F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

[R686]

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

No doubt about it B's can do more than just go to sea, but I believe you have to look at your overall force planning. There will be a level where the B dosnt bring any more capabilty to the overall force structure and the A with it's cheaper to buy and maintain and also gives extra capability to the overall picture I has to be given serious thought. Not saying its right or wrong but in my view a split buy makes sense

[seaspear]

I,m not arguing against the split buy but against the views that the B model should only be deployed to the ships .

[ArmChairCivvy]

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.

See the above as giving further input for the review?

[Gabriele]

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?

Don't have specific figures for maintainers, but the plan is for an overall 40:60 split in manpower in general within the squadrons, so the Navy would be 60% short of manpower. The RAF is also currently the owner and budget holder of the whole F-35 programme, so the Navy literally does not have a budget for procuring its own fleet.
It would take a lot of rebuilding in all areas, and a lot of resources would have to shift from one service back to the other.

No doubt about it B's can do more than just go to sea, but I believe you have to look at your overall force planning. There will be a level where the B dosnt bring any more capabilty to the overall force structure and the A with it's cheaper to buy and maintain and also gives extra capability to the overall picture I has to be given serious thought. Not saying its right or wrong but in my view a split buy makes sense

It takes a minimum of 4 (and arguably 5) squadrons to be able to deploy a full one enduringly on a long term operation. And it would take 3 full squadrons just to fill up one carrier.
Current plan is for 4 sqns, we are told. And in fact, there is no manpower for more unless the services grow or Typhoon squadrons move to F-35.
So there is literally no room for a split buy. Unless the UK turns the carriers into a complete waste of money by literally not having the sqns to fill up one.

138 aircraft are arguably too many for 4 sqns, but too few for a split fleet of any relevance if we accept a minimum requirement of 4 B Sqns. To have a long-term sustainable F-35A force, you'd need another 4-5 squadrons, and you are never going to have money and men for those unless Typhoon goes. Considering current squadron numbers, it is already evident that the two SDSR 2015's "additional Typhoon Tranche 1 Sqns" are placeholders for F-35 3rd and 4th squadrons. So...

I'd rather create an additional F-35B squadron than split the fleet, to form 1 or 2 F-35A squadrons, especially considering that:

1) The UK has literally no weapon, in service or planned, which could give a sense to the A's slightly larger weapon bay. The weapons either fit the B or are too large to fit even the A. We can fill our mouths with speculation about new weaponry to fit in the larger bay, but there is no evidence of anything of the sort, nor any evidence of a real need to pursue such weapons.

2) The UK is not equipped to air-refuel F-35A. While probes for the F-35A are a possibility, so far nobody has actually paid for them and requested them, having Booms on the tankers instead. Arguably, the UK too should go for the boom on Voyager rather than the probe for F-35A, considering the boom would also benefit Rivet Joint, P-8, C-17 and allies. Either options has a cost that eats into any saving enabled by the A being cheaper.

3) An additional small fleet below "critical mass" is essentially a part-time tool, or a full-time tool at small number of deployable airframes (well below Sqn level). Not very helpful. An additional Sqn of the same type can actually affect the number of force elements at readiness a lot more. I'd rather have more deployable F-35B, even with their slightly shorter range, than two fleets locked in a fratricide battle for insufficient manpower and money.

[R686]

4x F35B Squadrons plus an OCU is 60x aircraft more than enough to fill out a single carrier. At the end of the day with the RN manpower dramas a single deployable carrier is all they can hope for anyway, if it means getting a cheaper variant so they can fill out a joint carrier force and also fill out additional Squadrons I'm fine with that what would you rather 60/80 F35Bs or a split fleet of 138?

[Gabriele]

4x F35B Squadrons plus an OCU is 60x aircraft more than enough to fill out a single carrier. At the end of the day with the RN manpower dramas a single deployable carrier is all they can hope for anyway, if it means getting a cheaper variant so they can fill out a joint carrier force and also fill out additional Squadrons I'm fine with that what would you rather 60/80 F35Bs or a split fleet of 138?

If the split buy happens after there are 4 sustainable front line F-35B squadrons (no less than 80 aircraft considering the need for a sustainment fleet which you constantly ignore), then by all means the RAF can do what it wants.
But the split buy will result in less than 4 F-35B squadrons. Who the hell is going to man additional squadrons, green men from Mars?

