Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2018, 00:42
by icemaverick
Here's an article from the NY Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/11/us/a ... amage.html

Here's another one from Business Insider:
https://www.businessinsider.com/hurrica ... m=webfeeds

Here are some pics of the devastation:
https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&ver ... 2&src=typd

Hopefully the Raptors that were left behind have not been severely damaged, if at all. But it does appear that the base was absolutely devastated. I'm sure that in the coming days we will find out more information. A number of other aircraft types were obviously damaged but so far as I know, the Air Force has not yet commented on the F-22s.

None of the pics I have seen so far show damaged F-22s but there is one picture of a badly damaged hangar and the tail fins of an F-22 are clearly visible.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2018, 01:00
by hoghandler
I saw footage showing a hanger with a few QF-16s inside. They didnt look like they suffered much damage. We'll eventually find out more when the base is cleaned up.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2018, 03:23
by durahawk
Wow. I suspect they will need to relocate the flying squadrons for several years. Rebuilding hangars and back shops will take Billions. In the Air Force, getting a hangar fire suppression certified takes an eternity.

Eglin seems most likely given that they share the same the same airspace to begin with and there is probably room to support at least one squadron given VMFAT-501's re-location to Beaufort. Otis ANGB in MA I would think would be another good candidate given that it is still an actively maintained base with recently used fighter support infrastructure but without an active flying mission besides the Coast Guard.

Homestead bounced back after Andrew, maybe Tyndall can too. Not really fiscally reasonable of the government maybe, but it would absolutely wreck an already devastated community if the base wasn't rebuilt. I suspect the QF's will stay at a minimum since there aren't too many places in the country where you can do live fire Air to Air missile shots.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2018, 05:18
by wrightwing
That's potentially very bad news about the F-22s, in the hangers.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2018, 08:34
by zero-one
Don't they have those Hardened bomb shelters anymore?
I guess theres not enough for all the assets but hopefully they can store their most prized aircraft there like F-22's.

Anyway, whats the maximum number of Raptors that the USAF can realistically deploy right now in an emergency?
do we have info on that?

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2018, 16:19
by tailgate
Sad news indeed. Reminds me of Homestead after Andrew. Word on the street is Elgin or Moody until things are sorted out concerning Tyndall’s fate. My guess would be a Moody as Elgin already has a full plate. We will see

Tailgate

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2018, 17:58
by wrightwing
One source said at least 12 Raptors had been left behind, with a number damaged, and some total write offs. If there's a silver lining, it would seem that these are Block 20 jets, and not combat coded jets.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2018, 19:22
by xtalonlm
What possible reasoning could there have been to leave the aircraft there to shelter in place? I'm dumbfounded.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2018, 19:36
by sferrin
wrightwing wrote:One source said at least 12 Raptors had been left behind, with a number damaged, and some total write offs. If there's a silver lining, it would seem that these are Block 20 jets, and not combat coded jets.


Good thing we bought so few. :bang: :doh: :doh:

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2018, 19:49
by wrightwing
xtalonlm wrote:What possible reasoning could there have been to leave the aircraft there to shelter in place? I'm dumbfounded.

They were unflyable due to maintenance or safety related issues.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2018, 21:01
by hythelday
wrightwing wrote:
xtalonlm wrote:What possible reasoning could there have been to leave the aircraft there to shelter in place? I'm dumbfounded.

They were unflyable due to maintenance or safety related issues.


Put them on the goddamned flatbed.

If any of the Raptors were damaged indeed, this must be the dumbest way to waste a Raptor.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2018, 21:56
by hoghandler
hythelday wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
xtalonlm wrote:What possible reasoning could there have been to leave the aircraft there to shelter in place? I'm dumbfounded.

They were unflyable due to maintenance or safety related issues.


Put them on the goddamned flatbed.

If any of the Raptors were damaged indeed, this must be the dumbest way to waste a Raptor.



Unfortunantly from the time the storm formed and made land fall they would have only gotten a few screws pulled for dissasembly. The time and effort to even do such a thing is impossible. Better to put them in a hanger and hope for the best.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2018, 21:59
by wrightwing
There were no good options. The hanger was the least worst option available.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2018, 22:07
by hoghandler
The few pics i seen of the QF-16s from the news shows them to be in decent shape with little damage done. So there is some hope that any raptors left behind made it out ok. Only after clean up has really begun can the damage be fully known. We will find out soon enough.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2018, 22:29
by sferrin
wrightwing wrote:There were no good options. The hanger was the least worst option available.


Why not fly them out?

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2018, 23:06
by hoghandler
Kinda hard to put a plane in the air if its torn apart for phase inspections or hard broke. Only the flyable aircraft are sent out. Those down for maintenance reasons are worked on to get flyable if possible. The ones deemed unflyable are secured. They try to get what they can out of danger.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2018, 01:10
by durahawk
hoghandler wrote:Kinda hard to put a plane in the air if its torn apart for phase inspections or hard broke. Only the flyable aircraft are sent out. Those down for maintenance reasons are worked on to get flyable if possible. The ones deemed unflyable are secured. They try to get what they can out of danger.


Or MICAP. There is nothing you can do if the part you need is not available in the supply system. I'm sure the AMU did the best they could to get as many Raptors out as they could. Including one time ferry flight waivers.

