F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Contains threads on Joint Service equipment of the past, present and future.
abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by abc123 »

Ron5 wrote:
Yeah sure Mr "lives in a country who's very existence is due to NATO",
Lord be praised, no I don't. :lolno:

But do not think that I'm in any way more forgiving in case of my own country. Same thing. Sadly, just about same short-sighted ( let's be generous ) defence policy as in UK.
I love to see ANY country well armed and ready for defence. USA, UK, Russia, China, France, Italy- never mind. I respect that. The opposite- I don't. As simple as that.
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…

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

S M H wrote:I'm probably going back to far but the original procurement plan for F35s was going to make the first deployment light on f35. It was planned for deployment of single squadron of F35s. They would be supplemented by a harrier squadron. The disastrous treasury driven S.S.D.R scuppered the original plans. The U.S. providing aircraft to support first deployment is mutually beneficial. It expedite the carriers operational ability. Therefore allow as soon as the second F35 squadron is stood up.The ability for carrier to cover an tasking requirement with two U.K. squadrons embarked. Therefore releasing a U.S. carrier if needed. The Marines prove that they can be seamlessly incorporated into U.K. carrier ops. Giving them a proven integration ability should the operational requirement arise. So strategically it is beneficial for the Americans to provide the aircraft for the first deployment as is to us working our way back to full carrier operations.
There are two things here the first one is fact and the the second is probable the first is the Harriers were cut far to early along with Ark Royal meaning we lost 10 years of carrier op's and the second is we will possibly see a cut in F-35B numbers from 138 to what we don't know. However we need to remember just by having the carriers and crewing them we are a top line ally as this allows the US to use them i.e a British carrier group of 1 Carrier , 2 x type 45 , 2 x type 26 , 1 SSS and 1 Tide with a airwing of ASW and AEW Merlin allowing the USMC to fill the deck with 36 F-35 freeing 2 Wasp class to carry attack and troop helicopters and MV-22's this would be a very strong force of US and British naval power and not a British F-35 anywhere. But as I keep coming back to the UK as a base line should have a naval strike wing of 30 F-35b which could be backed up by RAF or USMC F-35b's this could allow one carrier to operate as a strike carrier and the other as a LHA with the strike carrier operating 20 jets and able to surge to 30 jets and the LHA operating 10 jets able to surge to 20 jets

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

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

Post by abc123 »

seaspear wrote:Excactly mutually beneficial
Nope.
Not beneficial to anyone. Just the opposite. Mutually harmful.
For the UK, it creates an illusion that everything is OK to fool the public: we have a two squadrons of F-35B on our new super-carriers, world class capability and other such claptrap opportunities for the MoD.
For the USA, closing eyes ( again ) before the fact that the UK ( as the most of NATO, but that's no excuse ) don't fulfill their obligations ( defence spending in reality below 2% of GDP and even that 2% ) is just a minimum, not target for a country that would like to be a junior partner of the US.
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…

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

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

abc123 wrote:I love to see ANY country well armed and ready for defence. USA, UK, Russia, China, France, Italy- never mind.
You could add to that list smaller countries, with a garrison mentality and trying to make the best use of every buck: Israel, Singapore, Taiwan, Finland...
- the first two have bought the (so far expensive) F-35 because it fits their strategic concept (on Singapore's part: forward defence... sound familiar for any other 'island nation'?)
- Taiwan and Finland (? we'll see) not, as they need numbers in every imaginable scenario
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)

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

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

Post by topman »

Tempest414 wrote:
SW1 wrote:Tempest

Well very much depends on your aspirations are, and aspiration are tempered by fiscal reality. The number is similar to a number of other nations however by all means buy more it will simply mean cutting deeper else were..

Samlesbury is the main production site is and we’re engineering on boarding occurs but engineering resource to the program is more spread out. However any UK order would have little impact on current to medium term workload as it’s rate is based on lot ordered for all customers.

The next question would be is what are you trying to keep busy with tempest if that is its main intention. It would predominantly be the engineering R&D and integration side to which additional orders for f35 does little for. I suspect the main investments on manned fast jets over the coming years will be framed around upgrade of f35 to block 4 standard and of upgrade of typhoon with regard to asea radar. I cant see us buying more of either at this time.
Yes very good but 48 F-35B is not enough to maintain a Carrier air-wing + a land based strike capability plus a OCU/ OEU . If we are to stop at 48 jets then the RAF will need to be told to put any F-35 land based strike in the back seat as with only 48 jets and no USMC jets we could really only manage 20 jets for HMS QE plus 10 jets for HMS POW and 10 jets for the OCU/OEU

You mean all at the same time with 48 a/c?

