
Tyndall F-22s, Left Behind Before Michael Hit, Possibly Damaged Beyond Repair - walrus01
http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2018/October%202018/Tyndall-F-22s-Left-Behind-Before-Michael-Hit-Possibly-Damaged-Beyond-Repair.aspx
======
sdrothrock
I really love the statement from the colonel in charge of the base; it's
clear, concise, and conveys his message perfectly.

> Wing Command Col. Brian Laidlaw said in a statement Friday the base was
> "better than yesterday, and that is how it is going to continue to be. We
> will continue to persevere."

I like it so much that I really just want to make it a motto to live by:
"things are better than yesterday and that is how I will continue to make
them."

~~~
yesenadam
There was an state re-election campaign here in New South Wales, Australia 10
or 20 years ago run under the slogan

 _More to do but heading in the right direction_

which was widely mocked for being particularly uninspiring. I still quote it
all the time - hardly a week goes by when it can't be amusingly slipped into
conversation hehe. (Usually to helpfully complete someone's attempt to
describe the state of a situation they're working on.)

~~~
robbiep
The most outrageous part of the 2007 election was that they won. State
politics is so unbelievably uninspiring

~~~
Denvercoder9
There's something to say for boring politics.

~~~
marktangotango
As a US-er I would cherish that boredom. Our politics are insane.

------
metaphor
Tyndall didn't _lose_ $1bil in F-22 assets; the HN title of this article is
pure clickbait.

No other state takes hurricane evacuation more seriously than Florida. This
article[1] posits that Tyndall has 55 F-22s divided between two training
squadrons. If only 4 were left behind, that's 93% brought to NMCM Airworthy
status or better, which is mindblowingly effective.

[1] [http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/24204/setting-the-
recor...](http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/24204/setting-the-record-
straight-on-why-fighter-jets-cant-all-simply-fly-away-to-escape-storms)

~~~
Theodores
The products are 'out of warranty' and effectively antiques.

The article states how much it would cost to get the tooling back to make more
of the planes and you would be looking at spending billions to make
replacements.

There is no 'series production' going on and therefore that means that
'maintenance' is more like 'restoration' with these dubious machines.

I wonder if it would make more sense and provide as much utility if the Air
Force just settled for a fleet of classic concept cars. It wasn't as if the
Air Force was of any use whatsoever on that day seventeen years ago when
action stations was actually needed.

~~~
bradleyjg
The whole project was a boondoggle from the very beginning. It’s up there in
the procurement hall of shame with the B1, B2, and LCS.

~~~
carbocation
The topic is the F-22. Are you thinking of the F-35?

~~~
bradleyjg
No the F22. $350 MM per plane for something that will never see its,
admittedly impressive, capabilities needed or used. Very much like the B2 in
that respect.

~~~
mulmen
The B-2 has been used to great effect in its intended role for years.
Similarly the F-22 is operational today. They’re both combat proven.

Geopolitical rivals have similar tech to the F-22 entering service.

You may disagree with the wars being fought but this tech does what it says on
the tin.

~~~
bradleyjg
That’s revisionist history. Its intended role was nuclear strikes deep in the
heart of the Soviet Union. It has certainly not been used to great effect or
otherwise for that.

Likewise, we will never go to conventional war with those “geopolitical
rivals”. Instead we go to war with countries like Syria and sub-national
actors like ISIS neither of which have similar tech entering service, to put
it mildly.

~~~
mulmen
The B-2 was always a long range bomber capable of deploying both nuclear and
conventional weapons. It needed to have the capability to reach and bomb
Russia but that was never the only intended role.

It was also the first plane to drop JDAMs which are useful regardless of the
tech level of the enemy.

It’s a long range bomber that was designed to fly long distances and drop
bombs that entered service and flew long distances and dropped bombs.

No part of that history is “revised”.

Furthermore, maintaining military parity with geopolitical rivals is _why_ we
do not engage in conventional warfare with them. The MAD doctrine has proven
to be effective for decades.

I’m happy to hear reasoned criticism of American foreign policy but the B-2
and F-22 are both performing exactly the jobs they were designed for. Both as
combat vehicles and as deterrents.

------
lwansbrough
There goes 12 hours worth of the defense budget.

