F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

[Scimitar54]

Perhaps “the slide” showed that Australia was within F35A combat range from UK RAF Bases.

[Ron5]

Perhaps “the slide” showed that Australia was within F35A combat range from UK RAF Bases.

Oooooo you naughty boy, you'll be saying next that the RAF don't like going to sea! And even after the Navy put a pub on the QE's just for their benefit

[Lord Jim]

RAF probably realises that it will not be able to behave like it did with the Harriers, where it seemed to only deploy them on the carriers when it had to. If it could have gotten away with it it wouldn't have done so at all. With the F-35Bs Carrier Strike is too high a profile and they are worried they Navy might get priority.

Well if they go for F-35As they can kiss Tempest good bye.

[Scimitar54]

And kiss the F35Bs goodbye as well. Not fit to be the custodians of Carrier Aircraft (and proved this twice over in little more than 10 years). Maybe even call into question the very existence of the Junior Service.

[Lord Jim]

Yes, far better to revitalise the FAA by giving them control of the F-35B fleet. I am sure they would still let some RAF pilots fly the plane if they asked nicely and grew a beard.

[Timmymagic]

Yes, far better to revitalise the FAA by giving them control of the F-35B fleet. I am sure they would still let some RAF pilots fly the plane if they asked nicely and grew a beard.

I'm always a little bit doubtful of the regular 'RAF to ask for F-35A' pieces in newspapers. It doesn't tally with any of the mood music from the services. I suspect, particularly given the outlets that these pronouncements are published in, and the journalists that write the stories are always the same, that its 1 or 2 disgruntled, long retired, RAF bods who are the 'sources' just recycling the same old nonsense. It's the same with the RN where you can practically tell its Lord West up to his usual tricks...I really do doubt whether any of the current generation of national newspaper defence hacks actually have any real, serving senior 'sources' who are willing to brief them. Whenever there is a real announcement from the MoD they're always reacting in the same timeframes that everyone else is, they're never ahead of the pack. Which in journalism usually means that they don't have an inside line.

[Ron5]

Yes, far better to revitalise the FAA by giving them control of the F-35B fleet. I am sure they would still let some RAF pilots fly the plane if they asked nicely and grew a beard.

Not the women surely?

[topman]

I see silly season is in full swing, is there a defence review on?

[Repulse]

I just hope there is a real debate going on about how many F35s that are needed. Turning the QEs in part manned (F35B) part large UAV Carrier makes the most sense. It needs to be capable against first tier foes and longer range UAVs to take out A2/AD capabilities day one will be key. How many are needed on say 18 F35B / 18 LANCA (UAV) wartime configuration?

I still in favour of more Tiffies plus investment in Tempest ahead of the F35 for the RAF.

[seaspear]

There have been many articles on how the R.N will use the F35B but almost zilch on how or where the R.A.F will deploy them ,I can envisage there could be advantages of this type of aircraft deployed in a supportive role to the armed forces

[Repulse]

Focusing on 2 x 18 a/c squadrons (one attached to each carrier), a 12 a/c reserve / OCU squadron and the 3 trials a/c would be 51 F35Bs and a solid initial capability; especially with visiting allied a/c.

Any future funds can then go on LANCA and Tempest (to replace the Tiffies). A three a/c type for the U.K. should be sustainable when linked with a few allies.

[Ron5]

I see silly season is in full swing, is there a defence review on?

I think there just might be ...

"RAF airfields no better at 'serious war' than aircraft carriers, naval architect warns
By Danielle Sheridan, Political Correspondent 20 July 2020 • 6:05am

The new 65,000 tonne Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers

Royal Air Force airfields are no better at “serious war” than aircraft carriers, a naval architect has warned, as the “turf war” with the Royal Navy heats up.

In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, Dr Mark Campbell-Roddis, who from 1996 to 2003 was involved in the early concepts for aircraft carriers, has defended the £6 billion warships which were once described by Dominic Cummings as a “farce” unable to be sent to a "serious war".

“In a ‘serious war’ I would much rather be on one of the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carriers (well-protected & mobile, offshore) than one of the RAF’s poorly defended airfields, which are the real sitting ducks in amongst all this,” he writes.

“The RAF talks down the role of aircraft carriers because it doesn’t like the Navy operating fixed-wing aircraft, and would rather have the money (and the glory) itself. But the fact is these ships are terrific assets for our country.”

He adds that the procurement of F-35B aircraft for the UK carriers “will provide world-leading capability”, however cautions that the “only issue with these aircraft is the paltry numbers of them in service, and the snail’s pace at which they are being acquired”.

Dr Campbell-Roddis’s comments come after The Sunday Telegraph reported that the RAF had been accused of wasting money on “outdated” warplanes that cannot take off from the new 65,000 tonne Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers.

The row centres over two versions of the planes - the F-35A and F-35B - the former being unable to operate from the two carriers.

A source told this newspaper that “hostilities” between the two forces date back to the 1966 Defence White Paper, which resulted in the removal of the UK's aircraft carrier capability. “It’s an internal conflict based on turf war,” they said.

