UK Defence Forum

How many squadrons would be required if the F35B was to be deployed only for RN?
(For now I am assuming that Typoon and eventually Tempest will meet RAF needs).

If we had four squadrons, that means RN could deploy two to each CSG.
Would that be sufficient or would we need to rotate squadrons for active duty across the CSG's?

Am I right in thinking that typical squadron is 12 planes at full strength? If so would CSG normally deploy with additional planes and/or reserve pilots to cover maintenance / illness?

I say normal, recognising that we only have CSG21 to currently refer to and that was with only one incomplte UK squadron plus USMC Squadron.What about previously with Harriers on Invincible Class carriers?

wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑11 Dec 2021, 16:37 How many squadrons would be required if the F35B was to be deployed only for RN?

Depends on if the FWUAS (VIXEN) delivers and how many will be purchased / available.

Assuming, a full wartime load of 60 a/c - this could be a mix of 24 F35b + 24 Vixen + 12 Merlins HCA4/HM2, would mean 2 x 12 F35b a/c per carrier, four front line squadrons in total, plus an OCU/reserve squadron (No. 207) and a trials squadron (No. 17).

wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑11 Dec 2021, 16:37 How many squadrons would be required if the F35B was to be deployed only for RN?
.

I'm not quite sure that question makes sense? Please explain.

topman wrote: ↑11 Dec 2021, 19:11

wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑11 Dec 2021, 16:37 How many squadrons would be required if the F35B was to be deployed only for RN?
.

I'm not quite sure that question makes sense? Please explain.

I thought currently the UK F35B's are being shared by the RN and RAF?
Hence why this very topic is in Joint Service section rather than Royal Navy?

I even stated in my previous query which you did not quote:
"(For now I am assuming that Typoon and eventually Tempest will meet RAF needs)."

So I am assuming nil F35B's for RAF and all F35B's bought by UK being used for RN.....
I hope that clarifies what I meant.

Repulse wrote: ↑11 Dec 2021, 17:22

wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑11 Dec 2021, 16:37 How many squadrons would be required if the F35B was to be deployed only for RN?

Depends on if the FWUAS (VIXEN) delivers and how many will be purchased / available.

Assuming, a full wartime load of 60 a/c - this could be a mix of 24 F35b + 24 Vixen + 12 Merlins HCA4/HM2, would mean 2 x 12 F35b a/c per carrier, four front line squadrons in total, plus an OCU/reserve squadron (No. 207) and a trials squadron (No. 17).

So if 6 squadrons including reserve and trials squadrons, would that mean 6*12 = 72 aircraft fielded, and thus 80-90 F35B's needed to be bought to cover maintenance and attrition?

I think i understand what you mean, but i think you're looking through the wrong end of telescope.

Anyway moot point, it's joint service and that's not changing.

I thought you meant that the F35B was exclusively for carrier ops - let’s leave the FAA vs RAF discussion to the past where it belongs IMO.

Bae wins contract for Block 4 electronic warfare systems................

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/air- ... w-systems/

An interesting little Christmas distraction:

http://psk.blog.24heures.ch/archive/202 ... 72260.html

Rumors obviously.

Japan getting extremely serious.

Many more A's and a total of 84 F-35 B's potentially.

Apologies if I have missed this somewhere, has the F35 been given an official type designation in UK service - e.g. GR Mk 1 or similar? No mention even on the RAF website. Cheers.

KiwiMuzz wrote: ↑29 Dec 2021, 21:19 Apologies if I have missed this somewhere, has the F35 been given an official type designation in UK service - e.g. GR Mk 1 or similar? No mention even on the RAF website. Cheers.

None so far. Quite a few to choose from...FGR, FG or in FAA parlance FA.

Been a trend recently e.g. C-17 or C-130J (even though its actually the C4 or C5). Then Reaper gets RG.1....someone needs to get a grip of it.

Timmymagic wrote: ↑30 Dec 2021, 15:26

None so far. Quite a few to choose from...FGR, FG or in FAA parlance FA.

