Penny Mordaunt, the Secretary of State for Defence, recently reiterated that the UK still plans to buy 138 F-35 Lightning aircraft over the life of the programme.

Mordaunt said in a Ministerial Statement:

“The F-35B Lightning II is an advanced, fifth-generation aircraft procured to operate alongside the RAF’s Typhoon.

It will be jointly manned by the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy, will be able to operate with equal capability from land and sea, and will form an integral part of Carrier Strike operating from the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers. With advanced sensors, mission systems and low-observable technology (stealth), the Lightning is a fifth-generation air system which will provide the UK with a world-beating combat air capability.

The Lightning will give the UK operational flexibility, allowing us to act at a time and place of our choosing. Seventeen of the first tranche of 48 F-35Bs have already been delivered; we will maintain our plan to buy 138 F-35 Lightning aircraft over the life of the programme, as stated in the Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015.”

Questions still remain however over variant, with the Government often stating that no decisions have been made on which variant of the jet to purchase after the first 48, which are to be F-35B jets.

Earl Howe, Minister of State for Defence and Deputy Leader of the House of Lords said last year:

“As part of the Strategic Defence and Security Review in 2015, we reaffirmed our commitment to procure 138 F-35 Lightning II aircraft.

The first tranche of 48 aircraft will be of the F-35B variant, which will be jointly operated by the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy, and capable of operating from both land and the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers. The decision on the variant of subsequent tranches of Lightning will be taken at the appropriate time.”

The F-35 family includes three variants – all single-seat jets: the F-35A conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) variant, the F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) variant, and the F-35C carrier variant (CV).

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

77 COMMENTS

    • Might be better to see what’s coming down the pipeline rotary wing gunship wise. The U.S. Army is developing the next gen gunship right now and expects to field it in a decade. The RAF might be interested…

      Cheers!

    • Exactly it’s the life of the F35 program!. Some folks seem to think we will have 130 odd of these birds flying at the same time. We will be lucky with 70.

    • Im coming round to idea that @72 ‘B’s plus a bunch of’ ‘A’ s would be best way to get a greater number of squadrans operational concurrently. Raf would want 3 sq operational as a minimum and for carrier force to have any credibility it would also require a min of 3 sq. Add OCU, spares and reserves.

      Removes competing demands if something trully significant happens over europe.

      Just a view.

      P

      • If we are committed to 138 aircraft, why have we not stepped in to take some of Turkey’s F35-A’s from the production line? They will not be operating the F-35 due to them purchasing the S400 from Russia.

        I hope this will give us some idea as to just how committed we are in ordering more in the short term! Or will the unit cost increase due to the lack of sales to Turkey?

        Or further delays due to the lack of parts?

        “She added that the US was already looking for other contractors to produce more than 900 parts for the aircraft that are currently produced by Turkish companies.”
        https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/turkey-f35-fighter-jets-s400-missile-defence-russia-shanahan-a8950361.html

      • Price per F-35A will be higher for smaller numbers, compared to a lower price per F-35B, for a larger number of them.
        Cheaper to have an all F-35B fleet.
        Please see my post below!
        Money saved be put towards Tempest development.

      • @ Pete – Sorry but why would buying the ‘A’ variant be the best way? If we need more airframes then we can buy Typhoon and deliver them faster than waiting for space in 3 years time on the LM production line. And at least we have a far more capable (in RAF wider terms) aircraft.

        • Because its the capabilities the f35 A brings that the RAF will seek unfettered access to and additional capacity and range. Im advocating an increase in overall operational airframes gradually over time…. and it will take time to put additional human resources in place anyway. Raf with 2or3 sq xA and 4 or 5sq x typhoon….with FAA operating 3xB for a 10 sq fleet overall would provide a balance… Especially if one x carrier is in APAC supporting global britain and balloon goes up close to home.

          Also would you rather see major upgrades to typhoon or timely arrival of tempest. I suspect both

          • @ Pete – Yes I can see you want to have the ‘A’ variant but you haven’t answered the key question – What does the ‘A’ bring to the RAF that it doesn’t already have in ‘B’ plus Typhoon? By any measure apart from sensor suite the Typhoon is a better QRA, CAP and GA asset and we build it here.

