F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

[ArmChairCivvy]

Tiffies instead of B's

This is also happening, by way of extending the tranche 1's by 10 years
- how else could you, markedly, slow down the purchases of Bs?

[Gabriele]

BK-4 uplifted to Block 3F.

[S M H]

This is also happening, by way of extending the tranche 1's by 10 years- how else could you, markedly, slow down the purchases of Bs?

The retention of the tranche 1 is making typhoon airframe hours last further. When further batches of f35s are procured at possibly 6-7 per year they will go to sustainment storage like the new typhoons have. Once the tranche 1 are uneconomical to support the Squadrons will transfer to T35s. I would expect that 1 squadron of airframes would be kept at a higher return to flight status to augment carrier air wings in a max U.K. only ops. I don't expect the M.O.D. will operate more than 4 front line squadrons till 2018-30.

[sunstersun]

http://www.iaf.org.il/4467-49791-en/IAF.aspx

IOC for the Israelis

[abc123]

So there's the easy fix...

The Ministry : So you don't want the F-35B?
Crab : No Sir
The Ministry : OK, the Navy can have all the B's we can afford.
Crab : So how many A's will we get?
The Ministry : A's? No you can have a few extra Tiffies instead.

Navy gets around 80 F-35 owned solely by the FAA while the RAF gets another 48 Tranche 3 Typhoons, Protector and ownership of the FCAS?

Could be worse, honestly, if it permitted a faster build into retaining combat jet numbers from hitting the scarily low numbers they're currently scheduled to end up at in.

If they get 48 F-35Bs that would be plenty. I would have signed that right now. And then the RAF can get whatever they want with the rest of the money ( probably enough to buy another 48 A-version or same number of Tranche 3... )

[andrew98]

I'm sorry, but it's completely retarded to have 2 carriers, but not have enough F-35B's (and pilots/groundcrew) to have both of them fully loaded, also with having attrition and maintenance spares.
Yes it's unlikely we'll ever need to, but the capability should be there.

It's like sending a soldier to attack an enemy position with 6 magazines for their rifle, but only 5 rounds in each and not the full 30 that they can hold.

[RetroSicotte]

If they get 48 F-35Bs that would be plenty.

Not even close. Far too small a fleet to be useful, and cannot even theoretically fill both carriers.

[Lord Jim]

Yep, 48 will allow one carrier to be fully loaded with F-35Bs, which will probably be only 24.

[S M H]

Not even close. Far too small a fleet to be useful, and cannot even theoretically fill both carriers.

The FAA and RAF devised the present F35b only plan to provide two carriers air wing ops one carrier strike and 12 min for L.H.P. ops. That's 48 airframes minimum. then add three aircraft instrumented aircraft. Training airframes 9-12. Squadron deployed training airframes under maintenance. 48 is unstainable a split buy would give the F.A.A. control much to Cdr Wards rantings and others. 80 would only give you 60 max at sea. The R.A.F. with 48 As that are proposed by some would make two supply chains increasing costs. Trance 3 typhoons would probably be a backward step. The F.A.A./R.A.F. are trying to avoid the harrier/tornado treasury trap so a split buy does not help. This way they get a large supported fleet that provides the required airframes for operations. The A was originally suggested as a typhoon replacement by a think tank paper . We have to make the carrier strike work with the money allocation by our defence blind government. And with the present funding the only way it will work is the present B only procurement.

[ArmChairCivvy]

48 is unstainable a split buy would give the F.A.A. control much to Cdr Wards rantings and others. 80 would only give you 60 max at sea. The R.A.F. with 48 As that are proposed by some would make two supply chains increasing costs. Trance 3 typhoons would probably be a backward step. The F.A.A./R.A.F. are trying to avoid the harrier/tornado treasury trap so a split buy does not help.

A good post (it is hard to guess what the 3rd word was meant to be, before typo/ predictive text?).
- often it is forgotten that even though the parts commonality was aimed at 70%, it actually ended up at half of that

[shark bait]

It will take around 80 aircraft in service to sustain 24 on each carrier, so until that number is reached any talk of a split buy should be smashed back down.

[topman]

I (strongly) suspect many people on places such as this will be disappointed when it comes to deployed numbers of the F35.

[abc123]

If they get 48 F-35Bs that would be plenty.

Not even close. Far too small a fleet to be useful, and cannot even theoretically fill both carriers.

And when you will have both active? Never.

Also, the plan was from the start to have 6-12 F-35 non-stop on active carrier ( plus more in emergency situation ), plus additional numbers from USMC, so 48 should be enough. At least RN will save itself from RAF-s constant obstruction.

[ArmChairCivvy]

when it comes to deployed numbers of the F35.

24 +12? regardless of which ones are on decks, or deployed in other ways?

