specialy this time of our history & because of our nuclear armed enemy?
 
I think these underground runways should be used in parallel with existing over the surface runways to increase the alternatives and to provide easy means of recovering the landing aircrafts. Movement between surface and underground can be done through large lifts.

Large lifts for moving fighters up should be present at intervals after some length of underground runway to recover the aircraft in case the underground tunnel collapses due to attack.

The ventilation vents should not be straight and be S-shaped so as not to allow direct access to runway and be provided with concrete/steel doors so that its possible to shut down one whenever required.

The Zero-Length Rocket-assisted take-offs are still another option to underground systems but they will not be able to launch fully-loaded aircrafts and we still need runways to launch loaded aircrafts.
 
Last edited:
Still another feasible idea can be to build steam catapult runways like the ones present on the aircraft carrier decks. There is no problem if we build such a system on land.

The advantage will be a very short takeoff and landing length. Arrestor wires, used on aicraft carriers, can be installed but then the aircrafts would be required to carry an arrestor hook. However, its not that difficult to add one.

Due to very short length of catapult runway, a good protection can be arranged like an increased underground depth with an upward sloping runway or if on surface, then a complete hardened concrete shelter can be built over it or complete setup can also be built inside mountains.
 
Last edited:
Kim Jong-il builds ‘Thunderbirds’ runway for war in North Korea
An airbase inside a mountain is the latest sign that North Korea, whose links to Syria’s nuclear programme came to light last week, is cranking up its military machine


From The Sunday TimesApril 27, 2008

Kim Jong-il builds ‘Thunderbirds’ runway for war in North Korea
An airbase inside a mountain is the latest sign that North Korea, whose links to Syria’s nuclear programme came to light last week, is cranking up its military machineMichael Sheridan, Far East Correspondent, and Uzi Mahnaimiin in Tel Aviv North Korean military engineers are completing an underground runway beneath a mountain that can protect fighter aircraft from attack until they take off at high speed through the mouth of a tunnel.

The 6,000ft runway is a few minutes’ flying time from the tense front line where the Korean People’s Army faces soldiers from the United States and South Korea.

The project was identified by an air force defector from North Korea and captured on a satellite image by Google Earth, according to reports in the South Korean press last week.

It is one of three underground fighter bases among an elaborate subterranean military infrastructure built to withstand a “shock and awe” assault in the first moments of a war, the defector said.

Related Links
CIA reveals secrets of ‘Syrian nuclear plant’
Israelis hit Syrian ‘nuclear bomb plant’
An in-tray full of foreign policy problems
Multimedia
Al-Kibar: the CIA video
The runway, reminiscent of the Thunderbirds television series, highlights the strange and secretive nature of the regime that provided the expertise for a partially built nuclear reactor in Syria, film of which was released by the CIA last week.

The reactor was destroyed by Israeli aircraft last September in an operation that may have killed or injured North Koreans at the site in the remote deserts of eastern Syria.

The airstrike appears to have convinced North Korea to harden its own defences and to spend more on its military, even as it struggles to cope with a new food shortage that could see millions of its citizens go hungry. In recent days North Korea has ordered its people to be vigilant against “warmongers”.

“The prevailing situation requires the whole party and army and all the people to get fully prepared to go into action,” North Korea’s state media said on Friday.

Although the media unleashed a volley of abuse against the United States and Lee Myungbak, South Korea’s conservative new president, it also said “sincere and constructive” negotiations on nuclear disarmament were in progress, an apparent effort to play off hawks against doves in Washington.

Some diplomats, who are sceptical of the process, say that behind the rhetoric, Kim Jong-il, the North Korean leader, may sense that he is a hair’s breadth away from a deal that would leave him with up to 10 nuclear weapons and a security guarantee for his regime.

In Washington, nuclear experts were puzzled by the timing and quality of the evidence released by the Bush administration. Democrats suggested hardliners around Dick Cheney, the vice-president, had forced the issue to try to wreck the talks with Kim.

However, there is a more persuasive argument. Analysts in Seoul see the American disclosures as a sly way to keep the negotiations alive. Kim had refused to make a “full declaration” of his nuclear programme by a December 31 deadline; now, in effect, the CIA has done it for him. “The revelation was a highly orchestrated one,” commented The Korea Herald, adding that it “enabled” Pyongyang to “make its declaration without losing face”.

One indication is that Christopher Hill, the US State Department negotiator, flew to Singapore for an unusual session with his North Korean counterparts shortly before the United States went public. “There must have been some sort of secret agreement or deal,” said Taewoo Kim, of the Korea Institute for Defence Analyses in Seoul.