“They (RAF) argue Aircraft Carriers are vulnerable to getting sunk, that they can do the job more effectively. The Navy sees it the other way.”

[Lord Jim]

It will be a while until I would consider the Carriers "Well protected".

[Ron5]

It will be a while until I would consider the Carriers "Well protected".

M'Lud, I submit for your consideration: F-35's with AMRAAM, ASRAAM & PW IV; T45's with Sampson, Aster 30, & 15, Type 23's with Merlin & Type 2089 sonar plus Stingray, Type 2087 Sonar, CAMM & Harpoon; Astute with Sonar type 2076 plus Spearfish. Plus wads of Phalanx & DS30's. Plus EW kit up the kazoo.

Defense rests.

PS must have missed something.
PPS apologies for drift, mea culpa

[Scimitar54]

More likely to be considered “Well Protected” once an adequate number of F35B can be guaranteed for QEC Carrier deployments. Onus on the RAF here! Failure to deliver must result in the transfer of assets to the RN. There can be NO compromises over this!

[serge750]

Don't get me wrong, I would love to have the F35B in RN colours but it does seem a bit weird that the RAF would be still pushing for the F35A over the prospect of getting the project tempest offspring in numbers would be more appealing? after all as a country the politicians wont want to spend more on defence than they can get away with

These storys annoy me cause nobody knows the source….Could it be also that a old RN officer is playing up to the RAF wanting the "A" version as he/she wants to put the focus on the "B" model and embarrass the RAF brass into quashing the idea of 2 F35 versions

[Timmymagic]

These storys annoy me cause nobody knows the source….Could it be also that a old RN officer is playing up to the RAF wanting the "A" version as he/she wants to put the focus on the "B" model and embarrass the RAF brass into quashing the idea of 2 F35 versions

I'm convinced that the 'sources' for these stories, that have come along since 2010 to the same journalists and outlets are from the same, long retired, Admirals and Air Marshals. Just cannot see how anyone internal now, having seen the work and effort that has gone into F-35B and the carriers would be willing to sacrifice it.

[Ron5]

These storys annoy me cause nobody knows the source….Could it be also that a old RN officer is playing up to the RAF wanting the "A" version as he/she wants to put the focus on the "B" model and embarrass the RAF brass into quashing the idea of 2 F35 versions

I'm convinced that the 'sources' for these stories, that have come along since 2010 to the same journalists and outlets are from the same, long retired, Admirals and Air Marshals. Just cannot see how anyone internal now, having seen the work and effort that has gone into F-35B and the carriers would be willing to sacrifice it.

Work & effort is performed at the bottom of organizations.

Politicking and self aggrandizement is done at the top.

Big disconnect. Always has been, always will.

Like Mountbatten going to Australia and telling them not to buy TSR2, traitorous shit.

Or the RAF changing distances on a map to "prove" the TSR2 could replace carriers east of Suez. lying shits.

As for the newspaper stories, who knows, half of them are just made up by the journo's themselves. This particular story was wrtten by one Danielle Sheridan, Political Correspondent. Note, not defense correspondent.
Keeps her education & job experience secret from google, been in the job since November.

[bobp]

Aviation Week on F35 future plans if the program runs on schedule?

https://aviationweek.com/ad-week/length ... uture-role

[seaspear]

To be fair to Ron any journalist who has some considerable influence with their readers should have some expertise and knowledge of the issue the write on after all people pay money believing this info is accurate, articles found in Muck Rack by this journalist suggest a degree of self-promotion, this journalist on Linkedin expresses an interest in the U.S.N ,so perhaps the only qualification is being some sort of fanboy lol

[seaspear]

I would add that many of the contributors in this forum appear to have better credentials on knowledge of defence issues than journalists which is sad because the journalists are the ones to shape public opinion ,I exclude real journalists like Xavier and Gabrielle from this comment of course who have been contributors to this forum

[Scimitar54]

Bum Steers, you mean?

[SKB]

RAF interactive 3D model of an F-35B
https://www.raf.mod.uk/aircraft/lightning-f35b/

[SW1]

https://aviationweek.com/ad-week/rising ... es-outlook

The U.S.-led F-35 Joint Program Office declared in 2009 that total sales of the F-35 could reach 6,000, but more than a decade later government and Lockheed officials prefer to size the global market at around 4,000. Even the more modest projection may depend on maintaining the original orderbook of the U.S. Air Force, the program’s largest customer, with an official requirement for 1,763 F-35As.

Although Air Force leadership remains fully committed, cracks have appeared in the service’s long-term programming. In March, Air Combat Command (ACC) announced a goal to achieve a long-term fighter fleet composed of 60% F-35s and Lockheed F-22s and 40% among Boeing F-15s, Lockheed F-16s and Fairchild Republic A-10s. The Air Force inventory today counts about 2,190 fighters overall, leaving room for a total of about 1,315 F-22s and F-35s combined to achieve the 60% goal. If about 180 F-22s are removed from the equation, the Air Force would be left with a total fleet requirement for 1,135 F-35As.

[The Armchair Soldier]

Deleted the off-topic posts and other unnecessary crap. Let's keep it on topic and avoid the personal stuff from hereon please.