Eglin Air Force Base - F35 Integrated Training Center

I've found additional info about the F35 training program from american sources. A massively interesting presentation made by the US DoD in 2010 presents in detail the structure of the F35 ITC, and indirectly tells us of the plan that the UK was working with for the training of its F35 force prior to the switch to the C variant. 

The enormous ITC complex is to train pilots from all three US users of the F35 and from whatever partner country which will want to exploit the school. 

Eglin is being extended and refurbished, with new buildings being prepared and with an LHA deck replica being prepared for specific training of the USMC F35B crews in the nearby auxiliary airfield known as Duke Field. 

This map shows the runway extension and the construction of the "LHA deck" at Duke Field for the specific training of USMC F35B crews destined to the flat tops amphibs.

This map shows the relative positions of Eglin, the ITC main complex and the nearby Duke Field auxiliary airfield.

The ITC is to offer 10 F35 Full Mission Simulators, classrooms, 1 Ejection Seat Trainer, a number of Mainteinance Crew Simulators and some 5 Weapons Load Trainers. See my earlier article on F35 training for an overview of these systems.

Loading an AMRAAM in the weapon bay of the F35: just like the real thing. This is the first operational Weapons Loading Trainer installed at Eglin. See F-16.net.

Flying training will be carried out by a squadron from each of the main users, under the control of 33 Fighter Wing "Nomads", part of Air Education and Training Command's 19th Air Force. 

- For the USAF, the 58th Fighter Squadron "Gorillas", which will have 24 F35A

- For the USMC, the VMFAT - 501 "Warlords", with 20 F35B

- For the USN, the VFA - 101 "Grim Reapers", with 15 F35B 

In addition, there will be 33rd Operations Support Squadron. 

33rd MXG will comprise three squadrons: the 33rd Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, providing flightline maintenance support; the 33rd Maintenance Squadron, providing intermediate-level back-shop support; and the 33rd Maintenance Operations Squadron, providing maintenance control and other logistics support functions. An additional "School House" Group is being developed to manage the training systems, support centers, classrooms, simulators, and ground training devices. 

A complete overview is available here. 

The original vision was for five F35 training squadrons to be based at Eglin, but some discussions and firm decisions still have to be taken in that regard: the training squadrons might remain 3. These are expected to reach peak efficiency around 2014 or 2015. 

By then, 33 Wing expects to have somewhere between 80 and 100 pilot students on the campus on any given day. Peak in the training efficiency for mainteinance crews will be reached a bit more slowly, with a notional date being 2016, when between 600 and 800 mainteiners in training will be on the campus on any given day. 

This map of the ITC structure shows the extent of Eglin's refurbishment and expansion. The ATC building contains the simulators and classrooms, and near the runway can be seen the two new hangars, with the Department of Navy's (DoN) one being the most evident. The hall to the left is the F35C USN one, the right hall is the USMC's one, and would have served a 6-strong UK F35B flight as well.

This interesting 2010 interview to Colonel Tomassetti, 33rd Fighter Wing, Vice Commander, contains more info. 

Mentioned in passing in one of the slides is the supremely interesting note that the VMFAT - 501 was to be augmented by 6 F35B from the UK, sharing the same hangar and facilities. This, prior to the 2010 SDSR variant switch, was the plan for US-based training of UK F35 personnel. Rumor was that the 6 F35B based at Eglin would be part of 1st RAF Sqn, as part of an initial plan that was to see Joint Force Harrier becoming Joint Force Lightning, with 800 and 801 NAS squadrons plus 1 and IV RAF squadrons. Now the uncertainty rules supreme.

Probably, this US-based force would be augmented by a training Flight / Operational Evaluation Unit in the UK on the main operating base (RAF Marham is seen as the current favorite, with Lossiemouth having been assigned the Typhoons and with Marham's destiny being closure when the Tornado GR4 retired, if it is not assigned the JCA). Logic would suggest that the Main Operating Base (MOB) would be given a replica of the CVF's deck to aid training, like the USMC is to do at Duke Field with the LHA-shaped runway. Simulator(s?) are also expected to be part of the MOB's equipment, and at least one Deployable Mission Rehearsal Trainer (built inside a standard TEU container) would be based on the aircraft carrier at readiness.  

With the move to the C variant, the "geographical" change would have been minimal, since the Warlords and Grim Reapers are based in the two halls of the very same large hangar building, property of the Department of Navy.

The USMC is to buy 420 F35, of which 340 will be B and 80 will be of the C type. The fleet will sustain 21 Regular and 3 Reserve squadrons. 5 of the regular squadrons will fly the C, the other 16 will fly the B. 
Squadron strength is planned at 12, with Reserve Squadrons having probably 10, giving a frontline force of 282 F35s. 
64 are planned to be assigned to training activities, of which 20 will be based at Eglin. 6 will form an Operational Evaluation Unit and 68 airframes of B and C variants will provide an attrition reserve. 

