Forum: General F-35 Forum

Seems to me they're just going to have to buy 17 more F-35s than they planned, for their training program. Every Canadian is going to have to see a reduction in their socialized benefits to pay for that, or Canada's going to have to raise taxes.

By a whopping ~$60 a head.

Not $60 per person per year. $60 per person.

F-16.net Sponsor

Why in the world would you buy 17 F-35s to train for 65???

hobo,

I'm way ahead of this thing, sir. I've assessed for many years that US LRIP orders would be substantially reduced due to a number of reasons.

Given such assessments made years ago, I proposed a strategic LRIP F-35 Lease as a means to reduce and offset inherent risk involved with procuring said 'uncertain and risky' LRIP F-35s which would include training jets (as well as possible first tranche of operational conversion units) to all partners and interested parties.

I had proposed some form of QE3 to support a national security and economic support Lease program, but even without QE3, DoD could very easily take some of it's current 'overseas operations mission budget' starting in FY14 to support a Lease program. In my hypothetical concept... DoD would essentially own the jets, pay LM etc, then Lease them for 8-10 years. After the Lease Term, DoD could retain the jets, provide block-upgrade and fix them accordingly and incorporate them into the USAF to supplement the shortfall they will have by default by the mid 2020s, due to higher than assumed F-35 unit procurement costs, at a time of simultaneous austere budget environments.

The reason is to take 'special' measures in unexpected and challenging times in order to help make the LRIP procurement (and Program itself) viable if possible.

Last edited by m on Apr 28, 2012 - 11:31 AM; edited 4 times in total

SpudmanWP wrote:

Why in the world would you buy 17 F-35s to train for 65???

The Dutch did train their own pilots, together with Belgium. After ordering the F16 (213) they split.
The Dutch started having their pilots trained across the ocean. Belgium still trains their own pilots.

Although Dutch pilots are trained by the US, Dutch F16s as well are needed for training these pilots.
(Gradution, a Dutch pilot will get a US wing and (secondly) a Dutch wing)

87 F16’s:
At 87 F16’s > 14 F16s stationed in the US for training pilots.
At 87 F16’s: 16%

68 F16’s: (After reduction)
At 68 F16’s > 10 F16’s stationed in the US for training pilots
At 68 F16’s: 14.7%

In comparison, using these figures for Canada

A : 65 F35’s + 17 F35’s > 82 F35’s:
At 82 F35’s > 14 F35’s trainings jets
At 82 F35’s: 17%

B. 65 F35’s > 10 F35’s training jets:
At 65 F35’s > 10 F35’s training jets
At 65 F35’s: 15%

The extra number 17’s for Canada

A Canadian number of 65+17 F35’s corresponds with the Dutch number F16 ‘s used for training pilots:
o Canada: 17% (82)
o Netherlands: 16% (87)

Dutch F35’s:

A certain number of F35’s to be ordered by the Dutch probably will never fly in the Netherlands
After delivery of F35's by LM, F35’s for training pilots will fly to US bases and will stay in the US.
At may be 10 F35’s in the US, this will save the Dutch min. of Defence a lot of money.

As an example, three new ordered Chinooks by the Dutch will stay in the US.
Three of the Chinooks, staying in the US, will save the Dutch €20 million tax money.
Although, whenever these Chinooks will land in the Netherlands these taxes will still have to be paid.

For already decades Dutch pilots are trained in -/and by the US.
Although Dutch F16’s are needed for training pilots, the benefits were: less costs and one the best training opportunities in the world becoming a fighter pilot (Dutch view).

Norway, the Netherlands and Denmark intend more cooperation, in case all are ordering the F35
On a, for instance total number of 140/150 F35 (?), according the Dutch F16 (16%) figure, 24 F35 would be needed for training pilots in the US.

Suppose, in cooperation with each other, this can be done more efficient and will be more cost effective as well. While more F35’s for all Air Forces are left for their operational squadrons.

In case this is what these counties (may be?) are intending to do, this could be a possibility for Canada joining such a cooperation?