Last year Hill persuaded the White House that the talks offered a realistic chance to accomplish a peace treaty formally ending the 1950-3 Korean war, in which more than 50,000 Americans died. His critics, such as John Bolton, the former United Nations ambassador, say North Korea has a long recidivist history of selling missiles and unconventional weapons to unstable Middle Eastern regimes such as Syria, Iran and Libya.

Whatever the truth, even by the standards of North Korean politics the atomic intrigue half a world away – with its multinational cast of spies, scientists, diplomats and airmen – makes an exotic story.

The alliance between the two clan dictatorships in Damascus and Pyongyang is more than 35 years old. In another tunnel, this one under Mount Myohang, the North Koreans have kept as a museum piece the Kalashnikov assault rifle and pistols sent as gifts from President Hafez al-Assad of Syria to Kim Il-sung in the early years of their friendship.

Today North Korea and Syria are ruled by the sons of their 20th-century dictators – Bashar al-Assad succeeded his father in 2000 and Kim Jong-il took over in 1994. They inherited a hatred of America and a fondness for authoritarian family rule.

Syria possesses the biggest missile arsenal and the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the Middle East, built up over the past two decades with arms bought from North Korea.

North Korea, which detonated a nuclear device in October 2006, has become pivotal to Syria’s plans to enhance and upgrade its weapons.

Syria’s liquid-fuelled Scud-C missiles depend on “essential foreign aid and assistance, primarily from North Korean entities”, said the CIA in a report to the US Congress in 2004.

Diplomats based in Pyongyang have said they now believe reports that about a dozen Syrian technicians were killed in an explosion and train crash at Ryongchon, North Korea, on April 22, 2004. North Korea blamed a technical mishap, but there were rumours of an assassination attempt on Kim, whose special train had passed through the station en route to China some hours earlier.

No independently verified cause of the disaster was made known. However, teams of military personnel wearing protective suits were seen removing debris from the section of the train in which the Syrians were travelling, according to a detailed report quoting military sources which appeared on May 7, 2004, in the Sankei Shimbun, a Japanese newspaper.

The technicians were said to be from Syria’s Centre D’Etudes et de Recherche Scientifique, a body known to be engaged in military technology.

Their bodies were flown home by a Syrian military cargo aircraft which was spotted on May 1, 2004 at Pyongyang. There was speculation among military attachés that the Syrians were transporting unconventional weapons, the paper said at the time. Diplomats said the Sankei Shimbun report was now believed to be accurate.

Last year Jane’s Defence Weekly reported that dozens of Iranian engineers and Syrians were killed on July 23 attempting to load a chemical warhead containing the nerve gases VX and sarin onto a Scud missile at a plant in Syria.

The Scuds and warheads are of North Korean design and possibly manufacture. Some analysts think North Korean scientists were helping the Syrians to attach air-burst chemical warheads to the missiles.

Syria possesses more than 100 Scud-C and ScudD missiles which it bought from North Korea in the past 15 years. In the 1990s it added cluster warheads to the Scud-Cs that experts believe are intended for chemical weapons.

Like North Korea, Syria has an extensive chemical weapons programme including sarin, VX and mustard gas, according to researchers at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute in California.

The Scud-C is strategically worrying to Israel because Syria has deployed it with one launcher for every two missiles. The normal ratio is one to 10. The conclusion: Syria’s missiles are set up for a devastating first strike.

Since 2004 there have been a series of leaks designed to suggest that Syria has renewed its interest in atomic weapons, a claim denied by Damascus.

In December 2006 the Kuwaiti newspaper, Al-Siyasa, quoted European intelligence sources in Brussels as saying that Syria was engaged in an advanced nuclear programme in its northeastern Hasakah province.

It also quoted British security sources as identifying the man heading the programme as Major Maher Assad, brother of the president and commander of the Republican Guard.

Early last year foreign diplomats had noticed an increase in political and military visits between Syria and North Korea. They received reports of Syrian passengers on flights from Beijing to Pyongyang, almost the only air route into the country. They also spotted Middle Eastern businessmen using trains between North Korea and the industrial cities of northeast China.

Then there were clues in the official media. On August 14 Rim Kyongman, the North Korean minister of foreign trade, was in Syria to sign a protocol on “cooperation in trade and science and technology”. His delegation held the fifth meeting of a “joint economic committee” with its Syrian counterpart. No details were disclosed.

Initially, the conclusion of diplomats was that the deal involved North Korean ballistic missiles, maintenance for the existing Syrian arsenal and engineering expertise for building silos and bunkers against air attack. Now it is known that Israeli intelligence interpreted the meeting as the last piece in a nuclear jigsaw; a conclusion that Israel shared with President George W Bush.

