F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

[SKB]

Expect the usual "We can now do more with less" verbatum answer from the MoD....

At least nine can be arranged in a pretty diamond formation for ceremonial flyovers and attacks on dams....

[Lord Jim]

The further reduction in squadron size was mentioned a few months back. It is getting like a general moving division on a map where these divisions exist as formation in name only. In truth is should be an issue as all aircraft at Marham will be pooled like the JHF, but we aren't getting the second squadron until 2023/5 at the earliest. I can see the Defence Select Committee going ballistic again in the near future over the F-35 programme and its delivery rate so slow it looks like it is standing still.

[dmereifield]

The further reduction in squadron size was mentioned a few months back.

1) was this just speculation it was it officially confirmed from thr MoD?

2) was this just in the context of the Typhoon squadrons (if I recall the info came to light in the context of standing up the 2 new Typhoon squadrons) or is it applicable also to F35 squadrons?

[dmereifield]

Expect the usual "We can now do more with less" verbatum answer from the MoD....

At least nine can be arranged in a pretty diamond formation for ceremonial flyovers and attacks on dams....

With limited numbers of airframes in thr near future does it make more sense to stand up 2 9/10 airframe frontline squadrons from a pool of ca 20ish total airframes vs 1 12 airframe squadron? Would the 2 squadron provide greater availability than the 1, or does it make little difference given that the overall pool or airframes (ca 20) is the same?

Just wondering how best we can make the most of the limited numbers in the short-medium term....

[dmereifield]

Where can I find the latest information on the timeframes for IOC/FOC of the (2?) currently announced/planned F35b squadrons?
Many thanks

[benny14]

9 is a squadron??! Even the Red Arrows have a tenth!

Nothing to worry about, they are going up to 12 eventually.

It was mentioned awhile back that the reason it was going to be 9 in the meantime is so that they can stand up 207 Squadron OCU for mid next year. This is due to the F-35 buy rate been very slow throughout 2018-2019, ~6-7 F-35s. 617 Squadron will go up to 12 prior to HMS QE deployment in 2021.

Full rate production starts in 2020 which will take us up to 42 by 2023, at which time 809 Naval Air Squadron will stand up, giving us two squadrons of 12 each available for the carriers, 15 training aircraft in the OCU and 3 in the OEU.

Not that it is that important, as they will all likely be pooled at RAF Marham anyway, so any OCU aircraft can be easily transferred to front line squadrons if required. Something you may be interested in, this is what the Typhoon fleet/squadron composition was like in 2017...

136 total. Active squadrons: 10/13/15/12/7
22 in OCU,
6 TES,
4 Falklands,
8 Spare,
35 Sustainment

Where can I find the latest information on the timeframes for IOC/FOC of the (2?) currently announced/planned F35b squadrons?
Many thanks

17(R) Squadron OEU - Active (3 Aircraft)
617 Squadron Frontline - Active. Land based IOC December 2018.
207 Squadron OCU - Stand up July 2019
809 NAS Frontline - Stand up July 2023

[dmereifield]

9 is a squadron??! Even the Red Arrows have a tenth!

Nothing to worry about, they are going up to 12 eventually.

It was mentioned awhile back that the reason it was going to be 9 in the meantime is so that they can stand up 207 Squadron OCU for mid next year. This is due to the F-35 buy rate been very slow throughout 2018-2019, ~6-7 F-35s. 617 Squadron will go up to 12 by the end of 2019, early 2020 prior to HMS QE deployment in 2021.

Full rate production starts in 2020 which will take us up to 42 by 2023, at which time 809 Naval Air Squadron will stand up, giving us two squadrons of 12 each available for the carriers, 15 training aircraft in the OCU and 3 in the OEU.

Will 1 squadron each be notionally dedicated to each carrier, so that thier readiness cycles are aligned to ensure maximum availability when the carriers deploy? Excuse my ignorance, but kinda like the escorts will be?
So, judging by the timeline you describe, the maximum UK F35b complement on QE's first deployment is going to be 1 squadron of 12 (possibly even less)?

