F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

[abc123]

I have my reservations against split buy though. The A's lack refuelling in the same manner, I believe?

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 capability

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.

No doubt that probes could be put there, but also no doubt that the MoD will not want to spend money on that or to make Voyagers boom capable. It would be interesting cost analysis, what's cheaper ( and more useful ) of these two solutions?

[topman]

I remember on one op 2 more aircraft were added (amongst other things) it ended up being signed off by the PM.

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 back

It was partially that but about the money as well, even fairly trivial sums of money are closely monitored.

[R686]

No doubt that probes could be put there, but also no doubt that the MoD will not want to spend money on that or to make Voyagers boom capable. It would be interesting cost analysis, what's cheaper ( and more useful ) of these two solutions?

That’s an easy decision to make capability wise boom refueling, the higher offload rates will have a greater impact across the RAF due to aircraft having large tanker needs, it also comes in handy when MRTT relieves each other on station the relief aircraft can top up their tank from to on station aircraft, the less time to complete the transfer the less risk of accidents.

[SW1]

R686

Off course that assumes they would install the receiver capability to voyager whilst installing the boom.

While the usaf and everyone who buys usaf aircraft have to use booms , it doesn’t mean it doesn’t have down sides. Biggest one being single point of failure on the tanker if the boom malfunctions, ok if you have lots of tankers but if you only a couple could become a problem. The higher offload rates of the boom are offset by the fact that you can refuel 2 fast movers at once with the jousting method. Not to mention training currency across the fleets and knowledge base. As ever swings and roundabouts.

[R686]

R686

Off course that assumes they would install the receiver capability to voyager whilst installing the boom.

While the usaf and everyone who buys usaf aircraft have to use booms , it doesn’t mean it doesn’t have down sides. Biggest one being single point of failure on the tanker if the boom malfunctions, ok if you have lots of tankers but if you only a couple could become a problem. The higher offload rates of the boom are offset by the fact that you can refuel 2 fast movers at once with the jousting method. Not to mention training currency across the fleets and knowledge base. As ever swings and roundabouts.

Agree, it all come down to conops but being an integral part of NATO I was actually very surprised that the UK went the way thy did.

Thought the receiving receptacle was standard, wonder if the plumbing is there or not

[SW1]

R686

Off course that assumes they would install the receiver capability to voyager whilst installing the boom.

While the usaf and everyone who buys usaf aircraft have to use booms , it doesn’t mean it doesn’t have down sides. Biggest one being single point of failure on the tanker if the boom malfunctions, ok if you have lots of tankers but if you only a couple could become a problem. The higher offload rates of the boom are offset by the fact that you can refuel 2 fast movers at once with the jousting method. Not to mention training currency across the fleets and knowledge base. As ever swings and roundabouts.

Agree, it all come down to conops but being an integral part of NATO I was actually very surprised that the UK went the way thy did.

Thought the receiving receptacle was standard, wonder if the plumbing is there or not

The major european nato members and the us navy use the probe and drogue method and these are the ones most short of tankers. However there’s no denying having both options would be great but it’s all a matter on cost priority.

receptacle isn’t on voyager.

[Lord Jim]

Well we shall all see when the MoD decides on what form the remainder of the F-35 fleet takes I hope. If they go for he A, having a bespoke fleet with probes seems like a path we have been down before and were trying to avoid, and the increased cost would reduce the saving hoped for by going for the A over more B. Different budget for AAR but would the increase their match the caving from changing F-35 variants. Oh the MoD's number crunchers are going to have so much fun working this one out.

[Ron5]

Well we shall all see when the MoD decides on what form the remainder of the F-35 fleet takes I hope. If they go for he A, having a bespoke fleet with probes seems like a path we have been down before and were trying to avoid, and the increased cost would reduce the saving hoped for by going for the A over more B. Different budget for AAR but would the increase their match the caving from changing F-35 variants. Oh the MoD's number crunchers are going to have so much fun working this one out.

They might decide they want C's in which case problem goes away

[Lord Jim]

Fingers crossed for that outcome.

[R686]

They might decide they want C's in which case problem goes away

isn't the C the most expensive at the moment as it has the least amount of confirmed orders?

The U.S. Navy has reduced its planned buys of the Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter by almost one-third over the fiscal 2016-2020 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP),

[SKB]

[Ron5]

They might decide they want C's in which case problem goes away

isn't the C the most expensive at the moment as it has the least amount of confirmed orders?

The U.S. Navy has reduced its planned buys of the Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter by almost one-third over the fiscal 2016-2020 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP),

On the flip side it can carry more, further & stealthier than the other variants. A modern Buccaneer?

[ArmChairCivvy]

I wonder how the USN carrier airwings will end up looking like?
- 2 squadrons of F-35Cs, 2 squadrons of F/A-18E/Fs and a squadron of EA-18G Growlers with other support aircraft: E-2Ds...

I quite like the C and we won't have the arrestor hook problems to cope with, should we go with it

[Lord Jim]

The C would tick all the boxes the RAF have over the B with its greater range and load carrying capacity, especially internally. Is there any info out their on the current units costs for the different variants. I assume the support costs and infrastructure would be the same if not a little less than the B, due to the lack of the components required for vertical lift. If we went down this road though it would mean if we ever got both Carriers out at the same time, WWIII, then the second would not be a carrier but a LHA, as there would only be sufficient B variants to equip a single vessel. In itself this is not a bad thing, but see a long way from where things were supposed to be when the new carriers were authorised.

[seaspear]

They might decide they want C's in which case problem goes away

isn't the C the most expensive at the moment as it has the least amount of confirmed orders?

The U.S. Navy has reduced its planned buys of the Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter by almost one-third over the fiscal 2016-2020 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP),

On the flip side it can carry more, further & stealthier than the other variants. A modern Buccaneer?

"Stealthier " ?

[ArmChairCivvy]

Quite a clever 'chameleon' graphic here https://www.f35.com/about/carrytheload
about operating modes.

In 2017 (there has been this big order since, which in all likelihood has helped to push the prices down) the 'C' was actually by a $ mln cheaper than 'B'
- an aberration in all likelihood, because they have (so far) been the most expensive ones

[Little J]

Lot 11 prices are $89.2m for the A and $115.5m for the B (the C is $107.7if you're interested). With prices expected to drop again in the next Lot...

Posted 1st November...

[ArmChairCivvy]

Lot 11 prices

Thx, for comparison:
" Lot 10, has a price tag of $94 million per jet for the Air Force version and about $121 million per jet for the short takeoff and vertical landing version and the arrested landing versions to be used by the Marine Corps and Navy."
- so prices for C are starting to settle (doing catch-up) where they belong, along the complexity 'index' when the three are compared

[SW1]

Im continually amazed about how much strength people put on unit prices. They are of little concern when acquiring a capability as that is not in any way what it cost defence to buy said aircraft system, support and field it.

I can’t stress this point enough outside a handful of extra b’s getting ordered and I do mean a handful any further fast jet purchases is seen as typhoon replacement. Current policy is, that will be determined by what comes out of team tempest, should thay decide it’s new manned a/c we won’t be buying anymore f35 of any variant given they want it in service early 2030s tempest has been ongoing since about 2015. Should team tempest end up as a small swarming uav type platform, new weapons and pods and they get the ability to independently integrate onto f35 then I can see a different f35 variant being purchased as the manned element but that would require a shift from current thinking and could be very budget dependent. Some of these decisions are above the military pay grade as there is political and industrial considerations at play, and impossible to judge at this stage.

[Lord Jim]

The unit cost to the UK is actually relevant as the costs for support infrastructure and so on have already been paid for on the whole and those for the C or A variant are less then the B for obvious reasons.

As for Tempest, it is going to be a paper/CAD exercise for many years and whether it actually produces a platform as against a series of innovative systems is up for debate. Unless four or five partners come on board with big wallets, there will be insufficient funding to proceed past this phase. It is very feasible that a further wing of F-35s of the CTOL variety could be in service with the RAF leaving the Typhoons concentrated up at Lossiemouth with around 50 airframes, by the start of the 2030s The RAF plans to have between seven and nine fast jet squadrons in the future, in two to three wings at two to three stations. I cannot see another manned platform beyond Typhoon and the F-35, entering service for at least twenty years. Unlike France and Germany we have a pretty much future proofed inventory planned and so do not need anything in the 2030s.

My guess is that the RAF will procure around thirty to forty low-vis UCAVs, either a European product or from across the pond during this timeframe to supplement and possibly replace the Protectors. These will be able to work with the F-35s at least and possibly the Typhoons, in both A2G and A2A roles as well as autonomously in a ISTAR capacity.

[SW1]

LJ

If you think the only cost to defence for a further 40 f35 is only 40 x 90m against 40 x 110m I’d take the deal now but I’d have it fixed price with a level of legal binding on the contract never before seen in defence. The cost of setting up another base and the infrastructure to support f35 will be large.

As for the rest we’re not that far apart by 2020 we’ll know which way it will go but be certain if tempest becomes an development contract we ain’t buying another base full of f35 and only buying a uk a/c to replace 50 typhoons. I don’t think it will require as many international partners as you think to come on board to make it a goer.

The current proposed strategy is for whatever comes out of tempest to start replacing typhoon in the either to mid 2030s. As you say numbers of sqns and bases will not increase so 138 f35 and a tempest program doesn’t not make any sense at all.

[Ron5]

They might decide they want C's in which case problem goes away

isn't the C the most expensive at the moment as it has the least amount of confirmed orders?

The U.S. Navy has reduced its planned buys of the Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter by almost one-third over the fiscal 2016-2020 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP),

On the flip side it can carry more, further & stealthier than the other variants. A modern Buccaneer?

"Stealthier " ?

Yes. Lower RCS.

[Little J]

First time I've heard that... I have heard that it's more draggy though.

[Timmymagic]

I suspect this will mean the UK/Japan JNAAM will definitely go ahead....

The Izumo Class look to be fairly straightforward conversions to STOVL. A buy of 40 would indicate that's all they've got planned for present.

Could be a very good opportunity for increased UK/Japan ties. Although the USMC would also be involved in getting the Japanese back in the carrier game (who thought we'd ever say that...) they'd probably look to the UK for STOVL/ski jump advice.

[SKB]

Izumo at 248m long is 32m shorter than QE and will need a ramp.