Hurricane Michael's aftermath on Fighter jets

Status
Not open for further replies.
FloridaPilot

FloridaPilot

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
2,456
Location
Florida
Display Name
Display name:
FloridaStudentPilot
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/11/us/air-force-hurricane-michael-damage.html

I didn't know a few things about Tyndall Airforce Base:

#1. Each F22 costs 339 Million Dollars

#2. They actually "Part" out airplanes for other working airplanes.

#3. (IMO Most important) 49% of the fighters were mission ready at any given time. What if we were invaded do you think we are ready to handle a conflict?
 
FloridaPilot said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/11/us/air-force-hurricane-michael-damage.html

I didn't know a few things about Tyndall Airforce Base:

#1. Each F22 costs 339 Million Dollars

#2. They actually "Part" out airplanes for other working airplanes.

#3. (IMO Most important) 49% of the fighters were mission ready at any given time. What if we were invaded do you think we are ready to handle a conflict?
Click to expand...

#1 way too much.

#2 most fleet owners do the same thing.

#3 yes, if all of the assets we have abroad were here instead.
 
FloridaPilot said:
What if we were invaded do you think we are ready to handle a conflict?
Click to expand...
Given that our military budget is larger then the next 10 largest military budgets combined, it would seem that we should have the assets.

Also, to invade and establish a beach head, one would need air superiority. Given that we have more large aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined, that would be pretty hard to accomplish.

(China has more bodies in their military, but no way to get them here. Russia has more tanks, but again, no way to get them here.)
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
(China has more bodies in their military, but no way to get them here. Russia has more tanks, but again, no way to get them here.)
Click to expand...
\
Sure they do. It would take a while for the Chinese to move their soldiers to Mexico and send them across the border, but that is a way.
Russian tanks would be harder, but as long as they embed them in a column of refugees, we wouldn't attack them for fear of "collateral" damage.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Given that our military budget is larger then the next 10 largest military budgets combined, it would seem that we should have the assets.

Also, to invade and establish a beach head, one would need air superiority. Given that we have more large aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined, that would be pretty hard to accomplish.

(China has more bodies in their military, but no way to get them here. Russia has more tanks, but again, no way to get them here.)
Click to expand...

Yeah, that’s what they thought in Red Dawn. Didn’t work out so well, did it?
 
SkyDog58 said:
#1 way too much.

#2 most fleet owners do the same thing.
Click to expand...

But parting out a 339 Million dollar airplane?

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Given that our military budget is larger then the next 10 largest military budgets combined, it would seem that we should have the assets.
Click to expand...

Might be true but they're spread out all over the world, just because our budget is bigger that doesn't necessarily mean effectiveness either.
 
Well it's not like it was their money
 
Its called cannibalization and it happens all the time with military jets. Rather have one flyable using parts from another than two un-flyable.
 
JOhnH said:
\
Sure they do. It would take a while for the Chinese to move their soldiers to Mexico and send them across the border, but that is a way.
Russian tanks would be harder, but as long as they embed them in a column of refugees, we wouldn't attack them for fear of "collateral" damage.
Click to expand...
lol, you don’t think we’re going to notice China moving massive quantities of military troops and hardware to Mexico? Those troops and that hardware would never make it to Mexican shores. This isn’t 1941 - you can’t hide a fleet in the pacific anymore.

That’s not how a major power will attack us. There are better ways, like destabilizing our society.
 
Timbeck2 said:
Its called cannibalization and it happens all the time with military jets. Rather have one flyable using parts from another than two un-flyable.
Click to expand...

But the question remains....How come we can't produce parts for a 339 Million dollar airplane? that we produced here in the US?
 
We can and we do. The extra parts go where they're needed most but there isn't an unlimited supply. So, supply can order a part and wait for it to come in, OR you can cann a part off of a hangar queen and have it now.
 
jesse said:
lol, you don’t think we’re going to notice China moving massive quantities of military troops and hardware to Mexico? Those troops and that hardware would never make it to Mexican shores. This isn’t 1941 - you can’t hide a fleet in the pacific anymore.

That’s not how a major power will attack us. There are better ways, like destabilizing our society.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like helping a total misfit get elected.
 
jesse said:
lol, you don’t think we’re going to notice China moving massive quantities of military troops and hardware to Mexico? Those troops and that hardware would never make it to Mexican shores. This isn’t 1941 - you can’t hide a fleet in the pacific anymore.

That’s not how a major power will attack us. There are better ways, like destabilizing our society.
Click to expand...
Oh you mean like 9-11, an event that changed the way we live on a fundamental level to this day...
 
1. MIC and economies of scale (188 vs 700 aircraft). Or as Henning would say, “greed.”

2. They still get new / overhauled parts but it’s far cheaper to cannibalize. Marines are doing that now, taking parts from old Navy Legacy Hornets to keep their fleet flying...barely.

3. Redundancy. F-22s only make up one piece of the puzzle. Plenty of other fighter aircraft to pick up the slack.

Deployed rates are far greater than stateside rates also. The ones that are being used for combat are going to be well over that 49 % figure. Our helicopters on deployment were pushing over 90 % MC while back home that number drops to around 60-70 %. The more advanced the aircraft, the less MC rates.
 
