Procurement costs relating to the F-35B have decreased by 24%.
Mark Francois, MP for Rayleigh and Wickford, asked:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what the cost to the public purse is of (a) the F-35 programme and (b) each F-35 aircraft.”
Jeremy Quin, Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, answered:
“The price of an F-35B from Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Lot 11 which comprises the last finalised contract is $115 million. This covers airframe and engine cost and represents a 24% price reduction from our first aircraft ordered. We expect this downward trend to continue in future lots.
Costs of the overall Lightning Programme are set out in the Ministry of Defence Government Major Projects Portfolio data, 2019, which is available in the Library of the House.”
Recently, the F-35 hit two major milestones after Lockheed Martin delivered the 500th F-35 and the global F-35 fleet surpassed 250,000 flight hours.
The 500th production aircraft is a U.S. Air Force F-35A, to be delivered to the Burlington Air National Guard Base in Vermont.
The 500 hundred F-35s include 354 F-35A conventional takeoff and landing variants, 108 F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing variants and 38 F-35C carrier variants for the U.S. and international customers.
The 250,000 flight hours include all F-35s in the fleet comprised of developmental test jets, training, operational, U.S. and international aircraft.
“These milestones are a testament to the talent and dedication of the joint government, military and industry teams,” said Greg Ulmer, Lockheed Martin, Vice President and General Manager of the F-35 program.
Lockheed say that the F-35 operates from 23 bases worldwide. More than 985 pilots and over 8,890 maintainers are trained. Nine nations use the F-35 from their home soil, eight services have declared Initial Operating Capability and four services have employed F-35s in combat operations.
24% decrease in cost of the aircraft is very welcome, but at $115m it is still an expensive piece of kit. Nevertheless, if the price continues on this downward trend then we might actually get to see futher UK orders. Fingers crossed.
cheaper than a typhoon and getting cheaper
Only because development costs are excluded from F-35 price, the flyaway lot price is for engine and airframe only. It excludes R&D, procurement and operating cost which are included in Typhoon price.
So for example R&D cost for F-35 was $55bn of which the UK contributed 10%. Then for procurement cost the US Airforce for Lot 11 gives cost at $101m for the 48 F-35A order compared to a lot price of $89m, $12m more per plane. The US Navy gives actual procurement costs for Lot 11 F-35C at $123m and F-35B $166m. Finally flight cost for F-35B is currently $44,000 per hour with a target of eventually getting that to $30,000 (A target consistently missed) while the comparable hourly flying rate of a Typhoon is $21,000.
Bollox. Typhoons are more expensive regardless of whether R&D is included or not. Secondly, The UK contributed a flat 2 billion toward F-35 R&D not 10%. Thirdly, you are mixing US dollars with UK pounds in your comparisons with US pricing. Fourthly, your US costs are wrong.
Wasn’t the main uk contribution to the f35 the data from tbe replica project which was worth far more than 2 billion?
No.
UK was a Tier 1 partner of F-35. Tier 1 participation requires a contribution of 10% of development costs, development costs $55bn so UK must have contributed $5.5bn. There are other ways of funding than flat cash transfer to the US such as industrial tooling, contributions to British companies, manpower provided, etc…
I also never once mentioned a price in pounds, all were in dollars for easy comparison (typhoon operating cost came from German comparison of Typhoon, F-35 and Tornado operating costs). Secondly the US costs are the ones provided to Congress.
More bollox. The UK paid 2 billion flat fee toward R&D. No such thing as a 10% contribution, you are making that up.
Any subcontracting work done by the UK is on a commercial basis. Investment on tools & manufacturing facilities by UK companies is paid out of the contracts awarded by the US companies i.e. the US pays.
Furthermore, the UK pays exactly the same for its F-35B’s as the US pays for theirs.
US costs you quoted include & exclude things other than the cost of the airframes & engines and should not be used to compare to the articles figures.
Ron5 I am giving up arguing with you as you obviously blind to facts, demonstrated again by you arguing elsewhere in the comments that the B has the same performance as the A.
You are not quoting facts just rubbish you have made up.
I don’t think buying more than 138 F35B’s is the go to. Enough to fill one (if not both) carriers plus some for other duties is plenty. If we were to order more it would need to be the A variant.
Hi Ethan,
I agree. The UK has so far only confirmed orders for 48 aircraft with an ‘intention’ to by 138 over the ‘lifetime’ of the programme. My comment reflected the clear risk that the word ‘intention’ allowed for a reduction in numbers, so further confirmed orders would allay such concerns.
A bare minimum of being able to fill one carrier to the brim (as done in the Falklands or regularly by the US) must be the absolute minimum. I.e about 72 jets. Though of course not all will be operational at any given time.
60 odd jets is filled to the brim. If you consider losses/aircraft out of action for whatever reason at the point of need, 72 wouldn’t be enough, especially in the later years when more and more get taken apart for spares.
Plus both carriers, in an emergency, can deploy together so aircraft are needed to fill both decks. If you look at your history books, the Falklands war featured 2 UK carriers, not one.
Hi Ethan,
I suspect that 138 is the safe minimum worked out by analysts and the RN. It would include, attritional losses, maintenance cycles and surge operations. There would be an agreed scenario to generate the most testing planned for conditions e.g. two carriers operating with one in action and one working up.
So 60 or so on the warfighting carrier (plus 12 ASW / AEW Merlins) with 30 to 40 on the second carrier and the balance in maintenance… Even in wartime you do not stop maintaining your aircraft as any pilot would find it very unsettling if he or she suffered a systems failure or worse and engine failure whilst being shot at!