Some Dutch numbers (%) how many of the aircraft are needed/ based in the US (when trained in -/and by the US):

o F16: 68 F16’s > 10 (14.7%)
o Apache: 29 (30) AH64D > 8 (27.5%)
o Chinooks: 17 Chinooks CH-47F > 3 (17.6%)

Note: 18.4 % of all Dutch aircraft (F16, AH64D, CH-47F) are stationed in the US.
For the US economy and labour not that bad. Maintenance of these aircraft is being done by US personal. As well as for instance new paint of the F16 is being done in the US by a US company.

Last edited by m on Apr 28, 2012 - 01:30 PM; edited 1 time in total

Leasing F35’s by Canada surely would not be cheap.

As an example Hungary leases the Gripen C/D for another ten years, after 2015
Second lease by Hungary: 14 Gripens at €1.09 billion / US $1.441 billion > Per Gripen: US $102.92 million
Training pilots another €50 million / US $66.15 million

A Canadian lease number of Gripens (17): US $1.749 billion (10 years)

The first Hungarian lease still is being paid for. The second lease increases by 45%
Another 10 years / 14 Gripens C/D, including pilot training: €1.148 billion / $1.518 billion

Leasing 14 Gripen C/D’s, 20 years, Hungary will have paid: US $2.23 billion
(Second lease: US $1441 / First lease, 55% second lease: $ 792.55 million)

Sweden, Hungary Extend Gripen Lease
http://defense-update.com/20120201_swed ... lease.html

Hungary begins renegotiating Gripen contract with Sweden
http://www.politics.hu/20111230/hungary ... th-sweden/

SpudmanWP wrote:

Why in the world would you buy 17 F-35s to train for 65???

Merely basing it off the original article:

Quote:

"What we've had from DND is inaccurate and incomplete costing of these planes," said Kellway. "This is certainly a concern and speaks to the way this entire project has been managed. Pilots and ground crew need training" over the lifetime of the program.
......
The internal documents, meanwhile, say the air force will need to set aside as many as 17 of its pricey F-35s for training whenever a program is established in Canada.

Given the need for planes for instructors, planes for students (there's no two-seat variant), maybe planes for a second and third wing of students (more efficient use of the instructors), and possibly some extras to account for maintenance downtime (including extra downtime of planes used to train ground crew on important but real-world-infrequent tasks), and future attrition, it seems like a reasonable number for a fairly minimal training program, regardless of how few frontline aircraft that training program needs to serve. I don't see how it would be be possible to keep up even a bare-bones training program just for pilots with less than 9-10 aircraft. As m pointed out, even with US training, the Dutch had to set aside 10 training aircraft out of 68 total. An indigenous training program for Canada would only take more.

Buying another 17 also seems more reasonable than setting aside 17 aircraft to train for 48 (65-17) combat-ready ones. Of course, as the article also said, there's no legal mandate for Canada to have its own training program. They could simply continue to train in the US, needing only to set aside the student aircraft. Even then, though, Dutch experience suggests Canada would need to lose 10 aircraft to the program, or buy 10 more than they planned.

The flight simulators are getting pretty good -- especially considering the helmet mounted display, can F-35 trainees get by with less actual flying time?

river_otter wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

Why in the world would you buy 17 F-35s to train for 65???

Merely basing it off the original article:

Quote:

"What we've had from DND is inaccurate and incomplete costing of these planes," said Kellway. "This is certainly a concern and speaks to the way this entire project has been managed. Pilots and ground crew need training" over the lifetime of the program.
......
The internal documents, meanwhile, say the air force will need to set aside as many as 17 of its pricey F-35s for training whenever a program is established in Canada.

Given the need for planes for instructors, planes for students (there's no two-seat variant), maybe planes for a second and third wing of students (more efficient use of the instructors), and possibly some extras to account for maintenance downtime (including extra downtime of planes used to train ground crew on important but real-world-infrequent tasks), and future attrition, it seems like a reasonable number for a fairly minimal training program, regardless of how few frontline aircraft that training program needs to serve. I don't see how it would be be possible to keep up even a bare-bones training program just for pilots with less than 9-10 aircraft. As m pointed out, even with US training, the Dutch had to set aside 10 training aircraft out of 68 total. An indigenous training program for Canada would only take more.