[benny14]

Will 1 squadron each be notionally dedicated to each carrier, so that thier readiness cycles are aligned to ensure maximum availability when the carriers deploy? Excuse my ignorance, but kinda like the escorts will be?
So, judging by the timeline you describe, the maximum UK F35b complement on QE's first deployment is going to be 1 squadron of 12 (possibly even less)?

The whole of 617 Squadron will be on QE for her deployment in 2021, so 12 aircraft. Possibly more from the OCU depending on what she is doing. Topped up by the USMC contribution.

If we follow what the French do, then we will put all frontline squadrons onboard when she deploys out of area. We will still likely rotate an active squadron for regular tasks, beefed up by the second when deploying to the Pacific for example.

[dmereifield]

The whole of 617 Squadron will be on QE for her deployment in 2021, so 12 aircraft. Possibly more from the OCU depending on what she is doing. Topped up by the USMC contribution..

12 for her first deployment (excluding the half a dozen or so USMC) seems pretty weak.
How many airframes will the OCU squadron have?

If we follow what the French do, then we will put all frontline squadrons onboard when she deploys out of area. We will still likely rotate an active squadron for regular tasks, beefed up by the second when deploying to the Pacific for example.

Can you elaborate on this a bit please? I can't understand how we will have enough squadrons to do this given that we will have 2 carriers active from ca. 2023 onwards (even the PoW will have to have a handful of F35bs in the commando carrier role) and only 2 frontline squadrons (of 12 airframes) from 2023 (until the 3rd stands up, sometime around 2030?). On top of that the RAF will want to use them for land based training and operations as well, so the 2 squadrons won't (I imagine) be fully dedicated to the carriers. There just doesn't seem to be sufficient squadrons or airframes for 2 carriers (even in peace time, for example to get 20-24 airframes on QE when she deploys, and 4-6 on PoW when she deploys) until we get up to 4 frontline squadrons

[topman]

The whole of 617 Squadron will be on QE for her deployment in 2021, so 12 aircraft. Possibly more from the OCU depending on what she is doing.

What makes you think that?

[abc123]

Isn't 15 aircrafts in OCU too much for just 2 operational squadrons of 12 each?

[dmereifield]

Isn't 15 aircrafts in OCU too much for just 2 operational squadrons of 12 each?

I guess that's kind of what I'm getting at, how best do we use the limited airframes we will have for the next 10-15 years. I know the airframes are not the only limitation, the pilots, maintainers and all the other enablers need to be resourced as well, but doesn't it make more sense to have say 3 frontline squadrons of 9 (or 10) and an OCU of of 12 (or 9) rather than 2 frontline squadrons of 12 and an OCU of 15?

How can we squeeze as much availability out of the limited numbers to ensure a decent number of airframes can routinely be deployed on the carriers?

[Little J]

Can you elaborate on this a bit please? I can't understand how we will have enough squadrons to do this given that we will have 2 carriers active from ca. 2023 onwards (even the PoW will have to have a handful of F35bs in the commando carrier role)

Does anyone really expect to have both carriers at sea at the same time (photo op's excluded)?

[dmereifield]

Can you elaborate on this a bit please? I can't understand how we will have enough squadrons to do this given that we will have 2 carriers active from ca. 2023 onwards (even the PoW will have to have a handful of F35bs in the commando carrier role)

Does anyone really expect to have both carriers at sea at the same time (photo op's excluded)?

No I'm not talking about simultaneously, but the requirement will be something like the following (my uneducated guess qt least):

Assuming the rule of three for QE class deployment, over any given period of say 18 months, QE will deploy for 6 months, PoW will deploy for 6 months and there will be 6 months where neither are deployed.
The requirement for airframes are thus:
6 month period 1) 1-2 squadrons for QE (12-24 airframes; take an average of 18 airframes), plus RAF land based requirements
6 month period 2) 1/3 to 1/2 of a squadron for PoW (4-6 airframes; take an average of 5 airframes), plus RAF land based requirements
6 month period 3) RN requirements for training for working up PoW and QE, plus RAF land based requirements.

How do we best make these provisions in terms of squadrons and numbers per squadron given that we will only have 40-48 airframes during the period of 2023-2030ish

Taking the numbers above for QE class deployment alone the requirement would be an average of ca. 23 airframes/3 = a mean continuous availability requirement of 8 aircraft. That doesn't seem too bad of itself, but the higher numbers required for when QE deploys seems challenging, especially in tje early 2020s when we will only have 1 frontline squadron.....