            As for Typhoon upgrades that is a given because of who owns the majority of shares in both EuroJet GMBH and Eurofighter GMBH. Namely our companies and their subsidiaries along with Leonardo all of whom are partnered in Tempest. Typhoon upgrades will be airborne proving testbeds for what goes into Tempest. Its just my opinion but I think you will see most of the effort going into designing a viable 5.5 Gen airframe design that can be manufactured with the latest Robot systems but which will incorporate whatever the latest Typhoon engines, sensor systems, avionics, weapon systems etc etc as a ‘Mk I’ version. This can be achieved relatively quickly and at acceptable cost. What follows will be the expensive and difficult part.

  3. It would be nice to get up to around 72, 6 squadrons worth by 2025 and increase buying significantly once Full rate production is started and costs come down. Then we can just buy replacements there after as the airframes degrade. For me 3 to 4 squadrons of frontline F35b should go to the Fleet air arm and RAF get 2-3 squadrons to work with our Typhoons. That way we can fully load a strike carrier or choose to operate both with a lesser but still potent capability if needed, and keep the RAF happy and take advantage of the A models greater performance and range.

  4. Sorry…don’t believe it. Penny Mordaunt hasn’t been in post long enough to change anything, but also I suspect we don’t know ourselves. Got to keep the US sweet whilst we decide ourselves.

    Personally can’t see us getting more than 70-90. And that’s all we should get. Enough to run the carriers, with a small expeditionary capability. 90 (fully operational) would be perfect.

    We should instead buy another 24 Typhoon Tranche 3 with AESA and keep the production line going as long as possible to prepare for Tempest, just like the Germans and Spanish are planning for FCAS. We may even end up with a couple more export orders to the Saudi’s etc. if we show some faith in it ourselves. All the rest of our efforts need to be directed in that direction, 90 F-35B gives the RN and RAF a credible carrier air wing and first day capability. We should cut the remaining 40 odd F-35B and support the UK combat air industry, its absolutely critical we do.

    • But the RAF want nice new 5th gen! Not 4 plus…. the RAF will try and get F35As that will make them exclusively RAF.

      • Well they can have them…under Joint Force F-35…
        Then they can wait for Tempest.
        The RAF chomping at the bit would be very useful to make sure it goes ahead on time…

    • The Government still intends to order 13 Type 26 Frigates ….

      Said many times over in Parliamentary answers until one day they simply decided they wouldn’t!

    • It’s a pity, as I love the Typhoon, but I think it’s more likely the RAF ends up with a lot less Typhoons than actually buying more. Currently the RAF operates 7 front-line fast jet squadrons, if one considers 617 Sqdn fully operational, with a 2025 commitment for a total of 9 (7 Typhoon, 2 F-35). Unless things get much better, that will be the peak FJ strength moving forward.

      (The MOD is committed to 48 F-35Bs and it’s not difficult to see why; they will need that many to keep at least 2 squadrons operational. I wish they would commit to at least another 12 jets, to absolutely ENSURE a surge strength of 36 F-35Bs when the excrement strikes the oscillator and QE/POW goes into full carrier mode.)

      Now if the RAF caves in and buys the B variant, performance difference notwithstanding, the solution is easy; they might conceivably share an attrition/OCU pool and save a dozen-odd airframes, so they might get the RAF to help fill out the CAW surge squadron just like the Harrier GRs did in the Falklands. Everybody can squeeze by on about 72-odd F-35Bs standing up a “shared” pool of 4 front-line squadrons.

      But if the RAF holds out for the A, then a total of 108+ F-35s needs to be operating concurrently in order to supply at least 3 squadrons for QE/POW, and 2 for the RAF.

      Given the above limitation of 9 squadrons total; in the former scenario, there’s room for 5 squadrons of Typhoon. In the latter, only 4 squadrons. This I believe will be the median, most-likely scenarios.

      Best-case scenario: the BAF sorts itself out right sharp, and can operate 10 FJ squadrons. The CAW gets their 3 F-35B sqdns, the RAF gets their 2 F-35s (any variant) and 5 Typhoons – how lovely that would be.