You have zero grasp of the squadrons and manpower situation. You keep banging on nearly irrelevant calculations on the sole airframes, assuming, pretty much, that 100% of the aircraft will be available all the time, among other completely irrealistic assumptions.

I again invite you to consider this:

The UK now has 5 Typhoon Sqns, 3 Tornado GR4 Sqns and 1 F-35B Sqn in build up, and already struggles with manpower.

In 2019 Tornado GR4 bows out, but the RAF will, beginning next year, build up 2 or 3 additional Typhoon Sqns. The number of Sqns is more or less unchanged.

Already strained manpower margins meanwhile have to accomodate the P-8 fleet too, the retention of 14 C-130 and the doubling of the Reaper line with the transition to Protector and an expanded Shadow R1 fleet, plus extra crew for Sentry. And we know (at least we should know, not sure you are aware of it) the drones carry no pilot but actually require a hell of a lot of people back in the base, including multiple crews taking 4 hours turns to cover missions lasting well north of 12 hours, and with Protector north of 24. So, there are a lot of demands to be met.

In the future, the RAF plans a number of FCAS too. Those will require men too.

The plan right now is for 4 F-35 squadrons. Period. End. And even this plan, if you do the math, is likely to require the demise of two of the "additional Typhoon sqns".

5 Typhoon + 3 Tornado + 1 F-35B (2017)

to

7/8 Typhoon + 1 F-35B (2020) + 1 F-35B in build up

to

7/8 Typhoon + 2 F-35B in 2023

to (possibly)

5/6 Typhoon + 4 F-35 sqn in late 2020s. With FCAS coming in.


Now. Someone please tell me who is going to man the F-35A, or what consistence the two fleets will have. 2 squadrons each? 3 - 1? All ridiculous propositions. It'll be impossible to fill up a single carrier, and neither of the two fleets will have a sustainable critical mass.

Please, please, please, someone explain how it could ever work, since there is no extra manpower in sight anywhere. Is the RAF sitting on thousands of men waiting for new aircraft to appear? I don't think it is. If it is, it should be cut back to enable the navy to recruit more people to solve its manpower issues, then.

Who will crew the additional squadrons? Do we want an early Typhoon demise, or what?

[R686]

If the split buy happens after there are 4 sustainable front line F-35B squadrons (no less than 80 aircraft considering the need for a sustainment fleet which you constantly ignore), then by all means the RAF can do what it wants.

Don't be so crass I havnt ignored sustainment at all, I know you can read so feel free to reread what has been said.

But the split buy will result in less than 4 F-35B squadrons.

I think you know math as well, out of total of 138 aircraft splitting at 4x Sqn plus an OCU (12 aircraft per Sqn 60 aircraft) won't mean a reduction in Sqn numbers

You have zero grasp of the squadrons and manpower situation. You keep banging on nearly irrelevant calculations on the sole airframes, assuming, pretty much, that 100% of the aircraft will be available all the time, among other completely irrealistic assumptions.

I think you need to calm down, yes I do know of the manpower shortage,and no I don't expect 100% avaliblity. but also need to have a reality check why do you think that they have come up with a joint force of 4x Sqn?

I'll admit I havnt kept abreast on the overall force structure of the UK, but then I don't live and breath it like you do

[downsizer]

We can go round in circles all we want but there is no money for anything other than Bs. And a handful at that sadly unless something changes.

[ArmChairCivvy]

it is already evident that the two SDSR 2015's "additional Typhoon Tranche 1 Sqns" are placeholders for F-35 3rd and 4th squadrons.

May be the leading thought is that having a short fall in maintainers, to open the throttle on pilot training would take much longer in order to rebuild sqdrn numbers?
- so place holder is the right word, burning off the remaining flight hours (saving the same on the newer a/c) and also having all that is needed for QRA(s), so that sending any of the other Typhoons "far away" for anything that might involve A2G will be more straight forward, for this while

[ArmChairCivvy]

5/6 Typhoon + 4 F-35 sqn in late 2020s. With FCAS coming in.

...in mid '30s?

[Gabriele]

5/6 Typhoon + 4 F-35 sqn in late 2020s. With FCAS coming in.

...in mid '30s?

Between 2030 and 2035, or what it'll end up being. Even the current (extremely over-optimistic, if you ask me) plan for Typhoon Tranche 1 is to bow out by 2035. Whatever comes in will have to struggle for manpower against everything else, so the math doesn't really change. Slower or faster transitions do not change the basic problem.