[SKB]

(Dave Pilsworth Filmography) 4th August 2018

Footage from 2nd batch of F-35B arrivals late evening, was getting close to switching over to night shot. A lovely evening and great to see so many people staying on for them.

[abc123]

Isn't 15 aircrafts in OCU too much for just 2 operational squadrons of 12 each?

I guess that's kind of what I'm getting at, how best do we use the limited airframes we will have for the next 10-15 years. I know the airframes are not the only limitation, the pilots, maintainers and all the other enablers need to be resourced as well, but doesn't it make more sense to have say 3 frontline squadrons of 9 (or 10) and an OCU of of 12 (or 9) rather than 2 frontline squadrons of 12 and an OCU of 15?

How can we squeeze as much availability out of the limited numbers to ensure a decent number of airframes can routinely be deployed on the carriers?

Yep, makes sense. But maybe 8 would be a better number, two flights of 4?

What I wanted to say is that I have read somewhere that USAF has as a standard about 25 percent of operational aircrafts as trainers, so if we apply that, for 2 x 12, 6 should be enough? Especially if there will not be rapid increase of numbers in following years...

[abc123]

Can you elaborate on this a bit please? I can't understand how we will have enough squadrons to do this given that we will have 2 carriers active from ca. 2023 onwards (even the PoW will have to have a handful of F35bs in the commando carrier role)

Does anyone really expect to have both carriers at sea at the same time (photo op's excluded)?

No. But, with 2 squadrons, you can bet that RAF will hold one squadron on land all the time, with another for carrier, whenever is operational. So, if we apply rule of 3, that's about 4 F-35 on carrier, or if rule of 2 (half squadron on carrier/ready, half not), that's about 6. So, with 3 squadrons of 8, that's something like 1 squadron for RAF, 1 for carrier and one for either use, where is necesarry at the time. So, 4-8 F-35 on carrier as average.

[benny14]

12 for her first deployment (excluding the half a dozen or so USMC) seems pretty weak.

Not really. That has always been the plan and it is perfectly adequate for a peacetime wave the flag deployment.

Can you elaborate on this a bit please? I can't understand how we will have enough squadrons to do this given that we will have 2 carriers active from ca. 2023 onwards

From what was shown before, the Commando carrier will not have F-35s on it routinely. If she deployed operationally in that role, she would be under the protection of the Strike carrier or a friendly asset.

As for my French comment. They have three squadrons of Rafale for their carrier, 42 aircraft in total. When they deploy, they normally have two squadrons onboard, and when doing anti-isis operations, they had part of the 3rd.

Isn't 15 aircrafts in OCU too much for just 2 operational squadrons of 12 each?

but doesn't it make more sense to have say 3 frontline squadrons of 9 (or 10) and an OCU of of 12 (or 9) rather than 2 frontline squadrons of 12 and an OCU of 15?

15, but that will also include those in maintenance, and spares for the frontline squadrons. Three frontline squadrons out of 42 is too tight. We don't know the schedule for the 3rd and 4th squadron yet either.

[Lord Jim]

A single small squadron may appear to be adequate for "Wave the flag", deployments but can you imagine the French or US navies deploying a carrier overseas with say a single squadron on board. It doesn't matter how you try to spin it we have built two magnificent carriers but cannot afford to operate them as such. Instead we are still using the play book from when we operated the Invincible class. The QEs we designed to operate a certain number of F-35s to generate a set number of sorties. AS the programme has not been properly funded and badly managed we are where we are and you can bet that most other nations whilst praising the design in public ae shaking their heads and trying not to laugh behind our backs.

[benny14]

A single small squadron may appear to be adequate for "Wave the flag", deployments but can you imagine the French or US navies deploying a carrier overseas with say a single squadron on board. It doesn't matter how you try to spin it we have built two magnificent carriers but cannot afford to operate them as such.
The QEs we designed to operate a certain number of F-35s to generate a set number of sorties. AS the programme has not been properly funded and badly managed we are where we are and you can bet that most other nations whilst praising the design in public ae shaking their heads and trying not to laugh behind our backs.

