Faced with mounting community opposition to the Air Force’s proposed stationing of 18 to 24 F-35 fighter jets at Burlington International Airport, Vermont Adjutant General Michael Dubie moved another step closer to advocating on behalf of the new striker fighters, warning that he sees “no clear path forward” for the Vermont Air National Guard (VTANG) if the F-35s are based elsewhere.

“The way we see things now, there is no plan B” if the F-35s aren’t based at Burlington International, Dubie said. “We may not close our doors, but we will be dramatically smaller.” Such a loss, he argued, would spell fewer local jobs, money and other resources for Vermonters. Currently, VTANG has an annual budget of $50 million and employs 400 fulltime workers and 700 parttime workers.

Speaking to an audience of reporters and more than two dozen Guard members at Camp Johnson in Colchester, Dubie pointed out that Vermont’s “legacy” fleet of fighters, already 26 years old, is due to “time out” — that is, be mothballed — sometime between 2018 and 2020 and the F-35 is its only replacement. Vermonters should not expect a “cafeteria-style menu” from the Air Force from which to pick a new replacement aircraft. Larger aircraft, such as cargo planes or drones, are not likely to be based here due to the size of the Burlington runway and other air space considerations.

“If we don’t get a fighter aircraft,” Dubie added, “my current professional opinion is that we’re going to be much smaller.” 

Responding to what he called some of the “inaccurate statements,” “hyperbole” and “rhetoric” that have arisen following the release of the Air Force’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the F-35s, Dubie also tried to downplay the issues of noise and the potential for dwindling residential home prices as a result of the increased noise.

Dubie admitted that the F-35s will be “somewhat louder” than the F-16 but not as loud as the F-4s that were based at Burlington International prior to the F-16s. How much louder, he said, is “inconclusive” and depends upon on the measurement technique. Dubie also noted that the draft EIS documents don’t take into account “aggressive” local mandatory procedures for mitigating noise.

“We are your National Guard and we want you to be proud of us” Dubie noted. “And if we’re not good neighbors, that’s impossible to have.” 

Dubie also took aim at some public comments made about the FAA’s 2008 home buyback program, which he pointed out has nothing to do with the F-35.

“Now some people are saying that 500, 1000, 2000 homes will be bought back. That’s just not true,” he said. If more homes are bought back in the future, he added, that decision would be made by the FAA and the City of South Burlington, not the Air Force or Air National Guard.

To address such issues, the Adjutant General proposed creating a citizens advisory committee similar to the one in place for several decades in New York’s Adirondack Park. Such a committee, he suggested, would include representatives from local municipalities, the airport, the Vermont Department of Transportation and VTANG to address issues such as noise, land use and environmental concerns. 

Citizens opposed to the F-35 “bed down” at Burlington International Airport are staging a protest at 5 p.m. today, Thursday, June 14, in the Winooski roundabout.

This article appears in Jun 13-19, 2012.

Got something to say?

Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!

Staff Writer Ken Picard is a senior staff writer at Seven Days. A Long Island, N.Y., native who moved to Vermont from Missoula, Mont., he was hired in 2002 as Seven Days’ first staff writer, to help create a news department. Ken has since won numerous...

12 replies on “Dubie: “No Clear Path Forward” If Vermont Air Guard Doesn’t Get The F-35s”

  3. The F35’s are vital to the Vermont Economy and the VTANG. Why are people so
    short sited?

  4. So in order to have a few more jobs…if that’s even true, the entire vicinity has to be bombarded with deafening roars from pollution spewing, hideously expensive, cost over ridden, possibly not -ready- for- prime -time fighter jets? Neighborhoods will be decimated, children will be exposed to levels of sound and air pollution that we can’t even begin to measure, and our corner of Vermont will never be the same. For the promise of a few jobs? How about rebuilding some roads, or putting people to work in solar energy plants, or paying them to teach, or hire them as nurses, or farmers. Think of all the jobs and resources that will be lost when people flee the area. Say NO!

  5. SILENT MAJORITY

    Send letters of support to:

    HQ ACC/A7PS
    129 Andrews Street, Suite 337, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia 23665-2769, ATTN: Mr. Nick Germanos

  8. No military plane is vital to the Vermont economy. Like the comments of most military officers, Dubie’s comments are self-serving. After all, if there are no big planes for him to be in charge of, then he might not be able to stay in Vermont or (maybe) he won’t get that promotion. Having grown up around the military, I never trust the words of an officer who will benefit from whatever he’s trying to sell as essential to national security, jobs, freedom or whatever. Take the F-35s elsewhere.

  10. He’s not staying in VT, He’s moving on. So since he isn’t benefiting from it do you trust him now?

    While the plane isn’t vital to VT’s economy, it is vital to many people in the area and the companies they work for. Remember this is the military and those folks along with their families can’t just up and quit if they are reassigned to another base. They move, and with them an experienced worker for some company.

  11. Dubie is accused of being biased because he’s in the military. He may or may not be biased, but whether he is or not he is, that doesn’t mean that what he’s saying about basing the F35s here isn’t true. In addition, remember that the people who are against the basing might be just as biased in their own way as they accuse Dubie of being. Everyone is biased and prejudiced in one way or another. The people who are against accuse the people who are for of using fear and patriotism to muster support for the basing. But the people who are against are using their own anti-military sentiment and fear of losing property value to muster opposition. This decision should not be based on fear and loathing by people who are anti-military, or on fear-based assumptions about what the basing might do to their property values. The latter is exactly the same kind of NIMBYism that prevents Vermonters from siting renewable energy facilities anywhere in Vermont, even though we all say that that’s what we want renewable energy.

Comments are closed.