F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

[seaspear]

The a model does have the advantage of the developed nsm that can be carried internally ,so far there has not been news of a missile able to detect the radiation of radar systems that can be carried internally for the f35 models .

[dmereifield]

Presumably the assembly line for the B variant will end long before that of the A, might this be a factor in our decision making? Since we are planning to buy the 138 airframes over the lifetime of the programme, would we not be under pressure to purchase the B variant over a significantly shorter timeframe? If so, what is that timeframe likely to be?

[Spinflight]

They are all built on the same production line @dmerefield.

Which appears to be causing some holdups, with the three versions plus their deltas.

[rec]

A split buy makes sense on the following grounds.

1) The A is cheaper,has longer range and better fits the RAF needs

2)It would allow the Bs to be primarily an RN asset and move away from tailored are groups to dedicated air groups.

possible structure:

F35B 2 RN frontline squadrons of 16 aircraft in each, and 1 of 14 (strike carrier carriers 30, Support one carries 16). F35A 3 frontline squadrons of 14 aircraft in each. One joint OCU of both types.

or F35B 2 RN and 1 RAF squadron, F35A 3 RAF squadrons

[dmereifield]

They are all built on the same production line @dmerefield.

Which appears to be causing some holdups, with the three versions plus their deltas.

Thanks. I wasn't sure if there was sufficient commonality to assemble together

[arfah]

The A // better fits the RAF needs

As it's pantomime season, "Oh no it doesn't!"

The 'A' cannot replace the Harrier's STOVL capability.

[seaspear]

They are all built on the same production line @dmerefield.

Which appears to be causing some holdups, with the three versions plus their deltas.

What are the details of these holdups Spinflight?

[abc123]

In a Falkland 2 scenario don't forget we have a reasonably well defended Air Base there that can be reinforced.

Of course, the enemy will surely give at least 3 weeks notice to the HMG so that they can make all the necesarry preparations...

Given the current state of the Argentine military wouldn't we effectively be looking at several years warning while they rebuilt their entire armed forces?

Well yes, but I was talking more in general terms..

[Spinflight]

Thanks. I wasn't sure if there was sufficient commonality to assemble together

Reading between the lines... There isn't.

Though that is how it is done.

A split buy makes sense on the following grounds.

Bear in mind that, to a vain politician, the idea of wielding American-like power by parking a nasty big task force off an opposing shore, complete with fast pointy things which are unlikely to result in body bags, is very attractive. Also the fact that the RAF and RN are working together to provide this capability, rather than squabbling over funding, is another good thing.

Hence the RAF would be foolish to contemplate it, or ask for it, as it might impinge on future carrier options. Yes they'll only carry x many aircraft in peacetime though if a balloon went up you'd see several squadrons flying non stop to provide a bigger stick.

And frankly the stick is huge. I have no doubt they could cram more than 50 F-35s on board if they wanted, probably higher. The American super carriers aren't going to fielding more than two squadrons each, with F-18s making up the majority of the airwing.

Certainly through the mid 2020s they don't need escorting, separate SEAD or basically any of the strike packages which we are used to. From a current CVN you'd generally see 12-16 aircraft actually carrying strike, the rest are escorting, SEAD etc.

This is super power level of capability. The RAF would have to be mad to diverge from it.

[Spinflight]

What are the details of these holdups Spinflight?

From memory they were supposed to complete 52 aircraft this year, they've actually managed about 30.

Reason given is the remanufacturing work for problems found, cladding on the fuel lines etc, and the deltas for export customers such as Italy and Israel.

The latter are different configurations, slightly, again, so rather than making three types there's actually at least 7 or 8.

[Gabriele]

I did bring that up, putting a boom on voyager won't just be for F35A will also be compatible with C17/P8 and river joint?

Booms would be welcome even without the F-35A, for many good reasons. But as things stand this is another cost to factor in, and it does bite away into the supposed financial benefit of the A variant.

You may not have the weapons now but who knows what the future brings, or having an advantage of using larger US weapons if needed due to limited availability you could in theory tap into a larger pool under a user pays principle on coalition operations.

Sensible in some ways, but the last thing the UK needs is messing up yet another programme in the pursuit of vague ideas. There is already FRES – AJAX – MIV – The goddamn Strike Brigade fuckup for that. Focus on buying a decent number of Bs first. The RAF has Typhoon for the rest, and with what it cost they will better make it work for quite a while.