Been a trend recently e.g. C-17 or C-130J (even though its actually the C4 or C5). Then Reaper gets RG.1....someone needs to get a grip of it.

I just hope it isn't the RAF and FAA failing to agree on what the designation should be! All part of the joy of smooshing together two different arms with two different roles, I guess.

Just make it the FRS1 like the Sea Harrier originally was. That would seem to cover things nicely and shows the RAF who has dibs on the aircraft.

Lord Jim wrote: ↑30 Dec 2021, 21:09 Just make it the FRS1 like the Sea Harrier originally was. That would seem to cover things nicely and shows the RAF who has dibs on the aircraft.

The S denoted Strike (i.e. nuclear weapons delivery). FA would be the most FAA one. I suspect given the F-35's prodigious reconaissance ability FGR will be chosen eventually...

Never understood why "Strike" always denoted nuclear delivery. The Tornado had that role yet was given GR as its role shortcut.

Lord Jim wrote: ↑31 Dec 2021, 01:13 Never understood why "Strike" always denoted nuclear delivery. The Tornado had that role yet was given GR as its role shortcut.

Same reason Buccaneer was S1 and S2. Naval aircraft. RAF used different designation system.

KiwiMuzz wrote: ↑30 Dec 2021, 20:33

Timmymagic wrote: ↑30 Dec 2021, 15:26

None so far. Quite a few to choose from...FGR, FG or in FAA parlance FA.

Been a trend recently e.g. C-17 or C-130J (even though its actually the C4 or C5). Then Reaper gets RG.1....someone needs to get a grip of it.

I just hope it isn't the RAF and FAA failing to agree on what the designation should be! All part of the joy of smooshing together two different arms with two different roles, I guess.

Or more likely - the operators have better things to worry about than the internet fan bois.

Won’t have a designation. It is a stealth aircraft after all.

downsizer wrote: ↑31 Dec 2021, 12:54

KiwiMuzz wrote: ↑30 Dec 2021, 20:33

Timmymagic wrote: ↑30 Dec 2021, 15:26

None so far. Quite a few to choose from...FGR, FG or in FAA parlance FA.

Been a trend recently e.g. C-17 or C-130J (even though its actually the C4 or C5). Then Reaper gets RG.1....someone needs to get a grip of it.

I just hope it isn't the RAF and FAA failing to agree on what the designation should be! All part of the joy of smooshing together two different arms with two different roles, I guess.

Or more likely - the operators have better things to worry about than the internet fan bois.

Am waiting with bated breath for you to explain why I'm a fan boi for speculating why established naming protocols are apparently being ignored.

KiwiMuzz wrote: ↑31 Dec 2021, 21:57

downsizer wrote: ↑31 Dec 2021, 12:54

KiwiMuzz wrote: ↑30 Dec 2021, 20:33

Timmymagic wrote: ↑30 Dec 2021, 15:26

None so far. Quite a few to choose from...FGR, FG or in FAA parlance FA.

Been a trend recently e.g. C-17 or C-130J (even though its actually the C4 or C5). Then Reaper gets RG.1....someone needs to get a grip of it.

I just hope it isn't the RAF and FAA failing to agree on what the designation should be! All part of the joy of smooshing together two different arms with two different roles, I guess.

Or more likely - the operators have better things to worry about than the internet fan bois.

Am waiting with bated breath for you to explain why I'm a fan boi for speculating why established naming protocols are apparently being ignored.

Because those involved in the project are busy delivering actual outputs rather than worrying about a meaningless designation that only fan bois on the net care about.

They probably already have one but simply still referring to them as the F-35 or Lightning is more easily understood by the media and public at large.

downsizer wrote: ↑01 Jan 2022, 14:56
Because those involved in the project are busy delivering actual outputs rather than worrying about a meaningless designation that only fan bois on the net care about.

Methinks the fan boi doth protest too much.

NAFF 1 (Naval & Air Force Fighter 1) then!

That would work as it could be seen as giving the Navy priority in their use.