US Air Force Builds $5B Climate-Resilient 'Base of the Future' with Robot Dogs and AI Security (msn.com) 103
After a hurricane hit Florida, 484 buildings just at the Tyndall Air Force base were destroyed or damaged beyond repair. Five years later, it's part of a $5 billion, nine-year rebuilding effort the Washington Post describes as rare "blank slate." The plan is "not merely to rebuild it, but to construct what the U.S. military calls 'the installation of the future,' which will be able to withstand rising seas, stronger storms and other threats..."
The rebuild at Tyndall, which is expected to continue into 2027, marks the largest military construction project undertaken by the Pentagon. "Think of it as the Air Force throwing its Costco card down on the table and buying buildings in bulk," said Michael Dwyer, deputy chief of the Natural Disaster Recovery Division. A dizzying array of new technologies and approaches have been incorporated into the effort, from semiautonomous robot dogs patrolling the grounds to artificial intelligence software designed to detect and deter any armed person who enters the base.
But the most robust funding is aimed at making Tyndall more efficient, connected and resilient in the face of a warming world. Structures under construction — from dormitory complexes to a child care center to hangars that will house three new squadrons of the F-35A Lightning II later this year — are being built to withstand winds in excess of 165 mph. Steel frames, high-impact windows, concrete facades and roofing with additional bracing are among the features meant to weather the stronger storms to come.
At nearby Panama City, sea level rise has accelerated in recent years, with federal data showing seas have risen there more than 4 inches since 2010. Planners factored in the potential for as much as 7 feet of sea level rise by the end of the century, and as a result placed the "vast majority" of new buildings at elevations that should be safe from storm surges for decades, Dwyer said. In addition, sensors placed near the low spots of buildings will send alerts the moment a flood threatens. The Air Force also has created a "digital twin" of Tyndall — essentially, a virtual duplicate of the base that allows officials to simulate how roads, buildings and other infrastructure would hold up in different scenarios, such as a hurricane or historic rainfall events.
Other efforts include restoring the beach's 10-foot sand dunes and its rocky shoreline, along with "the installation of submerged oyster reef breakwater that can reduce wave energy and erosion."
But the article points out that the Air Force also has a second hope for their base: "that the lessons unfolding here can be replicated at other bases around the world that will face — or already are facing — similar threats...
But the most robust funding is aimed at making Tyndall more efficient, connected and resilient in the face of a warming world. Structures under construction — from dormitory complexes to a child care center to hangars that will house three new squadrons of the F-35A Lightning II later this year — are being built to withstand winds in excess of 165 mph. Steel frames, high-impact windows, concrete facades and roofing with additional bracing are among the features meant to weather the stronger storms to come.
At nearby Panama City, sea level rise has accelerated in recent years, with federal data showing seas have risen there more than 4 inches since 2010. Planners factored in the potential for as much as 7 feet of sea level rise by the end of the century, and as a result placed the "vast majority" of new buildings at elevations that should be safe from storm surges for decades, Dwyer said. In addition, sensors placed near the low spots of buildings will send alerts the moment a flood threatens. The Air Force also has created a "digital twin" of Tyndall — essentially, a virtual duplicate of the base that allows officials to simulate how roads, buildings and other infrastructure would hold up in different scenarios, such as a hurricane or historic rainfall events.
Other efforts include restoring the beach's 10-foot sand dunes and its rocky shoreline, along with "the installation of submerged oyster reef breakwater that can reduce wave energy and erosion."
But the article points out that the Air Force also has a second hope for their base: "that the lessons unfolding here can be replicated at other bases around the world that will face — or already are facing — similar threats...
will they remove the men with the brass keys? (Score:2)
will they remove the men with the brass keys?
and replace them with the AI at NORAD?
Re:Rising seas (Score:4, Insightful)
"government believes seas are rising "
To which PART of government are you referring? If you quiz the nimnod R's in Congress, there is no human induced global warming. The Heritage Foundation has a policy paper to roll back the administration's green initiatives and push more carbon based fuels. They also want to make the agencies much more subservient to the President, figuring if they get the former alleged president in there again, they can traipse off to the bank with their pockets full of gold.