A split buy for the UK makes absolutely zero sense until there are a minimum of 4 frontline B squadrons, the minimum needed to be reasonably certain that the carrier can be given an airwing that doesn’t have the world laughing and people with common sense moaning at how everything has been fucked up at the cost of billions.
After that, it might make sense to think about A for the RAF, perhaps to replace the older Typhoon. Before then, whoever suggests the idea at the SDSR table should be shot dead on the spot. There is no extra money, there is no extra manpower, and thus any split buy will kill naval aviation again by making it too small to survive not just usage, but future budget battles. The very last thing we need is another fratricide fight between Harrier and Tornado.
Philip Dunne had it right when he said he did not even want to hear people talking of reopening the variants debate.

so far there has not been news of a missile able to detect the radiation of radar systems that can be carried internally for the f35 models .

Wrong. The US are developing the AARGM ER specifically for internal carriage. Probably won't fit the B's bays, though.
It is the one weapon i wish the Uk could procure and put into service, considering the loss of ALARM, but i will never call for an F-35A purchase just because it can carry AARGM ER.
There is a cheaper and (partially) national way of fixing the problem by resurrecting the Meteor anti-radar development. For a while, it was a very serious idea, but was abandoned because of cuts. Italy joined the AARGM programme in part to obtain the AARGM seeker tech with the aim of migrating it onto Meteor.

[Spinflight]

Internal carriage isn't a biggie, we could just hang anything we decide to buy off the wings.

F-35 has a very competent jamming capability.

[R686]

  


Sorry about the delay in replying, been a busy day!!

Booms would be welcome even without the F-35A, for many good reasons. But as things stand this is another cost to factor in, and it does bite away into the supposed financial benefit of the A variant. 

 

I don't see it that way, RAF are already trying to secure funding for the flying boom mods without a policy of F35A being procured, but when a cost benefit analysis is done it should be part of the mix as it has implications in a coalition environment.

but the last thing the UK needs is messing up yet another programme in the pursuit of vague ideas. There is already FRES – AJAX – MIV – The goddamn Strike Brigade fuckup for that. Focus on buying a decent number of Bs first. The RAF has Typhoon for the rest, and with what it cost they will better make it work for quite a while. 
 

What a bunch of croc. no sense crying over spilt milk, if your going to bury your head in the sand because projects aren't going according to plan you nays well not progress forward technology wise and stay with the tried and true and just replace the handle on grandfathers axe. Project managers aren't infallible mistakes can be made from a number of contributing factors beyond there control.

A split buy for the UK makes absolutely zero sense until there are a minimum of 4 frontline B squadrons, the minimum needed to be reasonably certain that the carrier can be given an airwing that doesn’t have the world laughing 
 

No ones advocating splitting the buy until you have enough aircraft to reach IOC as a single strike carrier, after that the can mix when ready to do so, unless WWWIII starts you won't be needing to fill two flat tops and then one most likely will be partially filled in its quasi role as an LPH.

After that, it might make sense to think about A for the RAF, perhaps to replace the older Typhoon. Before then, whoever suggests the idea at the SDSR table should be shot dead on the spot.
 

Well you better get your gun out because it's the RAF compiling a report before the next SDSR in 2020, and it's the RAF who wants the machine and investigating the force mix

 There is no extra money, there is no extra manpower, and thus any split buy will kill naval aviation again by making it too small to survive not just usage, but future budget battles. 
 

You won't need any extra money manpower as its coming out of an existing budget no new money, if anything you will be saving as the A's will be cheaper to buy and maintain.

As for killing Naval Aviation bunch of croc again, you will have enough airframes to fulfill both carriers as per the CONOPS dictated to by the force planners

As for manpower that's was always going to be an issue irrespective if it was a all "B" fleet or not.

[Gabriele]

A split buy at this point will end in programmatic suicide, and there is no way around this fact no matter the amount of wishful thinking.

See you again around 2030, when the first four 4 squadrons are formed. Before that, i repeat, anyone coming up with the idea should just be flogged mercilessly.

[SKB]

F-35 in all its variations is not a dogfighter. Its a light strike bomber. The "F" is there for pilot ego reasons.

[R686]

A split buy at this point will end in programmatic suicide, and there is no way around this fact no matter the amount of wishful thinking.

And you know this how?
Show us how splitting the mix will be suicide please once you have enough aircraft to fill QE (R08)

See you again around 2030, when the first four 4 squadrons are formed. Before that, i repeat, anyone coming up with the idea should just be flogged mercilessly.

It's not me you have to convince but the RAF, but it seems from the above once you have the minimum aircraft you would be happy for a split buy. Remember force planning dosnt happen in a vacuum that's why they ate looking at it before the next review.

