4 ms·

Tyndall didn't lose $1bil in F-22 assets; the HN title of this article is pure clickbait. No other state takes hurricane evacuation more seriously than Florida

Tyndall didn't lose $1bil in F-22 assets; the HN title of this article is pure clickbait. No other state takes hurricane evacuation more seriously than Florida. This article[1] posits that Tyndall has 55 F-22s divided between two training squadrons. If only 4 were left behind, that's 93% brought to NMCM Airworthy status or better, which is mindblowingly effective. [1] http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/24204/setting-the-record-straight-on-why-fighter-jets-cant-all-simply-fly-away-to-escape-storms http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/24204/setting-the-recor...

walrus01 8y ago
It is correct English grammar to say that an asset which has been damaged beyond economical repair has been "lost", this is used in the shipping and aviation industries all the time. "Hull loss" incident, "airframe loss", etc. See for example the delightyfully 1997-vintage-looking website of cargo loss: http://www.cargolaw.com/gallery.html http://www.cargolaw.com/gallery.html Most commonly encountered when talking about an insured asset. In the case of military owned equipment, there is no insurance company, so the DoD takes the loss themselves.
- metaphor 8y ago
  To be sure, your remark is directed towards a 10-year U.S. Air Force veteran who holds intimate familiarity with active duty military flightline operations. Until full damage assessment has been completed and Class A incident reports filed, asserting that these aircraft have been lost is utter bullshit.
- Denvercoder9 8y ago
  Except no one has said those F-22s are damaged beyond economical repair. That's just speculation at this point.
Theodores 8y ago
The products are 'out of warranty' and effectively antiques. The article states how much it would cost to get the tooling back to make more of the planes and you would be looking at spending billions to make replacements. There is no 'series production' going on and therefore that means that 'maintenance' is more like 'restoration' with these dubious machines. I wonder if it would make more sense and provide as much utility if the Air Force just settled for a fleet of classic concept cars. It wasn't as if the Air Force was of any use whatsoever on that day seventeen years ago when action stations was actually needed.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- bradleyjg 8y ago
  The whole project was a boondoggle from the very beginning. It’s up there in the procurement hall of shame with the B1, B2, and LCS.
  - carbocation 8y ago
    The topic is the F-22. Are you thinking of the F-35?
    - bradleyjg 8y ago
      No the F22. $350 MM per plane for something that will never see its, admittedly impressive, capabilities needed or used. Very much like the B2 in that respect.
      - claydavisss 8y ago
        A deterrent is "used" just by being deployed. The point of deterrence is to demonstrate that you have the capability, not necessarily putting it to use in combat. Deterrence is a peacetime activity intended to preserve and extend peacetime as long as possible. One could argue that the fact that no two major powers have engaged in direct combat since ww2 is an existence proof of the power of deterrence.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - mulmen 8y ago
        The B-2 has been used to great effect in its intended role for years. Similarly the F-22 is operational today. They’re both combat proven. Geopolitical rivals have similar tech to the F-22 entering service. You may disagree with the wars being fought but this tech does what it says on the tin.

walrus01 8y ago

It is correct English grammar to say that an asset which has been damaged beyond economical repair has been "lost", this is used in the shipping and aviation industries all the time. "Hull loss" incident, "airframe loss", etc. See for example the delightyfully 1997-vintage-looking website of cargo loss: http://www.cargolaw.com/gallery.html http://www.cargolaw.com/gallery.html Most commonly encountered when talking about an insured asset. In the case of military owned equipment, there is no insurance company, so the DoD takes the loss themselves.

metaphor 8y ago
To be sure, your remark is directed towards a 10-year U.S. Air Force veteran who holds intimate familiarity with active duty military flightline operations. Until full damage assessment has been completed and Class A incident reports filed, asserting that these aircraft have been lost is utter bullshit.
Denvercoder9 8y ago
Except no one has said those F-22s are damaged beyond economical repair. That's just speculation at this point.

Theodores 8y ago

The products are 'out of warranty' and effectively antiques. The article states how much it would cost to get the tooling back to make more of the planes and you would be looking at spending billions to make replacements. There is no 'series production' going on and therefore that means that 'maintenance' is more like 'restoration' with these dubious machines. I wonder if it would make more sense and provide as much utility if the Air Force just settled for a fleet of classic concept cars. It wasn't as if the Air Force was of any use whatsoever on that day seventeen years ago when action stations was actually needed.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
bradleyjg 8y ago
The whole project was a boondoggle from the very beginning. It’s up there in the procurement hall of shame with the B1, B2, and LCS.
- carbocation 8y ago
  The topic is the F-22. Are you thinking of the F-35?
  - bradleyjg 8y ago
    No the F22. $350 MM per plane for something that will never see its, admittedly impressive, capabilities needed or used. Very much like the B2 in that respect.
    - claydavisss 8y ago
      A deterrent is "used" just by being deployed. The point of deterrence is to demonstrate that you have the capability, not necessarily putting it to use in combat. Deterrence is a peacetime activity intended to preserve and extend peacetime as long as possible. One could argue that the fact that no two major powers have engaged in direct combat since ww2 is an existence proof of the power of deterrence.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - mulmen 8y ago
      The B-2 has been used to great effect in its intended role for years. Similarly the F-22 is operational today. They’re both combat proven. Geopolitical rivals have similar tech to the F-22 entering service. You may disagree with the wars being fought but this tech does what it says on the tin.