The phrase ‘over the programme lifetime’ reads very much like political / treasury speak to me as it gives them the wriggle room to actually deliver less than is really needed.
I would have thought a sensible balance for the
F35B fleet (operational and sustainment) would need be 138 jets in total.
Long term Squadron size should be set at 18 in my opinion. A single carrier deployed squadron would thus be able to carry out most peace time operations.
Two deployed squadrons (36) jets, is the ideal for wartime operations, and the ships ‘optimised for’ fast jet carrier strike capability.
This would allow a single fully equipped carrier to be kept on station for a sustainable period, or two for a short intense operational period.
So, four 18 aircraft squadrons
One 8 aircraft OCU
5/6 for 17 sqn trials
10 aircraft in use reserve.
So 96 ‘ish’ in the forward fleet and 40 ‘ish’ in overhaul and updates etc.
Baring in mind these aircraft will be receiving a constant stream of updates throughout their lives, so we need a robust maintenance reserve, without affecting the front line force.
Just rewatched Ark Royal on Discovery+ and circa 2011 they expected the cost of the Harrier’s replacement to be a mere £40M 😂😂😂
would a pilot want to fly the cheapest strike fighter or fly the best strike fighter?
Expensive piece of kit, but worth every penny! A 24% decrease in cost is great, and the idea is it will continue to decrease even further as additional orders are placed.
It is good that the price is coming down as LM.said it would. £87m is still a lot, when the more capable A version is or will be £60m a pop. Once the 48 Bs are delivered, I think we will see the RAF opt for the A version for strike attack, due to its larger payload, better rate of climb, better speed, longer range and 30% lower cost.
That won’t please the carrier aficionados of course and I too would have preferred a carrier strike wing of 70 Bs, giving a front-line strength of 36. But the A makes more sense for the RAF role and the savings far outweigh having two different versions in service.
I’m hoping we don’t stop the ‘B’ order at 48 or it really will bring into question the future of PoW. Although the idea always was to have one carrier operational at any time, 48 is too few even to bring both operational in times of need. I’d say we need a min of around 75, so in dire need we could have 36 on one and 24 on the other.
We will definitely order more than the current 48 F35 B, the attrition rate on them would be to high to be sustainable in the long term. They will stretch the orders out to 2035 though as the first batch will probably be knackered by then.
I just don’t see us ordering enough to justify 2 variants especially if the RAF is getting tempest.
Your performance comparisons are rubbish and seeing that the A’s cannot operate from carriers, I’d say their capability is decidedly less than the B’s.
The key thing here is that the primary reason for the us buying the the F35 in the form of the STOVL variant was to put them on our aircraft carriers. Now obviously the RAF would like the A, but that should only come after an order for a minimum of 100 F35Bs has been completed and our carrier airwing requirements satisfied, ar which point all the Bs should be allocated to the FAA.
With cost slowly decreasing, a further order for say 38 or possibly 50 of the A variant could be placed giving the RAF enough for 3 Squadrons.
I think there is zero chance of F-35A for a number of reasons:
1) – CEPP needs a realistic minimum of 72 to be sustainable long term
2) – Going F-35A would mean there would be pressure on the RAF to cede total control of the F-35B fleet to the FAA and the budget that went with it.
3) – 48 F-35B only would mean they were reserved for Carrier use only. No more expeditionary/austere ops.
4) – Even though F-35A costs less to run, having 2 types of F-35 would increase costs dramatically. Serious benefits to having a single fleet. Having F-35A and B would not save money.
5) – F-35A larger payload only makes sense for internal munitions….and the UK has no larger munitions to take advantage of that space…
And most importantly…
6) – No-one sensible seriously believes that 138 will be ordered. Likelihood is 70-90ish in total. The minimum sustainable fleet size for the UK would be 48 of each model. There just aren’t enough in total to make running a second fleet viable.
7) – Timelines…..Already ordered F-35B deliveries are out to 2024/5 for the UK. More F-35B may be ordered in the next couple of years for delivery before 2030 (hopefully 30ish). But there is no real headroom in the MoD budget for anything else up to 2030. And that kills any further F-35 orders stone dead. Why? Tempest. From the late 2020’s if Tempest is to be successful all orders and monies will need to be focused on that if the UK Combat Air industry is to survive. For an aircraft that is to be delivered c2035 that means that there will be no orders for anything else from about 2028-30 onwards.
Well argued.
Don’t get me wrong I’d like to see the full 138 (but in service at the same time). And the US may be annoyed at the UK for not getting the full 138. But….when an aircraft is that late into service the situation is want to change. In that respect LM only have themselves to blame.
To be honest we’ll need more money to get beyond 48 with the present state of the EP, and that might not be forthcoming. The one thing that might get some more cash is the US aspect, keep them sweet until we’ve got a watertight excuse with Tempest to not buy anymore, mind you, I’m also a believer that an additional 24+ Typhoon Tranche 3 could be a wise move fiscally over the long term to avoid the closure of production lines/loss of knowledge.
Interesting side point, but possibly a red herring. When POW visited Liverpool a couple of weeks ago one of the locals interviewed on tv said that he had been told by one of the aircrew who were hosting the visitors that an order for another 18 F35b’s “ had been placed”. Wishful thinking, part of a negotiation for the next tranche……?
Don’t be so daft. All orders are publicly announced both sides of the Atlantic. The aircrew is just stating that their are more aircraft on order than those delivered. We all know that.
That why I suggested it was a red herring……
There will need to be an order for an additional 13 F-35B to get us to the 48 that the MoD has promised. That will come when the Full Rate Production pricing has been agreed between the US DoD and LM. These last 13 should be delivered as Blk.4 as well (or with minor software changes only). To be delivered for 2024/25 they need to be ordered in the next 1-2 years.