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

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

Post by seaspear »

There have been reported strains on the defence budget causing it is claimed to be unsustainable as such it would only be prudent to allocate those funds to meet the greatest need ,there would be a number of programs that need further resources that would present a greater priority than the filling up the carriers with the f35b ,an example of this is the Daring class destoyer which is meant to offer protection to the carrier it would be great to see that have more vls added and whatever updates to achieve its full potential ,Im sure others here may have other thoughts on what should be prioritised as well.

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

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

Post by dmereifield »

Ron5 wrote:
dmereifield wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
dmereifield wrote:Which other nation has to rely consistently on an ally to provide a substantial (ca. Half) of its carrier air wing?

If it happens occasionally then by all means, great cooperation which is a strength not a weakness, but if it happens consistently because the UK can't/won't buy sufficient F35Bs then it's a sad state of affairs
Yeah sure Mr "lives in a country who's very existence is due to NATO", but the UK has bought and is operating two 70k ton aircraft carriers. How many other countries have made that financial commitment??? Not yours for damn sure.
What are you on about cowboy? I'm from and live in the UK
Many apologies my dear chap, my rant was directed at that fool ABC123. Please forgive me.
Apology noted and accepted, old boy

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

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

Post by abc123 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
abc123 wrote:I love to see ANY country well armed and ready for defence. USA, UK, Russia, China, France, Italy- never mind.
You could add to that list smaller countries, with a garrison mentality and trying to make the best use of every buck: Israel, Singapore, Taiwan, Finland...
- the first two have bought the (so far expensive) F-35 because it fits their strategic concept (on Singapore's part: forward defence... sound familiar for any other 'island nation'?)
- Taiwan and Finland (? we'll see) not, as they need numbers in every imaginable scenario
Yep, really impressive and respectable countries. :thumbup:
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…

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

topman wrote:You mean all at the same time with 48 a/c?
No if jets are at sea i.e 20 on 1 carrier then the other Carrier and 10 jets would be on low readiness or in maintenance unless the shit has hit the fan

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

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

Post by topman »

Tempest414 wrote:
topman wrote:You mean all at the same time with 48 a/c?
No if jets are at sea i.e 20 on 1 carrier then the other Carrier and 10 jets would be on low readiness or in maintenance unless the shit has hit the fan
How often do you think the 20 a/c should be on one of the carriers and for how long?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

Where are you going with this or would you like to make your point ? I am more than happy to talk your point over once I know what it is

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

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

Post by topman »

Tempest414 wrote:Where are you going with this or would you like to make your point ? I am more than happy to talk your point over once I know what it is
Just trying to get a bit more understanding of your point, nothing more. You said a number you think should be doable, I'm asking if there's more detail.

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

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

Post by serge750 »

Is this the sort of thing you mean Tempest 414 ?

With 48 x f35b if we have a carrier going out on a 6 month deployment every year ? (when the UK has 48 F35 after 2025?) for example QE going out as a strike carrier in yr 1 with 20 F35b, ASW merlin + crowsnest,

yr 2 POW as LPH, 10 x F35b, ASW merlin + crowsnest, a few apache + commando merlin, leaving the rest of the F35 fleet to concentrate on raf land based training?

Or is that pushing the capability too much?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

Yes this is how I would like to see the F-35's and carriers used as time goes on however I don't see much point in the RAF training for land based strike if we only have 48 x F-35b as they will all be needed for carrier based ops in time of war and even then 48 will be tight. For me we have built 2 carriers we should finish the job and stick to buying more F-35b's and for me the base line should be 64 front line jets allowing for 4 Sqn's of 16 jet 2 RAF and 2 FAA added to this I feel the RAF should have 10 front line fast jet Sqn's with 8 x Typhoon Sqn's and Typhoon being replaced down the road by 160 new jets

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

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

Post by Lord Jim »

The only way I can see the UK buying more F-35Bs beyond the 48 already on order would be for the RAF to give up the two Tranche 1 Squadrons first, transferring the Training role for the Qataris etc to one of the Tranche 2/3 Squadrons. Even then I cannot see any further buy beyond a small number say twelve so that a forth front line squadron could be forms and the attrition/sustainment reserve slightly increased. AS for the size of the squadrons, I cannot see them being any bigger then twelve aircraft and probably more like ten.

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

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote: even then 48 will be tight
That's 32-40 available, so we would meet the 24 on one and 12 on the other
- we could aspire to USMC availability stats (as for now they are still aspirational targets) by keeping more stuff closer to the point of use... to me that sounds like a carrier (or any similar vessel) ;)
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)

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

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

Post by SW1 »

To get to that level the f35 force would need to be the size the typhoon one is currently.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

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

Post by Scimitar54 »

If the F35B fleer was RN “owned”, 4 x squadrons (as planned) would suffice. By the way, a USMC F35B squadron on an RN ship is not a one way street. Do not forget that it is also envisaged that UK F35B squadrons will deploy on USN LHA/LHD as well.

