Military 'may have to abandon flood-prone bases'
 

Good job they didn't put all the AT eggs in one basket...



Can't cut'n paste the text as I'm a cheapskate who's reached their limit on this months free articles.

I can't see anything detrimental about a Navy base going under water! That can then be classed as "on-the-job" training!! :)
And the RAF base can simply be converted into a Navy base, too! Where's the "outside-the-square" thinking, of your national defence leaders?? :rolleyes:

Typical Navy - fancy having coastal bases that are too near the sea! What were they thinking of? :uhoh:

Bring back the Saunders-Roe jet float plane fighter.

The Western Jetties at Portsmouth, built for the QEC class carriers, were designed with sea-level rise in mind, so in reality that won't be a problem. However, the design life is. They were designed with a 60 year life, based on metal loss of the piles through corrosion (no corrosion protection) and will have been in place for over 20 years by the time the carriers enter service. Now the Nelsonian jetties and docks are a mere 230 years old and still in use. short sighted?

Which reminds me of Leuchars in the F4 days. There were spare war time underwing fuel tanks in wooden crates scattered around the peri-track, slowly rotting away. Visitors would sometimes ask what they were.

Floats, I would explain solemnly. In case of the runway being severely careered and unusable, the F4s could be winched up and a float placed under each wheel. The airfield would then be flooded from the estuary allowing the F4s to be flown off, the floats being dropped out to sea before the undercarriage was retracted......

RAF Sealand went up and down with the tide!! :ooh:

One would say bulldoze Carterton and build a flood bank, but no point really if your pax can't get there.

A trifle scare-mongering this report, 'leaked' from FoI requests by a climate campaigner for Friends of the Earth & based on the 2007 floods when the Brize Norton runway was indeed flooded (coincident with the then CAS addressing a meeting of former CASs & in reply to a question 'what happens if the runway is closed?' stated 'that categorically could not happen'!) This year it's not happened despite heavier rainfall & much of the farmland a little way to the south having been underwater since Christmas.

As to Portsmouth & Plymouth bases being at risk from flooding? I guess proximity to the sea is in some way important to the Navy........

The surprise entry for me though was Akrotiri. The elevation of the threshold at Rwy 10 is around 56ft & similar but slightly higher at the other end, so hardly likely to disappear under rising sea levels for a few years unless there's a 50ft dip in the middle that I don't remember.

Ballykelly managed and with read rail access too :) Chemical toilets got around the sceptic tank issue.

This article is complete junk and I thought better of the Torygraph...

Military 'may have to abandon flood-prone bases' - Telegraph

Who gives a rat's arse about Canada Geese hitting buildings? What makes Abbeywood's buildings more likely to be hit than any other 3 storey buildings in and around Bristol (or the rest of the country). Canada Geese aren't flying into buildings on a regular basis at other locations where they already flock - unless of course all the ones at Abbeywood are blind! :ugh:

LJ

Typical envirofundamentalist clap trap peddled by the woolly-hatted warmist sandalistas.....

Weren't we supposed to be having 'the coldest winter for years' in 2014?

I can assure you we only export the finest quality, building-aware Canada Geese. We do have buildings here too; it's not all igloos ;)

What! And do 500 quids worth of damage!

"Typical envirofundamentalist clap trap peddled by the woolly-hatted warmist sandalistas....."

+ 1


In many years of catching hundreds of thousands of Canada geese in the UK, I have yet to hear of one colliding with a building !!!

The mind boggles where they come up with some of this crap.

Potentially Flooded Airfields
 

Surely now is the time to get ahead of the game! If we reopen Binbrook, concentrate all AT (and every other aircraft that the RAF will have by 2020) into Waddington, then airfield operating costs will be minimalized and Binbrook can be the diversion - albeit with a substantial runway extension and more parking. Problem solved - no danger of flooding - immense cost savings - RAF confined to Lincolnshire.
Must go now - sandals getting wet and more trees to hug.

BINBROOK!!! The rain passes over Binbrook horizontal on route to Brize.

Suggest someone tell the Caterers that Turkey is off menu next Christmas and its Canadian Goose..............

If only the navy had some floating airfields then everything would be ok:rolleyes:

They could call them Carrier of Aircraft or something like that.:cool:

BEagle

A couple of months ago the Met Office told councils to expect a 'drier than normal' Winter -
here: Met Office told councils to expect a 'drier than normal' Winter - Telegraph

I reckon the met office's seaweed forecaster got it wrong - better next time - perhaps!

