F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

[dmereifield]

Why does this decision, if it transpires, need to happen now? We have F35b orders and delivery schedule through to the next parliament (2023) and the Typhoon production line looks solid through to the next parliament with the Qatar order (and even further out if the second Saudi order forms up). So why does the decision need to be made now, and how would it make any difference (savings) to the defence budget in this parliament?

[topman]

Its happening now for various reasons, main one being there's a defence review on.
Someone somewhere has thought we need more FJ, however reality has dawned with regards to cost. Hence looking at cheaper alternatives.

[dmereifield]

Its happening now for various reasons, main one being there's a defence review on.
Someone somewhere has thought we need more FJ, however reality has dawned with regards to cost. Hence looking at cheaper alternatives.

Thanks. So when do we need more FJ's - is this to replace the Tranche 1 Typhoons? What would be the optimal (realistic, given budget constraints) number and mix of Typhoon and F35b squadrons and numbers of airframes?

[topman]

If it were me (and it's not by a looong way) I'd get the maximum out of what we have before another single airframe. Only then start buying more.

[dmereifield]

If it were me (and it's not by a looong way) I'd get the maximum out of what we have before another single airframe. Only then start buying more.

How would we do that? What room for improvement of capability or capacity is there from our current inventory?

[topman]

Yes, but it's mainly in areas that aren't necessarily interesting. Support, manpower, spares etc.

[Spinflight]

Lots..

AESA, higher thrust engines ( EJ200 has a long way to go), conformal tanks, strike ability, EW...

There's an awful lot you could do with the Typhoon yet, I'd imagine the chief selling points for the Japanese would be it's range ( especially with uprated engines), Meteor, Asraam and agility. Meanwhile the Japanese are quite startling good at all of the other bits.

Trouble is they need something operational by 2030, have decided their indigenous fighter would be too expensive and didn't get anything useful back when mooting RFI's for joint development. LM proposed a strange hybrid but with their reputation for delivering on time, and the Japanese wish to diversify their suppliers whilst gaining IP rights this makes it highly unlikely for them.

I suspect range is going to be a biggie, they'll effectively be looking for a land based fleet defence fighter as well as a more traditional air superiority type. $40 billion buys you an incremental development but not a clean sheet.

Timescales could yet shorten too, depending upon what the Chinese do.

Its happening now for various reasons, main one being there's a defence review on.
Someone somewhere has thought we need more FJ, however reality has dawned with regards to cost. Hence looking at cheaper alternatives.

Thanks. So when do we need more FJ's - is this to replace the Tranche 1 Typhoons? What would be the optimal (realistic, given budget constraints) number and mix of Typhoon and F35b squadrons and numbers of airframes?

Suspect we might see a few more 35s, maybe take it up to 60, though the chief benefit is pushing back the spending by more than 5 years on the RAF's planes. After that the world might look a bit different but I'd imagine somewhere in the region of 80 uprated Typhoons.

There's nowt wrong with the Tranche 1s as air defence assets, though people often seem to be keen to kick them to the curb or flog them off for some reason.

By going all phooney you close the defence budget gap significantly, save money on a single fleet type through spares, logs, quals etc. Particularly if the Japanese pay for your upgrades.

[Scimitar54]

This decision (if implemented) would create be the biggest threat yet to "Carrier Strike". The performance of the F35B as an all weather "Carrier" Strike Aircraft remains to be proven in actual service. This will only be known after sufficient operational experience has been gained on the QE class carriers (using SRVL). It remains just possible at this moment in time, that the use of F35B from the carriers will prove too problematic in service and that a change to CATOBAR operation may prove necessary. In that case, the F35B would need to revert to the RAF. The carriers would need the F35C. This whole nonsense has come about from a misunderstanding as to why and what a "split buy" might require. Just try flying and landing a Typhoon from a carrier. This appears to reflects either at best, naive or incompetant advice having been given and in a worst case, malicious intent. If we must have a "split buy", the only other choices are Rafale, Super Hornet or if "Stealth/5th Gen." is still importantthere is just the F35C.

[sunstersun]

Horrible idea. The typhoon is basically capped out post AESA upgrade.

[Gabriele]

going all phooney you close the defence budget gap significantly

Actually, no. The effects would only materialize at the end of the current equipment spending decade, and switching F-35s for Typhoons is unlikely to save anything. For all we know, Typhoon is not cheaper.
Switching F-35s for nothing in exchange, that is going to save money. The rest is make believe.

[dmereifield]

going all phooney you close the defence budget gap significantly

Actually, no. The effects would only materialize at the end of the current equipment spending decade, and switching F-35s for Typhoons is unlikely to save anything. For all we know, Typhoon is not cheaper.
Switching F-35s for nothing in exchange, that is going to save money. The rest is make believe.

Dropping to 48 does sound crazy since:
1) according to those with understanding of the matter (i.e. Not me) it isn't enough to provide the airwings for the carrier(s)
2) it doesn't seem to generate any savings (until the next parliament, or the one thereafter perhaps)
3) it would surely cause huge reputational damage, not just with the yanks but more broadly, at a time when we are looking for potential partners for a 5/6th gen in the near future.

