UK could cut F-35 purchase by around 50 percent

Why would the UK need tanks in vast numbers as they did before?

We provide the Aircraft Carriers etc. why can’t the Germans, Poles etc. provide the tanks and crews?

First you have to decide your role on the modern battlefield and then get the kit to support that role surely.

They just might!

4 Aug 2020

“Rheinmetall From Germany Launches a New Main Battle Tank MBT With a 130mm Cannon and a Deadly Jump”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t20Z_qxpYYc

Yes the they offered the new gun and turret for the Challenger upgrade.

There is simply no other vehicle that can do the job of a MBT, i.e. taking and holding ground. Then soaking up fire and still being able to continue the mission. Apache for all its brilliance, is still a helicopter that burns through fuel that must transit to and from a resupply site, it can be taken out by a simple RPG. They’re great for ambushes and as mobile artillery, but are slow and vulnerable. Boxer is a lightly armoured 8×8 APC, that will need additional protection for RPGs and has to rely on dismounts to face up to MBTs, who will then be vulnerable to artillery fire. Boxer at present will not a gun larger than a 50 cal, so it cannot provide dismounts with any fire support.

Apart from its main tank killing role, the MBT plays a massive physiological role on the battlefield, it gets everyone’s attention for both good and bad reasons. If you have one on your side, the opposition tend to focus on the tank ignoring the nearby infantry. Which is great, as it allows you to manoeuvre whilst the tank acts as a bullet magnet. Having been in Iraq and calling on the assistance of a platoon of Challenger 2s. It gives you a massive morale boost to know that they’ve got your backs and are throwing either HESH down the road or using their chain gun. For the opposition seeing an up-armoured 70t Challenger racing towards them and then watching it take multiple RPG hits with no discernible effect, must be seriously demoralizing.

The number of Challenger 2s we have is simple not sustainable for a future conflict. We should have a minimum of 400. Where these can then be rotated through the regiments, training (BATUS) and storage. By having this number it would also allow us to reinforce a hot zone if say, God forbid, we had a regiment wiped out. With the present 237 tanks, we are struggling to maintain a presence in Estonia, maintain the tanks in Canada and still provide training in the UK. If something kicked off big in another part of the World, what would we send, some infantry in their Jackals and Mastiffs?

The problem we are facing is a stark choice were there is very little, if any, money available. We have cut down the forces so much, you are now passed the bone and eating into the marrow. The idea of either a mechanized brigade or strike brigade being the choices, were it should be one supporting the other. We have slashed the support assets of the heavy brigade, meaning they have a limited reach and whose artillery is overmatched by their peers. The strike brigade is a paper tiger, it has no teeth. If I had a choice, I’d get rid of the strike brigade and put the funding into the heavies, as they offer more capability and are more flexible in how you employ them.

100% with you.

Most of the weapons platforms we have are under gunned/weaponised (ships, boxer, warrior, p8 etc). How are we realistically going to knock tanks out if we are fighting in a contested air space?

Scrap strike, buy more tanks and heavy lift capability (can we deploy strike quickly anyway?) buy more artillery, every citizen donates a kidney that we can sell to the Chinese to pay for it, allow all refugees/asylum seekers fast track entry if they join army/navy for 3 years. Sound like a plan? Save a few billion too by forcing the NHS to move to one IT system instead of messing about with paper files. The inefficiency drives me crazy!

There also talk of loaning out the Apaches, so we may not have them at our disposal or have enough trained personnel to fly and maintain if we could get them back. Aircraft of any type have to be fit to fly, a fault on ground vehicle that would be a minor inconvenience will ground aircraft!

I am also of the opinion that the MBT is still the weapon of choice for many scenarios. I was really here looking at MBTs in Europe. What I was suggesting is that there perhaps should be a medium to long term plan for the Germans & Eastern Europeans to provide the bulk of the necessary MBTs in their own armed forces backed up by the British & French and obviously ultimately the Americans.

Should such a plan materialise that might be the catalyst for the UK to revise our role and define what kit we will need over the next 30-50 years. Whilst the Europeans are in a muddle I cannot see any decisive decisions from our politicians.

Why are people convinced that Tanks are not expeditionary assets? They are and have always been.

Ask anyone who was in Afghan and supported by Dutch and Canadian Leopards and they’ll tell you how much that was appreciated and how much they regret us not deploying our tanks there.

So simply saying “we don’t want to fight on the Eastern Front” isn’t a good reason to get rid of tanks (also if we divest ourselves from fighting on NATO’s Eastern Flank then who can blame NATO for not helping us if the time ever comes).

What I was driving at here was the the UK needs to think carefully about it’s role & responsibilities not only on the Russian front but also elsewhere. Until it does that politicians will not allocate any money for anything.

On the Russian front NATO needs to station sufficient forces to deter any aggression. It is logical that the bulk of those forces should come from the NATO countries in central and eastern Europe. Nobody defends a home like the owner.

Are the days of a substantial Army on the Rhine gone? Would we still want prepositioned kit over there and if so how much? What kit do we need in the UK to defend our islands and to support expeditionary activity?

We need to be clear about what we are defending against so that in future we might have the necessary kit when we need it.

Also there is something a little odd about buying German tanks to defend Germany?

NATO is about collective defence, there is something very “un-collective defence” about allies turning to countries and saying “you need to defend yourselves, we’ll uh, guard your flank.”

Personally I don’t think we should buy Leopard, or Abrams, or anything else, stick with what was designed for British Army doctrine until something that is markedly better comes out, rather than a incremental upgrade from the 1970’s.