In hindsight, maybe having over a quarter of the nation's F-22 fleet at one base in a prime hurricane zone without hardened shelters was never a great idea in the first place.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2018, 01:43
by madrat
Seems like BRAC did quite a lot of concentrating valuable resources.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2018, 01:58
by durahawk
tailgate wrote:Sad news indeed. Reminds me of Homestead after Andrew. Word on the street is Elgin or Moody until things are sorted out concerning Tyndall’s fate. My guess would be a Moody as Elgin already has a full plate. We will see

Tailgate


Maybe, it wouldn’t be far from the overwater range. I don’t remember Moody being a very big base though.

Rethinking it, Holloman will probably be on the short list. They have decently sized airspace and have had Raptors there before.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2018, 03:04
by madrat
What could they do with Hurlbert?

Related news
https://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/20181 ... all-runway

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2018, 05:02
by durahawk
From the article: “The base serves a critical role in protecting and promoting U.S. national security interests and it is vital that we rapidly repair infrastructure and restore operations in the wake of the storm”

Lol... Florida congresscritters are about to find out first hand that the lathargic, three-headed sloth model of inefficency known as milcon is anything but rapid.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2018, 06:43
by weasel1962
AF mag puts slightly more than a dozen F-22s were still at the base. Not unreasonable considering %MC rates.

http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... epair.aspx

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2018, 12:31
by krieger22
Secretary of the Air Force has a statement out: https://twitter.com/oriana0214/status/1 ... 89856?s=21

TONIGHT: Our maintenance professionals will do a detailed assessment of F-22s @TeamTyndall before we can say w certainty that damaged aircraft can be repaired/sent back into the skies...Damage was less than we feared and preliminary indications are promising.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2018, 18:12
by Siesta
durahawk wrote:
hoghandler wrote:Kinda hard to put a plane in the air if its torn apart for phase inspections or hard broke. Only the flyable aircraft are sent out. Those down for maintenance reasons are worked on to get flyable if possible. The ones deemed unflyable are secured. They try to get what they can out of danger.


Or MICAP. There is nothing you can do if the part you need is not available in the supply system. I'm sure the AMU did the best they could to get as many Raptors out as they could. Including one time ferry flight waivers.

In hindsight, maybe having over a quarter of the nation's F-22 fleet at one base in a prime hurricane zone without hardened shelters was never a great idea in the first place.


We could say that about Langley for the Hurricane as well... remember two weeks prior to this storm they were facing a Cat 4. Hardened shelters are good for the wind and rain but don't forget that the tidal surge and flooding also caused the damage. Some of those hangers are rated for up to a CAT 3. This storm when revisited probably went to a CAT 5. You also have to worry about when the power will be back on.. your jets will be stuck in that shelter. Hardened shelters were built during the cold war and are mainly overseas and designed to withstand certain bombs.. though desert storm changed that. It doesnt stop flooding because that happened at Osan.. 3 foot high waters flooded the flight line. Remember this is mother nature.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2018, 10:24
by krieger22
More from Mattis:

https://twitter.com/oriana0214/status/1 ... 69568?s=21

https://twitter.com/oriana0214/status/1 ... 11746?s=21

TONIGHT FROM MATTIS: "Right now the initial review yesterday by @SecAFOfficial, coming on 48 hours due by Air Combat Command...looks like all the planes are fixable. But we'll know after we get the hangars - get them out of the hangars that're damaged and get more work done. ...


...So I'm not ready to say it can all be fixed, but our initial review was perhaps more positive than I anticipated in the last -- in light of the amount of damage."

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2018, 13:29
by mixelflick
krieger22 wrote:More from Mattis:

https://twitter.com/oriana0214/status/1 ... 69568?s=21

https://twitter.com/oriana0214/status/1 ... 11746?s=21

TONIGHT FROM MATTIS: "Right now the initial review yesterday by @SecAFOfficial, coming on 48 hours due by Air Combat Command...looks like all the planes are fixable. But we'll know after we get the hangars - get them out of the hangars that're damaged and get more work done. ...


...So I'm not ready to say it can all be fixed, but our initial review was perhaps more positive than I anticipated in the last -- in light of the amount of damage."


That's oddly worded. Is he waffling now on all being fixable? Somebody is going to catch hell for this. I realize planes can't fly if awaiting parts etc, but c'mon. Florida and hurricanes aren't exactly new...

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2018, 16:45
by zero-one
mixelflick wrote: Florida and hurricanes aren't exactly new...


Exactly.
They were probably thinking, Hurricane Michael would be just one of the dozens they go through every year.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2018, 01:33
by rocketeer61
Riddle me this: after Homestead was wiped out by a hurricane, why on [i]Earth[i]would the Air Force be doing maintenance on our most expensive jet just down the road? 17 wrecked Raptors later, here's your sign.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2018, 01:47
by madrat
It's all about the votes

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2018, 02:13
by weasel1962
Tyndall is more than 700 km away from Homestead. How many states aren't hit by hurricanes, tornadoes or some other natural extreme weather.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2018, 23:28
by rmr_22
By the images and videos of the evacuation to Wright-Patterson and later to Langley, I can confirm that the following serial numbers are safe:

Combat coded:
076
080
089
091
095
099
100

Training:
039

If someone knows more numbers I would like to expand the list.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2018, 15:23
by mixelflick
First, I hope all F-22's and personnel at the base are safe. Failing that, someone should drag Gates to Tyndall to personally task him with repairing damaged F-22's, since he was so certain 187 were "enough".

As far as global warming, I'm not sure what to believe. Science isn't what it used to be - it's increasingly manipulated for personal/political gain. But one thing is for certain: I absolutely love it when Trump says, "climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese...".

