Military Doublespeak at F-35 Public Meetings

How loud will supersonic F-35 fighter jets be? What munitions will they carry?

Throughout the National Guard Bureau’s (NGB) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) scoping session on March 8, a video showed clips of different kinds of F-35 jets, including the F-35A jet that the U.S. Air Force wants to “beddown” at Madison Truax Air National Guard base.

A Madison resident who lives very near the base sat next to me watching the video. Halfway through it she turned to me, noting “it’s interesting they don’t have sound, given that it’s the biggest concern.”  “Good point,” I responded.  Ironically, all you could hear while watching the video was people at the meeting talking. If the F-35 video had included the actual sound levels produced by these jets taking off, or even flying low overhead, nobody in the room would have been able hear anyone else—they wouldn’t even be able to tolerate being in the room for very long.

I would know. I live about 2 miles west of the base, under one of the frequent F-16 flight paths as they arrive or depart Truax field. When they fly over our house and we are outside on our screened porch (where we spend a lot of our time in warm weather), we have to stop all conversation while they pass over and are some distance away. Since they often fly over in formations of several planes, this means having to start and stop conversations many times for a while until the whole formation has gone over.

But we don’t experience the highest noise levels produced by these jets. They are loudest on takeoff, which means that people living closest to the base—mostly low income people, including many people of color—experience the worst noise no matter which direction the planes take off.[1]^,[2]

How loud will the F-35A fighter jets be? A week before the open house, at the Feb 28 city listening session, Colonel Jeff Wiegland, who was a Truax Air National Guard commander until about a year ago, assured audience members that the F-35s would be no louder than the F-16s. This analysis however, reports that they will be four times louder. At the March 8 open house, the NGB consultant told us that based on their noise modeling, they will be louder in some contexts and quieter in others. Notably, she admitted that the F-35s will be louder on takeoff than the F-16s.

People who live close to the base don’t need noise modeling to understand how loud the F-16s are when they take off–they experience it nearly daily. Here’s what an F-16 takeoff sounds like from the trailer park half a mile to the west of the base, from MATC, right across from the low income Truax apartments, from Anderson St. just south of the base, and in a wooded area just off the bikepath along Starkweather Creek about a mile or so south of the base. A couple weeks ago I walked from the East Madison Community Center over to Starkweather Creek with community members. This is what it sounded like after a jet had taken off and was flying away from us.  When it first took off about half a mile from us, and flew low over us as it accelerated upwards, it was so loud that there was no point talking at all.

Can you imagine what four times these levels will be like?

The F-16s also make horrific noise on the runway during the “afterburner” process, primarily used to increase the “thrust” of the plane before takeoff. Here’s what F-16 afterburner sounds like on the runway. (Notice that whoever made this video brags that the process uses “11 liters of fuel per second”! What are the air emissions of CO2, toxic particulates and volatile organic compounds?)

We can hear the F-16 afterburners very well from our house–even when they are purportedly in a “hush house,” and people miles away have reported hearing them. How often will the supersonic F-35s use afterburners? More or less than the F-16s? Given that they are supersonic jets, it seems likely that it will be more. But again, when we asked military personnel about this at the meetings, they provided vague and/or conflicting information.

Huh? F-35s will shoot air-to-air missiles (or maybe concrete?) at “enemies” within U.S. borders??

The woman watching the video with me at the March 8 open house said she was concerned about what kinds of missiles the planes will carry and risks they will pose to her home–for instance, if one crashes.[3] So she was observing in the videos any and all missiles that dropped out of the planes, and taking notes on them so she could ask for more details from military personnel at the open house.[4]

At the Feb. 28 city F-35 listening session a few days earlier, Colonel Jeff Wiegland adamantly assured audience members that “there are no live air-to-ground munitions at Truax Field.” [5]

He then went on to state that “Truax Field is an active air defense site… the primary air alert site to defend our entire northern border.” He stressed that prior to 9-11, “we were always looking external to our borders for enemies that meant to do us harm,” but now “we have to look internal to our borders.”

Who are these enemies within U.S. borders who mean us harm? He gave this example: “I look at it similar to the unfortunate incident that happened in Florida at the school. Our environment has changed….we have to be able to respond to those who mean us harm. That’s the environment we live in every single day.”

