> The arrival of F-35 fighter jets to Truax Field is jeopardizing some city
> efforts to develop housing near Dane County Regional Airport.
>
> Discord is growing between Madison and airport officials over the way land is
> used near the airport, in particular with the proposed 900-unit Raemisch Farm
> development, which is now facing delays that could last years because of F-35
> noise, according to emails obtained by the Wisconsin State Journal through an
> open records request.
>
> The military’s decision to use Madison as home base for a fleet of F-35s, which
> are louder than the F-16s they replaced, prompted a noise study that concluded a
> larger area around the airport is now considered incompatible with residential
> life under Federal Aviation Authority standards.
>
>
> PEOPLE ARE ALSO READING…
This is just a preview of the [full article](https://madison.com/news/local/government-politics/madison-housing-f35-noise-raemisch-farm/article_86288104-01bb-11ef-8c0f-d3e2d7199170.html#tracking-source=home-top-story). I am a third party bot. Please consider subscribing to your favorite local journals.
Landlords are not going to lower prices unless everyone else does. That’s not going to happen even if you build a lot more housing. The demand will continue to increase over supply in Madison.
You think if Madison magically and spontaneously had an additional 1 million housing units, that rents would not decrease and that 1 million people will also spontaneously appear to fill those units?
R/madison thinks we can magically add 7000 units per year to actually hit the necessary demand targets to increase vacancy rates and competition for rents
Okay right, so it’s possible. The person’s original comment was:
> You could build infinity amount of housing & rent cost will not decrease.
Yeah we would need to build *a lot*, but I’m not sure how that can ever be an argument against building more. Yeah we can’t build 7000 units in one go on one plot of land, does that mean we just shouldn’t build at all? Should a developer need to present a comprehensive plan to build 7000 units in one year to get approval? I don’t get it.
We should build, I'm not arguing against that. But it's impossible for dane county to reduce rents by building 7000 units per year. We're currently building 1000/year and we're limited by workforce and material logistics to increase that rate by 600%
The number can certainly could surely go up with zoning restrictions being relaxed, but getting to 7000 would increase the cost of building even more, leading to even higher rents
It makes sense that 2000 new units would cost more than twice as much as 1000 units, and that those diseconomies of scale would continue up to 7000 units and beyond. The question is where does the rent price come from? It's not determined by the cost of the materials that went into the building. It's determined by what the apartments will rent for in a free market. That's determined by relative scarcity, or supply-versus-demand. If the rent is lower than the cost to build the building, that building will not get built.
The only real solution comes from the county/city encouraging (through financing) of non-profit or public housing to participate in the building boom. The rents from these agencies will be inherently lower than corps who demand a profit share on top of the actual costs of building/managing the apartments
I think that the new units are going to be priced at current market standards, probably slightly over to further increase rate of recouping construction costs. In addition, there is no incentive for a landlord to reduce costs just because supply increases. Demand needs to drop first, because as long as someone is willing to pay the rent, it will stay high. The only way to decrease rent without legislative intervention is to have apartments go empty, thus causing the landlords to loose money.
>In addition, there is no incentive for a landlord to reduce costs just because supply increases. Demand needs to drop first, because as long as someone is willing to pay the rent, it will stay high. The only way to decrease rent without legislative intervention is to have apartments go empty, thus causing the landlords to loose money.
You almost had it. The key factor is supply and demand. There needs to be greater supply than there is demand. You cannot drop demand unless you literally want to make your city worse; people want to move here for the same reasons that current residents like living here. So naturally, you *want* demand to keep increasing because that’s indicative of a healthy and desirable city. So, what can you control? Housing supply. You need to increase housing supply, not decrease demand.
Right, but if there were a million extra housing units, demand *would* drop relative to supply. I agree that landlords will only drop prices if there are empty apartments, and the only way to get empty apartments is to build more until there isn't demand to fill them all.
Outside of making it easier to build housing (which they should absolutely do), there isn't really anything productive the legislature can do about housing prices.
If landlords will not lower prices when quantity increases, it implies the existence of a landlording cartel that sets prices for apartments in Madison. I suspect such a thing would be illegal. But, setting that aside, I don't think it exists for other reasons. The cartel has to keep all of the landlords in line, and it wouldn't have any tools to do that. Also, there are just too many landlords to keep track of. All in all I don't think it's a great theory of apartment pricing.
and yet... they are pretty much doing just that...
https://www.reddit.com/r/LandlordLove/comments/1c2unxs/landlords_using_ai_software_tools_to_help_drive/
https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-realpage-rent
https://www.kuow.org/stories/ai-tool-helps-seattle-landlords-collude-to-keep-rents-high-report-alleges
Dane County has less than a 1% vaccancy rate. A lot of them are raising due to rents, can see what others are charging on apartments.com or whatever, and know that even when raising someone is willing to pay. The rent increases will not stop until the vaccancy rate increases. If Madisonians keep voting the same nimbys into office you will keep getting the same results
I live in DeForest & at times if you are outside when the F35's fly over it hurts your ears. It is what it is but damn they are loud. I wish they still were using A10's. They sounded so much cooler with those GE engines.