Sends liberal moonbats into orbit.. :)

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2018, 03:09
by FlightDreamz
https://twitter.com/ACC_Commander/status/1053666561511354370
Image
General Mike Holmes "Glad to see these Tyndall Raptors getting cleaned off and ready to fly again as part of Tyndall recovery efforts. #Airmen on the job."

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2018, 23:40
by geforcerfx
I guess 5 of them flew out today to Virginia, tail codes are listed in the article, but the bird pictured being clean up above was one of the 5.

https://theaviationist.com/2018/10/24/h ... e-michael/

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2018, 01:18
by weasel1962
The drive citing Marco Rubio's letter confirming that number of F-22s left at the base was 31% or 17 units.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/24 ... ne-Michael

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2018, 03:05
by rocketeer61
It's high time we address the elephant in the room and point out that those birds should never have been there in the first place. Was it also "Cancel 'Em" Gates's genius idea to station our most expensive aircraft in the same state that saw Homestead wiped out by the prevailing weather in the region? It's not like we're short of bases, so maybe we're just short of common sense...?

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2018, 04:10
by Gums
Salute!

Many considerations when the storm is bearing down. Leave now? Wait a bit longer? Hangars for the worst conditions? What about all the groundpounders? Lottsa considerations for the boss, ya think?

Over here by Eglin we cheered when the track kept veering east. The number of Raptors left behind was a shock to most of us.

Many would have wondered why a few cannibal parts could have let more jets get out. Oh well.

Looks like almost all the jets are gonna be put back into service. The rest can be cannibalized for parts, as many vendors don't make them anymore.

Gums sends...

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2018, 04:26
by XanderCrews
rocketeer61 wrote:It's high time we address the elephant in the room and point out that those birds should never have been there in the first place. Was it also "Cancel 'Em" Gates's genius idea to station our most expensive aircraft in the same state that saw Homestead wiped out by the prevailing weather in the region? It's not like we're short of bases, so maybe we're just short of common sense...?



The F-22 bases were consolidated to cut redundancy and cost. The F-22 were moved from my home state (Holloman) to Florida.

Ironically NM is pretty much devoid of quakes, hurricanes, monsoon, typhoons, tornado or even flooding and has flying weather about 360 days of the year. But NM is not Florida, no way they were going to pull jobs and assignments from Florida to put them here. Theres a hierarchy of states, and the big square ones are at the bottom

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2018, 14:05
by rmr_22
Update of comfirmed safe:

(*)=Survivors

Combat coded: (8 of 24)
076 
080
083 * 
089
091
095
099 
100

Training: (5 of 31)
022 *
031 *
039
040 *
044 * 


I also saw 036 in Tyndall's hangar, it looks good but I did not put it on the list because I can not confirm if it's okay.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2018, 17:45
by Meteor
Many years ago I advocated for the construction of hardened tactical aircraft shelters at our stateside fighter bases. We do not need dozens of shelters. At the time I suggested six per base. They would be identical to the ones in use in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. There could even be three pairs of different shelters to reflect the diverse types in use around the world. The shelters would be in daily use as training facilities for both ground and aircrews. This would allow the units to practice operations out of the same type of facilities that they would use once deployed.


When threatened by adverse weather, all flyable aircraft would depart. The remaining non-flyable hangar queens would be towed to the shelters and jammed in. Most shelters will actually fit at least two fighters in each if placed nose-to-nose and cocked at a 20 degree angle. When I was stationed in Korea (very long time ago) we never had to typhoon evac, as all of our TAB-V were more than capable of withstanding the strongest possible storms.


Yes, the shelters would cost a few million dollars each. However, the design, construction, and use of the shelters is well established. The shelters will be usable for at least 50-75 years, so the amortization makes it quite cheap. Considering the exorbitant $100,000,000+ cost of new fighters, spending the same amount of money for six shelters that will last half a century is sensible.


During the next 50 years there most assuredly will be coastal bases struck by hurricanes. There most assuredly will be unflyable hangar queens. As at Homestead and Tyndall, there will be aircraft damaged or destroyed. Building shelters for both training and weather protection seems like a good investment.


(Vulnerable fighter and training bases could be Langley, Oceana, Cherry Point, Jacksonville, Homestead, Tyndall, Eglin, Pensacola, North Island, Miramar, and a few others.)

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2018, 17:57
by SpudmanWP
Stop making sense.. You'll scare the children. :roll:

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2018, 18:38
by rmr_22
If you can get something positive out of this disaster is that public opinion is aware that these new hangars are necessary.

And while they are being built, would it be possible to use the current structures to improve them to withstand a CAT5?

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2018, 20:01
by Gums
Salute1

tnx for the updates, Rimmer:

Building thousands of hardened shelters is possible, expensive and was done 50 years ago. Drive thru the abandoned deployment bases in Holland, Belgium and Germany.

It ain't worth the initial cost for the long term benefit. Like your "getaway bag", it sits there and is ready for the "move now" moment. To get value, you must use it for day-to-day operations to keep the cobwebs from growing and plumbing working. Otherwise, it's a good deal except for the initial cost. And then what thappens if we close the base? Drive thru some of myold haunts - England AFB, Myrtle Beach, Perrin, Craig, and the beat goes on.

As I mentioned before, I was shocked at how many jets could not be deployed. I could take 10% or so, considering we could "cannon-ball" parts from a few hangar queens. But that big number disturbs me. And I hope the F-35 is less subject to the special coatings and other stuff. The single engine is a good player in the equation, huh?

