SAC Bases

**PhilDernerJr** · 02-22-2009, 02:04 PM

I was discussing some airports up in the northeast with a coworker, and apparently there are a few civilian airports that were once military bases (Bangor, Lorring, Pease, Westover) that were all SAC (Strategic Air Command) stations....some with 300-foot wide runways. On Google Maps, you can see that some of these airports had since thinned out these runways with grass to more conventional sizes so it would be easier for snow removal.

I understand that SAC bases had to have seriously thick runways as well to aborb nuke blasts.

I don't know how much of the above is true, and there's more to be learned I'm sure, so this thread is a call-out for our resident SAC pilot *AHEM* to not only explain and confirm the above, but to also share some more of his great SAC stories.

Mooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooose.

**USAF Pilot 07** · 02-22-2009, 11:20 PM

Bangor, Pease and Westover still host national guard units (135s at Pease and Bangor and C5s at Westover).

Pease is actually going to become an associate unit (rumor is that a lot of 135 spots will start to become associate units) which means active duty personnel will get assignments to those locations and work alongside ANG guys.

I've never heard of a runway thickness requirement needed for SAC bases. If a nuke detonates on your airfield, I would imagine you'd have far bigger concerns to worry about than how thick your runway was. Also, I'm pretty sure any nuke detonating directly on a runway would render it inoperable, regardless of how thick it was.
The length/thickness requirements most likely come into play when dealing with respective aircraft. You need long enough runways to support heavy long range bombers (i.e. B52s) which can handle their fully loaded weight, which probably explains why they were built so thick and long. They also had an alert time "window" which is why a lot of the taxiways and runways were built so large (i.e. a B52 cannot taxi on too small of taxiways, or needs wingwalkers for some, and many times has to sit on the runway for maybe as long as half an hour transferring fuel from the center tanks to the wing tanks).

I can't speak from personal experience of the SAC and MAC days, but from what all current "older" guys who were once SAC and now are AMC guys (booms/loads and pilots) speak of it, it sounds like it was the glory days. We still do alerts and similar "SAC" type exercises, but the way the Air Force was structured during the SAC days makes it sound like things ran much more efficiently. I'm sure Moose has plenty of great stories of his tanker time in the SAC days.

Of course, we could always watch the movie "Strategic Air Command" for more insight. I've only seen the part where an aircraft is on a PAR. I've only "flown" PARs in the sim (since just about no one except for the Navy does them anymore), but every time I do I always think back to the "on course, on glidepath" guidance given in the movie with it's awesome sound effects!

**moose135** · 02-22-2009, 11:44 PM

I don't remember hearing about the runways being extra thick to survive nuclear blasts. They did need to be able to support heavily laden B-52s and KC-135s, but that's not much different than most commercial runways. Back in the day, when we were on alert, we pretty much figured that if the horn went off, and it wasn't an exercise, if we really did end up flying our briefed missions, there wasn't going to be much to return to. SAC bases were primary targets in any strategic exchange, and thick runway or not, there wasn't much that was going to come out in one piece.

That said, SAC bases did have big runways, most being 12,000 feet or longer, and 200 to 300 feet wide. At Grissom, the actual runway surface was 200 feet wide, but we had an additional 50 feet of pavement on each side that could be used - it wasn't stressed for landings, but could be used for takeoff roll or landing rollout. That extra width came in handy when making MITOs (Minimum Interval Take Offs) - we used 12 second spacing between tankers, and successive aircraft would line up on alternating sides of the centerline.

That 2+ miles of pavement was needed to get those big, heavy, underpowered jets off the ground. The A-model tankers (and early B-52s) had the old J-57 turbojet engine, with water injection for additional thrust. The heaviest take off weight I ever launched with was about 285K pounds (meaning we had about 175K of fuel on board), leaving Pease AFB on a fighter drag to RAF Mildenhall. We lined up at the end of the runway - better than 11K feet long, ran the throttles up, started the water, and released brakes. We lumbered on down the runway, making noise and black smoke, slowing picking up speed. With about 2K left, we rotated, and got airborne with about 1,000 feet remaining.

It should also be noted that for Emergency War Order (EWO) alert (our typical alert tours) take off calculations were based on 4-engine operations, unlike peace time planning which accounts for losing an engine on take off. We would fill the KC up to its maximum gross weight, 301.6K (which gave us about 185K of fuel). On alert, we had a specified amount of time from when the horn went off until we were ready to taxi (or take off if required). That is why on SAC bases, you would always see the "Christmas Tree" parking area off the end of the primary runway, with the Alert Facility where the crews would live during their (normally 7-day) alert tour. The aircraft could taxi right to the runway and depart with minimum taxi time.

Since it's no longer in use, I was able to take a few photos of the Grissom Alert Facility when I was out there in 2007.
This is the main gate - everyone entering had to check in at the guard booth, and needed a badge or escort.

And Clark, I remember flying PAR approaches in the sim, and one time for real in the back of the T-38, on my instrument check ride, at MCAS Beaufort. There were no better words to hear than "on course, on glidepath".

The facility itself

**Derf** · 02-23-2009, 12:41 AM

water injection is something most people do not know of. The first time that I had heard of it when I was a kid, I needed an explanation. I was told it was "Cheating" the engine. I always think of that when I hear about water injection in the early 707's.

**Big Tim #70** · 02-23-2009, 09:31 AM

I grew up a few miles from Pease and I remember those alerts and the MITO's. It was impressive to say the least to see so many aircraft take off in such close succession. I was too young to know what it could have meant but it was one of the things that got me interested in aviation.

Afterburner alley was the name the locals & pilots gave the North End of the RWY there as the FB-111's used to tear up the skys for a long time.

**ch2tdriver** · 02-23-2009, 11:51 AM

Right in our own backyard is FOK Westhampton Gabreski, former AFB with 11,000' runway and perimeter track taxi way with the dispersal hardstands still intact. While I've never heard of it referred to as a 'SAC' base, apparently it was home to B-47's in the 50's. Photos of the base in it's heyday are extremely rare and I must say I've rarely seen anything more than an F-86 on the flight line as far as photos go. I love going out there with students and doing touch and go's. Last summer they were using the old hardstands as overflow parking for the Bizjets that swarm in on the weekends.

I was also told that Brookhaven airport started out not as an airport, but runway 15-33 was actually just an emergency divert strip for heavily laden B-47's that might encounter a problem on take off from FOK. Can anyone confirm this?

Pete

**DHG750R** · 02-24-2009, 01:59 AM

Another nearby SAC base was Griffiss , just outside of Utica-Rome , NY
I also recall seeing a program some time ago on the former Discovery Wings channel
:cry: That spoke of a time when the SR71 was temporarily deployed there.

Very interesting indeed. here is a link to some info on Griffiss.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... iffiss.htm

**Mateo** · 02-24-2009, 07:37 PM

Plattsburgh, also, while we're on the subject of SAC bases in the Northeast.

**SCOTYDEMCO** · 02-25-2009, 11:02 PM

There was always something about those SAC bases that was just so cool as a kid but such a serious situation looking back. Plattsburgh had 111's. I remember going to a Griffiss airshow with my dad and his friend from up in Utica when I was young and seeing 111's and 52's.

To my knowledge Westhampton was also the top Northeast alert base with the F-106's for a while.

I was up at the Pease show in 07 with some friends from the area and there were alot of remnents of sometype of fallout shelters in the wooded areas surrounding the airport. The base was larger than what the airport is now. Interesting history to say the least.

Not to get off SAC but also have to mention the NIKE missle sites. I know there was a NIKE site at Brookhaven. Here is a link of the sites in the NY/NJ area. Scary stuff.

http://alpha.fdu.edu/~bender/NYsites.html

**Big Tim #70** · 02-26-2009, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by SCOTYDEMCO

There was always something about those SAC bases that was just so cool as a kid but such a serious situation looking back. Plattsburgh had 111's. I remember going to a Griffiss airshow with my dad and his friend from up in Utica when I was young and seeing 111's and 52's.

To my knowledge Westhampton was also the top Northeast alert base with the F-106's for a while.

I was up at the Pease show in 07 with some friends from the area and there were alot of remnents of sometype of fallout shelters in the wooded areas surrounding the airport. The base was larger than what the airport is now. Interesting history to say the least.

Not to get off SAC but also have to mention the NIKE missle sites. I know there was a NIKE site at Brookhaven. Here is a link of the sites in the NY/NJ area. Scary stuff.

http://alpha.fdu.edu/~bender/NYsites.html

If you drive around the North Parimeter road at Pease, it takes you to the old weapons storage area. Really creepy to see it now, all overgrown but protected behind a double fence on an area of what looks to be close to 20 acres. A lot of underground bunkers.

**moose135** · 02-26-2009, 01:22 PM

Yeah, I suspect those were old weapons bunkers you saw Scott.

One of the things I liked about flying out of Grissom was the lack of B-52s. Yes, they would have been neat to watch fly, but when you had bombers at your base, it just ratcheted up the level of security and general inconvenience. Yes, we had security, and the area around the Alert Facility was closely guarded, but B-52s brought that to a whole other universe. Not only that, but the bomber guys thought they owned the place, so it was better all around not to have to deal with that!

What we did have at KGUS, in addition to the KC-135s, were EC-135 Radio Relay aircraft. Basically a modified KC-135 (it retained the boom and AR capability) but it included a receiver refueling receptacle, an carried a load of radio gear in the back, along with a crew of radio operators (all enlisted folks). It served in the Post Attack Command and Control System (PACCS) role, able to relay messages between SAC HQ, NORAD, the Looking Glass EC-135 command post aircraft, and POTUS/SecDef in the event of an attack. Although we had crews that were assigned as EC crews, we could all fly any of the aircraft - I had a handful of flights in the EC. In fact, at one point I was qualifed in 6 different aircraft - the T-37 (it was used for additional flight time for tanker/bomber copilots) the KC-135A, KC-135A(RT), KC-135D, EC-135G and the EC-135L. For the most part, all the -135 airframes were the same from the cockpit, with the exception of some equipment differences.

Speaking of those differences, Grissom led the league in tanker variants. The KC-135A was the "plain vanilla" tanker, the most widely used of the fleet. The -135A(RT) was a receiver-equipped A-model, and Grissom had the only 7 in service - we often referred to them as RT-135s, although that wasn't an official designation. They started life as EC- and RC- models, and were later downgraded to tankers, keeping the receiver equipment. I ended up getting checked out as receiver qualified, and flew a number of times in the receiver role. On training flights, teamed up with another RT, or an EC or even a KC-10, we could swap positions going down the AR route, and both crews could get some receiver practice. Here's a look up at the boom operator during one of our receiver flights:

The 4 D-models we had (again, the only ones in service) started life as MATS RC-135s, with photo recon equipment in place of the forward body tank (in the area where the cargo hold forward of the wing would be in an airliner). After being converted to KC- standards, they retained some different equipment (some electrical system stuff, and a different anti-skid system, I beleive) so they carried the "D" suffix on the designation. All of our jets - the various KCs and ECs - all had the J-57 turbojets at the time. We also had a Reserve wing at KGUS, and they flew KC-135E tankers, with the TF-33 turbofans, but active duty guys never flew them, and the reserve guys didn't fly our jets.

**DHG750R** · 02-26-2009, 10:10 PM

Great stuff, Moose.. sounds like there are tons of good stories just waiting for some cold beers to share :borat:

**PhilDernerJr** · 02-27-2009, 01:36 PM

Agreed...fun stuff, Moose. Exactly the cool stuff I was hopin for when I started this thread.

Beer and stories...another good combo. Let's do it!

**moose135** · 03-20-2009, 11:48 AM

Waiting on the C-54 to depart the other day, we got to talking about airplanes, and I was reminded of something that happened on alert one day. When the aircraft were parked on the alert ramp, they had intake and pitot covers installed, and we would have to remove them when the horn went off and we responded to the jet.

On the KC-135, there are two pitot tubes, one on each side of the fuselage, about 2 feet below the sliding side cockpit windows. Each had a canvas cover, with a bungee cord that hung down and got hooked to the one from the other side under the fuselage. We had two options for removing them when the horn went off - unhook them, then the pilot and copilot pull their respective covers in through the window, or unhook them and pull them off from the ground, using the bungee cord - I know, I know, you can see where this is going...

So one day the klaxon sounds, and we go running out to the jet. I unhook the cords, one cover pulls right off, but the other one hangs up. In a hurry, (and not thinking too clearly) I continue to pull on the bungee cord, which stretches out (as they tend to do). Finally, it stretches as far as it can, and the cover comes off the pitot tube. The bungee cord now acts like a giant slingshot, aimed right at my head. I did have the presence of mind to turn my head, so at least the pitot cover hit me in the back of the head, and not in the face. I felt it for days afterwards.