It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tyndall AFB suffers massive damage; including irreplaceable F-22s

page: 6
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 02:15 AM
link   
a reply to: BigDave-AR

Barge guy thinks they should have left a week before it hit, back when it was a storm they hardly would have noticed.




posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 02:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: BigDave-AR

Barge guy thinks they should have left a week before it hit, back when it was a storm they hardly would have noticed.


Thats the secret of avoiding a storm. Leave before there is a storm.
But seriously, couldnt they have hardened concrete shelters like what i seen from the images taken in Syria when the tommyhawks where launched into that airbase?



posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 02:20 AM
link   
a reply to: GrandePoobah

There's still no guarantee they'd stand up to a storm like this one. They could flood, the wind could rip open vents, or even the doors. They'd be better than a wooden hangar but you could still see damaged aircraft in them.



posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 02:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: mightmight

You're not "due" for a hurricane. They happen or they don't. This area has been bad for strong hurricanes. This one fooled everyone.

Just no, statistically speaking Bay County gets hit by a major hurricane every thirty years. Doesnt mean what happened to Tyndall wasnt a freak event but it was bound to happen somwhere eventually. Nobody bats an eye about the lost 16s, just dont risk strategic assets that way.




And what other places are relatively lightly populated, with a large live fire range a couple minutes flight time away from the base with zero weather threat that you think we should move them to. Put them in the midwest and you'll say tornadoes. Put them out west and it's fire hazards. Up north and it's extreme snow. So where exactly should they go?

I'd settle for sometwhere safer than a hurricane area. Dont tell me there were no other Guard bases next to some bombing range in the Rockies or whereever.



posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

Bombing ranges next to the Rockies don't do air superiority fighters a lot of good, considering they aren't useful for air to air.

Any other storm that has ever hit this area, they come through just fine. This WAS a freak storm and every model was seriously wrong up until less than 48 hours before landfall.



posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 02:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: mightmight

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: mightmight

You're not "due" for a hurricane. They happen or they don't. This area has been bad for strong hurricanes. This one fooled everyone.

Just no, statistically speaking Bay County gets hit by a major hurricane every thirty years. Doesnt mean what happened to Tyndall wasnt a freak event but it was bound to happen somwhere eventually. Nobody bats an eye about the lost 16s, just dont risk strategic assets that way.




And what other places are relatively lightly populated, with a large live fire range a couple minutes flight time away from the base with zero weather threat that you think we should move them to. Put them in the midwest and you'll say tornadoes. Put them out west and it's fire hazards. Up north and it's extreme snow. So where exactly should they go?

I'd settle for sometwhere safer than a hurricane area. Dont tell me there were no other Guard bases next to some bombing range in the Rockies or whereever.

Well that has a lot to do with them being QF-16s and not F-16s this making them more acceptable to write off as they’re old airframes converted to drones for target practice.



posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 03:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: mightmight

Bombing ranges next to the Rockies don't do air superiority fighters a lot of good, considering they aren't useful for air to air.

I'm sure you could repurpose some ranges there if it isnt the case already.


originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: mightmight
Any other storm that has ever hit this area, they come through just fine. This WAS a freak storm and every model was seriously wrong up until less than 48 hours before landfall.

It was a category 4 storm, within what could be expected for the region. The only thing freak about it was Tyndall getting hit directly.



originally posted by: BigDave-AR
Well that has a lot to do with them being QF-16s and not F-16s this making them more acceptable to write off as they’re old airframes converted to drones for target practice.

Hence my point, dont base your most capable aircraft in a hurricane area. Especially since you have not enough of them to begin with.
edit on 18-10-2018 by mightmight because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 04:22 AM
link   
“Hence my point, dont base your most capable aircraft in a hurricane area. Especially since you have not enough of them to begin with.”
QF-16s are not a high strategic value craft they’re target drones from old F-16s, The F22s are another story.
edit on 10/18/2018 by BigDave-AR because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Critical infrastructure such as nuclear power stations are (usually) prepared for events such as this.

50 Raptors would have costed about $20 billion, inclusive of R&D. Why shouldn't protection of the Raptors be any different?

The probability of a hurricane hitting the area can be calculated. Flooding can be calculated. Winds can be calculated. The characteristics and probability of storm projectiles can be calculated. Contingencies can be devised.