Gums sends...

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2018, 23:23
by weasel1962
Two dozen air transportable flatbed trucks are probably cheaper. Fly them in before the storm, tie down the non flyables, truck out. Probably cost less than one hanger.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2018, 23:54
by popcorn
Too bad the Raptor is too heavy hang from a sling off of a CH-53K.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2018, 00:32
by weasel1962
Don't tell that to the AF, they'd use that as justification for a new helo. F-22 minus engines, not that far off from max carry weight. imho flatbeds are ideal. Max loads are 45k lbs > raptor with engines, no mods required. Can apply to other combat a/c including F-35s. Just maybe need landing gear fasterners so the landing gears/wheels don't need to be removed.

There's even combat justification for flatbeds. Damaged aircraft that land at airbases w/o repair facilities can be trucked out to repair shops or ports, if overseas.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2018, 00:58
by madrat
The news in Pensacola said the USAF announced eight F-22A fighters left Tyndall today and all the rest will depart next week.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2018, 01:55
by geforcerfx
weasel1962 wrote:Two dozen air transportable flatbed trucks are probably cheaper. Fly them in before the storm, tie down the non flyables, truck out. Probably cost less than one hanger.

I think the Raptor is to big for fast trucking, one of the maintainers said it took them two weeks to prep a F-22 to fly in a C-5 for a Depot visit.

With assets like the raptor they need a proper building to ride out that type of storm. Give them a reinforced hangor that's elevated with a inflatable barrier around for storm surge flooding protection. Don't need every hangar on the base to be that just 2 maybe 3 to give the aircraft and equipment a fighting chance when these types of storms happen. Ideally we would base the raptors inland, could prob base them all at one base and do short deployments to other bases from the main hub.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2018, 02:07
by weasel1962
Agree on moving by C-5. Need to remove wings etc. Too much hassle. Was thinking more of this.

Image

If they can truck locomotives like below, they can truck F-22s.

Image

The difference is that it won't take 2 weeks because they don't need to remove the wings, engines. They just load it on a flat bed and drive off.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2018, 02:17
by weasel1962
24 flat beds customised for F-22 vs CAT 5 proof buildings at every major AFB along the Hurricane coast? The senator that green-lights this acquisition just saved the US taxpayer $billions.

Watch history channel's "Mega movers".

Its a cheap enough solution that you can have 24-36 stationed at every AFB for the F-35. However, it can be even cheaper by just having 24-48 air transportable by C-5 to any location. The best part of all, if it can't be air transported e.g. runway damaged, it can still be driven to that location. Its a 40 hour trip from east to west coast?

I can build a flat bed for under $100k that hooks up to any MACK prime mover. Total cost under $3m (with a 200% profit margin). Since we can't call a hard drive, an hard drive, can call this a specialised combat operation offload trucking or SCOOT for short.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2018, 12:08
by sferrin
weasel1962 wrote:24 flat beds customised for F-22 vs CAT 5 proof buildings at every major AFB along the Hurricane coast? The senator that green-lights this acquisition just saved the US taxpayer $billions.

Watch history channel's "Mega movers".

Its a cheap enough solution that you can have 24-36 stationed at every AFB for the F-35. However, it can be even cheaper by just having 24-48 air transportable by C-5 to any location. The best part of all, if it can't be air transported e.g. runway damaged, it can still be driven to that location. Its a 40 hour trip from east to west coast?

I can build a flat bed for under $100k that hooks up to any MACK prime mover. Total cost under $3m (with a 200% profit margin). Since we can't call a hard drive, an hard drive, can call this a specialised combat operation offload trucking or SCOOT for short.


Hell, for the longest time they just left jets out in the weather. They'd get snowed on, rained on, sit out in the sun for years at a time. You wouldn't do that to a Ferrari, why do it to a $20 million jet? :doh:

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2018, 15:47
by geforcerfx
F-22's wing span though, would require some major modifications to the roads nearest the base, not to mention the traffic issues you would cause during a evacuation trying to haul 10 extra wide loads down a already busy interstate. While cost is definitely a plus in your idea, practicality isn't super good. Again most logical thing would be to move all the F-22's too one base in Missouri or Indiana and have small deployments from there on a rotation. But politics will say no to that so you need the hardended hangars. This will also come in handy for the F-35 since they will be everywhere (even though they could be trucked out easier) you can fit more of those in a shelter thanks to smaller size.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2018, 00:23
by popcorn
Thinking out of the box, Aerocraft is currently building an airship with a 60-ton payload capacity... who knows?

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2018, 00:34
by weasel1962
Good points. Standard lane width is 3.7m so need 4 lanes for 14m span (3 lanes for f-35). Expanding roads may not be feasible and if so will also incur cost. Agreed. Thats where engineering comes in. If the plane can be hoisted high enough, its only the prime mover that occupies the road. Everyone else goes under. The only question is how high it needs to be to clear the street lamps and trees.

May require some road closures and route planning w police escort but its not everyday that this is required. The main thing is how to create contingency planning and triggering it.

I remember an incident where the authorities trucked a 737 to a college campus over here. Still used for training. Did it at night w police escort. probably a lot of planning went into it so agreed, its not so simple.

not worth doing for $2m ferraris but $80-150m jets?

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2018, 00:40
by weasel1962
popcorn wrote:Thinking out of the box, Aerocraft is currently building an airship with a 60-ton payload capacity... who knows?


Already can send out F-22s by air. The problem as highlighted is that it will take too long to get 1 f-22 ready.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2018, 02:25
by geforcerfx
weasel1962 wrote:
popcorn wrote:Thinking out of the box, Aerocraft is currently building an airship with a 60-ton payload capacity... who knows?


Already can send out F-22s by air. The problem as highlighted is that it will take too long to get 1 f-22 ready.


The benefit to airship is width the cargo bay can be considerably larger width wise over any jet. You could build a airship with a 65 foot wide cargo bay if it was required. That could honestly be a decent route, the air Force was looking at both lockheeds and aircrafts airship for austere cargo delivery about a decade ago. Having two of those would allow the air Force to move unique equipment all over the USA.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2018, 04:27
by popcorn
Yep, assuming acceptable dimensions, just load on an unflyable F-22 and fly off... Even more flexibility if lifting a load by sling is feasible. Potentially the elegant solution.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2018, 14:52
by Scorpion1alpha
F-22 Raptor crew chiefs from the 1st Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, Langley Air Force Base, Va., work on an aircraft at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., Oct. 24, 2018. Approximately 40 crew chiefs and avionics specialists traveled from Langley AFB to assist flying operations at Tyndall AFB.


TY 044
Image

A pilot from the 27th Fighter Squadron, Joint Base Langly-Eustis, Va., flies an F-22 Raptor out of Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., Oct. 21, 2018, following the aftermath of Hurricane Michael. Multiple major commands have mobilized relief assets in an effort to restore operations after the hurricane caused catastrophic damage to the base.


TY 036(?)
Image

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2018, 17:10
by weasel1962
popcorn wrote:Yep, assuming acceptable dimensions, just load on an unflyable F-22 and fly off... Even more flexibility if lifting a load by sling is feasible. Potentially the elegant solution.


Agreed on it being a potential solution. LM had the LMH1 project that supposed to launch in Alaska next year. Intended to carry 21 tons but cargo hold dimensions are like C-130. They'd probably can fix some external load carriage. Technically feasible. The issue is deployment. The blimps are relatively slow, must be in the vicinity. Flying from Alaska to Florida may be a bit too late to meet a sudden hurricane warning. Would be more useful if it can be deflated, air crated to the base and set up.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2018, 18:47
by Meteor
Pretty exotic and complex solutions that y'all are coming up with. Flatbed trailers with slings to get them above road signs (but below bridges)? Blimps with slings? Large new CAT5 hurricane proof hangars? All of which need to be available, along with trained personnel, for the next 50-75 years?


96 hours prior to hurricane Michael's landfall, nobody knew where it would come ashore. It was a CAT2 hurricane. It may have come ashore anywhere between Tampa and Biloxi. Using your complex proposals, you would have had to decide days in advance whether or not to evacuate, which bases to evacuate, close roads that were already full of refugees, and then move a large number of non-flyable aircraft from multiple bases to....where? The Tyndall F-22s were flown all the way up to Dayton, Ohio. Are you planning on trucking (or blimping) all those aircraft that far? Remember, Michael did considerable damage in Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina. Once you move the aircraft out of Pensacola, or Eglin or Tyndall, where is a safe and sheltered place to move them to?


On the other hand, with six or eight hardened shelters at any of those three bases, 12 hours prior to landfall of the storm, you hook up towbars to the hangar queens, tow them into the shelters, close the doors, and walk away. The solution is good for the next half century.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2018, 00:10
by popcorn
weasel1962 wrote:
popcorn wrote:Yep, assuming acceptable dimensions, just load on an unflyable F-22 and fly off... Even more flexibility if lifting a load by sling is feasible. Potentially the elegant solution.


Agreed on it being a potential solution. LM had the LMH1 project that supposed to launch in Alaska next year. Intended to carry 21 tons but cargo hold dimensions are like C-130. They'd probably can fix some external load carriage. Technically feasible. The issue is deployment. The blimps are relatively slow, must be in the vicinity. Flying from Alaska to Florida may be a bit too late to meet a sudden hurricane warning. Would be more useful if it can be deflated, air crated to the base and set up.



Aeroscraft is not building a blimp,not all airships are blimps. It's projected to average around 200kph. Hopefully it flies early next decade.
https://www.sciencealert.com/production ... t-aircraft

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2018, 04:18
by weasel1962
Got it, we can't call a blimp, a blimp even if it is by definition a blimp just because some marketeer wants to product differentiate to basically charge more. The LMH1 probably is faster to production esp with significant LOI numbers. Aeros has been talking the ml866 *limp for more than a decade.

LM's probably be in a better position to know how to lift a plane they build. They probably can package this as an aftersales service option..

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2018, 05:54
by pmi
weasel1962 wrote:Got it, we can't call a blimp, a blimp even if it is by definition a blimp just because some marketeer wants to product differentiate to basically charge more


A blimp by definition is a non-rigid airship.

A rigid airship is by definition not a blimp.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2018, 06:49
by popcorn
pmi wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:Got it, we can't call a blimp, a blimp even if it is by definition a blimp just because some marketeer wants to product differentiate to basically charge more


A blimp by definition is a non-rigid airship.

A rigid airship is by definition not a blimp.

yup, and it's not something you ship in a box and inflate when you need it.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2018, 06:54
by popcorn
popcorn wrote:
pmi wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:Got it, we can't call a blimp, a blimp even if it is by definition a blimp just because some marketeer wants to product differentiate to basically charge more


A blimp by definition is a non-rigid airship.