Buying another 17 also seems more reasonable than setting aside 17 aircraft to train for 48 (65-17) combat-ready ones. Of course, as the article also said, there's no legal mandate for Canada to have its own training program. They could simply continue to train in the US, needing only to set aside the student aircraft. Even then, though, Dutch experience suggests Canada would need to lose 10 aircraft to the program, or buy 10 more than they planned.

Don’t have a number of Dutch F16’s, in case a Dutch program training pilots, but more F16’s in that case would have been needed. A Canadian number (17) could be an indication at 68 F16’s or F35’s.

17 or 10 F16’s/F35’s is almost 1/3 aircraft needed more, in case a training program by Canada or the Netherlands themselves.

The Dutch Audit office (report 2012): 68 F16’s (including 10 F16’s training aircraft) the number 68 is not enough having enough jets available for operational missions.

The Audit office figured how many F16’s total in fact are needed, including training aircraft (audit report 2012):
o QRA and intervention missions: 98 F16’s
o QRA and stabilization missions: 89 F16s

Although the 19 F16’s phased out, they still are flying in the Dutch Airforce,
The Audit office:
o Not selling these F16’s will make it possible keeping enough F16’s available concerning expected losses next years
(Lost from 1979-2012 > 33 F16’s. In 33 years > 1 F16 per year)
o As well as having these 19 F16’s available when flying hours per pilot will increase again to some 180 hours per year.

What the Audit Office in fact implies to tell, ordering less than 85 F35’s will result in not meeting their (current) commissions to Nato

In case Canada and the Netherlands will order roughly a same figure of F35’s (some 60-65) they both will have a problem meeting their Nato commitments.
o Left, minus 10 training aircraft, total some 50-55 F35’s.
o Operational, suppose 50/60%. Total: 25-27 F35’s / 30-33 F35’s available

* Lost rate, at 1 per year, both Air Forces wil have lost in 30-40 years, probably some 30-40 F35's of the ordered 60-65 F35's.

river_otter wrote:

Seems to me they're just going to have to buy 17 more F-35s than they planned, for their training program. Every Canadian is going to have to see a reduction in their socialized benefits to pay for that, or Canada's going to have to raise taxes.

By a whopping ~$60 a head.

Not $60 per person per year. $60 per person.

Don’t agree with you, ordering the F35 (possibly 17 more) depends on the total defense budget of Canada.
The F35 less -/or more expensive, or more F35’s, does not necessarily needs to imply having an impact on the average Canadian.
It depends on what the Canadian ministry of Defense sees as important spending their yearly budget.

Secondly the F35 will be paid per year, next years. Norway for example intends to pay the F35 in a period of 30 years.
Some $7-$10 billion (?) in 30 years: $233 million - $333 million per year

'count_to_10' asked: "The flight simulators are getting pretty good -- especially considering the helmet mounted display, can F-35 trainees get by with less actual flying time?"

At least one thread here on that topic: f35 all sim training?

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... d8f39.html

The point of a unified training facility at Eglin was that the US & partners did not have to buy & maintain dedicated training aircraft. That, combined with the increased use and accuracy of simulators (both in the air and on the ground) means that the need for dedicated F-35s is greatly reduced.

By simulators in the air, I was referring to the plan for the next US training aircraft to emulate the main display of the F-35.

We already have personnel in the US that will come back and stand up a training facility here in Canada. The plan, AFAIK, is to conduct all tech training at their respective F35 bases in Canada. The first few groups might go to Eglin, but eventually all training will be done in Canada, like it is now.

Do you know how many pilots per year they plan on putting through the Canadian training program?

Forum: General F-35 Forum

RCAF wonders if F-35 training budget is enough, is it ever?