Top Letters And Comments, October 19, 2018

In addition to being the main Raptor roost, Tyndall AFB is also the location for the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center. In other words, when your 406MHz ELT goes off in the lower-48, they're the ones who hear the alarm and start the response. I wonder if their operations are affected, too?

Kirk Wennerstrom

This debacle -- assignment of blame notwithstanding -- ought to be a wake up call for the military AND for the Congress. And that's before we examine the mission capable rate of the F-22. Since the end of the Viet Nam war and accelerated since the end of the Cold War, Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) laws have closed and consolidated scores of military installations ... to the point where we're increasingly putting our 'eggs' in one or two baskets. The military isn't necessarily wanting to do this although in some cases they do it because they're constrained by budgets and manpower issues and have to do more with less (e.g., retiring the F-117A Nighthawks). Mostly, it is generic rules of engagement that even the Congress doesn't clearly control ... it's on autopilot so that no one Congress member can be blamed for loss of the revenue each closed installation generated. No one's "fingerprints" are on BRAC actions. It is a ridiculous example of penny wise and dollar foolish behavior. And now ... 'we' paid the price. Potential loss of 22 Raptors doesn't sound too bad until you remember that there are only 187 operational jets. That's 12% of the force! You can bet our adversaries are watching. When Curtis E. Lemay was alive, he established Offutt AFB, NB as HQ for SAC because it was far from any coast such that warning time for incoming missiles was maximized. (That's why President Bush was taken there on 9/11). Just to be sure, Cheyenne Mountain was established and -- for a time -- Chrome Dome missions had jets in the air 24/7 if retaliation became necessary. "MAD" worked. Since the end of the cold war and the takeover of the 'bomber boys' by the 'fighter mafia' of Air Combat Command, Joint Base Langley - Eustis, VA -- itself a VERY vulnerable Base -- has assumed too great a role. Langley is also a F-22 base and itself was heavily damaged by hurricane Isabel in 2003 and another bad storm in 2009. When are those Generals gonna wake up? Start distributing this limited equipment to outlying fields which could be used as backup in cases like this. As I said above, our adversaries our watching with glee, no doubt? As a retired USAF member, I've been concerned about this for years ... not just the closed bases but the limited number of machines necessary to conduct a serious and protracted multi-front war.

Back in the 60's, nearly 100 B-58A Hustler airplanes were assigned to just two bases, Little Rock and Bunker Hill (now Grissom ARB), IN. Even though those bases were in the heartland, SAC realized the assets were too valuable to keep so concentrated. So each base had a half dozen auxiliary locations where a few "cocked" airplanes were rotated ... a sort of shell game. Keeping "50 advanced F-22 jets" -- more than 25% of the Raptor fleet -- in one place and on a coast prone to hurricanes is crazy. Langley - Eustis / NAS Norfolk is another concentrated area where just a few well placed tactical devices could neuter a major part of the Country's systems. I guess they forgot how close U-boats pulled in to sink ships on the entire east coast during WWII? With precision guided weapons these days, a nefarious actor could have a field day with Tyndall. If we had 750 Raptors -- as was initially planned -- it wouldn't matter. With SO few actually produced, it's time to rethink the basing scheme. Even if only a few were lost, that's STILL too many; the production line no longer exists. And ... the F-35 fleet is currently grounded, as well. In Europe, very serious bomb proof shelters for individual airplanes are in widespread use. When you think of what each Raptor costs, it's a shame that such protective facilities don't exist here. The airplanes coulda stayed home. Sometimes, I think that the people who run MY USAF think they're running an Aero Club and not an Air Force.

Larry Stencel

A 60% dispatch reliability on a $140 MM asset is absolutely DISGRACEFUL!

Placing so much of our air superiority capability in so few assets, and concentrating them, allows that capability to be eradicated with a hand full of tactical nuclear weapons. General LeMay understood that dispersal of capability greatly reduced the attractiveness of a preemptive nuclear attack - both at home and on our allies' soil.

Kim Hunter

I don't know about you, but this report really has me steamed. 22 out of 55 Raptors were unflyable and thus were not moved before the hurricane? Why?? As taxpayers, we end up footing the bill for all of this. And then there is the storm damage to the buildings, not to mention the entire area and the costs, both in terms of dollars and human suffering, of all the homes and businesses lost. But that's another subject: climate change.