I don't think it's reasonable to blame the poor average base employee who was powerless to do anything except move the downed jets into the strongest hangars available, but is it really so much to ask for that there be a contingency for a direct hit by a cat 5 hurricane?

Was it too low of a probability to be concerned about?
edit on 18/10/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 18/10/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: C0bzz
Critical infrastructure such as nuclear power stations are (usually) prepared for events such as this.

50 Raptors would have costed about $20 billion, inclusive of R&D. Why shouldn't protection of the Raptors be any different?

The probability of a hurricane hitting the area can be calculated. Flooding can be calculated. Winds can be calculated. The characteristics and probability of storm projectiles can be calculated. Contingencies can be devised.

I don't think it's reasonable to blame the poor average base employee who was powerless to do anything, but is it really so much to ask for that there be a contingency for a direct hit by a cat 5 hurricane?

Was it too low of a probability to be concerned about?

It’s like insurance algorithms you make very educated guests of the cost/benefit and odds...



posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: C0bzz

There has never been a Cat 5 hurricane that came ashore directly over the Panhandle. The strongest prior to this storm was Opal, which made it to a 4, but weakened before landfall and came ashore as a 3. They probably could have handled that, they certainly could have handled this storm if it had done what the models showed it doing.



posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

There is a reason that the only live fire air to air ranges are over open water, and a damn good one at that. Think about it for a few minutes.

There has never been a Category 4 storm that landed on the Panhandle. The strongest was a Category 3, which is a big difference. This was borderline 5. It was by far the strongest storm to ever land in the Panhandle. It also went from a Category 1 to maximum strength in 36 hours. Everything said it was not going to get above a weak Category 3, IF it made it to that, until the afternoon of the 8th. It made landfall on the 10th.

Again, so where should we put them that they're not at risk? There is no such place anywhere.



posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight


So what close all the bases on the east coast from Miami to New York and the entire gulf region?


Then you have big storms in the pacific so we need to close all those coastal bases as well...


this was a convergence of bad luck, coupled with an F you from mother nature, if the flavor of the month plane designator was not there nobody would have batted an eye over this event.



posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

We can't put them in the Midwest because of the tornadoes. So we're running out of places we can put them where weather won't put them at risk.



posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: mightmight

So what close all the bases on the east coast from Miami to New York and the entire gulf region?

No, you just base vital assets somewhere else. Nobody cares about some lost F-Teens.
Its not that hard to understand. geez



originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: mightmight

Again, so where should we put them that they're not at risk? There is no such place anywhere.

Oh come on you're too smart for that. Some risks can be avoided, some cant.

In this case there was no reason (other than politics at a time when they thought they could get hundreds of F-22s) to go to Tyndall.
If you absoltuely need access fo some ocean (ignoring all those other fighter wing stationed whereever doing just fine), pick some Guard base north of the Carolinas or north of California.
Or you know, move to some hundred miles inland and the odds of something bad happening go way down.

You even can go to Tornado Country. Just invest in some half way decent hardened aircraft shelters. Nobrainer really.

edit on 18-10-2018 by mightmight because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

They're at Tyndall for a good reason. It's the perfect location for training their pilots. You need ocean so you're not throwing around live missiles in the middle of busy air routes, or expecting the FAA to close off huge swaths of airspace for you. There's next to no traffic over the Gulf of Mexico that needs to be watched out for. So not only do they get to shoot a real missile occasionally, they have a huge range complex to go fly in already in place.

Those other fighter wings doing just fine, guess where they go when they do live fire missile training.
edit on 10/18/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 11:24 AM
link   
I believe Michigan's Thumb area and Lake Huron are still practice ranges. I lived there and used to watch laser dogfights all the time.




posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: mikell

There are a lot of air to air ranges over the US, but very few capable of firing live missiles. Tyndall is the largest of those. They have to be away from busy air routes and air traffic.



posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight


when was the last time Tyndall was flattened if the base was never damaged to this extent it was a safe location, coupled with a great location and easy access to open empty ocean.


The only other base damaged to this extent that I can think of is Homestead and hurricane Andrew, and that was also a pretty unique storm with rapid strengthening at the last moment.



posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: mightmight

Those other fighter wings doing just fine, guess where they go when they do live fire missile training.

Do i have to spell it out? There is zero they couldnt have done that with the F-22 wing at Tyndall too.
I'm not arguing for closing the base or anything, just dont have an entire wing of combat coded F-22s there.




top topics



 
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join