Page 156 of 165

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

Posted: 09 Jan 2019, 23:28
by Scimitar54
Lord Jim wrote [quote]certainly a more balanced and effective airwing.

But only if the politicians had decided to put the necessary funding into it. By the way the Catobar Carrier would have been PoW and not QE. I believe that QE would have been converted to Catobar configuration later anyway.
Do not forget that until Autumn 2014 the future of the second STOVL Carrier was uncertain as well.

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

Posted: 10 Jan 2019, 07:05
by bobp
The defence secretary is expected to make a IOC declaration today whilst visiting RAF Marham.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/n ... spartandhp

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

Posted: 10 Jan 2019, 07:26
by ArmChairCivvy
Lord Jim wrote: I do think we would have ended up with a better ship though and certainly a more balanced and effective airwing.


With 70% availability it would have needed to be 43% better
- and even then we would now be exposed to Falklands-type of surprises
- ohh, we don't have a carrier (right now) to send and whack you over the head for any ungentlemanly act... and by the time it will come out of the dry dock, whatever happened will have turned into a fait accompli

Yes, I would not mind having F-35Cs and high-flying AEW a/c
- but in the bigger picture that turns into a 'marginal' factor

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

Posted: 10 Jan 2019, 07:56
by ArmChairCivvy
One way to make good news, when a dozen land-based jets (carrier IOC later) with very limited weapons available "Details of what the ‘Initial Operating Capability’ (IOC) entails is expected to be announced by the Secretary of State later today at RAF Marham, Norfolk, the home to the F-35s and the Tornado" take the place of the "96" that were the plan even after the SDSR bringing their OSD from 2024 to 2021.
- I wonder if sticking to that plan (rather than accelerating it by a couple of years) would have been preferable, so that Tiffies would be received in the config that they will serve most of their lives - thereby also keeping that line secured - would have been preferable? RE
" The Turbo-Union RB 199 engine that powers the Tornado aircraft is supported by the RB 199 Operational Contract for Engine Transformation 2 (ROCET 2) awarded to Rolls-Royce until 2025. The contract has a total value of £690 million. There are no penalty clauses in either contract. However, both contracts include a number of conditions that allow for early termination. Any costs associated with the implementation of these conditions following the SDSR outcome are being negotiated with the contractor.

Under the Capability Upgrade Strategy (Pilot) Programme approved in December 2007, 96 Tornado GR4 aircraft will receive capability upgrades between 2011 and 2014 at an estimated cost of around £300 million. This number of aircraft is sufficient to maintain the operational capability of the Tornado GR4 forward available fleet until OSD. "

Whittling down the larger fleet, over a slightly longer period, would have also saved us from the situation where we are pretending that the same (v few) JSF are both Carrier Strike and RAF land-based 'first day of war' capability... which is where we will get to c. 2023.

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

Posted: 10 Jan 2019, 12:31
by SDL

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

Posted: 10 Jan 2019, 12:45
by Scimitar54
Only 10 days late! :clap:

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

Posted: 10 Jan 2019, 12:50
by SDL
practically on time in political terms

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

Posted: 10 Jan 2019, 13:02
by Scimitar54
Should have declared it on New Year's Eve, or better still as a Christmas present. We need to show that we are aiming to get ahead of the programme at every opportunity, not just scraping through or behind it. Let us hope that the RAF never delay deployment to a Carrier by 10 days (or longer).

A REALLY committed Defence Secretary would not have tolerated this delay. What sort of message does this send to the Armed Forces? :yawn:

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

Posted: 10 Jan 2019, 15:06
by CameronPerson


I know there’s emphasis on COULD but can anyone see this happening this early - they’re at IOC yes, but does it not come across as them being eager to use them in this role just to show that we’ve got them rather than as an operational necessity? Surely more Typhoons to replace the Tonkas in this role (if those GR4s in Cyprus will be replaced with anything) would be preferable? I would’ve thought that the emphasis at this point would be in prepping the carriers rather than sparing a couple of the nine we’ve got in the UK or do the simulators lessen the importance of actual training sorties?

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

Posted: 10 Jan 2019, 15:19
by SDL
That sounds like a bog standard and, dare i jinx it, simple deployment for the first one... kinda makes sense to do something simple for the first one IMHO

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

Posted: 10 Jan 2019, 15:50
by bobp
See the Tempest mock up got a mention in the article.

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

Posted: 10 Jan 2019, 15:55
by ArmChairCivvy
CameronPerson wrote:(if those GR4s in Cyprus will be replaced with anything)
[...]
I would’ve thought that the emphasis at this point would be in prepping the carriers


Me too. No hashTag :? .

Mr. Trump may have slightly upset the RAF's finely tuned retirement plans?

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

Posted: 10 Jan 2019, 17:00
by SDL

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

Posted: 10 Jan 2019, 17:56
by Timmymagic
Scimitar54 wrote:Should have declared it on New Year's Eve, or better still as a Christmas present. We need to show that we are aiming to get ahead of the programme at every opportunity, not just scraping through or behind it. Let us hope that the RAF never delay deployment to a Carrier by 10 days (or longer).


