F-35 at Luke AFB. Noise Levels? (Glendale: unemployed, living in, military)

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by nitram

Jets are noisy, tough, Luke has been here since 1941, they are a staple in the valley, they have the right to be where they are, move near there that's your choice, no one forced you, you knew it when you moved there, live with it, get over it, it's gonna be there a long long time.

Thanks for letting me know that jets are noisy. Have you read any of my posts? I'm asking others that might work/fly at Luke what the real SPL levels are. In other words, is the 93DB level correct that the government initially presented or is it really 106 db (or 2.5X louder over a F-16)?

If it's 250% louder, I predict people in the area will have a serous problem with that. The final EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) as been delayed. I am wondering why.

[SluggoF16]

Not sure if this helps, but a Dutch study (Europe being quite sensitive to noise and environmental issues) writes the following synopsis:

"According to the National Aerospace Laboratory (NLR), there is almost no perceptible difference between the JSF and the Saab Gripen NG. This is evident from a report published Monday by the NLR on the assessment of noise data from the two candidates for the succession of the current F-16. The difference in maximum noise level of the JSF and the F-16 is small (3-4 dB).

With MIL power, the maximum expected noise is 109 dB for the Saab Gripen NG and 110 dB for the JSF. With afterburner the values are respectively 114 dB and 115 dB. For the current Dutch F-16, the results are from 104 to 107 dB in MIL power and 111 to 114 dB with afterburner." NOTE: JSF = F-35A

The Dutch data is at 300 meters from the aircraft, for takeoff. Regretably the well-publicized videos of the F-35 at Eglin were taken from an area inside the safety buffer for the air base. In other words, well inside of where any person would be allowed to build a home. The overflight altitudes were much lower than one would normally expect over a housing area. When I flew F-16s at Tucson, we typically were at 700-1000 feet over the populated areas north of Valencia for takeoff, and 500-700 during landing. Surprisingly, landings are often noisier; the aircraft is "dirty" with gear and flaps down and speed brakes extended, and slower so the time of exposure to noise is prolonged.

For some reason the F/A-18 noise contour is left out. Those jets are loud.

The original draft EIS was delayed because of public concern, and the new EIS is due out this month. Individuals who attended the scoping meetings held in early 2010 and requested a copy of the Draft EIS will be provided with a copy once it is available. All interested individuals and organizations are encouraged to attend the public hearings and to comment on the Draft EIS and analysis. The public has 45 days to continue to make comments before a final Record of Decision is issued later this year.

One intangible: the quality of the sound. Sort of like comparing pounding surf, a Guns and Roses concert, and a screaming colicky baby. All are noisy, but the former is usually considered relaxing, you probably know the words to "Sweet Child of Mine", while most people would consider the latter to have the most profound and adverse effect. Since I've never heard an F-35 I can't comment on its noise quality.

[keninaz]

For those that move near an area like this and then complain think about this. I will agree that counties should not approve developments around bases like this but greed comes to mind.
If too many complaints come in and eventually the base is closed by DoD due to that just remember all the jobs that were lost.
It's not just the jobs at the base either, many jobs in the community depend on that base in addition.
I was a victim of a base closure of some 15K people and the surrounding area suffered for a number of years.
And speaking of the sounds of freedom does anyone remember how quiet the skies were on 9/11 and just after while the commercial fleets were grounded?

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by keninaz

For those that move near an area like this and then complain think about this.
If too many complaints come in and eventually the base is closed by DoD due to that just remember all the jobs that were lost.

I'm not sure how many different ways I can type it but I will try one more time. If the DoD says there is a +3DB difference and states this specification as a fact, then the new F-35 is very much welcome IMHO. That's because I did my homework and that is how it's being sold. So if I later learn it's not 50% louder but 250% louder, I have an issue with people lying in the spirit of "the ends justify the means".

The jobs won't be "lost". They will go to another base where they can enjoy "the sound of feedom". With any decision, there are positive and negative trade-offs.

So to be so ignorant to say "you moved their" isn't relevant what-so-ever. That's because I have done my homework. If the DoD and if state are lying about the SPL specifications, then I have a problem with that. I would also suspect my neighbors will have a problem with that as well. I don't think I am out of line.

It's my hope that it's 50% louder as was claimed. If it's 250% louder, I'm going to make some noise of my own.

[DellNec]

The problem with Like AFB is that these new F-35 jets will produce 2x louder noise than the F-16 jets did. The residents and businesses around the AFB did not approve these increased noise levels.

The AFB has been violating other rules and regulations in the past. One of these was that the jets must follow a specific flight pattern when landing and taking off from the base. These flight patterns are implemented for public safety and for noise issues. The jets have deviated from these patterns many times and have flown over peoples homes and rattled their homes to the point where the nails have popped & windows have cracked.

The US Government has a pretty bad track record in regards to this. The noise levels will be very high for these new jets and it will cause noise problems, along with homes getting damaged.

[keninaz]

It's called progress people.
I am betting that the prop aircraft that flew out of that base before jets were a lot quieter?

[DellNec]

Originally Posted by keninaz

It's called progress people.
I am betting that the prop aircraft that flew out of that base before jets were a lot quieter?

If the noise levels get to 10x more, is it still "progress"? When does it become an issue of just a mere nuisance to structure damage and noise pollution?

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by keninaz

It's called progress people.
I am betting that the prop aircraft that flew out of that base before jets were a lot quieter?

The invention of the muffler was progress. A 4 stroke engine versus a 2 stroke was also progress (quieter, more HP, better economy etc). Next up, plane passive and active noise cancellation might also be what I consider progress. It seems in your book louder ==progress.

[keninaz]

No, but jets can do things a lot quicker than props could. And with that comes more noise.
The bottom line is don't live in the take off or approach areas of an airport.
Seems like common sense to me but so many don't have that today.

[Finger Laker]

The progress thing really was a logic fail and it's just continuing

Is the F-16 not a jet?

Not sure why you are trying to compare the F-35 to a prop plane and discuss progress instead of the issue at hand

F-16 v F-35

Seems like common sense that bringing up prop planes and discussing the differences between them and a jet plane hasn't been framed at all in a relative context when discussing a couple different generations of jet models with the specific dialogue about their sound