UK Defence Forum

Further to the above,

Timmymagic wrote: FRP Delivery 1 - 2023 - 2 x UK F-35B
FRP Delivery 2 - 2024 - 4 x UK F-35B
FRP Delivery 3 - 2025 - 7 x UK F-35B - These were all previously expected by 2024 at latest

So the number of F-35s for use in ship-killer targeting mode would be 13; without retrofits. Hence the retrofit numbers (and cost) are quite important, but also rather 'nebulous'.
- nevermind, we only have a limited number of Harpoon kits to make use of the capability. Perseus being 2030(+)? And not confirmed.
- Spear 3 not exactly being a ship-killer missile (launching a lot of them might put all the sensors out of action, yes).

The upgrade improves a capability, doesn't add it.

Ron5 wrote:The upgrade [im]proves a [sleeping beauty ] capability, doesn't add it.

Indeed, at a cost... Fly Navy

Report released on crash of a USAF F-35A tail number 12-005053 19th May 2020, reason given tired pilot and a previously unknown flight control logic glitch. What also surprised me besides the glitch was the USAF valued the a/c at $176 million way higher then any figure seen for F-35A, early lot build?, how figure was calculated not specified, but it does thru into doubt the recent talk of ~$80 million F-35A's, what other equipment/costs could USAF have added so they consider it an operationally viable a/c, puzzling.

F-35B ~ 30% more expensive than F-35A.

https://www.afjag.af.mil/Portals/77/AIB ... Signed.pdf

NickC wrote:but it does thru into doubt the recent talk of ~$80

No it doesn't Mr Hater.

Qatar makes formal request for F-35 jets

They're not building an air force. They're building a flying circus, and buying influence with their defence budget.

If (and I sincerely hope not) this goes through, they will add to a fleet of:

24 x Typhoons
24 x Rafales
36 x Strike Eagles
12 x Mirage 2000 (which I assumed are set to be replaced)

Despite the loving embrace of the US, I suspect there's a more sinister game at play here. The startling new Bahrain/Israel/UAE alliance of convenience will not be
too happy either.

https://www.reuters.com/article/qatar-i ... ce=twitter

Jensy wrote:Qatar makes formal request for F-35 jets

They're not building an air force. They're building a flying circus, and buying influence with their defence budget.

If (and I sincerely hope not) this goes through, they will add to a fleet of:

24 x Typhoons
24 x Rafales
36 x Strike Eagles
12 x Mirage 2000 (which I assumed are set to be replaced)

Despite the loving embrace of the US, I suspect there's a more sinister game at play here. The startling new Bahrain/Israel/UAE alliance of convenience will not be
too happy either.

https://www.reuters.com/article/qatar-i ... ce=twitter

Just need Gripen for the full set?

They're building a flying circus, and buying influence with their defence budget.

Yep, buying London (and influence in that way) came cheaply

The startling new Bahrain/Israel/UAE alliance of convenience will not be
too happy either.

The fact that ' Abraham Accord' had a side letter of F-35s for UAE is the driver for this; effectively Qatar saying that if you do not love me more, you'll have to demonstrate at least equal 'love'

dmereifield wrote:Just need Gripen for the full set?

Set up an 'Aggressor Sqdrn' The Empire Flying School could do graduations after a bout of flying against it as a final exam...

ArmChairCivvy wrote:The fact that ' Abraham Accord' had a side letter of F-35s for UAE is the driver for this; effectively Qatar saying that if you do not love me more, you'll have to demonstrate at least equal 'love'

They may very well overplay their hand.

Despite very public noises to the contrary, Jerusalem is pretty happy for the UAE to fly F-35. Defence ties, that have been building for the best part of five years, are now in the open and look set to escalate rapidly.

The UAE will be exhibiting at ISDEF (when it next happens) and Israel will have its own section at IDEX 2021 in the Emirates.

Qatar however will be perceived as the 'Hamas/MB Air Force' by Israel and their new Gulf friends.

Whether Trump (or Biden) would care is a separate matter.



On a very different note, looks like an F-35 got into trouble, let out an emergency squawk and diverted to Kinloss. Despite initial suggestions it was a USMC aircraft, photos show it was RAF:

Jensy wrote:the 'Hamas/MB Air Force'

with a massive USAF base and our whole Expeditionary Airwing - stretching from the Med to the Gulf - commanded out of there.

As you say, they might not get the a/c (as they don't need them) but it is a way of signalling "don't forget us".

ArmChairCivvy wrote:with a massive USAF base and our whole Expeditionary Airwing - stretching from the Med to the Gulf - commanded out of there.

As you say, they might not get the a/c (as they don't need them) but it is a way of signalling "don't forget us".

I hope the US extracts a Qatar/Israel peace deal as the price...

This is interesting, sounds like USMC pilot, so true interoperability.

Timmymagic wrote:40 F-35A for £5bn (although it would probably be slightly lower for the UK as we wouldn't be buying the small numbers of US munitions included in the deal

The full works ( scale up with 64/40 x...) for the Finns come at
$12.5 billion request for 64 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
- with all weapons (I think the Swiss won't require cruise missiles for a field trip to decimate the OpFor in their bases?)