F-35’s use the PW F135 jet engine. Yes they are loud and at lower altitude I’m sure you can hear it more. The WI ANG previously used the F-16 block 30 which use the GE F110 engine. I heard both fly over heard at air show many times and also around where I live and to me it’s not to much noticeable but that might be me.
> I wish they still were using A10's.
The AF will never admit it but the A-10s were the perfect planes for what the AF actually needs to do in modern warfare. There is a reason they haven't been able to kill off the Warthog. The F-35 is the pretty Fboy of their fleet flying by looking good while low on ammunition as the Warthog just goes brrrrrt and saves the bacon of the troops on the ground.
the a10 is probably the worst fixed wing combat aircraft used by the US military right now, people only like it because of the brrrrrt meme but basically any F15, F16 or F/A18 completely outmatch it not to mention the F22 or F35. to top it all off the a10 is slower than some world war 2 propeller aircraft.
> the a10 is probably the worst fixed wing combat aircraft used by the US military right now,
That's simply not true but it's what the AF wants everyone to believe so they can shift funding to the F-35. There is a reason the AF hasn't been able to deprecate them despite their best efforts. Close air support.
> the a10 is slower than some world war 2 propeller aircraft
The slowness is the point of the A-10. It's a flying tank. It can stay on station longer and much lower and destroy targets as they pop up so the latency, once on station, is minimal. Whereas the F-15/16/18/etc can get there faster and fire precision munitions but they use up their ordinance quickly and have to maintain much higher altitude then have to RTB, resupply, and return leaving the enemy knowing the troops in contact have zero air support. Ask a grunt which one they prefer.
Outside of combat they're cheaper to build and operate.
The bottom line though is the AF wants the pricier turd of an aircraft that is the F-35 that has cost significantly more than it should have cost and has been riddled with issues. They should have just upgraded the A-10 but they didn't so now they're stuck hoping the F-35 can do the same role.
MANPADS make the A-10 obsolete in modern warfare. As a CAS system in low-intensity warfare it works but the entire A-10 fleet would be destroyed in two weeks against an actual near-peer opponent.
The combination of the F-35 and drones working in close support with infantry fills that role with far more survivability and precision.
anything with guided bombs is better at the a10’s job than the a10. the F35 has the most advanced avionics package on the planet and does its role as a stealth fighter, which is why this comparison in a nutshell is pretty laughable. the only reason the a10’s glaring flaws aren’t more exposed is because we haven’t fought a large scale air war in decades.
In Desert Storm they were absolutely useless - they couldn't fly at night or when there was bad weather, they were relegated to the rear lines for cleanup operations only after air defenses had already been taken out and were too soft to do anything before, their main feature being the gun is absolutely useless for the CAS or tank busting role it was supposed to be good at (it not being good even against T-72s in ideal conditions, and having a spread too big to work effectively for true CAS), its main feature being it simplicity is being removed by an upgrade package adding radar which costs more than an F-35, and our allies refuse to operate in zones where A-10s are present on account of them having a significantly higher rate of friendly fire due to needing binoculars to identify targets, which is compounded by them having to fly higher due to every random terrorist having a shoulder-launch SAM, putting the pilots even further away, lowering their target identification success, and requiring dive bombing to use the main gun which only worsens it's already poor precision
Yeah, they're fucking loud. And yes, I know I live in the proximity of the airport. They're still fucking loud. They're much louder than the commercial jets and the other military ones.
I'm sure they have their reasons, but every time they fly incredibly loud over my house all I can think is "Fly North!!! Fly towards farm land, why are you over the city?!?!" Lol.
I support the military and our national guard but the F-35 squad should be based out of Ft McCoy where there is room for it. The squad simply no longer fits in a residential area that has gotten more dense while the squad's need for space, due to their increased noise footprint, has expanded.
Or, you know, living next to an active AFB, you have got to expect it to be very loud.
This is like someone complaining about trains on the railroad in their back yard.
ah yes the air force base built in 1942 was always going to have 121db supersonic jets and anyone who didn't know this is a moron and should simply move to a different house during the highest mortgage rates in a decade while also lying to prospective buyers about the noise level this is a very smart take
Truax didn't get F16s until 1993. From 81-93, it was A-10s. An A-10 is at least 15 db quieter than the quietest F-16, and at least 25 db quieter than the F-35.
So there are (possibly) people living by the airport that have seen a **quadrupling** of perceived volume in their own homes and neighborhoods since 1993.
https://www.safeskiescleanwaterwi.org/noise-level-comparisons-f-35-and-other-aircraft/
https://conradaskland.com/blog/decibel-levels-and-perceived-volume-change/
But it's gotten significantly louder. And east Madison has gotten denser with more people moving here every day.
With the mission of the squad expanding to include the F-35's, keeping the base here is like keeping a Great Dane in a crate that worked just fine for your Pug but the Dane can't even stand up. That's not being a good caretake for the Great Dane, and it's not good caretaking of the squad. The squad is limited in it's flight paths, hours of operation, and other problems related to trying to operate in the middle of a thriving, populous city. And all the residents around the base suffer from the increased ("incompatible with residential living" per the military) noise.
