F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Contains threads on Joint Service equipment of the past, present and future.
Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

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

Post by Scimitar54 »

Because Spades are Aircraft Carriers and Shovels are LHAs or LHDs. QEC Aircraft Carriers are much too valuable to be used in all but the most dire circumstances as Amphibious Shipping.

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

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

Post by RetroSicotte »

It's worth remembering that with less than 48 Rafale M's the French Navy regularly generates around 24 aircraft on the CdG, and threw 26 on it for their equivilent of Shader when it kicked off after the Paris Attacks.

CdG has recently been fitted for 30 Rafale Ms in total; which is aimed to be trialed soon enough.

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

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

Post by topman »

I wonder if we should bin off aki because it's not got 30 odd FJ operating out of it around the clock?

Qwerty
Member
Posts: 109
Joined: 06 Apr 2018, 15:36
Germany

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

Post by Qwerty »

RetroSicotte wrote:It's worth remembering that with less than 48 Rafale M's the French Navy regularly generates around 24 aircraft on the CdG, and threw 26 on it for their equivilent of Shader when it kicked off after the Paris Attacks.

CdG has recently been fitted for 30 Rafale Ms in total; which is aimed to be trialed soon enough.
It is worth remembering that the Marine Nationale jets aren’t required to support the Armee de l’air as a forward land based tactical air component as well as being expected to operate from a CVN.

48 airframes isn’t enough for both roles.
Subtract the OCU and T&D aircraft.
Tornado is due for retirement very soon.
The Jaguar force was never replaced.
The QE class will need an equivalent of two Squadrons on each deployment (if 24 aircraft is a normal peacetime deployment?).

Things will look rosier when (if) the additional 90 are ordered and in service but by then the initial 48 will be tired.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

LJ

There multiples of notional sqn numbers but not what usually deploys as airframe numbers are less important. Typhoon had a sqn deployment to Saif sareea 3 but 12 a/c weren’t sent. Like wise tornado and harrier to afghan.


In the 18 years since the french introduced rafale m they’ve put 24 on once for a short time and it’s never had 26 rafales onboard.

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

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

Post by RetroSicotte »

Qwerty wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:It's worth remembering that with less than 48 Rafale M's the French Navy regularly generates around 24 aircraft on the CdG, and threw 26 on it for their equivilent of Shader when it kicked off after the Paris Attacks.

CdG has recently been fitted for 30 Rafale Ms in total; which is aimed to be trialed soon enough.
It is worth remembering that the Marine Nationale jets aren’t required to support the Armee de l’air as a forward land based tactical air component as well as being expected to operate from a CVN.

48 airframes isn’t enough for both roles.
Subtract the OCU and T&D aircraft.
Tornado is due for retirement very soon.
The Jaguar force was never replaced.
The QE class will need an equivalent of two Squadrons on each deployment (if 24 aircraft is a normal peacetime deployment?).

Things will look rosier when (if) the additional 90 are ordered and in service but by then the initial 48 will be tired.
I think you may be misinterpreting my post. That's exactly what I mean, I was highlighting the difference it makes by allowing jets to be dedicated, rather than shared.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Qwerty wrote:as a forward land based tactical air component
An a/c for moving mud does not need to be stealthy?
- a different story if you need to do SEAD/DEAD, before you can start that next step
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)

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

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

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

I understand QLNZ will be "CV" rolled, and PoW will be more "LHA" rolled, because the latter is officially stated as Ocean replacement. Burt, Invincible CVS was called CVS, not LHA. Calling QLNZ and PoW CV has no problem, I think.

French CdG CV carries only ~20 fighters and a few helicopters. QNLZ will carry BOTH ~20 fighters and ~20 helicopters (Merlin and Wildcat). In other words, QNLZ is itself a world-class ASW asset, which I think is a big difference to CdG. Even with only 12 F35B and ~20 helicopters, it is good enough to be called "CV".