So the Conservatives want to doom civilization and put a dictator in the Oval Office. How is that a future we'd want?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Your mentioning that republicans don't believe in human caused global warming doesn't mean that they can't believe in global warming, just blaming non-human causes. Also, sea level rise is a thing that doesn't take belief in global climate change to understand.
Plus, well, if you just lost a base to "weather" and are rebuilding it, making it more resistant to the flooding you now know can happen isn't a stretch.
Simply tell them that you figured out that the "500 year floods" are more like "50 year floods" a
Re: Rising seas (Score:1)
Follow the money... [Re: Rising seas] (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, except you have the money story exactly backwards.
Oil companies make literally trillions of dollars in revenue per year. That's not a typo: trillions. A tenth of a percent change in the usage of fossil fuels represents billions of dollars in revenue.
The amount of "money and/or power" if we address global climate change is absolutely trivial compared to the amount of money and associated power that could be lost if we shift to energy sources not relying on fossil fuels.
...if only people would do as they're told and eat the bugs and turn off their A/C.
Citation needed.
Here's the most recent IPCC Working Group Report Mitigation of Climate Change [www.ipcc.ch]. Where is the part about eating bugs?
Re: (Score:2)
They will try to shift their product line, if they have no other choice.
But a revenue stream of five trillion dollars a year is hard to replicate.
Not even to mention abandoning the value of proven reserves, another tens of trillions of dollars.
Re: (Score:1)
Aw, now you've made me feel sorry for them! You're telling me that poor poor ExxonMobil only made fifty billion dollars in profit last year!
And the other oil companies barely even made much more than that. Why, even Saudi Aramco only made one hundred sixty one billion dollars in profit last year-- Why, they're almost bankrupt! I feel so sorry!
I concede your point: the oil companies are so poor that it's clear that there's no way that their money could influence anything.
And: in case you couldn't tell: that
Re: Rising seas (Score:3, Interesting)
"sea level rise is a thing that doesn't take belief in global climate change to understand."
False. You have to understand ocean warming to understand sea level rise, and you have to understand AGW to understand ocean warming.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
False. You have to understand ocean warming to understand sea level rise, and you have to understand AGW to understand ocean warming.
Incorrect. You don't need to know gravity = 9.8m/s^2 to know that an apple will fall when you drop it. You don't need to know F = (G * m1 * m2) / d^2. You just need the experience that it'll fall.
It's like how they discovered one ancient scientist worked on gravity some - but he got the formula wrong. Rather than V = at^2, he was trying for V = a^t, where a = the gravitational constant.
Doesn't mean he didn't understand that gravity means stuff falls.
For sea level rise, you can just consult a chart.
Re: (Score:2)
To you, consulting a chart and getting a value back is "understanding"?'
Words have meanings, and you are ignoring them.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, words have meaning. Understanding starts at pattern recognition. I didn't say that it is a deep understanding, just an understanding.
Thus, I'm not ignoring jack.
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect.
I don't need to have a deep understanding of the physics of fusion to understand that sunlight is warm, and will give me a sunburn if I don't use something to protect my skin.
Regressive political dipshits don't need to understand or believe human-caused climate change is a thing in order to observe that sea levels have risen and are continuing to rise - they need a measuring gauge.
Re:Rising seas (Score:5, Insightful)
The Pentagon has been developing strategic and tactical plans based on the certainty of Climate Change for at least 20 years, and even directly advised Bush Junior about it.
Weird how Climate Change deniers always manage to dig up some reason why people planning for it supposedly have ulterior motives.
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly. There's never been any grift in the military.
Re: Rising seas (Score:4, Interesting)
Also Bush senior AND Bush Junior's administrations BOTH acknowledged AGW...
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
It's interesting to see those who are left leaning use the demons on the right as their barometer for truthiness.
I guess with the Democrats rhetoric openly embracing global warfare now and the military industrial complex instead of only doing it in finance bills, it's not all too surprising.
Re: Rising seas (Score:1, Troll)
It would be interesting if that happened, but it isn't.