[ArmChairCivvy]

have to accomodate the P-8 fleet too, the retention of 14 C-130 and the doubling of the Reaper line with the transition to Protector and an expanded Shadow R1 fleet, plus extra crew for Sentry.

A good list there, so while remembering that fast jets (combat air) have their own "budget line" in the rolling EPs and forgetting about the manpower constraints (manning levels also turn into money over the life of the kit), so everything depends on everything
- Protector and extra R1s were probably sneaked in by using the "joint" ISTAR budget line
- retaining the J's has much to do with SF (money for them easier to get through than with other items)

... so what are the real gaps that will exert pressure on budgets for things that fly, up to the point in time when FCAS will need to pass the Main Gate
- renewal of utility helo fleet (AKA getting a medium type, to help squeeze the total number of designs needing to be supported further down; initially it will be 1:1initially with the Pumas bowing out first)
- surveillance gap at sea (a companion for the very few P-8s, to improve persistence while the manned ones are fast enough to get to the scene as and when required). There has been talk that the 50+ RA assets (now Joint) could be modified for this ; time will tell. If not, the investment will stand as proof of the wastefulness of not being Joint while still at the capability planning stage. Such assets, these days, need to cheap enough to be expendable and not reliant on runways (recovery is a different thing, because it is launch that determines the time to the area from where intelligence is required). The all singing & dancing F-35, most of the time, is not available for the job as their price and support requirements dictate a number too low to allow such use.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Slower or faster transitions do not change the basic problem.

It is not the only problem. Retaining the T1s
- saves flight hrs on T2s&3s
- which makes it possible to
-- save cash by rolling out F-35s slower as the newer Typhoon vintages will go for longer
-- by slowing the final deliveries will keep the Typhoon line ticking for longer (with export deals in that time possibly coming in to make the patient now on life support healthy again; just the yearly deliveries of Rafale to Qatar now match what the total production was at its lowest)
- and faster transitions cost money as you would have to push pilot transitions through the system as a big wave, followed by "nothing" - also not utilising the normal career paths (changes in duties) to the full

[CameronPerson]

This point was picked up by somebody else on a different forum but does the canopy frame appear to have air bubbles in it like a poorly applied sticker?

IMG_1029.PNG

It just looks a bit shoddy that's all..

[bobp]

The canopy is impregnated with tiny metallic particles to stop Radar penetrating the glass. In some light situations this makes it look cloudy.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Thanks for the tweet link, had not realised that there was someone in the RN in whom all the capability directors reporting lines (some of them Joint) meet
- I guess the eternal question of which line is solid and which one is dotted has been resolved by having the Joint Command as the budget holder in ambiguous cases (no need seen for that in the case of F-35)

[Defiance]

The canopy is impregnated with tiny metallic particles to stop Radar penetrating the glass. In some light situations this makes it look cloudy.

That's not the section they're pointing out (I presume). The actual strip of material that surrounds the canopy, in this case the lower left corner, looks quite bubbly

[CameronPerson]

The actual strip of material that surrounds the canopy, in this case the lower left corner, looks quite bubbly

Indeed, that area. It looks rather blistered

[bobp]

That's not the section they're pointing out (I presume). The actual strip of material that surrounds the canopy, in this case the lower left corner, looks quite bubbly

Ahhh I see it, definitely a problem there.

[ArmChairCivvy]

definitely a problem there.

Anything to do with the 3' do-not-cut warning on the same piccie?

[CameronPerson]

definitely a problem there.

Anything to do with the 3' do-not-cut warning on the same piccie?

Maybe the frame is wrapped in some form of vinyl instead of receiving the paint? That or 3' do-not-cut warning may itself be a sticker that stretches over the frame?

[ArmChairCivvy]

vinyl instead of receiving the paint?

Or both. I hear that the absorbent paints on stealth a/c have to be frequently reapplied (on F-35 less so than on B-2s) but that particular area would be prone to mechanical scratching.

[bobp]

Anything to do with the 3' do-not-cut warning on the same piccie?

The canopy has a explosive strip in it that runs close to the edge. Cutting it would affect its performance in case of ejection.

[WhiteWhale]

'This area is very dangerous and absolutely vital... Let's mark it out in imperial'.

[CameronPerson]

The Second Sea Lord and Scott Williams (RAF) don't seem too bothered by it so I guess neither should we

IMG_1033.PNG