F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

[Timmymagic]

We don't really have 21, we've got 18. BK-01, BK-02 and BK-04 are still at Eglin AFB in Florida, and they're test aircraft. Maybe they'll get converted like BK-03 was and flown over to Marham to join the others. But probably not.

BK-03 was never converted, it was always 'combat capable'. The 3rd ITF aircraft was ordered later though.
No chance of the 3 ITF aircraft ever being anything other than test aircraft. Once their stint at Edwards is finished they'll either be retired to UK museums, or there is the potential that they'll be UK test assets at Boscombe Down (but thats unlikely).

[Timmymagic]

We don't really "have" 21 for frontline duty, we've got 18.

But its a fair point. We all need to discount the 'ITF 3' from any discussions around F-35B total numbers. The UK's contracted/promised buy of 48 is to all intents and purposed only really 45. If you advocate for 70 F-35B, what you really want is 73+, and 90 is 93+ etc.

[SKB]

Anyone know of an RAF base that wants a £100m gate guardian?!

[downsizer]

We don't really "have" 21 for frontline duty, we've got 18. BK-01 (XM135), BK-02 (XM136) and BK-04 (XM138) are still at Eglin AFB in Florida, and they're test aircraft. Maybe they'll get converted like BK-03 (XM137) was and flown over to Marham to join the others. But probably not.

They are at Edwards in California not Elgin in Florida.

[Timmymagic]

Anyone know of an RAF base that wants a £100m gate guardian?!

More like £250m when they were bought...

Hendon, Cosford and Duxford have already raised their hands I suspect. Particularly Hendon who will want to retire the X-35/F-35 mock up they've had for years.

[topman]

We don't really have 21, we've got 18. BK-01, BK-02 and BK-04 are still at Eglin AFB in Florida, and they're test aircraft. Maybe they'll get converted like BK-03 was and flown over to Marham to join the others. But probably not.

BK-03 was never converted, it was always 'combat capable'. The 3rd ITF aircraft was ordered later though.
No chance of the 3 ITF aircraft ever being anything other than test aircraft. Once their stint at Edwards is finished they'll either be retired to UK museums, or there is the potential that they'll be UK test assets at Boscombe Down (but thats unlikely).

They'll be work for them for years yet. Plans to retire them are a long time away.

Not sure why you don't want them included in fleet numbers, they are there to do a job and are doing it.
Drawing arbitrary lines seem a bit pointless.

[Pseudo]

Anyone know of an RAF base that wants a £100m gate guardian?!

Sure, if you count my house as an RAF base.

[Bring Deeps]

Not knowing about these things but out of interest, is there any reason why you couldn't use a test aircraft for OCU purposes (assuming you didn't need it for testing anymore)?

Incidentally, the mock up at Hendon is pretty rubbish but I suppose it is better than nothing.

[SW1]

Because test a/c are always testing things right up until the fleet leaves service. They carry specific test instrumentation that would need to be removed prior to release to general service.

[SW1]

[topman]

Not knowing about these things but out of interest, is there any reason why you couldn't use a test aircraft for OCU purposes (assuming you didn't need it for testing anymore)?

Incidentally, the mock up at Hendon is pretty rubbish but I suppose it is better than nothing.

You can on some fleets (and was done in the past) swap between the test fleet and the rest. However it's a fair bit of work and not all a/c can rotate in and out.
Main requirement though is testing is an ongoing thing it doesn't really stop.

[topman]

Seen that for a while, best guesses I've seen it's somewhere in the 5-7% region

[SW1]

Seen that for a while, best guesses I've seen it's somewhere in the 5-7% region

That would be what I would think as well,

[Scimitar54]

Gate Guardians at RNAS Culdrose, RNASYeovilton and RAF Marham sounds about right to me. They are joint assets after all.

[Timmymagic]

Not sure why you don't want them included in fleet numbers, they are there to do a job and are doing it.
Drawing arbitrary lines seem a bit pointless.