For years the United States and Israel saw North Korean weapons sales to the Middle East as purely a source of revenue – apart from seafood, minerals and timber, North Korea is impoverished and has little else to sell. The nuclear threat in Syria was also believed to be dormant, as Damascus appeared to rely on a chemical first-strike as an unconventional deterrent.

In a period of detente, the United States and its allies concurred when China sold a 30kw nuclear reactor to Syria in 1998 under international controls.

Then, in 2003, American intelligence officials believe that Syria recruited Iraqi scientists who had fled after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Like other countries in the region, Syria renewed its pursuit of nuclear research.

The calculus changed for good after North Korea tested a nuclear bomb in 2006 and admitted to a plutonium stockpile sufficient for 10 more.

The danger to Israel is multiplied by the triangular relationship between North Korea, Syria and Iran. Syria has served as a conduit for the transport to Iran of an estimated £50m of missile components and technology sent by sea from North Korea to the Syrian port of Tartous, diplomats said.

They say Damascus and Tehran have set up a £125m joint venture to build missiles in Syria with North Korean and Chinese technical help. North Korean military engineers have worked on hardened silos and tunnels for the project near the cities of Hama and Aleppo.

Israel also noted reports from Pyongyang that Syrian and Iranian observers were present at missile test firings by the North Korean military last summer and were given valuable experimental data. Israeli sources said last week that Iran was informed “in every detail” about the nuclear reactor and had sent technicians to the site.

Such was the background against which Israel took its decision to strike. Two signals from the North Koreans in the aftermath showed that the bombs hit home.

On September 10, four days after the raid, Kim sent a personal message of congratulations to Assad on the Syrian dictator’s 42nd birthday.

“The excellent friendly and cooperative relations between the two countries are steadily growing stronger even under the complicated international situation,” Kim said.

The next day, in a message that went largely unnoticed, the North Koreans condemned the Israeli action as “illegal” and “a very dangerous provocation”.

Just days later a top Syrian official, Saeed Elias Daoud, director of the ruling Syrian Arab Ba’ath party, boarded a Russian-made vintage jet belonging to the North Korean airline, Air Koryo, for the short flight from Beijing.

Daoud brought counsel and sympathy from Assad, whose father Hafez was famed as a strategic gambler with a talent for brinkmanship.

Now Kim is waiting to see if his own gamble has paid off.

Checkout this site
Map - Google Sightseeing

 

this is a video showing underground NAZI bunkers for aircraft maintainence and rebuilding........

By John Lumpkin in Washington
August 2, 2003

Print this article
Email to a friend



American teams hunting for Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction found dozens of fighter jets from Iraq's air force buried beneath the sands, US officials say.

At least one Cold War-era MiG-25 interceptor was found when searchers saw the tops of its twin tail fins poking up from the sands, a Pentagon official said. They had found several MiG-25s and Su-25 ground attack jets buried at Taqqadum air field west of Baghdad, he added.

Prewar intelligence estimates said Iraq had about 300 combat aircraft, all survivors of the 1991 Kuwait war. Most were ageing Soviet MiGs, Sukhois and older French Mirage fighters. The best are MiG-29 Fulcrums, one of the most advanced fighters produced in the Soviet era.

The MiGs had escaped detection during the coalition bombing campaign. Some were buried or hidden under trees or covered with camouflage sheets. Aircraft destroyed in previous wars were littered across the airfield to make it more difficult for bombers to choose their targets.

Iraqi fighter jets found buried under sand - War on Iraq - smh.com.au

The question is how quickly can you get the fighter airborne once u see a potential threat building up.......
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There seems a problem in the runways...After every take off there are a lot of air vortices formed and hence the time taken for the second launch is delayed variably...
 
Sorry to say that I don’t approve of many actions taken by tyrant Kim Jong Il and this idea (underground runway) is perhaps just another one. There are few aspects that need explanation before we even think of operating fighters from underground...

. What if a pilot has to go around or make a missed approach from finals due to any reason, what is he going to do? Slam into a hill??

. During takeoff or landing roll, what if there is an engine failure or a tyre burst and aircraft departs the runway...with no room to manoeuvre the aircraft on sides, what will be an outcome of such emergencies?

. A mentioned by SatishKumar, what about the vortices. Whenever an aircraft lands/takesoff, it generates huge vortices that generally dissipate in few minutes while blowing to the sides of open runways. But operating from a cave, where will they go? Many aircrafts have crashed while flying thru vortices and they pose a great danger to any aircraft type.