Ron5 wrote:

NickC wrote:but it does thru into doubt the recent talk of ~$80

No it doesn't Mr Hater.

Reading the SavetheRoyalNavy 300+ posts this morning on T31 and saw the comment by 'X' on your posts,

"Now I have finished laughing at you pomposity and stupidity" and "You really are an idiot. Why don’t you go troll somewhere else?"

I LOL

https://questions-statements.parliament ... -09/113006

By December 2020, when the UK declares Initial Operating Capability (Maritime), 17 aircraft will be fully carrier compatible. The remaining four aircraft will have the required modifications completed as part of an ongoing programme of work.

***

Slowly does it.

Less the development aircraft, aren't they delivered carrier capable?
What mods are needed?

whitelancer wrote: aren't they delivered carrier capable?
What mods are needed?

Exactly. All I can think of is that the SPN-41 instrument landing system is being replaced in the USN (fitted in during the QE's build) and in 2017 there was controversy re: whether it would be replaced by the nxt-gen system, MoD spokesman was noncommittal then “No decision has been taken as to whether HMS Prince of Wales will be equipped with the Joint Precision Landing and Approach System (JPALS), or whether the system will be retro-fitted to HMS Queen Elizabeth”.
- the UK specific rolling landing for weapons/fuel bringback is a closely related topic (which generally has been reported going well, but perhaps some mods are needed to make it a safe 'routine')

There is a possibility that the statement is 'code' for the extra costs that will be incurred from Block 4 (a much discussed topic upthread).

ArmChairCivvy wrote:There is a possibility that the statement is 'code' for the extra costs that will be incurred from Block 4

If these 4 aircraft are early production models they may require a lot of rework to bring them up to the newest standard, including hardware and software.

whitelancer wrote:Less the development aircraft, aren't they delivered carrier capable?
What mods are needed?

All depends on how you define 'capable'.

There's always mods need to done, it's never ending. Some big some small.

whitelancer wrote:Less the development aircraft, aren't they delivered carrier capable?
What mods are needed?

That's only the IOC date so by FOC....

Does the 17 capable and 4 not yet capable F35Bs mean that the UK now has 21 F35B delivered by the end of the year? With 17 at Marham that would imply that in a Falklands 2.0 the carriers could credibly sail with at least 16 F35B?

Old RN wrote:Does the 17 capable and 4 not yet capable F35Bs mean that the UK now has 21 F35B delivered by the end of the year? With 17 at Marham that would imply that in a Falklands 2.0 the carriers could credibly sail with at least 16 F35B?

Have a look at my post on page 191 on the delivery schedule. There should be 18 at Marham by the end of the year. I think BK-03 and the 3 ITF aircraft are the 'non-carrier capable' aircraft. BK-03 is the one that will cost a lot of money to update to Blk.IV standard (still far cheaper than buying a replacement though).

As to sailing with 16 it depends how 'credible' that is. We could certainly get 16 on the deck of a carrier (we might have to crane a few on...), how many would be airworthy, how many fully combat capable, how long we could sustain them with parts etc. would be questionable. Remember although Sea Harrier was comparatively new in 1982 we still had a lot of infrastructure, production capacity, personnel etc. which had been developed as part of the overall Harrier programme that we could lean on.

Perhaps a case of “Cart” and “Horse”! However, as we are likely to have GUEST aircraft on board when deploying in the short to medium term, it would be prudent in this case to put a sufficient number of “Carts” before the “Horses”. For “Carts” of course, read Parts and for “Horses” read F35B.

Timmymagic wrote: Have a look at my post on page 191 on the delivery schedule. There should be 18 at Marham by the end of the year. I think BK-03 and the 3 ITF aircraft are the 'non-carrier capable' aircraft. BK-03 is the one that will cost a lot of money to update to Blk.IV standard (still far cheaper than buying a replacement though).

Finally had time to take a peep of what the Delivering Carrier Strike report says about F-35s; among other things
"paragraph 1.16 of the NAO Report says: “The Department has increased the approval limit four times since we reported in 2017, an increase of £1.4 billion (15%).” Does that mean that when you said the cost was coming down, you were talking about the basic procurement of each jet?

Charlie Pate[MoD finance chief]: That is right, Mr Gardiner. The basic price of each jet is coming down, and that was what I was referring to, with the next three lots falling over 13%. May I explain the increase in that cost that is referred to in the Report?Q53

Barry Gardiner: I think it is explained in that paragraph, where it says: “It has a strategy of incremental acquisitions, and the approvals were for capability upgrades, integration of UK weapons and sustainment costs”. I presume the capability upgrades were to those jets, but the compatibility upgrades—the integration of UK weapons—were for those jets, so were you not playing with semantics when you said the cost has come down? "

Left unresolved in the gentlemanly discussion. Will just note that the percentage changes at unit and aggregate level are in line
... they just happen to be of opposite signs (rolling off the production line a "-" and in use +)

Parliamentary written answers 17th Nov:-

https://questions-statements.parliament ... -09/113008