F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

[benny14]

What does Turkey contribute to the project?

A small amount of initial funding, the main European engine maintenance facility and a certain percentage of the aircraft itself.

[Lord Jim]

It was really what they could get out of the F-35 programme that was important as they are desperate to develop their in house aerospace industry and progress from assembling F-16 kits.

[Jdam]

Then this shouldn't have any effect on the program.

Does this mean they will lose the engine maintenance facility?

[sunstersun]

Then this shouldn't have any effect on the program.

Does this mean they will lose the engine maintenance facility?

It will have a minor impact.

And yes, that engine facility is conditioned on the purchase.

[SKB]

Any more RAF/FAA F-35's coming to the UK this year?

[benny14]

It will have a minor impact.

Some estimates have said losing the facility and having to find new manufactures for the components made in Turkey will set the program back 1-2 years.

Any more RAF/FAA F-35's coming to the UK this year?

Not likely. Only 1-2 more F-35s delivered this year.

[SKB]

Interesting. Carrier Strike Group Commander, Commodore Andrew Betton says that all the F-35B's are 'owned' by the RAF, but will be flown jointly by the FAA and RAF. This means that the RN don't 'own' any of their F-35B's. And now makes sense why they're all based at RAF Marham, and not shared with RNAS Yeovilton.

1:20 in video

[Gabriele]

The budget holder is the RAF. The Royal Navy was never going to own any Lightning. Which is what worries me and what leaves the door wide open to an F-35A idiocy.

[downsizer]

And now makes sense why they're all based at RAF Marham, and not shared with RNAS Yeovilton.

Nothing to do with that and everything to do with reducing costs with them all being at the same location.

Have you been to RAF Marham recently?
And seen how many RN are there?

Of course not....

[indeid]

Interesting. Carrier Strike Group Commander, Commodore Andrew Betton says that all the F-35B's are 'owned' by the RAF, but will be flown jointly by the FAA and RAF. This means that the RN don't 'own' any of their F-35B's. And now makes sense why they're all based at RAF Marham, and not shared with RNAS Yeovilton.

What do you mean by ownership?

The organisation who runs the programme, support contract or safety case and engineering authorities? Maybe the investment board needed to approve capital expenditure? Or is it the RAF who as a Single Service Force Generate assets as required by PJHQ? That would make it CJO since he gets to decide where to deploy them for operations and command them once they are there. But if they are on a carrier it could be the MCC, but then again the JFC will apportion assets as needed, so the aircraft off the carrier could be handed to any other components, with the RN just responsible for launching them.

Or are you just interested in whose name is painted on the side?

[indeid]

Have you been to RAF Marham recently?
And seen how many RN are there?

Poor sods

[Lord Jim]

Its all a natural progression of the JHF where in the end both services flew the Harrier GR9, but the aircraft were on the RAF's books. It won't be long until a FAA officer is in command on one of the RAF badges squadrons, even say 617, and we will see personnel from both services in all of the squadrons.

[abc123]

The budget holder is the RAF. The Royal Navy was never going to own any Lightning. Which is what worries me and what leaves the door wide open to an F-35A idiocy.

Wait, but if say the RN owns all 48 F-35B ( version that she needs considering STOVL nature of QE-class ), why be against of RAF having the version they need ( A )?

[SDL]

if they have enough Bs to fully equip the QE fully, then sure... let the RAF have some A's... problem is i can see the RAF not giving the RN enough Bs before any switch.

[abc123]

if they have enough Bs to fully equip the QE fully, then sure... let the RAF have some A's... problem is i can see the RAF not giving the RN enough Bs before any switch.

Well, that's the problem with joint solutions.
IMHO, they should have split them from the beginning, Bs for FAA, As for the RAF, each paid from their respective budget and owned by them. This way, nobody will be satisfied and constant struggle will happen between two services about use ( and training ) of their squadrons/aircrafts...

[whitelancer]

Its what you do when you have inadequate resources. You try and make the best use of what you have, (accompanied by plenty of spin) which works fine in peace time. War however has a habit of soon exposing such expedients.

[Lord Jim]

The major issue I have with the joint operation idea is of we have a problem in the future similar to what happened in the 2000s when the Harriers were rotated to Afghanistan and there were not enough Harriers remaining to deploy the usual detachment about the ready Invincible class. What happens if the F-35Bs are deployed on operations to a theatre where they are operating from airfields and the need arises to deploy the ready Queen Elizabeth class. We are unlikely to have more than three frontline F-35 Squadrons plus the OCU at any given time. Do we immediately with draw the F-35s from their on going operations or deploy the carrier with a far weaker air wing? Part of me thinks the RAF should bite the bullet, accept that the F-35s are assigned to carrier operations and have to make do with the Typhoons until son of Tempest arrives. The F-35s will obviously still be able to support the majority of operations, especially if supported by AAR assets, like the USNs F-18s did, operating over Afghanistan from carriers in the Indian Ocean.

