If correctly reported, does this not prevent the RAF from a land deployment of all or part of a squadron?ArmChairCivvy wrote:he also confirmed that the calculation until then is 100% availability of one carrier at a time with 24 jets on it
Will there be enough F-35B pilots to sustain the initial 48 F-45Bs?ArmChairCivvy wrote:Air Marshall Knighton to the Defence Committee
"We know from our analysis that in order to sustain the F-35 capability and the carrier capability, we do need to increase the number of F-35s that we buy, and that we will want to do that over the period beyond 2025, when the next batch are brought into service"
Translation: we'll buy them when 'the product' will get to the stage of being delivered in full working order
- he also confirmed that the calculation until then is 100% availability of one carrier at a time with 24 jets on it
- ACA did not offer a warranty on the estimated 140% (from having two) over any 7 year period
The question not asked, but did cross my mind: how can we best deploy the other 40% average carrier availability, considering that we are talking any number of years between half a decade and a decade forward from today
- the idea of making some modifications to PoW having been (quietly; we know it now, but there was no announcement) dropped
48 F-35B FleetRon5 wrote:If correctly reported, does this not prevent the RAF from a land deployment of all or part of a squadron?
Seems unlikely.
Ron5 wrote: prevent the RAF from a land deployment of all or part of a squadron?
if/ when Ron's question is considered to relate to a parallel deployment with 'the' (one of the two) carrier deploymentTimmymagic wrote: you'd have to say absolutely not
How long were they underwater undetected?Ron5 wrote:Apparently the electronics were under water for some time so why so long?Timmymagic wrote:Thought it was a burst fire main pipe under lots of pressure?Ron5 wrote:I still don't understand why it seemingly took so long for the leak to be discovered and plugged. Probably will never see an explanation.
Do you really need a 12-ac OCU for a operational fleet of 24 or something like that?Timmymagic wrote:48 F-35B FleetRon5 wrote:If correctly reported, does this not prevent the RAF from a land deployment of all or part of a squadron?
Seems unlikely.
24 a/c onboard or assigned to a carrier
3 a/c non-combat capable test aircraft
12 a/c 207 Sqn OCU
9 left...
Add in overall availability, aircraft cannibalised for parts, tests, trials, deep maintenance etc and you'd have to say absolutely not, unless they nicked the training aircraft in an emergency....Thats why they'll be desperate to get 70+ overall. But even then you'll only get a 12 a/c squadron available for a part of the time.
Not in the long run. But like with the Russian Revolution, the production (of pilots, in this case) is restarted for a low level, so the percentage increases are 'huge' until they level off, and revert to what is seen for other (existing) fleets.abc123 wrote:Do you really need a 12-ac OCU
) would love to see a new build QEC in CATOBAR configuration with the indian navy 
Plus the QE air complement exercising against Indian Air Force. Am assuming we will be sending a decent amount of F35B.inch wrote:Think more chance of qe doing a Indian port visit or a few Indian destroyer/frigate sailing with qe when deployed
But will the 24 be UK aircraft or should we assume a 50/50 split with the USMC?Ron5 wrote:If correctly reported, does this not prevent the RAF from a land deployment of all or part of a squadron?ArmChairCivvy wrote:he also confirmed that the calculation until then is 100% availability of one carrier at a time with 24 jets on it
Seems unlikely.
In the future the intention is for them to be all UK. Realistically we won't be able to do it until 2024 though.Wrekin1410 wrote:But will the 24 be UK aircraft or should we assume a 50/50 split with the USMC?
Maybe a more realistic future goal out to 2035 or until we 60+ F-35 would be 24 UK F-35 on QE deployments and then 12 UK and 12 USMC F-35 on POW deploymentsTimmymagic wrote:In the future the intention is for them to be all UK. Realistically we won't be able to do it until 2024 though.Wrekin1410 wrote:But will the 24 be UK aircraft or should we assume a 50/50 split with the USMC?
To me the problem would have been high pressure water and high votes power they may have seen it quite quickly but were unable to get to it until power was confirmed offtopman wrote:How long were they underwater undetected?Ron5 wrote:Apparently the electronics were under water for some time so why so long?Timmymagic wrote:Thought it was a burst fire main pipe under lots of pressure?Ron5 wrote:I still don't understand why it seemingly took so long for the leak to be discovered and plugged. Probably will never see an explanation.
The cost to repair doesn't sound too vast either. Sort of job that costs more in labour than equipment.Tempest414 wrote:To me the problem would have been high pressure water and high votes power they may have seen it quite quickly but were unable to get to it until power was confirmed off
Agree. I was pleasantly surprised by the low cost. Length of time to fix would be more of an issue. Our nipper is raring to goTimmymagic wrote:The cost to repair doesn't sound too vast either. Sort of job that costs more in labour than equipment.Tempest414 wrote:To me the problem would have been high pressure water and high votes power they may have seen it quite quickly but were unable to get to it until power was confirmed off
Indeed, although our nipper did not say to me that in anyway if it had happened at sea and they were not doing Covid shifts at the time it would have been possibly a different outcome. Anyhow, he is with us for Christmas day only, so he is happy about that... though not sure my drinks cabinet is. In his 2-3 years of service he seems to be able to drink a lot more than he could! Also just seen the recent announcement of Capita getting the training for RN contract, with our experience with them I am very sad to hear that.Ron5 wrote:Our nipper is raring to go