You've never worked with Civil Service media teams have you...

Christmas Eve and New Years Eve, tools are downed by 1pm...

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

Posted: 10 Jan 2019, 18:20
by Jdam
Are we any further forward with Meteor on the F-35, I see they have one in the picture.

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

Posted: 10 Jan 2019, 21:14
by cpu121
Timmymagic wrote:
Scimitar54 wrote:Should have declared it on New Year's Eve, or better still as a Christmas present. We need to show that we are aiming to get ahead of the programme at every opportunity, not just scraping through or behind it. Let us hope that the RAF never delay deployment to a Carrier by 10 days (or longer).


You've never worked with Civil Service media teams have you...

Christmas Eve and New Years Eve, tools are downed by 1pm...
And the Minister deployed on leadership maneuvers.

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

Posted: 10 Jan 2019, 21:29
by Scimitar54
Our potential enemies will have been taking notes, it is just not good enough. they knew IOC (land) was coming and should have been prepared for it. If the Civil,Service media teams can not do the job required (or will not) then their services should be dispensed with immediately.

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

Posted: 11 Jan 2019, 11:11
by NickC
Jdam wrote:Are we any further forward with Meteor on the F-35, I see they have one in the picture.


Per the USN FY2019 Budget, the planned Block 4.1 will release in Q1 2021 and 4.2 in Q1 2023, so would expect Block 4.3 ~ 2025 with Meteor per the pic below, which think still current, as understand nothing agreed as yet and no contract confirmation that Meteor will be included in Block 4.3 per the proviso on Proposed Weapon Growth pic "Weapon integration requests likely to exceed the capacity"

PS. The Technology Refresh 3 mentioned in recent posts, its part of the Block 4.2 upgrade.

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

Posted: 12 Jan 2019, 09:07
by SW1
The us has released it annual sustainment cost per jet for f35


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

Posted: 12 Jan 2019, 10:04
by ArmChairCivvy
Very useful, as the cost differences between versions have been akin to 'urban legends':
- procurement price differences evolving fast, depending on maturity (remedial work costs seem to be excluded :?: ) and versions being ordered at rather different 'speed'
- the 25% difference in on-going support (cost estimates) actually can now be derived from first-hand experience, so should be fairly reliable

Putting the two together will start to sharpen up life-time costs (though ALIS is severely underfunded and should that slow down roll-out, costs (in the interim) will inevitably rise from what has been advertised)
... beware of the Block 4.1 - 4.4 type of bill rolling :eh: towards you :(

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

Posted: 12 Jan 2019, 19:33
by R686
Scimitar54 wrote:Our potential enemies will have been taking notes, it is just not good enough. they knew IOC (land) was coming and should have been prepared for it. If the Civil,Service media teams can not do the job required (or will not) then their services should be dispensed with immediately.



This is bullocks, fair dinkum just because this is when the Minister read out a statement that is the time they declared IOC, its a photo op nothing more nothing less, it service not gospel


loose lips sink ships, keep em guess your adversaries

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

Posted: 12 Jan 2019, 21:05
by Scimitar54
If we cannot be bothered to publicise our own critical achievements in a timely fashion, someone may feel justified in thinking that we are behind in other things as well. Undermanned, Under-equipped, Underfunded. Perhaps Unready! I note that the MOD did not even claim that IOC (Land) had been achieved on time.
Too important to foul-up in the light of all the circumstances. Let us hope it is not +100 days (or worse) for IOC (Maritime). The critical aspect is that we should not have to hope.

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

Posted: 12 Jan 2019, 21:51
by R686
Scimitar54 wrote:If we cannot be bothered to publicise our own critical achievements in a timely fashion, someone may feel justified in thinking that we are behind in other things as well. Undermanned, Under-equipped, Underfunded. Perhaps Unready! I note that the MOD did not even claim that IOC (Land) had been achieved on time.
Too important to foul-up in the light of all the circumstances. Let us hope it is not +100 days (or worse) for IOC (Maritime). The critical aspect is that we should not have to hope.



Publishing achievements is a recruitment and funding tool, its there to primary to make us feel good and justify expenditure more so when we use the military for HADR etc, its primary concern is not to give your potential enemy your readiness composition of your forces

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

Posted: 12 Jan 2019, 22:51
by Scimitar54
So I take it that HMS QE gong out on Sea Trials happened at an earlier date than it actually did. Please don't spoil the often good points that you make, by talking tosh and then attempting to justify yourself by trying (and failing) to make a science of it.

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

Posted: 13 Jan 2019, 03:01
by RetroSicotte
Scimitar54 wrote:So I take it that HMS QE gong out on Sea Trials happened at an earlier date than it actually did. Please don't spoil the often good points that you make, by talking tosh and then attempting to justify yourself by trying (and failing) to make a science of it.

I have to admit I am struggling to see what your basic point is.