President Trump has recently flip-flopped on funding levels for the armed forces. Sure enough, with increasing threats from China and Russia, national security must be a priority. Bolstering security, however, is not just about spending money, but doing so responsibly — and putting F-35s at a vulnerable base is not a good use of defense dollars.
Yet the Air Force is asking Congress to do exactly that.
Hurricane Michael tore through Florida’s panhandle region in October, devastating Tyndall Air Force Base and leaving about 95 percent of the facility in shambles. Tyndall was evacuated and although many F-22 fighter jets were flown out of harm’s way, many could not be moved due to ongoing repairs or other maintenance issues.
Of the 55 F-22s at the base, 17 — worth more than $300 million a piece — were left behind. The Category 4 storm significantly damaged the jets and the final cost of repairing them could be as high as $2 billion, not to mention to cost of rebuilding the base.
Nevertheless, the Air Force is instead asking Congress to fund rebuilding the base as a home for three squadrons of F-35s, a total of 72 planes. Keep in mind that recent data indicates that powerful storms are more likely than ever to again pummel Florida’s coast.
The Department of Defense’s own documents reveal just how ill-advised of a plan this is. Indeed, a 2018 DOD report on identified climate-related risks notes, “If extreme weather makes our critical facilities unusable or necessitate costly or manpower-intensive work-arounds, that is an unacceptable impact.” Although that report does not look at damage from Hurricane Michael (it was published before the storm hit) it does identify flooding, storm surges, and wind from hurricanes as vulnerabilities to installations and military assets requiring government action and planning.
But explaining those vulnerabilities and the cost associated with keeping the jets on Florida’s coast is a hard political sell to both Trump, who has taken an aggressive stance against addressing climate change, and state politicians who are eager to keep the base not for national defense priorities but for the federal dollars its brings.
Military bases, however, are not economic investment programs nor toy soldiers that can be pushed around at Washington’s whim. Bases take time and money to build or rebuild and those decisions must be made with an eye to the future.
Failing to the take in meaningful assessments of the risk of their positions, especially when considering rebuilding an already destroyed base, is negligent of U.S. security interests. The Air Force should be questioning the value of rebuilding Tyndall at all, not vying to put even more expensive fighter jets there.
