F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

[sol]

I've seen it stated that CSG25 will have a 'full compliment' of 24.

Yes but considering all delays with TR-3 it is hard to see how this would be possible. More realistic would be up to 16 aircrafts from both 617 & 809, for more probably part of 207 would need to be deployed too. But I think that intention is to have 12 planes squadron even if all 12 will be rarely available.

[SW1]

Have you noticed that when a fastjet squadron deploys as a squadron they go with 8 jets be they tornado, typhoon, or f35 even though there peace time compliment is 12. For intense operations they may add 1 or 2 additional jets for fwd deployed maintenance spares.

The problem with comparing what the US marine corp does with its squadrons is they have twice the amount of people to keep the squadron going.

Yes I had, and I know the jets in the fleet are pooled and only nominally allocated to a sqn.

Suppose to restate, based on the assumptions above, if the peacetime compliment for the 3 frontline sqns is to be the standard 12 then that leaves the OCU with 12.....

I've seen it stated that CSG25 will have a 'full compliment' of 24.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

I’ve seen that comment too. Considering there will be a total fleet of around 30-35 aircraft in the uk that is a rather sizeable proportion of the fleet to stick on an aircraft carrier for 9 months to potter around the other side of the world.

The much more interesting question is how many aircraft will be upgraded to not just block 3 but the coming block 4 standard and at what cost, and how many will be left to rot as the US moves on and stops supporting the older standards.

[Tempest414]

Have you noticed that when a fastjet squadron deploys as a squadron they go with 8 jets be they tornado, typhoon, or f35 even though there peace time compliment is 12. For intense operations they may add 1 or 2 additional jets for fwd deployed maintenance spares.

The problem with comparing what the US marine corp does with its squadrons is they have twice the amount of people to keep the squadron going.

Yes I had, and I know the jets in the fleet are pooled and only nominally allocated to a sqn.

Suppose to restate, based on the assumptions above, if the peacetime compliment for the 3 frontline sqns is to be the standard 12 then that leaves the OCU with 12.....

I've seen it stated that CSG25 will have a 'full compliment' of 24.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

I’ve seen that comment too. Considering there will be a total fleet of around 30-35 aircraft in the uk that is a rather sizeable proportion of the fleet to stick on an aircraft carrier for 9 months to potter around the other side of the world.

The much more interesting question is how many aircraft will be upgraded to not just block 3 but the coming block 4 standard and at what cost, and how many will be left to rot as the US moves on and stops supporting the older standards.

I think a better option for 2025 would be for the 2 Sqn's to deploy with 9 jets = 18 and then request a USMC sqn of 6 or 8 jets

[Tempest414]

Perms of 48, take your pick:

1x18 + 3x10
1x18 + 2x12 + 1x6
1x16 + 2x12 + 1x8
1x14 + 2x12 + 1x10

You are missing TEU which currently has 4 planes. If I am not wrong, original plan was to have 3 previously deployed to US to be upgraded to TR-3 and sent to UK while 17 Squadron would get 3 new planes. But now 4th plane was sent to it, so not sure if there is some change to plan.

With 74 UK should be able to have three fully functional frontline squadrons, if that would means 10 plans than 10 planes would be. I am not arguing against that. My whole point was that 74 aircraft is not enough to have 4 frontline squadrons as some previous post (not by you) suggested.

There is another way 3 x 16 = 1 OCU & 2 FL Sqn's = 48 plus 4 for the TEU leaves 22 in Deep maintenance this could allow a standard peace time carrier deployment of 16 jets or a war time deployment of upto 32

[Tempest414]

How would having more sqn with fewer aircraft mean more pilots?

Problem with creating more Sqns is it requires more people, where do all these people come from?

You seem to be a bod in the know how low does it take to turn a jet around for line maintenance

[topman]

How would having more sqn with fewer aircraft mean more pilots?

Problem with creating more Sqns is it requires more people, where do all these people come from?

You seem to be a bod in the know how low does it take to turn a jet around for line maintenance

Line maintenance? I take that to mean between flights, such as a flight servicing. About a half hour or so.