What? The F-16s (and coming F-35s) are to defend us from school-shooters? Huh?

An alder then asked what kind of weapons would be carried on the jets if not live munitions or air-to-ground munitions. “Everything is a training munition. It’s a concrete weapon. And it’s just for training. There are no live air-to-ground munitions.”

Another sharp alder followed up. “I thought you said Truax was an active defense base for the northern border,” she noted. “I’m confused on how it can be a defense base and not have live ammunition.” (Good question!! Indeed, if the Truax site is the primary air alert defense site for our country’s entire northern border, the F-16s and the F35s would have to carry live munitions at times, not just cement blocks. Truax field would also have to store live munitions.)

At that point, Col. Wiegland admitted that the planes do carry air-to-air missiles. He explained further, “F-16 is very similar to F-35, it has dual roles, air-to-air combat, where you fight other aircraft, and you have a bombing mission, air to ground.”

Wait…what? I thought he said there were no air-to-ground missiles? Further, how could the planes shoot down mass shooters—or any other homegrown “enemy” in the U.S.– with only air-to-air capabilities? These “enemies” are highly unlikely to be flying in planes.

Tellingly, around 1.31 minutes into the F-35A video playing at the March 8 open house, the first missile plopped out of the bottom of the plane. More missiles of different shapes and sizes dropped after this. Some shot off laterally as if they could be aimed at other planes. But then the video shows some explosions on the ground as missiles hit tanks on the ground.

Hmmm. These look a lot like “air-to-ground” munitions to me! What are we to believe? How can we find out the truth?

When military doublespeak befuddles and confuses everyone, there’s always Wikpedia!  

 Below is what Wikipedia says about F-35 armaments:

“The F-35A is armed with a GAU-22/A, a four-barrel version of the 25 mm GAU-12 Equalizer cannon.[76] The cannon is mounted internally with 182 rounds for the F-35A or in an external pod with 220 rounds for the F-35B and F-35C; [77][78] the gun pod has stealth features.[79] Software updates to enable operational firing of the cannon are expected to be completed by 2018.[80] The F-35 has two internal weapons bays, and external hardpoints for mounting up to four underwing pylons and two near wingtip pylons. The two outer hardpoints can carry pylons for the AIM-9X Sidewinder and AIM-132 ASRAAM short-range air-to-air missiles (AAM) only.[81] The other pylons can carry the AIM-120 AMRAAM BVR AAM, AGM-158 Joint Air to Surface Stand-off Missile (JASSM) cruise missile, and guided bombs. The external pylons can carry missiles, bombs, and external fuel tanks at the expense of increased radar cross-section, and thus reduced stealth.[82]”

“There are a total of four weapons stations between the two internal bays. Two of these can carry air-to-surface missiles or bombs up to 2,000 lb (910 kg) each in the A and C models, or air-to-surface missiles or bombs up to 1,000 lb (450 kg) each in the B model; the other two stations are for smaller weapons such as air-to-air missiles.[83][84] The weapon bays can carry AIM-120 AMRAAM, AIM-132 ASRAAM, the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), Paveway series of bombs, the Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW), Brimstone anti-tank missiles, and cluster munitions (Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser).[83] An air-to-air missile load of eight AIM-120s and two AIM-9s is possible using internal and external weapons stations; a configuration of six 2,000 lb (910 kg) bombs, two AIM-120s and two AIM-9s can also be arranged.[83][85] The Terma A/S multi-mission pod (MMP) could be used for different equipment and purposes, such as electronic warfare, aerial reconnaissance, or rear-facing tactical radar.[79][86] The British Ministry of Defence plan to fire the Select Precision Effects at Range (SPEAR) Capability 3 missile from the internal bays of the F-35B, with four missiles per bay.[87][88]”

