Someone should be court marshaled. 17 F-22s mangled by Michael

[MetroWord]

Wait wait wait. I thought Michael is fake news? Right wingers have been telling us that Michael is fake news by CNN? I'm confused.

[MetroWord]

Originally Posted by Soccernerd

It’s just a drop in the bucket in the long run. I mean what’s 5 million more dollars to the national debt?

Correction. Billion. With a B.

[boxus]

Originally Posted by HappyRider

At first read it's incomprehensible. Michael is bearing down on an air base and the Air Force leaves behind 17 F-22s costing $300m each to be tossed around like toys. The reason? They couldn't fly them! You mean to tell me 17 top shelf fighters have maintenance issues all at a single base? Ok, where are the bunkers to stow them away?

https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...icane-michael/

Yes. Planes go under maintenance, they cannot fly when doing so. They have no bunkers, no need, they are cost prohibitive and really no reason for them. The article does not even confirm there is damage, just there may have been damage, the planes could be just fine.

Originally Posted by Johnpolybious

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?

It was just explained a couple posts before. All military equipment goes through maintenance. Planes, ships, tanks, etc, all have maintenance and maintenance cycles of some sorts. The US keeps an operational cycle going, the number of equipment the US has incorporates the maintenance cycle of this equipment. For example, the US has ten aircraft carrier, but not all ten are operational at the same time. Some are operational, some are in a maintenance period, and some in an extended maintenance period.

If you could have all equipment operationally ready 100% of the time, you would have a fraction of the equipment we have now.

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

I’m in mind of the RAF evacuating its airfields in France in 1940 and falling back to Britain, an exercise done under great German pressure and in some haste. Evidently our air force is incapable of a retreat. Not that we Americans envision ourselves retreating. But then few who’ve retreated had.

I suppose operating off grass airfields is out of the question?

Are you seriously comparing a 1940's plane to an F-22?

Originally Posted by VA Yankee

Its called poor planning, this is no different when the Navy needs to move all their ships and aircraft out of Hampton Roads or Jacksonville when weather events threaten.

I'm sorry if the USAF is incapable of planning and making a decision when necessary...

Ships can be towed out to sea, there is no road nor mass amounts of people to constrain such activity. And the aircraft are restricted the same way has the USAF, the operational ones are flown out, the non-operational ones have to stay put.

[beachmouse]

As for why there are so many military bases in the hurricane bait eastern Gulf of Mexico, a lot of the answer is open airspace. The US DoD claims pretty much everything east of Mobile, Alabama as the Eglin Test Range (that range is also why oil drilling in the eastern Gulf is extremely limited)


http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineA...5/1115boom.pdf

[HappyRider]

At least they were not shot out by an F-16 gatling gun sitting on the ground.

[Dane_in_LA]

You'd think that the USAF could build hurricane-capable structures if they have airbases in hurricane areas.

Not for anything, but my country houses fighter jets in these:



- admittedly, these were based more around the idea of Soviet bombs than hurrricanes, but concrete is cheap and fighter jets are expensive.

[boxus]

Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA

You'd think that the USAF could build hurricane-capable structures if they have airbases in hurricane areas.

Not for anything, but my country houses fighter jets in these:



- admittedly, these were based more around the idea of Soviet bombs than hurrricanes, but concrete is cheap and fighter jets are expensive.

Those seem to be for operational aircraft, no for performing maintenance on them. Do you have one for each aircraft?

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by boxus

Those seem to be for operational aircraft, no for performing maintenance on them. Do you have one for each aircraft?

Indeed - these days, more than one (Cold War is over) - but the thing is, if an aircraft is towable, it can be moved to one. Not that I want to tell the USAF what to do, but it seems that hardened shelters are a known entity, can't be that bloody expensive and would have made the situation much more manageable.

Some contractor must have the blueprints laying around, right?

[BostonMike7]

Originally Posted by HappyRider

Then they tell us they needed maintenance. They are brand new planes.

The oldest F-22's are nearly 23 years old. Not exactly brand spanking new.

[HappyRider]

Originally Posted by BostonMike7

The oldest F-22's are nearly 23 years old. Not exactly brand spanking new.

Really? It seems I've been reading abut them just in the past few years.