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

popcorn · by **popcorn** » 28 Oct 2018, 00:10

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

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 28 Oct 2018, 04:18

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..

pmi · by **pmi** » 28 Oct 2018, 05:54

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.

popcorn · by **popcorn** » 28 Oct 2018, 06:49

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.

popcorn · by **popcorn** » 28 Oct 2018, 06:54

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.

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 29 Oct 2018, 01:25

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.

popcorn · by **popcorn** » 29 Oct 2018, 01:41

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?

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 29 Oct 2018, 02:04

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....

madrat · by **madrat** » 29 Oct 2018, 11:51

Probably better to spend the money on shotcrete shelters.

Scorpion1alpha · by **Scorpion1alpha** » 31 Oct 2018, 13:17

Recent photo of surviving F-22s being towed at Tyndall during recovery ops on 24 October 2018.

Some of the surviving jets parked on the flightline.

TY 022 taking off.

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 31 Oct 2018, 13:49

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!

madrat · by **madrat** » 01 Nov 2018, 02:54

Speaks volumes to their build durability.

wolfpak · by **wolfpak** » 02 Nov 2018, 00:52

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.

durahawk · by **durahawk** » 02 Nov 2018, 04:22

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...

h-bomb · by **h-bomb** » 02 Nov 2018, 06:39

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!