We do need to be clear on what we are defending against however: the central point I was making was that Tanks do not mean “Eastern Front.” In fact if anything the 90’s and 00’s kind of showed that we should be deploying tanks wherever the Army goes.

I suspect that the growing view of EU countries is that they will provide the first line of defence for their own territory. We have to accept that we may well not be welcome. The days of the UK & US guarding Europe may well be in the past.

I take your point on armour being relevant on operations outside Europe. A highly mobile adaptive MBTs might well be highly desirable.

In order to kick start the economy there will be a great deal of money spent on capital projects at home. Clearly building our own kit is the only way I can see politicians buying into this. The decision to limit orders for F35 is likely because we don’t want any defence spending unless it is reciprocated.

When Challenger 1 was due for replacement Leopard was considered but rejected due to lower levels of protection. Challenger 2 has never been lost to hostile fire. The only loss was to a blue on blue when a a HESH round hit an open turret hatch.

I agree, it was poor tactics!

I absolutely agree with Fedaykin and Maurice, the M1 is the only real option for us.

I hope we remain at 225, it’s the bare number needed.

The US option is the only one that makes sense.
No point crying over spilt milk, we don’t have any domestic capability, it’s long gone.

We can be very proud of the Challenger 2, it was an excellent tank, last of the line of a proud British tank tradition, from invention to manufacture of some of the finest post war MBT’s, namely Chieftain and Challenger 2.

@Fedaykin

The ammo capacity of the RBSL proposal with the smoothbore 120mm gun in a new turret has been disclosed and it is equivalent to the existing Challenger so the whole basis of your complaint is false.

Buying M1’s would be much more expensive than upgrading Challenger. It has been looked at and discarded for that reason. Don’t forget that a) more M1’s would have to be acquired to also replace training vehicles and b) the M1 is actually older in design than the Challenger c) the M1 gulps fuel at a rate that far exceeds the UK’s logistics capability to keep up.

@Ron5 Still a bomb load smaller than its contemporaries.

“Buying M1’s would be much more expensive than upgrading Challenger”

You know that for a fact?

“M1 gulps fuel”

No it doesn’t, fuel consumption is much the same on the march, the APU fitted to the SEPV3 rectifies the high fuel consumption issue when stationary.

Thanks for that info Ron!

Still need to be stored somewhere!

I suspect that under existing plans to procure 138 F35, the 2 sqns worth of Tranche 1 Typhoon would be replaced by F35. Tempest would in turn eventually replace the 5 frontline and 2 non-frontline sqns worth of tranche 2/3 Typhoon. If only 70 F35 are procured that could mean all 9 sqns worth of Typhoons being replaced by Tempest.

Take the quotes and simply add the letter ‘B’ and this might be another version of the split A/B buy conversation. 70 B type being the ‘credible amount’ for Carrier Strike leaving the rest of the buy for the A type?

The fixation with carrier strike overlooks the stated plan for the F-35. It was to replace Joint Force Harrier, which at the time had two roles – the two RAF AV-8B squadrons were ground support for the army, the previous Sea Harrier squadrons were naval FSR (fighter/strike fighter/reconnaissance).

The future F-35B force has the same two roles and, as much as HMG loves to double-count our assets, aircraft supporting the army in a conflict will not be available to surge on the carrier as well. It is very unlikely that the RN will get more than 48 aircraft, of which 24 will be front line.

But t that doesn’t mean Tempest will not be used to get a seat on another program. The best way to do that is to say you intend to create a competitor aircraft.

Ok Herodotus, I suppose the borrowing will make things worse in lots of respects and defence being number one victim most likely!

It will only get worse with an increasing ageing population need more and more social care support. When T May actually tried to be honest with the public before an election and say taxes will need to be raised to pay for this the media went berserk and completely destroyed her almost costing the election. Now we have a Tory government trying to out spend labour but unable to raise taxes. The irony is its millennials and generations Z who are going to suffer because we can’t afford it even if they scrapped the MOD altogether.

I’m 18 and the future looks absolutely terrible, after university i might just hop to another country if they are doing any better.

Join the fleet Air Arm or RAF, you will have the time of your life.

that’s not as easy as it sounds. Brexit denies you European opportunity, the US is really hard to get into and stay. Australia still accepts well qualified, solvent young people. By the way, inspite of UK being skint, really very few countries are better

I realise that every country is struggling at the moment, it’s just that we are going to have a double whammy of covid 19 economic shock combined with what is increasingly looking like a hard brexit. And whether brexit will work out better for us in the long term is debatable, but the fact is there will definitely be a loss in the short term. It just feels like we keep shooting ourselves in the foot. Australia it is…

Bye
How you getting there?
There might not be any airlines left
But i suppose you will blame that on brexit
But think of this if you youngsters would abide by the social distancing rules perhaps this spread of the virus might subside
Its your age group that is going to pay for this even though you might not have coused it
That is no different than my age group having to pay for WW2 And i was not born then but still payed the price for it
Your age group dont seem to be helping themselves just for a night or two out or a stint at the beach
But never the less i suppose that will be blamed on brexit as well

I’ll go by hot air balloon. And you saying that “young people are the problem because SOME of them went to the beach” is like me saying “old people screwed the country up because SOME of them voted for brexit”

As Captain Mainwaring used to say to Private Pike
“You stupid boy”

As someone probably once said to someone else “you clearly don’t have a response to that”

I like you! (And, I’m an oldie but Remainer).

Not many western countrys are doing better than the uk in millitary capability, only USA is, but look at the mess they are in with the riots ect! Move at your own risk.

And if you ever need it, you’ll be glad we do spend the kind of money on it.

