This one of those things which has a lot of 'red labels' on it, so for the casual observer it is sometimes difficult to tell the difference between shooting hype or hyperweapons (the latter could be greatly exaggerated as for their performance, as well?)Lord Jim wrote: use their superior radars in their low probability of intercept mode to see without being seen
F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
The airforce mag - article, while dwelling a lot on the 'bells&whistles' also clearly sets out that
1. The sins of 'our' fathers...
"USAF never got the 381 F-22s it planned for to replace its F-15C/Ds and carry the air superiority mission through 2040, receiving only 186 Raptors. To meet global force requirements, it had to retain more than 200 of the youngest or lowest-time F-15Cs well beyond their planned service lives. "
186+144 =330
186+200 = 386... have five Raptors had mishaps, the check sum does not quite tally
2. the AF planners are reassessing the future force mix
3. this time around the USAF won't outsource maintenance in the same way as with the F-35
4. it is not only the (direct) cost of flight hours, but reuse of infrastructure and training that count
As the article ends with "the world is watching"
that has as much to do with the F-35 export prospects as
with the F-15EX export prospects; far fewer takers for 'its role', and
the prime customer will be taking up early tail numbers, for years to come
PS My 'motto writer' will now hate me
... as this is clearly a Both-And case, for the force mix. Not everyone is 'the USAF' though
1. The sins of 'our' fathers...
"USAF never got the 381 F-22s it planned for to replace its F-15C/Ds and carry the air superiority mission through 2040, receiving only 186 Raptors. To meet global force requirements, it had to retain more than 200 of the youngest or lowest-time F-15Cs well beyond their planned service lives. "
186+144 =330
186+200 = 386... have five Raptors had mishaps, the check sum does not quite tally
2. the AF planners are reassessing the future force mix
3. this time around the USAF won't outsource maintenance in the same way as with the F-35
4. it is not only the (direct) cost of flight hours, but reuse of infrastructure and training that count
As the article ends with "the world is watching"
that has as much to do with the F-35 export prospects as
with the F-15EX export prospects; far fewer takers for 'its role', and
the prime customer will be taking up early tail numbers, for years to come
PS My 'motto writer' will now hate me
... as this is clearly a Both-And case, for the force mix. Not everyone is 'the USAF' though
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
I heard rumors about it (ALIS) but now this is from an official source.
Based on the comments, Israel will have an exception... and won't be dependent on ALIS.
Someone raised an interesting question too: Regarding F-35B aboard carriers at sea (where connectivity with ALIS may not be guaranteed 100%)...
Based on the comments, Israel will have an exception... and won't be dependent on ALIS.
Someone raised an interesting question too: Regarding F-35B aboard carriers at sea (where connectivity with ALIS may not be guaranteed 100%)...
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
To start more generally, the successor for ALIS is called TOR. The Congress (when accepting the funding) has been v sceptical about the promised delivery time scale: 2023
- I made a comment here about this forthcoming deployment, with their and our squadron, both together onboard: do we have our own variety, have we borrowed theirs lock, stock and barrel
- if the former, at least we will get some good benchmarking as to which works better
Another notable development is the Italo-Norvegian project to separate the mission 'file' from the diagnostics&maintenance file; i.e. get autonomy on the mission and arming side of things, not to mention isolation against breaches of the centralised system (OpFor knows about missions as soon as the data is loaded)
The USMC has addressed that by developing a cut-back version (more autonomy) of ALIS for their planes when onboarded (but it is still ALIS)xav wrote:Someone raised an interesting question too: Regarding F-35B aboard carriers at sea (where connectivity with ALIS may not be guaranteed 100%)...
- I made a comment here about this forthcoming deployment, with their and our squadron, both together onboard: do we have our own variety, have we borrowed theirs lock, stock and barrel
- if the former, at least we will get some good benchmarking as to which works better
Another notable development is the Italo-Norvegian project to separate the mission 'file' from the diagnostics&maintenance file; i.e. get autonomy on the mission and arming side of things, not to mention isolation against breaches of the centralised system (OpFor knows about missions as soon as the data is loaded)
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
I have read that the U.S.A.F plans for new secure data links between the f35 and the f-15ex could be interesting for carrier operations
https://warontherocks.com/2019/06/f-15e ... er-debate/
https://warontherocks.com/2019/06/f-15e ... er-debate/
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
A good article, with a good opening:
"The fallout from the U.S. Air Force’s request to buy F-15EX fighter jets to replace the aging F-15C/D Eagle has certainly been entertaining. Largely driven by lobbyist influence mixed with self-interest..."
