F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Contains threads on Joint Service equipment of the past, present and future.
Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by Caribbean »

R686 wrote:I was looking on AW interweb can find a article linked to your post, do you have a link by chance?
Can't find it either, but looks like it might be a partial regurgitation of this one from UK Defence Journal last July re: a split A/B buy
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/governm ... 48-f-35bs/
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

downsizer
Member
Posts: 893
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by downsizer »

Despite what the conspiracy theorists like to punt, any capping is fuck all to do with the RAF, and everything to do with a government refusal to spend the cash money.

User avatar
Dave
Member
Posts: 118
Joined: 02 May 2015, 22:24
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by Dave »

jimthelad wrote:Unsurprisingly I cant find it either. Using a Google search and Advanced search the last post on F35 is 17/09/17 with respect to flight trials.
There are some December articles relating to the F35 for subscribers, but none relate to a UK cut in numbers.
Gallery
Defense 2017 Highlights
2017 was an eventful year for military aircraft programs globally. Some key events are highlighted...
Dec. 28, 2017 | http://aviationweek.com/defense/defense-2017-highlights

Article
South Korea Studies 20 More F-35As, 6 F-35Bs
A day after Japan opted to study the purchase of F-35B fighters, South Korea is also studying the possibility...
Dec. 26, 2017 | http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/sou ... s-6-f-35bs

Article
Japan Considers Ordering F-35Bs for Helicopter Carriers
The Japanese defense ministry may modify its helicopter carriers to operate the short-takeoff and vertical landing version of the F-35...
Dec. 26, 2017 | http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/jap ... r-carriers

Gallery
Key Aerospace Developments To Watch For In 2018
To the traditional focus on commercial growth and defense procurement, add private spaceflight, aerospace startups, advanced rotorcraft and supersonic transports as areas to watch closely in 2018...
Dec. 15, 2017 | http://aviationweek.com/future-aerospac ... watch-2018

Article
Watchpoints For 2018: 15 Things To Look Out For
To the traditional focus on commercial growth and defense procurement, add private spaceflight, aerospace startups, advanced rotorcraft and supersonic transports as areas to watch closely in 2018...
Dec. 15, 2017 | http://aviationweek.com/awin-only/watch ... s-look-out

Article
F-35: 1, Super Hornet: 0 In Boeing’s Rift With Canada
Lockheed Martin’s F-35 appears to have emerged the real winner from Boeing’s rift with Canada over Bombardier’s C Series passenger jetliner...
Dec. 6, 2017 | http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft ... ift-canada

Article
Raytheon Gets $60M For F-35 Moving Target Capability
The U.S. Air Force is moving forward with a plan to give the F-35A a moving target capability in 2018...
Dec. 1, 2017 | http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/ray ... capability

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by jimthelad »

Thanks Dave, didnt reference these because they dont have specific UK content. As Caribean says, the split buy might be the initiator for this. AFAIK this was off the table except as a FOAS component way in the future and as a Typhoon replacement. I guess they could defer a portion of the 138 but until later in the procurement cycle but that would be difficult to sell to the US. As an aside, is anyone else getting increasingly frustrated with the total lack of content and accuracy and inherent bias in defence journalism? You need to almost do a full source and traffic analysis on anything to establish it's voracity.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by Gabriele »

It's very unlikely that we will hear anything about cuts or variant changes beyond the current 48. The 49th can be ordered in 2023/2024 at the earliest, so there is nothing to cut or gain. It is just not the time yet. It'll be a while before meaningful decisions actually take place.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by Ron5 »

Can't you idiots read: page 46, Aviation Week printed issue Dec 25th-january 14th as delivered to my door. Full page article entitled "Biting Realities - Brexit creating uncertainty for Britains defense spending plans".

"senior (MoD) officials no longer talking about being committed to a full 138 LM F-35's but are instead budgeting for a fleet of 48 aircraft out to 2048".

This is consistant with the report from the Parliamentary committee which highlighted the lack of a information about an MoD budget for purchases beyond the first 48. Probably because there isn't one being penciled in for their long term planning.

Given the hostile reaction from you morons. I won't bother in the future commenting on information unavailable to you. Or what the rest of the article reported. I'm sure your copies of the Daily Shit will include it at some point.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Well, 48 is the number that has been bounced around for years. Still, this has left me totally perplexed, unless it relates only to capping the B numbers.
- btw, is the 30% premium (for a B, over an A) a life-cycle cost (estimate)?

This from the House of Lords, is from almost half a year ago:
“To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they remain committed to the purchase of 138 F-35B jump–jets for the Royal Navy.”