What it proves is that Republicans will give you completely bullshit reasons for everything they do.
When politicians say what they want to hear, they talk about how their politicians are good and smart. When they say something they don't want to hear, they just ignore it.
Re: (Score:2)
Nicely said.
cool (Score:2)
Re: cool (Score:2)
Tank girl only isn't real because a) no mutant roos and b) no way people who can't get water will get enough fuel to run a tank. Also c) before you get worldwide desert, you get unlivable temperatures.
Use it to monitor the biggest climate threat. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The best you could come up with is a more verbose "no u" ?
Next time, just don't click "Reply to This" - we'll all be better off, including you.
Or... (Score:3)
Be smarter and safe money by building it somewhere else where less of those problems are occuring. This is just another waste of money.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And where exactly is this Xanadu where you believe they can build? Watch the news; hurricanes are getting stronger and can reach further inland. I suppose you could put all your air bases in the central U.S., as long as you dodge the tornadoes and heavy rain events from thunderstorms...which are also increasing in frequency with the additional energy the atmosphere is capable of holding due to a warming climate.
What is a waste of money is not taking carbon additions to the atmosphere seriously. Don't believ
Re:Or... (Score:4, Insightful)
I wouldn't use the insurance companies increasing prices as evidence of anything but their own greed. Since when are insurance companies the good guys?
Re:Or... (Score:5, Insightful)
They are not the good guys. But their primary goal is to generate consistent profits, and they excel at achieving it. When it comes to mitigating risks that could impact their financial performance, they typically outpace others, with the exception of the scientists who have been warning us for the past 70 years, but that's a separate matter.
As AXA publicly stated in 2015 [axa-contento-118412.eu], “a +4C world is not insurable: runaway climate change will create risks so large that conventional market mechanisms may no longer be suitable”.
The recent news that State Farm Halts halted new home insurance sales In California, because of high wildfire risks reminded me of that lately.
Watching what the military and the insurers are doing is usually a good indicator for what is to come.
Re:Or... (Score:4, Insightful)
State Farms quit home insurance not because it was unfeasible, but because the state of California was making ridiculous demands and not letting them adjust the rate to compensate for the wildfire. There's a BIG difference in such a subtle semantic.
The headlines should have read: State Farm exits California after legislature refuses to let them adjust insurance rates in wildfire prone areas.
Re: Or... (Score:2)
They want to charge rates people cannot afford and they are unwilling to charge lower rates for those people who have mitigated their risks, e.g. by clearing 100 feet or more and switching to non flammable roofing and cladding. There's no value in permitting them to do business under those terms.
Re: (Score:1)
Are you in California? Have you been anywhere near a California wildfire and sucked in the smoke for weeks while they burned?
100 feet of clearance and some non burning roof material is not going to stop a raging wildfire. Not even fucking close.
Re: Or... (Score:2)
Yes, troll, I lived in lake county during the massive fires, and a lot of what spread the fires was when propane tank explosions spread burning debris across literally miles. Small coals can carry for absurd distances and still set your roof on fire. You have not a single solitary idea what you are babbling about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
...Don't believe me? Look at the insurance companies. They have actuaries that can put a price on your grandmother. Their costs are going up and they point to climate change as the main reason.
I wouldn't use the insurance companies increasing prices as evidence of anything but their own greed. Since when are insurance companies the good guys?
Huh? I don't think insurance companies are necessarily "the good guys". They are, however, organizations that have direct financial consequences to extreme weather, and therefore can't ignore the problem if they want to continue to exist. They can't say "it's somebody else's problem": it's their problem.
Re: (Score:1)
They can say, "hey, here's a good excuse to raise rates a LOT more than necessary".
Where I live people won't even make a claim unless it's devastating to their finances because they don't want to be cutoff at renewal time and have no insurance so they are paying full coverage to only get catastrophic one time insurance.
Re:Or... (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't this where market competition is supposed to kick in though? If insurer A is raising rates for a "made up" reason insurers B and C should seize the opportunity by undercutting them.