The photos provide nice scale factors for the hypersonic weapons, for now in testing.
- a bit "tall" for some other fighters, not naming any names (we have a thread header ).
The main thrust is, though, that the USAF got the idea through as a 'cost case' for air defence,
but the value will be in using F-15EX as a platform in strategic competion.
Brings to mind the old adage that
" an accountant knows the price of everything, but the value of nothing"
- clearly does not apply to the AF officers who drove the case through
- but may have provided them with the weapon to deal with the Budget Office
"The fallout from the U.S. Air Force’s request to buy F-15EX fighter jets to replace the aging F-15C/D Eagle has certainly been entertaining. Largely driven by lobbyist influence mixed with self-interest..."
The photos provide nice scale factors for the hypersonic weapons, for now in testing.
- a bit "tall" for some other fighters, not naming any names (we have a thread header ).
The main thrust is, though, that the USAF got the idea through as a 'cost case' for air defence,
but the value will be in using F-15EX as a platform in strategic competion.
Brings to mind the old adage that
" an accountant knows the price of everything, but the value of nothing"
- clearly does not apply to the AF officers who drove the case through
- but may have provided them with the weapon to deal with the Budget Office
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
The Block 4 hardware and software upgrade to F-35 for full operational capabilities (amongst other upgrades will enable UK to fund development for enabling operational use use of ASRAAM CSP, Meteor and Spear 3), Block 4 development started in 2018, completion has now slipped from 2026 to 2027 if not later.
Block 4 costs increased an additional $1.9 billion from last year to $14.4 billion, will add fire to critics of the F-35 in Congress to "stop throwing money down that particular rathole” and USAF Chief of Staff General Brown saying recently its conducting a tactical aircraft study as to whether it should buy fewer F-35's.
US Government Accountability Office March 2021 report, GAO-21-226
Block 4 costs increased an additional $1.9 billion from last year to $14.4 billion, will add fire to critics of the F-35 in Congress to "stop throwing money down that particular rathole” and USAF Chief of Staff General Brown saying recently its conducting a tactical aircraft study as to whether it should buy fewer F-35's.
US Government Accountability Office March 2021 report, GAO-21-226
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3235
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Happened in February apparently from an F-35A. Important to note these are early steps, unpowered drop tests only to date. From some of the comments in the thread it looks like external carry and release is not part of the trials programme, which means no JSM for B unless someone else funds it...(Japan/South Korea later?). That could mean JSM not appearing on B ever or more likely a long time away if true.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
JPO will also have to deal with how that is apportioned between the US 'customers' and those overseasNickC wrote: Block 4 costs increased an additional $1.9 billion from last year to $14.4 billion
- we may have built an insulation layer against that (bill) as I seem to remember what weapons to be integrated has been a v specific list right from the beginning (though e.g. the choice between Spear 3 and SDB2 took place later)
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Mark Urban, of BBC2 Newsnight, who has good MOD/Foreign Office contacts, said on the Friday programme that UK total buy of F-35, would be between 60-72 aircraft.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1714
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
If true, that would indicate just 3 x Front Line Squadrons and an OCU. For that to work would likely need adoption of RN harmonisation rules by the RAF, or for the Squadrons to be transferred to the FAA.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
If that's over the service lives of the carriers, to keep a sqdrn available for eachAnthony58 wrote: total buy of F-35, would be between 60-72 aircraft
... then the last deliveries would be taken in mid-30s - mind you, surely much improved over the current/ planned edition.
Isn't the F-35 production projected to run until about then?
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
If 60-72 a/c is the reality then the only way it could work is if all are allocated to the carriers (not necessarily transferred to the FAA) and the RAF / FAA have the same harmonisation rules.Scimitar54 wrote:If true, that would indicate just 3 x Front Line Squadrons and an OCU. For that to work would likely need adoption of RN harmonisation rules by the RAF, or for the Squadrons to be transferred to the FAA.
