The U.S. Air Force in March held two open houses in Tucson, with the goal of gathering public input for an environmental impact statement on a proposal to bring the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to the Tucson International Airport.
Five sites around the country are possible Air Force-training locations for six squadrons, or 144 planes, of the latest-generation military aircraft. These include Eglin Air Force Base in northwestern Florida, which is already slated to receive 59 of the planes.
Other bases under consideration are Holloman AFB in southern New Mexico; the Boise Air Terminal Air Guard Station in Idaho; and Luke AFB outside of Phoenix. In Tucson, the F-35’s potential home is 92 acres of land at TIA now used by the Air National Guard to train F-16 pilots.
About 170 people showed up at Sunnyside High School open house on March 1, with at least 200 attending the open house at Roskruge Bilingual Magnet Middle and Elementary School a few days later. Some 200 people left behind written comments at these gatherings—but many questions were left unanswered.
Most important to those who fear the F-35’s impact on Tucson’s quality of life was the lack of definitive answers concerning the jet’s noise and possible methods to mitigate it.
David Densmore, president of the Elvira Neighborhood Association, which covers an area just west of TIA, was frustrated.
“I hear the sound will increase greatly,” Densmore says about the new plane, “(but) the pilots (at Sunnyside High School) hadn’t heard the F-35, and couldn’t describe its sound.”
However, some of Densmore’s neighbors support bringing the new plane to Tucson. “They are strongly for it, saying it’s better to see an F-35 in the sky than a (Russian) MiG,” he says.
But Densmore adds: “I don’t see any benefit for our neighborhood if the planes come here. I’m apprehensive.”
THE NOISE?
The amount of sound produced by the F-35 is a major point of disagreement.
Ward 5 City Councilmember Richard Fimbres represents many of the people who will be impacted by the F-35 decision. He promoted attendance at the open houses and has been trying to get the community involved.
Fimbres says he has been told the noise can be mitigated. “I was talking to an Air National Guardsman who assured me that they won’t be revving up the F-35 when they take off or fly into TIA,” Fimbres says, “and this will really decrease the noise impact.”
But Fimbres admits he’s “getting (conflicting input) from both sides” and believes the community needs more information to make the best decision.
In an e-mail, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords’ communication director, C.J. Karamargin, downplays F-35 noise concerns.
“Test results released by the Joint Program Office indicate that the F-35 is as loud as the F-16s operating at Tucson International Airport in most conditions, slightly less loud than a number of aircraft that fly at Operation Snowbird (at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base), and not as loud as F-16s when operating under what the Air Force considers to be the ‘worse case’ at the maximum performance settings,” Karamargin writes.
Yet in 2008, when the Air Force released an environmental impact statement (EIS) to possibly base F-35s at Eglin Air Force Base, officials included a chart comparing on-the-ground noise levels of various aircraft as they flew over. (See the accompanying chart.) Because an increase of 10 decibels basically equates to a doubling of sound, this comparison shows the F-35 being at least three times as loud as the F-16.
In addition, the noise-contour maps contained in the EIS predict that the F-35 will tremendously expand the area around Eglin that will be included within a 65-decibel noise level.
That level of sound is critical, since according to a Department of Defense instruction, “above 65-decibel DNL (day/night average noise level) is the exterior noise level generally not recommended for residential use.”
When the mayor and other elected officials in the small town of Valparaiso, Fla., realized that F-35 flights out of nearby Eglin AFB would put 70 percent of their community above the 65-decibel level, they filed a lawsuit over the EIS. Earlier in March, an out-of-court settlement was reached, with the Air Force agreeing to establish a committee to address the noise issue.
However, Giffords has already endorsed the F-35 coming to Tucson. Last November, she wrote a letter to the secretary of the Air Force and his chief of staff, saying: “(A)long with the vast majority of Tucson area residents, (I) fully support a robust basing presence of Joint Strike Fighter aircraft at both Tucson Airport and Davis-Monthan Air Force Base.”
Giffords characterized those in the Tucson area who oppose this sentiment as “a small but vocal minority of residents.”