If all 3 are raising rates for the same stated reasons then either the data they are considering is accurate or they are colluding and the market is broken and requires legislative and judicial intervention. (Imo this should happen anyway because people are required to have insurance so the market is distorted)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
You do know that the worst/strongest hurricanes in recorded history were during the 17/1800's, right?
Re: (Score:3)
One 'Great Hurricane' in 1780, and it's #3 on the list... OK. So what about the overall trend of increasing strength and frequency?
Re: (Score:2)
Pointing out freak disastrous confluences of events to create a few massive storms 200 to 300 years ago doesn't negate the absolute fact that current storms on average are more powerful and more damaging then they were 20 years ago. Literally every single one.
One point of data from well outside the trend line doesn't disqualify or negate the trend line. But thanks for playing.
Re: (Score:2)
Wasting money is the point (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And the Base Realignment and Closure initiative is met with congressional consternation and bitching for every single one of them. Funny how the bases in swing states almost never get closed, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
And well, the world is rapidly becoming a more dangerous place and we NEED our military spending.....China is in play and we're behind on ship building, need t
No we don't (Score:2)
The world is way, way more safe than ever. Russia's stupid nonsense in Ukraine is the last old school imperialist war. Everything after that is done with capitalism. China's "Belt & Road".
We need the military because we don't like socialism, and so we needed a form of socialism Americans would except. And
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
the US Military is how we here in America do socialism.
You're conflating socialism and fascism. The idea that the United States has either a free market or is even remotely socialistic is absolutely ridiculous. Wilson got the fascist ball rolling with the Federal Reserve System, and FDR kicked it into the net many times. Obama scored the game ending goal with ObamaCare.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, so we'll save money by building them in orbit? Or on the Moon?
Where on the planet do you expect they can build a military base that won't be effected by global climate change in some way?
Rising seas? (Score:2, Insightful)
A quick Google tells me that this place is 5.1 metres above sea level.
That will be current sea level but the sea does not need to rise 5.101m to flood the place. It just needs to continue eroding the sand/land around there as it is eroding the Florida panhandle nearby. They can enrich their politicians as much as they want but that place will be like Venice and will become buildings (roads and runways) with water in between.
This place could become unusable long before the sea floods it!
Re:Rising seas? (Score:4, Informative)
Venice has been sinking into the water forever. It is not being subsumed by rising water.
Wrong [bbc.com] as per usual. You should really just stop trying.
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong [bbc.com] as per usual. You should really just stop trying.
The problem is also the rate of change. Yes, Venice has been sinking into the water forever, but at a very very slow rate. Problem is that it is now an urgent issue because sea levels are rising and expected to rise faster than before.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that there are two problems. Venice could manage the sinking into the sea problem, just barely. Add to it the problem of sea levels rising and now it's unmanageable. The debate over what percentage of the problem is our fault is a classic misdirection, though. It doesn't ultimately matter, what matters is how we dead with the situation, and we are dealing with it very poorly.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Said the hypocritical self unaware moron posting trash as AC.
Go look up the definitions of irony and hypocrisy.
Dumbass.
Re:Rising seas? (Score:4, Informative)
You should read your own links. I do even if you don't.
"The worst ever flooding event, which happened in 1966, saw water levels rise to 194cm (6.4ft) above sea level, and is thought to have seriously damaged at least three quarters of the city's shops, businesses and studios."
Biggest flood EVER was 1966. If water has been rising since 1966 when they had the Biggest Flood EV-AR (in 1966, that's over to years ago, buddy), then there should have been other bigger floods since then.
You should stop entirely. You're not even trying.
Re: (Score:1)
Read your own links and what you're replying to here as well.
It doesn't take a genius to read. Please meet that very basic standard before shooting from the hip. As you usually do.
You got called out and busted. My work is done here.
Re: Rising seas? (Score:2)
I read it. You're focusing on some details added to flesh out an idea into an article. I'm focused on the thrust of the article, which you're missing while looking at trees.
Re: (Score:1)
I am focused on critical details while you skimmed it and thought it said something that backed your point.
But it didn't.
Give it up. You got fucking schooled with your own link. Read it next time.