One thing to always remember is that the 48 F-35B, or indeed any total figure for the UK does not mean they are all available. The first 3 aircraft are test aircraft. They are not, and never will be, combat capable. They’ll live out their lives in the US. The only time they will see the UK is if they are shipped over to go on display at Hendon, Cosford or Duxford at some point in the future. So 48 F-35B really means 45…
And 45 is not going to be enough airframes to sustain even 2 squadrons in the longer term. Which makes the Chance of putting even a 24 aircraft wing into one carrier very slim. I know that the USMC are going to be spending some time on board whichever ship is designated as the strike carrier, it just means we always reliant on them to make up numbers. And I don’t see any chance of increasing orders past 45/48 with the present total confusion in Whitehall.
The USMC bit has always made me wonder. It makes sense for potential joint operations to be included in the design, a wise move indeed.
But…. the USMC have never had that large a presence in Europe. Sure during the Cold War they had a reinforcement role with 3 Commando Brigade on the Northern Flank, but that was 30 years ago. They’re dipping their toe in again, but its never going to be in the same scale.
The reality is the USMC is focused on other areas, Asia Pacific, Middle East and central and eastern Med. How much time does anyone think QE or PoW will actually spend in those areas? I genuinely think the number of times that we actually see USMC aircraft on QE Class will be minimal. Anyone banking on them being onboard in a crisis is in cloud cuckoo land.
If we want one of the carriers to have a decent airgroup we need to fund it ourselves. 72 gives us the numbers (75 would be nice so we could keep the test aircraft separate) to guarantee we could put 36 on 1 Carrier in a crisis. In a Falklands situation we could probably get another 24 on the other carrier for a limited period (even if we were fixing them on the way).
Although we should always remember that 60 F-35B would be a force capable of taking pretty much any airforce outside of the top 12 in one go. We went to the Falklands with 21 SHAR….now thats not a recommendation that we do the same, but it puts it in perspective. It would be awful though for the carrier programme to get this far and be spoiled at the point it becomes reality by some penny pinching. We could yet snatch defeat from the jaws of victory…
Once again, makes sense.
Dear oh dear, when will people understand the whole country is an aircraft carrier. This and our overseas territories, NATO and other responsibilities make it highly beneficial to maintain a unitary force of F35B’s. F35A’s are a luxury that screw to whole effort of a maritime power like UK.
attaboy
I know it was criticised at the time, but I think the MOD’s decision to hand over some of our early LRIP slots to the USMC and delay our acquisition of airframes was a good one. We get later-block software that we don’t have to pay as much for upgrading, and we pay less for the aircraft. Worth the delay in building up numbers.
I only hope that some of the decisions we’re criticising today make sense when looking back at them…
All depends if there is a war before we get the jets we need, something that is impossible to predict.
No war and then the decision was the right one, a falklands style war before we get enough to form a task force and it will be a national disgrace issue.
Good point, however most of the early block aircraft weren’t combat capable without ongoing upgrade anyway; they’d be no/limited use in a shooting war anyhow.
Past Block 4 would be a better time to consider more airframes I’m guessing?
“The Pentagon’s director of operational test and evaluation releases annual reports on the progress (or lack of) on many weapons systems.”
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a30718538/f-35-flaws/
Well, I think Block 3F and beyond are technically combat-coded and, most importantly, relatively easy to upgrade because the hardware is largely finalised at this point. Block 4 has a lot more capability and a wider weapons fit. I may be wrong, it’s hard to keep track of all the F35 iterations…
The next order, which is expected to be 13 jets, will all be Blk.4. The vast majority of the UK’s fleet are comparatively easy upgrades to Blk.4. The vast majority either need a software update or very small hardware upgrades. Only the first couple (after the first 3 test aircraft) will need more extensive upgrades. The MoD have managed to dodge a bullet with their procurement approach. Possibly more expensive will be the upgrade to the EOTS system which all will need.
Delays past 2025/6 would be better as there will be additional costs incurred for the implementation of Block 4 software plus it will allow further time to address the current 800 plus bugs that currently exist as of 01.2020.
Pentagon lacks performance metrics for F-35’s ALIS logistics system
Pat Host, Washington, DC – Jane’s Defence Weekly
16 March 2020
“The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) said in a report released on 16 March that testing of individual ALIS software version releases focuses primarily on whether the new ALIS version is performing “better” than the previous version. Specifically, ALIS testers have developed criteria to determine if the newest version of ALIS is functioning more efficiently than the previous version by comparing such tasks as screen download times.”
https://www.janes.com/article/94909/pentagon-lacks-performance-metrics-for-f-35-s-alis-logistics-system
Yes, I guess that there is a balance to be made between owning airframes, getting pilots trained on them, having a usable capability, and saving costs.
I believe that they’re actually coming up with a replacement for ALIS, rather than just an upgrade. Clearly not performing anywhere near as well as people hoped…
Something that clearly needs to be addressed ASAP.
Pentagon and Lockheed Martin in fight over F-35 FRACAS data, says former programme official
Pat Host, Washington, DC – Jane’s Defence Weekly
11 March 2020
“A failure reporting, analysis, and corrective action system (FRACAS) provides a process for reporting, classifying, and analysing failures, as well as planning corrective action in response to those failures.
The former official told Jane’s on 9 March that FRACAS data covers operational and maintenance (O&M) data, such as mean time between failure, not just at the aircraft level but two, three, and even four subsystems and tiers below.”
https://www.janes.com/article/94828/pentagon-and-lockheed-martin-in-fight-over-f-35-fracas-data-says-former-programme-official
That’s an interesting argument…!
