8 ms·
I would have thought the base would have some nuclear hardened hangars for storing planes? IANAP (I am not a pilot/military) but the airbases near me in Scotla
by mothsonasloth 8y ago
I would have thought the base would have some nuclear hardened hangars for storing planes?
IANAP (I am not a pilot/military) but the airbases near me in Scotland have bunkers like [these](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/9e/24/8f/9e248f941d40fca8e947c4a57d6c45bc.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/736x/9e/24/8f/9e248f941d40fca8e947c4a57...) for storing RAF Tornados and Typhoons.
Hopefully this loss will be a lesson to the USAF
- mulmen 8y agoYou're assuming you know more about evacuation planning and base design than the US Air Force. I think that's an unreasonable assumption. Some possibilities: 1) Nuclear hardened bunkers exist on base but were already full. 2) Nuclear response planning does not require planes to be stored in hardened bunkers. 3) The threat model for a nuke is different than a hurricane.
- CamperBob2 8y agoRegardless... these guys had a LOT of warning. Excuses don't seem credible.
- mulmen 8y ago72h is a lot of warning? It's not like they left everything behind. There was a large scale evacuation and a significant amount of hardware was moved without being lost. Do you have any indication that the evacuation was poorly planned or executed? Or that the base design was lacking? I'm not offering excuses. Hell, I'm not even suggesting the base design was satisfactory or that this damage is acceptable. I am offering possible explanations for why this amount of hurricane damage was sustained and why these specific air frames were not in "nuclear hardened bunkers". "I saw some bunkers somewhere" is a pretty poor excuse for criticism of a military installation's design, or anything really.
- onetimemanytime 8y ago>>72h is a lot of warning? It's not 72hours, but probably since ~ 1492 they knew that FL is hurricane country. They also know that x% of planes are always on maintenance and a certain amount of planes cannot evacuate to a safer base. And while not cheap, it's possible to make hurricane proof hangars. Someone dropped the ball and a lot of money was lost.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Numberwang 8y agoIt is completely obvious to everyone else that this outcome was predictable and that they did a bad job which will cost a lot of money. USAF is incompetent.
- ecocentrik 8y agoNot all hurricanes are equal. This was the most destructive hurricane to hit that region in recorded history (yet still weaker than the storm that took out Puerto Rico a year ago). The Florida panhandle has mostly been an infrequent target for slow and rainy cat 1 hurricanes every 20 years or so. Those storms take down some trees and power lines, and sometimes cause minor flooding. This was a strong cat 4 with heavy forward momentum and a significant storm surge, a 200+ year storm for the area. Nobody builds for highly unlikely events like this, they buy insurance.
- onetimemanytime 8y ago>>Nobody builds for highly unlikely events like this, they buy insurance. Building better ones I bet would be cheaper than year after year insurance on billion $ items
- syngrog66 8y agohurricanes happen every year. air base on coast of Florida. only a moron would design things so they dont have a reasonably hurricane safe place to protect aircraft on site. not hard. bumbling incompetence if not planned for.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]