• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

F-22s may have been lost as a result of Hurricane Michael

jjnodice

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
97
Reaction score
0
jsport said:
TomS said:
It takes time to tear down and load a plane for flatbedding. Michael went from TS to Hurricane making landfall in basically two days. If they had tried to drive out, they would likely have had aircraft on trucks, out on the roads, in the middle of a hurricane.

As it is, we don't know at all the extent of the damage to these aircraft -- it's far too son to write them off.
Would say some IG should determine when NOAA/DoD knew about this storm's possible path before any judgement whether these things could been on the road.
I grew up in the Panhandle, father got stationed at Eglin in the early 1960's and never left. My brother works in Panama City and lives inland. Both his work and residence are ok.

I concur that getting these on trucks would be a no-go. When the evac notices hit it normally takes about 6 hours to drive North what normally takes an hour. Going East or West on HWY 98 wouldn't work either. Getting those planes onto the available roads would only make it tougher for the citizens to evacuate. If they tried the outcry would be "USAF puts planes over people".
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,076
Reaction score
20
TomcatViP said:
Domes produce lift. It's not that easy.
Not only is the dome reinforced concrete, but it can be anchored below ground where the combined weight would ensure that it ain't going anywhere.

On the flying debris issue, it's going to take a lot to get through multiple inches of reinforced concrete.

It's easy enough to test in a hurricane damage-simulator (ie air cannon).
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,076
Reaction score
20
jsport said:
Would say some IG should determine when NOAA/DoD knew about this storm's possible path before any judgement whether these things could been on the road.
By the time they knew that it would be hurricane strength rather than just a tropical storm, it was too late IIRC.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
848
Reaction score
41
Spud, you have to come back to why they are offering a dome structure: simply because it doesn't need internal bracing offering, what this kind of contractors say, a maximized internal volume. Then when you start looking at the details they are, either a lot of unused surface inside (circle plus angled wall) either tall near vertical base. It hence fulfill poorly the design criteria that are: best usage of available surface or cost ( the dome is then a normal compound with a rounded roof and side walls).

Domes are great for on the field temporary structure: you don't need heavy equipment for the construction. On an airbase, the overall surface occupied by the dome is less efficiently used what cause extra cost of construction and ownership.

And We didn't even start talking about the revolving door, rail mounted with out of service time (jammed) directly connected with the rail radius ;)

If you want to survive 200mph winds, there are far more efficient ways to achieve this.
 

harrier

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
47
The dome company build residences in Florida that they say they are checking for damage. Similar buildings have survived other hurricanes.

I own a house on the west coast of Ireland that is concrete, like most houses there. It has withstood 120mph winds.

Presumably some kind of concrete shelter that costs less than 1% of an aircraft would be possible. A Tab V or other HAS likely would cost more, but still makes sense.

Small fleets of expensive, thin skinned and unreliable aircraft need protection from the elements. Issues like the recent drone overflight of an F-22 airbase highlight other possible threats to them, where such shelters could pay off.
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,076
Reaction score
20
Domes can be a very strong and very long lasting structure, as can it's cousin the Quonset hut. I grew up around them in the South Pacific and they are tough and last a long time. There are many things you can to to alleviate the issues of wasted space in the corners so that should not be a sticking point.

I agree that the door would be the most difficult item to engineer, but considering that current doors are rail mounted, it's not an unforeseen issue.
 

harrier

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
47
The dome company price is a tenth of a new HAS or similar to a refurbed one:

https://www.stripes.com/news/new-shelters-promise-brighter-days-ahead-for-osan-mechanics-1.18211

And that is 2004 money.
 

Dreamfighter

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
160
Reaction score
0
Tyndall AFB was home to 55 F-22s of a total fleet of ca. 185 aircraft (of which only about 123 are combat-capable enough).
So, on normal days, nearly 30% of the total F-22 fleet.

Again, why does such a freaking important airbase does not have (heavily) hardened concrete shelters instead of easily destructable every-day aluminium/brick/... hangars?? Are HAS´s such a rare thing in the US?
Even if in the post-9/11 era the USAF still thinks their aircraft in the homeland are safe from attack, one should foresee the possibility or likeliness of a catastrophic accident (f.e. a big airliner/airlifter/tanker crashing on the base) or devastating weather phenomena, especially in an area that can be expected to experience such hurricanes.

HAS´s are expensive and not the ultimate solution against every attack (back in 91 we saw f.e. the destructed HAS´s in Irak during Desert Storm), but to be destructed they must be hit directly by a penetrating weapon and imho at least all F-22s, B-2s and a as much as possible F-35s should have well protected shelters, especially if large portions of the respective fleets are based on only a (very) few bases.