I find it hard to think of an industrial situation where the supplier/manufacturer isn’t able/obliged to provide that kind of data; it’s to do with backing up the performance claims that they’ve made about their equipment. Even witholding it is an indication that the stated reliability of an item is suspect.
Joe, it’s about money. It always is. Lockheed wants the US government to pay for the data. The government wants it for free.
For sure, you’re quite right. It just bffles me that they’re trying that angle though- that data is never normally considered proprietary in my experience.
Lawyers will argue anything, just pay them enough.
You post this anti-F-35 propaganda every time you get the chance. Give it a rest.
Well said Ron, despite the problems, it’s still one hell of a capability, and we have only scratched the surface of what this aircraft can do for the RAF/RN.
+1
No Ron, It’s called factual information based on the current and ongoing problems this programme is facing rather than fantasy fleets backed up with copious amounts of BS.
Next time you opt to purchase a new car, rather than listen to the salesman, pick up a copy of What Car and see what’s happening under the bonnet before you spend your money.
In short, wait until they’ve fixed the problems before you buy.
Department of Defense
Comprehensive Selected Acquisition Reports
for the Annual 2018 Reporting Requirement as Updated by the
President’s Fiscal Year 2020 Budget
“F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program (F-35) – The overall Acquisition Cost (RDT&E, Procurement, and MILCON) of the program increased by $15.3B in base year 2012 dollars (BY12$) and increased by $22.2B in then-year dollars (TY$).
The Total Program Costs (RDT&E, Procurement, MILCON, and O&S) increased by $25.0B in base year 2012 dollars (BY12$) and by $94.8B in then-year dollars (TY$).
Development: The RDT&E costs have increased by $10.5B (BY12$) and $12.4B (TY$). RDT&E costs increased due to adjustment to include Block 4 development prior year actuals, and 2018 program office estimated costs, as well as Deployability and Suitability (D&S), Automatic Logistics
Information System (ALIS), and Dual Capable Aircraft (DCA). The Block 4 program office cost estimate was split between ~$7.3B U.S. and ~3.3B Partners (TY$). The U.S. Services demonstrated confidence in the plan by fully funding to the Joint Program Office (JPO) Block 4 cost estimate.
Procurement: The increase in Procurement cost of $4.7B (BY12$) and $9.9B (TY$) is driven by the following items: addition of funding for Block 4 modifications; the revised estimate of Airframe cost due to the incorporation of the latest prime and subcontractor actuals and labor/exchange rates; and the increase in Other Support due to maturation of the technical baseline, definition of customer requirements, and further definition of Service beddown plans.
The overall average Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) (Aircraft & Engine) cost in BY12$ increased by $2.1M for the F-35A, increased by
$2.8M for the F-35B, and increased by $0.9M for the F-35C. The URF increase was driven by the incorporation of air vehicle actuals received prior to the settlement of LRIP 11. The Average Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) for the program increased by $2.0M (BY12$) and the Program
Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) increased by $6.2M (BY12$).”
https://media.defense.gov/2019/Aug/01/2002165676/-1/-1/1/DEPARTMENT-OF-DEFENSE-SELECTED-ACQUISITION-REPORTS-%28SARS%29-DECEMBER-2018.PDF
If we followed that advice we’d have never bought Tornado or Typhoon….or F-16, F-14 or F-15.
All entered service with issues or missing capabilities.
Not to the extent of the problems associated with the F35 programme and still lots with more to do as of 2020.
The F35 is far more complex with 900 current faults still to be addressed.
Attempting to fix issues with 8M lines of code over different versions is causing even more problems, repair one creates two more on another version if you get my gist.
This sadly is already happening so it would be far better to wait until the block 4 software becomes stable before purchasing any more aircraft.
But the majority of these problems have not been publicly disclosed, exposing a lack of transparency about the limitations of the Defense Department’s most expensive and high-profile weapons system.
These problems impact far more operators than the U.S. Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy customer base. Eleven countries — Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, Japan, South Korea, Turkey and the United Kingdom — have all selected the aircraft as their future fighter of choice, and nine partner nations have contributed funds to the development of the F-35.
Taken together, these documents provide evidence that the F-35 program is still grappling with serious technical problems, even as it finds itself in a key transitional moment.
And the clock is ticking. By the end of 2019, Defense Department leaders are set to make a critical decision on whether to shut the door on the F-35’s development stage and move forward with full-rate production.
During this period, the yearly production rate will skyrocket from the 91 jets manufactured by Lockheed Martin in 2018 to upward of 160 by 2023.
“Generally speaking, the department’s policy calls for all deficiencies to be closed before full-rate production starts. This is meant to cut down on expensive retrofits needed to bring existing planes to standard.”
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06/12/the-pentagon-is-battling-the-clock-to-fix-serious-unreported-f-35-problems/
If you are repeatedly going to post the same old crappy stories about the F-35 being so useless, why don’t you write about all the successes the aircraft has had. A balance view.
Just concentrating on the bad news to the total exclusion of all good news makes you sound like a bridge dweller or putinbot.
Try thinking out of the box Ron5, It’s not about “posting the same crappy old stories” as they’re current and factual rather than just one’s opinion on the subject without any actual evidence to back it up.
Equally, you don’t waste taxpayers money either by purchasing something that is of little use to us until at least 2025. It has great potential, but not right now.
Hopefully, things will greatly improve over time!
“The F-35B fleet worldwide needs to rack up 75,000 flight hours before DOTE thinks it has gathered enough data to meet the contract spec. Currently, the B model has just 45,000 hours across the board – and with HMS Queen Elizabeth due to deploy to the Pacific next year with two squadrons of F-35Bs aboard, this could mean the aircraft carrier will set sail with jets that haven’t met their required reliability standard. So far the B fleet is unable to meet its target of flying for 12 hours or more between critical failures.
