F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

[Dahedd]

Royal Engineers from the Air Support group (39 Regiment and 71(R) Regiment and 20 Works Group - Airfields) are heading to 29 Palms in the US in August for F-35 austere "expeditionary airfield" work. And a strip and pad are expected to appear in Kinloss next year.

Cool means I can look forward to both Typhoons & Lightnings over the house then

[2HeadsBetter]

Not the one we're getting but still worth a look:

Lockheed F-35 test pilot live Q&A the Paris Air Show 2017:

[Murphy]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news ... -5wm0nzfmx

According to the times:

"The RAF wants to scale back a plan to buy supersonic fighter jets for the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carriers by pushing for a variation that flies only from land.

The Ministry of Defence is committed to buying 138 F-35B jump-jets, which operate at sea, but The Times has learnt that a review has been opened to consider taking fewer F-35Bs and freeing up cash for F-35As.

Some in the RAF are pushing for the government to order 48 to 60 of the F-35Bs and switch the rest of the acquisition to F-35As, according to two defence sources."

Do you there's a slight chance this will happen, and if so will the Bs change ownership and what numbers can we expect to get?

[andrew98]

Stupid idea, small fleet, will end up with max deployable number of 24.
Should have enough available to fill both carriers for max effort. Not saying we need to do it regularly, but the facility should be there.

Now if they were to get some extras to replace tornado as they are wound down, then maybe get some....

[RetroSicotte]

Agreed with Andrew. If there is anything less than an amount to let both QE's sail at once, both with at least 36 F-35Bs on them, then they won't have bought enough.

[Dahedd]

Hopefully they press ahead with the full B purchase or even say 90 I guess. Worst case. The rest could be A's I guess. Does seem daft to press for a, split purchase though. RAF brass tinkering again, they'd be better off pressing for more Typhoon T3 with conformal tanks & aesa radar.

[R686]

Hopefully they press ahead with the full B purchase or even say 90 I guess. Worst case. The rest could be A's I guess. Does seem daft to press for a, split purchase though. RAF brass tinkering again, they'd be better off pressing for more Typhoon T3 with conformal tanks & aesa radar.

Agree 90 is the minimum requirement for the CVF's.

I actually don't think it's too silly if all the B's were under FAA control, getting the required number of pilots is the limiting factor not all pilots want to go to sea especially if joining the RAF. With the demise of Ocean the chance that the RN will deploy both CV's packed to the brim with B's is questionable I just can't see it even if Falklands II came along, it's either get a 3rd CV or two small amphibious warfare vessels then and only then can I see 2x CV packed to the brim till then not going to happen.

Tornado going to need replacing soon A's are ideal for the role

[Thorvicson]

Typical of the back stabbing crab air again. If they do then JFL becomes a farce again and the Carrier Strike element should go to the RN and their should be a minimum of 72 aircraft, preferably 90 for an active reserve to ensure full Carrier Strike capability as and when required.

The F-35A won't be as cheap as we would have to specify the refuelling probe change or adapt the tanker fleet to booms. Plus we would loose the purpose of Carrier Strike in that the RAF F-35A would only be able to operate where a friendly air base is within reasonable range or they end up sitting on their arses whistling dixy because they have given up their carrier capability !

[R686]

.

The F-35A won't be as cheap as we would have to specify the refuelling probe change or adapt the tanker fleet to booms.

I belive that's on the cards all ready

.
Plus we would loose the purpose of Carrier Strike

I think your being over dramatic, short of Falklands 2.0 both carriers won't be avalible for fleet operations and both won't be used as such in the event of it happening.

in that the RAF F-35A would only be able to operate where a friendly air base is within reasonable range or they end up sitting on their arses whistling dixy because they have given up their carrier capability !

That's always going to be the case for Squadrons other than Joint Force, and I hope it happens

[downsizer]

I love the fact that you lot swallow any old shit from the times/telegraph/twitter etc.

Things are always being reviewed to get maximum benefits, nothing wrong with weighing up the options from time to time.

[R686]

I love the fact that you lot swallow any old shit from the times/telegraph/twitter etc.

Things are always being reviewed to get maximum benefits, nothing wrong with weighing up the options from time to time.

So the forum can't debate the merits of any scuttlebug?

[downsizer]

Of course we can. But the rabid "treacherous crabs" BS is tiresome. And people seem to think the story in the press is fiat accompli.

