F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Contains threads on Joint Service equipment of the past, present and future.
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 »

I wonder if the Treasury would, after reading the above, put pressure on the MoD to halt procurement of the B after the initial 50 odd and switch to he cheaper A model. Quite possible as they seem to be only interested in the balance sheet and the MoD would have to fight hard to defend continuing buying Bs if they can operate the carrier(s) with only 50.

SDL
Member
Posts: 763
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

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

Post by SDL »

Is 50 Bs enough for a full carrier contingent?

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

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

Post by RetroSicotte »

SDL wrote:Is 50 Bs enough for a full carrier contingent?
In strict theory yes, you can fit some 36-40something on a carrier.

In operational practicality, no. For comparison, the French feel they need 45 or so Rafales to allow for 30 on board. You need 50% more than your requirement for just one carrier. So that would be around 60 jets per carrier to ensure each one has a full contingent.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

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

Post by SKB »

Easily. 24 below, 26 up top.

SDL
Member
Posts: 763
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

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

Post by SDL »

RetroSicotte wrote:
SDL wrote:Is 50 Bs enough for a full carrier contingent?
In strict theory yes, you can fit some 36-40something on a carrier.

In operational practicality, no. For comparison, the French feel they need 45 or so Rafales to allow for 30 on board. You need 50% more than your requirement for just one carrier. So that would be around 60 jets per carrier to ensure each one has a full contingent.
The second paragraph is what i meant... if there is to be a split, then it has to be after we get enough B's for at least one full operational carrier contingent. maybe one and a half if there ever comes a time when the shit hits the fan and both QE & PoW are active.

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 »

Regardless of Government rhetoric, we are not going to have two carriers at sea at the same time, and then in peacetime probably only carrying a maximum of 24 F-35Bs, surging to 36 in a crisis. Therefore 50 is more than enough.

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

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

Post by serge750 »

Well even 32 onboard one carrier is a lot of firepower since the original I believe was for 36 & helicopters? even if the crap hit the fan & we needed both QEC, I would think they would use one for a helicopter assault with merlins, chinocks, apache etc with maybe a small force of F35 for self defence, maybe 6 from the OCU ? not ideal but if the penny pinchers aren't willing the posh the wonger...

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

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

Post by RetroSicotte »

SKB wrote:Easily. 24 below, 26 up top.
Not practical for operations.
Lord Jim wrote:Regardless of Government rhetoric, we are not going to have two carriers at sea at the same time, and then in peacetime probably only carrying a maximum of 24 F-35Bs, surging to 36 in a crisis. Therefore 50 is more than enough.
50 is too little even just for that. To ensure you could reach that you'd really need around 60 or more, following the trend of availability to all other carriers worldwide, and even that is a bare minimum.

They are too big an oppurtunity to squander on not properly equipping them with enough jets.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

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

Post by seaspear »

If and its probably a big if Tempest is funded and introduced you may not need the a version

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 »

RetroSicotte wrote:You need 50% more than your requirement for just one carrier. So that would be around 60 jets per carrier
Lord Jim wrote:carrying a maximum of 24 F-35Bs, surging to 36 in a crisis. Therefore 50 is more than enough.
serge750 wrote:would think they would use one for a helicopter assault with merlins, chinocks, apache etc with maybe a small force of F35 for self defence, maybe 6 from the OCU ?
Carrier availability 140% (from the two).
- one with 24
- the air wing for littoral, with 12
=> 1.4 x 36 = 53

I buy the RS 50% more for the "strike mode" whereas the littoral dozen can be topped up from OCU
-these higher maths give 65 (but all of them Bs)
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)

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

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

Post by sunstersun »

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release ... 81104.html

JSM missile scores direct hit. Seems like a ruddy good weapon piece outta a small nation like norway.

the usn and usaf are going to adopt these things.

cky7
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 13 Dec 2015, 20:19
United Kingdom

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

Post by cky7 »

Very impressive display at RIAT I thought. Can’t say I agree with all that can’t climb, can’t turn or run away stuff after seeing this....


User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

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

Post by SKB »

Naaah. Thats an F-35A, it doesn't count. :mrgreen:

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 »

RetroSicotte wrote:
SKB wrote:Easily. 24 below, 26 up top.
Not practical for operations.
Lord Jim wrote:Regardless of Government rhetoric, we are not going to have two carriers at sea at the same time, and then in peacetime probably only carrying a maximum of 24 F-35Bs, surging to 36 in a crisis. Therefore 50 is more than enough.
50 is too little even just for that. To ensure you could reach that you'd really need around 60 or more, following the trend of availability to all other carriers worldwide, and even that is a bare minimum.

They are too big an oppurtunity to squander on not properly equipping them with enough jets.
We are talking Politicians here. I agree we need more than 50, but what I was trying to do was get inside the Treasury's mind and how they might see things. I still don't thing we will see more than one carrier available at any one time though, and the single available platform will have to tailor its air group the role its is tasked with, so either carrier strike or amphibious operations for example. Mind you at least we should have a carrier available most of the time unlike some nations who try to get by with only one.

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

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

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:
SKB wrote:Easily. 24 below, 26 up top.
Not practical for operations.
Lord Jim wrote:Regardless of Government rhetoric, we are not going to have two carriers at sea at the same time, and then in peacetime probably only carrying a maximum of 24 F-35Bs, surging to 36 in a crisis. Therefore 50 is more than enough.
50 is too little even just for that. To ensure you could reach that you'd really need around 60 or more, following the trend of availability to all other carriers worldwide, and even that is a bare minimum.

They are too big an oppurtunity to squander on not properly equipping them with enough jets.
We are talking Politicians here. I agree we need more than 50, but what I was trying to do was get inside the Treasury's mind and how they might see things. I still don't thing we will see more than one carrier available at any one time though, and the single available platform will have to tailor its air group the role its is tasked with, so either carrier strike or amphibious operations for example. Mind you at least we should have a carrier available most of the time unlike some nations who try to get by with only one.
It's a matter of fact that the MoD has stated that one carrier will be available all of the time and two carriers some of the time.

Being available and being at sea are two different things. But in a national emergency, if available, both carriers would deploy. And like the Falklands, every F-35 will be onboard. So the UK should plan for at least 70-80 airframes and at least that many pilots. 4 squadrons plus OCU would be enough as each squadron could be surged to increase aircraft numbers.

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 »

That is definitely the Glass half full view whilst I lean towards the half empty one.

cky7
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 13 Dec 2015, 20:19
United Kingdom

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

Post by cky7 »

Ron5 wrote: Being available and being at sea are two different things. But in a national emergency, if available, both carriers would deploy. And like the Falklands, every F-35 will be onboard. So the UK should plan for at least 70-80 airframes and at least that many pilots. 4 squadrons plus OCU would be enough as each squadron could be surged to increase aircraft numbers.
My thoughts exactly. Probably more like 85-90 and RN owned aircraft too. Unfortunately that would only leave the RAF with 48 (though wasn’t this number banded around a while? Though this was talked of as the total buy for the time being). Having the corresponding number of pilots is also gonna be key as you say. We’ve mortgaged the future of the navy on the QEs, it will be a colossal waste if we don’t squeeze absolute full value out of them, havng them at anything other than the most effective we can possibly make them is gonna be ridiculous.

Unfortunately I don’t think we will get this and think corners will get cut at every opportunity - not having that many(or even close to) RN Aircraft, having them ‘available’ and being at sea not the same etc etc :(.

Let’s hope the MOD come to their senses- not likely I know!

Just wanted to say how I impressed I was with the massive contribution your countrymen made to RIAT at the weekend by the way. In fact the show would have been not even half as good without the USAF. They had a massive number of aircraft on the static displays and I was so impressed by the airmen and women, all so proud, friendly and enthusiastic to talk to me and answer questions. This was a great example of using forces for soft power in a first world allied nation IMO. I wish we could take a leaf from your book on this one (we may do - ive never been to an event like this outside the U.K.)

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

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

Post by Timmymagic »

cky7 wrote:Can’t say I agree with all that can’t climb, can’t turn or run away stuff after seeing this....
Have to say the critics of the F-35 have begun to quieten down over the last 6 months.

Give it a couple of years and they'll be denying that they were ever against it...its getting harder and harder to have a go at it.

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

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

Post by sunstersun »

Fifth generation planes are about two things specifically, roughly 50% each of importance: one stealth, the other datalink/sensor fusion.

Both of these things in combination with long range warfare make speed, agility and dogfighting 99% irrelevant. Dog fighting is like an army focusing on knife fights. Missiles are getting longer in range, not shorter.

Too bad 90% of people misunderstand stealth and 100% of the public know nothing about sensor fusion.

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: Have to say the critics of the F-35 have begun to quieten down over the last 6 months.

Give it a couple of years and they'll be denying that they were ever against it
In our case (with the low numbers, for years to come) just the AMRAAM deal makes a huge difference
- we move on from having an Alpha strike, self-escorting bomber to something much more versatile
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)

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

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

Post by sunstersun »

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/video/ ... 5-program/

since the UK F-35 training is so linked with the marines, i thought it would be a decent idea to see their progress.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

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

Post by SKB »


(Nigel Woolley) 14th July 2018
As a part of the RAF 100 years celebration the Royal International Air Tattoo displayed a variety of flypasts. Included here are nine Typhoons in formation, the Lancaster in formation with the F35B plus Tornado, and the F35B in hover mode.
0:24 - 617 Squadron's past, present and future aircraft flying together!

User avatar
2HeadsBetter
Member
Posts: 205
Joined: 12 Dec 2015, 16:21
United Kingdom

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

Post by 2HeadsBetter »

Nice video. Shame there were no V bombers available.

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

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

Post by Timmymagic »

sunstersun wrote:Both of these things in combination with long range warfare make speed, agility and dogfighting 99% irrelevant. Dog fighting is like an army focusing on knife fights. Missiles are getting longer in range, not shorter.
Thats true to an extent...until ROE are thrown into the mix...

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 »

Advanced data transfer has allowed the battlespace to become far more transparent over the past couple of decades. Nowadays if is far easier to identify an object, stealth issues accepted, and so once again aircraft can, in most cases, use their missiles to their full potential.

Post Reply