Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
F-35 And Burlington, VT  
User currently offlineChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4012 posts, RR: 2
Posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 7020 times:

I just read somewhere that the Pentagon has chosen Burlington, VT as one of the first two deployment sites for the new F-35A. I don't know if this is true or not, so please confirm as necessary.

What is the F-35A's mission and why would Burlington, VT be a natural base for it? I know 'The Green Mountain Boys' now fly F-16s.

Aside from those, and the F-15s based at Westfield (Massachusetts), I don't know if there are any jet fighters to be found anywhere else in New England. Is that true? Maybe Connecticut has A-10s also...not sure.

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3212 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 7018 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

How much ramp space do you have for active aircraft storage? Since they keep grinding out units that will need updating before they are combat ready, you might be the closest.

User currently offlineChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4012 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6996 times:

I'm not from the Burlington area (I live in S. New Hampshire). But a Google Map image shows only a modest amount of space to store airframes...certainly nothing expansive or impressive. It is, after all, a commercial airport on the other side of the runway. I was thinking that you'd want the fastest possible jets up here in New England...able to get in the air and to wherever the 'hot-spot' is...be it an airliner with a mayday or whatever, a stray airliner, etc. I was just trying to fathom the curiosity of BTV being one of the first two airports to have them. And what the supposed 'scoring' is that said BTV is where they should locate the F-35. There are a lot of other places with more concrete if 'storage' was the reason.

User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 629 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6946 times:

The "scoring" aspect of it might just indicate that the pilot & support cohort up there has whatever experience they want for the first places to deploy, and they need new planes.

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 6865 times:

It does not make sense to put F-35s in BTV for the VTANG. They do fine with their F-16s. Does the VTANG still have an air defense alert commitment at BGR and the MEANG? Since the F-16 (and MAANG F-15s) have longer legs than the F-35, it makes no sense for it to be a coastal defense interceptor. The MAANG also has the capability to position alert F-15s at PSM with the NHANG, as well as at its former home at FMH.

User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16694 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6647 times:

I know the 177th Fighter Wing of the New Jersey ANG wants them, they have an alert mission at Atlantic City Airport that is right between NYC and DC. In fact it's the closest fighter aircraft to NYC.

Quoting ChrisNH (Thread starter):
I don't know if there are any jet fighters to be found anywhere else in New England

What's alarming is that with the closing of Brunswick NAS there are no more active duty airfields in the New England, unless you count Fort Drum. The closest active duty airfields are the airfields at JB MDL in New Jersey.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlinewoodreau From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 978 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6598 times:

The term deployment site doesn't mean that the ANG fighter unit in BTV would be equipped with the F-35 but to me means a F-35 unit would deploy a detachment (say 4 fighters) to BTV to stand their alert status there in accordance with the NORAD air tasking order. That's what comes to my mind when you use the term "deployment site."


Bonus animus sit, ab experientia. Quod salvatum fuerit de malis usu venit judicium.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 6589 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
Since the F-16 (and MAANG F-15s) have longer legs than the F-35, it makes no sense for it to be a coastal defense interceptor.

Incorrect. The F-35 has a longer range than the F-16 and the F-15, with internal fuel only. With external fuel, F-35 has even more range.


User currently offlineebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6376 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 1):
How much ramp space do you have for active aircraft storage? Since they keep grinding out units that will need updating before they are combat ready, you might be the closest.

I suspect you'll see those updates done during depot maintenance. In the meantime, those new birds will go to units that can train with them and begin to explore what the airplane can do, even at this early stage. That's what the Europeans did with Typhoon. The early models were limited in combat capability but the air forces of the nations that bought the airplane flew them to get familiar with what they could do, in anticipation of what it would later be modified to do. Same will likely hold true for the F-35.

Has anyone considered that the F-35A will go to Air National Guard units concurrently with assignment to active duty squadrons?



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 6298 times:

Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 8):

I suspect you'll see those updates done during depot maintenance. In the meantime, those new birds will go to units that can train with them and begin to explore what the airplane can do, even at this early stage. That's what the Europeans did with Typhoon. The early models were limited in combat capability but the air forces of the nations that bought the airplane flew them to get familiar with what they could do, in anticipation of what it would later be modified to do. Same will likely hold true for the F-35.

Correct. F-35 will be produced and updated through block updates. A odd numbered block update is a software update while even numbered updates will also include hardware updates along with software updates.


User currently offlineelmothehobo From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1534 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 6171 times:

Well would you fancy that, the former Vermont TAG puts on his third star as Deputy Commander of NORTHCOM and Vermont('s ANG) gets put on a short list for F-35s.