[abc123]

The major issue I have with the joint operation idea is of we have a problem in the future similar to what happened in the 2000s when the Harriers were rotated to Afghanistan and there were not enough Harriers remaining to deploy the usual detachment about the ready Invincible class. What happens if the F-35Bs are deployed on operations to a theatre where they are operating from airfields and the need arises to deploy the ready Queen Elizabeth class. We are unlikely to have more than three frontline F-35 Squadrons plus the OCU at any given time. Do we immediately with draw the F-35s from their on going operations or deploy the carrier with a far weaker air wing? Part of me thinks the RAF should bite the bullet, accept that the F-35s are assigned to carrier operations and have to make do with the Typhoons until son of Tempest arrives. The F-35s will obviously still be able to support the majority of operations, especially if supported by AAR assets, like the USNs F-18s did, operating over Afghanistan from carriers in the Indian Ocean.

No, a split buy ( A for RAF, B for FAA ) is better solution IMHO. But only after first 48 F-35B are delivered. You can't leave RAF without 5th gen fighters. Also, A-version is also way cheaper so they might get a few more of them..

[S M H]

No, a split buy ( A for RAF, B for FAA ) is better solution IMHO. But only after first 48 F-35B are delivered. You can't leave RAF without 5th gen fighters. Also, A-version is also way cheaper so they might get a few more of them..

I think that the advocates of the split buy ignore the costs or running a fleet within a fleet the aircraft . The F.A.A. could fund the F.35 from the navy's budget but it would be at the cost of losing assets. The A variant is cheaper than the b. But the split buy incurs to sets of simulators with larger stores holding. More importantly you lose the ability to serge shore based aircraft to you carriers in a max effort. The F35 purchase was mudded by the F35c fiasco in SSDR 10. and Mr Browns cancelation of the Tornado replacement two years previously. The true problem is that we not willing to pay more for defence. That the R.A.F. ownership of the airframes is the result of that. If they were transfer the 48 to the R.N. I doubt that the RAF operational funds allocated would be transferred. Though the present F 35 running arrangement may anathema to the F.A.A. only lobby it is effectively the best solution that present spending allows

[Gabriele]

The nonsense that the split buy would be is determined not by the number of airframes, but the likely number of squadrons.

Squadrons are the only metric worth considering. Ultimately, how many you have to deploy and how long you can sustain them on an enduring operation depends on how many squadrons you have of a given type.

What are you going to split? 4 squadrons in half, giving two fleet both too small to do anything? 2 B and 3 A, in the wildest most optimistic scenario?
It's an idiocy. 4 squadrons of the same type will always be more sustainable than 2 + 2. And will prevent the appearance of "poor cousins" within the fleet, which is what happens when a Tornado and a Harrier try to eat from the same basket.

[Caribbean]

I can't see anything good coming out of a split buy. However, if it were to happen, I would favour an unequal split, (very roughly 5:3 in favour of the F35B). Making the nominally "RAF" fleet the smaller may help to mitigate the dangers arising from the "fleet within a fleet" scenario. Five "FAA" squadrons vs 3 "RAF" would seem like a good split

I would agree, though, that we should start with at least 48 B's, before we even consider buying A's.

[dmereifield]

I can't see anything good coming out of a split buy. However, if it were to happen, I would favour an unequal split, (very roughly 5:3 in favour of the F35B). Making the nominally "RAF" fleet the smaller may help to mitigate the dangers arising from the "fleet within a fleet" scenario. Five "FAA" squadrons vs 3 "RAF" would seem like a good split

I would agree, though, that we should start with at least 48 B's, before we even consider buying A's.

8 F35 squadrons? That seems very optimistic....

[indeid]

Squadrons are the only metric worth considering. Ultimately, how many you have to deploy and how long you can sustain them on an enduring operation depends on how many squadrons you have of a given type.

If that is the definition you want to use then the key factor is the amount of PEPs you buy, not aircraft, pilots or Sqns.

[Ron5]

Wouldn't Tempest make an F-35A buy less likely?

[dmereifield]

Wouldn't Tempest make an F-35A buy less likely?

I thought you were of the view that Tempest is a faux project, merely a slide of hand and merger of Typhoon upgrade budgets and other small pots of money masquerading as a future fighter programme...so no, it won't affect the speculative "A" buy...

In all seriousness, isn't the commitment to buy 138 F35s more likely to restrict funds available for Tempest?