That’s the problem, its now impossible to have any serious debate about efficiency in the NHS. Its only going to get worse.

unfortunately not, capability is everything, and that is the way we have gone, capability over numbers, and deployability. Some countries have huge armies, but are largely useless in the modern battlefield.

I’d take any claims from China with a very large pinch of salt. Especially when it comes to stealth, engine technology, and radar performance.

European FCAS fighter to be optimised for carrier ops
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/european-fcas-fighter-to-be-optimised-for-carrier-ops

That article says nothing, a source close to the project says………. that could be a bloke down the pub. It’s not a hard fact or official requirement confirmed by the french or Germany govs

FCAS will be carrier capable, that was one of the first requirements for the French and a deal breaker since FCAS will replace Rafale. France is not interested in developing a second plane to replace Rafale M, nor des it have the funds for this. In fact not having a naval version was one the main reasons France dropped out of the Typhoon.

I agree with you here!

“that could be a bloke down the pub.”

One of your sources then with little factual information to back it up as per usual other than your opinion.

Dassault will serve as prime contractor for the NGF, while Airbus will lead the development of accompanying remote carrier vehicles and the broader system’s supporting combat cloud.[12] It will also be carrier-capable and will fly from the French Navy’s future aircraft carrier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Combat_Air_System

well if Wikipedia says so Nigel ? it will be YouTube next

Everyone seems to be aware of it apart from you it seems and still posting your idiotic kindergarten like replies as you have little else to offer in return. Pathetic.

Dassault Confirms The Future Combat Air System Will Operate From Aircraft Carriers

“FCAS/SCAF aboard aircraft carriers

However, despite all the doubts around the final design brief and specifications of the NGF, Dassault confirmed to Naval News that the SCAF will be onboard the aircraft carrier that will replace the Charles de Gaulle circa 2035-2040.

The changes in the aircraft configuration since last October show major improvement in handling and manoeuvrability at low speed. Despite an increased weight and size, the NGF will probably be able to land at a lower speed than the Rafale, thus diminishing the stress on the airframe of the naval variant.

The NGF viewed form the side at le Bourget paris air show.
With its very sleek design and long nose for the accommodation of heavy sensors, the NGF will have to introduce new technologies for safe carrier use.
If the long nose of this NGF design restricts the front view for the pilot, advanced technologies available in the next decades should elude such a limitation. Distributed Aperture System, Helmet Mounted Synthetic Vision, automatic carrier landing and thrust vectoring nozzle are among some of the technologies displayed at Paris Air Show that could find their way in the final design of the NGF and ease carrier operations.

In each and every case, a large multirole stealth naval aircraft will require a larger aircraft carrier than the Charles de Gaulle. The successor(s) of the sole available carrier in France is currently at the design stage and should be able to operate a full air wing of NGF alongside AEW aircraft, helicopters and Remote Carriers UAVs.”

You haven’t a clue Nigel, you just read websites all day, and marketing next to a plastic mock up, and believe totally unrealistic time frames and costs. You think the french/Germans are going to develop a 6th gen fighter, and develop and build a new aircraft carrier for 2035/40, in the current financial climate? ? They can’t even afford a few more Rafales at the moment. Give me a break.

Hate to burst your bubble.
But work on the franco – german SCAF is moving forward, and initial funding has been approved to demonstrator phase in mid 2020s. Even Spain is contributing some finance and will be involved with Indra.
France has started work on the CDG replacment in 2018. Right now it’s called PANG (next gen carrier) and scheduled for a launch in 2036, to replace the CDG which should retire around 2040. We know that it will be bigger than the CDG and weigh in approx 70k tons to be able to fit the SCAF which will be bigger than Rafale. What is not clear is if there will be 2 new PANG, but 1 will be built.

I think having a technology demonstrator flying before 2030 is hugely ambitious, let alone the mid 20’s. But we’ll see. I think it’s still a real possibility that the Tempest project and the French/German FCAS will merge in the future. It will be simply to costly to have two rival 6th gen fighter projects in Europe, especially when they will be built in relatively small number. Same with the new carrier. We know from experience with the QE class how long they take to develop and build, and survive all the economic/elections/military
budget and political ups and downs over the next 20 years. ?

I do not know if a demonstrator by mid 2020s is optimistic, i am not designing the plane. However Tempest also plans to have a demonstrator in a similar time frame. So maybe it’s not unrealistic. I do agree with you that it may be possible for Tempest and SCAF may merge, since there is only limited export sales potential for either platform. Ie Japan, Korea, Turkey and India all want to produce their own. But that will mean the UK will need to agree to a carrier version, since that is a dealbreaker for France. SCAF will replace all Rafale variants, and there is no plan or money to develop another platform. I would not be surprised to see a similar design to QE class as a basis for France’s CDG replacement (it would be EMALS and probably nuke powered).
Time will tell and we sill see.

As I said, kindergarten like replies.

Kindergarten knowledge, with zero experience.

And the cost continues to rise!

Please note: Jane’s Gareth Jennings noted the exchange in Hansard, the official record of the proceedings of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

The U.K. government has disclosed for what appears to be the first time that it is not necessarily committed to eventually upgrading all 48 of the F-35B Joint Strike Fighters that it plans to buy with the still-in-development and increasingly costly Block 4 package.

Jets without the updates would be left with more limited capabilities.

This also raises questions about how existing and future F-35 operators might approach the same question.

Jeremy Quin, the U.K. Minister for Defense Procurement and member of the country’s Conservative Party, offered this note about upgrading the F-35Bs in response to a question from Kevan Jones, a member of parliament from the opposition Labor Party, on June 23, 2020. Jane’s Gareth Jennings noted the exchange in Hansard, the official record of the proceedings of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, on Twitter.

Jones asked “whether the F-35 Block 4 upgrade is already (a) costed and (b) budgeted for in the existing F-35 programme budget for the U.K.; how many aircraft will be upgraded; and what the forecast programme cost range is.”

“The F-35 Block 4 upgrade has been included in the U.K. F-35 programme budget since its inception,” Quin responded. However, “decisions on the number of aircraft to be upgraded will be made on the basis of military capability requirements.”

While F-35 operators outside of the United States, such as the United Kingdom, which received their aircraft later on, or have yet to even take delivery of their first examples, have escaped some of the worst impacts of concurrency, the Block 4 upgrade presents a new additional sustainment cost issue.

Even if much of the research and development work has been paid for already, the remaining costs to actually update the jets will still be high.

Certain modifications are especially cost-intensive given how hard it is to upgrade the aircraft’s physical structure due to its fixed mold-line built and the high-level of integrated across its systems.

If the U.K. government does expect the unit cost of the upgrade package to be around $27.4 million, that would amount to increasing the purchase price of the jets by roughly a quarter or more.

There have already been questions about whether there might be cuts to the planned British F-35 fleet in the face of other budget uncertainty in recent years.”

I don’t question the cost Nigel. We have just spent $540 million for project centurion upgrades for Typhoon, and I’m guessing that was only for the tranche 2/3 aircraft. Basically, any major weapon system upgrades are expensive, that is not exclusively to the F35.

The UK has written off a lot of third world debt as well over the last few years!

It is very different when you write off someone elses debt to you than if you write your own off…

That is not the case. Contractors do pay their fair share of tax. I pay not far off the same tax share of tax as a permanent employee. The Lords report into IR35 showed this was the case. The Government have successfully spread lies and misinformation about this and have been very quiet on the 80% of court cases they have lost with regard to IR35. However contractors are not particularly opposed to paying more tax if it is done in a fair and sensible way. What we have seen however is that from April contractors will be thrown into an employment twilight zone. We will be employees for tax purposes but not for employment law purposes so we will effectively be zero rights employees… Part of the tax incentives are due to the way we work. I am not treated like an employee, I can be sent home at any point with no pay, I can have my contract effectively terminated at a moments notice and I have to buy my own equipment, pay my own holiday pay, sick pay, pension, purchase my own training, pay for my own insurance etc etc. I am also expected to come in and work at a productive level from the very start and I will have a lot more pressure to perform than any permanent staff around me. I also do not. So do you think it is right for the government to classify me as an employee for tax purposes but not for employment law purposes?

Now to the movement of work abroad. Yes it has happened. Yes IR35 was delayed by 12 months but that was last minute so companies had already prepared for it to be in place and therefore moved the positions. You seem to misunderstand IR35. The current rules put the responsibility on the contractor. So if HMRC think I am flouting the rules then I am the one who gets taken to court. The new rules coming in from April put the responsibility on the client company. So this has had a very predictable outcome. The assessment tool provided by HMRC is useless and does not give a definitive result, it also does not take into account mutuality of obligation (which is the single most important aspect of being a genuine contractor). This means there is no way to actually guarantee a position is inside or outside of IR35. CEST may show me outside of IR35 and then further down the line the client is sued by HMRC as they disagree with their own tool. Or CEST could show me inside IR35 only for me to sue the client later due to me actually finding that I am outside of IR35. HMRC has failed to show the testing done on CEST and a FOI request turned up a single page of A4 for the test results. (Just for context and independent test produced well over 300 pages of results which is what I would expect to see). There is no independent arbitration system if a client or contractor thinks that their position has been assessed wrong so HMRC are the Accuser, the police and the judge… Given that they have consistently lied during the last few years I would not trust them to be a fair arbitration service on their own decisions. So with the uncertainty companies were faced with the perpetual possibility of being fined by HMRC or to move positions abroad. (IR35 does not apply to foreign contractors and so benefits them massively). I could move to Ireland and then contract back in to the UK and avoid IR35… Or I could live here pay the tax I am required to and spend my income in UK shops. Which is the best option for our economy? Lots of UK contractors have left the country as they can carry on their jobs from abroad or given that UK contractors are highly sort after can go and work for foreign clients instead (A friend of mine now works for a US client).

The Government promised a full review into IR35 when they were elected. The previous Chancellor (Javid) had previously opposed the legislation and called it “Stupid”. They did not carry out a full review, they did a behind closed doors review which produced a report of just 19 pages (of which 4 were blank). It failed to mention who they had spoken too, what questions were asked and what the answers were. It did however support the Government position totally despite it being at odds with the opinion of courts of law. It also contained numerous false claims and numerous lies. The Lords did their own review which took months was open to the public and totally transparent. HMRC and the Treasury initially refused to take part. This review recorded all the people involved, all the question asked and all the answers given. It was backed up by numerous experts and as it was transparent the claims it made could be challenged by anyone at any point. The Government and HMRC refused to read the report (They were caught lying during the questioning by the Lords). In fact the Government pretty much refused to acknowledge the Lords reports existence. Senior Conservative MPs did question the Government but were shut down as quickly as everyone else. Then came the vote on the legislation. There was an amendment that was put forward by David Davies that suggested that it should be delayed by 2 years in order to fix all the issues with it. It had wide cross party support. So with the threat of losing the vote the PM and Chancellor sent out threatening letters to their MPs to make sure they voted against the amendment. (Some Conservative MPs have posted these letters to their constituents who then put them online). This ensured most Conservative MPs voted the amendment down and therefore ensured the new Legislation was by default voted through. 8 brave Conservative MPs did vote for the amendment, my MP who had told me he fully supported my opposition to the Legislation ended up abstaining. Not a single non Conservative MP voted against the amendment (an amendment put forward by a senior Conservative and pro brexit MP) which just shows how the Government succeeded in bullying their own MPs. Some constituents were then sent letters by their MPs to say sorry that they had to vote down the amendment but they had no choice given the threat they received. Is this how our democracy should work?

