In his 2018 State of the State address, Gov. Scott Walker said he was looking forward to hearing the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II jet take off from Truax Field, describing the noise as the “sound of freedom.” But many who live under the flight path fear the roar of the fighter jets will be defined by interrupted conversations, rattling windows, troubled sleep and ringing ears.
Ed Blume, an east side resident who is administrator of the No F-35 Fighter Jets in Madison Facebook page, worries that if the jets come here, life in Madison will become insufferable.
“I can tolerate a certain amount of noise, but the F-16s are unbearable, and the F-35s are louder,” Blume says.
After the December 2017 announcement that the 115th Fighter Wing of Madison’s Truax Field was a candidate to receive the cutting-edge F-35 fighter jet, debate erupted regarding the aircraft’s impacts on the economy of Madison and its quality of life; some residents also question whether the community should become further enmeshed in the American military-industrial complex.
As the federal government studies the environmental impacts of having the F-35 jets at Truax, complaints over noise, in particular, are likely to move front and center in the debate.
A 2013 study by the U.S. Air Force evaluated the environmental effects of replacing F-16 aircraft with the F-35A at Burlington, Vermont’s 158th Fighter Wing. Using noise exposure modeling software, researchers recorded the F-35A takeoff at 118 dBA, or A-weighted decibels, a measurement of the relative loudness of sounds. In contrast, the F-16 measures 101 dBA.
The report notes that the measurements reflect conditions specific to the Burlington airport, and are not applicable to any other airfield. A number of variables can affect the volume of a jet’s takeoff, including weather conditions, topography and takeoff speed.
Jeff Wiegand, former commander of Truax Field’s 115th Fighter Wing and a pilot with 25 years of experience flying F-16s, says a key factor driving the different noise levels of the F-16 and F-35 is the use of afterburner during takeoffs.
The afterburner, which injects additional fuel into the jet engine to increase thrust, is currently used in around 50 percent of F-16 takeoffs from Truax, Wiegand says. The F-35A, which has a more powerful turbofan than the F-16, does not need to rely as much on the louder afterburner for takeoff, a factor which Wiegand believes will actually reduce the jets’ noise.
Wiegand also predicts fewer training flights at Truax with the F-35s there. Because these jets are so expensive to fly — to the tune of $42,000 per flight hour, according to Air Force data — the military anticipates using flight simulators more often. Truax Field currently has one training simulator, Wiegand says. But if it gets the F-35, the facility would be upgraded to include four interlinked simulators, he says.
Wiegand has heard both the F-35 and F-16 in flight, and believes the two aircraft’s volume levels are very similar.
“I am confident that the actual noise to our communities will decrease with the F-35,” he says.
Between April and September of 2017, military aircraft accounted for 6.7 percent of total flight activity out of the Dane County Regional Airport, according to the airport. But for Blume, frequency isn’t the problem.
“It’s not the number of the flights, we’re talking about the noise of the flights,” Blume says. “No commercial airplane even comes close to the noise of the F-16s. Not even close. They take off and land more than the F-16, but they’re a whisper compared to the noise of the F-16. I’ve never complained about commercial aircraft.”
However, records from the Dane County Regional Airport Noise Abatement Subcommittee suggest that commercial airliners still account for a majority of noise complaints submitted to the airport. Of 560 noise complaints registered between April and September of 2017, 146 addressed military aircraft, while 324 were in response to commercial airliners. 268 of these 560 complaints came from a single household in DeForest, and another 253 complaints came from 42 different households in Madison; the rest of the complaints came from two households in Waunakee and Marshall.
Some Madison residents also oppose the new jets on ideological grounds. At a total program cost of $1.5 trillion, the F-35 is the most expensive military weapons system in history. For left-leaning city residents, it is a noisy reminder of monumental defense expenditures and suggests complicity in a bloated American military-industrial complex.
Steve Klafka, an east side resident who opposes the jets, says Truax Field’s 76-year history in Madison doesn’t justify the aircraft upgrade. “Just because you’ve made the same mistake so many years, it doesn’t mean it’s a good thing,” Klafka says. “With the F-35, we have an opportunity to make a statement, and a chance to actually discuss if it’s a good thing to have fighter jets in Madison.”
Community concerns about replacing the F-16s with F-35s will be considered as part of the environmental impact study, which launched this spring. The EIS process is mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act, and the study will be conducted by Cardno, an Australian environmental consulting firm, chosen by the National Guard Bureau. Completed studies evaluating F-35 at other bases have yielded a comprehensive evaluation of potential effects — ranging from noise impacts on residential sleep quality and conversational interruptions to the environmental consequences of compounds in aircraft exhaust on local wildlife.
The Air National Guard hosted an initial meeting on March 8, inviting Madison residents to submit concerns and questions about the F-35. Wiegand says that research for the impact study is now underway, and that a public hearing on a first draft of the EIS will be held in early 2019. It is anticipated that a revised version of the EIS, which would reflect community comments made during the public hearing, would be prepared and released after that. Officials estimate a final decision from the secretary of the Air Force on whether Madison will receive the F-35A in September 2019.
However, the final EIS is an advisory document that won’t necessarily make or break the secretary’s decision over the F-35s.
“I don’t feel we have a whole lot of control over the situation,” Klafka says. “The Air Force will do what it wants to do, and we’re just hoping for an honest appraisal of what the impacts are, and maybe that will get factored into the decision.”
This story is part of a series. You can access the full series here.