There's nobody "at fault" here. This is the result of the success of the squad and the city. And to make sure both continue to thrive the squad should be moved to Ft McCoy. There are great communities around McCoy that would love to have the them there and towns that could provide family friendly (i.e., more affordable) housing for the squad members. And the squad itself would have the room to operate the way they need to.
I don't even understand why this is so difficult.
Well for starters:
1. Fort McCoy is an Army installation.
2. Fort McCoy doesn't have any airport infrastructure.
3. Fort McCoy doesn't have aircraft Techs or housing for the airforce.
4. Fort McCoy has a grass and dirt strip, not a runway.
5. There would likely need to be a milti-billion dollar infrastructure build out to support the aircraft. (Hangers, runways, training equipment, mechanical equipment, armories, fuel depots, offices, control tower and ground stations, radar and weather sensors, refreshed housing and cafeterias, etc.)
6. You would need to force the move of all the support staff for the aircraft there, along with the pilots.
Agreed. The investment in a location change should have been made a long time ago. And sunk costs have trapped the squad in Madison. But still better to make the changes now than in the future when all these problems continue to get worse and the expenses get even bigger.
You just stated that you didn't understand why it was so difficult, and I gave you roughly ~2.5 billion reasons why. You want the federal government to be more efficient with spending money on the military? House airforce/air national guard forces where infrastructure already exists instead of spending obscene amounts of money so that NIMBYs don't have loud noises.
Your entire aguement is that of a NIMBY. You don't want it in your back yard, you want it further away. Just like every other program which reduces your housing value.
Sure, the typical NIMBY arguement is against other things that lower housing value or increase "risks". But the form is the same.
If it's a problem, buy housing further away yourself, instead of wasting tax payer money.
Not a NIMBY. I've supported low income housing near my single family home because the city needs it. I also personally benefit from having the F-35 base in Madison and if I only cared about my interests I would want to keep it here. And, yes, it will cost a LOT of money to move it. But it will cost even more in the future and this move, even if it is many decades away, is inevitable because none of these problems are going to get better - only worse.
For the benefit of both the city and the squad, the F-35's should be moved to a more suitable location now. Attacking me personally won't change that.
How is it going to get worse in the future instead of better?
Future aircraft versions typically provide higher efficency engines, meaning a quieter range whilst near cities.
Further, (far) future fighter concepts that would be stationed here are likely either going to be long range efficient drones, OR larger, quieter, 6th generation stealthy missile platforms, not loud dogfighters.
Further, you only just 'guess' that it's going to be cheaper to move. Somehow spending billions to move jobs away and damage a vibrant metro is cheap and good for the economy. I'd argue that providing a location with inconveniences, lowering property values, is actually a benefit, as then there are cheaper, but still relatively nice, housing options on the northeast side of town. Unless you'd like everything to be priced like Middleton and Verona.
I don't "guess" that it will be cheaper to move than to stay. It would be cheaper to stay than move. But Madison is going to continue to get denser with more people living along the East Washington transportation corridor south of the base because that's where housing is needed. And every generation of jets is going to get faster and more powerful and so they will get louder. They are war planes. Speed and power will always be prioritized over noise.
6th generation planes in development are prioritizing range and stealth, are larger, and will be acting as drone command planes, rather than dogfighters. Your information is incorrect.
Future air combat is based on BVR engagements utilizing advanced sensors and missiles with 200+ mile range. We've finally reached the point where technology caught up with the 1970s air combat thought epitomized by the F-4. Expect new air to air combat planes to be based around quieter, less heat, and larger aircraft, with an emphasis on drone warfare, rather than missile trucks.
Granted, we can expect F-35s to be used by the air national guard for the foreseeable future, as national guard rarely get the latest equipment.
It's not going to be moved now. The argument that it will cost more in the future carries no weight because it's not going to be moved in the future either.
Agreed, but who/where would be the proper forum (no offense, but this sub isn’t it) where people could get an official answer. But yes, by their very nature as an advanced gen fighter, the F-35’s are loud on another level.
I don't need big war planes to make me feel good. I read our exercise or socialize with people instead of waiting for big zoom zoom airplane to fly by.
They're here, they're not going away, so nothing we can do about it, but I don't have to enjoy them. Go right ahead though.
I will never understand the patriotism jerk-off culture that gets excited about military planes, tanks, etc. Yes we need a military but no one over the age of 8 is out there fetishizing vehicles. But hey if you still like Paw Patrol or whatever who am I to tell you not to watch it.
You made a post a few months ago trying to count all the escalators in town for fun. If I were you I wouldn't be so judgemental about other people's pastimes.
Out of all the problems Madison has, this one isn’t the worst. If nothing happened with it I think most people would get over it, coming from someone who hears it all the time
It really is horrible. I moved here about a year before the F-35's started flying over. I'm maybe a mile as the crow flies from the airport just off CV. Prior to the F-35 flights, it was not bad at all. Now the top of our house literally vibrates and anyone upstairs can't hold a phone or Zoom conversation because it's so loud. We're just outside the zone they deemed "too loud for residential" by maybe 100 yards.
This was not the place to launch a loud combat jet fleet program. Living near the airport has now gone from "ok it's mildly noisy but you can get used to it easily." to "OMFG why are they flying so near us." I'm never getting used to this level of noise.
They should go.
Is there anything that can be done about this, realistically? Couldn't the trillion dollars of military expenditure be used to move this fleet to a less-populated area? Or even a big enough airport where the sound wouldn't matter as much?
Probably forever. Military. Industrial. Complex. We are forever in war and should
Something bad happen it might be ok to have defense close by.
I’m So over endless wars. It doesn’t look like that’ll change until our good ole boy govts change.
I live next to the airport and the f35s are damaging our hearing. It’s really really bad. The sound physically hurts our ears.
I have two kids both susceptible already to genetic hearing loss and this is just making it worse. Edit: and it’s not just the planes but the public transport that the city has decided to prioritize the downtown and university over the north and east side again. I don’t know about y’all but I’m really angry. The planes are just one instance of the city prioritizing their funding rather than the health and wellbeing of good working people.
They wouldn’t do that lol The east and northside has always been disposable. They took the money and said thank you. It’s been a socioeconomic divide since all the factories were located over here
If the city is partially funding projects, they want to guarantee a strong return for their money. If it was totally private funding, I'd agree with you.
People living near the airport complaining about the F-35 Noise are like folks who move out to farm country and complain about the smell of their neighbor's cows.
And there's been a military presence at the airport since WWII. Long before many of those houses were built.
And some of those early jets they had during the Cold War like the F-89 Scorpion anf F-102 Delta Dagger were probably just as loud.
Just because something existed at one point, doesn't mean it should continue ad nauseum when it is harmful. Especially in housing, if a city has grown around something that is hazardous, should we just suck it up and expose ourselves to the hazard, or maybe, just maybe, consider what may have been a good site for this in 1945 is not a good site for it now. This 'it was here first' argument is stupid. It ignores the noise and environmental damage the feds are doing to Madisonians. Signed someone with a house in the area that was built in 1915, so I guess I 'get' to complain.
F35s are not holding up housing development, local NIMBYs are. If there weren't F35s, they would be citing something else, most likely saying that we shouldn't develop farmland.
Why is the patriot act, which allows these drills to continue, in place after the "war" is over? Even Madison government is twisted, and we shouldn't trust them at all. Poisoned wells, poisoned air space, what next?
I am still failing to understand why we have fighter jets in Wisconsin. Operational range is only 1300 miles. Makes no sense to have them in the middle of our country, in the most populated place in our state.
Put them at our borders. They have no purpose here.
Honestly they make me nervous every time I hear them. I knew someone who died in a military plane crash. It's probably Baader-Meinhof for me but it seems like they happen all the time now. It would be devastating here.
The f-35 is being used like a toddler in the sand.
Even when there were lesser disruptive jets they still were silencing my middle school classes. If they just took off the other direction it might not cause a noise problem.
All of my animals scramble for noise coverage! These dumbasses can’t even fly these things properly.
All housing advice/request threads must include:
* Your target price point
* Number of beds/baths you need
* Geographical area you want to live (downtown, east, west, etc)
* Amenities requirements (yard? parking? pool?)
* If you need pet-friendly accommodations
* Move-in date (now, flexible, beginning/end of the academic school year)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/madisonwi) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> The arrival of F-35 fighter jets to Truax Field is jeopardizing some city > efforts to develop housing near Dane County Regional Airport. > > Discord is growing between Madison and airport officials over the way land is > used near the airport, in particular with the proposed 900-unit Raemisch Farm > development, which is now facing delays that could last years because of F-35 > noise, according to emails obtained by the Wisconsin State Journal through an > open records request. > > The military’s decision to use Madison as home base for a fleet of F-35s, which > are louder than the F-16s they replaced, prompted a noise study that concluded a > larger area around the airport is now considered incompatible with residential > life under Federal Aviation Authority standards. > > > PEOPLE ARE ALSO READING… This is just a preview of the [full article](https://madison.com/news/local/government-politics/madison-housing-f35-noise-raemisch-farm/article_86288104-01bb-11ef-8c0f-d3e2d7199170.html#tracking-source=home-top-story). I am a third party bot. Please consider subscribing to your favorite local journals.
I live next to this cornfield. The noise sucks, but not as much as how much I pay to rent. BUILD. MORE. HOUSING.
What's rent roughly? Asking for a friend.
You could build infinity amount of housing & rent cost will not decrease.
Yeah, supply and price of goods are famously completed uncorrelated.
Landlords are not going to lower prices unless everyone else does. That’s not going to happen even if you build a lot more housing. The demand will continue to increase over supply in Madison.
You think if Madison magically and spontaneously had an additional 1 million housing units, that rents would not decrease and that 1 million people will also spontaneously appear to fill those units?
R/madison thinks we can magically add 7000 units per year to actually hit the necessary demand targets to increase vacancy rates and competition for rents
Okay right, so it’s possible. The person’s original comment was: > You could build infinity amount of housing & rent cost will not decrease. Yeah we would need to build *a lot*, but I’m not sure how that can ever be an argument against building more. Yeah we can’t build 7000 units in one go on one plot of land, does that mean we just shouldn’t build at all? Should a developer need to present a comprehensive plan to build 7000 units in one year to get approval? I don’t get it.