Answered by Earl Howe
using that same
“As part of the Strategic Defence and Security Review in 2015, we reaffirmed our commitment to procure 138 F-35 Lightning II aircraft.

The first tranche of 48 aircraft will be of the F-35B variant, which will be jointly operated by the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy, and capable of operating from both land and the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers. The decision on the variant of subsequent tranches of Lightning will be taken at the appropriate time.”

At the time the RAF was attributed to say that 63 is the number needed to have 48 available.

The Minister probably needs to be taken more seriously, so using that same ratio for 48 yields... 36!
= 1 carrier with strike TAG and the other with a littoral TAG

Looking at it this way, there are no surprises at all?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Hold on, Ron!

I read the stuff you contribute (just got tired of the ship-shape discussion - not by you - about ships).

And some trolls, overall.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by serge750 »

Perhaps we are just burying are heads in the sand !! or as suggested the journalists is adding 2plus2 and getting 3, maybe it's true time will tell, but It would seem to be very Dumb thing to do to stop at 48 for loads of reasons, not least pissing trump of at the moment, he seems like he would try to shaft us back, I can see them doing a trickle buy a in the mid 2020's if the economy doesn't do to well or the exchange rate is crap, still the typhoons won't last forever !!!

Maybe we are hedging are bets for a collaboration for the American navy's superhornet replacement ;)

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by Gabriele »

This is consistant with the report from the Parliamentary committee which highlighted the lack of a information about an MoD budget for purchases beyond the first 48. Probably because there isn't one being penciled in for their long term planning.
The long term planning is simply not long term enough. There is supposed to be an SDSR every 5 years, while equipment spending is planned out on a 10 years period.
The last major projects spreadsheet to come out had the F-35 programme end date as 2035, which suggests they are planning to spread the purchases over at least that many years. The budget associated with the date is billions higher than the 9.1 billion for the first phase and the 48 on order. Moreover, these spreadsheets change year on year: for example, the previous year variant had the end date as 2026 (given as british FOC due to expected entry in service of all Block IV modifications, including Meteor and Spear 3) and the budget was much smaller, obviously.

2048 is just the currently envisaged OSD for F-35B (with Typhoon being 2040, you see by yourself how ridiculous that is, but that's how programs begin; it will change later). The MOD has indeed refused to provide estimates for purchases after the first 48, as the first of said purchases is no less than 5 years away and nobody has anything other than a ballpark idea of what the price will be by then.
The MOD written evidence submitted to the Committee for the infamous report that apparently inspired the AvWeek article says nothing about capping purchases; it merely stays (extremely) vague about when they will happen, saying that the "life of the programme" reaches out all the way to 2048 and purchases could continue all along.
Regardless of the vague answers typical of the MOD, any additional purchase is at least 2 reviews and 1 general election away, and sits well outside of the current monetary situation. Saying now that there will be no more purchases is next to pointless as even if it was true it generates exactly 0,0 pounds the government can use. They are not going to decide now, even less they are going to say it now and take flak they don't need to take.

It only takes logic to see that someone at AvWeek ran a bit too far forward.
At the time the RAF was attributed to say that 63 is the number needed to have 48 available.
Yeah, maybe. But do note: "available" is not even close to "deployable".
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

downsizer
Member
Posts: 893
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by downsizer »

Love it, every fucker is getting a bit salty. Great way to start 2018.

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by jimthelad »

Ron, as always you cant resist sniping. Firstly, Aviation week is not available to many of us not being in the industry and having other priorities. HOWEVER, it does not show up in the logged articles on the host website despite the aforementioned issue being listed. Also, I redirect you to my previous comment with accurate reporting. If you had read Hansard, spoken to any of the MoD/RAF/RN personel in the session or followed UK politics you would have known that this is a direct quote from the hearing. As Gabriele says and I'm sure DS would authenticate, currently MoD cannot commit to funding outwith SDSR2015 funding allocations. This represents complete naivety on behalf of Aviation Week and is sloppy journalism. A source and traffic search shows a point source and therefore at best a dubiety on corroboration outwith the hearing.
I am afraid you seem to take the stance of absolute intellectual supremacy on all matters. Questioning your judgement only seems to result in insult and ridicule. I have had the misfortune of meeting more than a few people such as yourself, several of whom would have had the challenge of asking their own men to allow the enemy to shoot them when the poo hit the fan. I welcome all contributors on the thread but I fear that i will now have to review that opinion. Good luck with further cultivating your narcissistic personality disorder.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by Timmymagic »

downsizer wrote:Despite what the conspiracy theorists like to punt, any capping is fuck all to do with the RAF, and everything to do with a government refusal to spend the cash money.
Absolutely. The RAF aren't stupid enough to believe they'll cap the F-35B at 48 for the FAA, then at some promised date in the future get some F-35A for themselves at a later date. That's a sure fire way for the Treasury to forget to order any F-35A later. No-one falls for the old treasury tricks of jam tomorrow anymore. Everyone has been burnt too often. If there was a split buy, and I don't think there will be, the first we'd hear would be when the order was placed.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Hold on, Ron!