      Worst-case scenario: budget issues mean only 8 squadrons total are possible. The CAW only gets 2 F-35B squadrons, the RAF 2 F-35As, and Typhoon is cut to 4 squadrons.

    • Remember we have a 15% interest in the F-35 – and 15% of the expected 3,000 production run is 450, so the UK combat air industry is doing quite nicely out of the deal.

      • The 15% is widely misunderstood.

        It’s good PR, but is actually designed to confuse.

        It’s not 15% made in the UK by value. It’s UK companies owned share. For example the F-35B Lift Fan from Rolls Royce is made in the US, BAE Systems makes a lot of the gear in the US (EW system amongst other things). The 15% is not the benefit to the UK…its far, far less. If the F-136 had gone ahead the UK made content would have been higher, but it was cancelled.

        If you want the UK combat air industry (i.e. UK workers, smaller UK manufacturers, UK production facilities and UK tax man) to benefit you need to get behind Typhoon and Tempest.

  5. On the question fatigue, just how long can a F35 airframe last? If its twice as long as say, a Tornado, I can understand the modest 138 units. I just feel it should be more?

    • There is a defense article kicking around somewhere saying the service life was as little as 7 years for the first batch of F35 air frames. Let’s hope to God its not.

      • If true, it might be down to midlife airframe stresses, which may be repairable after a major inspection? I can’t see the composites being the prime cause?

  6. Im sorry guys but to say that all politicians are the same or worse is just plain daft. It’s the same as saying we’re all the same or all police officers are the same. There are good and bad and yes some ,in my opinion , are rubbish but without them who makes the decisions..the mob.
    My suggestion to those of you who really believe this. Stand for election yourself and put your money and time where your mouth is.

  8. With one caveat I’ve nothing against the UK ordering the F-35A – it’s cheaper to buy and run than the F-35B, has a substantially greater payload and is much longer range. The RAF needs a modern land-based strike plane, and in that role the F-35A is obviously superior. The important caveat is that we also need enough F-35B’s for the QE’s – two frontline squadrons of 12 aircraft, and the ability to form a third in an emergency is a not unreasonable requirement. Add in some airframes for training, trials, testing, maintenance, attrition, … and 48 aircraft is clearly too few. I’m not sure how useful the comparison is, but I believe that 56 Sea Harrier FA2’s were built/converted to maintain a force of two 8-9 aircraft frontline squadrons and a training squadron of c.12 aircraft.

    • I am sure, that the ‘lift-fan’ could be removed from a
      F-35B, and stored for when necessary needed, and a fuel tank fitted in the space vacated by the lift-fan? I
      f so, it would give the F-35B the same range as the F-35A. The converted F-35B’s would be use by the RAF for conventional take-off and landing. No need to purchase a whole new logistics trail if procuring another aircraft version, e.g. using the drogue refuelling as the F-35B and OCU. If the RAF was to purchase a small number of F-35A’s, the unit price would most likely be higher per aircraft
      compared to a larger purchase of F-35B’s.
      The same in every day life, you pay more for small amounts of goods then larger amounts.

      • “I am sure, that the ‘lift-fan’ could be removed from a
        F-35B, and stored for when necessary needed, and a fuel tank fitted in the space vacated by the lift-fan? I
        f so, it would give the F-35B the same range as the F-35A.”

        Errr…no.

        That would alter the entire CoG of the aircraft, particularly as the fuel is used up. You’d have to do a entirely new test programme that would be pretty much the same as for a new aircraft i.e. utterly unaffordable.

        F-35 is purchased in production lots, with set prices for all the customers in the Lot. So if you order 1 and the USAF orders 100 you all get the same price.

        • I see your point Rudeboy, but how come the behind the cockpit fuel tank in a F-35A does not seem to affect its performance and CoG much, as the tank empties?
          Most likely the fuel tank in a F-35A only takes up a
          certain proportion of the behind the cockpit space, and other fixed weight items fill the rest of the space.
          The same filling could be applied to a F-35B with a lift-fan removed, and a fuel tank the same size fitted, and positioned as in a F-35A. And with added weights fitted to adjust Centre of Gravity.
          The whole configuration could be containerized that would fit in lift-fan space. and adjusts the CoG.