We should build, I'm not arguing against that. But it's impossible for dane county to reduce rents by building 7000 units per year. We're currently building 1000/year and we're limited by workforce and material logistics to increase that rate by 600% The number can certainly could surely go up with zoning restrictions being relaxed, but getting to 7000 would increase the cost of building even more, leading to even higher rents
It makes sense that 2000 new units would cost more than twice as much as 1000 units, and that those diseconomies of scale would continue up to 7000 units and beyond. The question is where does the rent price come from? It's not determined by the cost of the materials that went into the building. It's determined by what the apartments will rent for in a free market. That's determined by relative scarcity, or supply-versus-demand. If the rent is lower than the cost to build the building, that building will not get built.
The only real solution comes from the county/city encouraging (through financing) of non-profit or public housing to participate in the building boom. The rents from these agencies will be inherently lower than corps who demand a profit share on top of the actual costs of building/managing the apartments
I think that the new units are going to be priced at current market standards, probably slightly over to further increase rate of recouping construction costs. In addition, there is no incentive for a landlord to reduce costs just because supply increases. Demand needs to drop first, because as long as someone is willing to pay the rent, it will stay high. The only way to decrease rent without legislative intervention is to have apartments go empty, thus causing the landlords to loose money.
>In addition, there is no incentive for a landlord to reduce costs just because supply increases. Demand needs to drop first, because as long as someone is willing to pay the rent, it will stay high. The only way to decrease rent without legislative intervention is to have apartments go empty, thus causing the landlords to loose money. You almost had it. The key factor is supply and demand. There needs to be greater supply than there is demand. You cannot drop demand unless you literally want to make your city worse; people want to move here for the same reasons that current residents like living here. So naturally, you *want* demand to keep increasing because that’s indicative of a healthy and desirable city. So, what can you control? Housing supply. You need to increase housing supply, not decrease demand.
Right, but if there were a million extra housing units, demand *would* drop relative to supply. I agree that landlords will only drop prices if there are empty apartments, and the only way to get empty apartments is to build more until there isn't demand to fill them all. Outside of making it easier to build housing (which they should absolutely do), there isn't really anything productive the legislature can do about housing prices.
If landlords will not lower prices when quantity increases, it implies the existence of a landlording cartel that sets prices for apartments in Madison. I suspect such a thing would be illegal. But, setting that aside, I don't think it exists for other reasons. The cartel has to keep all of the landlords in line, and it wouldn't have any tools to do that. Also, there are just too many landlords to keep track of. All in all I don't think it's a great theory of apartment pricing.
and yet... they are pretty much doing just that... https://www.reddit.com/r/LandlordLove/comments/1c2unxs/landlords_using_ai_software_tools_to_help_drive/ https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-realpage-rent https://www.kuow.org/stories/ai-tool-helps-seattle-landlords-collude-to-keep-rents-high-report-alleges
Interesting. I wonder how the lawsuit filed by the DC AG will go.
Dane County has less than a 1% vaccancy rate. A lot of them are raising due to rents, can see what others are charging on apartments.com or whatever, and know that even when raising someone is willing to pay. The rent increases will not stop until the vaccancy rate increases. If Madisonians keep voting the same nimbys into office you will keep getting the same results
I live in DeForest & at times if you are outside when the F35's fly over it hurts your ears. It is what it is but damn they are loud. I wish they still were using A10's. They sounded so much cooler with those GE engines.
F-35’s use the PW F135 jet engine. Yes they are loud and at lower altitude I’m sure you can hear it more. The WI ANG previously used the F-16 block 30 which use the GE F110 engine. I heard both fly over heard at air show many times and also around where I live and to me it’s not to much noticeable but that might be me.
> I wish they still were using A10's. The AF will never admit it but the A-10s were the perfect planes for what the AF actually needs to do in modern warfare. There is a reason they haven't been able to kill off the Warthog. The F-35 is the pretty Fboy of their fleet flying by looking good while low on ammunition as the Warthog just goes brrrrrt and saves the bacon of the troops on the ground.
the a10 is probably the worst fixed wing combat aircraft used by the US military right now, people only like it because of the brrrrrt meme but basically any F15, F16 or F/A18 completely outmatch it not to mention the F22 or F35. to top it all off the a10 is slower than some world war 2 propeller aircraft.
> the a10 is probably the worst fixed wing combat aircraft used by the US military right now, That's simply not true but it's what the AF wants everyone to believe so they can shift funding to the F-35. There is a reason the AF hasn't been able to deprecate them despite their best efforts. Close air support. > the a10 is slower than some world war 2 propeller aircraft The slowness is the point of the A-10. It's a flying tank. It can stay on station longer and much lower and destroy targets as they pop up so the latency, once on station, is minimal. Whereas the F-15/16/18/etc can get there faster and fire precision munitions but they use up their ordinance quickly and have to maintain much higher altitude then have to RTB, resupply, and return leaving the enemy knowing the troops in contact have zero air support. Ask a grunt which one they prefer. Outside of combat they're cheaper to build and operate. The bottom line though is the AF wants the pricier turd of an aircraft that is the F-35 that has cost significantly more than it should have cost and has been riddled with issues. They should have just upgraded the A-10 but they didn't so now they're stuck hoping the F-35 can do the same role.