In February, after hearing from a number of knowledgeable constituents who were concerned about the noise issue, Giffords requested information from the Air Force that could help clarify the situation. She asked that data from noise-output tests done for the F-35 be released before the recent open houses. That request was never granted.
In that same February letter, Giffords asked the Air Force to take eight noise-related steps before the EIS process is concluded in 2011, including “real-time fly-over measurements (of the F-35) in Tucson.”
The Air Force has yet to indicate whether it will comply with that request; however, such measurements aren’t needed to prepare the EIS, since a computer model generates the noise-contour maps for that document.
While the F-35 is unquestionably a loud aircraft, several mitigating measures could be taken at TIA to possibly reduce its noise impact.
In the Eglin case, the Air Force proposed “temporary operational limitations” to lessen the noise from the F-35, for a limited amount of time. Ideas that didn’t require “substantive time and resources” range from flight-pattern changes to increased simulator use to the potential of having the trainer pilot fly an airplane other than the F-35.
That final option baffles Chris Reynolds, a former air-traffic controller at both TIA and Davis-Monthan, and an opponent of the F-35 being based in Tucson.
“The idea of flying a quieter plane beside the F-35 sounds strange,” he says. “According to acoustic experts, one F-35 is very close in sound to four F-35s flying at the same time. That’s the way these sound waves operate.”
The F-16s that fly out of TIA now are already under flight restrictions that might be continued if the F-35 comes to town. These include limiting the total annual number of military flights, restricting the use of afterburners to no more than 10 percent of annual takeoffs, and eliminating flight training between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.
In addition, TIA has had a program in place for many years that is directed at retrofitting structures with noise attenuation. Jordan Feld, the director of TIA planning, says that “special programs such as sound-insulation improvements for homes and noise-sensitive land uses” will continue. He adds, however, that these programs are contingent on federal subsidies.
|
Representative Maximum Sound Level in Decibels (dB) |
||||||
|
Altitude in Feet Above Ground Level
|
||||||
| Aircraft Type | Airspeed |
500
|
1,000
|
2,000
|
5,000
|
10,000
|
| F-35 | 500 |
131dB
|
124dB
|
116dB
|
103dB
|
90dB
|
| F-16C | 450 |
104dB
|
96dB
|
89dB
|
77dB
|
66dB
|
THE ECONOMIC IMPACT?
The open houses provided no definitive answers about the potential impacts of the F-35 on Tucson’s economy.
One of the glossy handouts distributed did explain that the 162nd Fighter Wing has been training pilots at TIA since 1956 and “is the largest Air National Guard fighter wing in the country.” For 25 years, it has flown training missions for the F-16 Fighting Falcon.
Information later provided by the wing’s spokesman declares that almost 1,000 civilians, 275 active-duty military personnel and hundreds of reservists make up the 162nd. About 800 of these employees are in airplane maintenance; 400 support the training mission; and 60 provide medical aid. On the 162nd’s operations side, there are 145 people, including about 80 instructor pilots.
According to a 2008 report commissioned by then-Gov. Janet Napolitano, the total yearly payroll for the 162nd Wing was $95 million. The study also indicates that the average annual civilian and active-duty member’s pay is quite high by Tucson standards, approaching $70,000.
Repeated calls seeking further clarification from the consultants who prepared the study were not returned.
Beyond payroll, the wing had almost $32 million in direct annual spending—mostly for aviation fuel—along with an estimated $11 million in indirect taxes.
Currently, the 162nd Wing has 66 F-16s in three squadrons. Most of the pilots who are trained at TIA hail from foreign countries—Norway, Poland, Singapore, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates, among others—that continue to buy F-16s for their fleets.
Lt. Col. Allen Kinnison, an instructor pilot with the 162nd, thinks three squadrons of planes is all that TIA can handle, whether they’re F-16s or F-35s.
Based on that assumption, even if the F-35 comes to TIA, Kinnison doesn’t believe there will be much of a change in the number of people employed by the 162nd. “The Air National Guard does things with less people than the Air Force,” he explains.