So I think perhaps you should read the Lord report into IR35 before you make claims about contractors avoiding tax… as you clearly do not understand the issue at all.

Our Contractor workforce is world class and is exactly what is needed to help get us out of the economic problems we are in. Contractors are generally highly skilled and very experienced and are a highly flexible and very productive work force. It is stupid to hobble this major part of our economy.

Yeah Robert Blay, im sure we all realise it’s not 138 operating at on time, the ones we have now will be replaced by future version ect ect

What I read about Lend Lease, it was terminated in Sept.1945, equipment returned or destroyed before T. we did not have to pay for. Equipment returned after T. was discounted by 90%.

Equipment that was given away and not destroyed was supposed to be given back. Lots of stuff was consumable and could not be given back.

After the war America gave loans, Marshal Aid, to several countries. We got a big chunk of Marshal Aid, more than France or Germany.
Germany did pay reparations.

BTW, all loans were good rates and it was of no benefit to is to pay them back early. We paid of Canadian loans in 2006. We don’t think Canadians as enemies.

You seem to forget that we took a hell of a lot of factory equipment and tech secrets out of Germany in the run up to the end of the war. We were part of the same pact as the other allies in relation to distributing assets from German industry etc. We along with the other main allies signed a treaty in 1990 to write off any other claims as part of the reunification of Germany.

correct. you beat me to it. France occupied the same until about 1956, likewise Holland occupied parts of Germany until about 1956.

We like other allies received equipment free from America. And the liberty ships were built by America that filled the equipment. And American servicemen gave their blood.

Jesus, we have a multiple trillion economy and the third biggest defence company and second biggest airplane engine maker RR.. and far more..

We have the company’s And money to make tempest work and I’m glad to see team tempest has doubled in numbers in recent months and got other foreign partners onboard. We need a typhoon replacement anyway so it makes sense to partner and build it ourselves, or what would you suggest Lee1? Buying off yanks or French?

Second biggest Jet engine manufacturer that is in serious financial trouble. Third biggest defence company that has not designed and built its own production aircraft in decades. An economy that is faltering under a Government that is totally incompetent and more interested in looking after themselves than the country. We have a man in charge who was not elected yet is seemingly untouchable and hates all things “Establishment” despite being very much part of the “Establishment”. If the rumours are true and we can not afford our own tanks and are cutting F35 orders then it is unlikely we will stump up the money to throw at a new aircraft development when it will cost many time that of the competition.

I would love nothing more than for Tempest to get built and for our aerospace industry to improve but I just can not see it happening. I can see a promising demonstrator being produced and then the project being cut. We struggled to fund Typhoon and that was with other countries in the project. Successive UK Governments are short sighted with relation to defence mainly because they are totally detached from the real world.

Just look at the mad state of our refuelling tankers!! We can’t even refuel our own strategic aircraft…

And despite your doom and gloom assessment, we still have the 2nd largest aerospace sector in the world

The countries with the largest industry were led by the United States with $408.4 Bn (49%) followed by France with $69 Bn (8.2%) then China with $61.2 Bn (7.3%), United Kingdom with $48.8 Bn (5.8%), Germany with $46.2 Bn (5.5%), Russia with $27.1 Bn (3.2%), Canada with $24 Bn (2.9%), Japan with $21 Bn (2.5%), Spain with $14 Bn (1.7%) and India with (1.3%): the top 10 countries represent $731 Bn or 87.2% of the whole industry.[2]

Hysteria rules

Exactly Robert, nothing new. FY 2020 F35B unit cost=$166M, full of bugs, lack of usable weapons and unable to maintain supersonic speeds for carrier intercepts, a class one deficiency that cannot be corrected in the near future until they devise a new stealth coating that doesn’t crack at sustained high temperatures and so the list goes on.

And that’s what happens when you design a carrier based on one type of aircraft, all your eggs in one basket.

Note the actual all-inclusive price and the fact that we are looking to reduce the amount of F35’s we purchase by half.

It’s not rocket science. Page 79

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6534949-FY20-Navy-Aircraft-Procurement.html#document/p79/a533442

Ah another website link, same old same old. They said all the same old stuff about F22 and Typhoon in the early day’s. White Elephants! Out of date! Useless!. And yet these aircraft are proving Sterling service today. The same for the F35, Its still very early days of it’s service career. Typhoon couldn’t carry the weapons it can carry today 10years ago, it wasn’t useless though was it. Of course it’s had development problems, but like any airforce that is now flying it says, it is and will provide a massive step change in capability. But you choose to ignore all of that, or the hugely successful QE F35 integration trials. Or it’s success in large-scale exercises. I think you simply don’t understand the capability Nigel and what the F35 brings to the battle space, because if you did, you wouldn’t be writing complete guff on this site. The fact that you repeat the ‘ can’t maintain supersonic flight’ story, says it all. It happened once, and the test pilots have never been able to recreate the fault. So another story, blow up out of all proportions, for the F35 hating websites. F35 was never designed for sustained supersonic flight, it wasn’t designed for supercruise like F22 or Typhoon in dry power. So any supersonic flight is only measured in a few minutes. You might be surprised how little aircraft like say F18’s actually go supersonic on a regular basis, due to stores restrictions, and fuel burn. Basics Nigel, basics.