OK, you need to stop fantasizing and look at the reality of the situation, all this stamping feet and crying because we don't have a magic money tree achieves absolutely nothing. Carrier strike is going to take a few years to mature, our allies certainly wont be un-happy about us re-gaining the capability. The only people that think it is pathetic are internet keyboard warriors. Stop comparing us to the US, we are in a completely different situation. As for the French, please do some research and look at the size of their initial carrier deployments, or the fact that we have not operated a large carrier since the 80s, we are building the capability from scratch.

Given the understandable F-35 buy rate, a squadron onboard for the first deployment is what is possible, which is why the USMC are helping us out to pump up the numbers. Later deployments will be more substantial.

[SDL]

my advice.... get this on the biggest screen you can lol.

[serge750]

Sounds like this graphic is still the plan...

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/timeli ... er-strike/

[bobp]

my advice.... get this on the biggest screen you can lol.

After following your advice and projecting it to my 44inch tv all I can say is WOW!!!!!!!!!!

[Lord Jim]

A single small squadron may appear to be adequate for "Wave the flag", deployments but can you imagine the French or US navies deploying a carrier overseas with say a single squadron on board. It doesn't matter how you try to spin it we have built two magnificent carriers but cannot afford to operate them as such.
The QEs we designed to operate a certain number of F-35s to generate a set number of sorties. AS the programme has not been properly funded and badly managed we are where we are and you can bet that most other nations whilst praising the design in public ae shaking their heads and trying not to laugh behind our backs.

OK, you need to stop fantasizing and look at the reality of the situation, all this stamping feet and crying because we don't have a magic money tree achieves absolutely nothing. Carrier strike is going to take a few years to mature, our allies certainly wont be un-happy about us re-gaining the capability. The only people that think it is pathetic are internet keyboard warriors. Stop comparing us to the US, we are in a completely different situation. As for the French, please actually do some research and look at the size of their initial carrier deployments, or the fact that we have not operated a large carrier since the 80s, we are building the capability from scratch.

Given the understandable F-35 buy rate, a squadron onboard for the first deployment is what is possible, which is why the USMC are helping us out to pump up the numbers. Later deployments will be more substantial.

I am not concerned about the initial deployment, a single squadron to conduct trial etc if total correct. What I am annoyed about is that the original plan was for 36 F-35 to be deployed on the QEs to achieve the desired sortie rate. Now through the total balls up of the programme we have ended up with tow magnificent ship that were delivered late and an air wing that is not going to be fully operation until the latter half of the next decade nearly ten years from when the first carrier was launched. As for not operating a large carrier sine the 1980, well Ark Royal was not full operational even in the 1970s, and we are not operating the QE class like large carriers we are operating them like enlarged Invincibles. I am not fantasising here either, if things had been done right and funded properly and on time when the money was there things would be certainly different now. Cutting the CVLs in the 1020 SDSR was criminal and although the various Seed Corn" programmes maintained a certain degree of carrier operations skills it was a far from ideal solution. Comparing the RN to the USN is valid. We have built the second largest carriers, designed to deliver a measured level of capability through a certain number of sorties. This is how the size of a USN carrier air wing is measured and are current plans fall way short of what was intended. With the aviation assets we are deploying we would have done better to build three improved Invincible class and maintained a greater number of escorts. We are going to end up with a carrier strike capability that is like most of the UKs capabilities mainly show with little substance. It is better than nothing but is far from the pinnacle some would have us believe.

[benny14]

I am not concerned about the initial deployment, a single squadron to conduct trial etc if total correct. What I am annoyed about is that the original plan was for 36 F-35 to be deployed on the QEs to achieve the desired sortie rate.

Why does it have to be all or nothing? The whole purpose of these carriers is to have adaptable assets that can easily scale up and down their air wing depending on the situation. We have to be realistic, 12+6? F-35s is what we will have for the first deployment, with a dozen or so helicopters. That to me is a perfectly reasonable airwing. Later deployments are likely to be 1-2 squadrons plus helicopters.

Tell me why she needs her full 36 F-35 sortie rate for flag waving. I would rather they smartly deploy their assets, rather than try and look good for photo ops.