However, what will happen to the 162nd Wing if Tucson misses out on the new F-35 mission? Calls seeking comment on this possibility to Air National Guard public-information offices outside of Washington, D.C., and in Phoenix did not lead to answers.
But at the Roskruge open house, Lt. Col. Mike Farrell from Eglin AFB stated, “There will be F-16s in the world for another 40 years, and in the U.S. for probably another 15.”
Col. Randy Straka, of the 162nd Wing, added: “We don’t have a date for when we’ll stop flying the F-16. Not anytime soon.”
Marshall Vest, a UA expert on the local economy, downplays the economic impact of the possible loss of the existing training mission.
“We have somewhere in the neighborhood of 300,000 jobs in Pima County,” Vest says, “so the loss of 1,000 jobs (if the F-16 mission is not replaced by the F-35) is a small portion of the overall picture.”
However, Tim Amalong, president of the Minuteman Committee, a 162nd Fighter Wing support group, takes a much different perspective.
“The way our economy is,” Amalong asks, “what will it be like in 10 years when the Air Force phases out the F-16, and then in 2025, the A-10s (from Davis-Monthan)?”
Amalong thinks community members need to give the EIS process a chance before making up their minds.
Donald Pitt, president of the Campus Research Corporation, which operates the UA Science and Technology Park and the new UA Bioscience Park, is concerned that increased jet noise and safety issues could have a devastating effect on Tucson.
“The business community must have a long-range concern as to the benefits and detriments of the F-35,” Pitt says. “That only makes good business sense.”
Pitt offers an example. “If you’re trying to support a revitalized downtown, it’s critical to understand this program. Right now, we don’t know the flight pattern or how the noise will spread. We don’t know how much D-M will be involved. … I don’t see how, without better information, anyone could be absolutely in favor or opposed to the F-35 coming to Tucson.”
WHAT DO WE KNOW?
As the Air Force prepares to begin work on the draft environmental impact statement for the possible F-35 mission at TIA, the biggest questions—about the potential loss of jobs, and about the almost-assured increase in noise—remain unanswered.
So … after months of buildup and two open houses, what does the community know about the F-35?
We know the F-35 will have three different models, built in cooperation with eight international partner countries, with an estimated cost of $112 million per plane. The F-35 is a single-seat fighter that is 51 feet long with a 35-foot wingspan, and is powered by a jet engine that produces 35,000 pounds of thrust. The initial flight of the new plane took place in late 2006.
It’s also known that the F-35, which the Air Force says is meant to “replace and supplement the F-16 and A-10 aircraft fleets” as a “premier strike aircraft through 2040,” is currently mired in huge cost overruns and production delays. Those delays mean that few F-35s will be flying before late 2015, as opposed to a previous estimate of 2013.
Despite that change in dates, and the possibility that technological advances could be made in the interim, the Air Force is moving ahead with the EIS process for the five facilities it is considering as F-35 training sites.
“Our position,” says David Martin, who is overseeing the EIS process, “is to continue forward with it until somebody, such as the secretary of the Air Force or above, tells us to put it on hold.”
Tucsonans also know Southern Arizona and its weakened economy would feel the loss of 1,000-plus jobs.
It’s also known that based on the current F-16 flight patterns into and out of TIA, if the F-35 comes to Tucson, they will fly over parts of the city.
“Forty percent of the 162nd Wing flights go up to the reserves northeast of Tucson,” according to Lt. Col. Kinnison. “Some of these flights are obviously over the city. Of the remainder, 25 percent fly to the (Barry M.) Goldwater (Air Force) Range, and the rest to the reserves along the border.”
The community knows that whenever F-16 jets are carrying live ammunition, they’re not allowed to take off from TIA. Instead, they must fly southeast out of Davis-Monthan.
The Air Force acknowledges that “a small portion of F-35A training may require limited use of the flightline and other facilities on Davis-Monthan AFB.” As a result, these F-35s could raise noise levels on an occasional basis across both the central city and Tucson’s southeastern corner.
