3 ms·
Given a 2009 flyaway cost of $150 million each [1], 17 F-22s lost is about $3B in todays dollars. Seems like it's worth hardening Tyndall's buildings or scrappi
by ridgeguy 8y ago
Given a 2009 flyaway cost of $150 million each [1], 17 F-22s lost is about $3B in todays dollars. Seems like it's worth hardening Tyndall's buildings or scrapping the base and moving inland.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- pasbesoin 8y agoAll the talk about flying them away, or not. You're storing billions in hardware next to a beach in hurricane country. Maybe drop 10 million -- hell, even 100 million -- for an elevated bunker rated to survive the strongest possible storm? Maybe cancel a few band practices -- or, a dumb-ass DC parade -- to pay for it. The bunker doesn't have to be large enough to be a general working space. Just a safe, to toss the crown jewels in, when warranted. (And elevated, because storm surge, if that's a possible factor.)
- cma 8y agoBuilders of cheap, strong bunkers can't hire expensive lobbyists. And Lockheed definitely isn't going to lobby for it.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- runlevel1 8y agoProduction was halted in 2011, and restarting it wouldn't be cheap. In 2016, the Air Force estimated $9.9 billion in non-recurring start-up costs. [^1] [1]: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/06/21/the-f22-fighter-jet-restart-dead-study.html https://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/06/21/the-f22-fight...