I will defend Nigel on this fact, the F35 is the most expensive military aircraft in history and will be for the next 10 years at least. However, as more Countries are buying it, its overall unit cost is coming down. But that will not get a around the fact that the research and development costs are astronomical. Simply put, the fusion of avionics and the pilot’s situational awareness puts the aircraft in another league capability wise.

But lets put that in perspective. This aircraft is a step change in capability, more so than the previous YF22/23 program. It has an unparalleled “theoretical” kill ratio from last years Red Flag and used Typhoon/Rafale tactics to take out F22s. Now that its flight envelop has been expanded, it out-performs F16s in dogfighting. On a recent exercise, F16s to stand a chance had to fly clean and with a reduced fuel load when paired against F35As. The exercises all started in a face to face merge and the kills were a tail on gun shot. The F35s by contrast had a full fuel load and were carrying live bombs in their bomb bays, to be used on the range after the dogfighting exercise. To put that in context, perhaps one of the best ever purpose built dog fighting aircraft were getting their arses handed to them when flying clean against an aircraft primarily designed for ground attack with a full internal weapons load!

So let’s put this aircraft in a likely Pacific scenario. It is flying on CAP, where a Hawkeye detects a flight of 4 unknown aircraft that have just taken off from an atoll base in the South China Sea. The aircraft are flying directly towards the Hawkeye, but are still 300km off. The pair of CAP aircraft veer off to investigate and stay passive, using their distributed aperture system (DAS) to home in on the aircraft. These are shown to be J20s rapidly climbing to 40,000ft. Two aircraft are actively using their radar. The J35s monitor and relay the information back to the Hawkeye. Where they use their APG-81’s passive ability to hoover up the J20s radar emissions and then use this data to sneak around the back of the J20s. Now on the J20s six, they can close to within 20km staying outside visual range. Where they see one of the J20s weapons bays open and a missile lowered on it rack. The J35s immediately go offensive and fire a Sidewinder 9X at the targeted launch aircraft. The other 3 aircraft disperse as soon as their missile approach warning systems detect the approaching Sidewinder, the targeted aircraft can’t shake off the Sidewinder and succumbs quite quickly. The remaining 3 try to do a 180 and search for the enemy aircraft. Their Type 1475 AESA X band radar getting intermittent hits on something, but not enough to form any identification or track. The F35s watching the other 3 J20s going kinetic see that they are getting the odd hit from their opponents radar, make the decision to disengage. The 3 J20s circle the sky frantically searching for their attackers but to no avail. Whilst safely from distance the two F35s continuously monitor the J20s, watching the J20s turn tail and return to base.

Ok, perhaps the above is a bit jackanory? But this amusing scenario does highlight what the differences are between a supposed 5th generation aircraft and the F35 will be. The F35 has been purposely designed to counter X band and K band radars in particular. It can definitely counter lower C and S band radars but not as comprehensively. Unlike the J20s lower frontal RCS, it has a more rounded approach to its radar stealth, where only the tail-on aspect lets it down. To a lesser “unknown” degree the F35’s RAM material also lowers its IR signature. What this means for a F35 pilot, is that they can pick and chose when and how to fight, making it easier to engage or disengage. To a lesser degree the F22 has this ability, but it doesn’t have the 360 degree DAS and is only now getting a forward looking FLIR, so it must rely on its radar to detect targets.

It must be remembered that the aircraft is designed primarily as a ground attack aircraft, with a secondary fighter role. So it is not best suited to a QRA role, like a Typhoon. However, as proven at the last two Red Flags, following its software upgrade, it can definitely not only hold its own, but outperform dedicated fighter aircraft.

Hi Davyb. That is an excellent example of the kind of capabilities the F35 will bring to the fight. Add in electronic attack, and the ability to act almost like a mini AWACS, to share it’s situational awareness to fellow allied aircraft, and you have a very efficient and deadly force multiplier. Even a small number of F35’s, can have a massive effect on the battle space.

Yes, I agree. The F35 is not only a step change in capability but also in mission flexibility. However, as with any new cutting edge technology it comes at risk and a very high financial cost. If anything it will be like the first years of Typhoon. The US saying the aircraft is rubbish and too expensive, why don’t you buy the cheaper F18 instead? Typhoon did have a lot of issues to begin with, especially with the serviceability of the radar. But look at it now, it is not only an awesome air dominance fighter, but is pretty good at ground attack as well. The F35 will be the same, over time the teething problems will be sorted and the current technology matured enough, that we fully understand its capabilities. It serviceability will have improved, as better methods are discovered on how to maintain its RAM. But its the new methods of employment that will be the real eye opener, be it targeted jamming, electronic intelligence gathering (ELINT), drone mothership or perhaps as a supplemental AWACS. Its a shame that the carriers will not have the full data-link capability to begin with, but hopefully that will change in the future.

It’s a shame so many fail to understand the capability, and are quick to right it off, even in these very early days of it’s deployment. As you rightly say, it takes time to get these weapon systems matured, and providing the promised capability. There hasn’t been a single new fighter that has entered service in the last 40 plus years that hasn’t had substantial cost overruns, or delays. Or had all the capability and weapons available from day 1. Cheers Davyb. Have a good weekend.

Is this still the case? I very much hope not as we could be retiring them as erly as 2026-2030.

