What is the real noise level of the F-35?

[rjmaz1]

The answers are always different because you can measure volume in many different ways and under different conditions.

The F-35 will be quieter than all previous aircraft for many reasons currently listed.

The enemy will find it much more difficult hearing an F-35 producing 140db at 20,000 feet compared to an A-10 producing 130db at 500 feet above their heads.

An F-35 taking off without afterburner will be significantly quieter than an F-16 taking off with afterburner.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

The answers are always different because you can measure volume in many different ways and under different conditions.

The F-35 will be quieter than all previous aircraft for many reasons currently listed.

The enemy will find it much more difficult hearing an F-35 producing 140db at 20,000 feet compared to an A-10 producing 130db at 500 feet above their heads.

An F-35 taking off without afterburner will be significantly quieter than an F-16 taking off with afterburner.

Yeah but with full afterburner the F-35 is louder than the F-16 with full afterburner. The F-35 is about the same as the F-15 and F-16 when they are all in full afterburner or military thrust.

 

[Marc 1]

Yeah but with full afterburner the F-35 is louder than the F-16 with full afterburner. The F-35 is about the same as the F-15 and F-16 when they are all in full afterburner or military thrust.

Do you realise that you have contradicted yourself? And then answered your own question?! How many posts now on this insignificant issue?

I think the point rjmaz1 was making is that normally takoffs on the F-35 would not need afterburner, whereas the F-16 normally uses afterburner. Therefor the F-35 will be quieter.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Do you realise that you have contradicted yourself? And then answered your own question?! How many posts now on this insignificant issue?

I think the point rjmaz1 was making is that normally takoffs on the F-35 would not need afterburner, whereas the F-16 normally uses afterburner. Therefor the F-35 will be quieter.

Well if you don't like me than just don't respond. Simple as that.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Well if you don't like me than just don't respond. Simple as that.

Time for you to calm down a bit.

His comment had nothing to do with "liking you"

This topic has been done over and over again, and some people who attended the briefing where noise management was discussed have made it pretty clear. (a first respondents view of the world per se)

Thats why for some of us there is a perception that instead of making the effort to understand what was said, that some peoples responses are being driven by their own agenda.

That has nothing to do with any poster "liking" some other posters response.

 

[Sea Toby]

I take the attitude if one doesn't like the noise of fighter jets, move further away from an air force base. No one is forcing you to live there. You are free to move....

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I take the attitude if one doesn't like the noise of fighter jets, move further away from an air force base. No one is forcing you to live there. You are free to move....

Thats what I say to people. I personally love the sound of a jet fighter. The more noise the better and if the F-35 makes more noise than an F-15 or F-16 than its all the better for me.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I found a news article on the F-35 noise. This is for dB readings on landing only it it goes:

F-35 105-106 dB
F-16 90 dB
F-15 91 dB

This is for landings only though. But eh articles says the F-35 will be 2-3 times louder on landings. Should give an indication on other flight portfolios too.

F-35 recording deafens Val-P meeting | webb, noise, valparaiso - News - Northwest Florida Daily News

 

[FritzAF]

Without going into too much detail, I will simply say that the self-proclaimed "audio professional" who gathered and presented that data doesn't know the first thing about noise, how to measure it, and its affects on the human body.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Without going into too much detail, I will simply say that the self-proclaimed "audio professional" who gathered and presented that data doesn't know the first thing about noise, how to measure it, and its affects on the human body.

Can you prove this? Are you saying those dB readings are false?

 

[FritzAF]

Can you prove this? Are you saying those dB readings are false?

I'm saying the way he gathered and presented the data was inconsistent with the methodology of the USAF, DOD, and OSHA. Furthermore, no one is going to be wearing hearing aids in their mid-20s from exposures of 105 dB for the length of time we are talking about with regards to a landing aircraft. I don't need to provide any proof (of which there is none; the only hard data for the F-35 was conducted at one particular base by one particular agency and then disseminated; no one else has been allowed to conduct official studies of the F-35 and the noise it produces) further than the methodology he used in his "study."

Anyone who works in this industry will tell you that you can not simply record a sound and play it over a speaker and attain an accurate representation of the noise that a person would have experienced had they been standing in the position of the recording equipment. It simply does not work that way and to suggest that it does is laughable at best.

Bottom line: no one can tell you the "real" effect the F-35 will have on the communities surrounding the bases where it will operate until it is actually operating there and legitimate noise surveys can be conducted. We can approximate, but we can't give you an entirely accurate representation.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Admin:

Just in case it gets out hand, or just in case I'm being oversensitive, can everyone pause a little before it's perceived that we're heading towards a pi$$ing contest.

agree to disagree.

much appreciated.