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

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SW1 wrote: would need to be the size the typhoon one is currently.
Err, like 107?

I used .67-.8 range (not allowing for OCU).
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)

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

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

Post by SW1 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
SW1 wrote: would need to be the size the typhoon one is currently.
Err, like 107?

I used .67-.8 range (not allowing for OCU).
You are going to have aircraft getting upgraded regularly. You going to have units regularly going to red flag and other training exercises to maintain the overall skill. Then ask them to deploy at scale for 6 months. And it’s seems like we want to keep doing it every year or every other year long term. So what happens in years 3,4,5,6. The US marines deploy what say 2-4 LHDs every year with around 6 aircraft on each, how many f35bs are they buying.

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

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

Post by topman »

serge750 wrote:Is this the sort of thing you mean Tempest 414 ?

With 48 x f35b if we have a carrier going out on a 6 month deployment every year ? (when the UK has 48 F35 after 2025?) for example QE going out as a strike carrier in yr 1 with 20 F35b, ASW merlin + crowsnest,

yr 2 POW as LPH, 10 x F35b, ASW merlin + crowsnest, a few apache + commando merlin, leaving the rest of the F35 fleet to concentrate on raf land based training?

Or is that pushing the capability too much?
Thanks for the bit more detail. When they are back at Marham for 6 months would they be doing any more detachments in the year?

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

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

Post by topman »

Tempest414 wrote:Yes this is how I would like to see the F-35's and carriers used as time goes on however I don't see much point in the RAF training for land based strike if we only have 48 x F-35b as they will all be needed for carrier based ops in time of war and even then 48 will be tight. For me we have built 2 carriers we should finish the job and stick to buying more F-35b's and for me the base line should be 64 front line jets allowing for 4 Sqn's of 16 jet 2 RAF and 2 FAA added to this I feel the RAF should have 10 front line fast jet Sqn's with 8 x Typhoon Sqn's and Typhoon being replaced down the road by 160 new jets
When you say land based training what do you mean?
I'm just trying to get an idea of what and why people come up with these sorts of numbers. Some ideas seem vague, the what but not the why or some sort of detail.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

topman wrote:Thanks for the bit more detail. When they are back at Marham for 6 months would they be doing any more detachments in the year
If 20 jets and there crews return from a 6 or 9 month carrier deployment there would be leave and maintenance to be carried out so unless 2 Sqn's are sharing jets it would be unlikely the jets would deploy again outside training needs
topman wrote:When you say land based training what do you mean?
I'm just trying to get an idea of what and why people come up with these sorts of numbers. Some ideas seem vague, the what but not the why or some sort of detail.
I know you are more clued up than you are making out however I will play along.

Land based strike is aircraft operating from land bases. Carrier based strike is aircraft operating from ships at sea. At this time the US , France , China , Russia when operating strike operation from there carriers do so with 20 to 40 jets so when a UK carrier is carrying out the same type of operation it will need to carry between 20 and 36 jets to generate sortie rates

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

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

Post by topman »

Tempest414 wrote:
topman wrote:Thanks for the bit more detail. When they are back at Marham for 6 months would they be doing any more detachments in the year
If 20 jets and there crews return from a 6 or 9 month carrier deployment there would be leave and maintenance to be carried out so unless 2 Sqn's are sharing jets it would be unlikely the jets would deploy again outside training needs
topman wrote:When you say land based training what do you mean?
I'm just trying to get an idea of what and why people come up with these sorts of numbers. Some ideas seem vague, the what but not the why or some sort of detail.
I know you are more clued up than you are making out however I will play along.

Land based strike is aircraft operating from land bases. Carrier based strike is aircraft operating from ships at sea. At this time the US , France , China , Russia when operating strike operation from there carriers do so with 20 to 40 jets so when a UK carrier is carrying out the same type of operation it will need to carry between 20 and 36 jets to generate sortie rates
I'm not pretending anything, I'm interested in how people peering in think this works.
I can't quite follow people's thoughts as to how they get to the conclusions, so I ask questions. Honestly it's nothing more than that.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

topman wrote:I'm not pretending anything, I'm interested in how people peering in think this works.
I can't quite follow people's thoughts as to how they get to the conclusions, so I ask questions. Honestly it's nothing more than that.
OK I am interested to know how you see 48 F-35b working

Post Reply