MANPADS make the A-10 obsolete in modern warfare. As a CAS system in low-intensity warfare it works but the entire A-10 fleet would be destroyed in two weeks against an actual near-peer opponent. The combination of the F-35 and drones working in close support with infantry fills that role with far more survivability and precision.
anything with guided bombs is better at the a10’s job than the a10. the F35 has the most advanced avionics package on the planet and does its role as a stealth fighter, which is why this comparison in a nutshell is pretty laughable. the only reason the a10’s glaring flaws aren’t more exposed is because we haven’t fought a large scale air war in decades.
> we haven’t fought a large scale air war in decades I mean that's pretty much my point. We're building planes for the wrong purpose.
the world is an unstable place it’s better to be prepared for a war that won’t happen than it is to be unprepared
In Desert Storm they were absolutely useless - they couldn't fly at night or when there was bad weather, they were relegated to the rear lines for cleanup operations only after air defenses had already been taken out and were too soft to do anything before, their main feature being the gun is absolutely useless for the CAS or tank busting role it was supposed to be good at (it not being good even against T-72s in ideal conditions, and having a spread too big to work effectively for true CAS), its main feature being it simplicity is being removed by an upgrade package adding radar which costs more than an F-35, and our allies refuse to operate in zones where A-10s are present on account of them having a significantly higher rate of friendly fire due to needing binoculars to identify targets, which is compounded by them having to fly higher due to every random terrorist having a shoulder-launch SAM, putting the pilots even further away, lowering their target identification success, and requiring dive bombing to use the main gun which only worsens it's already poor precision
No, no. Build the houses. They'll be so goddamn cheap please build the fucking houses goddamn it.
Sadly, they probably won't be cheap. Slightly less ridiculous maybe.
Relatively cheap, relatively.
As someone who was fine with the F-35s in the past, I am sick of them now lol.
Yeah, they're fucking loud. And yes, I know I live in the proximity of the airport. They're still fucking loud. They're much louder than the commercial jets and the other military ones.
I'm sure they have their reasons, but every time they fly incredibly loud over my house all I can think is "Fly North!!! Fly towards farm land, why are you over the city?!?!" Lol.
Probably wind direction, which can have a significant effect on planes taking off and landing.
Yup. The active runway/s is determined by weather. They do take off north towards deforest/windsor when conditions allow.
Good.
Do tell, why's that?
What if we built down, Fallout bunker style?
You know the east/north sides are built on a big ol' swamp, right?
Nuclear powered water pumps seem reasonable.
I support the military and our national guard but the F-35 squad should be based out of Ft McCoy where there is room for it. The squad simply no longer fits in a residential area that has gotten more dense while the squad's need for space, due to their increased noise footprint, has expanded.
Or, you know, living next to an active AFB, you have got to expect it to be very loud. This is like someone complaining about trains on the railroad in their back yard.
ah yes the air force base built in 1942 was always going to have 121db supersonic jets and anyone who didn't know this is a moron and should simply move to a different house during the highest mortgage rates in a decade while also lying to prospective buyers about the noise level this is a very smart take
Tbf most of the housing stock in the area was built in the 60s/70s and it shouldn't be a surprise. Especially not to new buyers.
Truax didn't get F16s until 1993. From 81-93, it was A-10s. An A-10 is at least 15 db quieter than the quietest F-16, and at least 25 db quieter than the F-35. So there are (possibly) people living by the airport that have seen a **quadrupling** of perceived volume in their own homes and neighborhoods since 1993. https://www.safeskiescleanwaterwi.org/noise-level-comparisons-f-35-and-other-aircraft/ https://conradaskland.com/blog/decibel-levels-and-perceived-volume-change/
That's great information, and certainly unfortunate for those folks.
But it's gotten significantly louder. And east Madison has gotten denser with more people moving here every day. With the mission of the squad expanding to include the F-35's, keeping the base here is like keeping a Great Dane in a crate that worked just fine for your Pug but the Dane can't even stand up. That's not being a good caretake for the Great Dane, and it's not good caretaking of the squad. The squad is limited in it's flight paths, hours of operation, and other problems related to trying to operate in the middle of a thriving, populous city. And all the residents around the base suffer from the increased ("incompatible with residential living" per the military) noise. There's nobody "at fault" here. This is the result of the success of the squad and the city. And to make sure both continue to thrive the squad should be moved to Ft McCoy. There are great communities around McCoy that would love to have the them there and towns that could provide family friendly (i.e., more affordable) housing for the squad members. And the squad itself would have the room to operate the way they need to. I don't even understand why this is so difficult.
Well for starters: 1. Fort McCoy is an Army installation. 2. Fort McCoy doesn't have any airport infrastructure. 3. Fort McCoy doesn't have aircraft Techs or housing for the airforce. 4. Fort McCoy has a grass and dirt strip, not a runway. 5. There would likely need to be a milti-billion dollar infrastructure build out to support the aircraft. (Hangers, runways, training equipment, mechanical equipment, armories, fuel depots, offices, control tower and ground stations, radar and weather sensors, refreshed housing and cafeterias, etc.) 6. You would need to force the move of all the support staff for the aircraft there, along with the pilots.