Re: (Score:3)
They had higher water levels in 2022; mitigation kept it from being a bigger flood.
Scroll down to the chart:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Whichever is even true, its undeniable they have spent billions of $$$ to stay above water and that cost is only going to continue and likely increase. That's just one city. Imagine the cost for doing that for the state of FL?
And Venice doesn't have near the concern/risk about things like hurricanes as the eastern coast of the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on whether they are lipstick or lumberjack....and if we get to watch/film them.
Re: (Score:1)
Lol, of course there is. Congress can block them or they can be eminent domained.
Re: (Score:1)
Eminent domain has been used countless times all across this country (successfully) for far more squirrelly shit than kicking out the Chinese commies.
Why aren't we doing anything? Well, what are you worried about? The Chinese are setting up invasion bases? Listening posts? Learning our frequencies? What can they do on land next to a base they can't already do in other ways? Few people here hate the CCP more than I do but I'm not super concerned about this yet. If they get caught doing shit, which the
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because we all know that the US Air Force routinely just leaves secret shit out in the open that someone with a spotter scope they bought at Dick's Sporting Goods could see.
What do you possibly think they would learn from having a property close by the perimeter fence, that they don't already know from satellites with ridiculously sensitive signal gathering equipment on board passing overhead and apparently high altitude spy balloon flights that have been taking place for years under the former guy an
Florida... (Score:1)
What a waste.
Re: Florida... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it is so bad, then why are SO many people moving there lately, especially from the socialistic liberal standard bearer cities such as NYC and the like?
Re: (Score:1)
/shrug
Maybe they like nazi's? Or hate immigrants? Or sweltering heat? How about bugs? Gators? Snakes? Meth heads thicker than the thickest carpet pile?
Only good thing I can think of is Death Metal. They have some good shit there.
Their Costco card? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for pointing out this obvious, yet conveniently ignored fact!
If people are paying ANY attention whatsoever? The Pentagon and military industrial complex have been utterly failing at documenting what they're doing with all the money they've been spending. (This latest "UFO/UAP disclosure" spat is, ultimately, all about that too. In a way, it's irrelevant if it winds up true that our military has been hiding craft from outer space for decades in highly secured facilities. The bigger issue is that th
Let's Hope... (Score:2)
We can rebuild it (Score:2)
We have the technology...better than it was before.
Better
Stronger
Faster
(BOGO with the bionic arm story!)
Climate resilience? (Score:2)
So the AC can handle the outside temperate being two or three degrees about average?
Re: (Score:2)
*above
Inevitable (Score:1)
Watch this happen again, and again, and again (Score:2)
$5 billion to build out green energy - NIMBY and only if it will turn a profit! https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
a global scale tragedy of the commons, perhaps there should be a green energy tax on rebuilds like this.
Military the richest "adapters" of all (Score:3)
Well said that "When the speak of 'climate adaptation', they mean for the rich. The poor just 'adapt' by suffering and dying."
Well, of course, the military, to whom all cash flows, will be the richest adapters of all, with gold-plated adaptation.
Absolutely the only government function where they measure the budget by asking how much society can stand, given the size of the economy. Every other one measures the need, and spends only on well-proven needs.
USAF structures should be hardened. (Score:3)
Every hangar should have been a HAS since the 1950s. They're cooler, stormproof, last indefinitely and pleasant to work in.
Conventional construction is cheap trash to be scorned, not least because it's delicate, flammable and high-maintenance.
Conventional construction is silly now that modern systems are force loss multipliers. Protecting them with durable structures should have been done at scale but as with perimeter security at Khobar Towers leadership were complacent and girded in their armor of hubris.
15 foot stilts?!! (Score:2)
Follow the money (Score:2)
Who is the local congressman?
Who got the contract?
Clinate Resistant? Its 12 ft above sea level! (Score:3)
Well that's a relief, (Score:2)
it's comforting to know that the Industrial-Military Complex will not be hindered by the effects of global warming - which is good because I hear a quick little nuclear war can work miracles for climate cooling.
US Air Force... (Score:1)