OLF study delay raises questions about Oceana, jet noise

Everyone knew this day was coming - they just didn't know it would come so fast.

The Navy's announcement Friday that it is delaying environmental analysis for a proposed practice landing field quickly turned into the long-awaited debate over Oceana Naval Air Station's future: Specifically, should the Navy's East Coast master jet base host the next-generation fighter plane?

That plane, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, may or may not be louder than the Navy's current stable of F/A-18 Hornets and Super Hornets.

The F-35 - called "joint" because the Air Force, Navy and Marines will all fly a version of it - is now flown out of Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. The first of the Navy's jets are starting to roll off the production line and will join the fleet beginning in 2014.

In a news release, the Navy said delays have pushed the landing field's timeline back so far that its construction would coincide with discussions about where to base F-35s.

So instead of proceeding with controversial plans for a landing field meant to service Oceana jets that may only be around another decade, the Navy will wait to determine whether Virginia Beach will be home to squadrons of F-35s.

In that case, the landing field study, which was supposed to be released this summer, would be delayed until spring, said Navy spokesman Ted Brown.

Beach politicians want to keep Oceana's status as master jet base, with all the jobs and tax revenue that accompany it.

Beach residents tired of jet noise might feel differently if the F-35s turn out to be significantly louder than the Super Hornets.

Whatever becomes of Oceana, residents of five communities in Virginia and North Carolina in the running for the practice field were heartened by Friday's announcement. At public meetings, they have repeatedly asked the Navy why it would spend up to $200 million for a practice field that could quickly become obsolete.

Tony Clark, a Southampton County native working to stop a landing field from being built nearby, saw the announcement as vindication that their arguments have merit.

"We've been feeling like we're spinning our wheels," Clark said. "This is the first thing that we have been able to use as a measurement of progress."

Lynda Updike, who lives on a Southampton farm her husband's family has owned for more than a century, hoped the change indicated that "common sense has finally surfaced."

Navy personnel at public meetings have declined to answer questions about the F-35 and how it could change the need for a landing field. They insisted that was beyond the scope of their work.

Barry Steinberg, a lawyer hired by Virginia's Southampton, Surry and Sussex counties to fight the proposal, has long said that the Navy shouldn't build a landing field until it knows where it will put the F-35s.

"I hate to be an 'I told you so,' but I will," he said.

Steinberg traced the decision to the chief of naval operations' testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in May.

At the time, Adm. Gary Roughead expressed concern that the Navy was wearing out its Hornets and Super Hornets in Iraq and Afghanistan and might not have enough fighter planes between 2016 and 2020. Getting the F-35s on time will be critical, Roughead said.

After that testimony, Steinberg believes, it became impossible for the Navy to plan a landing field for the retiring jet without contemplating where the new fighter would train.

"They're doing the right thing," Steinberg said. "Quite frankly, had they proceeded without doing this, they would have handed me an issue."

His clients were ready to fight the Navy in court - a battle that's all too familiar to Navy brass, who lost key battles in a lawsuit by environmentalists who headed off plans for a landing field in Washington County, N.C.

Now, Steinberg said, the Navy has to make some hard decisions.

"If I were sitting on the other side, wanting to preserve Oceana, I'd be nervous," he said.

Beach officials won't say they're nervous, but their reaction to Friday's news indicates they know exactly how much is at stake.

When The Virginian-Pilot posted a brief about the issue on its Web site, noting that the F-35 was "significantly louder" than the Super Hornet, City Manager Jim Spore fired off a memo to the mayor and City Council.

"Nothing could be further from the truth," Spore wrote. He cited statistics from a presentation by the Joint Strike Fighter Program Office and Lockheed Martin, which is building the jets.

The data, from April, indicate that tests at Edwards Air Force Base in California showed negligible differences between F-35s and F/A-18s during take off.

Another Air Force document, dated October 2008, concludes differently. On approach to landing, it said, the F-35 is quieter, with sound level exposures of 108 decibels, compared with a Super Hornet's 113 decibels.

But at 300 feet above the ground, it said, the F-35 was significantly louder: 133 decibels versus 118 for the Super Hornet. That would be perceived as more than twice as loud.

An attachment to Spore's memo noted that noise levels experienced by the public depend on a number of variables, including weather, location of the airfield, and a jet's flying profile.

The Navy declined to get into the debate. Navy spokesman Brown said Friday it's hard to say which planes are louder, because there are so many variables. Is one measuring a single flight? A 24-hour period? The levels on the ground, or a mile away? And what if the new planes are louder, but there are fewer of them?

It's just too soon to say.

Virginia Beach Mayor Will Sessoms said, despite Spore's assertion that the F-35 won't be significantly louder than the Super Hornets, he isn't sure. He wants more details.

Other politicians had mixed reactions.

Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, a former secretary of the Navy, said the Navy is acting responsibly by deciding to ask the bigger question.

Sen. Mark Warner said the Navy should continue "with a careful, deliberate process that incorporates all of the relevant data surrounding an outlying landing field."

Warner also emphasized Virginia's efforts to "maintain the mission at Oceana."

This isn't the first time Oceana's future has been debated. Four years ago, when federal officials were examining all military bases as part of the base realignment and closure process, they slammed Virginia Beach for allowing so much development around Oceana.

The city and state responded by toughening zoning laws, committing millions to buy property easements between Oceana and an auxiliary landing field in Chesapeake, and pledging to do better to meet the Navy's needs.

Frank Roberts, executive director of the Hampton Roads Military and Federal Facilities Alliance, wasn't sure what to make of Friday's announcement.

"I don't know that it's a positive or a negative for us," Roberts said.

Sessoms chose to see the proverbial glass as half full.

While the news release said only that the Navy " will likely consider whether (Oceana) should be identified as a potential candidate site" for the F-35, Sessoms took it as an affirmation.

"It's great to be considered for the Joint Strike Fighter," Sessoms said. "That's something that is good. It could be worth the wait."

Pilot writer Aaron Applegate contributed to this report.

Kate Wiltrout, (757) 446-2629, kate.wiltrout@pilotonline.com