The ratios are 4.147 frontline airplanes per attrition airframe and 4.028 frontline airframes for each airplane busy in training/OEU role. 
This means that one third of the fleet is unavailable for frontline service due to training needs and attrition. 
With the same ratio, an UK buy of 50 airplanes, which these days is seen as the best option we could hope for, could give a frontline strength of 34, enough, at a stretch, to form 3 squadrons, but not with full complement of airframes. Like with vehicles in the Army under Whole Fleet Management, the airframes would have to be assigned to the squadrons depending on the needs of the moment. 
In a major crisis, provided a sufficient number of ready pilots, it should be notionally possible to load up a carrier with a full 36-strong, 3-squadron airwing. 

The hope, though, remains for a long-term buy of at least 80 airplanes, which would support 4 squadrons and provide better margins of maneuver. 
Post SDSR, RAF sources continued to circulate the "long term ambition" of buying "up to 100" F35s.  
 

F35 updates 2.0

The last few days have been filled with announcements about the F35, possibly a reaction of Lochkeed Martin to the by now well known report that throwing the current problems of the plane to the crowd easily managed to rise moans and calls for cancellation and other bemoaning. While it is far from pleasant to see the F35 still having all these issues, it is not at all surprising for a new generation airframe which is roughly 1/5 into its test phase and which is pushing the boundaries of what is possible a good deal ahead of where they are now.

First of all, the F35 report on year 2011 from the US DoD was released, and it confirmed that the situation is bittersweet.

"Overall the [F-35 programme] has demonstrated very little missions system capability thus far in flight-tests. In fact the programme has not delivered some of its intended initial training capability, such as effective and consistent radar performance," the report written by Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon's director of operational test and evaluation, notes.

The report, though, notes that the F35 programme exceeded the 812 in-year test flights for 2011 by 105, and flew 56 more sorties for the testing of mission systems than the 133 planned. The problem is that the most specific test flying, the sorties designed to demonstrate specific systems such as targeting and navigation, are behind schedule by 11% for the F35A and 9% for the B.

Good news for the UK, the F35C is 32% ahead of schedule.

More worrisome, but expected, is the fact that the 63 production-model airplanes delivered under the first four low-rate initial production contracts will require, later on, “significant numbers of structural modifications and upgrades”. It is a problem, for now, for the US: the UK is getting 2 F35B (BK-1 and BK-2) from LRIP5, both due for delivery this May if the schedule is met, with the first F35C (CK-1) arriving next year. All three are more advanced than the previous airplanes built and already incorporate many of the changes. Still, they will need upgrades and fixes, but being airplanes destined to live an intense but relatively short life (especially the first 2) it is not granted that they will be upgraded.

What the UK wants, is for its production lots of F35C to come as ready and complete as possible, at most, if possible, coming out with the software Block 2 while the final Block 3 is refined. Expensive structural upgrades will hopefully be avoided: the Typhoon gave (and gives) the armed forces more than enough in-year expense as it is to gain the many capabilities it still does not have. (from Paveway IV, which should arrive this year, to AESA radars hopefully around 2015, to Brimstone and Storm Shadow planned for around 2014, but also the last ten or so Tranche 1 to go through the R2 retrofit to be brought to Block 8 standard [from F2 toFRG4 in-service designation for the RAF] )

The F35 test fleet is now starting to fly at night as well, it has been announced, further expanding the scope of the test flights. An Interim Helmet Mounted Display (a version of the Striker from BAE system, as used on the Typhoon) will be soon made available and used for the tests, with the pilots wearing NVGs while Rockwell Collins tries to fix the latency problems with its HMD, which for the moment remains the long term planned F35 fit.

It would not surprise if BAE further developed the Striker to try and get the contract, though. Whoever can deliver the needed performance on time and budget is more than welcome!

Again of great relevance to the UK, the tailhook issue that caused the press to write a thousand articles about carrier planes that can’t land on carriers was already know by LM, and a revised tailhook design is being prepared for trials on Lakehurst Air Base, N.J in the second quarter of this year. While risks remain, the at-sea trials campaign on US Navy carriers remains planned for summer 2013, with LM confident that the revised tailhook will catch the wire.

Basically, the problem is that, in order to conceal the tailhook when not in use to preserve stealthness, a small bay had to be built in the fuselage to accommodate it, and this forced engineers to have the hook much closer to the landing gear than in other carrierborne airplanes. Distance on the F35C is just above 7 feet, while even the X47B drone has over 10 feet, and the F18 much more than that.

This means that when the jet passes above the wire and causes it to move, the hook arrives early, before the hook movement stops, making it more complex to catch it. The revised tailhook takes this and other considerations in hand, and hopefully will deliver a working solution. LM is bullish on the matter, and dismissed claims that the F35C won’t land on aircraft carriers as “patently not true”.

Again of importance, modifications and fixes are financed by the US. The money spent by the UK in test and development won’t rise above already agreed figures (over 2 billion).

