Forum: General F-35 Forum

If you go by current rates, probably around 10/year.

F-16.net Sponsor

So how does 10 a year justify 17 training jets?

The plan at Eglin was 148 F-35A pilots a year using 78 F-35As, so about 47% jet-to-pilot ration.

In other words, less than 5 planes for every 10 pilots trained.

Where did the 17 number required come from?

Can one ever have too many F-35s??

(Unless the option is additional F-22s or some kind of wacky F-4R with F-35 avionics, conformal ordnance bays and F414EPEs; in the case of the latter at least two squadrons are necessary for the sheer awesomeness)

In the current defense environment, the best philosophy is probably to work the numbers such that a large operational requirement can be stated, which works out providing a cushion for the civilian politics that play an enormous role on acquisitions. I suspect that the RCAF and D(M)oD are playing a similar game.

SpudmanWP wrote:

So how does 10 a year justify 17 training jets?

The plan at Eglin was 148 F-35A pilots a year using 78 F-35As, so about 47% jet-to-pilot ration.

In other words, less than 5 planes for every 10 pilots trained.

Where did the 17 number required come from?

Part may be economy of scale. If it takes e.g. 8 instructors to train 148 students, it probably takes 4 instructors to train 74 students. But can you actually have a program with just 2 instructors for 37 students? Or half an instructor for 10 students? It seems to me there will be important 4-ship tactics to train, so if you have 4 on 4, that's 8 planes minimum to have a thorough training program, even for just 1 student. (Hot-seat the students and maybe 4 instructors can train 8 students in 8 planes total.) Plus a few spares so you don't have to shut down training if one legitimately does go down for prolonged maintenance. So that's 10 or more planes.

And then time. It's a 50 year program. You will lose airframes to mechanical failures and and accidents over time, and they need to be replaced.

Another part of it may be they didn't say pilots. They said pilots and ground crew. You can train the crew to load missiles and bombs on your pilot training aircraft. But you also need extra planes undergoing significant maintenance, so the ground crew can learn to do the maintenance. You're not going to send out ground crew who've never learned to pull the engine just because no airframes happened to need engine work that session. You're going to need at least a couple extra planes they can learn to take apart and put back together.

Eglin has more F-35s for training than Canada has F-35s in total. There's room for more overlap. They will have more than the minimum number of training aircraft flying, more "slop" in numbers so they can fill for planes that go down for maintenance, they will more often have planes that need actual maintenance so they don't need to set aside proportionately as many purely for ground crew training. Then (hopefully) Luke (or somewhere else at least) will have about the same number over again. And between the two training bases, they will have enough spares that they can dig into as the training program ages and contracts, so they won't need to pull extra planes from active units to fill for future attrition.

For reference, we only use one airframe, which is still operational, for all of our airframe, engine, avionics training. There are two other decommissioned aircraft that are used for weapons load training.

pushoksti wrote:

For reference, we only use one airframe, which is still operational, for all of our airframe, engine, avionics training. There are two other decommissioned aircraft that are used for weapons load training.

Thank you, interesting info. Can Canada do it that way though? Where are they going to get two decommissioned F-35s? (And by "still operational" do you mean you just pull one already scheduled for maintenance for each incoming class of trainees, so it's not an "extra" plane?)

It still seems to me that a bare-bones program is between 11 and 13 aircraft. If that's the minimum they can actually stand up a training program with, then they need 11-13. And as southernphantom said, to ensure they get the 11-13, they ask for 17. But even 11 is still 11 more than they have currently set aside.

Last edited by m on Apr 30, 2012 - 01:56 AM; edited 1 time in total

Personally I don't understand why Canada would like to have a training program by their own?
This certainly will be more expensive than training in the US, as well, in that case, they will need to order more aircraft.

Dutch experience, they need 10 F16's at 68 F16's to train pilots (trained by the US)
The average being used (3 maintenance): 7 F16's
Like Canada: operational pilot ratio 1:1. Although the Dutch do have some 55 guest pilots as well
Suppose Canada has got guest pilots too and I presume a lot more than the Dutch Air Force.
(The Dutch can't afford more than a operational 1:1 ratio, including guest pilots a 1:1.8 ratio. Not sufficient: peace time, Nato demands 1:1.2. In case of war a 1:2 ratio is needed)

Dutch IOT&E F35's will fly in a joint pool, both US pilots and Dutch pilots will be trained and will fly both of these two jets.
As well as spares and ammo will be used in a joint pool. Especially concerning spares (as well as ammo), joint order, will make this kind of joint training a lot cheaper.
Theoretically it's even possible, pool system, for weeks or longer, Dutch F35's will be flown by US pilots and Dutch pilots fly US jets.
Operating like this is a lot less expensive (for the Dutch) and needs less training aircraft.

The first F35A will be delivered in august, at the start this jet will only be used by US pilots.
(Simply because Dutch pilots (5) will need to be trained for the F35)
Ratio Dutch pilots F35A (IOT&E phase): 1: 2.5 (1 F35A:2.5 pilots)

The Dutch plan some 8 F35's, staying in the US after delivery, for training purposes (May be the two IOT&E F35's, after the IOT&E phase, as well?)
Don't know what's the plan when F35's will be delivered (expected 2019)? Still being used as joint training jets with the US, as during the IOT&E phase?

river_otter wrote:

Thank you, interesting info. Can Canada do it that way though? Where are they going to get two decommissioned F-35s?

I think there are special training aids designed specifically for the component you are working on. You don't necessarily need the entire airframe.

Quote:

(And by "still operational" do you mean you just pull one already scheduled for maintenance for each incoming class of trainees, so it's not an "extra" plane?)

I don't know the exact details, but they are high-hour jets that get placed in the training unit for whatever amount of time, maybe 1 year rotations? Either way, they are just used for part removals/installs, engines, landing gear, flight controls etc. The jet comes in serviceable and leaves the same way.

Quote:

It still seems to me that a bare-bones program is between 11 and 13 aircraft. If that's the minimum they can actually stand up a training program with, then they need 11-13. And as southernphantom said, to ensure they get the 11-13, they ask for 17. But even 11 is still 11 more than they have currently set aside.

In any case, if the F35 was bought tomorrow we won't have enough techs to take off the CF-18 squadrons to start training on the F35. Hell, we are undermanned as it is. 17 training jets would be nice, but they'd just sit there collecting dust.

pushoksti wrote:

In any case, if the F35 was bought tomorrow we won't have enough techs to take off the CF-18 squadrons to start training on the F35. Hell, we are undermanned as it is. 17 training jets would be nice, but they'd just sit there collecting dust.

In a joint pool with the US I suppose this problem will be a lot less?

Forum: General F-35 Forum

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