Pierre Sprey, a defense analyst and co-designer of some of the military’s toughest and most reliable warplanes, was in Burlington Tuesday warning of the potential dangers of basing the F-35 attack jets at Burlington International Airport.
Sprey charged that it would be both “dangerous” and “irresponsible” for the Air Force to base these new and sophisticated jets in a highly populated area such as South Burlington before they’ve logged enough flight time to work out all the bugs.
Sprey further warned that an F-35 crash in or around Chittenden County would produce dangerous levels of highly toxic gases and fibers, due to the burning of all its plastic components and stealth coating materials. He suggested that such a crash would be “a catastrophe of major proportions” that could “potentially blanket blocks and blocks” of residential neighborhoods in deadly gases for days, likening the effects to a “chemical warfare attack” in Syria.
Sprey also challenged claims by the Vermont Air National Guard that they’d be adequately prepared to deal with such an accident, noting that the video of a catastrophic crash and explosion of a B-2 bomber in 2008 “scared the pee out of every fire chief who looked at it.”
The 76-year-old Sprey speaks from experience. In 1967 he was brought to work at the Pentagon by then-defense secretary Robert McNamara. While there, he helped design the F-16 fighter jet, the A-10 “Warthog” ground attack jet, as well as tanks and anti-tank weapons. He left the Pentagon in 1971 but remained an active consultant on military systems through the late 1970s and has served as a defense analyst ever since.
On Tuesday, Sprey offered a room full of mostly F-35 opponents a blunt assessment of the new jet — and the politics of the generals pushing its development.
When compared to the F-16, Sprey described the F-35 as slower, less maneuverable and more difficult to fly due to its “frightening” cockpit visibility for pilots. Sprey also challenged the plane’s ultimate usefulness to national defense, charging that its long-delayed development — now the most expensive weapons system in U.S. history — is driven more by political reasons than by military ones.
“The truth of the matter is, the engineering in the F-35 is appalling,” Sprey said, adding that the attack jet’s “main mission is to send money to Lockheed [Martin].”
Sprey’s final conclusion of the F-35s’ usefulness: “This is no way to defend a country.”
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Two notes from this article stand out :
a.) ALL of Mr. Sprey’s points revolve around his PREDICTION that there will be less then 100,000 fleet hours before they are based here. There are not 5 key concerns, there are 2, that there won’t be enough fleet hours to accurately judge safety and the computer systems are more sophisticated so he also PREDICTS there will be more accidents. This guy reminds me of another guy the media gives too much attention to… Arnie Gunderson.
b.) He is brings up a good point in bring Leahy into this. If Leahy wanted the F-35’s would go somewhere else and the F-16’s would stay… at least as long as he is Senator. Leahy, Sanders, Welch and Shumlin have all vocally supported the F-35’s and yet I’d bet the farm that at least 95% of the F-35 opponents will still vote for them the next time they are up for re-election.
Maybe it would behoove opponents of the F-35 to take a stand with our leaders. Let them know that their jobs are on the line, because right now they could care less. The fact is they know that complainers will rarely take action against them, especially in VT.
Dubya could get elected in this state if he ran with a “D” next to his name…
His opposition might be more effective if he narrowly tailored it to issues that actually affect Chittenden County. The comparative power of the F-35 in the air has nothing to do with whether it’s appropriate to base it in South Burlington. The fact is the F-35 isn’t designed as a short range dogfighter, and it’s capabilities at mid and long range air combat are orders of magnitude better than the next closest jet (the F-22A, the Eurofighter Typhoon, etc.).
Anyway, I’m no more inclined to accept the supposedly authoritative predictions of a guy who retired from the defense industry over 40 years ago than I am those of a retired lieutenant colonel from a non-combat, non-flying role in the Air Force.
For the record as soon as all the Vermont political leaders came out of the closet as F35 supporters, they lost my vote and financial support. In fact I voted for the Republican, John MacGovern, who ran against Bernie because, unlike Bernie, he looked at the pros and cons of local basing of the F35, and concluded that the F35 was not appropriate for Vermont.
Oh, so you’re a single issue voter? Congratulations.
There are lots of reasons to vote against Bernie. But a nut job Republican isn’t one of them.
Scaremongering? And at Halloween too…
My guess is that Mr Sprey is just a little bit out of touch with the technologies used in the development of the F-35. Maybe he should specialize in giving talks on the history of the fighter jet program.