Personally would go for 2 frontline squadrons of 18 a/c, one allocated to each carrier, with a reserve / OCU squadron. I would see each squadron only carrier based when training and when on operations, which under normal conditions probably 4-5 months a year. 60 a/c is probably sufficient for that with the “additional 12” as replacements over next 20-30 years.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1714
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
What kind of deterrent do you think that would be to our likely “potential adversaries”, Or perhaps you think it will be ok to need to be permanently “propped up” by our closest ally? If people on here think that, then what hope have we got for our politicians to do the right thing!
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Scimitar54, I’d say having 18 fifth generation carrier aircraft always available and ability to surge to 36 at “short-ish” says a lot. Plus that 18 will be complemented by ASW & AEW assets (and transport helicopters) plus future UAVs. Not bad if you ask me - 2nd only to the US.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1714
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
But that number can ONLY provide a peace time presence. A potential enemy will know that it cannot be sustained, if hostilities were to ensue.
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
May depend on i how long the conflict goes on for & whether other assets can get to the region eg typhoons from a friendly airfield would be on the cards after a couple of weeks if possible, obviously the Falklands was very unusual being a uk only operation & so far away, although we did have a bit of help
in a multi national operation it may not be such a issue....
More F35 would be preferable though, or a loyal wingman type drone if the cats n traps get fitted...
in a multi national operation it may not be such a issue....
More F35 would be preferable though, or a loyal wingman type drone if the cats n traps get fitted...
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Reminded of course that the uks conventional deterrent in the fast jet world is significantly more that f35 or even a f35 and a boat.
But ignoring that as our watery eyed champions do, the U.K. f35 fleet is about the same size as our allie Norway’s entire fast jet fleet, bigger than our Dutch, Belgium and Danish allies entire fast jet fleet. So our deterrent effect is collectively fine.
But ignoring that as our watery eyed champions do, the U.K. f35 fleet is about the same size as our allie Norway’s entire fast jet fleet, bigger than our Dutch, Belgium and Danish allies entire fast jet fleet. So our deterrent effect is collectively fine.
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Next time the UK is attacked by one or all of these countries, this will be relevant but the real enemy to the RN is, in order: the RAF, the Treasury and the Russians.SW1 wrote:But ignoring that as our watery eyed champions do, the U.K. f35 fleet is about the same size as our allie Norway’s entire fast jet fleet, bigger than our Dutch, Belgium and Danish allied entire fast fleet. So our deterrent effect is collectively fine.
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Next time the UK is attacked by one or all of these countries, this will be relevant but the real enemy to the RN is, in order: the RAF, the Treasury and the Russians.[/quote]
I shouldn't really laugh
I shouldn't really laugh
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Ron5 wrote:Next time the UK is attacked by one or all of these countries, this will be relevant but the real enemy to the RN is, in order: the RAF, the Treasury and the Russians.SW1 wrote:But ignoring that as our watery eyed champions do, the U.K. f35 fleet is about the same size as our allie Norway’s entire fast jet fleet, bigger than our Dutch, Belgium and Danish allied entire fast fleet. So our deterrent effect is collectively fine.
That made me laugh Ron5
I shall steal, water eyed champions, I like it!
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Meanwhile in Murica:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... wn-gun-pod
Maybe the mandarins in MoD have for once made a good decision...
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... wn-gun-pod
Maybe the mandarins in MoD have for once made a good decision...
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…
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…
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
It is not true that the 138 commitment has been abandoned. It was just not reiterated. So it remains as an AoR (Aspiration of Record).SKB wrote:
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
The 4D moves that can only be made by the MOD, we cant shot our self's if we dont buy them!abc123 wrote:Meanwhile in Murica:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... wn-gun-pod
Maybe the mandarins in MoD have for once made a good decision...
Careful with that sort of spin you might be hired by the MOD to write the next defence review.Ron5 wrote:It is not true that the 138 commitment has been abandoned. It was just not reiterated. So it remains as an AoR (Aspiration of Record).SKB wrote: