UK Defence Forum

Unofficial thinking but an RN colleague thinks 60 B’s and 40 A’s.

Would be interesting to know weather the lower price of the A model makes up for the extra logistical footprint of a mixed fleet, really don't know but is there much difference in maintance between A & B except for the lift fan & internal/external gun, bomb bay size? probably slightly different training for the B aswell. would a training course for the A model save money & then the pilots going onto the B model do an extra supplement for that model? (rather than training all on the B model?)

Is there not a Anti-radar missile for the A already which would be good to have on the first day of conflict, I understand the A model also can have a probe refueling system aswell?

serge750 wrote:Is there not a Anti-radar missile for the A already which would be good to have on the first day of conflict, I understand the A model also can have a probe refueling system aswell?

AARGM. NO clue if it's integrated with the B though.

As for the refuelling, I'm not sure if the A has that fitted or as an option, but the idea of the RAFs main strike fighter not being able to use the RAFs refuelling tankers is horrifying.

Yes, any planning assumption that looked at a mixed A/B fleet would also have to figure in the cost of returning at least some of the Voyagers to Airbus to have a boom fitted.

The RAF buying F-35A's?? Good grief, no chance in heck. It would kill Tempest stone dead.

How on earth would they explain to the Treasury that they want two aircraft types that look nearly identical, with nearly identical capabilities, and with one costing tens of billions to develop and a unit cost of three times the other????

RAF types are fainting all over Whitehall at the very thought.

By the way, F-35A's cannot be refueled by RAF's rented tankers.

Ron5 wrote:RAF types are fainting all over Whitehall at the very thought.

By the way, F-35A's cannot be refueled by RAF's rented tankers.

I know this sounds perverse but that's just the way my mind works. But if there were ever to be a split buy it would almost make more sense for the RAF to get a squadron of Charlies.... Hang on, hear me out.

That way you instantly solve the refuelling issue. And you get the big wing with more fuel and added range for strike. The penalty is you have to haul around a tailhook and landing gear that's spent too much time in the gym. And it costs a bit more, but hopefully the difference will reduce.

I suspect most senior commanders in the RAF would love to abort Tempest ASAP as they know it will never happen but the longer it drags on the more resources it will eat up.

As a bonus an F-35C buy means the RAF could also deploy on a USN carrier if need arose! I'll get my coat.

I can see your points about the C model, yes I think it would be better than the A variant if they were going for a mixed fleet, probably would not save any money if that's the point of a mixed fleet ?

also could it be that a rumour in certain military back room circles are still mentioning a mixed fleet as a back up to project tempest going Tits up ?

Singapore to acquire up to 12 F35b for $2.75b dollars

https://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/s ... l-aircraft

RichardIC wrote:

Ron5 wrote:RAF types are fainting all over Whitehall at the very thought.

By the way, F-35A's cannot be refueled by RAF's rented tankers.

I know this sounds perverse but that's just the way my mind works. But if there were ever to be a split buy it would almost make more sense for the RAF to get a squadron of Charlies.... Hang on, hear me out.

That way you instantly solve the refuelling issue. And you get the big wing with more fuel and added range for strike. The penalty is you have to haul around a tailhook and landing gear that's spent too much time in the gym. And it costs a bit more, but hopefully the difference will reduce.

I suspect most senior commanders in the RAF would love to abort Tempest ASAP as they know it will never happen but the longer it drags on the more resources it will eat up.

As a bonus an F-35C buy means the RAF could also deploy on a USN carrier if need arose! I'll get my coat.

Of the 3 variants, Charlie (I like the name, I will try to remember to call it that from now on), has the lowest RCS and can carry the most bombs, the furthest distance at the lowest stealthiness!!

I often wondered who exactly was behind the Cameron decision to switch CVF horses from Dave to Charlie, I suppose most assume it was the Admirals. Myself, I've always thought it was the RAF. They would be more than happy if the carriers got too expensive to either buy or run and were therefore binned leaving them (the RAF) with some lovely pub-based, oops sorry, land-based TSR3's. Luckily the Admirals were smarter than your average RAF man (not hard) and "encouraged" Bae to inflate the cost of switching to cat & traps to the point that even thicko Cameron got the message. Who U turned backed to Dave's.

Hey, it's my theory and I'm sticking with it. With a thumbs up to @Richard.

SW1 wrote:Singapore to acquire up to 12 F35b for $2.75b dollars

https://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/s ... l-aircraft

My phone did not like that link. Refused to open it because of security issues. It is a Huawei phone mind you, maybe the idea of F35s in Singapore drives its Chinese Spyware mad.

Ron5 wrote:

RichardIC wrote:

Ron5 wrote:RAF types are fainting all over Whitehall at the very thought.

By the way, F-35A's cannot be refueled by RAF's rented tankers.

I know this sounds perverse but that's just the way my mind works. But if there were ever to be a split buy it would almost make more sense for the RAF to get a squadron of Charlies.... Hang on, hear me out.

That way you instantly solve the refuelling issue. And you get the big wing with more fuel and added range for strike. The penalty is you have to haul around a tailhook and landing gear that's spent too much time in the gym. And it costs a bit more, but hopefully the difference will reduce.

I suspect most senior commanders in the RAF would love to abort Tempest ASAP as they know it will never happen but the longer it drags on the more resources it will eat up.

As a bonus an F-35C buy means the RAF could also deploy on a USN carrier if need arose! I'll get my coat.

Of the 3 variants, Charlie (I like the name, I will try to remember to call it that from now on), has the lowest RCS and can carry the most bombs, the furthest distance at the lowest stealthiness!!

I often wondered who exactly was behind the Cameron decision to switch CVF horses from Dave to Charlie, I suppose most assume it was the Admirals. Myself, I've always thought it was the RAF. They would be more than happy if the carriers got too expensive to either buy or run and were therefore binned leaving them (the RAF) with some lovely pub-based, oops sorry, land-based TSR3's. Luckily the Admirals were smarter than your average RAF man (not hard) and "encouraged" Bae to inflate the cost of switching to cat & traps to the point that even thicko Cameron got the message. Who U turned backed to Dave's.

Hey, it's my theory and I'm sticking with it. With a thumbs up to @Richard.

Ah but that's what they want you to think...

If the cost was not in Singies, that would make 8 and a half bn in our money for 48, so £600 mln would be going twrds 'bespokeness' and 'extras @base' in our case
- it has been mentioned that a lot has been invested into giving them (ours) a cosy home, but have not seen a figure for it

£6.2 billion for two oversees homes!

ArmChairCivvy wrote:If the cost was not in Singies, that would make 8 and a half bn in our money for 48, so £600 mln would be going twrds 'bespokeness' and 'extras @base' in our case
- it has been mentioned that a lot has been invested into giving them (ours) a cosy home, but have not seen a figure for it

Them's US dollars son.

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 72.article

"The F-35B package approved for sale would contain 13 examples of the Pratt and Whitney F135 turbine, including one spare. Also included are electronic warfare systems; command, control, communication, computers and intelligence, communication, navigation and identification systems; spare parts; test equipment; as well as the aircraft’s Autonomic Logistics Global Support System and Autonomic Logistics Information System"

ALIS to become ODIN change name to change the shame...

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1ZE00D

The computer-based logistics system of the F-35 stealth fighter jet made by Lockheed Martin (LMT.N), which has been plagued by delays, will be replaced by another network made by the same company, a Pentagon official said on Tuesday.

The Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) was designed to underpin the F-35 fleet's daily operations, ranging from mission planning and flight scheduling to repairs and scheduled maintenance, as well as the tracking and ordering of parts.

Ellen Lord, the Pentagon's chief weapon's buyer, said ALIS would be replaced with Lockheed Martin's Operational Data Integrated Network (ODIN), which will be streamlined for efficiency "with the voice of the maintainer and the pilots at the forefront of the requirements list."

Seems like they are having the same issues we had with LITS back in the day.

The Congress was making a big song and dance about underinvestment (slow introduction) of ALIS
- no point investing into a dud dodo
... is LM providing the replacement as 'new for old'

Lord Jim wrote:Seems like they are having the same issues we had with LITS back in the day.

It also combined T/H/Tyamp and MJDI plus LITS, all brand new software on a brand new a/c.

What could possibly go wrong?

I note though it's still going to be used on board boats and Ops but not at your normal unit. That'll be fun...

I wonder how the joint Norway-Italy project, to separate mission data from ALIS files, is going?

topman wrote:

Lord Jim wrote:Seems like they are having the same issues we had with LITS back in the day.

It also combined T/H/Tyamp and MJDI plus LITS, all brand new software on a brand new a/c.

What could possibly go wrong?

I note though it's still going to be used on board boats and Ops but not at your normal unit. That'll be fun...

Totally brand new, not an old line of code to be retained. Got to love those yankee salesmen.

This makes quite a few man years:
"According to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report in November 2019, one Air Force squadron spent 45,000 hours per year “performing additional tasks and manual workarounds because ALIS was not functioning as needed.”["]

F35 from 617 Squadron are deploying to US for an exercise Red Flag. not much information given.

https://www.lynnnews.co.uk/news/f-35-li ... e-9097193/

https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/f- ... ag-in-usa/

Deploying air power half way round the world without a boat it’s simply not on I tell you, whatever will they think of next...

Training @RF is second to none.

Do we really have to descend into dick measuring as per usual over this?