On top of that, an increasing number of deployed software versions and hardware (as in onboard computer) configurations pose a potential threat to reliability. Block 3F is the current main build of F-35 onboard software, with Block 4 being the next scheduled major release, though earlier versions of Block 3 are still in use.
Warning of the problems in store, DOTE said: “These configurations include the fielded TR-2 processors and [EW, electronic warfare; i.e. radar jamming] system for Block 3F, new EW equipment in Lot 11 and later aircraft, an improved display processor that may be added to TR-2, new TR-3 open-architecture processors to enable Block 4 capabilities and other avionics for later increments in Block 4. Adequate plans for supporting all these configurations do not appear to be in place.”
The F-35B continues to be the only modern fighter jet capable of operating from Britain’s two new aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.”
The f-35 has already successfully flown combat missions and is proving its worth around the world on a daily basis.
You on the other hand …
Try getting your head out of the clouds and into the real world Ron5, the pound to the USD is now at a record low 18.03.2020 £1.15 and the MOD is staring into a very large black hole in its defence budget prior to the current crisis.
This aircraft will be of limited use until we can integrate Meteor, Spear ect which requires Block 4 software to be installed.
So again, 2025/26 is the timeframe for placing orders over and above the ones we have already agreed to providing funding is made available.
Sadly, it’s not looking very promising is it?
1 FEBRUARY 2019
“A scathing report by the Public Accounts Committee has exposed how the MoD is staring at a £7 billion funding gap, which could double over the next 10 years.
Under scrutiny is the F-35 fighter jet program, which is supposed to deliver some 138 F-35 Lightning aircraft over the coming decades.
Britain has already signed a contract for the first batch of 48, which are estimated to cost £9.1bn by 2025, including support such as training and maintenance.
But the committee says that there remains uncertainty on the plans for F-35 beyond the procurement of the first 48 jets, with clarity on future support and maintenance costs dependent on the results of current trials.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/01/uk-may-not-able-buy-new-fleet-f-35-fighter-jets-unless-black/
You change your tune more times than Radio one.
Except for one thing, you continually argue for downgrading the UK’s defence capability. Now I wonder why that is.
Incorrect Ron5, my tune stays the same, unfortunately, you seem to be unable to be consistent with yours, even in the same thread and only five posts above!
“If you are repeatedly going to post the same old crappy stories about the F-35 being so useless, why don’t you write about all the successes the aircraft has had.”
“Except for one thing, you continually argue for downgrading the UK’s defence capability. Now I wonder why that is.”
Is making the suggestion of delaying the purchase of the F35B in large numbers, currently with 900 known faults and unable to integrate the next-gen weapons including Meteor until block 4 arrives 2025/6 is not downgrading the UK’s defence capability.
Clearly to a fantasist who constantly fails to see the possible short cummings in adopting a more common-sense approach, including posting this reply after I have given you a very clear indication of the UK’s current financial difficulties and the gap in defence spending, I can begin to understand why you post these idiotic reply’s.
Perhaps it is I who should be asking the question “Now I wonder why that is”
But even with these problems, it’s still proving to be a game changing capability, as multi national exercises and live operations are proving. I wonder if Lockheed Martin can make loo roll ?
+1
Could someone more informed than me please explain why more B variants have been delivered than C variant? I’d have thought that B would be the most complex, and therefore would take the longest to develop, or would be the most delayed?
Thanks.
Hi Chris,
I believe the USMC have been a significant driver customer for the F35 and the B variant is the main version for them given the smaller decks they use. They were keen to get the aircraft into service as well as keeping the UK on board as there were moves in the US Senate to cut the B variant on cost grounds… So simple answer – politics!
Not an expert, but the C variant has only been ordered by the US Navy (as one of the two catapult carrier operating navies that the C jet is designed for). Whereas the B is being ordered by more countries who operate STOVL ready ships. For example, the USMC, the Royal Navy/RAF, Japan, (what was to be Turkey) and Italy.
What two countries are you blathering about. The F-35C was designed for one country, the US. Doesn’t fit on the French carrier.
The US and France. I said the US is one of only two countries to operate aircraft carriers with catapult assisted take off.
The F-35C is too big for the French carrier so clearly wasn’t designed for it.
Ethan – Splitting Hairs but the USMC will also operate the F35C.
That’s interesting, I didn’t know. Any reason why? I don’t see how the US Navy can’t own all the C’s.
The Marines fly aircraft off the big carriers.
The F-35C encountered some development issues and should have been further along. But the main reason is because its single buyer, the United States Navy, isn’t in a desperate hurry for it. The USN has been busy procuring Super Hornets and now runs a Super Hornet only fighter fleet. The oldest Super Hornet dates to 2001 so they have a very modern fleet.
The USMC, however, does not operate the Super Hornet. It’s AV-8B and legacy Hornet fleets are getting long in the tooth so needed replacement rather more urgently.
Thanks all for the info. Hadn’t realised the USN weren’t in a great hurry to get them? I guess they’ll be pretty happy to let the A and B variants iron out all the teething problems common across the variants – they have enough on their plate with the Fords!
Luckily the Ford is not F-35C capable yet….and won’t be for a long time.