Residents of Southern Arizona certainly know what an ideal climate we have for military flight training. In an overview prepared by members of the 162nd, Col. Straka notes, “Less than 3 percent of scheduled sorties here are cancelled due to weather. … That’s practically unheard of in other parts of the world.”
On top of that, it’s known that the military infrastructure at TIA is established. Lt. Col. Kinnison recalls that in January, Air Force officials toured TIA to assess its readiness to host the F-35 training mission.
“They were fairly impressed with the facilities available here,” Kinnison says, “but fuel storage isn’t sufficient.”
It’s also known that by the end of the year, the Air Force intends to issue a draft EIS for the five sites under consideration for F-35 training.
Finally, Tucson knows that officials with Tucson International Airport currently produce a noise-contour map for the facility that includes the noise generated by both commercial and military aircraft. This map shows loud noise primarily occurs to the mostly vacant southeast, over which a vast majority of planes take off.
That means planes descending to land usually approach the airport from the northwest, crossing above the Tucson Mountains and then a portion of the metropolitan area.
Off the end of the runway in this direction, the present 65-decibel noise line penetrates almost 3,000 feet into the Sunnyside Neighborhood, located off the northwest corner of Valencia Road and Nogales Highway.
For this reason, Rebecca Quintero, president of the Sunnyside Neighborhood Association, is concerned about the F-35 coming to Tucson.
“Lots of people went to the Sunnyside High School open house,” she remarks, “and those who did were adamantly against (the F-35).”
Last week, the association voted not to support basing the F-35 at TIA. “It’s a quality-of-life issue,” Quintero says.
Despite that, she isn’t optimistic about the EIS process for TIA. “I think it’s going to come in, no matter what we say,” Quintero concludes.
More Information
• The public-comment portion of the Tucson environmental impact statement ends April 5. Those wishing to comment should write:
Mr. David Martin
HQ AETC/A7C
266 F Street West, Bldg. 901
Randolph AFB, TX 78150-4319
• Project Vote Smart is co-sponsoring a debate about the possibility of the F-35 coming to Tucson, on Wednesday, April 14, at the Arizona Inn, 2200 E. Elm St. Following a 7 a.m. breakfast, the debate will be from 7:30 to 8:30 a.m. The cost is $35; call 626-8752 for reservations and more information.
This article appears in Mar 25-31, 2010.
How can I vote “smart” without actually hearing an F-35? Lets invite the Air Force to fly maneuvers over Tucson for a couple weeks. That way we will have real answers.
The noise from D-M this year has been increasingly disruptive and stressful. Add the F-35 and the southside and midtown will be under siege by noise daily. It’s not conducive to our city. There are more workers, more residents and more money affected by this kind of negative proposal for Tucson than will be supported by the F-35.
As to the suggestion that it’s better to have an F-35 flying over than a Russion Mig, silliness in the extreme and illogical too.
The noise will impact health and stress levels as well as quality of life. It’s time to establish quieter revenue bases. Changing the the Guard’s and base’s missions to quieter ones would be a first step.
Well written article. The chart showing the noise level comparison was an eye opener. It flushed out the fairy tale about the F-35 not being much louder than the F-16. You are talking 2-3 times as loud.
Air Force, Air National Guard, politicians (McCain, Walkup, etc.) , stop lying about it.
This plane is a flying economic disaster for Tucson! How can condemning thousands of homes in historic Sam Hughes and Colonia Solana neighborhoods be good for our economy?
Sure, the government uses words like “Incompatible With Residential Use” but that’s just a fancy way of saying we’ve condemned your house for use as–a house.
As a pilot and someone who’s been to both meetings and spoken with Air Force pilots at them–I can tell you, there is NO WAY to reduce the noise to an acceptable level. NONE. Anybody who tells you otherwise is just making stuff up. Ask the actual pilots. They were remarkably frank at the meetings.
The F-35 is untested, dangerous, deafeningly loud and it’s incomprehensible that any sane person would want it flown by foreign pilots over our city.