It's called politics, and it's alive and well.


User currently onlinemjgbtv From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 723 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6158 times:

Quoting elmothehobo (Reply 10):
the former Vermont TAG puts on his third star as Deputy Commander of NORTHCOM and Vermont('s ANG) gets put on a short list for F-35s.

Politics there may be, but I don't see any connection here. The TAG announcement was made in May 2012, but Burlington has been on the short list for the F-35 since July 2010.


User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 629 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6147 times:

There's some sort of "scoring" going on here. So politics is creating the scoring methodology, and then politics is changing it when you don't like the result... however, I'm still not sure what the criteria are. Wasn't easy to google.

User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11929 posts, RR: 25
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 6092 times:

Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 8):
I suspect you'll see those updates done during depot maintenance. In the meantime, those new birds will go to units that can train with them and begin to explore what the airplane can do, even at this early stage. That's what the Europeans did with Typhoon. The early models were limited in combat capability but the air forces of the nations that bought the airplane flew them to get familiar with what they could do, in anticipation of what it would later be modified to do. Same will likely hold true for the F-35.

I suspect the Typhoon is not a great model to emulate, given that the UK won't be bothering to update the first tranche Eurofighters and will be retiring them by 2019, due to, you guessed it - excessive cost.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3829 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 6010 times:

Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 8):

The problem is, the Tranche build programme was intended from the start, not the result of a poor development result.


User currently offlineelmothehobo From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1534 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 5883 times:

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 12):
There's some sort of "scoring" going on here. So politics is creating the scoring methodology, and then politics is changing it when you don't like the result... however, I'm still not sure what the criteria are. Wasn't easy to google.

It's the Guard, politics is everything. There are three things that determine (four, if you want to include size which really goes towards how big the Guard is, and not necessarily what they get) what assets the National Guard in a particular state get: Politics, Mission and Politics (The PiMP factors): How much clout your delegation has on the Hill, how often the units in your state Guard deploy, and how effectively your governor can beg/demand/grovel. Whether they want to admit it or not, it benefits state governments tremendously to have Guard units that deploy regularly. It means that big Army/Air Force is paying the troops, they'll get new facilities (immediate construction jobs and mid/long term Tech/ADOS/ADSW/AGR jobs) and those soldiers away from home are collecting a paycheck that in many cases they are not collecting when they're back home (Unemployment among for seven reserve component personnel runs just under 10%, take a guess at which one has the highest unemployment rate among them... Army National Guard).

Quoting ChrisNH (Thread starter):
Aside from those, and the F-15s based at Westfield (Massachusetts), I don't know if there are any jet fighters to be found anywhere else in New England. Is that true? Maybe Connecticut has A-10s also...not sure.

It's just the F-15s at Barnes ANG Base and at the F-16s at Burlington.


User currently offlinechrisnh From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4012 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5645 times:

Well, in the reading I've been doing it appears as though this 'decision' will come in November. Also, it seems as though a whole bunch more F-35s would be based at Burlington than the number of F-16s they have there now. If that is correct, then the 'economic impact' should be quite positive. The noise footprint of the F-35 is also mentioned as being 'significantly' higher than the F-16...which is curious since they are both single-engine aircraft.

User currently onlinemjgbtv From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 723 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5534 times:

I believe that there are 15-20 F-16s now. I'm inclined to think that the projected numbers are not too different because nobody on either side has brought up expansion as a pro or con.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic F-35 And Burlington, VT
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Difference Between Su-35 And Su-37 posted Fri Sep 7 2001 13:31:42 by Gdarm
F-35 Goes Mach 1.61 And Pulls 9.99G's posted Mon Dec 12 2011 20:09:51 by ThePointblank
Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money? posted Sat Dec 3 2011 08:24:14 by B17GUNNER24
F-35 Combat Skills: "Between F-16 And F/A-18" posted Thu Mar 5 2009 09:35:55 by AC788
F 22 And F 35: Computer Hacked? posted Sun Mar 30 2008 08:09:36 by Mortyman
Sweet P-51 Start Up And Fly By Video! posted Sun Jul 1 2012 18:42:35 by PC12Fan
GAO On F-35, June 2012 posted Fri Jun 29 2012 13:37:21 by tommytoyz
Air Force One And The E4B posted Fri May 4 2012 21:31:42 by Max Q
Talk Of F-35 Project Being Scrapped! posted Sat Apr 28 2012 19:03:19 by Zkpilot
LM F-35/F-16 Fort Worth Plant On Strike posted Mon Apr 23 2012 05:02:19 by KC135TopBoom

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format