          • The B version regardless of whether the lift fan is fitted or not will still be slower and have less range than the A or C versions. This is all down to the wider fuselage that is required to make allowances for the lift fans diameter. The wider fuselage means the wave drag affect is higher on the B version which cuts into the maximum speed and range.
            The flights stabs should be able to compensate for the missing weight of the fan, so long as comparable weight is fitted in its place. The tank may have to be the master tank where all other tanks feed though to maintain the CoG, but its doable.

    • I would consider 48 aircraft to be barely adequate for Queen Elizabeth alone. 24 F-35B should be her bare-minimum air wing, with 36 as a standard wartime air wing. The Royal Navy should look to eventually buy 96 F-35Bs, so that Prince of Wales can run the same size air wing.

      These are large ships whose entire offensive power revolves around the F-35B. After spending so much money to get them into service, skimping on the air wing would mean the Royal Navy might as well have just built smaller carriers, about 2/3 the size of QE and PoW.

      It also seems like such an obvious mistake to have retired all of the Harriers prematurely. A few of the Harrier GR.9A should’ve been kept in service and fitted with Sea Vixen radars from the retired Sea Harriers as an interim backup to the F-35B until a full force of the Lightnings were in service.

      I get that Parliament wanted to save money. But again, QE and PoW are are, expensive ships. To get their money’s worth out of them, they need full-sized air wings.

    • Indeed Cam. A greater pity was the cancellation by Harold Wilson of the P 1154 supersonic version in the 1960’s. A number were in an advanced state of build on the assembly floor when he pulled the plug. The Super Harrier had some significant teething problems at the time but over the years they would have been sorted and the market for such an aircraft and its successors would have filled the demand for VSTOL aircraft being taken up by the F35B today.

      • There are far too many of these pitys in recent British history (Harrier, TSR2, Black Arrow rocket, Intercity 250, etc., etc.).

        In future we have to start better funding these types of indigenous projects, in at least some fields.

    • The Harriers should’ve been kept around as an interim for the Royal Navy’s new carriers, at least until a full force of F-35Bs are ready.

      Imagine if a few dozen Harrier GR.9A were fitted with the Blue Vixen radar removed from the Sea Harriers. A “Harrier FGR.11” could’ve been flying off the new carriers right now.

  10. It’s a joke when you think that we have failed to purchase the full amount of Typhoons to replace the Tornado F3s, Sea Harrier FA2 and then Harrier GR7/9 were decommissioned before their replacement, F35, was ready, and Tornado GR4’s replacement, the FOAS, was sh!tcanned before it got off the page. And we still can’t commit to buying F35 so we can still have an air force. It’s obviously nice to save money and dripfeed the F35 procurement across the length of the programme, but only if we still have our existing aircraft. But the existing aircraft have beenretired. So that means we need their replacements immediately. Or is the plan now to run an air force of under 200 fast jets??

    The F35 is all well and good and it’s lovely to have brand new shiny kit, but only if it is bought in numbers that make it relevant. If we can’t do that, then we should accept it and buy a so called inferior aircraft that we can operate in the numbers necessary for sustained operations.

    At this rate in 20 years the air force will be reduced to a single squadron, the army a lonely armoured battlegroup and the navy a shiny frigate, while the CASD will be fitted for but not with nuclear missiles.

      • I would be delighted if we actually had 200 Fast Jets.

        Yes I think that is the plan, for far less sadly.

        Later squadrons of F35 will replace earlier Typhoons, so 7/2 becomes 5/4.

          • And your right about the demise of our fast jet fleet.

            Mod hide behind capability, but how can capability be in 2 places at once. It’s gone too far.

  11. Lets face it, pre lot 8 F-35 were/are dogs. It is lucky the UK has only 4 of them. I think the F-35 will truly shine with block 4 software & engine upgrade 2.0. That is 3 years away, probably. So I am willing to wait.