I will reiterate, a few of us attended the briefing on JSF in March where the issue of acoustic monitoing and management was openly discussed and reinforced with some 6-8 defence and specialist magazine journos present.

It was explained how measurement was done and with respect to timescale etc.... I am getting a little frustrated that there appears to be a degree of pig headedness and determination to follow a path of challenge when I have not seen anyone (incl Janes) come back since that briefing to publicly challenge or question what was provided.

It is apparent to me that the person making claims about signal measurement is actually clueless as to how they're measured in the first place - or they would actually know how it is measured and not make empirical claims.

I'm not prepared to have this thread deteriorate like some of the others where they have derailed due to willfulness rather than comprehension claims.

I would add, that in March, everyone present was advised as to how these measurements were done

Quite frankly, this thread is hitting its use by date very very quickly

 

[FritzAF]

It is apparent to me that the person making claims about signal measurement is actually clueless as to how they're measured in the first place - or they would actually know how it is measured and not make empirical claims.

Do you mind clarifying to whom you are referring? Assuming it's me for the sake of argument, I made no empirical claims. My contention is simply that playing the recorded sound of an F-35 over a sound system is ridiculous. I'm sure his readings of the F-35 at 105-106 dB are relatively accurate. But who cares? We have aircraft that are louder than 105 dB during landing. I'm also sure that his readings of the F-15/F-16 are accurate. What is inaccurate is transferring that recorded sound to another venue and playing it for an audience to somehow compare. It's a dramatization, nothing more. Further, once again, we have no idea what equipment he used, how it was calibrated, by whom it was calibrated, nor do we know the specifications. Was it within ANSI specifications? Was it a type 1 meter? Type 2? We have no clue. He failed to provide any of that information.

I simply take issue with the method in which he presented his data and his assertion that 105 dB noise exposure is going to put people in their mid-20s into hearing aids. That is a sensationalist, gross exaggeration. These people think their lives are going to be significantly affected and they are extremely passionate about it. And with good reason.

I'm not here to argue either side. I'm merely pointing out the deficiencies in the link provided by F-15 Eagle.

 

[OPSSG]

...Assuming it's me for the sake of argument, I made no empirical claims. My contention is simply that playing the recorded sound of an F-35 over a sound system is ridiculous...

I am pretty sure gf0012-aust is not referring to you in his comments. Like most people, he is just not a fan of repeating himself all the time. Please read the other F-35 thread for gf0012-aust's actual position on the issue before jumping to conclusions. Basically, IMHO, the so called sound issue of the F-35 is not a major issue in the greater scheme of things.

 

[Sea Toby]

And one of the cities most effective by F-35 noise so far has been Fort Worth, Texas. A city of over 600,000 citizens, in a county approaching 2,000,000 citizens. There are complaints of sonic booms, but not for landing and take offs of the aircraft. Of course, this air base has seen B-52s, F-111s, F-16s, and F/A-18s, not to mention other aircraft. Enough said.....

 

[gf0012-aust]

I am pretty sure gf0012-aust is not referring to you in his comments. Like most people, he is just not a fan of repeating himself all the time.

and summed up nicely......

FritzAF - I was being deliberately vague so as to not offend any individual. However, I was referring to F-15-Eagles link..

Now, F-15-Eagle has probably pulled that link up in good faith, but the integrity of the original claimant is rather suspect IMO otherwise they would have realised that all acoustic testing for aircraft landings, takeoffs and flyovers are done in a specific manner.

I seriously question whether that individual has a clue...

Sea Toby has also reinforced one of the open comments made at the briefing, that in all the time that JSF has been tested through various flight profiles, static tests etc... not one individual bordering Fort Worth has lodged a complaint - and this is from an area where people are quite happy to complain about aircraft noise in the residential areas.

Sometimes these discussions become excruciatingly frustrating. It's akin to watching a horse that died months ago continually flogged in the vain hope that it will do a lazarus. More to the point, in the middle of that flogging, if the wind catches its tail and it moves a few hairs, then its touted as "proof of life" that it wasn't dead after all.

Generally speaking, the Mod Group is a tad frustrated at the direction of some threads where some are going around and around and around in circles.

Enough is enough

 

[F-15 Eagle]

and summed up nicely......

FritzAF - I was being deliberately vague so as to not offend any individual. However, I was referring to F-15-Eagles link..

Now, F-15-Eagle has probably pulled that link up in good faith, but the integrity of the original claimant is rather suspect IMO otherwise they would have realised that all acoustic testing for aircraft landings, takeoffs and flyovers are done in a specific manner.

I was just searching around on Google and found the article and I thought it would not hurt to post it here. I did not want to start any arguments or flame wars.

If I did I'm sorry and it was not my intention.

 

[gf0012-aust]

If I did I'm sorry and it was not my intention.

no need to apologise, it's all in the well intentioned spirit of engagement.