The USN has published details that by 2025 it wants each carrier air wing to have 10 F-35C within it (replacing 10 F/18E/F). By 2030 they want each wing to have 20 F-35C. But as you can see at present they have only had 38 delivered to date, and have slowed down orders for the next few years. So its unlikely they will have 11 air wings worth of F-35C. Given that some will need to be used for training, tactic development etc. they’d need a fleet of 160+ F-35C by 2025 to do that. Now that is well within the production possibilities, but with additional F/A-18E/F entering the inventory in the mean time I suspect the USN is looking to have each carrier that deploys having 10 F-35C onboard. The US carriers also need to be adapted to F-35C in a quite a few ways. That probably means they’re looking to have c50 deployable F-35C in air wings by then. Not sure how they’re going to reach the 20 by 2030 figure unless they do similar.
Is this the right point to place a big order then?
Possibly not? 1.20 United States Dollar
Ah yes I had forgotten that. The exchange rates are likely to go up and down like a yo-yo over the next few months. Is it plausible that assuming the UK exits this crisis ahead of the US the exchange rate might be in our favour? That said is the UK Government going to be interested in defence spending with the other priorities especially where it does not boost the UK economy?
The Uk would have to wait for the next available lot contract to be negotiated and signed. In other words, it’s not in the UK’s hands.
Ah yes interesting. I presume though that the US Government & Military would be keen to have partners taking a larger slice. It may boost overall sales in the long term?
The way it works is the US government uses its immense buying power to agree a bulk buy price on behalf of all parties. They’re driving a hard bargain. The reason for this one to be dealt with carefully is that it should be the end of the Low Rate Initial Production batches and will be the move into Full Rate Production batches and pricing. This should mean bigger orders in return for far cheaper pricing. But its also an opportunity to hold the suppliers feet to the fire on other issues.
If the MOD hadn’t failed to balance the books, this would have been useful. Sadly, this money will disappear into the system, swallowed up by a debt it will barely change.
Commenting on a military forum is easier if you know even a tiny bit of military knowledge! Try it mate!
https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-nao-report-on-mod-spending-bad-news.html
It is because I’ve had to give in to people more experienced than me that I’ve said this.
And I have done that repeatedly. If you knew how many times I have swallowed my pride and accepted that Sir Humphrey is right you would not have said that. I am an idiot. A gas-worthy moron. An unpleasant fool. I knwo VERY well what I am.
…and I have read stuff by Sir Humphrey, someone knee deep in this stuff, for a very long time. It has not been a pleasant journey, but I have a small viewpoint on things going on.
Repeating a comment just reinforces those that believe you to be an idiot.
I was harsh on the MOD- there is a chance they hit their targets. I apologise for my rash comment.
That said, I made the comment twice on the assumption that people only go back to old threads if they get an email notification. There were two replies, so I replied twice.
Let’s make this debate more civilised.
One position I have heard is: “So a forecast possible deficit of 7% of budget (180bn/13bn) over 10 years is the end of the known universe and panic stations!
Not sure anyone commenting has had any experience of long term budgets but an estimate of an estimate is only an estimate. Problem is most of the comments are predicated on 30 year old emotive analysis.
What you need to know, amongst other things are; accuracy of previous NAO/MOD predictions. Probable budget variations, major contingencies etc
The end of the world? I don’t think so.”
The counter to that has been “The NAO is reporting using the MOD figures, it’s not a competition for predictive accuracy. That said, if you look at the number and amount of overspends versus underspends from programmes delivered over the past decade, then the smart money is on the NAO being right.
The £13bn has to be found from efficiency savings (under spends) or programmes cut. Saying it’s just an estimate, while true, doesn’t change that challenge.”
Documentary evidence for a balanced budget is this (p.18 onwards) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/831728/MOD_Annual_Report_and_Accounts_2018-19_WEB__ERRATUM_CORRECTED_.pdf
Evidence against is (p.8):
https://www.nao.org.uk/report/the-equipment-plan-2019-to-2029/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=SocialSignIn&utm_content=MOD+Equipment+Plan
So it is the MOD’s own report against the NAO- the heart of the matter is whether most projects will underspend in 5 years’ time. Can the MOD do it? That is the challenge.
If I am wrong (and I would like to be) I will happily eat humble pie. I’m always wrong about things. The question is whether better people than me are wrong.
If hope you have a good day sir.
I was harsh on the MOD- there is a chance they hit their targets. I apologise for my rash comment.
That said, I made the comment twice on the assumption that people only go back to old threads if they get an email notification. There were two replies, so I replied twice.
Let’s make this debate more civilised.
One position I have heard is: “So a forecast possible deficit of 7% of budget (180bn/13bn) over 10 years is the end of the known universe and panic stations!
Not sure anyone commenting has had any experience of long term budgets but an estimate of an estimate is only an estimate. Problem is most of the comments are predicated on 30 year old emotive analysis.
What you need to know, amongst other things are; accuracy of previous NAO/MOD predictions. Probable budget variations, major contingencies etc
The end of the world? I don’t think so.”
The counter to that has been “The NAO is reporting using the MOD figures, it’s not a competition for predictive accuracy. That said, if you look at the number and amount of overspends versus underspends from programmes delivered over the past decade, then the smart money is on the NAO being right.
The £13bn has to be found from efficiency savings (under spends) or programmes cut. Saying it’s just an estimate, while true, doesn’t change that challenge.”
Documentary evidence for a balanced budget is this (p.18 onwards) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/831728/MOD_Annual_Report_and_Accounts_2018-19_WEB__ERRATUM_CORRECTED_.pdf
Evidence against is (p.8):
The Equipment Plan 2019 to 2029 – National Audit Office (NAO) Report
So it is the MOD’s own report against the NAO- the heart of the matter is whether most projects will underspend in 5 years’ time. Can the MOD do it? That is the challenge.