    • Agreed. I’m not too sad they’ve kept the buy small so far. Working up a new capability like this is big work anyway- we wouldn’t have the resources and manpower to be flying the jets if we had them anyway.
      It also scores us points with the USMC, as they were keen to get an initial mass operating quickly regardless of the block number. It’s good to give something away for no real loss and get goodwill in return. I reckon that we’ll be doing a lot more work with the USMC going forward, and they’ve been pretty generous behind the scenes (along with the USN) in having our pilots and techs do tours with them so we don’t completely lose our carrier strike knowledge. To be honest, I kind of lean towards a more USMC model for the entire British armed forces, but that’s a discussion for another day..!

      • This logic only works if we don’t have a war between now and when we get them. In fact you can argue we can wait for the next gen f36 orw whatever it will be called, as they will better still.

        The problem is wars are unpredictable and these jets can’t be built overnight

  12. Wouldn’t it be cheaper to buy some S-400s. They seem to be pretty good. Where’s Duncan Sandys when you need him?

  13. I think everyone forgets that the carriers can handle up to 60 aircraft. 2 squadrons and 3 in surge conditions is total BS. They could easily handle 4 squadrons of F35 and even a fifth!
    These ships are terribly under armed and dont even get me stared about point defence

  14. And so the bids for F-35As on here start afresh. And yet no one can offer any valid reasons why the RAF would want an aircraft that is sub optimal to a Typhoon in the tasks for which the RAF would use this aircraft (QRA, Air Defence and GA). It is slower by some magnitude, cannot manage Supercruise for more than a few miles, is slower up to height, cannot lift anywhere near the ordnance of a Typhoon and adds another airframe to the logistics and maintenance costs. Plus it will upset the Andrew….

    An F-35 has just two advantages over a Typhoon – Stealth and Sensor Suite:
    * Stealth – now very arguable as to benefit given the latest generations of radar and surveillance equipment and which is totally lost when wing pylons are fitted to increase weapon load.
    * Sensor Suite – No different to the ‘B’ variant which is already capable of working with a fully loaded Typhoon. And of course the ‘B’ can land on carriers, in car parks or wherever it chooses or can be flown in CTOL mode just like an ‘A’ variant

    So can those suggesting we short buy F-35Bs to buy F-35As please explain WHY?

    Again I place on record my belief we will not buy 138 F-35s of any variant (and certainly not fly more than 70 at any one time) because we are now committing to Tempest which will for sure do all an F-35 can and more and is being built to replace Typhoon. So in one airframe we will have what F-35s and Typhoon do combined. Plus we can design in and build a Naval variant (or just hang hooks on every Tempest like the US Air Force used to do).

    • I’ve grown to have a great admiration for what the French did with the Rafale project (admittedly they stuck in the EFA project just long enough to learn all our secrets before going it alone, but still). It would have been a big help if we had developed Typhoon from the start as a naval, carrier-borne fighter. That would have allowed us to take our time with the F35 procurement without undermining our overall capability.
      I know that at the time of designing the EFA/Eurofighter there was no desire to replace the Invincibles so why bother on the R&D for a supersonic carrier fighter that would be adopted by one of the 4 partner nations, but it should have been apparent to us that we would need to replace Invincible at some point with a more capable, fleet-size carrier, so it would’ve been great to have planned for it.
      Weirdly, the roles have reversed, with French partnering with the Germans on FCAS, and us going it alone (so far) with Tempest. I think the French have made a mistake this time, although I’d be quite happy to see FCAS go belly up, if only we can hold our nerve and get Tempest made! (I fear the whole project is vapourware that MoD/BAES are developing to use in whatever future 6th gen international programme comes up, like BAE used Replica to get in on the ground floor with JSF)

      • The biggest problem with the f35 was it was designed from fresh for the 3 versions, which meant to is compromised for all 3. Switching from a typhoon to a vlsl jet would have had the same challenges without the buy size to cover the massive costs in trying to overcome the compromises.

        Naval version of the typhoon would never have worked, especially as we did not have a cat and trap carrier at the time and still don’t.

        The French project worked because they were less ambitious, but equally that meant a jet that is technically on paper less capable than the f35. Being less ambitious is not something the mod can do, all their projects are overly ambitious and that’s why they keep overrunning and overcoating.