A rigid airship is by definition not a blimp.

yup, and it's not something you ship in a box and inflate when you need it.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2018, 01:25
by weasel1962
Yup, let's have a discussion over definitions and semantics which is SOooo important, rather than what really helps. Who comes up with all these definitions which doesn't really matter to the average layperson? Po-TAH-to, Potato"e".

What the USAF needs is a blimp. Something that can deflate, stack up in C-130 then inflate when its required. Otherwise, it will need to base the "airship" near the require base. Its $20-40m per LMH-1. Not exactly that cheap either.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2018, 01:41
by popcorn
weasel1962 wrote:Yup, let's have a discussion over definitions and semantics which is SOooo important, rather than what really helps. Who comes up with all these definitions which doesn't really matter to the average layperson? Po-TAH-to, Potato"e".

What the USAF needs is a blimp. Something that can deflate, stack up in C-130 then inflate when its required. Otherwise, it will need to base the "airship" near the require base. Its $20-40m per LMH-1. Not exactly that cheap either.


Words have meaning. A rigid airship is not a blimp but stick to your label if it makes you happy. And you seriously think a purchase is the only way the AF would be able to avail of the services of an airship? No other options occur to you?

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2018, 02:04
by weasel1962
Did consider lease. The issue is that current LMH-1 orders are for 12 operated by Columbia presumably in Oregon. Another 12 for Straightline in Alaska. This will require a fair bit of commercial structuring to work.

Either way, what I'd suggest is to first build an F-22 trailer that can be both air and/or ground transported. Then the AF can get what's available, rather than commit to a fleet of "dirigibles", "airships", "blimps", "zeppelins" etc and whatever....

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2018, 11:51
by madrat
Probably better to spend the money on shotcrete shelters.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2018, 13:17
by Scorpion1alpha
Recent photo of surviving F-22s being towed at Tyndall during recovery ops on 24 October 2018.
Image

Some of the surviving jets parked on the flightline.
Image

TY 022 taking off.
Image

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2018, 13:49
by mixelflick
Sounds like they're all going to make it!

This is GREAT news. Every Raptor is a national treasure. Every. Single. One. Now let's have a plan in place please, to make sure this never happens again!

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2018, 02:54
by madrat
Speaks volumes to their build durability.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2018, 00:52
by wolfpak
I have read with interest of all of the schemes to safeguard or move the F-22's. Bottom line the structure of the large hangars survived the storm and what failed was the roof and exterior wall panels. Arch type hangars were last built in the 50's. Plenty of years in a salty environment for fasteners and roof panels to corrode and fail when hit by high winds. Replace them. It would take a few million dollars. I can see having aircraft that aren't mission capable but find it difficult to see having a third of your aircraft not flyable especially during hurricane season. Sounds like either a dire lack of spares or a ineffective maintenance organization. In either case appropriate management of the fleet solves the problem. With a majority of the aircraft flying out by now it appears that spares may not be the issue.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2018, 04:22
by durahawk
wolfpak wrote:I have read with interest of all of the schemes to safeguard or move the F-22's. Bottom line the structure of the large hangars survived the storm and what failed was the roof and exterior wall panels. Arch type hangars were last built in the 50's. Plenty of years in a salty environment for fasteners and roof panels to corrode and fail when hit by high winds. Replace them. It would take a few million dollars. I can see having aircraft that aren't mission capable but find it difficult to see having a third of your aircraft not flyable especially during hurricane season. Sounds like either a dire lack of spares or a ineffective maintenance organization. In either case appropriate management of the fleet solves the problem. With a majority of the aircraft flying out by now it appears that spares may not be the issue.


OR they cannibalized parts from the written off/not flying for months jets to get the salvageable survivors back in the air. I would be willing to wager this has occurred to some extent.

New hangars will cost a lot more than that. One of the new hangars at Nellis alone cost north of $20 million. Then there is the fire suppression certification...

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2018, 06:39
by h-bomb
I hate to say this, and I know a lot of people will react negatively. Clean up Tyndall, and give it to Panama City. Move its operation over to Eglin.

I know it makes ZERO political sense but it make perfect financial sense. These extremely under utilized bases ,like Langley need to be consolidated. I was at Langley before the big draw down of the 1990s. The 48th FIS and 1st FF had 90 aircraft? The USN has a few EC-135s for the CINC Atlantic. NASA had aircraft in the air frequently.

They have 48(?) F-22s shared between ANG and 2 squadrons. They got some T-38s in, but that place was a ghost town compared to the base I remember. Oh sorry JOINT Base Langley-Eustis!

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2018, 14:35
by Gums
Salute!

Local rags claim all the Raptors will be finished flying out this weekend. Most heded to Langley and at least one to Hill.

So I wonder why they didn't fly out to begin with, as sounds like it wasn't motors or flight controls but avionics or minor subsystems.

No way right now for Eglin to absorb the Tyndall planes or mission. The base has already created some problems with noise that the F-35's make, especially when using the rwy closest to Valparaiso. And that sucker IS LOUD! I am about 4 air miles away, and with SW winds it's really loud.

Eglin does not have the hangars that Tyndall has/had, and most of the Stubbbies are in cheap tent-like hangars. If the storm was 40 miles closer two weeks ago, I don't think many of them would have survived. Since 1985 we have had more storms than Tyndall and most have been west of us, giving us the worst winds and such. Tyndall is also much more secure than Eglin when they close the hiway bridge on the west end. Eglin has homes right off the runway on the east side and about a mile from the west side. There's not a lotta traffic going thru Tyndall on Hwy 98 to Mexico Beach, and once the debris is cleared there, it will be even less than before the storm.