~~~
jbverschoor
Wow, that's actually correct according to wikipedia

In FY 2017, the Congressional Budget Office reported spending of $590 billion
for defense, about 15% of the federal budget.[1] For the FY 2019 president
Donald Trump proposed an increase to the military to $681.1 billion. [2]

~~~
metaphor
...except the statement is pure bullshit given the assets weren't actually
lost.

~~~
walrus01
... except that they were, the aviation industry term for an aircraft that has
been damaged beyond economical repair is "hull loss"

[https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=avi...](https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=aviation+hull+loss&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8)

~~~
metaphor
Please cite the media outlet which has asserted that these aircraft have been
damaged beyond economical repair.

From the article: _“We anticipate the aircraft parked inside may be damaged as
well, but we won 't know the extent until our crews can safely enter those
hangars and make an assessment,” the spokeswoman said._

Anecdotally, a former life once allowed me the privilege of directing
flightline ops during several hurricane evacuations. This isn't anything new
to me, and I've seen far worse than what this article (and others) have
depicted--to include an entire squadron of F-15s engulfed in storm surge
saltwater flooding up to their cockpits during Wilma, none of which resulted
in airframe loss.

~~~
dwighttk
they don't make 'em like they used to

------
mothsonasloth
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/9e248f941d40fca8e947c4a57...](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/9e/24/8f/9e248f941d40fca8e947c4a57d6c45bc.jpg))
for storing RAF Tornados and Typhoons.

Hopefully this loss will be a lesson to the USAF

~~~
mulmen
You'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
Regardless... these guys had a LOT of warning.

Excuses don't seem credible.

~~~
mulmen
72h 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
>> _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.

~~~
ecocentrik
Not 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
>> _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

------
miguelrochefort
Belgium, too, is having trouble with their fighter jets (#1 post on HN at the
moment):

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18211632](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18211632)

~~~
walrus01
Not coincidental at all, found it linked from a forum that was also discussing
the F16.

------
orasis
So one got, like, a flat tire?

------
jeswin
I am curious what reasons there could be for the planes to be immovable by
road. F22 has a 13.56m wingspan. Would it make sense to build trucking
platforms for such contingencies?

PS: I have no knowledge in the subject, just curious.

~~~
metaphor
From this article[1]:

 _Throwing jets on flatbed trucks? People don 't realize how large of a flying
machine a Raptor is. They are roughly 44 feet wide, 62 feet long, and weigh
over 43,000lbs. They are not something you just throw on pop's flatbed and
skidaddle out of dodge. Nor are they made to be transported that way in the
first place. And to where? You are talking about a highly sensitive asset
packed with classified material. Its skin treatment alone presents a national
secret risk. These aircraft are supposed to sit in last minute hurricane
traffic heading somewhere as they hog up multiple lanes? The whole notion is
ridiculous. And if they can't seek refuge in time, you have a flying machine
strapped to a flatbed. Good luck with that._

[1] [http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/24204/setting-the-
recor...](http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/24204/setting-the-record-
straight-on-why-fighter-jets-cant-all-simply-fly-away-to-escape-storms)

~~~
code_duck
“You are talking about a highly sensitive asset packed with classified
material.”

Ok, let’s leave it to be destroyed by weather then

~~~
gambiting
Even once destroyed it's still within the base that is presumably still
guarded. Once out of the base on a flatbed the risks of losing any part of it
are much greater.

~~~
code_duck
Getting an intact plane to safety would be far less of a risk of losing parts
than letting it be destroyed in a flood.