It might make some sense:
-if we were to reduce the aquisition rate post 2023 which would possibly start to generate in-year savings
-if the number of Typhoons purchased were considerably fewer than the number of F35bs cancelled (e.g. 72 F35b + 24 Typhoons must be cheaper than 138 F35b)
-if our reduced order level was still second only to the US. It could be spun, to avoid losing too much face, that we were still the second largest customer/operator of F35s which is commensurate with our position as second largest workshare partner. Which other countries are ordering more than 60-70? Would an order of say 72 keep the UK as the second largest customer /operator? I believe Turkey are supposed to be buying 100 but that looks a bit sketchy now

[Gabriele]

Australia is also aiming for 100, and Italy for 90.

[Lord Jim]

The Telegraph article was basing things on a cost ratio of being able to afford 2 Typhoons for 1 F-35B, which is a shaky assumption to start with. Changing the Carriers to CATOBAR is a simple non starter and limiting out purchase of F-35Bs to 50 at least until the mid 2030s, in other words two Procurement Programmes down the line, is a strong possibility. Allocating the F-35B to the Carriers as their priority task is not about carrier qualification and so on, but more about ensuring that there are 24 on the available carrier at any one time and not off somewhere else doing a job the Typhoon could because the RAF brass what to show off their new toy. Finally if anyone thinks we will actually have more than one carrier available at a time ever, is in La La Land, regardless of what statements have appeared in the press. There is no need to panic though as the F-35 is going to be in production into the 2040s matching the F-16s record if not surpassing it.

[Spinflight]

Dropping to 48 does sound crazy since:
1) according to those with understanding of the matter (i.e. Not me) it isn't enough to provide the airwings for the carrier(s)
2) it doesn't seem to generate any savings (until the next parliament, or the one thereafter perhaps)
3) it would surely cause huge reputational damage, not just with the yanks but more broadly, at a time when we are looking for potential partners for a 5/6th gen in the near future.

1) The USMC will happily make up a shortfall. We were only planning on 12 anyway.
2) Last of the 48 will be delivered in 2024 hence we would be looking to order more in the 21/22 timeframe. Which is immediately after the likely general election. On a one for one basis the savings would be considerable in having the RAF operate a single type and the economics even more so.

As a tier 1 partner, which is based upon fronting up £2 billion many moons ago rather than number ordered, we get our workshare regardless. Hence the only loss there would be slightly fewer A models if the RAF got their way. Which is about 15% workshare compared to about 20% on the B model. Though in actual fact there is none as the lines will be busy for a long time yet.

Ordering more Typhoons though we could placate the neighbours and get about 40% workshare overall, probably more if the Japanese came on board with all the changes they would want..

3) Not seeing it. We signed up for 48 based upon paying the yanks back for our training needs, we haven't signed a contract for the full 138 and no-one believes we'll buy them anyway. If there is reputational damage it's purely from not being able to afford them.

The carrier based F-35s are worth every penny, the land based ones less so. Sure there's going to be lots of fanbois crying into their milk but the choice you have to make is whether you want an F-35 or a frigate.

[dmereifield]

1) The USMC will happily make up a shortfall. We were only planning on 12 anyway.

2) Last of the 48 will be delivered in 2024 hence we would be looking to order more in the 21/22 timeframe. Which is immediately after the likely general election. On a one for one basis the savings would be considerable in having the RAF operate a single type and the economics even more so.

As a tier 1 partner, which is based upon fronting up £2 billion many moons ago rather than number ordered, we get our workshare regardless. Hence the only loss there would be slightly fewer A models if the RAF got their way. Which is about 15% workshare compared to about 20% on the B model. Though in actual fact there is none as the lines will be busy for a long time yet.

1) 12? Where has that number come from? Do you mean 12 on the PoW (littoral manoeuvre) when she is deployed? The public domain info I have read indicates that the QE carrier would have an air wing of 24. Has this changed? If we can only muster 12 for the QE when configured for strike what's the point??? Having the USMC lend a hand is nice, but we can't assume they are always going to come along for the ride and we must consider them as supplemental to what we can do, not replying on them to make up the core numbers.

2) the decision doesn't need to come now, it could easily be deferred to the next parliament when the orders beyond the 48 would be placed. If the reduced orders proposal, to be partially replaced by more Typhoons, is enacted it will kill off the possible split buy for the F35As. The main savings would come not just from reduced F35B purchases but also the logistics of going down to two fleets. Introducing a new small fleet of F35As and ordering more Typhoons would surely not result in any savings....defying the whole point of curtailing tje F35B order

3) reputational damage is reputational damage -whether it's derived from not being able to afford the kit or because we backed out of original commitments it's the same thing

[Spinflight]

12 has always been the case.