. What about the visual cues (horizon, attitude, runway references etc)? During a landing pilots uses a lots of visual cues and especially on short short finals, the landing a made while looking at the far end of runway. While landing in a cave @ 150 knots with no cues and also no place to go around, it’s going to be a big safety hazards.

. I am not sure that how much the aerodynamics or the lift generating capability of wing will suffer while operating from the cave? Also what will be the turbine engines response in such a case? What will be the thrust penalties?

. How much operational advantage will remain or how quickly it can be made re-operational if it’s breached by an attack?

Compare the cost of building such a huge undertaking vis a vis the operational benefits. Its not only 10,000feet long runway that one has to prepare but also huge logistical infrastructure to support the aircraft operations....We are talking of multi Billion $$$$ here....How many countries can afford that? Presently, there are how many operational underground airfields with that operate fast jets? I guess NONE.

IMO, if one is still too adamant to use an underground runway that shall perhaps be used for VTOL aircrafts, helicopters, UAVs , aircraft storage or may be aircraft shelters in which aircrafts can taxi in once they have landed on an open air runway etc ...
 
Last edited:
i think Cessanas or drones can be used from such locations but not proper fighter jets...or maybe if you want to fly a FOKKER vintage
 
Sorry to say that I don’t approve of many actions taken by tyrant Kim Jong Il and this idea (underground runway) is perhaps just another one. There are few aspects that need explanation before we even think of operating fighters from underground...

. What if a pilot has to go around or make a missed approach from finals due to any reason, what is he going to do? Slam into a hill??

. During takeoff or landing roll, what if there is an engine failure or a tyre burst and aircraft departs the runway...with no room to manoeuvre the aircraft on sides, what will be an outcome of such emergencies?

. A mentioned by SatishKumar, what about the vortices. Whenever an aircraft lands/takesoff, it generates huge vortices that generally dissipate in few minutes while blowing to the sides of open runways. But operating from a cave, where will they go? Many aircrafts have crashed while flying thru vortices and they pose a great danger to any aircraft type.

. What about the visual cues (horizon, attitude, runway references etc)? During a landing pilots uses a lots of visual cues and especially on short short finals, the landing a made while looking at the far end of runway. While landing in a cave @ 150 knots with no cues and also no place to go around, it’s going to be a big safety hazards.

. I am not sure that how much the aerodynamics or the lift generating capability of wing will suffer while operating from the cave? Also what will be the turbine engines response in such a case? What will be the thrust penalties?

. How much operational advantage will remain or how quickly it can be made re-operational if it’s breached by an attack?

Compare the cost of building such a huge undertaking vis a vis the operational benefits. Its not only 10,000runway that one has to prepare but also huge logistical infrastructure to support the aircraft operations....We are talking of multi Billion $$$$ here....How many countries can afford that? Presently, there are how many operational underground airfields with that operate fast jets? I guess NONE.

IMO, if one is still too adamant to use an underground runway that shall perhaps be used for VTOL aircrafts, helicopters, UAVs , aircraft storage or may be aircraft shelters in which aircrafts can taxi in once they have landed on an open air runway etc ...


The concerns about landing fighters over the underground or tunnel runways are genuine. But if we start to find solutions, we shall filter out many problems. While I am not attesting to the feasibility of such runways, the objective being only to discuss the feasibilty. It seems that in the world, search for alternate runways has not ended. Runway on the surface present such a big constraint that it triggered the development of VTOL technology. Even tilt-rotors can be linked to this phenomenon.

For Visual clues, the practice of aircraft carrier can be adopted for short-runway on the surface and also for underground/tunnel runways.

Carriers use "meatball technique" and meatball can be easily adopted for ground too. There are several lights in meatball to inform pilot if he is too low, too high or on the right slope. Then there are LSOs (Landing Signal Officer) on the aircraft carriers to help pilots in their landing. If the pilot is not on the right slope, right attitude or right speed, LSO will ask him to bolter. Bolter means to go around for another landing try.

illumin : article : Taking Off and Landing on an Aircraft Carrier

For the problem of tyre burst or side-slip of aircraft, lets see what happens on the deck of aircraft carrier. This is not a problem if aircraft catches the wire. If aircraft misses the wire, it either bolters or goes into water.

We know that a pilot landing on a carrier has a very short strip in the middle of ocean and we must keep in view that carrier not only moves forwards but it regularly moves up and down due to tides in the ocean. A runway that is moving forward with 5-10 knots and moving up and down by several meters sometimes. On the top of that the deck is angled and not straight.