“What we will do as we go forward into the next SDSR is look at the force mix,” said Air Commodore Linc Taylor, the Royal Air Force officer responsible for delivery of the British F-35 program

[R686]

F-35 in all its variations is not a dogfighter. Its a light strike bomber. The "F" is there for pilot ego reasons.

It's not meant to be a dogfighter, first look first kill BVR.

[Pongoglo]

Were still going to need Typhoon in any case, not least because I saw it reported somewhere that the MOD had announced early this year that we had dropped any aspiration to integrate Storm Shadow on F35. It will be integrated on Typhoon before Tornado retires and the standoff reach it will give should make up in many ways for the lack of stealth, particularly if F35 in 'clean' config can scout ahead, in fact quiet a neat team. Also did I also read that under SDSR 2015 the RAF are going to get two more front line Typhoon squadrons bringing the total to seven if my maths are right, could however be wrong ?

[ArmChairCivvy]

because I saw it reported somewhere that the MOD had announced early this year that we had dropped any aspiration to integrate Storm Shadow on F35.

xav wrote:
as well as air-launched cruise missiles used by both countries (the Storm Shadow / Scalp). In service date is expected to be around 2030.

SS seems to have a good decade of life left in it, so with the slow build up of the F-35 fleet, why bother?

On the part of SS, will the above make the successor Spear4 or 5? Cant even remember if the capabilities sought were numbered up to 5.

[seaspear]

so far there has not been news of a missile able to detect the radiation of radar systems that can be carried internally for the f35 models .

Wrong. The US are developing the AARGM ER specifically for internal carriage. Probably won't fit the B's bays, though.
It is the one weapon i wish the Uk could procure and put into service, considering the loss of ALARM, but i will never call for an F-35A purchase just because it can carry AARGM ER.
There is a cheaper and (partially) national way of fixing the problem by resurrecting the Meteor anti-radar development. For a while, it was a very serious idea, but was abandoned because of cuts. Italy joined the AARGM programme in part to obtain the AARGM seeker tech with the aim of migrating it onto Meteor.[/quote] Gabrielle


Thanks for the info Gabrielle
If as claimed the AAR GM-ER has twice the range as the previous model ( 300km as compared to 150) and can be carried internally but not on the B model then this would surely increase the abilty of the F35a whose main role is hunting missiles and radars to engage those sites because of likely developing counter measures to the F35 that put aircraft and mission at risk . Im not suggesting that the naval requirements are not met first, whatever number that is , or even that forward basing of aircraft as per U.S.N in event of airfield denial ,there are of course many options that would stretch budgets and doctrines to take advantage of , its just that flexibility to consider ALL potential benefits and scenarios should be considered

[RetroSicotte]

F-35 in all its variations is not a dogfighter. Its a light strike bomber. The "F" is there for pilot ego reasons.

It's already proven it is a better dogfighter than all of the planes it's replacing, and in some cases allows them to be a dogfighter for the first time, thus bringing a significant air-to-air improvement to those airforce sections (A-10 and Tornado for example). Norweigan pilots commented directly that it was superior in WVR gun distance DACT to the F-16, on account of its more powerful engine, higher angle of attack and non-requirement to have the nose pointed for SRAAM shots to be taken.

https://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/h ... d-account/

"For now my conclusion is that this is an airplane that allows me to be more forward and aggressive than I could ever be in an F-16."

"The F-35 provides me as a pilot greater authority to point the nose of the airplane where I desire. (The F-35 is capable of significantly higher Angle of Attack (AOA) than the F-16. Angle of Attack describes the angle between the longitudinal axis of the plane – where nose is pointing – and where the aircraft is actually heading – the vector). This improved ability to point at my opponent enables me to deliver weapons earlier than I am used to with the F-16, it forces my opponent to react even more defensively, and it gives me the ability to reduce the airspeed quicker than in the F-16.

Update: Since I first wrote this post, I have flown additional sorties where I tried an even more aggressive approach to the control position – more aggressive than I thought possible. It worked just fine. The F-35 sticks on like glue, and it is very difficult for the defender to escape."



It essentially marries the F-16's well respected kinetic response to the F/A-18's still unmatched angle of attack. That is a very exciting combination. For comparison, even a Typhoon with the AFK kit cannot reach 55 degrees AoA. (It maxes out around 36 degrees, which is about equivilent to the Super Hornet, and is the 2nd highest AoA around, the F-35 is that far ahead of the game in this respect.)

It will outpace, outturn and outclimb the planes it is replacing. Airshow clean loads are not combat capable payloads. Once you start loading munitions onto aircraft, those external pylons severly damage their flight characteristics too. A loaded F-16 will struggle to pass supersonic, let alone Mach 1.6. This does not happen for the F-35 with internal stowage.