“Lockheed Martin states that the weapons load can be configured as all-air-to-ground or all-air-to-air, and has suggested that a Block 5 version will carry three weapons per bay instead of two, replacing the heavy bomb with two smaller weapons such as AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles.[89] Upgrades are to allow each weapons bay to carry four GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs (SDB) for A and C models, or three in F-35B.[90] Another option is four GBU-53/B Small Diameter Bomb IIs in each bay on all F-35 variants.[91] The F-35A has been outfitted with four SDB II bombs and an AMRAAM missile to test adequate bay door clearance,[92] as well as the C-model, but the STOVL F-35B will not be able to carry the required load of four SDB IIs in each weapons bay upon reaching IOC because of weight and dimension constraints; F-35B bay changes are to be incorporated to increase SDB II loadout around 2022 in line with the Block 4 weapons suite.[93] The Meteor air-to-air missile may be adapted for the F-35, a modified Meteor with smaller tailfins for the F-35 was revealed in September 2010; plans call for the carriage of four Meteors internally.[94] The United Kingdom planned to use up to four AIM-132 ASRAAM missiles internally, later plans call for the carriage of two internal and two external ASRAAMs.[95] The external ASRAAMs are planned to be carried on “stealthy” pylons; the missile allows attacks to slightly beyond visual range without employing radar.[81][96]”

“Norway and Australia are funding an adaptation of the Naval Strike Missile (NSM) for the F-35. Under the designation Joint Strike Missile (JSM), it is to be the only cruise missile to fit the F-35’s internal bays; according to studies two JSMs can be carried internally with an additional four externally.[97] The F-35 is expected to take on the Wild Weasel mission, though there are no planned anti-radiation missiles for internal carriage.[98] The B61 nuclear bomb was initially scheduled for deployment in 2017;[99] as of 2012 it was expected to be in the early 2020s,[100] and in 2014 Congress moved to cut funding for the needed weapons integration work.[101] Norton A. Schwartz agreed with the move and said that “F-35 investment dollars should realign to the long-range strike bomber”.[102] NATO partners who are buying the F-35 but cannot afford to make them dual-capable want the USAF to fund the conversions to allow their Lightning IIs to carry thermonuclear weapons. The USAF is trying to convince NATO partners who can afford the conversions to contribute to funding for those that cannot. The F-35 Block 4B will be able to carry two B61 nuclear bombs internally by 2024.[103]”

“According to reports in 2002, solid-state lasers were being developed as optional weapons for the F 35.[104][105][106] Lockheed is studying integrating a fiber laser onto the aircraft that uses spectral beam combining to channel energy from a stack of individual laser modules into a single, high-power beam, which can be scaled up or down for various levels of effects. Adding a laser would give the F-35 the ability to essentially burn missiles and other aircraft out of the sky.[107] The F-35 is also one of the target platforms for the High Speed Strike Weapon if hypersonic missile development is successful.[108] The Air Force plans to use the F-35A to primarily take up the close air support (CAS) mission in contested environments. Amid criticism that the aircraft is not well suited for the role compared to a dedicated attack platform, Air Force chief of staff Mark Welsh is putting focus on weapons for the F-35 to employ on CAS sorties including guided rockets, fragmentation rockets that would shatter into individual projectiles before impact, and lighter, smaller ammunition in higher capacity gun pods.[109] Fragmentary rocket warheads would have greater effects than cannon shells fired from a gun because a single rocket would create a “thousand-round burst”, delivering more projectiles than a strafing run could. Other weapons could take advantage of the aircraft’s helmet-mounted cueing system to aim rather than needing to point the nose at a target.[110] Institute for the Study of War’s Christopher Harmer has questioned the

use of such an expensive aircraft for CAS.[111]”

Thanks Wikipedia, this is really comforting….

*****************

[1] The neighborhoods closest to the base are the Truax low income housing complex about a half mile to the southeast of the base, and the Majestic Oaks trailer Park about half a mile to the west.

[2] Mr. Wiegland told the audience at the Feb. 28 listening session that the planes usually take off to the north, to avoid downtown Madison. We would like to see actual numbers on takeoff routes. Every time I’ve been near the base and happened to have my camera with me, the jets took off to the south. See videos in this post—all are southern departures.

[3] She has good reason to be concerned, given that there have been numerous fighter plane crashes at or near Truax since the 1950s. See this summary.

[4] I stood next to her when she asked a National Guard member about this. Answers were vague and evasive.

[5] The Air National Guard has Armory buildings along Wright Street across from the Truax apartments. What do they store in there? Concrete weapons? How can they be prepared to defend the northern border if they do not have live munitions at Truax field and/or the Armory?