I have tried carrier landing myself in flight simulations and landing on a moving angled deck is no easy job. A naval pilot described his first carrier landing as equal to losing his virginity in terms of sensation/thrill or fear.

My point was that on the land, a landing zone of twice the size of aircraft carrier can be provided whatever its configuration either tunnel or underground or short-surface catapult runway.
 
Last edited:
The steam catapult runway concept similar to that of aircraft carrier seems somewhat promising than others. If the whole carrier deck can be powered and moved in the world oceans with thousands of staff and almost 70-80 fighter jets and their associated numerous logisitics, then it is also possible to give power to such a runway on land.

By giving power I mean building such a short runway that can be moved on the ground. Both rotation and translation can be given for added security against attacks but a simple translation would be sufficient to spoil any planning. If the runway is 4000 feet, we can give it a further 1000 feet sideways movement.

4000 feet length can be provided with rollers and brakes beneath its surface. Sideways movement can be given by many means like rocket motors. Liquid-propellant rockets can be employed for being re-usable.

Runway attacks are always planned keeping in view runway location and any landmarks in the vicinity while noting all the runway junctions, control tower, fuel supply, ammo area, hangers etc. Any changes in the geographical location of the runway would foil any attack even if they are using real-time intelligence.

If only rotation is given to runway, it would move its both ends but would make it possible to hit the centre of runway, which would be fixed.
 
but paf cant build it paf already stuggling with funds to buy fighter jets and by making these underground runways it gonna cost trillions of dollars which pafr dont have
 
The steam catapult runway concept similar to that of aircraft carrier seems somewhat promising than others. If the whole carrier deck can be powered and moved in the world oceans with thousands of staff and almost 70-80 fighter jets and their associated numerous logisitics, then it is also possible to give power to such a runway on land.

By giving power I mean building such a short runway that can be moved on the ground. Both rotation and translation can be given for added security against attacks but a simple translation would be sufficient to spoil any planning. If the runway is 4000 feet, we can give it a further 1000 feet sideways movement.

4000 feet length can be provided with rollers and brakes beneath its surface. Sideways movement can be given by many means like rocket motors. Liquid-propellant rockets can be employed for being re-usable.

Runway attacks are always planned keeping in view runway location and any landmarks in the vicinity while noting all the runway junctions, control tower, fuel supply, ammo area, hangers etc. Any changes in the geographical location of the runway would foil any attack even if they are using real-time intelligence.

If only rotation is given to runway, it would move its both ends but would make it possible to hit the centre of runway, which would be fixed.

Shehbazi, the flying mechanics and aircraft handling while landing in an underground airfield and onboard an aircraft carrier are very different. I haven’t landed on either of these so all my/our discussion is all theory based rather than practical. While deck landings have been going on since many decades, but no one has ever dared operating a jet fighter at an underground airfield at regular basis. It’s too risky and operationally un-viable.

Your idea of moving runway is very interesting but again it has many strings attached. The first thing that needs modification are the aircrafts. Carrier operating aircrafts have very robust landing gears, struts and come with an arrester hook. So all the fighters will need a major mod here.

Secondly, how do you plan to move this 4000 feet (more than a kilometre long) giant in a single piece from Sargodha to ( let’s say) Pindi Bhatian ? It’s impossible with the current road infrastructure. And also the whole world will know anyway whenever and wherever it is being moved. Hence no surprises for the enemy.

Thirdly, an aircraft carrier is never alone but sails with the whole battle group and it’s very well protected. How do you foresee the protection of land based moving runway? We will need number of AAA, SAM , Crotales , missiles and other defences that will be moving with it where ever it goes...hence another logistical nightmare.

On a usual airfield, fighters are much protected, well spread and it’s not easy to destroy them all. But will this moving runway parked near Kallar Kahar, It’s like putting all the eggs (60 to 70 fighters) in one basket and making job easy for the enemy.

IMO its not a workable idea. It will be very costly and redundant before even put into service. In our scenario, we have ample amount of FOBs/ MOBs that are very well spread from Skurdu to Karachi. These airfields serve our purpose very well and are more than enough. While PAF has operated from existing motorways and road runways, I don’t think that a moving runway has any future in our arena or even elsewhere.
 
FOB is far better than having mobile runways...Hey from where will you get the steam...Those ships have huge boilers for their turbine from where the steam comes from...Where will you get the steam from for a mobile runway?
 
FOB is far better than having mobile runways...Hey from where will you get the steam...Those ships have huge boilers for their turbine from where the steam comes from...Where will you get the steam from for a mobile runway?
Steam is used for what?I have seen steam in several videos (Air Craft Landing on Carriers) but don't know what's the function of steam :o.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom