UK Defence Forum

serge750 wrote:so you don't loose them... he he

Any loose objects would halt the launch cycle... whatever number of launches were already done (of the planned cycle) would end up having those planes burn fuel for nothing
- sometimes on vid clips you see these gordons moving slowly across the deck, like the police lines in crime scene searches (when the crime scene is not within a building)

I think I heard it mentioned that the FOD walk was done every 6 hrs? during daylight

Hmm....
Idea!

Pompey Revs all the way would take about 4 days and 13 hours.

Just the matter of embarking 7 Daves for the Ferry Delivery home. I wonder if we'll see a 'the squadrons are coming' 7 ship formation fly past moment, or whether they will arrive singularly?

Are they going to ferry them back to the uk? it would be so good to see with them onboard....

Here we go again....

https://news.sky.com/story/royal-navy-f ... s-11568074

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/raf-pl ... programme/

Would the gov actually allow less than the 48 X B to be purchased as they keep going on about "carrier strike" blah blah… I could see them going for the A model for later F35 purchases as it is all about the short term cost with all gov's rather than the long term ….

Sky get more right about the carriers than others do....

"Don't worry, it is not going to happen. We are joint now, things have changed, it's all about the carriers".

Yeah, right. I'm so surprised. Shocked, really.

SDL wrote:Sky get more right about the carriers than others do....

Gabriele wrote:"Don't worry, it is not going to happen. We are joint now, things have changed, it's all about the carriers".

Yeah, right. I'm so surprised. Shocked, really.

Unamed sources. Close to the navy. Rumours.

Do me a favour, this is just the usual silly season BS.

There is no money fucking anywhere to buy any more than 48 anyway!

And why would the MoD spend millions on redeveloping and rebuilding RAF Marham for a plane the RAF don't want? If this were actually true, the F-35B's would be based at RNAS Yeovilton.

And why would the MoD spend millions on redeveloping and rebuilding RAF Marham for a plane the RAF don't want? If this were actually true, the F-35B's would be based at RNAS Yeovilton.

Yeah, right. That would mean that the F-35 budget would sit within Navy Command and then there really would not be any talk of an A purchase.

I don't think there is a single flying thing the RAF does not want. They'll happily take all fleets for themselves if given the chance. It's not like they didn't try getting the go ahead for exactly that.

Unamed sources. Close to the navy. Rumours.

It has been said more and more openly by RAF officers, serving and non, actually.

There is no money fucking anywhere to buy any more than 48 anyway!

This one might actually be true instead. And apart from money, i'm still waiting for a realistic explanation about who exactly is going to man further F-35 squadrons.

why would the MoD spend millions on redeveloping and rebuilding RAF Marham for a plane the RAF don't want?

This is getting stupid again

Look at RAF Marham and where the two USAFE F-35 sqdrns are...

It is shimple like abc... until D will come along

Well we are the only navy operating Carriers (soon) where there is no designated airwing. Unless two F-35B squadrons are PERMENENTLY assigned to carrier duty at all times, one embarked, one ready to reinforce or swap with, and an OCU available to provide additional platforms in a surge, I can see the situation that developed during the Afghan war happening all over again, where the F-35as are deployed to support some operation and the carriers are lucky to get a few on board for a week or so from the OCU for training. Roll on RNAS Marham

As I wrote in a previous post. If the QEC Aircraft carriers are ever deprived of an adequate number of F35B's on board, due to RAF resistance to release either aircraft and/or Crew & Maintenance personnel, then RAF Marham, should without any further delay be transferred, complete with all aircraft and personnel to the RN and become RNAS Marham. All future F35s should be of the B variant.
If the latest news proves to be true, then the Transfer of Marham and the Joint F35 Force complete with all (Joint) current & future assets, personnel and budgets must be expedited and handed over to the RN forthwith.

Scimitar54 wrote:If the latest news proves to be true, then the Transfer of Marham and the Joint F35 Force complete with all (Joint) current & future assets, personnel and budgets must be expedited and handed over to the RN forthwith.

RNAS Marham

As I said in my original post. My last post was somewhat of a précis, in it's referral to the original post.

A lot of misunderstanding of how the lightning force is tasked here and indeed what the RAF can or cannot say no to.

AS an ex RAF officer I can say there have been times that each service has put it self first and at odds with others. This is just the way it is due in part to a poor budget however as for the F 35 and carriers for me the minimum number of F-35Bs needed is 100 of which 50 should be operated by NAS units in squadrons of 10 to work something like this

800 NAS HMS Queen Elizabeth
801 NAS HMS Queen Elizabeth
809 NAS HMS POW
892 NAS HMS POW
899 NAS Land fleet support

this would allow for each carrier to deploy with 20 F-35s as standard and if needed these units could be joined by a unit from the RAF , USMC , Italy or Spain to give the carrier 30 jets

This story is getting repeated continually and leads invariably to nashing of teeth. Perhaps reality is starting to dawn of what 2 units is capable of and there getting there speak in early and blaming someone else.

Given the tasking placed on the fast jet fleet as a whole and how small the force is I would suggest all these aircraft will be deployed where defence requires them to be.

Ultimately any f35 order beyond the 48 already agreed will go to the heart of what a future fastjet fleet will look like its make up and what it’s being asked to do and the industrial implications of such decisions.

We don’t routinely deploy 20 a/c to a single location anywhere. If the fastjet fleet is going f35 heavy what roles will it be asked to do and where are we basing it. No nation that is considering being a f35 only fleet is solely buying the b model they have all split there buys with the A. Each variant has there advantages and disadvantages the B being it’s flexibility in basing. The A maybe better at qra, more persistence and better performance with 4 amraam, 4 asraam and a gun,the A will also allow operations further from a tanker aircraft which may be advantageous in some contested environments.

When deciding the fastjet fleet mix there is many things to consider not just what happens on 2 ships.

With the re-emergence of a Carrier Strike policy and with the exception of any potential targets that can be reached from either the UK, Ascension Island, Cyprus, Diego Garcia, the Falkland Islands (quite a small area) or another European (NATO) airbase (another small area), then any "basing" of Strike aircraft will have to (in the first instance) at least, be based on a RN Aircraft carrier.
Prior to the Invincible class, deployment of large numbers of FAA aircraft was routine.
Stop adding fuel to this fire, Stop bleating and get used to the idea.

SW1 wrote: No nation that is considering being a f35 only fleet is solely buying the b model they have all split there buys with the A. Each variant has there advantages and disadvantages the B being it’s flexibility in basing. The A maybe better at qra, more persistence and better performance with 4 amraam, 4 asraam and a gun,the A will also allow operations further from a tanker aircraft which may be advantageous in some contested environments.

When deciding the fastjet fleet mix there is many things to consider not just what happens on 2 ships.

Other than the Italians (who seem to be able to pull money out of their arses) and recently Japan (probably (like Israel) with American financial help) who else has split bought?

With such a small fleet (unless 138 is really on the table), it would be a bad way for us to go.