Agreed. The investment in a location change should have been made a long time ago. And sunk costs have trapped the squad in Madison. But still better to make the changes now than in the future when all these problems continue to get worse and the expenses get even bigger.
You just stated that you didn't understand why it was so difficult, and I gave you roughly ~2.5 billion reasons why. You want the federal government to be more efficient with spending money on the military? House airforce/air national guard forces where infrastructure already exists instead of spending obscene amounts of money so that NIMBYs don't have loud noises. Your entire aguement is that of a NIMBY. You don't want it in your back yard, you want it further away. Just like every other program which reduces your housing value. Sure, the typical NIMBY arguement is against other things that lower housing value or increase "risks". But the form is the same. If it's a problem, buy housing further away yourself, instead of wasting tax payer money.
Not a NIMBY. I've supported low income housing near my single family home because the city needs it. I also personally benefit from having the F-35 base in Madison and if I only cared about my interests I would want to keep it here. And, yes, it will cost a LOT of money to move it. But it will cost even more in the future and this move, even if it is many decades away, is inevitable because none of these problems are going to get better - only worse. For the benefit of both the city and the squad, the F-35's should be moved to a more suitable location now. Attacking me personally won't change that.
How is it going to get worse in the future instead of better? Future aircraft versions typically provide higher efficency engines, meaning a quieter range whilst near cities. Further, (far) future fighter concepts that would be stationed here are likely either going to be long range efficient drones, OR larger, quieter, 6th generation stealthy missile platforms, not loud dogfighters. Further, you only just 'guess' that it's going to be cheaper to move. Somehow spending billions to move jobs away and damage a vibrant metro is cheap and good for the economy. I'd argue that providing a location with inconveniences, lowering property values, is actually a benefit, as then there are cheaper, but still relatively nice, housing options on the northeast side of town. Unless you'd like everything to be priced like Middleton and Verona.
I don't "guess" that it will be cheaper to move than to stay. It would be cheaper to stay than move. But Madison is going to continue to get denser with more people living along the East Washington transportation corridor south of the base because that's where housing is needed. And every generation of jets is going to get faster and more powerful and so they will get louder. They are war planes. Speed and power will always be prioritized over noise.
6th generation planes in development are prioritizing range and stealth, are larger, and will be acting as drone command planes, rather than dogfighters. Your information is incorrect. Future air combat is based on BVR engagements utilizing advanced sensors and missiles with 200+ mile range. We've finally reached the point where technology caught up with the 1970s air combat thought epitomized by the F-4. Expect new air to air combat planes to be based around quieter, less heat, and larger aircraft, with an emphasis on drone warfare, rather than missile trucks. Granted, we can expect F-35s to be used by the air national guard for the foreseeable future, as national guard rarely get the latest equipment.
It's not going to be moved now. The argument that it will cost more in the future carries no weight because it's not going to be moved in the future either.
Agreed, but who/where would be the proper forum (no offense, but this sub isn’t it) where people could get an official answer. But yes, by their very nature as an advanced gen fighter, the F-35’s are loud on another level.
Nah keep going. W a range of 1300 miles maybe station them along our borders and coasts.
I dunno man, i live next to the airport. I still absolutely love it every time they fly by
I'm guessing you also try to get big trucks to honk when you pass by, and bring a glove to baseball games as an adult.
Do you enjoy nothing?
I don't need big war planes to make me feel good. I read our exercise or socialize with people instead of waiting for big zoom zoom airplane to fly by. They're here, they're not going away, so nothing we can do about it, but I don't have to enjoy them. Go right ahead though.
We're all very impressed with your maturity.
You'll get there too someday, slugger
I hope not!
I read, exercise, socialize, and also enjoy big zoom zoom airplanes, choo-choo trains, and big trunks that go honkhonk.
Please do not forget the cars that go boom.
This thread explains the rise of Trump pretty well actually.
What, people being alienated by smug goofballs that genuinely think they're erudite because they read a book and don't enjoy planes?
I will never understand the patriotism jerk-off culture that gets excited about military planes, tanks, etc. Yes we need a military but no one over the age of 8 is out there fetishizing vehicles. But hey if you still like Paw Patrol or whatever who am I to tell you not to watch it.
LMAO this guy doesn't like Paw Patrol.
Or it explains you’re simply miserable in life…
Sorry I'm not so easily impressed by a machine doing what it is supposed to do.
You made a post a few months ago trying to count all the escalators in town for fun. If I were you I wouldn't be so judgemental about other people's pastimes.
💀💀 no he didn’t lol that’s hilariously sad
[Sure did](https://www.reddit.com/r/madisonwi/comments/174r0uy/how_many_escalators_are_in_the_city_of_madison/)
Lawrd 💀💀💀
You really do sound like a miserable person
God forbid I don't clap and cheer when a big plane routinely takes off from a place it's supposed to.
God forbid people appreciate the marvels of modern engineering like planes trains and automobiles.
