OT: X>24 F22 damaged/Destroyed by Hurricane Michael....Good l

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

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

One reporter said it was the closest base to the largest aircraft and air weapons testing/training range in the world, and for that reason the base will likely be rebuilt.

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: pmelheck1

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

"The F-22, in particular, is more analogous to an exotic supercar or even a high-end race car than anything else. It requires dozens of hours of maintenance for every single flight hour and deep maintenance can take days or even many weeks to accomplish, depending on what is needed to be done and availability of spare parts, which can be scarce. "

Thanks for the link, but the author makes the case that these MIC fubars are too exotic to be flyable dependable. My Porsche 928 is exotic, but I can drive it at a given moments' notice.

These planes are usually unflyable at only 49% are at any given moment.

[obvert]

Whatever the damage, it coulda been worse. This from May when Alberto came through! [X(]

Also, if the roof blew off and a bit of debris landed on these planes, do we really think the USAAF writes them off at that price tag? I'd guess not. The cost is not likely as high for the skin and bones as it is for the electronics and internals.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Olorin

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?

There's very little in today's military that is "mass produced". Except maybe MREs. And bullets.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: Olorin

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?

There's very little in today's military that is "mass produced". Except maybe MREs. And bullets.

And the next total war is going to last thirty minutes.

[Anachro]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
And the next total war is going to last thirty minutes.

The advent of new technologies might make wars lightning quick and thus there is no need for mass production to fight a war of attrition. This is especially true for limited wars, which are the majority of wars fought. Even in the case of wars between great powers, the existence of nukes makes full scale invasions of landmasses and wars of attrition less likely. I don't think the US would ever consider an invasion of the Chinese landmass and vice-versa. Great powers would be loath to use nuclear weapons to achieve breakthroughs for fear of weapons used against them and thus such duels might eventually devolve to limited actions along the periphery as missiles strike the heartlands.

So I won't dispute you as that could very well be the case, but I'm also reminded of the Kaiser's words to the troops in August as World War 1 began.

You will be home before the leaves fall from the trees.

Such assumptions of the type of wars that will be fought in the future could be very wrong and we might find ourselves in a situation where productive capacity and ability to withstand attrition is just as important as technology. Given that, I still think it is strategically important to protect an industrial base if you have it and to build it up if you don't.

Thankfully for the US and other western nations, the hollowing out that has happened over the last few decades should at least partially reverse itself naturally, regardless of Trump or his policies. With the advent of automation labor will becomes less of a factor and the cost of transportation ever a greater calculus in the seeking of profit. This should result in a period of repatriotization of manufacturing...

Wow, I'm going off on a tangent here. What were talking about again? [:D]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Anachro

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
And the next total war is going to last thirty minutes.

The advent of new technologies might make wars lightning quick and thus there is no need for mass production to fight a war of attrition. This is especially true for limited wars, which are the majority of wars fought. Even in the case of wars between great powers, the existence of nukes makes full scale invasions of landmasses and wars of attrition less likely. I don't think the US would ever consider an invasion of the Chinese landmass and vice-versa. Great powers would be loath to use nuclear weapons to achieve breakthroughs for fear of weapons used against them and thus such duels might eventually devolve to limited actions along the periphery as missiles strike the heartlands.

So I won't dispute you as that could very well be the case, but I'm also reminded of the Kaiser's words to the troops in August as World War 1 began.

You will be home before the leaves fall from the trees.

Such assumptions of the type of wars that will be fought in the future could be very wrong and we might find ourselves in a situation where productive capacity and ability to withstand attrition is just as important as technology. Given that, I still think it is strategically important to protect an industrial base if you have it and to build it up if you don't.

Thankfully for the US and other western nations, the hollowing out that has happened over the last few decades should at least partially reverse itself naturally, regardless of Trump or his policies. With the advent of automation labor will becomes less of a factor and the cost of transportation ever a greater calculus in the seeking of profit. This should result in a period of repatriotization of manufacturing...

Wow, I'm going off on a tangent here. What were talking about again? [:D]

I was responding to "total" versus "limited." Total is total.

A discussion of the rest would be interesting, but "veerable" under forum rules.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


And the next total war is going to last thirty minutes.

I'll see your 30 and raise it to 90. After all, 90 minutes is the time frame in "So Long, Mom (A Song for World War III)". Of course that depends on the Russians or the Chinese not having heard it which is a fair bet for AFAIK, none of his work has been translated into those languages.

Alfred

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Anachro

I don't think the US would ever consider an invasion of the Chinese landmass and vice-versa.

Vizzini specifically recommended against getting involved in a land war in Asia. I wonder if we're as smart as he is.

[sstevens06]

This appeared in today's Wall Street Journal opinion section:

Fighters Downed by Hurricane
Why America’s best military aircraft couldn’t fly to escape a storm.
By The Editorial Board
Oct. 16, 2018 7:19 p.m. ET

Hurricane Michael did terrible damage in Florida last week, and that may include some of the world’s most capable military aircraft left in its path. But why can’t Air Force F-22 jet fighters, of all things, escape a storm? Answer: They lack the parts to be operational and so were stuck in hangars to take a beating.

Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said Sunday that the damage to an unspecified number of F-22s on Tyndall Air Force Base was “less than we feared.” But maintenance professionals will have to conduct a detailed assessment before the Air Force can say with certainty that the planes will fly again. Press reports estimate that at least a dozen planes were left on the base due to maintenance and safety issues.

Welcome to a fighting force damaged by bad political decisions and misguided priorities. Of the Air Force’s 186 F-22s, only about 80 are “mission capable,” according to a July analysis from the Government Accountability Office. The average across the Air Force in 2017 was that about 7 in 10 planes were mission capable, which is still too low for meeting increasing demands.

Part of the F-22 problem is upkeep on a coating that helps the planes evade radar. Another issue is the supply chain for parts now that the U.S. no longer produces the airplane, and “some original manufacturers no longer make the parts or are completely out of business,” GAO notes. Air Force officials told GAO that a simple wiring harness requires a 30-week lead time for finding a new contractor and producing the part. Ripping out parts from planes that work, or “cannibalizing,” is now common practice in military aviation.

Then there’s scale, or lack thereof. The Air Force in the 1990s planned for about 650 F-22s, which were designed to replace the F-15. That number fell to about 380 over time, according to GAO, but in 2009 President Obama and Defense Secretary Bob Gates convinced Congress to shut down the production line.

At the time Messrs. Obama and Gates argued that the U.S. had to focus on defeating unconventional enemies (Islamic State), whereas the F-22 is designed for air dominance against conventional national forces, which could also be handled by the new F-35.
This now looks like a mistake, as Russia and China improve their military technology and the F-35 continues to have a cascade of problems. The Pentagon last week grounded the entire F-35 fleet for a fuel tube issue, though most were cleared to fly again as of Monday. Now the F-35 is the only fighter show in town. The Air Force looked at restarting the F-22 production line and predicted it’d cost billions to launch. That isn’t happening.

The larger mistake of the Obama years was cutting defense willy-nilly to pay for entitlements and other priorities, which meant military units in all branches were crunched for training, flight hours and maintenance. Budget uncertainty through “continuing resolutions” from Congress compounded the pain.

Republicans in Congress and the Trump Administration this year accepted Democratic demands to spend more on income transfers to get a bump in defense spending that included some $47 billion to get planes flying. But Democrats are promising to cut defense again if they win the House. They pretend that a vote for free health care is affordable, but damaged planes on the tarmac is one more lesson that more spending on entitlements eventually means too few planes that can fly.
Appeared in the October 17, 2018, print edition.

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: obvert

Whatever the damage, it coulda been worse. This from May when Alberto came through! [X(]

Also, if the roof blew off and a bit of debris landed on these planes, do we really think the USAAF writes them off at that price tag? I'd guess not. The cost is not likely as high for the skin and bones as it is for the electronics and internals.

Wow, talk about 'one grenade will get you all'. That's a lotta eggs in one basket. Can anyone say dispersal.[:'(]

[rustysi]

Ending F-22 production was a mistake IMO.

Simple answer is the F-22 is just too expensive. Even for the U.S.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

ORIGINAL: Anachro

I don't think the US would ever consider an invasion of the Chinese landmass and vice-versa.

Vizzini specifically recommended against getting involved in a land war in Asia. I wonder if we're as smart as he is.

We've been involved in at least six major ones since WWII. Many more if you define parameters down.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


And the next total war is going to last thirty minutes.

I'll see your 30 and raise it to 90. After all, 90 minutes is the time frame in "So Long, Mom (A Song for World War III)". Of course that depends on the Russians or the Chinese not having heard it which is a fair bet for AFAIK, none of his work has been translated into those languages.

Alfred

Ninety from receipt of the EAM, decoding, key dispersal, setting 4SQ, launch, and flight time? That might be closer to correct. Thirty works for most ballistic arcs though.

[wegman58]

Arthur C. Clarke wrote a story called "Superiority" long before most members of the forum was born - vacuum tubes were important. 1951. You had one side in a great interstellar war that had wondrous weapons that were fragile and didn't always work the way they should. You had the other with the philosophy - quantity has a quality all its own. I haven't read it in decades but...

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: wegman58

Arthur C. Clarke wrote a story called "Superiority" long before most members of the forum was born - vacuum tubes were important. 1951. You had one side in a great interstellar war that had wondrous weapons that were fragile and didn't always work the way they should. You had the other with the philosophy - quality has a quantity all its own. I haven't read it in decades but...

One of my favorites! [:)]

BTW, I think it should be "Quantity has a quality of its own"... [8D]


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S.
Here you can read the story:

http://www.mayofamily.com/RLM/txt_Clark ... ority.html

[wegman58]

Typo is fixed.