Btw, what are the plans for housing the coming B-21s?
I hope not in some tents, along a runway with painted "HIT US HERE" on it.
 

jeffb

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
98
Reaction score
6
Last two hurricanes prior to Michael that landed close to Tyndall were Opal in 1995 (cat3) and Dennis in 2005 (cat4). That makes these events pretty sparse and unlikely to attract funding for special shelters.
 

Dreamfighter

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
160
Reaction score
0
JeffB said:
Last two hurricanes prior to Michael that landed close to Tyndall were Opal in 1995 (cat3) and Dennis in 2005 (cat4). That makes these events pretty sparse and unlikely to attract funding for special shelters.
Ah, I see.
Personally I still think that if 30% of the F-22 fleet is based there, better protection is required, even for events that happen rarely.
(With the current US-administration not giving (much) credit to the climate-change reports, I assume protection against destructive weather phenomena will also not be taken into account in future years.)
And what about attack or war? Also too unlikely to build some special shelters?
 

LowObservable

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,169
Reaction score
24
Many F-35 "fans" would have preferred more F-22s and fewer F-35s.

That was the decision Gates had to make, on the basis of poor information provided from many sources (including the intel world looking at China). And it's mostly wrong anyway. I don't recall anyone offering to sacrifice a single F-35 for more F-22s.

I told them at every opportunity that once the F-22 was dead the critics would turn their attention to the F-35. And that's exactly what happened.

Well, actually it didn't. The F-35 continued to have remarkably few critics after early 2010, which is why Bogdan's slam in 2012 made news.

The F-35 was used as an "excuse", not a valid reason.

Nonfactual. That's your opinion.

The gutting of the F-22 procurement plan started long before the F-35 ever flew.

More or less meaningless. The buy was cut to 442 immediately post-Cold War, quite reasonably. By the time Gates took action the goal was 381, barely "gutting".

The problem with this tale-telling is that it risks establishing a Duncan Sandys-like mythology around the F-22 cutback, obscuring what was actually happening.
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
629
Reaction score
6
LowObservable said:
That was the decision Gates had to make, on the basis of poor information provided from many sources (including the intel world looking at China). And it's mostly wrong anyway. I don't recall anyone offering to sacrifice a single F-35 for more F-22s.
Many sources not including the Air Force evidently. I seem to recall some think tank recommending trading maybe 300 F-35s in order to achieve the planned number of 381 F-22s.

I told them at every opportunity that once the F-22 was dead the critics would turn their attention to the F-35. And that's exactly what happened.

Well, actually it didn't. The F-35 continued to have remarkably few critics after early 2010, which is why Bogdan's slam in 2012 made news.
Remarkably few critics? By what standard?

Nonfactual. That's your opinion.
Seemed to be a common enough excuse. "The F-35 is coming we don't need so many F-22s."

The problem with this tale-telling is that it risks establishing a Duncan Sandys-like mythology around the F-22 cutback, obscuring what was actually happening.
What really happened was still an extremely poor decision.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
848
Reaction score
41
@SpudMan: I have personally no problem with Quonset huts... nor any air forces in the world. But lift is a concern:



8/3=2.66
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,076
Reaction score
20
Lift is a concern with something as light as a QHht, but a concrete dome anchored underground is another thing altogether.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
848
Reaction score
41
Obviously but why bother (and pay the extra cost in concrete and hassle) for something that has to stand firmly on the ground while still having a quite nice Coefficient of lift?

I think we should end here this conversation if you don't mind. Nor you and me I shall believe have so much sympathy for architectural science that we should flood this forum with such annoying debate :D

I have no doubt that if any deficiencies are to be pointed on the contractors side in this disaster, we will learned some.
 

harrier

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
47
22 is the figure given here:

https://eu.pnj.com/story/news/2018/10/17/hurricane-michael-tyndall-air-force-base-f-22-raptors-damage-uncertain/1652997002/
 

malipa

TU Delft AE student
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
190
Reaction score
0
Nice no viscosity assumption in that calculation, but it doesn't give realistic answers ;).
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,196
Reaction score
115
Harrier said:
22 is the figure given here:

https://eu.pnj.com/story/news/2018/10/17/hurricane-michael-tyndall-air-force-base-f-22-raptors-damage-uncertain/1652997002/
By unnamed "experts."

There were something like 55 F-22s assigned there. I'm very doubtful that 40% of those were unflyable. I'd bet that number is more like 22 total aircraft, including the QF-16s, T-38s, and maybe even the contractor MU-2s.
 

