A neighbor weighs in: F-35s will create noise levels that are unacceptable to residents in Chittenden County

From Joe Randazzo, USN veteran and retired Homeland Security Case Resolutions Specialist (ICE) of 8 Woodside Drive South Burlington:

Regarding the possibility of F-35 jets being stationed at the Burlington International Airport , I most vehemently object.  There is a hearing scheduled for April 19th at 7p.m. at a location to be determined.  Please attend this meeting to voice your concerns.

It is unrealistic to ask the Air Force to police itself .  There should be an independent review commission to decide whether or not the F-35 shall be based in South Burlington .  My own recent experience with the Air Force was highly negative.  I’m a U.S. Navy vet who was stationed on the aircraft carrier USS Essex.  I know when a plane is doing touch and go.  I noticed a huge tanker aircraft practicing at the airport.  When I called the Air National Guard, the spokesperson denied that the plane was practicing and said it was taking off for Florida . Three times?  This was an obvious falsehood.  The highest population density in the state of Vermont is within a 5-mile radius of the Burlington International Airport .  This tanker was flying over civilian neighborhoods.  It passed directly over schools.  If it had crashed, it would have destroyed an entire city block with tremendous loss of life.  Should I expect the Air Force to be truthful about the  F-35 and its impact?


I see that the Vermont Air National Guard Fighter Wing is leaving for the summer for New Hampshire while their main runway is “resurfaced.”  I know that the F-35 requires a longer runway than the F-16  (the F-16, fully armed, requires 4000 to 5000 feet; the F-35 requires over 8000 feet).  The “official” report states that the airport will “reconstruct each end.”  I intend to research whether this runway will be extended to meet the demands of the F-35.  If so, this is in blatant disregard of the information-gathering process supposedly underway.  Is the Air Force going ahead in spite of objections, and has it already made up its mind, and is it misleading the public?  If so, asking for community input is an obvious sham.

The hard facts are that the projected replacement of the Vermont National Guard F-16s with F-35s will create noise levels that are simply unacceptable to residents in Chittenden County .  The F-16s now in use are loud, but the F-35s will double the DB output.  The noise from the F-35 is four times that of the F-16 at landing.  IT IS TOTALLY IMMATERIAL IF THE MANEUVERS ARE AT ALTITUDES GREATER THAN 10,000 FEET.  THE F-35 STILL HAS GOT TO TAKE OFF AND LAND. The F-35 generates 135 DB at takeoff and is louder at 2,000 feet than the F-16 is at 300 feet.  An F-35 jet fighter screaming down an 8000 foot long runway will produce unbearable noise that will disrupt life for a radius of many miles.   

The argument that loss of these aircraft will cost jobs is unacceptable.  If a company was pouring toxic waste into Lake Champlain , and polluting the air with thick black smoke, the EPA would make them stop the environmental damage regardless of how many people worked there.  Severe noise pollution is no different.  The Guard would need another mission if the F-16s are taken out of service.  The welfare of all the people comes first, not the jobs of a few.

In his letter published in The Other Paper, Mark Dickinson writes that the communities of Valparaiso, Florida and El Mirage, Arizona are suing the Air Force due to unbearable F-35 noise levels.  He also writes that Norway, the Netherlands , and Australia are reconsidering their purchase of this fighter due to the noise levels.

The Burlington International Airport is a civilian airport.  Dual use for military aircraft is a bad mix for several reasons, such as the touch and go activity of tanker and transport aircraft over city neighborhoods.  This activity, and the deployment of F-35s, should be confined to military bases that are isolated.  In October 2009, an F-16 jettisoned two fuel tanks into Lake Champlain due to electro-mechanical warnings.  In Utah , also in October 2009, a similar drop landed in civilian areas and nearly caused loss of life.

As a South Burlington homeowner, I strongly object to the deployment of F-35s, and the practice flyovers of tanker and huge transport aircraft at the Burlington International Airport .  It’s just a matter of time before one of these aircraft comes down in a neighborhood.

There is also an obscene price tag for the F-35.  The cost of each plane has risen to 110 million dollars, and could reach 140 million dollars.  If, as anticipated, 26 aircraft are placed in Vermont , that’s a total of 3,600,000,000 dollars.  If Vermont had three and a half billion dollars, we could end hunger, provide heat for every resident, and everyone would have health insurance.

I am not anti-military, but the time has come for the Air National Guard to select isolated sites away from civilian areas to deploy the F-35 and for pilots of other aircraft to practice takeoffs and landings.  Otherwise, the quality of life here will be forever destroyed by outrageous noise levels. Please petition our Governor and congressional delegation to send the planes to less populated areas.

The following information consists of direct quotes from a letter that was sent to all residents of Valparaiso , Florida by Mayor John B. Arnold on February 25, 2009.  The city of Valparaiso successfully sued the Air Force to get important concessions.  Their dialogue with them is ongoing because the city decided to fight the AF plans.  If left unchallenged, the Air Force will not consider the welfare of the people.

(The Air Force hid these facts from the city in its original presentation, and Mayor Arnold quotes them here.)

From the Air Force’s own Valparaiso study on the F-35:

“Unavoidable impacts: Receptors (people, animals, and structures) in neighboring communities and beneath special use airspace will experience louder and more frequent overflights than they have in the past.  This increase in frequency and intensity of noise is expected to lead to increased annoyance...Noise from flight training operations in the MTRs, MOAs, and Elgin main, Duke Field, and Choctaw Field will have the potential to have a disproportionately adverse impact on affected minority and low income populations.  These flight operations will also have the potential to present a special risk to children as there are several schools and daycare facilities that will be affected by these noise levels.”

Mayor Arnold’s comments:

“Our city has formally made several suggestions to the Air Force for noise abatement over our city with no official response from the Air Force.  We have also written requesting face to face technical briefing with AF decision makers with no response...The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the investigation/evaluation of alternatives to negative environmental impacts.  The Air Force FEIS did not comply with this legislation.  Also our attorney has advised that the ROD, if not legally challenged within 60 days of signing becomes an order that is immune to future challenges...If our city does not challenge the ROD, we will be at the mercy of the Air Force planners and may experience future high noise levels and property depreciation.  We need assurances now while all is in the planning stage and not have to wake up one day in an unlivable noise environment.”