Or they could sail them down and scuttle one in Portsmouth harbour, thus giving them a raised runway that wouldn't flood, they could also be used as office space, one bridge no longer being required. The other one could be scuttled in the lower Thames, thus satisfying the requirement for the London Runway in the marshes. :O

(off topic) Willard - I find if I clear the cookies I get another 10 :ok:

Met Office told councils to expect a 'drier than normal' Winter - Telegraph


Someone in Government has missed a trick - have not heard them blame the Met Office yet for not warning them

QUOTE: BINBROOK!!! The rain passes over Binbrook horizontal on route to Brize.

a geography and/ or meteorology refresher is recommended.

or Binbrook isn't where I left it, or Brize come to that!

As an ex-Metman of great wisdom and experience, I can divulge that long-range forecasts are useless, always have been, and always will be. The Office has been struggling, totally unsuccessfully, to produce them ever since I courted Mrs LB 55 years ago: she was in the "laboratory" [Met O 12] that was tasked solely with providing just such forecasts. Meanwhile I was next door in Met O 11 running the Ferranti Mercury Mainframe engaged in producing useful short-range stuff that was and still is the world leader.

I shudder to think how much time, energy and money has been spent on the chimera of long range forecasts.

They cannot really stop my pension, can they?

Are geese really stupid enough to hit buildings now? If not, then a modest change in temperature won't make any difference. Then again, given some of the procurement going on, I would think a few solid geese slaps to the head are long overdue at the MoD anyway.

The Navy's docks will need to stay ocean-proximate. If the ocean goes up a bit, then that's just life…

Base hangar with its underfloor heating will make a damn good sauna :)

I can't see anything detrimental about a Navy base going under water!

Especially Devonport, which is after all a submarine base ....:D

Jack

Be nice to see the Victory floating again.

Good job we got rid of Lyneham :rolleyes:

Trouble with high airfields is they are in cloud all day!

So does Bae Warton. The ground moves by one or two millimetres.

Where Warton bolts together sections of Typhoon, they have such a close tolerance that the shop floor moves on computer automated jacks and fricken laser beams compensate for the daily up and down motion.

http://www.baesystems.com/article/BA...3D100ivb3byl_4

Well Kinloss used to have a small geese problem; don't ever remember any of them flying into any buildings though!!

What would be required to turn it into a Jacuzzi ?

Probably weld up the doors, then run a Voyager's bleed air off through some hoses, must be tons lying about as they're not doing a lot these days

Sheer PR brilliance. "Our factory's falling to bits" is mysteriously translated to "blah, laser beams on sharks, blah, blah, high tech blah…."

It matters not what is the absolute position of the two bits to be stuck together, but their relative position. The claimed "matchstick distance off correct" is still quite a lot for a Typhoon, and way more than 2mm in the radius of the Earth.

Awblain... Still, the tolerance of the Typhoon is much better than Hawker Siddeley ever managed with all the different shapes and sizes of Nimrod.

Anything under an inch would be better then.

Anyone remember Ploce?

The Telegraph is an utterly bollocks paper.
 

True. I read it this morning, thankful that I never actually bought the thing. Very little worth reading in it except Clive James and I am increasingly confused as to its target audience. Ex-Public schoolboys and girls, mostly I guess.*






* not a pop at this particular tribe, just seems to be all about them, all the time.

(Ref: #10) Quote:

"Who gives a rat's arse about Canada Geese hitting buildings? What makes Abbeywood's buildings more likely to be hit than any other 3 storey buildings in and around Bristol (or the rest of the country). Canada Geese aren't flying into buildings on a regular basis at other locations where they already flock - unless of course all the ones at Abbeywood are blind!"

Or under Air Traffic Control ? :8

(Couldn't resist - sorry !)

Roland- if Kinloss had a 'small' goose problem, perhaps they were Lesser Canada Geese, possibly a more situationally-aware variety. :D:D

Well, I did a quick Google and can find one reference to Canada Geese flying into a building and that is the Sands Apartment building in Scarborough, Yorkshire.

And not the whole building, just one end that was painted a very light grey
and blended perfectly with the skyline as the geese flew out to sea.