LowObservable

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,169
Reaction score
24
I seem to recall some think tank recommending trading maybe 300 F-35s in order to achieve the planned number of 381 F-22s.

That's not a very high standard of evidence.

Remarkably few critics? By what standard?

Math. F-35 critics were thin on the ground, prior to 2013. In relative terms - the F-35 by that time had never undergone the kind of shellacking handed out to the F-22 (Baltimore Sun scored a Pulitzer) or the B-2 (the 60 Minutes hit job and others too numerous to mention). And no program before the F-35 had quite as many paid shills.

What really happened was still an extremely poor decision.

Was it really? The F-22 has a range problem, is costly to operate, and apparently difficult to upgrade; and Gates was being told that the F-35 was 400-600 per cent better in A2A than anything else out there, and that China wouldn't have many stealth aircraft until 2025. We may regret the decision now but it was logical at the time.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,279
Reaction score
27
There may be only one caretaker who can dig up the bones then bleach the useful ones to build two new Frankensteins called FA-XX and FB-XX.

LO maybe?

;D
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
848
Reaction score
41
malipa said:
Nice no viscosity assumption in that calculation, but it doesn't give realistic answers ;).

Right no viscosity. Inviscid fluid and potential flows theory but...
Good Engineering is to take the wildest realistic assumption to generate the output with the safest cost efficient result. We can see why today ;)
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
848
Reaction score
41
jsport said:
There may be only one caretaker who can dig up the bones then bleach the useful ones to build two new Frankensteins called FA-XX and FB-XX.

LO maybe?

;D
Well someone with a bit of humor could cut them in half and glue* them back end to end. It might then be the perfect fighter to survive administration's alternances

*CFRP obviouly
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
629
Reaction score
6
LowObservable said:
That's not a very high standard of evidence.
I'm having trouble digging it up and finding whoever said it but I'm fairly certain that such heresy was openly spoken of.

Math. F-35 critics were thin on the ground, prior to 2013. In relative terms - the F-35 by that time had never undergone the kind of shellacking handed out to the F-22 (Baltimore Sun scored a Pulitzer) or the B-2 (the 60 Minutes hit job and others too numerous to mention). And no program before the F-35 had quite as many paid shills.
Where is this math? The F-35 always had plenty of critics some with the usual ideological motivations and others with more valid concerns. But as usual criticism doesn't shift into high gear until a program is well underway with aircraft/vehicles/whatever in visible testing and the largest sums of money being spent. Prior to that point the JSF was nothing more than a reason we didn't need the F-22 according to some.

What really happened was still an extremely poor decision.
Was it really? The F-22 has a range problem, is costly to operate, and apparently difficult to upgrade; and Gates was being told that the F-35 was 400-600 per cent better in A2A than anything else out there, and that China wouldn't have many stealth aircraft until 2025. We may regret the decision now but it was logical at the time.
It can definitely be considered a mistake when you can't replace aircraft lost to attrition, pay a huge premium to perform upgrades, are stuck trying to overhaul and modernize 30+ year old F-15s to make up for the numbers gap, and have clear evidence that the rest of the world isn't as far behind as was stated. I would expect a SecDef to know more than marketing hype and to have a better understanding of where the Chinese and Russians were. Yet it's clear that was always one of the decisions he wanted to force through. It was logical to only those of that administration's ideological leanings.

Range problem? If you're judging by the new standard to perform long range combat operations in the Pacific then yes. It's range is adequate when compared to most of the fighters currently in service. Costly to operate? Well part of that is another self-inflicted wound from the decision to terminate production so early. Even with those considerations in mind it makes no sense to stop production of what was arguably the world's most capable fighter because of the promise of something better... eventually.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,279
Reaction score
27
TomcatViP said:
jsport said:
There may be only one caretaker who can dig up the bones then bleach the useful ones to build two new Frankensteins called FA-XX and FB-XX.

LO maybe?

;D
Well someone with a bit of humor could cut them in half and glue* them back end to end. It might then be the perfect fighter to survive administration's alternances

*CFRP obviouly
am not referring to physical more the politics (bones and skeletons IE lies and corruption ) of two previous questionable aircraft development programs and a two future aircraft development programs.
 

Airplane

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
LowObservable said:
I seem to recall some think tank recommending trading maybe 300 F-35s in order to achieve the planned number of 381 F-22s.

That's not a very high standard of evidence.

Remarkably few critics? By what standard?

