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.
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?
But Denmark does not have that many aircraft, nor that many bases. I could not imagine the cost of putting hardened shelters for every aircraft the US has, at maybe not every, but many operational bases.
But Denmark does not have that many aircraft, nor that many bases. I could not imagine the cost of putting hardened shelters for every aircraft the US has, at maybe not every, but many operational bases.
As a percentage of the cost of the aircraft, it seems a prudent insurance policy, at least to me.
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?
Sure, because evacuating a gasoline powered, piston engine airplane across 30 miles of water is just the same as reassembling and flying a modern fighter in minutes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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)
The lack of drilling in the Eastern Gulf has more to do with Florida not wanting it than any military reason. Military jets fly the Western Gulf all the time, and it's full of platforms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonMike7
The oldest F-22's are nearly 23 years old. Not exactly brand spanking new.
Sure, because evacuating a gasoline powered, piston engine airplane across 30 miles of water is just the same as reassembling and flying a modern fighter in minutes.
The lack of drilling in the Eastern Gulf has more to do with Florida not wanting it than any military reason. Military jets fly the Western Gulf all the time, and it's full of platforms.
The F22 entered service in 2005.
Entered service, but they started flying in the late 90's.
Entering in 2005 is technically correct. Entering service means they are deployed to squadrons. But the aircraft had been in training etc since 1997. Various redesigns, kinks worked out etc. We needed a cadre of trained pilots deployable to the bases who would receive the aircraft. It takes awhile to train on them. For the 1st few years only previously trained pilots were used, but it still takes awhile. I didn't google this, I worked at the F-22 school house where they trained the pilots. My husband was a maintenance officer on them, having come full circle on the development team in the early 1990's.
As for suggestions of putting them on a trailer..yeah, not gonna happen. There isn't a trailer in the world that could do that. And as pointed out earlier, there is no way to get out of the town. Sandbags? Why? That might keep the tires dry...not protect from wind. And if a single bag broke, the sand that could get in the engine would do more damage. These aircraft were in hangers, and some of the most hardened hangers we have. As for maintenance at another facility, these are stealth facilities, requiring expensive equipment, trained maintainers etc. So thereby doubling the $$. But when an aircraft goes down for something other than regular maintenance, it DOES NOT FLY!
As for hardened shelters, like Europe has (been there too) those are to survive nuclear or other bombing..cold war stuff. Our goal in that case to be in the air, flying against our enemy. And an aircraft that isn't able to fly is not a priority in that situation.
The pictures of aircraft turned upside down in the hangers are in fact not the F-22, but drone aircraft, used for testing. You can tell by the red tips on wings etc. That is another mission at Tyndall.
And as more news is coming out, they are not destroyed etc.
The whole takeaway from this is...no military personnel were injured or died. All were evacuated. If the commander had made the decision to stay to protect the aircraft, he might have been fired. But he didn't. Many did stay and rode it out, but that wasn't to protect aircraft.
So instead of Monday morning quarterbacking and complaining about $$ wasted by whatever government you disagree with at the moment, make a donation to AF Aid, the red cross, the cajan navy, or some of the various groups that are down here making a difference. Or better yet grab a chainsaw and join us!
I now live about 60 miles away, and I have driven over supplies twice now, and it is heartbreaking! I volunteered at a local shelter on Monday, feeding some people that hadn't had a hot meal in days.
The F-22 should not be the lead in any story about this storm! Rant over!
You'd think that the USAF could build hurricane-capable structures if they have airbases in hurricane areas.
Sure, the USAF could do just that.
They could build a shelter for every aircraft on each airbase in hurricane country. There's Tyndall and Eglin and MacDill. That's just the major bases in Florida. There's plenty more along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts. And in Hawaii. And Puerto Rico. And Guam. And Japan. And South Korea. All places subject to hurricanes. Like I said before, if the USAF's inventory had comprehensive protection from hurricanes, people would have spent decades screaming about money wasted on never-used bunkers. And it would cost quite a bundle. Probably more than simply replacing the occasional aircraft that gets caught in a hurricane.
Oh, and as for the poster who wanted 'them voted out of office' over this? That knee-jerk silliness presumes that the decision as to whether or not hardened shelters are needed are made by those holding elective office. Well, newsflash - generals and admirals aren't elected.
Is there any way I can blame this on either Obama or Hillary?
Not when Trump is held responsible for Michael.
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.
