F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Contains threads on Joint Service equipment of the past, present and future.
R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

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

Post by R686 »

Timmymagic wrote:
serge750 wrote:getting rid of the sea harriers in the early 2000's was IMO, we hopefully would of kept a CVL running then if we had QE as originally planned in 2014 ? (if I remember correctly?) no fixed wing gap, then maybe had sea harriers flying of QE carrier...but once again it is all to do with short term budget decisions from the bean counters !!!
But given that we managed without them in the intervening period, and the increasingly marginal capability offered by the Harrier/Sea Harrier what would we have gained? We've saved way more money with scrapping the CVS and Sea Harrier/Harrier than its cost us in re-building the capability. The running costs of CVS for the remaining years would have been huge, as would keeping SHAR going, we're talking billions as well. What has been the cost of re-building the capability? Most of the work undertaken would have had to be done with a new ship class and aircraft anyway.
Gaps are never good except when you get away with them...which we seem to have.
From memory it was anticipated to be only a 10year gap, but with the slow build and now the slow uptake of F35 its turning into a 20 year gap to get back to the same capability as 1982, least if you kept the harriers the transition time would have been reduced, and the 2011 Libya brought that home when it was either an expensive trip from Italy or the Apache's from Ocean.

Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

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

Post by Little J »

R686 wrote: From memory it was anticipated to be only a 10year gap, but with the slow build and now the slow uptake of F35 its turning into a 20 year gap to get back to the same capability as 1982, least if you kept the harriers the transition time would have been reduced, and the 2011 Libya brought that home when it was either an expensive trip from Italy or the Apache's from Ocean.
Also your pilots would be the dogs teabags - if you can fly a SHAR well, then dave b is going to be a walk in the park.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

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

Post by shark bait »

R686 wrote:an expensive trip from Italy
Or incredibly expensive carrier ops from the Mediterranean. I bet regardless of whether Invincible was in service the RAF would still have been flying Tornado out of Italy.
@LandSharkUK

downsizer
Member
Posts: 892
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

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

Post by downsizer »

Of course they would because it had capabilities that Harrier never had.

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

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

Post by R686 »

downsizer wrote:Of course they would because it had capabilities that Harrier never had.

Ahh, if only they had built CVA-01 and kept the F4-K’s and Buccaneers, they would be in this mess

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

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

Post by bobp »

R686 wrote:Ahh, if only they had built CVA-01 and kept the F4-K’s and Buccaneers, they would be in this mess

Apart from the fact that they would be 50 years old now.

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

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

Post by R686 »

bobp wrote:
R686 wrote:Ahh, if only they had built CVA-01 and kept the F4-K’s and Buccaneers, they would be in this mess

Apart from the fact that they would be 50 years old now.
CVA-01 would be coming up to retirement age and Brazil would have kept her for another 20 years, the interesting question would Harrier devoleped into something else or would you have converted CVA-01 into a harrier carrier?

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

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

Post by bobp »

R686 wrote:the interesting question would Harrier devoleped into something else or would you have converted CVA-01 into a harrier carrier?
That's two questions. Firstly the Harrier evolved into the AV8B or Harrier II and as to the second part of your question that's impossible to say as CVA-01 never came about. Was sad when the Harriers were scrapped, would have liked to see some flying off the QE.

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

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

Post by R686 »

bobp wrote:
R686 wrote:the interesting question would Harrier devoleped into something else or would you have converted CVA-01 into a harrier carrier?
That's two questions. Firstly the Harrier evolved into the AV8B or Harrier II and as to the second part of your question that's impossible to say as CVA-01 never came about. Was sad when the Harriers were scrapped, would have liked to see some flying off the QE.
yes I know about AV8B/II its was more of a question if CVA-01 was built as designed would the requirement still have existed for a V/STOL aircraft for the RAF/RN?


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

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

Post by sunstersun »

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

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

Post by serge750 »

R686 wrote:
bobp wrote:
R686 wrote:Ahh, if only they had built CVA-01 and kept the F4-K’s and Buccaneers, they would be in this mess

Apart from the fact that they would be 50 years old now.
CVA-01 would be coming up to retirement age and Brazil would have kept her for another 20 years, the interesting question would Harrier devoleped into something else or would you have converted CVA-01 into a harrier carrier?
To replace the phantom & buccaneer ( I did really like the bucc) we Probably would of gone for the F18 hornet....or maybe the Sea jaguar would of evolved or even gone down the rafale route with the french....
I do like the alternative type historys...

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 "Sea Jaguar" was a nice idea but the Adour 101 was far too underpowered for it to operate effectively. Even the land based Jaguars had to either redline their Adour 104s to get off the ground with any useful load anywhere where the temperature might rise above 20 degrees centigrade, and the Mk106 upgrade was never cleared for operations due to a number of issues. I agree the F-18 would probably have been the platform of choice to replace the Phantoms and Buccaneers with a single platform in the mid 1980s. Would the CVA-01 been able to operate the E-2 I wonder? It would be nice to see and artists impression of the CVA-01 late in its career, seeing how the ship could have evolved over time.

