The work is expected to begin this fall and continue through 2017 at the guard base, which is on land leased from Vermont’s largest airport. The city of Burlington owns the airport, located in South Burlington.
The construction will not include the main runway, which military planes share with commercial carriers coming in and out of BTV, according to airport and guard officials.
The work is unrelated to the planned arrival of F-35 fighter jets in 2019, said Major Chris Gookin, public affairs officer. “This is based on the F-16 and the F-16’s current mission,” Gookin said. The work on the apron, for example, will repair normal wear and tear, he said.
The Air Force’s plan to replace the aging F-16s in South Burlington with the newer F-35s has been highly controversial. Opponents say the new planes will increase noise and crash risk, and represent a massive waste of taxpayer dollars.
Supporters say the planes will secure Air National Guard jobs for the region and promote a strong U.S. defense system without posing risks to local residents. The city of Winooski, which is in the flight path, has filed suit in federal court saying the U.S. Air Force did not do a complete study of the environmental impact of locating the F-35s here.
Gov. Peter Shumlin, in a prepared statement, said the taxiway project will create construction jobs and spur economic development in the region. “I am proud to be the governor of the state with the finest National Guard in the nation,” said Shumlin, who has supported the F-35s.
The National Guard plans to put the taxiway project out to bid shortly.
“This project shows our commitment to maintain and improve our infrastructure,” Major General Steven Cray, adjutant general of Vermont, said in a press release.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
A common assertion among F-35 proponents and others is that noise from military aircraft is perceived as “the sound of freedom.” This seems odd.
Freedom is complex. But for simplicity, let’s examine a most American summary — that of FDR’s “four freedoms”, a proposal for four fundamental feedoms everyone should enjoy: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.
What do our military aircraft, noise aside, have to do with providing them?
Do these planes provide freedom of speech? No, the First Amendment gives us that.
Freedom of worship? Again, no. Again, the Constitution.
Freedom from want? Here, certainly not, and rather the opposite, as the enormous sums to develop, build, and support them drain the treasury for domestic needs.
Ah, fear. Surely they make us less afraid of “the enemy” — whoever that might be. But what enemy has the air or missile capability to attack us? None on the horizon. And our overseas attacks to pre-empt any capability seem to be creating more, not fewer, enemies, enemies whose tools are not targets for such aircraft. Our fear, if anything, should be increased.
To me, freedom comes not from our warplanes, but from collaboration with nature and humans trying to be healed.
The Sound of Freedom? Tell it to the Russians, the Chinese, to Afghanistan and Iraq, to Pakistan and Yemen, to Libya and Somalia. And Palestine. They too don’t hear the roar in the air as the sound of freedom. Or the buzzing.
You need a bigger tin hat dude, strength is freedom, thank god for our military.
According to the Air Force, the base would stay open if the F-35s didn’t come. If they did come, there would actually be a reduction in jobs. There would be even fewer homes than there are now due to them being rendered unsuitable for residential use (i.e. uninhabitable) because of the noise. If an F-35 crashes, it could burn for days, sending toxic particles into the air for miles around. Each plane costs around $100 million to make. 100 MILLION DOLLARS. Seems like enough reasons not to base them here.