Also,
- F35B is much better asset than Rafale
- 48 F35B in 2030 is an order of magnitude capable than 48 Sea Harrier in 1990. Total fighter number worldwide has significantly decreased and therefore meaning of "48" differs a lot. Also, Sea Harrier was at best "2nd-rate" fighter (although the best STOVL fighter) but F35B is top level.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

Donald

You miss interpret my comparison it is not related to the capability of the a/c but to what a 2 sqn force can generate in deployed capability. The french naval model is based around 3 operational sqns much like the harrier gr force was. That generates a certain number of pilots and maintenance people to be able to be deployed.

To get to v rare one off deployments of 24 a/c it maybe better to have 3 sqns of 9 a/c that 2 off 12 a/c it does not necessarily matter total numbers of a/c bought but how much the training and support budget is that will ultimately define how many can be deployed and how sustainable the enterprise is. We’re not very gd at putting money into support budgets!

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

I would be surprised if the routine air wing for the QE was 12 F-35B and 12 Merlin HM2 with four sets of CROWSNEST for the latter

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

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

Post by dmereifield »

Lord Jim wrote:I would be surprised if the routine air wing for the QE was 12 F-35B and 12 Merlin HM2 with four sets of CROWSNEST for the latter
Would or wouldn't be surprised? Does the 12 F35 tally include or exclude allied (USMC) jets?

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

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

Post by Timmymagic »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Also, Sea Harrier was at best "2nd-rate" fighter (although the best STOVL fighter) but F35B is top level.
Actually when Sea Harrier FA.2 arrived with Amraam B and Blue Vixen it could legitimately claim to be the best air to air platform in NATO outside of F-15 and US F-16. If you don't believe me look at the competition when it arrived on the scene....better radar than F-16 with medium range missiles, better than Phantom, better than Mirage 2000.The Spanish F-18 had Sparrow missiles and the RAF couldn't get Tornado F.3 to work. Only US F-15C, F-14C and a small number of F-16C with Amraam upgrades were as capable when FA.2 arrived.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

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

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Timmymagic wrote:Actually when Sea Harrier FA.2 arrived with Amraam B and Blue Vixen it could legitimately claim to be the best air to air platform in NATO outside of F-15 and US F-16. If you don't believe me look at the competition when it arrived on the scene....better radar than F-16 with medium range missiles, better than Phantom, better than Mirage 2000.The Spanish F-18 had Sparrow missiles and the RAF couldn't get Tornado F.3 to work. Only US F-15C, F-14C and a small number of F-16C with Amraam upgrades were as capable when FA.2 arrived.
I am not saying Sea Harrier was bad as F-5E/F, for example. "Only US F-15C, F-14C and a small number of F-16C with Amraam upgrades" were much better than SeaHarrier because of better speed and longer range (important for intercepter), and more agile (important for dog-fight), and can carry more missiles/bombs (important for attack). Also, there are plenty of them world wide. On the other hand, F35B is only next to F22, only 200 are existing. I personally think I am not saying anything negative for Sea Harrier. That was a good fighter, and the best STOVL fighter. Just saying F35B is very good.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Timmymagic wrote:and a small number of F-16C with Amraam upgrades were as capable when FA.2 arrived
I was wondering why you gave F-16 the "honour" but reading on... you did explain (qualify).
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)

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

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

Post by Timmymagic »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I was wondering why you gave F-16 the "honour" but reading on... you did explain (qualify).
Even then it was marginal as Blue Vixen was far better than the APG-66. Anything other than good visibility and the F-16 would be toast.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Timmymagic wrote:other than good visibility and the F-16 would be toast.
That's what I was thinking... a fair weather fighter (without knowing the ins and outs of the APG-66).
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)

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1747
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Contact:
United Kingdom

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

Post by The Armchair Soldier »

Not UK-centric but it deserves sharing:

Image

That's a lot of F-35s.

albedo
Member
Posts: 178
Joined: 27 Jun 2017, 21:44
United Kingdom

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

Post by albedo »

http://www.elystandard.co.uk/news/raf-l ... -1-5787069

20 miles or so from Marham of course. (It is just the local rag, so allow some latitude for technical accuracy, headlines etc.)

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

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

Post by bobp »

The Armchair Soldier wrote:Not UK-centric but it deserves sharing:

Interesting it reminds me of the first night of the Gulf war when 100 F111 lined up to take off from Taif airbase in Saudi, all fully loaded and on afterburner to take off. Very impressive and noisy. My dear wife working in the Hospital directly under the flight path was terrified at the noise.