Math. F-35 critics were thin on the ground, prior to 2013. In relative terms - the F-35 by that time had never undergone the kind of shellacking handed out to the F-22 (Baltimore Sun scored a Pulitzer) or the B-2 (the 60 Minutes hit job and others too numerous to mention). And no program before the F-35 had quite as many paid shills.

What really happened was still an extremely poor decision.

Was it really? The F-22 has a range problem, is costly to operate, and apparently difficult to upgrade; and Gates was being told that the F-35 was 400-600 per cent better in A2A than anything else out there, and that China wouldn't have many stealth aircraft until 2025. We may regret the decision now but it was logical at the time.
There was no logic to it. The operating costs are a result of the truncated numbers. There is no range problem. What upgrades are you referring to, being difficult? The F-22 was better than everything else in the air. The fleet was growing older and smaller each year.

On the other hand. The F-35 was an unknown variable. Performance figures were not being met. The F-35 carries 4 AAMs compared to 8 on the F-22, so you can double your "400% to 600%" percentages for a2a effectiveness. The F-35 was a long way away from being completed and all the issues with it from being identified.

So the 22 was canceled for an unknown variable called the F-35 that was known to carry 1/2 of the a2a load of the F-22 and known to not be meeting some performance numbers.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,918
Reaction score
269
LowObservable said:
Many F-35 "fans" would have preferred more F-22s and fewer F-35s.

That was the decision Gates had to make, on the basis of poor information provided from many sources (including the intel world looking at China). And it's mostly wrong anyway. I don't recall anyone offering to sacrifice a single F-35 for more F-22s.
I could have sworn there was a USAF offer to give up 500 F-35s for 100 more F-22s back when the F-22 line was still going.
 

GWrecks

Big Wingy Thingy
Joined
Jul 15, 2018
Messages
77
Reaction score
1
Out of curiosity, why did people not worry about Michael turning into a hurricane? Are tropical storms too common to generally take seriously?
 

Jeb

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
261
Reaction score
13
GWrecks said:
Out of curiosity, why did people not worry about Michael turning into a hurricane? Are tropical storms too common to generally take seriously?
It revved up from TS to hurricane unusually fast, is how I remember it being discussed. Storms are funny. Predictive models usually do pretty well but sometimes they don't get it right in the end.
 

LowObservable

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,169
Reaction score
24
Airplane: On the other hand. The F-35 was an unknown variable. Performance figures were not being met. The F-35 carries 4 AAMs compared to 8 on the F-22, so you can double your "400% to 600%" percentages for a2a effectiveness. The F-35 was a long way away from being completed and all the issues with it from being identified.

Exactly. But that wasn't what Gates was being told. That wasn't what LM and its various outlets were saying. (Including people who were promising six internal AAMs just around the corner.) The only people warning that "performance figures were not being met" were the awful naysayers and the "beancounters".

Sferrin: I could have sworn there was a USAF offer to give up 500 F-35s for 100 more F-22s back when the F-22 line was still going.

Off the top of my head I don't recall anything like that. But I'm ready to be corrected, with sources.
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
629
Reaction score
6
Wasn't Lockheed Martin prohibited from lobbying for continued F-22 production at some point?

I'm not saying Robert Gates had a Dick Cheney-esque vendetta against the F-22 like Cheney with the F-14 but it does sometimes look that way.
 

jeffb

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
98
Reaction score
6
Jeb said:
GWrecks said:
Out of curiosity, why did people not worry about Michael turning into a hurricane? Are tropical storms too common to generally take seriously?
It revved up from TS to hurricane unusually fast, is how I remember it being discussed. Storms are funny. Predictive models usually do pretty well but sometimes they don't get it right in the end.
The storms pick up energy when they pass over warm water. Predicting exactly how warm the surface of a section of ocean is going to be is not an exact science and so the storms can occasionally surprise us.


Suddenly had a vision of future air force transports converted to flying ice makers and seeding the oceans ahead of big storms with ice cubes. (Pat. Pend. Ha!)
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
848
Reaction score
41
Suddenly had a vision of future air force transports converted to flying ice makers and seeding the oceans ahead of big storms with ice cubes. (Pat. Pend. Ha!)
Add a bottle of Champagne and that would be a privately owned aircraft full of VIP's days ahead of a major election ;)
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,373
Reaction score
153
sferrin said:
Archibald said:
Reminds me of that tornado that had destroyed a handful of B-36s (at Carswell AFB ?)
There's a video of a tornado that narrowly missed a B-1B flight line as well. :eek:
Whew. That would have been one heck of an expensive tornado. :eek:
 

Hobbes

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
681
Reaction score
42
kcran567 said:
Idiotic!!!
Billions lost because they couldn't be loaded on a flatbed and trucked out of state??

Someone's ass should be fired. They knew perfectly well how serious the storm was.

Should have been trucked out of the area
An F-22 is 13 meters wide and 5 meters high. Moving something that big is a major operation that needs far more than 2 days of preparation: many roads don't have more than 5 meters clearance across and ~4.5 m in height.
Disassembling the aircraft to a road-transportable state could also easily take more than 2 days.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,918
Reaction score
269
LowObservable said:
Sferrin: I could have sworn there was a USAF offer to give up 500 F-35s for 100 more F-22s back when the F-22 line was still going.

Off the top of my head I don't recall anything like that. But I'm ready to be corrected, with sources.
Still looking for the specific article I'm thinking of but this one at least hints at it:

AvWeek 11/14/2005 page 27

"
 

Attachments

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,918
Reaction score
269
Hobbes said:
kcran567 said:
Idiotic!!!
Billions lost because they couldn't be loaded on a flatbed and trucked out of state??

Someone's ass should be fired. They knew perfectly well how serious the storm was.

Should have been trucked out of the area
An F-22 is 13 meters wide and 5 meters high. Moving something that big is a major operation that needs far more than 2 days of preparation: many roads don't have more than 5 meters clearance across and ~4.5 m in height.
Disassembling the aircraft to a road-transportable state could also easily take more than 2 days.
Just to put the size in perspective:
 

Attachments

DrRansom

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
527
Reaction score
3
The only thing which could have saved the F-22s from damage is pro-active infrastructure investments. Any airbase will have a fraction of planes which cannot evacuate and cannot be 'trucked' out beforehand. Knowing that and knowing how expensive fighter planes are … just build a few hardened hangers for each airbase.

Also: the USAF is going to need anti-drone protection soon anyway, might as well get started early.
 

kcran567

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
663
Reaction score
0
Hobbes said:
kcran567 said:
Idiotic!!!
Billions lost because they couldn't be loaded on a flatbed and trucked out of state??

Someone's ass should be fired. They knew perfectly well how serious the storm was.

Should have been trucked out of the area
An F-22 is 13 meters wide and 5 meters high. Moving something that big is a major operation that needs far more than 2 days of preparation: many roads don't have more than 5 meters clearance across and ~4.5 m in height.
Disassembling the aircraft to a road-transportable state could also easily take more than 2 days.
I've seen an entire house moved on interstate highways on more than a few occasions with the very large flatbeds and a few white trucks with yellow hazard lights. That storm was one of the biggest and there was ample warning. At the very least there should be consequences and a plan to avoid similar $50B or more loss. I guess it comes down to the will to do a little extra work sometimes, but just another drop in the money pit at this point. When they have a blank check to spend other peoples money. Just a brief rant.

The picture of the F-22 on the flatbed is interesting. And is not too much longer or wider than the standard trailer seen carried on an 18 wheel semi.
 

kitnut617

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
285
Reaction score
21
sferrin said:
Hobbes said:
kcran567 said:
Idiotic!!!
Billions lost because they couldn't be loaded on a flatbed and trucked out of state??

Someone's ass should be fired. They knew perfectly well how serious the storm was.

Should have been trucked out of the area
An F-22 is 13 meters wide and 5 meters high. Moving something that big is a major operation that needs far more than 2 days of preparation: many roads don't have more than 5 meters clearance across and ~4.5 m in height.
Disassembling the aircraft to a road-transportable state could also easily take more than 2 days.
Just to put the size in perspective:
The wing span of the F-22 is 44'-6", which is about what an F-15 wing span is, 42'-10". So watching this video I would say they missed out on an opportunity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3q8n1dzBU0M
 

Hobbes

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
681
Reaction score
42
kcran567 said:
Hobbes said:
kcran567 said:
Idiotic!!!
Billions lost because they couldn't be loaded on a flatbed and trucked out of state??

Someone's ass should be fired. They knew perfectly well how serious the storm was.

Should have been trucked out of the area
An F-22 is 13 meters wide and 5 meters high. Moving something that big is a major operation that needs far more than 2 days of preparation: many roads don't have more than 5 meters clearance across and ~4.5 m in height.
Disassembling the aircraft to a road-transportable state could also easily take more than 2 days.
I've seen an entire house moved on interstate highways on more than a few occasions with the very large flatbeds and a few white trucks with yellow hazard lights.
yes, with 3 months of planning to find a clear route and prepare the places where a clear route can't be found (by temporarily removing traffic lights, signs and other obstructions).
 
Top