A less pleasant news, (see why I say bittersweet?) is that transonic acceleration targets might not be met, with the F35 accelerating slower than planned due to its large front section. This is hardly an issue of great concern, considering that the acceleration target was (very ambitiously) written for the F35 based on acceleration of the F16 and F18 in “clean” (no external loads) configuration.

The clean configuration of F16 and F18 means no weaponry, the clean configuration of the F35 means 2 AMRAAM and 2x 2000 pounds bombs in the weapon bays, a relevant difference.

Besides, most of the life of the fighter jets, including in combat, still happens at high subsonic speed. And for the UK, the F35 will still be a huge leap ahead in performance compared to Harrier and also to Tornado GR4.

Another of the issues highlighted by the recent damning report was that of the fuel dump valve, which (again due to the needs of stealth) had the defect of not releasing fuel clear of the fuselage. Particularly bad for the F35B, on which fuel can go dangerously close to the roll-post ducts in the wings, part of the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing system, and potentially ignite. A revised fuel dump design is incoming already that will fix the problem. A first temporary change will be available on the test fleet soon, while in the second quarter of the year the definitive solution will be rolled out and tested on the fleet for enabling its use on the next airplanes to be produced.

As a news of purely UK interest, the MOD process for selection of the Joint Combat Aircraft Main (and only) base is ongoing. Unsurprisingly, Marham is on the shortlist. It is not specified which bases complete said list: Lossiemouth could still be on it, since it used to be the preferred MOB until last year, when it was decided to close Leuchars and move the Typhoons into Lossie. It is expected that Lossiemouth will now be busy with its 3 Typhoon squadrons and QRA North role, so the F35 is very likely to be based elsewhere.

Marham is, in my opinion, the most serious (and possibly the only) alternative. Also because Marham’s destiny depends purely on the Tornado GR4 of which it is home. There is only one destiny for Marham is the F35 goes somewhere else (where? I don’t really see realistic alternatives): closure.

We will see what happens, but I firmly believe that, perhaps already later this year, Marham will be announced as MOB for the JCA fleet.

Speaking of announcements, the new British Army structure is expected to be explained on April 12. So, updating the “Big Dates” calendar:

January 26, BAE conference on Type 26 GCS

April 12, announcement on new Army Structure

Allow me to say: i said it.

Not to be arrogant, but i've been arguing for a long time that a possible, good and cheap solution for the RAF requirement in tactical airlift would be the BAe 146. Reading the page of the 2020 RAF on this blog will confirm it.

I'm not so surprised, consequently, to hear that the MOD is looking at acquiring, as Urgent Operational Requirement, a couple of BAe 146 Quick Change cargo planes.

The BAe 146 is an excellent solution: two 146-100-series aircraft are already used by the RAF for VIP transport duties with the 32 (The Royal) Sqn at RAF Northolt, near London. These planes are also used in support of Afghanistan requirements from time to time. In addition, already in 2009 the MOD had looked into the BAe 146 when a six months agreement was signed by the MOD with Titan Airways: the MOD leased the plane for meering support troop transport requirements in the Middle East.

And around 2 years ago, BAE made its proposal to convert second-hand BAe 146 airplanes for military use, creating the "Quick Change" variant. For now, there are only five aircraft available on the market in the configuration identified by the MoD, with freight operator TNT having previously sought a buyer for its two examples, which are now likely to end up taken by the MOD.

Once acquired, the used transports will receive modifications including the addition of defensive aids system equipment to protect them from any attack by insurgents armed with surface-to-air missiles. It is likely that they will be operated by 32 Squadron, the only RAF formation with crews ready for the type. The DE&S request specifically mentions "augment its existing fleet of BAe 146-100 aircraft (70 - 80 seats class)". The cost of the acquisition could be around 6 million pounds. 
The UOR is made necessary by the delay in the A400 and the reduced number of C130K available, with the whole fleet of ths type destined to vanish within this year. 


The BAe 146-200 Quick Change airplane comes with a large Freight Door in the back [76” (3.33 m) Wide; 131”(1.93 m) High] and offers a typical gross payload of 11.500 kg. This payload is made up by: 


- Six 108” X 88” pallets plus one half pallet; or
- Four 125” X 96” pallets; or
- Nine LD3 containers; or 
- Palletized seats for personnel 


Good data on the BAe 146 family is available in this document from BAE. 

The conversion of the over 200 used, civilian BAe 146 airplanes in "BAe 146M Quick Change" is offered, with a cost as little as 5 USD millions per conversion. Performances for the type are very good overall, and cost effective: BAE says the 146-300QT has a range of over 1600 nautical miles with a 11/12 tons payload. An extended range fit could take the range out to over 2200 nautical miles with a 12 tone payload. Excellent tactical airlift capability, at a price that no competitor can match.

Since the RAF once planned to operate C130J AND A400, while now it is planned that, by 2022, the A400 will be alone, a small fleet of cheap, tactical cargo planes could be a very good idea.