Tucson Citizen.com
Carolyn's Community - Our sense of group togetherness and "community" in Tucson

Comment at public hearings on the F-35A fighter jet (coming to Tucson International Airport?)

by on Feb. 20, 2012, under Health, Life, Politics

Info from Tucson Forward and other news sources:

The U.S. Air Force is inviting the public’s input on a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Pilot Training Center of F-35A aircraft.

The Air Force has not chosen a base yet. Potential locations include:
Boise Air Terminal Airport Air Guard Station, also known as Gowen Field, Idaho;
Holloman Air Force Base, N.M.;
Luke Air Force Base, Ariz.;
and Tucson International Airport Air Guard Station, Ariz.

The purpose of the proposal is to train pilots and personnel to operate F-35A aircraft. Training would include the use of existing training airspace and ranges, which permit flare countermeasures, supersonic flight and the use of munitions.

To download a copy of the Draft EIS, visit www.F-35ATrainingEIS.com. A paper copy of the document is also available at the following public libraries:

Copper Queen Library
6 Main St.
Bisbee, AZ 85603

Safford City-Graham County Library
808 S. 7th Ave.
Safford, AZ 85546

San Carlos Public Library
89 San Carlos Ave.
San Carlos, AZ 85550

Sierra Vista Public Library
2600 E. Tacoma St.
Sierra Vista, AZ 85635

Valencia Branch Library (only one in Tucson)
202 W. Valencia Road
Tucson, AZ 85706

All comments on the Draft EIS must be postmarked or received by March 14, 2012, for consideration in the Final EIS.

Written comments on the Draft EIS may be submitted to:

David Martin, Air Force Contractor, and Kim Fornof
HQ AETC/A7CPP
266 F Street West, Bldg. 901
Randolph AFB, TX 78150-4319
Fax: 210-652-5649
Email: aetc.a7cp.inbox@us.af.mil
Written and oral comments may also be submitted in person at the public hearings.

Public Hearings: Three public hearings near Tucson International Airport Air Guard Station will be held to inform the public and receive public comments on the Draft EIS. All hearings include an open house information session from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m., followed by a presentation and formal public comment session from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. Representatives from the Air Force will be available during the open house session to provide information and to answer questions related to the Draft EIS.

Date: Feb. 21, 2012
Location: Windemere Hotel & Conference Center
Grand Ballroom
2047 S. Highway 92
Sierra Vista, AZ 85635

Date: Feb. 22, 2012
Location: Holiday Inn Hotel & Suites Tucson Airport
North Ballroom
4550 S. Palo Verde Road
Tucson, AZ 85714

Date: Feb. 23, 2012
Location: Tucson Jewish Community Center Auditorium
3800 E. River Road
Tucson, AZ 85718

The Draft EIS does say: “On July 29, 2010 the Air Force announced its Preferred Alternative for the Pilot Training Center as 72 F-35A training aircraft at Luke AFB, Arizona. However, no decisions regarding the proposal will be made until after the environmental impact analysis process is complete”.

I blogged about that preliminary decision re: Luke AFB last year (click here).

I hear that the F-35A at 104 decibels is allegedly 4 x as loud as the F-16. If you feel strongly about this issue, do send in a written comment or attend these public hearings to voice your concerns and/or learn more about the F-35A. For more information on noise levels go to Tucson Forward, www.tucsonforward.com.

The info postcard I received from the U.S. Air Force also says that you also seek info from Maj Gabe Johnson, 162nd Fighter Wing Public Affairs Office, TIA Air Guard Station, by calling 520-295-6192.

More in Tucson Life and Heritage:

Live CD 8 debate on May 23

This entry was posted on Monday, February 20th, 2012 at 7:01 am and is filed under Health, Life, Politics. Tags for this post: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

RSS feed for this post (comments)
  • 1saraclark2

    The Air Force must be kidding. They don’t tell us where this loud untested new jet will be flying. They can’t load live ordnance at TIA so they will have to fly to DM to load and take off. They don’t give us any historic saftey data. They tell us initially that the F-35A will be more than 4xs as loud as the F-16C when they land and then then say..oops, no it’s only twice as loud.

    How can the public possibly comment? They need to go back and give us better information and certainly do a flyover.

    • Carolyn_Classen

      Thanks for your comment. The Air Force postcard I received says:
      “The F-35A is absolutely essential to the nation’s security strategy. It is the newest and most advanced fifth-generaton fighter and needed to deter & defeat 21st century threats.”  And it goes on to say that it would “replace or supplement the existing F-16 aircraft at TIA.”  The public needs to attend these hearings to find out more.

      • 1saraclark2

        The Pentagon got talked into putting all their eggs into one basket with the F-35 by Lockeed-Martin. Only the future will tell if they made a terribly costly mistake. Former Congresswoman Giffords recommended keeping the F-22 around.

        The Navy Seals didn’t go in with anything like the F-35. They went in with helicopters to get Osama Bin Laden.

        The only thing Tucsons know is that it doesn’t make sense to base an untested and loud aircraft at our commercial airport. These planes have over 40,000 lbs. of thrust. We’ll have a terminal that rocks and rolls.

      • jeandejong

        The Air Force is concerned only with its mission and the success of the mission. As such they will present the argument for these planes as if they are mankinds new saviour. The defense industries and local businesses who benefit economically from the manufacturing and beddown of these jets will also argue as if these jets are our economic salvation, without them we will be doomed economically. And they will argue that you are unpatriotic unless you agree with them.The fact is that mission success doesn’t depend on the beddown of these jets at TIA. As a matter of fact because of encroachment issues this may be the worst possible location for mission success. Real alternatives need to be discussed. Gila Bend, as an example. Or how about Marana? So where is the ‘No Action’ Alternative in the draft EIS?And so many of the local business owners and politicians who are supporting the F-35 here at Tucson stand to benefit economically or politically but they live in the Foothills so they won’t loose their hearing or have their buildings damaged, or watch their property values decline, or lose the joy of an outdoor barbeque. They leave those negative consequences to us poor devils who live in midtown Tucson and around TIA.However, is what is being broadcast by these vested interests really the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?An Environmental Impact Study (EIS) is intended to research factually into the impact a new jet like the F-35 has on the health, and safety of  the local human and animal populations who will be directly effect by the new operation. The question is how well and honestly does this draft EIS do this?This draft EIS for F-35s at TIA does a very bad job at the research and fact findings. The AF is hoping that we won’t notice how bad the research is in this draft EIS. eg.Noise and Safety? How can they say that a single engine, 40,000 lb thrust jet which is still having repeated development crisis is safe today because down the road when they get all these kinks out and the pilots have figured out how to fly the jets the jets will have a good safety record?  What about the foreign pilots training over our heads in these new jets? The AF is also hoping that you will go to the public information session and rely only on the information they give you at the meeting to base your decisions on. What kind of information do you think they will give you? Who is it intended to benefit?There is only one organization in Tucson (non profit) whose sole concern is with the negative impacts of military overflights to the safety, health and economic well being of the homeowners, small businesses, residents and being a voice for those citizens: Tucson Forward.If you want to know more about the negative impacts to your safety, health, and economic well being and you want to go to the public hearing armed with serious informed questions that they must answer please visit http://www.tucsonforward.com Stand up for yourselves because your elected politicians, vested business organizations and the AF are not going to do it for you. They are all taking care of themselves and their interests. And they are going to saddle all of us hard working homeowners and small businesses with the costs, with no recourse or compensation.Remember Tucson Forward. http://www.tucsonforward.comJean de Jong

        • 1saraclark2

          And where is Mayor Rothschild and the councilmembers on this issue? Is anyone at the City doing any research on the F-35? Steve Leal asked the city staff to look into the noise levels of the F-35 two years ago. Will the Mayor and Council be attending the F-35 public hearings on Wednesday and Thursday? Political and public opposition to this aircraft is inportant.

          They are running for the tall grass.

          • Carolyn_Classen

            Good point — I emailed this blog to the new Mayor & all 6 City Councilmembers, to remind them of the public hearings this week. Let’s hope they read their email.

    • MarkinSandyEggo

      I think you can make a few logical assumptions

      This new jet has the much the same mission of the F-16C, so you can probably assume it will be flying in the same place.

      The issue of ordinance loading is the same as it is today with the F-16C.  So, if it has not been an overwhelming issue where a F-16 flys over to DM to get ordinence, it should be no different for the F-35.

      Historic safety data for a plane that still is in development.  You don’t see the contradiction there?  There is not going to be historical safety data for a plane that has no history.  However, it is in everyone’s best interest that planes don’t crash.

      As far as the change in loudness from 4x to 2x.  When a plane is under development, things change.  Also, the noise level when landing (and the engines are at low power) is probably not the issue.  You should be more concerned about the noise at takeoff and climbout.  That being said, both the F-35A and the F-22 have the ability to get more power out of their engines before turning on the afterburner (which is when things get really loud).  So, there is some mitigation there in that there may be times when the F-35 flies without afterburner, when a similar F-16 does go on afterburner today. 

      I agree that it would be reasonable to do a flyover.  This should include a F-16C doing a flyover, followed by a F-35A.  It should also include the full cycle (takeoff, climbout, approach, landing).

      Another comment complained about the safety aspects of the single engine.  Well, the F-16 is a single engine as well, and had initial engine problems that needed to get sorted out in time.

      As far as F-22 vs F-35 – this is a false comparison.  These planes do two separate missions, similar to the F-15/F-16 combo.  However, similar to the F-4, the Navy (and Marines) and the Air Force will be using F-35s, so there are overall economies to be had there over the F-22, which cannot land on aircraft carriers.  So, the F-22 (which is a really cool plane) got the short end of the stick.  This is the reality with shrinking defense budgets.

      It could be that the citizens of Tucson decide that they would rather the Air Guard leave than have the noise of the F-35s.  With the cost of modern weapons like the F-35, I think it would be a really long time before the Air Guard gets these airplanes in any significant quantity.  The Air Force gets first dibs over the Air Guard units.

      • 1saraclark2

        Unfortunately, what may appear logical to you may not meet the muster of NEPA standards or the CEQ. 

        The F-35 is a totally new aircraft with stealth capabilities and electronic workings. There can be no assumption that the F-35 training of foreign pilots will be the same or even similar to the present training on F-16s. The EIS mentions that training with live ordnance is required for the F-35. One isn’t told how much training is required or even where they will fly. You are making assumptions that are pure conjecture. What is true for the F-16 does not mean that it will be true for the F-35. If this were the case, there would be no need to do this EIS.

        Certainly it would be in everyone’s best interest that this aircraft not crash, be any new technology especially an all new electronic system will likely have “bugs” to be worked out. An example would be the F-18 from Miramar that had an idendtified fuel line problem that was ignored resulting in the crash into a home in San Diego resulting in the deaths of a family of four. It would be helpful to read the “F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Concurrency Quick Look Review of November 29, 2011″ to get an idea of the flaws encountered in this new jet.

        I think your explanation of the drastically changed noise data over a three-week period was unlikely. The Errata document of the EIS gives us no explanation of why the data was changed. Again, your explanation is simply conjecture.

        Again, conjecture that “it would be a really long time before the Air Guard gets these airplanes in any significant quanity.” Unless your crystal ball is in prime condition, we don’t know what lies ahead. There is mention in the EIS that beddown would depend on the needs of the Air Force, not the needs of Tucson citizens. Recall that the EIS states that it would not be economical to bring in fewer that 72 aircraft to a facility.

  • 1saraclark2

    How can the Air Force possibly ask us to comment on this DEIS? They don’t give us any historical safety data. They don’t tell us where they are going to fly. No flight paths included. They can’t load live ordnance at TIA so they will have to load and take off from D-M. How are they going to get there and to the BG range? They don’t tell us how they came up with their noise data and then they change it. First the AF came out saying the F-35A would be over four times as loud as the F-16C when landing and then they said oops…it is only going to be twice as loud as the F-16C.

    They say in their over 1,000-page document that it isn’t economical to base 24 or 48 F-35s at an installation and then they turn around and use these numbers as alternatives for TIA. This leaves only the 72 F-35s alternative that can be based at TIA..except TAA won’t allow this without renegotiation.

    The 72 F-35s would bring in more than 8,000 new residents into the “incompatible with residential use’ zone impacting a higher percentage of low-income and minorities than the other alternatives.

    The Air Force must be kidding in coming up with this document prematurely.

    • jeandejong

       Okay, so let’s say this EIS makes it through and the F-35 comes into  Tucson  via the National Guard at TIA and Operation Snowbird at DM and let’s just say that it is as bad for our health, safety and economic well being as we are concerned that it is. Then after all is said and done what can we do to undo this mess? We as homeowners, small businesses and residents in midtown Tucson and around TIA will have little recourse.

      But our elected officials, and our military/ defense industry enthusiasts will have State legislation working on their behalf – to take from us without any compensation to us of our losses.

      In 1997 the State passed legislation which essentially put all of midtown Tucson in an area called ‘the Military Vicinity Box’, an area of increased noise and accident potential. The area extends from as far north as River, as far west as I-10, as far east as Hougton and as far south as Pima County Fair Grounds. It is a huge rectangular shaped area that engulfs all of midtown Tucson and hands it over to DM to do with as it sees fit. As far as I know there were no public hearings and noone was informed of this change to their property until after the fact.

      Here is another little alarming adjunct to that legislation:

      28-8480. Military airport continuation; land acquisition
      In
      addition to authority granted pursuant to other provisions of law, a
      political subdivision may acquire, by exchange, purchase, lease,
      donation, devise or condemnation, land or interests in land for the
      continued operation of a military airport or ancillary military
      facility.
      That means that after the F-35 arrives any or all of our property can be condemned or all of the above because we live in the ‘military vicinty box’. Still convinced that our politicians and defense/military vested business community have your best interest at heart and that you should leave this issue to their care and direction?
      Jean de Jong
       

  • Carolyn_Classen

    Reminder: 1st of 2 Tucson public hearings tonight, 5 to 8 p.m.

  • alohapuna

    “The Air Force is concerned only with its mission and the success of its mission.”
    That, you can count on. How can you trust them? Not very long ago, the US Army tried to tell the residents of the Big Island of Hawaii that the depleted uranium at their mountaintop base posed no health hazard.

  • Carolyn_Classen

    About 125 people attended the 2nd Tucson hearing at the JCC. Col. McGuire of TIA Air National Guard Station said that they were the largest air national guard fighter wing in U.S. Kim Fornaff (air education command) stated that 72 F-35 fighters would be stationed at Luke, as the preferred option at the present.  60 plus people signed up to speak, 24 did speak in favor of the F-35 & bringing it to TIA, including CD 7 candidate Gabrielle Mercer — supportive of a strong military,and bringing an economic boost & more jobs to Tucson.  19 spoke against the new, untested F-35, citing quality of life, increased noise, safety concerns of an urban city of $1 M people. Several asked for an actual “fly-over” to hear this jet. Comments due by March 14, with Final EIS to be done by the summer of 2012. CD 7 Congressman Raul Grijalva’s District Director Ruben Reyes was present tonight, and a Council Aide to Ward 3 Counclmember Karin Uhlich.

«
»