[sol]

There is another way 3 x 16 = 1 OCU & 2 FL Sqn's = 48 plus 4 for the TEU leaves 22 in Deep maintenance this could allow a standard peace time carrier deployment of 16 jets or a war time deployment of upto 32

It is already decided that there will be (at least) 3 frontline squadrons and 3rd Squadron is already in process of funding. I really don't see what is an issue with having 3 squadrons and why would having 2 larger or 4 smaller be better solution.

[Tempest414]

There is another way 3 x 16 = 1 OCU & 2 FL Sqn's = 48 plus 4 for the TEU leaves 22 in Deep maintenance this could allow a standard peace time carrier deployment of 16 jets or a war time deployment of upto 32

It is already decided that there will be (at least) 3 frontline squadrons and 3rd Squadron is already in process of funding. I really don't see what is an issue with having 3 squadrons and why would having 2 larger or 4 smaller be better solution.

it is just different ways of looking at things we are allowed to look at different options that may or may not work but until we at them we don't know

[Tempest414]

How would having more sqn with fewer aircraft mean more pilots?

Problem with creating more Sqns is it requires more people, where do all these people come from?

You seem to be a bod in the know how low does it take to turn a jet around for line maintenance

Line maintenance? I take that to mean between flights, such as a flight servicing. About a half hour or so.

So are A to D maintenance check done by Sqn's or station engineers. What I am trying to get at is what we can class as deep maintenance and Unit maintenance so if we have 70 F-35 in the UK ( + 4 based in the US ) how many will ready to go on the line how many will be in 100 or 400 hour checks and last how many will not be in service due to what ?

[mrclark303]

How would having more sqn with fewer aircraft mean more pilots?

Problem with creating more Sqns is it requires more people, where do all these people come from?

You seem to be a bod in the know how low does it take to turn a jet around for line maintenance

Line maintenance? I take that to mean between flights, such as a flight servicing. About a half hour or so.

So are A to D maintenance check done by Sqn's or station engineers. What I am trying to get at is what we can class as deep maintenance and Unit maintenance so if we have 70 F-35 in the UK ( + 4 based in the US ) how many will ready to go on the line how many will be in 100 or 400 hour checks and last how many will not be in service due to what ?

About 40 of a fleet of 70 will be available for the Squadrons and the in use reserve.

The other 30 will be in various stages of the maintenance cycle. They are so technical in nature that you will have a constant requirement for software drops.

[Tempest414]

How would having more sqn with fewer aircraft mean more pilots?

Problem with creating more Sqns is it requires more people, where do all these people come from?

You seem to be a bod in the know how low does it take to turn a jet around for line maintenance

Line maintenance? I take that to mean between flights, such as a flight servicing. About a half hour or so.

So are A to D maintenance check done by Sqn's or station engineers. What I am trying to get at is what we can class as deep maintenance and Unit maintenance so if we have 70 F-35 in the UK ( + 4 based in the US ) how many will ready to go on the line how many will be in 100 or 400 hour checks and last how many will not be in service due to what ?

About 40 of a fleet of 70 will be available for the Squadrons and the in use reserve.

The other 30 will be in various stages of the maintenance cycle. They are so technical in nature that you will have a constant requirement for software drops.

So how many of the 30 can brought back into service within 24 to 72 hrs or 1 to 3 weeks

[mrclark303]

How would having more sqn with fewer aircraft mean more pilots?

Problem with creating more Sqns is it requires more people, where do all these people come from?

You seem to be a bod in the know how low does it take to turn a jet around for line maintenance

Line maintenance? I take that to mean between flights, such as a flight servicing. About a half hour or so.

So are A to D maintenance check done by Sqn's or station engineers. What I am trying to get at is what we can class as deep maintenance and Unit maintenance so if we have 70 F-35 in the UK ( + 4 based in the US ) how many will ready to go on the line how many will be in 100 or 400 hour checks and last how many will not be in service due to what ?

About 40 of a fleet of 70 will be available for the Squadrons and the in use reserve.

The other 30 will be in various stages of the maintenance cycle. They are so technical in nature that you will have a constant requirement for software drops.

So how many of the 30 can brought back into service within 24 to 72 hrs or 1 to 3 weeks

Probably 10, given time, the others will be in bits as they go into and come out of major servicing and inevitable stream of updates.

Let's not forget hanger queens that give up parts to keep the line fleet airworthy, it's always happened, I doubt F35 will be any different....

[Repulse]

Didn’t the Joint Harrier Force have 70 a/c with 4 front-line squadrons, each with 9 a/c?

Would be sensible IMO to copy that model - allows for one FAA squadron to be regularly deployed on the active carrier in a hybrid LHA role, and another RAF one to be deployed also on the carrier or land base, scaling up to 36 a/c in as surge strike mode.

[mrclark303]

Didn’t the Joint Harrier Force have 70 a/c with 4 front-line squadrons, each with 9 a/c?

Would be sensible IMO to copy that model - allows for one FAA squadron to be regularly deployed on the active carrier in a hybrid LHA role, and another RAF one to be deployed also on the carrier or land base, scaling up to 36 a/c in as surge strike mode.

Quite possibly, 12 is generally the defacto strength of an RAF fighter squadron, back in the 1970's a FAA squadron was typically 14, if we limit ourselves to 70 aircraft and we want four squadrons, then it will have to be 9.

I suppose in the years to come, 18 F35B's on deck alongside UCAV's might be enough....

[sol]

Didn’t the Joint Harrier Force have 70 a/c with 4 front-line squadrons, each with 9 a/c?

After retiring Sea Harriers and conversion of 3 Squadron to Typhoon in 2006, there were 60 Harriers, plus 11 training two seat version, operated by 4 squadrons, each with 9 planes.

But after further reductions in force, in 2010, only two squadrons are left each with 10-12 planes.

Would be sensible IMO to copy that model - allows for one FAA squadron to be regularly deployed on the active carrier in a hybrid LHA role, and another RAF one to be deployed also on the carrier or land base, scaling up to 36 a/c in as surge strike mode.

I don't see why it would be sensible. I am not sure why number of planes is reduced from 12 to 9. It is possible that this is done as that was usual compliment of the planes operated by Invincible class or there is some other reason. The only "good" thing that 9 planes is giving is having 4 squadrons so 2 per carrier. But chance that both carriers will operate at full capacity at the same time is really small.

On the other hand, it would require more air crews and additional facilities, which would cost much more without.

It does not really have much sense in terms of number of planes either as QE is much bigger than Invincible class and could accommodate larger squadrons (10 to 12) planes.

So generally negative sides by far outweigh positive (if there is any at all). If UK wants more squadrons, just get more planes.

I would really like to know what is an issue of having three squadrons (well there might be more if UK stick with 138 but somehow I doubt), that four squadrons will solve.

[Repulse]

Didn’t the Joint Harrier Force have 70 a/c with 4 front-line squadrons, each with 9 a/c?

After retiring Sea Harriers and conversion of 3 Squadron to Typhoon in 2006, there were 60 Harriers, plus 11 training two seat version, operated by 4 squadrons, each with 9 planes.

But after further reductions in force, in 2010, only two squadrons are left each with 10-12 planes.

Would be sensible IMO to copy that model - allows for one FAA squadron to be regularly deployed on the active carrier in a hybrid LHA role, and another RAF one to be deployed also on the carrier or land base, scaling up to 36 a/c in as surge strike mode.

I don't see why it would be sensible. I am not sure why number of planes is reduced from 12 to 9. It is possible that this is done as that was usual compliment of the planes operated by Invincible class or there is some other reason. The only "good" thing that 9 planes is giving is having 4 squadrons so 2 per carrier. But chance that both carriers will operate at full capacity at the same time is really small.

On the other hand, it would require more air crews and additional facilities, which would cost much more without.

It does not really have much sense in terms of number of planes either as QE is much bigger than Invincible class and could accommodate larger squadrons (10 to 12) planes.

So generally negative sides by far outweigh positive (if there is any at all). If UK wants more squadrons, just get more planes.

I would really like to know what is an issue of having three squadrons (well there might be more if UK stick with 138 but somehow I doubt), that four squadrons will solve.

If you think that the F35b’s will always be allocated to the carriers then three squadrons are ok, I suspect that the RAF has other plans however. Also, I could be wrong but I thought also traditionally the FAA squadrons were focused towards Carrier Air Patrol (air defence) and the RAF tended more towards Strike. Suspect the differences are gone, but a carrier in a LHA configuration with a squadron of 9 a/c for CAP (for each carrier) sounds a base level adding others as needed. The carriers are very unlikely to both be operated in Strike configuration without a significant number of USMC a/c, but one in Strike and the other in LHA configurations is possible.

[sol]

If you think that the F35b’s will always be allocated to the carriers then three squadrons are ok, I suspect that the RAF has other plans however.

I don't think it was ever intended for F-35B to operate just from CV. So of course that some squadron might be deployed elsewhere, for example somewhere in Scandinavia.

Also, I could be wrong but I thought also traditionally the FAA squadrons were focused towards Carrier Air Patrol (air defence) and the RAF tended more towards Strike. Suspect the differences are gone ...

When they are on board of CV, they will perform same tasks. Thing is they are mixed squadrons, so they have both Royal Navy and RAF pilots.

... but a carrier in a LHA configuration with a squadron of 9 a/c for CAP (for each carrier) sounds a base level adding others as needed. The carriers are very unlikely to both be operated in Strike configuration without a significant number of USMC a/c, but one in Strike and the other in LHA configurations is possible.

With three squadrons you can still operate 2 squadrons on one and 1 on the second CV. Even if one of the squadrons is deployed somewhere else, and there is a need to activate second CV, it could probably be recalled on time, as lot of thing would need to be done before that CV could sail. After all, planes are not only issue but escorts and support ships too and those would not be easy to find. And there is always 207 which could lend some planes if really needed.

[Ron5]

I don't think it was ever intended for F-35B to operate just from CV.

The original program name was Future Carrier Borne Aircraft (FCBA). The RAF swung into action and stole the program, renaming it to Joint Combat Aircraft. Idiot politicians let them get away with it, more than happy for RAF inter-service politics to give them excuses for cancelling projects.

[serge750]

Funding for more F-35 is "ring fenced" :

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/funding ... f-35-jets/

[abc123]

Didn’t the Joint Harrier Force have 70 a/c with 4 front-line squadrons, each with 9 a/c?

Would be sensible IMO to copy that model - allows for one FAA squadron to be regularly deployed on the active carrier in a hybrid LHA role, and another RAF one to be deployed also on the carrier or land base, scaling up to 36 a/c in as surge strike mode.

I think that was more because of the carrier force at the time ( Invincible class ), that couldn't fit much more on a carrier than 9 of them, so that enough helicopters could be carried too. During peace-time use, of course. Wartime measures are something completely different.
So, IMHO, no sense to have 9 aircafts in one squadron, you don't build 70 000+ t carrier to carry 9 fighters.

[serge750]

Joint Harrier was a disaster. Invincibles usually just deployed with helo's at that time.

One of the many "benefits" of Naval Aviation being owned by the RAF.

[SW1]

The joint harrier force never made it to 4 front line squadrons it only got to 3.

The invincible class operated with up to 14 harriers on it

Just a nice pic

[serge750]

Dumb move by the RN getting rid of the Seaharrier in 2008? & trusting in the jointforce ( understandable given lack of funds - wonder what the theme is.... ) could of made an easier transition from sea harrier to F35 & also would of been great to see the SH & F35 mix on the QEC decks......late 2000's/2010 where some dubious finacialy lead dumb decisions were made

[Ron5]

The joint harrier force never made it to 4 front line squadrons it only got to 3.

The invincible class operated with up to 14 harriers on it

Just a nice pic

Not very often !!!!

[bobp]

Update on delivery schedule plus serials...