UK Defence Forum

Not particularly, it appears to think the 'clean sheet' fighter is guaranteed to proceed when in reality it represents a thought exploration piece as part of an examination of future air requirements. That's not to say it won't happen entirely, but it's a far cry from bringing out the trumpets and declaring the F-35 is a failure as this article does.

This is like counting your chickens when you might actually buy goose eggs

marktigger wrote:https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/320 ... 7-E12fa3rs

interesting piece

So they now realise what has been said for years (they pushed the design to high end) and don't want to risk it to often. And now need a 4.5 gen design to do the 'mundane' stuff...

Lets sell them some Typhoon's

Perhaps the SAAB Gripen would fit the bill, Lo cost to buy & run but still capable

The trade offs that were made in the design of the F-35 will certainly hurt the programme going forward with other nations looking to reduce their purchases or alter their choice of next generation platform. the F-35 still has an important role to play as a day one stealth platform, but if later used with external stores becomes a very expensive to operate platform for the job at hand. Existing platform ranging from the Typhoon to the Gripen to even the South Korean FA-50 are likely to benefit. We could also see far more investment in next generation EW with AESA radar becoming more essential across the board. Finally I see the UK putting more into TEMPEST and restricting out F-35 buy to lass than half originally proposed.

Not if “Carrier Strike” or “CEPP” with the QEC Carriers is to be viable throughout their 50 year lifespan.

Who knows what platforms will be available in 25 years time, there might be an alternative to the F-35B or we might even have decided to convert our carriers to CATOBAR or STOBAR operations.

But Tempest will not have been made to be Carrier operable!

Remarks yesterday on the F-35 by the very powerful Democratic chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Adam Smith, during a virtual event with the Brookings Institution "I want to stop throwing money down that particular rathole".

Whether Smith powerful enough to curtail funding for F-35 unknown as pork barrel politics alive and well in Congress.

"Follows in the wake of a December decision to indefinitely postpone a full-rate production review required no later than this month (Milestone C). The Pentagon has turned to software engineers at three different universities to conduct an independent technical assessment of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program."

From <https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/sm ... 35-rathole>
https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/in ... eview-date

With talk of EMALS and the change in politics in the US, I think it is now inevitable that the UK will stick at 48 a/c.

It will be presented as good news - e.g. the FAA gets all 48 and the RAF gets to buy some more toys, and jam for the carriers (UAVs etc) tomorrow.

I just hope the FAA form two squadrons with 18 a/c each assigned to a carrier.

What about the OCU and what about attrition & maintenance reserve? 48 just does not cut it!

RNAS Marham coming then, with all 617SQ planes transferred to 809NAS?!

SKB wrote:RNAS Marham coming then, with all 617SQ planes transferred to 809NAS?!

According to the Times IR report today that now looks like a slam dunk....F-35B orders look likely to be capped at 48. With 24 Tranche 1 Typhoons going, all attention then switches to Tempest.

Surely they have to all go to the FAA now...

Plus the usual reminder that of the 48 only 45 are (potentially) fully combat capable. No chance of 36 onboard a QE Class now it appears...

Scimitar54 wrote:What about the OCU and what about attrition & maintenance reserve? 48 just does not cut it!

Both carriers will operate in rotation so 18 a/c on active duty at any time, with the ability to surge 36 a/c (on one or two carriers) in extreme circumstances. Including other rotary assets still a decent capability for the next 15 years. I would have to say the plan has to be though that the F35b is worked hard till the 2030s and then sold and replaced by CATOBAR assets.

I don’t think many people realise just how big a deal or how big a bet is being placed on project mosquito. For all the focus on the manned element of the tempest project its mosquito were revolution has the biggest possibility.

Maybe the LANCA is going to be hear sooner than we think in a naval version, if the carriers are going to get a smallish catapults & arresting gear...

Would like to see the F35 with Royal navy on them but is that a realistic possibility as that probably would cost money ( not a large amount...but ) to do so rather than the current joint force status?

If RN got all F-35B then they need to find the money to pay for it, which means any dreams of expanding the surface fleet goes up in smoke as the RAF take their ex-Tonka money away to spend on something else ...

Ain't going to happen

Could this be a prelude to selling one off, after all the size of the carriers was said so that 36 aircraft were able to use it efficiently, common sense would then dictate 72 aircraft at the minimum

R686 wrote:Could this be a prelude to selling one off, after all the size of the carriers was said so that 36 aircraft were able to use it efficiently, common sense would then dictate 72 aircraft at the minimum

They're not selling one, no chance

In line with my previous post, 84 should be the MINIMUM number of F35b required, let alone replacements during the life of the QEC. If the number really is to be capped at 48, then it will be necessary to move to Cats & Arrestor Gear sooner rather than later and either:-

A. Tempest will have to be designed to be carrier capable. or
B. F35c may end up providing any additional numbers required. or
C. Buying Rafale or “Super Rafale” to provide any additional numbers required.

The cost of any of these options will outweigh the cost of the additional F35b required.

Has someone somewhere got their “4” and “8” digits reversed?

Scimitar54 wrote:In line with my previous post, 84 should be the MINIMUM number of F35b required, let alone replacements during the life of the QEC. If the number really is to be capped at 48, then it will be necessary to move to Cats & Arrestor Gear sooner rather than later and either:-

A. Tempest will have to be designed to be carrier capable. or
B. F35c may end up providing any additional numbers required. or
C. Buying Rafale or “Super Rafale” to provide any additional numbers required.

The cost of any of these options will outweigh the cost of the additional F35b required.

Has someone somewhere got their “4” and “8” digits reversed?

You appear to have reached Kubler Ross stage three.

This is what it is:

A. Tempest won't be carrier capable. It will almost certainly never happen.
B. No F-35C. Just 48 B.
C. No additional numbers of anything

Defiance wrote:If RN got all F-35B then they need to find the money to pay for it, which means any dreams of expanding the surface fleet goes up in smoke as the RAF take their ex-Tonka money away to spend on something else ...

Ain't going to happen

Or the RAF loses that budget to the RN...
After all the Army is about to take an absolute spanking..

Timmymagic wrote: Or the RAF loses that budget to the RN...
After all the Army is about to take an absolute spanking..

It's not 1st April yet chief, I doubt the RAF would ever make that sort of concession to the Navy

Timmymagic wrote:

Defiance wrote:If RN got all F-35B then they need to find the money to pay for it, which means any dreams of expanding the surface fleet goes up in smoke as the RAF take their ex-Tonka money away to spend on something else ...

Ain't going to happen

Or the RAF loses that budget to the RN...
After all the Army is about to take an absolute spanking..

That's the way it works. If a capability moves between services, the money moves with it.

Ron5 wrote:
That's the way it works. If a capability moves between services, the money moves with it.

Fair enough, but the bit in bold is what I took issue with the most. Is the belief that the RAF might hand over F-35 to the RN a serious one? Are they willing to lose control over such a valuable offensive asset in favour of something that might (or might not) lay an egg in 20 years?

Sounds a bit fanciful. I know this crowd is very pro-RN (as am I) but I just don't see it