So... In the runup to the next election the Tories can either promise the Northwest that the Typhoon line will stay open well past 2022, or that the F-35 line will stay open past 2048? Difficult political decision they have there me thinks.

I have no clue why you think there would be any reputational damage, nor why or in what way it would be relevant. Maybe it's just your own personal perception?

[seaspear]

The two carriers having a lifespan of forty years , it could be just replacing the f35b,s for the carriers over the years you would be reaching a number of over the hundred plus of the original number of f35s

[benny14]

12 has always been the case.

For a peacetime deployment yes. But we need the ability to surge to 24/36 in wartime.

There are also plenty of situations where having 24 onboard would be needed, anti-isis operations for example. Been able to maintain two squadrons in general or on the carrier with 48 is going to leave no wiggly room.

The two carriers having a lifespan of forty years

Fifty years.

[dmereifield]

12 has always been the case.

So... In the runup to the next election the Tories can either promise the Northwest that the Typhoon line will stay open well past 2022, or that the F-35 line will stay open past 2048? Difficult political decision they have there me thinks.

I have no clue why you think there would be any reputational damage, nor why or in what way it would be relevant. Maybe it's just your own personal perception?

Sorry, but to clarify, are you saying that when the QE is deployed - which is the carrier strike (CEPP or whatever the term is) configured carrier, she will routinely have an airwing of 12 UK F35b's? If so, isn't that rather underwhelming? Is 12 much of a potent force considering they will need to provide CAS for the fleet, that doesn't leave many airframes available for offensive operations does it? These carriers are supposed to enable power projection - if we can barely manage to put 12 jets on it when it can take something like 36-50 I fear it will have the opposite effect, it will just further demonstrate that we have become all fur coat and no knickers.... When the French, US, and soon Chinese and Indians carriers will have multiples of this....

If we take away the current assumptions of how the UK to do it, and we imagine that we have more resources, what would actually be the minimum credible F35b compliment for routine ops for:

1) QE, as the CEPP/strike carrier. Would 18 do it, just about?

2) PoW, as the commando carrier/littoral manoeuvre carrier. 5 or 6 for CAS?

Lastly, yes, it's my personal perception about reputational damage. But I'm sure others will hold such perceptions. After all, others routinely run down the Germans for previous examples of this. There must inevitably be some reputational damage by going back on an agreement on such a large project, but whether that will have a material impact on our relationships with the US or with prospective partners for future projects is a different matter (I'd hazard a guess that it probably won't matter too much in the long run)

[dmereifield]

So... In the runup to the next election the Tories can either promise the Northwest that the Typhoon line will stay open well past 2022, or that the F-35 line will stay open past 2048? Difficult political decision they have there me thinks.

Sorry, forgot to reply to this in the last post. I don't imagine that this will be much of an election issue. It seems that the Qatar order will keep the production line going begin the end of this parliament, and the second Saudi order is firming up too. There are also a number of other Typhoon proposals under consideration which may generate additional sales

[RetroSicotte]

Or they could just do the sensible thing and not make the same mistake they keep making with every other program.

Steps to a Successful Program:
1 - Identify what you need
2 - Choose it quickly
3 - Say what it needs to do, how many, and when
4 - Don't touch the program ever again until delivery.

Failing to follow number 4 costs far more in the long run over several projects than any non adjustments ever would.

[topman]

12 has always been the case.

For a peacetime deployment yes. But we need the ability to surge to 24/36 in wartime.

There are also plenty of situations where having 24 onboard would be needed, anti-isis operations for example. Been able to maintain two squadrons in general or on the carrier with 48 is going to leave no wiggly room.

The two carriers having a lifespan of forty years

Fifty years.

Why 24? Have a look at how many FJ are on ops now and how many in the recent past. Then look at the size of the fleet they come from.

That'll give you a clue to more realistic numbers.

[Caribbean]

Steps to a Successful Program:
1 - Identify what you need
2 - Choose it quickly
3 - Say what it needs to do, how many, and when
4 - Don't touch the program ever again until delivery.

Isn't that effectively what the NSS says?

Have a look at how many FJ are on ops now and how many in the recent past. Then look at the size of the fleet they come from.
That'll give you a clue to more realistic numbers.

Is that because of fleet availability numbers, or because of the practical and logistical difficulties of expeditionary air? Surely, with the carriers, a great deal of investment has gone into making sure that you have that issue covered - effectively you take the airbase with you and have a dedicated supply train.

[Spinflight]

12 of ours, plus more from the USMC. Not sure how many you think we'd need for the usual lob half a dozen missiles at a nasty man sort of mission...

[Aethulwulf]

A routine deployment of F35 onboard a carrier is not the same as a deployment of fast jets for combat ops.

I guess most routine (6 month?) carrier deployments are unlikely to involve combat ops. The period aboard will be spent much like any period at the home base with a mixture of training, exercises and maintenance, possibly spiced up with a few QRA or operational tasking.

So if a carrier deploys with 12 or 24 F35s, not all of them would be expected to be immediately ready for combat at any time.