This is two unrelated stories:

1) Poor, poor planning by the AF. Why in the world would you put 50+ of one of your most valuable assets in hurricane territory without the ability to safely house them?

2) The AF has bought another weapon system that it can't afford to support (either through technicians or the parts supply chain).

Just pitiful.
 
IBTL!

--break break--

Regarding the decision to stage the 5th gen fighter mission out of Tyndall? LOL Ah children. Occam's Razor. It was the light grey school house, so it became the Raptor one as well. No conspiracy here. It's not our only center of operations for the 5th gen A-A mission set.

Now to the real question being asked: Aka why and how we pick our geographic locations wrt mission set? A lot of you will be very underwhelmed to find out most are in fact not picked in the interest of airspace nor strategic reasons as one would hope. Rather, it almost always comes down to simpleton and ol' fashion military industrial graft. Congressional districts food fight all the time in order to secure military mission sets that bring personnel, civilian support jobs, and a tax base level otherwise not attainable by organic means in said area. Ask me how I know. I did 8 years hard labor in hell precisely for that reason. Lost one marriage, several relationships, and almost didn't get to start a family over it. It's anything but costless.

When it came to the Raptor, the community wanted out of holloman right yesterday. Look at what they did with AFSOC when they moved the assets to Cannon. Huge exodus of talent and combat experience. But the DOD doesn't like to admit they suffer incredible retention losses as a function of these bonehead undesirable geographic basing decisions (it offends flyover Country people). Doesn't mean it isn't the #1 reason their LDHD assets are always redlined, nevemind the UAV boondoggle that can actually technically be run out of sunny Hawaii and avoid swing shifts back CONUS for eff sake. I digress.

Of course, they'll also speak out both sides of their mouth and use said undesirable locations to push senior folks into making fight or flight decisions when close to an Active Duty retirement. Places like Minot are front and center to that dynamic, where at the height of the 07/08 nuke boondoggle, had as high as a 7:1 attrition ratio to fill one measely spot. Complete tone deafness, but hell is "what you make of it" I'm told. Yeah, tell that to my family... And I digress again (this topic may be a sore spot for me lol).
 
Last edited:
Put the airplanes and people where you want. But if you're in hurricane territory, have the ability to evacuate them or house them in a hurricane safe hangar. Ain't hard. And how/why don't you have the parts in the supply chain to keep the birds flying? I'd understand if 2 were stranded, but 22? Complete ineptitude.

As far as congressional districts go, the military industrial complex is full of that. Last I read, the F-35 (or was it the -22... doesn't matter) was being built in something like 35 states. That gets you a lot of congressional votes and <probably> doubles the ultimate cost because of all of the extra overhead needed to house and manage the divvied up project, and then deal with all of the logistics. Insanity.
 
kyleb said:
This is two unrelated stories:

1) Poor, poor planning by the AF. Why in the world would you put 50+ of one of your most valuable assets in hurricane territory without the ability to safely house them?

2) The AF has bought another weapon system that it can't afford to support (either through technicians or the parts supply chain).

Just pitiful.
Click to expand...

Not just the AF though. Last year the Navy had to leave 71 T-45s to ride out Harvey. 2015 NAS Kingsville was flooded with T-6s sitting on the ramp. We left dozens of helos in non hurricane proof hangars at Ft Rucker during hurricane threats. It’s a branch wide issue that the bean counters don’t take into consideration until a Michael comes along.

Lack of money / support isn’t germane to the AF. One of the reasons pilots are getting out is lack of flying hours. No money to keep them at appropriate readiness levels. Osprey MC rates are just as bad. I know a guy in USMC Reserves that got a whopping 8 hrs in the Osprey last year. That’s not readiness or proficiency.
 
Old story, re-writ each decade. I remember USAF "depots" open in the 70s snd 80s for no earthly reason, other than welfare jobs for the locals. Even reducing combat wings to fund maintenance facilities we didn't need, then needed them even less.
 
Elections are in two weeks. I wonder who I will vote for that might actually look into fixing problems like this.

Of course I realize the likelihood of that happening are low, but which side might actually consider beefing up our readiness level?
 
Working construction on AF bases for the over 15 years I would say they have produced tons of jobs. I will say after working on them for that long the Bureaucrats haven’t been the best at spending the money. Could have done it a lot cheaper and efficiently. I could say the same for the LIOs, schools, government buildings, public utility buildings and everything that the state government builds. The only ones that do it efficiently and on a budget are private property owners spending their “own” money. The military isn’t the only one abusing our tax payer dollars or revenue that is bought with Monopoly money (public utilities).

As far as the red dawn comment... it’s a movie.

Yes we are currently being invaded from the south. What a joke!

Edit: and not just from the folks making their way from Guatemala. They are coming in everyday in huge numbers.
 
JOhnH said:
Elections are in two weeks. I wonder who I will vote for that might actually look into fixing problems like this.

Of course I realize the likelihood of that happening are low, but which side might actually consider beefing up our readiness level?
Click to expand...

You will need to wait two years, not two weeks if you want any real positive change.
 
Thread locked. If one person is determined to get banned/warned that does not mean that it opens up the discussion for everyone else to pile on. Politics are NOT permitted EVEN IF someone has already opened the flood gates. Stay out of it. If you really don't like (or even agree with) something someone posted, report the post rather than getting involved. Warnings have been issued.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top