I read the stuff you contribute (just got tired of the ship-shape discussion - not by you - about ships).

And some trolls, overall.
All I did was mention what was written in Aviation Week. A source which I am well aware is not easily available to you folks in the UK. Won't bother again.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by Ron5 »

Gabriele wrote:The MOD written evidence submitted to the Committee for the infamous report that apparently inspired the AvWeek article
You are misreading my post. I added the sentence about the parliamentary committee. That's why the sentence is not surrounded by quotes. The original article said nothing about that committee and there's nothing else in it to suggest their report inspired the article.

What WAS in the article was a direct implication that the writer (AW's head of their London Bureau) based it on his personal conversations with MoD officials.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by Lord Jim »

The Treasury is quite happy to use the "Jam tomorrow" strategy now and in the future, because it doesn't affect voters minds. The majority have and always will believe the spin. The lack of assets will be hidden by a reduction in both the number of commitments and the size of forces allocated.

Saying all that it wasn't that long ago, official RAF policy was to plan for only seven fast jet squadrons, five of Typhoon and two of F-35Bs. What didn't add up was the constant statements referring to the UK still wanting to buy over 100 F-35's. This only works if the additional F-35s were to replace the Typhoon at some point in the future.

Given the length of time the F-16 production line has been operating, we will still be able to get the then current version of the F-35 in the late 2030's, early 2040's. Whether an affordable and even viable European alternative exists at that time we will have to wait and see, but if it does exist it will be more expensive, just like comparing he F-16 with the Typhoon and Rafale now. France would buy it simply out of national pride, whether Germany can be persuaded to is up for debate.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by Lord Jim »

Thinking about this reported cap (bad idea I know, the thinking part anyway) This has major ramifications for the RN. With only 48 it basically limited the RN to only operating one QE carrier at a time full stop. The idea of the other being used as a "Super" Ocean is not a good one to be polite, even if the Spin released keeps mentioning it. If this is the case then the number of escorts needed to support the carriers is reduced to a maximum of 4 in a hot zone (2x T-45 and 2x T-23/26). Therefore additional escorts could be made available for other tasks, or more likely laid up in part awaiting maintenance or overhaul or again most likely awaiting crew. With only on carrier the number of ASW Merlins is more than enough, in fact some could be deployed on the escorts again, and the number of CROWSNEST conversions needed set at around six. With all this the argument could be made that there is no urgent need for a number of cheap semi-escorts, as the existing numbers plus the B2 Rivers can meet most of our commitments (If they are actual at sea). I know this is the F-35 thread but trying to look at how things are related and I did say at the beginning thinking is a bad idea!


R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by R686 »

And the DCSA notification, interestingly enough for a fleet of 34 aircraft they are only looking at 4 spare engines. Would have thought there would be between 8/12

http://dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/belgiu ... r-aircraft

sunstersun
Member
Posts: 363
Joined: 09 Aug 2017, 04:00
United States of America

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by sunstersun »

R686 wrote:
And the DCSA notification, interestingly enough for a fleet of 34 aircraft they are only looking at 4 spare engines. Would have thought there would be between 8/12

http://dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/belgiu ... r-aircraft
Perhaps because they have shared ops with Netherlands?

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by R686 »

What I find interesting when people quote aircraft prices and what it cost per aircraft a good illustration is the old proposed Canadian Super hornet deal for which Canada was quoted by DCSA was 5.23B and Belgium 6.53n and look what it entails,