Its more for when people are asking what the minimum number we'd need to operate 2 carriers or an expeditionary capability in addition to a carrier air wing is. You could include the 3, they are after all doing a job. But when you've got a small fleet 3 being non-deployable straightaway could be the difference between an idea being viable or not.

Well thats not a surprise in the slightest....

[topman]

Not sure why you don't want them included in fleet numbers, they are there to do a job and are doing it.
Drawing arbitrary lines seem a bit pointless.

Its more for when people are asking what the minimum number we'd need to operate 2 carriers or an expeditionary capability in addition to a carrier air wing is. You could include the 3, they are after all doing a job. But when you've got a small fleet 3 being non-deployable straightaway could be the difference between an idea being viable or not.

Since all that sort of thing is so far in the future, it's not worth worrying for all time yet.

[Timmymagic]

Hopefully this gets resolved sharpish as we really need to get FRP out of the way before we place the orders for the last 13 of the 'initial' 48.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... on-on-hold

In order to get the 2 F-35B that are supposed to be delivered in 2023 we need to order realistically by summer/early autumn 2021. We could roll those 2 over a year and order 6 in 2022 (for delivery in 2024) but I'm sure the MoD is loath to delay any orders as the chance of cancellation or a cut increases.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Out of the 27 most important MoD proc projects, three do not yet have confirmed ISDs. One is far out to the future, anyway, and the two others have a strong connection with the F-35:
"BVRAAM on Lightning, Spear Capability 3 and Dreadnought do not yet have an approved ISD."

[RichardIC]

[xav]

SPEAR3 Mini-Cruise Missiles To Provide ASUW Capability To British F-35B

In the absence of a true anti-ship missile for British F-35Bs, MBDA’s SPEAR will be the only option available for the Royal Navy to fly anti-surface warfare (ASUW) missions from the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers. Each F-35Bs can carry up to 8x SPEAR missiles internally (in the weapons bay) meaning they remain low observable. Despite its subsonic speed and relatively small warhead (for anti-ship role) a single F-35 could theoretically launch a saturating attack of 8 missiles against a surface vessel. This is probably enough to disable or put out of combat most vessels, of frigate size and below.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ish-f-35b/

[Repulse]

With the target tonnage range of the Sea Venom, let’s hope we only fight foes with very small ships...

[Timmymagic]

With the target tonnage range of the Sea Venom, let’s hope we only fight foes with very small ships...

To be honest receiving 8 hits from Spear would put most warships out of action, won't sink them (unless fire gets them). But they're not going to be mission capable.

It's not an ideal position to be in though...

[Lord Jim]

Well the problem will be solved if we adopt the various versions of FCASW that are planned. It will be on Ships, Submarines and Aircraft. SPEAR will do a vary good job in littoral operations though being able to engage numerous targets on land and sea, especially when the EW variant is also available. But the problem is the time until these weapon systems enter service.

[seaspear]

Would a weapon that targets instead the radar systems like the AARGM-ER be also of use
https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... ,lethality%
I did note that there is the future development of Spear 111 but this seems a missile that may be complemented by a missile carried by an aircraft that would aim to defeat radar systems
https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... eir-f-35s/

[Timmymagic]

Would a weapon that targets instead the radar systems like the AARGM-ER be also of use
https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... avy%20(USN)%20recently,enemy%20radar%20and%20communications%20systems.&text=The%20warhead%20was%20also%20tested,lethality%
I did note that there is the future development of Spear 111 but this seems a missile that may be complemented by a missile carried by an aircraft that would aim to defeat radar systems
https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... eir-f-35s/

Not really. AARGM-ER is that big it could only be carried externally by F-35B. At that point you may as well have bought JSM.

Spear-EW will work alongside Spear as a decoy and stand-off jammer. In the Defense News Article the large, black painted missile above the 2 Spear variants is the FCASW proposal that the UK favours.