Matrix Games Forums

Couldn't fly away due to "mechanical difficulties". So we lose 15%, or so, as they were hangar queens and couldn't escape the storm.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10- ... yndall-afb

Another victory for the MIC.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$

In case you're wondering: Unit Cost is $250,000,000.00

Remember seeing how little damage was done to a Syrian AFB by our Tomahawk missiles? We need to hire some of those guys to design our AFBs.

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Remember seeing how little damage was done to a Syrian AFB by our Tomahawk missiles? We need to hire some of those guys to design our AFBs.

You mean the Russian engineers that cleaned things off nicely before the next satellite pass / BDA? Our own military intelligence / engineers are more than capable of cleaning things like that up and faking 'non-damage' for the media.

Similarly, the Russian engineers / state-controlled media did a fine job cleaning up after the tomahawk strike and putting on a brave face:

https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics ... index.html

If I wanted to trump up an 'ineffectual' strike, I'd make sure I flew a plane or two out of there ASAP also.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Remember seeing how little damage was done to a Syrian AFB by our Tomahawk missiles? We need to hire some of those guys to design our AFBs.

You mean the Russian engineers that cleaned things off nicely before the next satellite pass / BDA? Our own military intelligence / engineers are more than capable of cleaning things like that up and faking 'non-damage' for the media.

Similarly, the Russian engineers / state-controlled media did a fine job cleaning up after the tomahawk strike and putting on a brave face:

https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics ... index.html

If I wanted to trump up an 'ineffectual' strike, I'd make sure I flew a plane or two out of there ASAP also.

45 minutes for a low-orbit SATT pass. Not going to clean up a Tomahawk strike in 45 minutes.

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Couldn't fly away due to "mechanical difficulties". So we lose 15%, or so, as they were hangar queens and couldn't escape the storm.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10- ... yndall-afb

Another victory for the MIC.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$

The newscast I saw said they were over $350 million apiece. The TV showed an overhead shot of a damaged aircraft in the hangar, but it had a single tail - likely an F-16. Then they showed a ground shot that showed what they said was a double tail, characteristic of the F-22. Only trouble was, one of the tails had the sloped part on the left and the vertical (aft end) part on the right, but it was reversed for the other tail - which can only mean two different aircraft parked facing opposite directions. There seems to be a lot of speculation about the number of F-22s actually damaged.

Having said that, the devastation of Homestead AFB Florida a couple of decades ago should have delivered a lesson about building hurricane-proof hangars!

Its not the first hurricane for the season and may not be the last.
Why not ship them to a safer place on a flatbed trailer/tank transporter?
Even a little damage is better than a write off.

I 'm no expert in modern aircraft, but these airplanes seem overly expensive, sophisticated and delicate for mass production.

Am I right in saying that they 're suited only for limited wars against smaller powers and in the event of a total war a simpler and cheaper design must be mass produced?

F-22 production ended in 2012 with only 187 built. Originally intended as the "High" component of an F-22/F-35 "High-Low" mix, F-22 is a 5th generation (stealth) fighter designed for achieving and maintaining air dominance over peer and near-peer adversaries. No F-22s were exported due to the sensitive nature of technologies used.

Now all production is focused on various versions of the F-35, which though inferior to F-22 in the air-superiority role, is also an advanced stealth fighter with formidable capabilities.

Ending F-22 production was a mistake IMO.

I'd bet on an F-22 in any air battle any day. Shame production ended and I do have a lot of misgivings about the cost of current programs and the military-industrial complex. However, the F-22 is a great fighter.

ORIGINAL: JeffroK

Its not the first hurricane for the season and may not be the last.
Why not ship them to a safer place on a flatbed trailer/tank transporter?
Even a little damage is better than a write off.

From the news posts, this storm took the authorities by surprise. At this time of year most storms lose power before reaching landfall, but this one gained strength to Cat 4 with about two days before landfall. That started a full scale bug-out by most of the population, with roads being closed to incoming traffic so all lanes could be used for the evacuation. I would guess that the AFB did not have many flatbed transporters and could not get more in time because of the road restrictions.

Still no excuse of having roofs blow off. In Newfoundland where they get severe straight-line winds over 100 mph, the houses often have wire cables strung over the roof to keep it in place. Same for mobile homes that are in tornado zones. It's ugly, but it can pay off big time.

ORIGINAL: Anachro

I'd bet on an F-22 in any air battle any day. Shame production ended and I do have a lot of misgivings about the cost of current programs and the military-industrial complex. However, the F-22 is a great fighter.

It spends most of its time in the hanager. 51% are not air-worthy at any one time. That is the definition of lemon if there ever was one.

That base must not be on a railroad, or else they could have moved them out to another railroad base.[;)]

Cheers,
CB

ORIGINAL: CaptBeefheart

That base must not be on a railroad, or else they could have moved them out to another railroad base.[;)]

Cheers,
CB

[:D]

Hi all,

Secretary of the Air Force had a statement last night:

TONIGHT: Our maintenance professionals will do a detailed assessment of F-22s @TeamTyndall before we can say w certainty that damaged aircraft can be repaired/sent back into the skies...Damage was less than we feared and preliminary indications are promising.

Leo "Apollo11"

One look at this map and you can see they're asking for trouble. Why would anyone decide to put a base there?

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Tynda ... 85.6075064

It's actually a great place for it, if you take hurricanes & global warming out of the picture.

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

It's actually a great place for it, if you take hurricanes & global warming out of the picture.

IF

I also heard that the University of Florida had (used to have) a weather station at Tyndall; the anemometer "stopped working" at 130 mph.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/24 ... ape-storms