Go to TucsonForward.com for information on how you can stop this devastation happening to our city.
Thank you, Tucson Patriot, for telling the truth about the jets and noise over Tucson. The base is becoming a bit of a rude neighbor and the Guard doesn’t realize that it’s heading down that path too.
Tucson doesn’t want this kind of revenue. We want jobs that don’t increase noise, pollution or destroy the quality of life for all our citizens.
Gee, did they just build these Air Force Bases in the last few months? I don’t think so. If you wanted quiet and you moved here in the last 30 years then you obviously bought a life time supply of ear plugs or you are tolerant of a little noise. If you can’t handle a little noise then Ajo is in your future!
The airspeed, altitude, and sound level chart in this article is very mis-leading. Tactical fighter aircraft are not allowed to fly at speeds greater than 350 knots when departing TIA or 300 knots when arriving. Those airspeeds must be adhered to within a 30 nautical mile radius of Tucson.
I agree with Mr. Donald Pitt, president of the Campus Research Corporation, who stated:
“The business community must have a long-range concern as to the benefits and detriments of the F-35,” Pitt says. “That only makes good business sense.”… I don’t see how, without better information, anyone could be absolutely in favor or opposed to the F-35 coming to Tucson.”
I guess people do not remember that DMAFB used to be OUTSIDE of Tucson. It was surrounded by dirt roads. The Airport was on the outskirts of town. So everyone that lives in the flight path of both these installations were here AFTER the base was here, including myself. I live under DM’s flight path, I never complain about the noise.
All these subdivisions were built with the full knowledge they were under the flight paths. If a person does not like the sound..move. They were here first.
Has anyone seen a decibel chart for the old F-4 Phantoms that used to fly here? I can’t imagine that the F-35 is any louder than that plane. With the Air Force upgrading planes it might just be a matter of time until they say good-bye to the F-16 or A-10 programs, so if Tucson has a chance to get the latest planes then I say we should take it. After all, if the base becomes obsolete then perhaps businesses that have close ties with the base will move alone as well, such a Raytheon or Honeywell. Best not put ourselves in a position to lose jobs in this economy.
Mr Devine and Ms McKasson seriously understate the sound pressure levels of the F-35 vs F-16c. The correct DBA scale numerical increase denoting a doubling of sound pressure is 3, not 10. i/e. DBA 3 is twice the sound pressure of DBA 1, DBA 6 is twice the sound pressure of DBA3, DBA 9 is twice the sound pressure of DBA 6, and so forth and so on and on and on and on. See http://www.talentfactory.dk/en/tour/env/db… for a not-so-succinct summary of audio measurement.
Therefore their statement “Because an increase of 10 decibels basically equates to a doubling of sound, this comparison shows the F-35 being at least three times as loud as the F-16.” is wildly incorrect and should read “Because an increase of 3 decibels basically equates to a doubling of sound, this comparison shows the F-35 being at least NINE times as loud as the F-16c” given identical airspeed and altitude.
Thank you for reading my correction, but surely the grandeur that is Tucson Weekly World Headquarters includes what are known in the better-heeled media calls”fact checkers.”
Mike N. the 3rd
The jet noise has been getting increasingly worse over the last 15 years. The neighborhoods being affected were built in the 1930s and onward.
First, think about the number of missions flown in the 1940s when the base really got going. Then, consider the kind of noise and the flight patterns. Today, snowbird F-16s and A-10s are flying low over all of Tucson and disrupting, perhaps endangering, most of the city, not just the newer neighborhoods surrounding the base.
Second, a retired base commander (statement can be accessed at TucsonForward.com) stated that the base should be used for quieter missions and that Tucson is not a good fit for the F-35. Quieter missions would still support the Guard and the base.
I’ve lived in this town for more than 30 years and my home was built in midtown in 1938. I’d be willing to have the kind of noise a plane made in the ’30s, no problem, but the base is not following their own traffic pattern guidelines or altitude. They promised not to fly low north of 22nd and Alvernon and to refrain from flying low directly over the zoo.
I see these pilots do this daily. I can even see the pilots’ silhouettes in the cockpits.
We are not a military town anymore. We have more revenue from other businesses, such as the arts and tourism and sports, than would be brought in by the F-16.
Come on, Tucson, we don’t need this noise.
Perhaps my previous comment was too analytical for general consumption, so let me simplify: each F35 will sound to listeners on the ground like a formation of NINE F-16C fighters flying overhead.
Mike N the 3rd
Thank you Molly and Dave for publishing this excellent and informative article. Tucson would be devestated economically, culturally and environmentally if the F35 comes here in any fashion.
please visit http://www.tucsonforward.com for more information about how you can help your objection to this crazy idea be heard.
Tucson does want these jobs–needs them, in fact. Millions of dollars of revenue are at stake, and the loss of jobs would be disasterous for home values.
As far as the base being a rude neighbor, it’s been here since 1925. Almost everyone in town got here after the base, so there shouldn’t be any surprise that airplanes fly overhead and make some noise. Folks knew what they were getting when they moved here. Seems the rude neighbors are all the folks complaing about the base that was here first.
One other note, Mike N is dead wrong when he states “each F35 will sound to listeners on the ground like a formation of NINE F-16C fighters flying overhead.” He could use the same fact-checkers as he stated Tucson Weekly neeeds. As he noted himself, doubling the sound pressure adds 3 dB. So two F-16’s would only raise the noise level by 3 dB; three would be 6dB, and 4 would be 9dB. Also, the amount of pressure decreases with distance, and the jets aren’t going to be buzzing low over houses across Tucson. And while this seems to be significant, it really isn’t. Most people can’t tell the difference between one F-16 and six F-16’s flying over based upon the difference in noise alone; in fact, most people would have trouble telling the difference between the different military jets and commercial jets. Don’t take my word on it–use your own experiences and use your own judgement.
The numbers also look pretty scary, but consider this: The average office or noisy home is about 60dB; a noisy office, vacuum cleaner, or toilet flushing is about 70dB; lawn mower, heavy traffic, or inside an airplane cabin is about 90dB. And unlike those examples, the plane will only be heard for brief moments, not hours. It’s a very small price to pay when compared to the benefits to our economy, the value of our homes, or for living with peace within our borders.
Oh, and I forgot: A symphonic orchestra–120 dB. So, if noise really is that bad for Tucson, should we lose our wonderful Symphony? I don’t think so….
One more point on the Misleading Table in the article. The comparison of the F-35 to the F-16C does not pass the test of common sense/reasonable intelligence for 3 reasons:
-First, as already pointed out in comments above. The table does not specify if the airspeed is knots or not. No reference to what the 500 or 450 refers to is actually on the table. Assuming it is knots which is a normal unit for measuring airspeed No one flys 500kts over Tucson so the decibel noise rates at that speed are irrelevant. The average speeds over Tuson are less than 300 kts and usually closer to 200 and below near the airport
-Second, The misinformed individual who thinks that increases in Dba/pressure and perceived noise double at those small intervals especially at those distances is just not understanding the transmission of sound. They are satisfying themselves with specatcular but irrelevant numbers that do not translate to real experience. Bottom Line; the actual perceived noise DOES NOT double when increased 3decibels heard from 500-1000 feet away from any source.
-Third, A quick look at the table will show how deceptive the author of the table is being. The F-16 data is listed at airspeed 450 for noise levels while the F-35 is at airspeed 500. (Units? kts?mph?) No rocket science degree is required to see that this data is misleading why dont they compare the noise level at the same aircraft speeds. Somehow I think the difference was not dramatic enough to make their point. Comparing one aircraft at a slower speed therfore less engine RPM to a newer aircraft at Higher speed, (read greater RPM) does not make any sense. Making a point with scientific sounding but irrelevant data looks impressive until it is recognized as such.
Folks: This the table being touted as misleading comes directly from the military: Table E-1, page E-5, Appendix E, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Implementation of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005, Decisions and Related Actions at Elgin AFB, Florida, published October 2008.