UK Defence Forum

Well there are "rumors" (that i couldn't confirm so far) of "influence fight" between the IT navy and air force... the Navy insisting on getting all 30 B variants (the 15 they are already set to get + the 15 F-35B that the air force is/was supposed to get).
The point of the Italian Navy being with "only 15 F-35B" they can't supply an air wing to both Cavour and Trieste.

-> What keeps the air force from flying their B variant off the navy carriers (pretty much like in the UK), I don't know... I thought this was the plan all along.

Maybe Eagle Spotters or a member from Italy could share some light on this

xav wrote:Well there are "rumors" (that i couldn't confirm so far) of "influence fight" between the IT navy and air force... the Navy insisting on getting all 30 B variants

As expected. And only normal thing, that the Navy would have all B-variants and Air Force all A-variants.

abc123 wrote:As expected. And only normal thing, that the Navy would have all B-variants and Air Force all A-variants.

Yeah don't tell that to the FAA...

xav wrote:

abc123 wrote:As expected. And only normal thing, that the Navy would have all B-variants and Air Force all A-variants.

Yeah don't tell that to the FAA...

If the UK were to buy all 138 it has said it would then the FAA would be happy say 68 B's letting the RAF get on with 70 A,s

As for the Italians with only 30 Bs it would make sense that they all went to the navy

Tempest414 wrote:

xav wrote:

abc123 wrote:As expected. And only normal thing, that the Navy would have all B-variants and Air Force all A-variants.

Yeah don't tell that to the FAA...

If the UK were to buy all 138 it has said it would then the FAA would be happy say 68 B's letting the RAF get on with 70 A,s

As for the Italians with only 30 Bs it would make sense that they all went to the navy

Even the Italian ratio 30:60 or 48:90 would be acceptable to me...

I'm sure many in the RAF would appreciate the As. The only downside its that they can't be refulled by the RAF's Voyager tankers, which use probe and drogue method, but rather use the boom method of refuelling. The RAAF's A330 tankers do however have a boom. Whether the RAF's tankers could be retrospectively modified on a cost-effective basis is a question.

abc123 wrote:Even the Italian ratio 30:60 or 48:90 would be acceptable to me...

I think 60 B's should the cut off if we were to move to A's as this could allow for 5 Sqn's of 10 jets allowing both carriers 20 jets and a OCU plus a 10 jets in the pool

J. Tattersall wrote:I'm sure many in the RAF would appreciate the As. The only downside its that they can't be refulled by the RAF's Voyager tankers, which use probe and drogue method, but rather use the boom method of refuelling. The RAAF's A330 tankers do however have a boom. Whether the RAF's tankers could be retrospectively modified on a cost-effective basis is a question.

it is a problem however we could join the European tanker system

Tempest414 wrote:join the European tanker system

their deliveries are running
- I wonder if it is a buyer's market now that airlines have freezed their purchases

You could pick up a330 classics in the second hand market quite readily. New is unlikely airbus are switching to a330neo but have cut production numbers right down on a330 with a350 now more prevalent in the much reduced widebody market.

Lots of interesting things going on with a330mrtt particularly with Singapore, best option would be bring the 5 surge aircraft into the fleet modify and offer to NATO as a uk contribution to enhanced aar/transport/istar.

J. Tattersall wrote:I'm sure many in the RAF would appreciate the As. The only downside its that they can't be refulled by the RAF's Voyager tankers, which use probe and drogue method, but rather use the boom method of refuelling.

And how much would that mythical beast cost?

And would that stop the same voyagers from refuelling the F35b’s? Sounds like a potential “Own Goal Double” to me!

No it would not

The own goal was not fitting the booms in the first place as the wing pods are still used on the A330 as on the RAAF

As well as not fitting Cargo Doors on the Voyagers. The MoD needs to revisit the contract, as it need to get the most out of all its platforms, and having booms on the Voyagers would allow them to refuel the P-8As and C-17 if needed as well as opening the door for a F-35A buy, if only ever so slightly.

Like all PFIs the MoD might have saved money up front, but it paying way too much over the duration of the contract and actually has too many tankers if you include those in use elsewhere. We should also take advantage of the Atlas being pre-plumbed for AAR duties and have a number used in that role, having one in the Falklands to replace the Voyager often down there and to support rotor craft operations such as SF support. When not needed they can go back to their day job of being Sky Trucks.

Sorry wondered off topic a bit.

Just in case I'm more an outsider than a "fan" (i got interested in the defense thanks to its procurement). So i could get things wrong.

From the start it was decided to divide the B in two MMI and AM. (I dont agree but that was the decision, for me they should have went all to the navy)

Problems started when politics cut the number of the F-35.

It was decided that the first 4-5 would have went to the Navy since the AM was getting already the A.

Looks like MMI overstepped into a different field and thus AM rebalanced by reestablishing 1 to MMI 1 to AM delivers.

So it means there are 2 B of MMI in USA (they will be 3) and the AM started receiving them.

Combine this with the fact the navy still hasn't prepared its base for its B meanwhile the AM did.

It is a clusterfuck from the point of view of an outsider.

The navy will never reach operability by getting one over two deliveries. Both AM and MMI will have to keep the Harrier increasing the expenditure.


Sorry for the broken english bur it has been a sleepless night. Some rumors from the Italian forum. Two speculations:
1-Hospital ship 16k-20k tons
2- speculation on how the LXDs are going to look


3-No news from Egypt Im praying the politics don't stop such a huge deal.

Meriv9 wrote:1-Hospital ship 16k-20k tons
2- speculation on how the LXDs are going to look

Is the drive for a hospital ship as a result of COVID? Or are there other reasons?

Where are the 76mm on the LXD...has the Italian Navy lost its mojo?

Timmymagic wrote:Where are the 76mm on the LXD...has the Italian Navy lost its mojo?

... and I thought my eyesight was failing!

I will believe it when I see it an Italian ship without a glorious 76mm

Meriv9 wrote:I will believe it when I see it an Italian ship without a glorious 76mm

Surely 360 degree CIWS will mean at least 2x76mm Sovraponte....otherwise there needs to be some sort of parliamentary commission..although to be really safe surely they need 5-6...

Look when i go to sleep i dream of Atlantas

Look at that sexy amount of dual purpouse guns.

Very nice, but I think I would prefer one of these

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:It ... w_view.jpg

That LXD looks like it already has two to three OTO 76mm guns, so no need to worry. WE are so used to looking at frigate and Corvette sized platforms it is difficult to visualise how small the mounts look on a ship this size.

Scimitar54 wrote:Very nice, but I think I would prefer one of these

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:It ... w_view.jpg

Not enough AA guns



Not going to make the same mistake twice.

The chief of staff of the Italian Navy said that in the second half of 2020 the contract will be signed for the start of the feasibility studies of the 2 future DDX fighters (intended to replace the De la Penne and Mimbelli fighters). This is the most reliable interpretation of the advances currently available:



https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/snf ... 200610.png

In which region does Italy's magic money trees grow?