If I am wrong (and I would like to be) I will happily eat humble pie. I’m always wrong about things. The question is whether better people than me are wrong.
I hope you have a good day sir.
https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-nao-report-on-mod-spending-bad-news.html
It is because I’ve had to give in to people more experienced than me that I’ve said this.
And I have done that repeatedly. If you knew how many times I have swallowed my pride and accepted that Sir Humphrey is right you would not have said that. I am an idiot. A gas-worthy moron. An unpleasant fool. I know VERY well what I am.
…and I have read stuff by Sir Humphrey, someone knee deep in this stuff, for a very long time. It has not been a pleasant journey, but I have a small viewpoint on things going on.
When you are in debt, something has to give somewhere.
The MoD is not in debt.
The MoD balances its books every year. You are spouting nonsense.
With the rumored cut in purchase numbers already mooted ,and the inevitable and necessary bailout of business because of covid19 you can almost guarantee defence is going to take an absolute hammering. Goodbye carrier(s)? a large proportion of the fighter fleet ,but I’d imagine maybe an increase in logistic fleets hospital ships etc
Thanks comrade for your encouraging words.
Great input. If we emulate the €300 billion bailout the French are rightly enacting which budgets do you think will be hit hardest to cover it? I don’t want it to be defence but it’s the easiest low hanging fruit when every social/healthcare/ education or law will take precedent
*budgets
So why post your comment here? If you think you have some unique and special insight, I got news for you pal.
I believe the UK has just committed up to 330 billion in grants for businesses.
We agreed a buy of 138, and I believe that number will be honoured without question. Ignore all the rumours ! The only real question is how long will it take us to receive all the airframes? The delivery rate leaves a lot to be desired…….
I’d say some personnel numbers. Not carriers or fighters.
Who exactly would we offload a carrier or 2 to in the world right now? No one is exactly going to be desperate to buy one are they.
Those yearning for enough Bs to equip both carriers are living in cloud cuckoo land. There is no plan or intention to deploy 2 carriers in peacetime, no crew to man a second one, no spare helos to equip it, etc.
In a serious war situation, a second crew would no doubt be formed from reserves but the air wing would be dependent on USMC help.
Ref numbers, the US Navy is looking to us to provide ONE carrier with at least 36 F35s in its strike wing. 36 front line aircraft means 72 in total, as 34-36 will be in squadron reserve/maintenance, war reserve, attrition reserve, OEU, OEU etc.
I’d think somewhere between 48 and 72 is the max number of Bs we’ll see. Despite Rudeboy’s long list of real and imagined reasons why we will go for an all-B fleet, the fact remains that the RAF needs to restore its strike-attack-interdiction capability which was lost with the withdrawal of the Tornado FGR4, for which the Typhoon is not really a replacement. They need 3-4 squadrons, so 70-90 aircraft. Faced with the RAF’s preference for the A version, on good operational grounds, plus the fact that it’s 30% cheaper, can’t see the SoS standing in the way.
Both HMS QE and POW have got crews,but yes in Aircraft numbers they would be spread a bit thin.
Agree on the B’s. 138 are not necessary, neither are 2 full Air Wings for the Carriers. That was never the plan. We will have a single Air Wing of F35, Merlin HM2, CHF Merlins for CSAR and ASCS Merlins.
If it came to it the in use “reserve” carrier can deploy with an air wing comprising a whole range of helicopters as well as whatever F35B’s can be scraped together. Which is why we have the TAG concept.
I however believe that both carriers do have a ships crew. It is FAA Air Wing that cannot be formed for the second carrier. Which is why it would have RAF and Army personnel alongside their Wildcats, Chinooks, CHF Merlins, and AAC Apaches – the TAG.
It is suggested above that we won’t ever see 138 F35s because the money will need to be switched to fund Tempest from 2030.
I agree with Paul42 that, having made a verbal commitment to 138 aircraft, HMG will look to honour it – not least because the US would be seriously vexed if we mess up their overall producation plan and costings.
I doubt it will be necessary to curtail the F-35 buy anyway. The RAF’s combat air procurement budget is £1.7 bn pa, or £25 bn to 2035, when Tempest is likely to enter service. I doubt that more than half of that is actally available to buy aircraft, as the figure likely covers upgrades, fuel, weapons etc etc, but you can still buy or develop a lot of aircraft for £10-£12 bn.
We will be up to 42 F35s within 3 years, with 6-8 being delivered pa., and around 90 by 2030 – or 110 if we’re buying the cheaper A by then. Can”t see us being too far short of the 138, unless the Tempest turns into another MOD cost fiasco.
The F-35A’s might be 30% cheaper individually but running a fleet of another type of aircraft costs a lot more which is why the RAF operates fewer and fewer types every year.
The idea is a dead duck anyway, the RAF wants Tempest.
So you intend to populate the second carrier with helicopters? Good luck performing air defence.
By the way, the TAG concept was a sheet to cover the nakedness of the MoD’s plans to buy enough F-35’s. Militarily it’s dumb as bricks.
Hi Ron.
I actually agree with you on TAG! The usual MoD spin.
But surely it is better than nothing? What is the alternative if HMG will not pay for more? Sell it? Even more counter productive.
It is paid for. So we need to use it for something. And I agree it is no replacement for a proper LPH if those helicopters were CHF Merlins or Chinooks. But ASW Helicopters could use it. Maybe in time UAV?
I also suggested that the 2nd carrier in a war situation could still have F35, either with whatever reserves were to hand from the OCU and sustainment fleet ( few I admit ) or by splitting the existing F35 wing between the 2 ships.
Day to day in peacetime the question is moot anyway as the RN only intends to use one in role, as was mentioned to MR Cummings above.