Gums sends....

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2018, 15:43
by wolfpak
durahawk wrote:
wolfpak wrote:I have read with interest of all of the schemes to safeguard or move the F-22's. Bottom line the structure of the large hangars survived the storm and what failed was the roof and exterior wall panels. Arch type hangars were last built in the 50's. Plenty of years in a salty environment for fasteners and roof panels to corrode and fail when hit by high winds. Replace them. It would take a few million dollars. I can see having aircraft that aren't mission capable but find it difficult to see having a third of your aircraft not flyable especially during hurricane season. Sounds like either a dire lack of spares or a ineffective maintenance organization. In either case appropriate management of the fleet solves the problem. With a majority of the aircraft flying out by now it appears that spares may not be the issue.


OR they cannibalized parts from the written off/not flying for months jets to get the salvageable survivors back in the air. I would be willing to wager this has occurred to some extent.

New hangars will cost a lot more than that. One of the new hangars at Nellis alone cost north of $20 million. Then there is the fire suppression certification...


To clarify I'm not suggesting new hangars for a few million but merely the replacement of the roof and wall panels on the existing ones. The foam tests for the fire suppression certificate are a real hoot and generate quite a mess.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2018, 22:42
by Gums
Salute!

Yeah, Wolf. The initial stuff was BS, and the helo flyby the next day clearly showed a lot of structures and such looking great.

When the mayor or base commander says that every structure was damaged, some of that is to get help down the road, and prolly every structure had a roof shingle blow off, many will have trees falling into a part of the house, and so forth. You can look at the photo recce from a few days later and the Tyndall housing area does not even come close to whatyou see at Mexico Beach, just 6 or 7 miles east.

Tyndall is a great location for reasons I pointed out before, and that ain't even considering the water ranges which are 5 minutes away while you have just raised the gear, heh heh. Did WSEP there years ago.

Gums sends...

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2018, 15:26
by Scorpion1alpha
USAF update on Tyndall:

Units to be located at Eglin AFB, Florida, with reachback to Tyndall AFB:

The 43rd and 2nd Fighter Squadrons’ F-22 Fighter Training and T-38 Adversary Training Units will relocate operations to Eglin AFB. Academic and simulator facilities at Tyndall AFB will be used to support training requirements, as well as Tyndall AFB’s surviving low observable maintenance facilities.

Units with insufficient infrastructure to resume operations at Tyndall AFB at this time:

Personnel and F-22s from the 95th Fighter Squadron will relocate to Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia; Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska; and JB Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2018, 15:44
by popcorn
So the 95th is going to be spread across 3 different locations? A short-term solution given concerns about unit cohesion?

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2018, 15:49
by Scorpion1alpha
I don't think that is the concern at this point in time.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2018, 04:25
by Gums
Salute!

Thanks for the update, Scorp.

Have to see when the local rags figure out the re-assignments. OTOH, you can imagine that the big news around here has to do with recovery.

Niceville and Fort Walton are hosting many of the refugees, and the traffic shows it as well as motel occupancy and lines at McDonalds, Wendy, etc. Some of the larger subdivisions at Panama City are only 50 or 60% habitable even tho electricity is back on and water is flowing. Roofs are the biggie, and you can imagine the backlog for the handyman business as well as the big conpanies.

I'll update later in the week when I start to see the Raptors zipping around.

Gums sends...

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2018, 06:07
by madrat
Recovery is going smoother than expected from what I gather from FEMA. They were able to consolidate community shelters down to a single high school being used in the Panama City area. Mexico Beach is more of a rebuild of about everything whereas much of Panama City survived with minor structural damage to most buildings. The worst hit area was devastated more from surge than wind damage as far as I can tell. People built too close to trees in some remote areas and unexpectedly paid for the creature comforts when the trees came down on their homes.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2018, 14:26
by Scorpion1alpha
A month after Hurricane Michael, USAF stood up three task forces at Tyndall. Among them is Task Force Raptor:

Task Force Raptor, led by Col. Argie Moore, Air Combat Command combat aircraft division, is made up of more than 40 maintainers from Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, who have been working 24-hour operations to make the F-22 Raptors flyable.

With the jets almost all gone, we would like to downsize the Task Force Raptor team to 13 maintainers, so they can return to Langley,” Laidlaw said.


Task Force Raptor personnel
Image

TY 079 leaving 5 November
Image

Outstanding job all.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2018, 20:44
by marsavian
All F-22s Have Now Left Tyndall, Air Force Secretary Says

https://www.military.com/defensetech/20 ... -says.html

All the F-22 Raptors that were left behind at Tyndall Air Force Base during Hurricane Michael have moved on to the bases where they will be housed until the Air Force determines their final future destination, the service's top civilian said Thursday.

"All of the F-22s have been flown out now," Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said during the annual Defense One summit in Washington, D.C. "All of the damage to them was minor ... They were repaired and flown out."

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2018, 00:26
by hoghandler
Great to hear the raptors are all repaired and flown iut. Any word on the QF-16s that were left behind? There were at least 4 in a hanger from pics i seen.

Re: Drones

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2018, 16:28
by Gums
Salute!

No word here on the QF birds.

OTOH, local rag put out a pic of the drone base a few miles east of the main, and looks like a handful of the old drones are trashed, not the QF-16 and such. I am not up to speed on their ops, and not sure if they station the QF's over there or at main.