The Marines’ F-35B structural test airframe proved unable to complete the three lifetimes of testing. According to the 2018 report, Joint Program Office officials suspended tests on that airframe in 2017 after its second lifetime when they found the necessary patches and modifications were so extensive that the airframe was “no longer representative of the wing-carry-through structure” of the aircraft coming off the assembly line.

Shockingly, there are no plans to procure a replacement airframe to test the F-35B to the full three lifetimes required by the contract.

Using the data gathered during the tests the aircraft did complete, evaluators determined that the service life of the F-35B could be as low as 2,100 flight hours.

That means the Marine Corps could potentially have to start retiring the first of its F-35s in seven years, and may never acquire any F-35Bs with a verified 8,000-hour service life.”

FY2018 DOT&E F35 Report

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5736009-FY2018-DOT-E-F35-Report.html#document/p3/a482305

Nice copy and paste Nigel. I have seen many of the same issues you enjoy to highlight written about the F35 said about the F14, F15, F16, F18 F22, Typhoon in the early days of service, The F15 was a particularly nightmare for reliability in its early years. Problems that are alway overcome with experience, and the maturing of systems and maintenance techniques. We will be seeing F35B’s flying over Norfolk for many a year.

No real answer to that one either then!

The 2019 DOT-E F35 document gives you the answers you are look for.

Ah, I see, thank you. How may F35B’s did we purchase prior to lot 9? I wonder when the 3 year testing phase will begin?

It was also interesting to see how the report stars off.

“Static Structural and Durability Testing

The program secured funding and contracted to procure
another F-35B ground test article, which will have a
redesigned wing-carry-through structure that is production
representative of Lot 9 and later F-35B aircraft. Testing of
this production-representative ground test article will allow
the program to certify the life of F-35B design improvements.
The production and delivery dates are still to be determined.”

https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2019/dod/2019f35jsf.pdf?ver=2020-01-30-115432-173

UK jets are from lot 11.

Not according to this website. Another dodgy one perhaps?

“It should be noted that numbers right now are currently where they’re expected to be and inline with the 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review.

2 F-35B in LRIP run 3, 1 F-35B in LRIP run 4, 1 F-35B in LRIP run 7, 4 F-35B in LRIP run 8, 6 F-35B in LRIP run 9, 3 F-35B in LRIP run 10, 2 F-35B in LRIP run 11, 2 F-35B in LRIP run 12 6 F-35B in LRIP run 13, 8 F-35B in LRIP run 14 and 7 F-35B in LRIP run 15. This brings us to 42 in 2023.”

Yes, my mistake, I didn’t see these at the top of the page. Still won’t make any difference though, fixes if needed will be added to early lot jet’s. We kept Sea Harrier FA2’s flying with many deficiencies and limitations right up to retirement, and each airframe was slightly bent! like I’ve said, it’s nothing new in the real world. The F35 is a marvelous piece of engineering, especially the F35B with it’s lift fan and swivel nozzle. Seeing how stable it is in the hover compared to the Harrier is quite a sight.

How will the F35B defend the carriers in a QRA scenario bearing in mind the new limitations that have recently been placed on both it and the C variant in terms of speed I wonder?

“Defense News reports that one major deficiency that affects -B and -C versions is permanent and the Pentagon has no plans to correct.

During supersonic flight at extremely high altitudes, the F-35’s skin warms to the point where the heat could damage the stealthy coating on the surface of the aircraft.

Such flight also risks damage to the antennas on the rear of the aircraft.

If the coating wears away at high speed the aircraft would instantly become easier for adversaries to detect on radar.

Damage to the antennas could also cripple the pilot’s ability to communicate and receive data from nearby friendly forces.”

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a32304032/f-35-supersonic-flight/

I assume high altitudes include 40,000ft?
If a time limit has been imposed with no plans to correct, then clearly this is a real problem going forward?

The deficiency, first reported by Defense News in 2019, means that at extremely high altitudes, the U.S. Navy’s and Marine Corps’ versions of the F-35 jet can only fly at supersonic speeds for short bursts of time before there is a risk of structural damage and loss of stealth capability.

The problem may make it impossible for the Navy’s F-35C to conduct supersonic intercepts.

“This issue was closed on December 17, 2019 with no further actions and concurrence from the U.S. services,” the F-35 JPO statement read. “The [deficiency report] was closed under the category of ‘no plan to correct,’ which is used by the F-35 team when the operator value provided by a complete fix does not justify the estimated cost of that fix.

“In this case, the solution would require a lengthy development and flight testing of a material coating that can tolerate the flight environment for an unlimited time while satisfying the weight and other requirements of a control surface.

Instead, the issue is being addressed procedurally by imposing a time limit on high-speed flight.”

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/04/24/the-pentagon-will-have-to-live-with-limits-on-f-35s-supersonic-flights/

Are we any further along the line with secure carrier communications including other assets?

3 Reported communications and
software issues Page 11 onwards.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmdfence/326/326.pdf

The answer is in the article you shared Nigel. please see below. What are you like 16 or something. you’ll have to do better then that. See you at the next F35 story, I’ll be looking out for you. ? I’m off back to my wife and child now, I’ll leave you alone with Google. bye for now

It’s a not seperate issue and the issue was fixed and dealt with NINE years ago!

Defense news say “WE FIRST reported this issue last year!!

This is NOT to mean the issue is new!

We have:Vice Adm. Mat Winter, who leads the F-35 program on behalf of the Pentagon, told Defense News that the department has taken steps to mitigate the problem with an improved spray-on coating, but added that the government will not completely fix it — instead accepting additional risk

That coating is a new ceramic based paint that can withstand the higher temperatures.