For a visual cue, these two aircraft are carrying almost the exact same payloads. (I say almost, as the F-16 is carrying one additional munition, however the F-35 is carrying a larger munitions payload, with future blocks able to actually carry more munitions internally than are pictured on the F-16).



In the most recent poll of F-35 pilots, 100% of them preferred the F-35 for WVR combat, compared to the F-16, F-15E, A-10 and F-15C. The only area they preferred any of the other planes, was the F-15C's 9k perch setup, which it being a thoroughbred air superiority jet, makes perfect sense. Even then, 25% of the F-35 pilots still preferred the F-35 in that role against a plane it's not even replacing.



It is indisputably one of the most lethal BVR planes around from that same report (General Hostage has even commented that in a full spectrum consideration, it's stealthier than an F-22) due to information dominance. It has repeatedly completed exercises in which it eliminated an outnumbering Red Force without ever being spotted, while also carrying ground attack capability. Marry this with the very clear reports of it being an aggressive and powerful fighter up close (and thats before the DAS is considered), and yes, it is fully deserving of the word "fighter." If you claim that it is "just for ego", then by your logic, the F-16 and F/A-18E are apparently not fighters either, is clearly not the case.

The plane let its performance speak for itself, and it spoke loudly in the end.

[Gabriele]

And you know this how?
Show us how splitting the mix will be suicide please once you have enough aircraft to fill QE (R08)

There, you have it. A split buy now is 100% guarranteed to mess everything up and never deliver a sufficient number of aircraft for ever delivering carrier strike decently. And no, before you say it, 48 aircraft will not do. It takes more than that.

Add to that the fact that the RAF / RN can't realistically man more than 8 to 10 squadrons in total, and you'll see that the room for F-35A can only come either at the expense of the needed number of F-35B squadrons to deliver carrier strike, or at the expense of Typhoon.

Once there are four squadrons of F-35B i'm not opposed tout court to an F-35A purchase. But whoever talks about it now, when that B target is still a decade or more away, needs to be smashed, because he'll get the whole thing messed up into a disaster. That's what always happens with the MOD and this time it would not be different. I do very much know that some in the RAF are thinking about it. And that is why i hate the guts of the "Joint" naval aviation thing, and always did hate it. Because this kind of crap happens.
Philip Dunne, until he lasted in office, had clear ideas: he didn't want to hear a word about it. Got to hope that his successors are just as wise, if the RAF really stirs the shit up.

[Pymes75]

IMHO, the RAF will only consider the F-35A when it's time to replace the Typhoon, although they might still form part of the original 138x a/c planned.

[RetroSicotte]

IMHO, the RAF will only consider the F-35A when it's time to replace the Typhoon, although they might still form part of the original 138x a/c planned.

Almost certainly, it's a way they can "get around" their promises, so they'll happily do that and say they did it as promised.

[R686]

 

There, you have it. 
 

I've had it all along in regards to a potential split buy.

 

A split buy now is 100% guarranteed to mess everything up and never deliver a sufficient number of aircraft for ever delivering carrier strike decently.
 

No one ever said the initial buy was going to be split, you don't need to be Einstein to figure out that they were talking about back end of the program of 138 airframes, you don't need 138 airframes to support 1.5 carriers 


 

Add to that the fact that the RAF / RN can't realistically man more than 8 to 10 squadrons in total, and you'll see that the room for F-35A can only come either at the expense of the needed number of F-35B squadrons to deliver carrier strike, or at the expense of Typhoon
 

 
That aurgument still applies weather or not they split the buy, you still need bums on seats irrespective of the variant chosen. 

 

Once there are four squadrons of F-35B i'm not opposed tout court to an F-35A purchase. But whoever talks about it now, when that B target is still a decade or more away, needs to be smashed, because he'll get the whole thing messed up into a disaster. That's what always happens with the MOD and this time it would not be different. I do very much know that some in the RAF are thinking about it. 

And that is why i hate the guts of the "Joint" naval aviation thing, and always did hate it. Because this kind of crap happens. 
Philip Dunne, until he lasted in office, had clear ideas: he didn't want to hear a word about it. Got to hope that his successors are just as wise, if the RAF really stirs the shit up.

And this is where you posts become an irrational rant, you make it appear that as the MOD is run like the  lunatics are running the asylum. There not a bunch of dills. 

It's prudent on behalf of the MOD to put plans in well advance of the actual in service date of kit no matter what piece of kit it's is, remember 6 P's