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 »

R686 wrote:
bobp wrote:
R686 wrote:Ahh, if only they had built CVA-01 and kept the F4-K’s and Buccaneers, they would be in this mess

Apart from the fact that they would be 50 years old now.
CVA-01 would be coming up to retirement age and Brazil would have kept her for another 20 years, the interesting question would Harrier devoleped into something else or would you have converted CVA-01 into a harrier carrier?
Of course if the UK had had the financial resources, the RN would have been equipped with two to three CVA-01s built to the original size and capabilities and equipped with the supersonic VTOL platform that was planned for both the RAF and FAA before the UKs aerospace manufacturing base was gutted.

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

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

Post by R686 »

Lord Jim wrote:
R686 wrote:
bobp wrote:
R686 wrote:Ahh, if only they had built CVA-01 and kept the F4-K’s and Buccaneers, they would be in this mess

Apart from the fact that they would be 50 years old now.
CVA-01 would be coming up to retirement age and Brazil would have kept her for another 20 years, the interesting question would Harrier devoleped into something else or would you have converted CVA-01 into a harrier carrier?
Of course if the UK had had the financial resources, the RN would have been equipped with two to three CVA-01s built to the original size and capabilities and equipped with the supersonic VTOL platform that was planned for both the RAF and FAA before the UKs aerospace manufacturing base was gutted.
What’s the point of continuing the V/STOL aircraft programme when you have cats, sort of defeats the purpose, know you poms would have orderd the F/A-18 with RR Spey engines, would have been interesting to see.

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 »

R686 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:
R686 wrote:
bobp wrote:
R686 wrote:Ahh, if only they had built CVA-01 and kept the F4-K’s and Buccaneers, they would be in this mess

Apart from the fact that they would be 50 years old now.
CVA-01 would be coming up to retirement age and Brazil would have kept her for another 20 years, the interesting question would Harrier devoleped into something else or would you have converted CVA-01 into a harrier carrier?
Of course if the UK had had the financial resources, the RN would have been equipped with two to three CVA-01s built to the original size and capabilities and equipped with the supersonic VTOL platform that was planned for both the RAF and FAA before the UKs aerospace manufacturing base was gutted.
What’s the point of continuing the V/STOL aircraft programme when you have cats, sort of defeats the purpose, know you poms would have orderd the F/A-18 with RR Spey engines, would have been interesting to see.
It was a strange idea of a catapult launch but vertical landing! The reverse of STOBAR, eliminating the limitations for payload carried during take off and the need for arrestor wires. However the technical challenges of a supersonic VTOL (P.1154) were too great, an idea before its time. Mind you we still ended up with a plane with two Spey engines, the F-4K.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by NickC »

A report to Congress on the additional concurrency costs for updating current F-35 fleet to Block 3F standard? estimated to have been reduced by 2% to only $1.41 billion from previous $1.44 billion, actual costs to date have been higher than estimated, but future costs forecast to fall.

There has been USAF discussion as to whether with earlier build a/c worth the cost of updating. As yet have seen no decision/costings by MOD on UK F-35B's delivered to date.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by abc123 »

serge750 wrote:
R686 wrote:
bobp wrote:
R686 wrote:Ahh, if only they had built CVA-01 and kept the F4-K’s and Buccaneers, they would be in this mess

Apart from the fact that they would be 50 years old now.
CVA-01 would be coming up to retirement age and Brazil would have kept her for another 20 years, the interesting question would Harrier devoleped into something else or would you have converted CVA-01 into a harrier carrier?
I do like the alternative type historys...
I had a nice one in progress before the SOBs banned me on alternative history forum... Point of departure, alternative Suez crisis...
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

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

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

Post by Timmymagic »

NickC wrote:As yet have seen no decision/costings by MOD on UK F-35B's delivered to date.
I think Gabrielle has noted that the MoD is not facing a significant issue as it's aircraft in the main have come from the later batces where software updates are primarily needed.

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 »

One of the few positives to result from the UK's slow, crawl, slow approach to F-35 procurement.

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://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/hms-que ... 35-trials/

IT'S FUCKING HAPPENING BOIS. IT'S LITTTTTTTT

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

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

Post by sunstersun »

in other Turkey related news.

https://www.dailysabah.com/americas/201 ... lly-turkey

Turkey's probably going to get kicked out the JSF program. NATO withdraw is probably on the table soon enough.

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

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

Post by benny14 »

sunstersun wrote:in other Turkey related news.

https://www.dailysabah.com/americas/201 ... lly-turkey

Turkey's probably going to get kicked out the JSF program. NATO withdraw is probably on the table soon enough.
Was on twitter earlier, everything F-35 related had masses of salty Turks commenting. Now I know why.

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

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

Post by sunstersun »

benny14 wrote:
sunstersun wrote:in other Turkey related news.

https://www.dailysabah.com/americas/201 ... lly-turkey

Turkey's probably going to get kicked out the JSF program. NATO withdraw is probably on the table soon enough.
Was on twitter earlier, everything F-35 related had masses of salty Turks commenting. Now I know why.
Serves em right, I hope they try and buy the SU-57. If the Indians said no, you know that plane is complete shit.

Jdam
Member
Posts: 922
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jdam »

What does Turkey contribute to the project?

Post Reply