At the very least, perhaps it's time to move these kinds of sensitive government facilities away from hurricane zones.

So the Southeast ends up losing lucrative military bases. Maybe the politicians should have been listening decades ago when science-based climate experts warned these things would happen.

Crista Worthy

I just read Ted Spitzmiller's article on the Albuquerque TFR which I found very informative. However, I was disturbed by his suggestion that pilots go no closer than 500 feet from balloons in flight. If someone intentionally flew anywhere near 500 feet from me while I was in the air, I would consider that to be outrageous, dangerous, and bordering on criminal.

Marc Rodstein

I'm with Buzz. Omitting the flag was inexcusable.

Wally Roberts

I started reading this, stopped and went to see the movie - impressive! Blessedly less talking than many movies, especially during the moon part. That was so starkly and quietly well done. The shaky-cam not so well - I think it somewhat detracted from things although the intent was clear. The lack of flag-planting depiction was perfect though. The movie directly references the common feeling around the world that people developed, that it was their moon landing too. It was classy to skip the overt flag thing. I suspect that for people who witnessed the real thing the moon landing section could be quite touching.

Cosmo Adsett

I liked some parts. But the lack of realism, especially in flight scenes, ruined it for me. Would not watch again. Excessively over-dramatized flight scenes. Instruments are frequently zoomed in on while they do unrealistic things that may or may not relate to what can be seen 'outside'. Motions and timing are frequently very fast-forwarded. The excessive shaking everywhere! Not just the stupid amount in the flight scenes, but even on the ground the camera is all-over the place. Apparently, the most important things to see are close-ups of people's eyes and screw-heads.

Cameron Garner

Plaques on the LM ladder notwithstanding, telling the story of the first moon landing, without including the flag-erecting event, is like telling the story of America's Revolutionary War, without mentioning the Declaration of Independence.

Tom Yarsley

I haven't seen the movie yet but I've heard a lot about it, and it seems to me that it's not a story about the first moon landing but rather the person who was at the controls for that landing.

To me, the flag planting is just a very small part of the whole Apollo program. Sure, it was what set everything in motion to reach the moon, but the science and engineering and planning to get there was so much more, as was everything that allowed us to work our way up to that point.

As for over-dramatization, that's kind of a subjective term. Just trying to hover and land a helicopter in gusty tailwinds can be dramatic...to the pilot on the controls. But the whole point is so that an outsider doesn't see or experience it as dramatic. So to that extent, I expect a certain level of additional dramatization in movies depicting real events.

Gary Baluha

I attended Purdue University in the early 2000's majoring in aerospace engineering, with Armstrong being the most famous alumnus of the program. Armstrong made several visits while I was there - some were "official" and heralded, others were not.

By far the most memorable was one was an unplanned visit. One morning a group of us were headed to the aero student lounge in Grissom Hall (named after another famous Purdue Alum). When we arrived there was an older gentleman in the corner reading a copy of the campus newspaper. Most of us didn't give it a second thought, but one of the girls in our group had grown up down the street from Armstong and was a family friend. She recognized him and exclaimed, "Neil!"

We sat and chatted with him for several hours. He was very humble, yet out going and quick with an engineering joke or axiom. He was much more interested in reminiscing about his days as a student and sharing his engineering insights and lessons learned than he was about talking about the Apollo program or his military life. I think he thought he had more value to share in engineering mentorship than simply retelling the "so there I was" type of stories.

The new aero engineering building at Purdue is named after Armstrong, and has a statue of him out front. Not as an astronaut, but as his undergraduate self, sitting on a wall looking up to the sky. In the grass in front of him are replicas of his first step on the moon. His humility is what I believe made him the perfect choice as the First Man.

Adam Rietz

NO, they shouldn't even be in the air, anyone that flies an aircraft should have a full certified pilots license.

Bill

The weight limit change to 3600lbs. with a speed limit of 150mph doesn't make a lot of sense to me... not many planes that are that heavy fly under 150mph. Seems to me 1500 - 2000lbs. would be plenty increase to include planes that are less than 150mph.

Jim Hefner