------
lifeisstillgood
Look at it this way - climate change is making the job of keeping a functional
military harder and harder - something that may help focus minds as much as
IPCC reports.

~~~
patrickg_zill
Please cite a good source for this assertion. With hard numbers, not
conjecture.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
Which assertion?

Losing a billion dollars of planes because of weather? I know it is only a
billion (a drop in the ocean for the military) but if a adversary had knocked
out three F-22s they would be considered a national threat.

Treat the weather like a potential national security threat is what I am
saying.

~~~
patrickg_zill
There has been stormy weather across the planet, for as long as we know of.
Climate change or no...

------
burfog
It's easy to find better solutions given that we now know the hangers would
fail. It's cheating to know that.

For example, a probable solution would be to place the aircraft far from
things likely to become flying debris, then add sandbags... lots of sandbags.
Park the planes on the runway, then add enough sandbags to divert the wind
over the top.

I'd take that chance if I knew that the hangar would fail, but again, that is
cheating.

~~~
7952
I wonder if a fighter jet would be damaged by the wind alone (ignoring debris)
as long as it is tied down. Naively a fighter jet is already designed to cope
with high speed air flow.

~~~
dingaling
The procedure is to turn aircraft tail into wind and lock the flying surfaces.
But as noted that's useless against debris.

------
skookumchuck
Looks like it's time to upgrade building codes. I wonder what it would take to
make 150mph winds survivable by homes and hangars.

~~~
gonzo41
Lots and lots of concrete. Which isn't that expensive if you've going to
rebuild a state. The bigger problem for Florida is that it has no high terrain
to absorb the hit. Britton Hill is a mere 345 feet above sea level. Which
makes Florida a big sand bar that storms just roll over.

~~~
skookumchuck
I would start with using screws/bolts instead of nails holding the wood to the
foundation. It takes a lot to pull that loose. The other problem is the roof
being lifted off from suction. I would bet that bolting it to the frame would
stop a lot of that.

With relatively minor changes like that, an ordinary wood frame house should
be considerably stronger.

~~~
burfog
This has been the building code in Florida for a quarter century.

Most people do better. Typical construction in Florida is concrete block.
There is no "ordinary wood frame house" in Florida. That would be out of
place. We have termites, but not concrete-eating termites.

To me it feels like the houses are about 5% wood frame, 90% concrete block,
and 5% solid poured concrete that could stop a truck tossed by a tornado.

~~~
skookumchuck
If I was an architect, I'd be headed to Florida first to survey the damaged
and undamaged and see what design elements worked and what failed. Then hang
out my shingle to offer this expertise for the rebuild.

------
JohnBooty
It takes a lot to make me furious, but I'm furious.

These morons built an Air Force base with billions of hardware in hurricane
territory, and were caught flat-footed by a hurricane because apparently there
were no adequate plans for what to do when a hurricane approached?

Jesus christ. Those planes are irreplaceable. F-22 production has ceased, so
it's not like they can order up some more. And considering the problems with
the F-35s, those F-22s are some of the only capable 5th-gen fighters we're
likely to have for a longggggggg time.

(I understand that most of the places were apparently evacuated, but it's
tough to swallow any significant loss of those very expensive pieces of
hardware due to inadequate planning)

~~~
metaphor
> due to inadequate planning

Seeing as you've had the opportunity to thoroughly evaluate Tyndall's
emergency hurricane evacuation procedures, the airworthiness of 55 aircraft
divided between two squadrons, O&M/MILCON budget of a training base, and
logistical impediments arising from 72-hours notice coupled with a swarm of
evacuating civilians from surrounding areas, please do take the time to
enlighten us all.

~~~
JohnBooty
What are you saying here?

Are you saying that their plans were adequate? Clearly they weren't; they lost
at least a handful of irreplaceable planes.

Or are you saying that there was just no way to predict or prepare for a
hurricane hitting an airbase right in the middle of hurricane country? I mean,
a lot of hurricanes roll through that part of the country.