Cheers.
Who says HMG isn’t going to buy more? They haven’t finished the committed plan to buy the first 48. More will be bought after then as the government has stated. Only folks with questionable agendas here are arguing otherwise.
There is a lot of merit in the idea of the 2nd carrier taking on an ASW/amphibious-LPH role if things heat up.
A US/UK/Allied carrier flotilla operating in the Atlantic, eastern Med, South China Sea etc would be safer and more formidable having a large ASW platform at hand to hunt down or kill off enemy subs. The commodore/rear admIraq would take your hand off for that.
Problem in our case is that JHC is well short of helps just to support 3 army brigades, there is nothing spare to equip a carrier. Doubt that the RN is any better off. To enable the ASW carrier idea, we’d need to purchase a basket of suitable helps, including the RN’s coveted 13 Apaches.
There are not enough Merlin’s to equip 2 carriers…
If we can’t do that we might as well not bother trying to fill them both with F-35….
To put on 24/7 ASW coverage you need 8-9 Merlin.
To put on 24/7 AEW coverage you need 4-5 Merlin Crowsnest.
12/14 is in practice over half of our total Merlin HM.2 fleet. Even more when you add in cabs in deep maintenance. Add in the fact that we still need to put Merlin on the 6 T23/26 with towed arrays that are not part of a CSG and you can see the problem….
If the RN were serious about putting 2 carriers to sea at once the first thing you’d see would be a contract going to Westland’s to refurbish the remaining Merlin HM.1 to HM.2 standard to increase the fleet size instead of storing them at Shawbury (or donating to museums…). No contract in sight….
If FSS is cancelled, and we don’t get any more Merlin HM.2 why bother buying more than 48 F-35B….
The only way you could use the other carrier at the same time is if both were sailing together (in the <40% of time they're both available) so that they could share the Merlin resource.
If two were active together, it would only be as part of one carrier group. Not enough RN resources for two groups even in an emergency.
A carrier acting as an LPH is a good idea in all circumstances.Oh come on.
What the US does or doesn’t want out of the UK carriers has absolutely nothing to do with the UK’s decision of how many F-35B’s to acquire.
If needed, both carriers will deploy together and will require enough aircraft to fill their decks. 48 is not enough.
You should check with the RAF on their desire for F-35A’s. They don’t want them, they want Tempest.
They want and need both-
– F35A in strike/attack role
– Tempest in air superiority role
Two very different jobs, 2 very different sets of requirements and therefore two very different designs.
Please let us not go along with trying to shoehorn the RAF into erroneous choices, which only the Treasury beancounters will find some merit in. In the real world, wrong choices inevitably come home to roost rather quickly in a hot war. The air force needs what it needs, HMG’s job is to work out how to accomplish it.
Unfortunately I just don’t think the money is available for enough F35s if you split the purchase with A and Bs. Given we have 48 Bs on the books and two carriers I think the decision is obvious and we are looking at a long term capability gap.
I also think the U.K. has a long term consideration here and whilst not ideal an interim order for enhanced Typhoons would be better for the U.K. aircraft industry to bridge the gap before Typhoon than spending money on fulfilling an order for 138 F35s.
Of course militarily non of this sensible but that is 21st U.K. politics.
Spot on.
At the very least go for 70ish F-35B (similar to the Harrier GR.7/9 fleet size), then order 24 Typhoon Tr.3 to keep the line going as long as possible (and force the Germans to allow the Saudi order for 48 to go through..). Then all in on Tempest.
RN happy, RAF happy, BAE happy, Rolls Royce happy, Leonardo happy etc.
Everyone happy, well apart from LM and the US, but we’ll have to cross that bridge when we get to it.
Any spare cash perhaps buy a handful more F-35B to avoid attrition issues and refurb the remaining Merlin HM.1.
Wishful thinking. The last thing the RAF wants or needs is four fast jet types to manage.
F-35B’s plus Typhoon will progress to F-35B’s plus Tempest.
Yep, 3 fast jet types is enough, and whilst Tempest is arriving its what we’ll have.
But I’m not sure why anyone would think the RAF would want F-35A AND Tempest. Tempest appears to be going down the larger, longer ranged route, more payload route. I suspect the RAF would much rather have that than F-35A. They wanted FOAS and F-35 at one point…and it was for a reason.
+1
Are we also suffering from these problems?
F-35 programme reduces remaining SDD capability requirements, but bulkhead issue remains
Pat Host, Washington, DC – Jane’s Defence Weekly
23 March 2020
“The Pentagon and Lockheed Martin have reduced their outstanding F-35 SDD requirements from 43 to six The remaining requirements involve bulkheads cracking early, especially on the F-35B”
https://www.janes.com/article/95042/f-35-programme-reduces-remaining-sdd-capability-requirements-but-bulkhead-issue-remains
Sydsavage63@gmail
Absolutely, 100 f35bs for fleet air arm, and for now, 38,hopefully 76,f35a for RAF. these 2 carriers must have full load capacity or wots the point. We want to project power?, maybe 20 f35b,not going to cut it. Royal Navy Forever
I think the main cost of the UK involvement in the F35 in never taken into account. Buying this plane definitively killed the Typhoon thus all the money invested in it is going directly to the bin. Because the UK and then the italian diverged to a new plane, selling this place abroad and upgrading it with the others partners is now nearly impossible. We now see that the T1 version will not even be upgraded and will be moothballed without having used all their service life … The developpment of a minimal multirole version has taken a decade mainly in discussion because of this. And this is a great loss for the british industry that had a larger share of this project expecially for exports and concerning product they mastered completely nos as subcontractors.