        • Yeah I just meant if we had run the Typhoon project like the Rafale. I wouldn’t have bothered with a STOVL Typhoon, just a navalised CATOBAR version. But that would’ve been impossible alongside the Germans, Italians and Spanish. It’s a minor miracle we got them to build Typhoon at all, post German reunification, no way we could have got them to go along with a carrier ready variant.

          This wouldn’t be instead of F35, just to operate alongside it. I don’t think not having a CATOBAR carrier would be an issue to developing the naval variant, but would cost a bit more in R&D. Ultimately it’s what the Chinese, the Indians and potentially also the Swedes are doing. We would have the added benefit of being able to work with the USN. Or, alternatively, we prob should’ve just thrown our lot in with the French!

          Oh well, such is life. What would be nice would at least be to have more Typhoons to free up the few F35s we do have for naval aviation. Effectively an interim purchase, like the Aussies did with the Super Hornet when it was clear there would be a gap between the F111 going out of service and the F35 coming in. But we don’t do that – we just take the opportunity to cut fleet numbers.

          Even if the MoD said they were going to buy more airframes for Typhoon, I wouldn’t believe it would be immediately but it would be another spread job to replace earlier airframes so fleet size remains static 🙁

          • Flight International, 09/02/2011, Eurofighter reveals offer to produce navalised Typhoon.
            I think it was a stobar variant, with stronger landing gear, a modified arrester hook & thrust vectoring engine nozzles, to approach the carrier at reduced speed without restricting pilot vision.

          • Yeah i think that was BAES mischief-making, like saying the QE class can be easily converted to CATOBAR ops in refit 🙂 as far as i’m aware the Typhoon’s sink rate is outside the envelope for carrier landing, and the canards are too far forward, obstructing pilot view. Plus there’s the issue of STOBAR ops giving fastjet aircraft sub-optimal performance: low range, light weapons load.
            I would be happy if we can at least upgrade the current Typhoon fleet with AESA radar, Meteor, the thrust upgrade for the EJ200 and some kind of anti-ship missile.

      • There are now three Nations involved with Tempest, UK, Italy and Sweden. An inter-Government MoU has been signed between the countries to develop a future fighter with the aim of replacing both Typhoon and Gripen (This is not a contract as such – yet!). The Swedes will demand that the aircraft has STOL performance, so it can meet its dispersed airfield requirements when operating from highways. Therefore, if it has STOL, it will be useful for carrier ops.
        The beauty of having both Italy and Sweden on-board is that they have both been actively developing their aircraft (unlike Germany and Spain). So there is a better chance that an aircraft may get made, especially if uses components and systems developed on the Typhoon/Gripen.
        In the US. both the USAF and USN are looking at new fighters to replace the F18 and F22 in the air dominance roles. Boeing has historically lost out to Lockheed Martin on US fighter competitions against the F22 and F35. They have made noises in wanting to join the project. On one hand that’s possibly good news for us as it may give us a road into the US market, but also bad, as Boeing have historically screwed over partners.
        I’ll be very surprised to see the Franco/German FCAS project actually go anywhere. For starters, Germany is notorious at dragging its feet on making decisions or stumping up funds and France will want total control.

        • Yeah I agree it’s definitely positive to be (hopefully) working with the Swedes and not with the Germans! I think there is a good chance of it progressing if they are on board. Leonardo’s involvement likewise will keep the Italians happy. Never got the impression that they were particularly difficult to deal with on Tornado or Typhoon – hopefully they’ll just sit at the back quietly and not rock the boat, just pay R&D costs promptly and in full!
          From a Navy perspective, it would be great if Saab good get some firm orders for the Gripen Maritime (eg Brazil), just so they get the hang of building naval aircraft (which would draw upon their UK based expertise) and then feed back the experience into the naval Tempest programme, so we don’t waste time re-inventing the wheel down the line.
          I heed your warnings about Boeing – think a partnership with them would make us bit part players again. I think their focus would be on the Super Hornet replacement though so we should be safe from the lure of all their lovely money!
          Having said all this…given we cant upgrade Challenger 2, 12 Apaches have fallen off the back of a van somewhere, the Type 31 frigate design hasnt even been chosen yet and the F35 order is scheduled to be finalised sometime in the next century, i’m very worried that the slightest bump in the road will see Tempest go the way of so many other great British advanced aircraft…
          But it’s still more likely to be built than the Franco-German rival!