Canada 18 aircraft (supported) this is what a fully supported contract gets you (this was actually a very good deal for Canada on paper)
WASHINGTON, Sep. 12, 2017 - The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Canada of ten (10) F/A-18E Super Hornet aircraft, with F414-GE-400 engines; eight (8) F/A-18F Super Hornet aircraft, with F414-GE-400 engines; eight (8) F414-GE-400 engine spares; twenty (20) AN/APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radars; twenty (20) M61A2 20MM gun systems; twenty-eight (28) AN/ALR-67(V)3 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Receiving Sets; fifteen (15) AN/AAQ-33 Sniper Advanced Targeting Pods; twenty (20) Multifunctional Information Distribution Systems–Joint Tactical Radio System (MIDS-JTRS); thirty (30) Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS); twenty-eight (28) AN/ALQ-214 Integrated Countermeasures Systems; one hundred thirty (130) LAU-127E/A and or F/A Guided Missile Launchers; twenty-two (22) AN/AYK-29 Distributed Targeting System (DTS); twenty-two (22) AN/AYK-29 Distributed Targeting Processor (DTP); one hundred (100) AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Block II Tactical Missiles; thirty (30) AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Block II Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM); eight (8) AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Block II Special Air Training Missiles (NATM); twenty (20) AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Block II Tactical Guidance Units; sixteen (16) AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder Block II CATM Guidance Units. Also included in this sale are AN/AVS-9 Night Vision Goggles (NVG); AN/ALE-47 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Systems; AN/ARC-210 Communication System; AN/APX-111 Combined Interrogator Transponder; AN/ALE-55 Towed Decoys; Joint Mission Planning System (JMPS); AN/PYQ-10C Simple Key Loader (SKL); Data Transfer Unit (DTU); Accurate Navigation (ANAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Navigation; KIV-78 Duel Channel Encryptor, Identification Friend or Foe (IFF); CADS/PADS; Instrument Landing System (ILS); Aircraft Armament Equipment (AAE); High Speed Video Network (HSVN) Digital Video Recorder (HDVR); Launchers (LAU-115D/A, LAU-116B/A, LAU-118A); flight test services; site survey; aircraft ferry; auxiliary fuel tanks; aircraft spares; containers; storage and preservation; transportation; aircrew and maintenance training; training aids and equipment, devices and spares and repair parts; weapon system support and test equipment; technical data Engineering Change Proposals; technical publications and documentation; software; avionics software support; software development/integration; system integration and testing; U.S. Government and contractor engineering technical and logistics support; Repair of Repairable (RoR); repair and return warranties; other technical assistance and support equipment; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total case value is $5.23 billion. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale on September 11, 2017.




And Belgium, they still have a lot to get it to FOC
The Government of Belgium has requested to buy thirty-four (34) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft, and thirty-eight (38) Pratt & Whitney F-135 engines (34 installed, 4 spares). Also included are Electronic Warfare Systems; Command, Control, Communications, Computer and Intelligence/Communications, Navigational, and Identification (C4I/CNI); Autonomic Logistics Global Support System (ALGS); Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS); Full Mission Trainer; Weapons Employment Capability, and other Subsystems, Features, and Capabilities; F-35 unique infrared flares; Reprogramming center; F-35 Performance Based Logistics; software development/integration; aircraft ferry and tanker support; support equipment; tools and test equipment; communications equipment; spares and repair parts; personnel training and training equipment; publications and technical documents; U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total case value is $6.53 billion.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by Timmymagic »

R686 wrote:What I find interesting when people quote aircraft prices and what it cost per aircraft a good illustration is the old proposed Canadian Super hornet deal for which Canada was quoted by DCSA was 5.23B and Belgium 6.53n and look what it entails,

Canada 18 aircraft (supported) this is what a fully supported contract gets you (this was actually a very good deal for Canada on paper)
With Belgium being an IRIS-T user does that mean they'll be looking to integrate it. I think they've around 500 in stock. For a nation of Belgium's size that's a pretty big consideration. For the other IRIS-T/F-35 users its not a big deal, Italy can use them on it's Typhoon and Norway only bought around 150, they can probably re-sell them on for a small loss.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Timmymagic wrote: Norway only bought around 150, they can probably re-sell them on for a small loss.
Actually they took the controller parts of the NASAMS 2/3 system, mounted the surplus missiles on mobile ground launchers... and thereby halved the price of that "purchase".
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by Timmymagic »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Actually they took the controller parts of the NASAMS 2/3 system, mounted the surplus missiles on mobile ground launchers... and thereby halved the price of that "purchase".
Looks like they're getting AIM-9X. Which is a pity, given the UK's close proximity to Norway and close defence co-operation there are so many things we could do better together. Asraam and Meteor on Norwegian F-35 would be a huge capability boost for them, and perfect for their AOR (and given the issues with AIM-120 in cold environments pretty useful), add in NSM/JSM for the RN/RAF F-35/P8's, Stingrang for the P-8's. With a little bit of cash we could both get some good interoperability and savings, plus some excellent missiles. I'm sure Spear 3 would interest the Norwegians as well.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Timmymagic wrote: Stingrang for the P-8's. With a little bit of cash we could both get some good interoperability and savings, plus some excellent missiles. I'm sure Spear 3 would interest the Norwegians as well.
Not so sure about the Spear3, as they have JSM that does many tricks. But their surface fleet is already using Stingray, so that would be a good avenue (you could still have the US ones with wing kits for high altitude launching?).
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Post Reply