F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1714
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
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.
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
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.
CdG has recently been fitted for 30 Rafale Ms in total; which is aimed to be trialed soon enough.
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
I wonder if we should bin off aki because it's not got 30 odd FJ operating out of it around the clock?
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
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.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.
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.
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
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.
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.
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
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.Qwerty wrote: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.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.
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.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
An a/c for moving mud does not need to be stealthy?Qwerty wrote:as a forward land based tactical air component
- 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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5570
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
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.
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.
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
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!
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!
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
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
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Would or wouldn't be surprised? Does the 12 F35 tally include or exclude allied (USMC) jets?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
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3235
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
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 wrote:Also, Sea Harrier was at best "2nd-rate" fighter (although the best STOVL fighter) but F35B is top level.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5570
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
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.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.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
I was wondering why you gave F-16 the "honour" but reading on... you did explain (qualify).Timmymagic wrote:and a small number of F-16C with Amraam upgrades were as capable when FA.2 arrived
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)
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3235
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
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.ArmChairCivvy wrote:I was wondering why you gave F-16 the "honour" but reading on... you did explain (qualify).
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
That's what I was thinking... a fair weather fighter (without knowing the ins and outs of the APG-66).Timmymagic wrote:other than good visibility and the F-16 would be toast.
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)
- The Armchair Soldier
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1749
- Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
- Contact:
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
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.)
20 miles or so from Marham of course. (It is just the local rag, so allow some latitude for technical accuracy, headlines etc.)
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
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.
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
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.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!
I remember on one op 2 more aircraft were added (amongst other things) it ended up being signed off by the PM.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
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 backtopman wrote:I remember on one op 2 more aircraft were added (amongst other things) it ended up being signed off by the PM.
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)
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.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.
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…
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Again. That's exactly what I am saying.abc123 wrote: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.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.
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?
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
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 capabilityRetroSicotte wrote:
I have my reservations against split buy though. The A's lack refuelling in the same manner, I believe?
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.
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Meh, when the MoD has no such reservations, why would you?RetroSicotte wrote:Again. That's exactly what I am saying.abc123 wrote: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.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.
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?
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…
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…