Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I still can't wrap my head around the fact that the Air Force could abandon 17 F-22s. Then they tell us they needed maintenance. They are brand new planes. What about hangars?
F-22 entered service in 2005, they aren't necessarily "brand new" planes.
How exactly does one read an article saying they aren't sure and are assessing the possibility of damage, then summarize it by stating that 17 are mangled?
The articles update states:
Initial estimates of the damage were troubling, but Foreign Policy’s Lara Seligman later tweeted that “all aircraft are intact and initial indications are ‘promising’.”
If you consider the acreage required to park, marshal out and taxi that many aircraft, you might rethink the simple bunker solution. Add the cost of acquiring real estate, designing, site prep, utilities, construction, maintenance, fire protection, security. Still seems worth considering.
We can't know what kind of WRITE-UPS (not gripes in the AF. That's Navy jargon.) those acft had. There might be a supply shortage of a particular part that is due for replacement. You just can't put unsafe aircraft in the sky.
Were there even enough qualified aircrew in the area to launch them all?
Whatever could be moved were moved. The rest got tied down with chains.
I still don't understand the whole maintenance excuse, shouldn't they always be being maintained and ready to go? I mean what if the U.S were to suddenly come under attack, are we really supposed to wait a few days or weeks before we can get the jets off the ground to fight back?
This what the Marine Corps is for, ready to be deployed within 24 hours on the president's orders, the other branches have time to prepare.
Well good thing president trump "made a deal with the devil" to rebuild our Military why not just buy more? lol it's truly a shame though look at how much the Air Force budget is already, and we don't have as much to show for it as we should, and now he have 17 less F-22s.
Entered service yes, but the first production plane was unveiled in 1997 with more coming soon after that, and design work on the plane started in the early 90's.
It's old technology relatively speaking which is one of the reasons restarting production never got much traction. It's nearly a 30-year old design.
This what the Marine Corps is for, ready to be deployed within 24 hours on the president's orders, the other branches have time to prepare.
It's far easier to move people than it is large and complex hardware. The local Air Force special forces air traffic control unit was far less than 24 hours to boots on the ground for the Haiti earthquake relief response. (Haiti's main airport had an operable runway but nothing else after the quake)
It's far easier to move people than it is large and complex hardware. The local Air Force special forces air traffic control unit was far less than 24 hours to boots on the ground for the Haiti earthquake relief response. (Haiti's main airport had an operable runway but nothing else after the quake)
The USMC has its own airwing that's ready to be deployed in 24 hours as well, so i'm not sure what you mean by this?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