    
    
        the airworthiness of 55 aircraft divided between two squadrons,
    

My "evaluation" is what the article says. Namely, that the planes left behind
weren't airworthy. If you know otherwise, let's hear it.

I'm no military brain genius, but it seems obvious to me that at any given
time less than 100% of the planes at any given airbase would be airworthy and
that perhaps some provision should be made for sheltering or evacuating these
planes if a hurricane rolls through this base which, again, is located in a
very hurricane-prone region.

    
    
        O&M/MILCON budget of a training base
    

I'd think that the cost of making sure you don't lose a billion dollars worth
of fighters every time a hurricane rolls through a hurricane-prone area
probably costs less than, I don't know, a billion dollars.

~~~
metaphor
That you've summarily dismissed the efficacy of planning for which you know
precisely _zero_ of is baffling.

That you presume to parade your decision making as superior to the dozens of
career field officers and senior enlisted members with real skin in the game--
let alone the hundreds preceeding them who have _earned_ their keep--is even
more baffling.

That you continually insist $1bil in F-22 assets was lost to this hurricane is
quite telling of both blatant ignorance and inexperience in matters relating
to military aircraft maintenance operations.

Admittedly, I'm rather insulted by the magnitude of sheer narcissism and
narrow-minded hubris in your remarks.

~~~
JohnBooty
Let me back up a step.

I angrily said "these idiots" as if everybody involved was an idiot.

What I should have acknowledged is that the folks on that base are insanely
talented (I know enough about the military to know that the folks trusted with
these aircraft are very elite) and in all likelihood pulled off a freaking
miracle to save as much hardware as they did with (more importantly) zero loss
of life. I have no doubt that they spent 72 hours stretched to their limits
and performed admirably.

Whatever else we disagree on, at least we agree on that.

What I am angry at is the design of a base that had inadequate structures
and/or procedures in place to enable those assets to be fully protected and/or
evacuated in the event of a hurricane. Clearly those (or the budget allocated)
were not adequate to fully handle the situation. The results attest to that.

~~~
mulmen
This was the most powerful hurricane to hit the Florida panhandle in recorded
history. The base has withstood previous hurricanes and storms. So yeah, the
structures were inadequate to protect some of the planes from the storm of the
century (or two?) but should we expect or desire the base to withstand that?
Of the dozen planes left behind so far only four are suspected to have been
destroyed and even that isn't actually known yet. It is still possible the
base did protect the planes at least in part from this extreme outlier event.

The lifespan of the planes is only ~30 years. Losing a few of them to a total
freak storm doesn't seem as outrageous as you are making it out to be,
especially when much more of the fleet was evacuated than should be expected
based on typical readiness.

You're acting like the USAF had no hurricane plan at all when in reality they
obviously did. Not all the F-22s were lost and a bunch of the other assets
made it out too.

------
kolderman
Does that $1b replacement cost include the cost of restarting the f22 assembly
line?

------
biehl
One cannot put an F-22 on a truck and drive it to safety?

~~~
mulmen
Not if all the trucks are busy moving other assets.

~~~
x0x0
And particularly on 72h notice.

------
emayljames
Karma.

------
acjohnson55
There's many billions more dollars where that came from.

------
dizziest
Since this amount of money lost isn't outrageous to the Air Force, what was
keeping them from moving the planes we paid for, and spending the ~billion
dollars on us and our pursuit of happiness, liberty, and life?

~~~
andreasley
From the article: "The F-22s left behind could not fly for either mechanical
or safety reasons, said a spokeswoman, who also said all the hangars on base
were damaged."

~~~
fen4o
Can't those airplanes be moved / evacuated by ground?

~~~
mulmen
In a word, no. F-22s are huge. Time and trucks are limited.

~~~
code_duck
Could they possibly have thought ahead a little more? Is this the first time a
storm hit the area or something?