[abc123]

I'm sorry, but it's completely retarded to have 2 carriers, but not have enough F-35B's (and pilots/groundcrew) to have both of them fully loaded, also with having attrition and maintenance spares.
Yes it's unlikely we'll ever need to, but the capability should be there.

It's like sending a soldier to attack an enemy position with 6 magazines for their rifle, but only 5 rounds in each and not the full 30 that they can hold.

Son, you have obviously slept trough last 15+ years, because that is the current way of doing things in HM Armed Forces...

[RetroSicotte]

And when you will have both active? Never.

Having both active at once is not the only potential scenario in which that matters. Presume the worst happens and the carrier is lost with the majority of its aircraft unable to evacuate the ship.

You've just lost the entirety of the UK's carrier capability for another decade at least. Not to mention any F-35 losses in the air.

Having a second carrier, and enough F-35Bs in the area to actually fit a second one without replacement is more for robustness than to plant two carriers off someone's coast. Assuming that war never has casualties is a deathly serious error for the UK to make in organizing how many of a given platform it has.

[abc123]

And when you will have both active? Never.

Having both active at once is not the only potential scenario in which that matters. Presume the worst happens and the carrier is lost with the majority of its aircraft unable to evacuate the ship.

You've just lost the entirety of the UK's carrier capability for another decade at least. Not to mention any F-35 losses in the air.

Having a second carrier, and enough F-35Bs in the area to actually fit a second one without replacement is more for robustness than to plant two carriers off someone's coast. Assuming that war never has casualties is a deathly serious error for the UK to make in organizing how many of a given platform it has.

Well, when we are in Lala-land allready, I would prefer at least 3 carriers, CATOBAR, with at least 150 F-35C, 10+ E-2 Hawkeye, at least 12 SSNs etc.

The cruel reality is that the future of UK Arned Forces is so bad, that when you imagine the worst possible option, you have to revise it again, for the worse. So, having accepted that, it's better to take that sparrow now, because there won't be the pidgeon on the roof. Never. And actually, when it was on the roof- after the WW2, and maybe even before that? Only cut after cut after cut.

[Little J]

I (strongly) suspect many people on places such as this will be disappointed when it comes to deployed numbers of the F35.

I always thought that it was one third down for maintenance, a third for training and the final third for deployment.

Is that still the case?

[Lord Jim]

A key fact is that Politicians and Civil Servants have forgotten that the Armed Forces job can result in equipment get destroyed and more importantly people are killed. To them 48 F-35s seems a perfectly sensible number and allows a carrier to be deployed with an air wing, showing both the flag and that might of the UK's naval power. Everyone including the military top brass has been concentrating on capability since the 1990s and totally ignored that capacity is vital to an effective military. Having a treasury imposed accounting system like RAB didn't help matters, where the value of all the MoD's assets was part of calculating the budget etc. In the past we constantly reduced the amount of ammunition and spares we held, but retained some semblance of capacity. now that has gone. Everything is at the front end, no resilience so once it is lost that is it. This is disguised both through PR spin and operating ever smaller formations for active deployments. Even worse the situation is not going to improve without a huge increase in defence spending and a total reversal of policy, neither of which is going to happen.

[RetroSicotte]

Well, when we are in Lala-land allready, I would prefer at least 3 carriers, CATOBAR, with at least 150 F-35C, 10+ E-2 Hawkeye, at least 12 SSNs etc.

You honestly think that a fantasy wish for three such carriers and SSN numbers is on a level with the reality that one ship being lost could cripple the entire navy's carrier strike? No need to exaggerate to try and bolster the point.

[topman]

And when you will have both active? Never.

Having both active at once is not the only potential scenario in which that matters. Presume the worst happens and the carrier is lost with the majority of its aircraft unable to evacuate the ship.

You've just lost the entirety of the UK's carrier capability for another decade at least. Not to mention any F-35 losses in the air.

Having a second carrier, and enough F-35Bs in the area to actually fit a second one without replacement is more for robustness than to plant two carriers off someone's coast. Assuming that war never has casualties is a deathly serious error for the UK to make in organizing how many of a given platform it has.

That sort of thing is pretty remote, no one is going to stump up the cash on that basis.
If it were such a high risk and couldn't be mitigated any other way, we simply wouldn't turn up.

[RetroSicotte]

Given the power of modern submarines, I would say it most definitely is not a remote possibility at all.

[topman]

If the risk is so high we wouldn't even be there, your idea although nice, is unaffordable.

[RetroSicotte]

If the risk is so high we wouldn't even be there, your idea although nice, is unaffordable.

If the mere idea of there being a submarine involved in a war is "too high a risk to get involved" then god help the navy.

"Unaffordable" is not the problem. The UK can afford it easily.

The issue is "Outwith budget". Similar, but a crucial difference in root cause.

[seaspear]

With the importance of any ship like a carrier and with cost being mentioned there should be an equal importance that its threats are assessed and measures introduced to meet those risks , but there has been some discussion that this has not happened to "save" money .