The drone base is pretty much bare bones, and I can see it being repaired quickly for limited ops. If the data recovery and processing is done over there, then that's a different story.

May have sighted two Raptors last Thursday. From my plans background, I would think the logistics will be the long pole in the tent. If they break out the WRSK, then the basic maintenance and back shop folks can sustain a low sortie rate. The T-38's won't be a problem, and the test wing has good support for them.

It's long range flying that will require a lotta support. We deployed the 4th back in the early 80's to Flesland and they flew a reasonable amount of sorties with the new jet. 'course the Norwegians had logistics in-place, right?

Gums sends...

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2018, 15:09
by Gums
Salute!

First flight of Raptors and some 38's got here this week. Looks like we'll get a whole squadron and part of another.

Seems the entire 38 fleet will be here, as well.

Biggest consideration is logistics and housing for personnel. The community is coming together in that regard, as is school system and so forth. Because we never got the original Stubbie numbers, there is a small amount of housing and such to use. Big problem is downtown rent costs, but TDY pay should cover some if USAF calls it a "remote" assignment which then provides "family separation allowance", per diem and other $$$. Then there' the gracious community that uinderstands storms and evacuations and...

I know one of the T-38 jocks, who is a reservist, so should get some intell while munching oysters and shrimp at Doc's Oyster Bar ( right outside the east gate).

Gums reports...

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2018, 08:17
by Scorpion1alpha
As Gums mentioned, some of the evacuated F-22s recently returned to Florida, six in total. From the video posted by SecAF Heather Wilson, the 43rd FS's TY 026, 031 and 034 can be seen in the short clip arriving in Eglin AFB to begin their operations there.

https://twitter.com/SecAFOfficial/statu ... 7052796928

Regarding the QF-16s:

Tyndall also announced in a Nov. 14 release that Boeing delivered a QF-16 unmanned aerial target aircraft to the 82nd Aerial Target Squadron at Tyndall.

“The arrival of this QF-16 brings us one step closer to resuming operations,” Col. Steven Boatright, commander of the 53rd Weapons Evaluation Group, said in the release. “It is vital to the warfighter that we resume operations when it is deemed safe to do so.”

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2018, 05:04
by Scorpion1alpha
Some photos of the six F-22s arriving at Eglin AFB:

Image

TY 023
Image
Image

TY 026
Image

TY 031
Image

...& TY 034

Image

Image

Image

Image

Eglin just became much more lethal with these Birds of Prey.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 30 Nov 2018, 15:03
by Gums
Salute!

Prolly should have a separate thread dealing with Tyndall recovery, but here goes anyway.

As an all too often participant in surviving these storms, I cautioned all about taking the news about Tyndall with a grain of salt. Plus, I looked at the aerial recce done by NOAA and made my comments.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
Tyndall elementary school opens a week from Monday. The principal said only one building was damaged too badly to use. So much for "devastating, complete loss", etc.
Local rag says "many" airmen returning already.
I hope to get more intell and may get a chance to get over to the base next week, as wife has a medical appointment at PC Beach. Her primary venue in downtown PC is still being repaired and some very expensive medical equipment is being shipped or repaired.
I still have not been able to talk with any Raptor pilots, but I'll keep on keeping on.

Gums reports...

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2018, 13:00
by tbarlow
Anyone have any word yet on the QF-16's they couldn't fly out?

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2018, 01:49
by weasel1962
Looks like this thread can eventually be shifted into the F-35 forum.

Air Force wants to house three F-35 squadrons at rebuilt Tyndall, move Raptors permanently
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your ... rmanently/

Smart move. F-35A basing will need new infrastructure anyway so might as well do that at Tyndall.

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2019, 15:55
by Gums
Salute!

Interesting to see they are planning for up to three years. If so, guess they would treat personnel as on a basic two - three year tour as we vets saw during a career.

https://www.thedestinlog.com/news/20190 ... or-3-years

Biggest infrastructure issue here is housing, especially for the enlisted. Plenty of motels and hotels for the TDY folks, and a new one is going in by the east gate as we speak The single family homes are very expensive in Niceville and Val-p because we are surrounded by water and the Eglin ranges. Hell, they use one small range complex a coupla miles from me for the Spectre and you can hear the big cannon easily, as well as the Bofors and new gatling gun.Shlimar and such are cheaper, and have more apartment complexes. I feel base housing will focus upon the enlisted, and when a chunk of F-35 left there are a few dozen places ready for business.

Gums reports...

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2019, 23:41
by n3sk
F-22’s have been here since after the storm, but are rare to see( one did come check out my fire) I think they do that old vertical takeoff like they do at Tyndall. I live in the flight path of Eglin, it shakes my house when they do the turn and burn by the Genersls house. It’s really cool seeing the T-38’s as well. They are one of my favorite aircraft. It’s a pleasure seeing these aircraft in the sky above me. Good show!

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2019, 22:48
by Gums
Salute!

Update this week and maybe janitors could check the local rag for Tyndall news

https://www.wjhg.com/content/news/Tynda ... 50711.html

Gums sends...

More good news

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2019, 18:50
by Gums
Salute!

More good local news for Tyndall

https://www.thedestinlog.com/news/20190 ... -michael/1

Gums sends...

Re: Tyndall AFB a "complete loss" amid questions about F-22s

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2019, 19:07
by sprstdlyscottsmn
That IS good news.