3 ms·
From this article[1]: Throwing jets on flatbed trucks? People don't realize how large of a flying machine a Raptor is. They are roughly 44 feet wide, 62 feet l
by metaphor 8y ago
From this article[1]:
Throwing jets on flatbed trucks? People don't realize how large of a flying machine a Raptor is. They are roughly 44 feet wide, 62 feet long, and weigh over 43,000lbs. They are not something you just throw on pop's flatbed and skidaddle out of dodge. Nor are they made to be transported that way in the first place. And to where? You are talking about a highly sensitive asset packed with classified material. Its skin treatment alone presents a national secret risk. These aircraft are supposed to sit in last minute hurricane traffic heading somewhere as they hog up multiple lanes? The whole notion is ridiculous. And if they can't seek refuge in time, you have a flying machine strapped to a flatbed. Good luck with that.
[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...
- code_duck 8y ago“You are talking about a highly sensitive asset packed with classified material.” Ok, let’s leave it to be destroyed by weather then
- gambiting 8y agoEven once destroyed it's still within the base that is presumably still guarded. Once out of the base on a flatbed the risks of losing any part of it are much greater.
- code_duck 8y agoGetting an intact plane to safety would be far less of a risk of losing parts than letting it be destroyed in a flood.
- mulmen 8y agoI mean, yeah? That seems perfectly reasonable given the options.
- code_duck 8y agoThe options are stupid because they have themselves stupid options. Then, write articles describing and defending how out of all the idiotic options they left themselves for this even which would obviously happen eventually, they chose the least stupid. I’m not even remotely impressed.
- TomMarius 8y agoYes, exactly. Classified material remains protected and it's just a very very small portion of your fleet. Information has much higher price than the aircraft itself.
- code_duck 8y agoYeah, I’m sure Alabama or whatever is just swarming with spies looking for aircraft parts.
- gonzo41 8y agoRather than a total loss, maybe just nip the wings off and take the avionics package out on truck?
- metaphor 8y agoQuoting from the same article: No, these planes aren't just Lego sets that you can take apart and pour into a C-5. Removing wings on an F-22? That is a massive undertaking, let alone getting a C-5 in and loading it up to fly away to someplace. Once again, limited capacity in a limited timespan, and that is a long-lead type of project.
- gonzo41 8y agoidk, if the shelter can take the hit, then leave the plans there and come back. Otherwise drop fuel and break out the plasma cutter. If these planes were so borked they couldn't be made airworthy then maybe putting new wings back on ins't that much extra considering you've risking the whole engine by leaving them behind. but a moot point. I'm sure they will just build concrete hangers for next time.
- mulmen 8y agoThe main article says that several of these air frames were already cannibalized for parts. It also sounds like they were earlier models used for training and may have more wear than the rest of the fleet due to their proximity to the ocean.