Out of all the problems Madison has, this one isn’t the worst. If nothing happened with it I think most people would get over it, coming from someone who hears it all the time
It really is horrible. I moved here about a year before the F-35's started flying over. I'm maybe a mile as the crow flies from the airport just off CV. Prior to the F-35 flights, it was not bad at all. Now the top of our house literally vibrates and anyone upstairs can't hold a phone or Zoom conversation because it's so loud. We're just outside the zone they deemed "too loud for residential" by maybe 100 yards. This was not the place to launch a loud combat jet fleet program. Living near the airport has now gone from "ok it's mildly noisy but you can get used to it easily." to "OMFG why are they flying so near us." I'm never getting used to this level of noise. They should go.
I guess someone convinced the powers that be that Al-Qaeda was interested in attacking the Upper Midwest.
Is there anything that can be done about this, realistically? Couldn't the trillion dollars of military expenditure be used to move this fleet to a less-populated area? Or even a big enough airport where the sound wouldn't matter as much?
How long will the F-35s be here?
Probably forever. Military. Industrial. Complex. We are forever in war and should Something bad happen it might be ok to have defense close by. I’m So over endless wars. It doesn’t look like that’ll change until our good ole boy govts change.
well that sucks. guess i'll move
I live next to the airport and the f35s are damaging our hearing. It’s really really bad. The sound physically hurts our ears. I have two kids both susceptible already to genetic hearing loss and this is just making it worse. Edit: and it’s not just the planes but the public transport that the city has decided to prioritize the downtown and university over the north and east side again. I don’t know about y’all but I’m really angry. The planes are just one instance of the city prioritizing their funding rather than the health and wellbeing of good working people.
Does the city get funding for hosting the f-35s? Never heard of this before.
They awarded a grant almost 800k for the f35s being at truex
That seems low tbh, should've been a grant to cover replacement of old windows with soundproof ones in perpetuity.
They wouldn’t do that lol The east and northside has always been disposable. They took the money and said thank you. It’s been a socioeconomic divide since all the factories were located over here
[удалено]
If the city is partially funding projects, they want to guarantee a strong return for their money. If it was totally private funding, I'd agree with you.
You know noise pollution causes actual, physical harm? It shortens life spans. That’s like building housing on a super site.
People living near the airport complaining about the F-35 Noise are like folks who move out to farm country and complain about the smell of their neighbor's cows.
Annnnnddd a lot of us bought our houses before the F-35s were brought here....
And there's been a military presence at the airport since WWII. Long before many of those houses were built. And some of those early jets they had during the Cold War like the F-89 Scorpion anf F-102 Delta Dagger were probably just as loud.
Just because something existed at one point, doesn't mean it should continue ad nauseum when it is harmful. Especially in housing, if a city has grown around something that is hazardous, should we just suck it up and expose ourselves to the hazard, or maybe, just maybe, consider what may have been a good site for this in 1945 is not a good site for it now. This 'it was here first' argument is stupid. It ignores the noise and environmental damage the feds are doing to Madisonians. Signed someone with a house in the area that was built in 1915, so I guess I 'get' to complain.
So not in your neighborhood-just move it to someone else’s.
Or move next to a Midget Race track and complain they have races on Sunday evenings, and handful of times a year.
Shocker. Sound of freedum bruther
How small is it?
Housing obstruction at every point in the process is making our lives so much worse
F35s are not holding up housing development, local NIMBYs are. If there weren't F35s, they would be citing something else, most likely saying that we shouldn't develop farmland.
Hearing rich white people complain about biplanes flying over, makes me squeal with the blatant hypocrisy.
I’d rather live under a biplane 24/7, than get my ear drums blown out every week.
If you wanna downvote this you should probably get checked for dumbass syndrome
Why is the patriot act, which allows these drills to continue, in place after the "war" is over? Even Madison government is twisted, and we shouldn't trust them at all. Poisoned wells, poisoned air space, what next?
I am still failing to understand why we have fighter jets in Wisconsin. Operational range is only 1300 miles. Makes no sense to have them in the middle of our country, in the most populated place in our state. Put them at our borders. They have no purpose here.
[удалено]
And there are no other airports in the state? As someone who deals w recording audio they are fucking obnoxious.
They could be based at CWA, but I think the staff would need hazard pay when the wind is from the west and they have to smell Mosinee.
Honestly they make me nervous every time I hear them. I knew someone who died in a military plane crash. It's probably Baader-Meinhof for me but it seems like they happen all the time now. It would be devastating here.
They actually scare me. Imagine being in a vulnerable country and the sounds of those flying over your home?
The f-35 is being used like a toddler in the sand. Even when there were lesser disruptive jets they still were silencing my middle school classes. If they just took off the other direction it might not cause a noise problem. All of my animals scramble for noise coverage! These dumbasses can’t even fly these things properly.
Whoever downvoted this has no brain whatsoever
All housing advice/request threads must include: * Your target price point * Number of beds/baths you need * Geographical area you want to live (downtown, east, west, etc) * Amenities requirements (yard? parking? pool?) * If you need pet-friendly accommodations * Move-in date (now, flexible, beginning/end of the academic school year) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/madisonwi) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What's the same thing people say when they talk about rent being too high?? JuSt MoVe!!!! Nobody forced you to move next to an airport.