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

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

Post by topman »

SW1 wrote: To get to v rare one off deployments of 24 a/c it maybe better to have 3 sqns of 9 a/c that 2 off 12 a/c it does not necessarily matter total numbers of a/c bought but how much the training and support budget is that will ultimately define how many can be deployed and how sustainable the enterprise is. We’re not very gd at putting money into support budgets!
Indeed, when I read some of the comments on here I love the way people just talk of adding another dozen aircraft as though it was nothing.

I remember on one op 2 more aircraft were added (amongst other things) it ended up being signed off by the PM.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

topman wrote:I remember on one op 2 more aircraft were added (amongst other things) it ended up being signed off by the PM.
Isn't the era of micromanagement (in matters military, I hasten to add) by the PM a thing of the past. I hate to remember the tactical command chain running from on the ground in Basra all the way to Downing St... and not always back
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)

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

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

Post by abc123 »

RetroSicotte wrote:It's worth remembering that with less than 48 Rafale M's the French Navy regularly generates around 24 aircraft on the CdG, and threw 26 on it for their equivilent of Shader when it kicked off after the Paris Attacks.

CdG has recently been fitted for 30 Rafale Ms in total; which is aimed to be trialed soon enough.
Yes, but the RN/FAA will not get 48 F-35Bs. At best, 24 of them, and I don't really expect even that much. That's the reason why I'm for split buy. Or, maybe not split buy ( if the RAF is so bent to have capabilities of F-35B ), but for that FAA gets 48 F-35Bs of their own. Not sharing them with the RAF, because we have seen allready how that usually ends.
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…

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

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

Post by RetroSicotte »

abc123 wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:It's worth remembering that with less than 48 Rafale M's the French Navy regularly generates around 24 aircraft on the CdG, and threw 26 on it for their equivilent of Shader when it kicked off after the Paris Attacks.

CdG has recently been fitted for 30 Rafale Ms in total; which is aimed to be trialed soon enough.
Yes, but the RN/FAA will not get 48 F-35Bs. At best, 24 of them, and I don't really expect even that much. That's the reason why I'm for split buy. Or, maybe not split buy ( if the RAF is so bent to have capabilities of F-35B ), but for that FAA gets 48 F-35Bs of their own. Not sharing them with the RAF, because we have seen allready how that usually ends.
Again. That's exactly what I am saying.

Either buy enough of them that "sharing" still permits enough to be there, or ensure that at least 48 are FAA owned only.

I have my reservations against split buy though. The A's lack refuelling in the same manner, I believe?

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

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

Post by R686 »

RetroSicotte wrote:
I have my reservations against split buy though. The A's lack refuelling in the same manner, I believe?
Probes can be fitted to the A’s just like there is an option for parachute for Icey runways, it’s just no one has taken up the option for probes as either they have no AAR aircraft or they have the boom capability

There was a slide many years ago showing the probe option, I had it on an old computer but can’t be stuffed looking for it again.

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

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

Post by abc123 »

RetroSicotte wrote:
abc123 wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:It's worth remembering that with less than 48 Rafale M's the French Navy regularly generates around 24 aircraft on the CdG, and threw 26 on it for their equivilent of Shader when it kicked off after the Paris Attacks.

CdG has recently been fitted for 30 Rafale Ms in total; which is aimed to be trialed soon enough.
Yes, but the RN/FAA will not get 48 F-35Bs. At best, 24 of them, and I don't really expect even that much. That's the reason why I'm for split buy. Or, maybe not split buy ( if the RAF is so bent to have capabilities of F-35B ), but for that FAA gets 48 F-35Bs of their own. Not sharing them with the RAF, because we have seen allready how that usually ends.
Again. That's exactly what I am saying.

Either buy enough of them that "sharing" still permits enough to be there, or ensure that at least 48 are FAA owned only.

I have my reservations against split buy though. The A's lack refuelling in the same manner, I believe?
Meh, when the MoD has no such reservations, why would you? :lol:

But seriously, yes, that might be a problem.
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…

Post Reply