        • This has t45/horizon written all over it. Sweden will want a cheap option for mid end warfare and we will want top and. Not sure on Italy but I suspect it will fall apart over aims of the nation’s and we will go with whatever option the US chooses.

        • Any source to this claim? I have not seen any such commitments from neither Sweden nor Italy
          Do not confuse Italy and Leonardo. Leonardo is a supplier , they have been excluded from the Franco/German/Spanish effort, therefore they want to get paid on any future fighter project. Leonardo are not bringing money to the table. The Italian governement has not committed any funds to Tempest and Italy’s 5 star movement’s priority is not defence spending. In fact they have been trying to reduce the number of F35.
          Also be careful what you wish for. Just look at what Fincantieri tried to pull on the Romanian Gowind corvettes bid with their so called new partner Naval Group.
          Italy has also been very lax when it comes to Chinese investments in Italy. This has caused friction between Italy and France over sensitive naval defence matters, ie nuclear subs, etc… Not sure you want the Chinese accessing anything on Tempest via an Italian backdoor
          My 2 cents

          • Part of the information is from the Paris airshow by the Italian defence minister Elisabetta Trenta. It may have been just a reaction to not being invited by the Franco/German ministers on her part. But she mentioned that she has been having inter-government talks with the UK about entering the Tempest project and have has come to an agreement. You are right that nothing has been officially published and it may be all spin on her part, but the UK has not denied it.
            It was reported by Janes that: “Speaking to reporters on 21 May, Peter Hultqvist, Swedish Minister for Defence, confirmed previously reported talks with the UK on including Swedish industry, specifically Saab, in the UK project to develop a manned combat aircraft for the 2030 time frame.”
            So high level talks between the Governments is going ahead. I am hoping that within the year something more formal will be announced.

        • If the Tempest project ever reaches fruition, it will be 2040 at the earliest and another decade after that before you see the plane in the numbers needed to have a major impact.

      • @ the_marquis – You pretty much summed it all up there and especially the timing of the Typhoon R & D phase and the Invincibles. I very much hope we are in a more synchronised phase now with Tempest and the QE Class refits.

        While I don’t particularly admire the French way of doing things I wish we in the UK had half the willingness to support our home industries. You have to bear in mind France is historically a socialist (small ‘s’) society and why the French State has equity positions in 81 French companies, ranging from Alstom, Dassault and Renault to Orange and EDF, worth an estimated €90bn and employing 1.7m people. It keeps a firm guiding hand on hundreds more, ready and able to defend its interests. Now I am mystified how they get around EU (and even WTO) rules on ‘state aid’ but there we are. The point being they willingly plough € Bns into home based projects and reap the economic benefits. Again a lesson I so wish our Civil Service would understand before rushing off to anywhere outside the UK to spend our hard earned.

        As I have mentioned before the UK and especially BAES were spot on getting in at ground level(excuse the pun) of the F-35 and especially the ‘B’ STOVL variant. Along with Leonardo in Italy we are the only two European countries with 5th Gen manufacturing and operational experience. THOSE are two very big advantages over where Airbus / Dassault are right now. I can see FCAS ending in very expensive tears with many French toys departing German prams…

    • In a modern war against a competent foe, the survival rate for Gen 4 and Gen 4.5 aircraft is not good on day 1. Something has to take out the air defense and communication networks. The Typhoon will have to remain in the background until this is accomplished.

      • Agree, which is why its crucial we have the F35. If you’re facing a S400 battery complete with its Panstir close in protection. It would be suicide to send in a Typhoon at anything but tree top height and use stand-off weapons to firstly take out the Panstir. Once the Pantsir is taken care-off you’ll be within the minimum height and engagement zones of the S400.
        On day one of a peer vs peer conflict the Typhoons will be too busy doing counter air interdiction. The F35s will be your primary offensive weapon. If the F35 is paired with a Taranos like UAV or even Kratos style wingmen. This will massively help on day one of any conflict.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here