It isn't, and here's a shocker for some, the navy are involved in the ongoing reviews. I wonder what option they are pushing....

[ArmChairCivvy]

The funny thing is that the story has made so many rounds (over the years) that it had to quote two sources, to get it over the editorial threshold.

No doubt there are reviews, on-going. A related one is for the future composition of ship-to-shore connectors. You have to load them (helicopters being one of the many categories) and you will have to load strike, CAP and recce jet assets (all of those, surveillance apart, being F-35s and in the case of carriers, Bs specifically).

The only thing that is a given (out to mid-30s) is the amphibious - and other relevant - shipping that you will need to load them onto.
- we have already seen a rotation reformat within the RM, so that it sits better within those realities

[Little J]

the navy are involved in the ongoing reviews. I wonder what option they are pushing....

Rhino's?

[Gabriele]

Of course we can. But the rabid "treacherous crabs" BS is tiresome. And people seem to think the story in the press is fiat accompli.

It isn't, and here's a shocker for some, the navy are involved in the ongoing reviews. I wonder what option they are pushing....

Wouldn't it be so much easier if RAF top brass ceased pushing for the demented split-buy idea in the first place? We wouldn't call them treacherous crabs if they didn't constantly give us reasons to do so. If Greg Badwell is any indication of the current RAF top brass thinking, shafting the navy is very high on their list.

[downsizer]

I'll say again, which option are the Navy actively pushing for?

[Gabriele]

The B. It's not like they have alternatives.

[downsizer]

I meant split buy or not.

There is a very vocal, and growing, element within the Navy advocating this route (split buy). They want all the Bs to themselves, they see it as an opportunity to get circa 60-65 to themselves. And lets be fair, at ~24 per carrier, that's what they'd need.

Rightly or wrongly, a fair chunk of this is coming from the Navy.

[S M H]

Tornado going to need replacing soon A's are ideal for the role

The one eyed monk of Dunfermline(I can not say what Mr Clarkson said) put pay to the dedicated replacement of the Tornado. By funding the wars from the future years procurement budget, The coalition run by the Bollinger boys tried to with the switch to the C do the tornado replacement and reduce numbers. Bribing the carrier catbar mafia .While reducing to one carrier. Stripping the Harrier Fleet out as they had reduced active aircraft numbers to make them unstainable. The result of onion peeling previous defence reviews by all recent governments. The M.O.D would be stupid to not have a common fleet the demise of the harrier proved what will happen over time. However if they are thinking of Typhoon replacement with the A in the late 2020s it could be one option . The only fly in the ointment is if the bean counters use the purchase of As to curtail the required no of Bs while increasing over all numbers of aircraft above the present 138 but slashing actual airframes numbers in squadron service. Treasury and there political masters smoke and mirrors capability increase but actually a capability cut. The ones shafting the R.N./R.A.F. is the elected idiots in Westminster gas works. by neglecting there first duty to the state.

[downsizer]

There is no money at the minute regardless. We'll be lucky to get 60 Bs full stop. Never mind anything else.

[S M H]

There is no money at the minute regardless. We'll be lucky to get 60 Bs full stop. Never mind anything else

Not there is no money Its what our political masters want to spend it on. The usual is to bribe there voters to keep me in a job rather than for the good of everyone, So you prognosis is probably right.

[marktigger]

getting A could see typhoon come under pressure

[Gabriele]

I meant split buy or not.

There is a very vocal, and growing, element within the Navy advocating this route (split buy). They want all the Bs to themselves, they see it as an opportunity to get circa 60-65 to themselves. And lets be fair, at ~24 per carrier, that's what they'd need.

Rightly or wrongly, a fair chunk of this is coming from the Navy.

If it is true, but i honestly don't think it is, it will never happen, because in order to happen a significant amount of budget and manpower allocations should also have to shift from RAF to Navy, and the Navy doesn't have the weight to make that happen.

[R686]

If it is true, but i honestly don't think it is, it will never happen, because in order to happen a significant amount of budget and manpower allocations should also have to shift from RAF to Navy, and the Navy doesn't have the weight to make that happen.

What's the split between maintainers for future squadron's and what was the template for JFH?

[seaspear]

The f35b should also be considered for other areas apart from sea based operations and that ability should be taken into account when ordering numbers