And, NOTE very careful this statement:

Winter noted that the issue was documented while the jet was flying at the very edge of its flight envelope. He also said the phenomenon only occurred once for both the B and C models, despite numerous attempts to replicate the conditions that caused the problem.

He also said the phenomenon only occurred once for both the B and C models, despite numerous attempts to replicate the conditions that caused the problem

So, it is NOT a wide spread problem. And NOTE ALSO they NEVER saw the issue with the F35 “A” model.

So, no, this is not a big deal, or issue. And note that story and information is NINE YEARS old!!! – from 2011.

So, no this is not an issue or problem with the F35.

And this:

Greg Ulmer, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 program head, said there have been no cases of this problem occurring in the operational fleet and that incidents have been limited to the “highest extremes of flight testing conditions that are unlikely replicated in operational scenarios.”

And Winter goes on to state this:

The new coating, which was introduced in Lot 8, allows the jet to withstand hotter temperatures caused by the afterburner, the documents stated. Winter characterized the material as able to withstand “what we call the thermal shock wave

So, you talking about an issue that cropped up 9 years ago, and has LONG been dealt with.

Defense news is simply trying to gin up some clicks here.

Pilots are free to use afterburners as they see fit. And all jets have some operational limits. For exmaple, f16’s have limits placed on afterburners and supersonic speeds at low altitudes. The canopy develops hot spots and thus can damage the canopy or even cause a failure.

While the F35 does not fit the strict definition of supercruise, it can go for 150 miles without after burners at super sonic speeds.

And with clean weapons it flies faster and farther then the 4th gen jets it replaces. So it flies faster, farther, and the stealth issue was fixed and dealth with NINE years ago.

Nice copy and paste Robert, you forgot to include this part sadly!

“It may be some future advanced materials that can withstand the pressure and the temperature,” Winter said. “Then we see that, and we go, ‘Hey, look, we’ve got this on the book,’ [and] we do a test check to see if that new material solves that problem.

The Defense Department has also instituted time limits on the number of seconds the F-35B and F-35C can fly at speeds in excess of Mach 1.2 while at full afterburner.”

For example, an F-35C can only fly at Mach 1.3 in afterburner for 50 cumulative seconds, meaning that a pilot cannot clock 50 seconds at that speed, slow down for a couple seconds and then speed back up. However, the time requirements reset after the pilot operates at military power — an engine power setting that allows for less speed and thrust than afterburner — for a duration of three minutes.

The F-35B can fly for 80 cumulative seconds at Mach 1.2 or 40 seconds at Mach 1.3 without risking damage.

But for both the C and B models, flying at Mach 1.3 over the specified time limits poses the risk of inducing structural damage to the aircraft’s horizontal stabilizer.

It is infeasible for the Navy or Marine Corps to operate the F-35 against a near-peer threat under such restrictions, the documents acknowledge.”

Is all that from 9 years ago too ?.

First we speak about concept then capability. We describe how the jet collects information, proccess it and presents just a small percentage of that to the pilot. It’s about information and fusion. Developing cutting edge tactics from a clean sheet and beginning air or ground engagements from unprecedented ranges. There is so much we can do with this amazing machine and the architecture around it, and we have barely scratched the surface.

Gp Capt Jim Beck, Station Commander RAF Marham. November 2019.

TTFM Nigel. I’m flying home from Denmark tonight, I work in Denmark and Norway a lot with work (Offshore Wind) They are buying the F35 too, and they are very happy with it. Finland will probably be next, but I’d rather they select the Typhoon. ?

Some good news for you at least Robert, albeit at an increased cost!

F-35 Canopy: New Glue, New Supplier May Boost Readiness
Newer A, B and C Variant aircraft are averaging greater than 60 percent mission capable rates, with some units consistently at or above 70 percent.

https://breakingdefense.com/2019/07/f-35-canopy-new-glue-new-supplier-may-boost-readiness/

consider yourself educated then Nigel.

It is expensive yes, never denied that, but cost is coming down. And a Tempest or a FCAS isn’t going to be cheap is it, far from it. Especially when they will only be built in small number. Look at the vast amount of money Typhoon cost the MOD.

Another year old article.

Try this one instead. Enjoy the read!

MARCH 11, 2020

F-35 Design Flaws Mounting, New Document Shows

“A new document obtained by the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) shows that the F-35 program office has made little progress in fixing the fighter jet’s hundreds of design flaws, and continues to discover more of them. The Joint Strike Fighter Program Office’s Deficiency Report Metrics document, dated February 28, 2020, shows the program is currently dealing with 883 unresolved design flaws—and has no plan for correcting over 160 of them.

“More than half, 448 deficiencies, remain “open, in dispute.” This means pilots or engineers believed they found a problem, but the contractors tasked with fixing the problems are claiming no problem exists. Multiple sources inside the F-35 program told POGO that the default response from the program’s prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, to any identified shortcoming is to say that the company’s design meets contract specifications and that any further changes can only be made with a contract modification.”

https://www.pogo.org/investigation/2020/03/f-35-design-flaws-mounting-new-document-shows/

Did you say the same about F22 in the early days? or Typhoon in the early years? both of which had many technical difficulties and massively over budget. You don’t seem to understand all new fast jets take many years to mature, you think it’s only the F35 that has problems and needs expensive software drops. I dread to think of the problems plaging new Russian aircraft. You have a child like dislike for the F35 Nigel which you need to get over, because whatever you say Nigel, it’s going to be in service with the RAF/RN, USAF, US Navy & Marines and airforces around the world for the next 50 odd years, providing world class combat air capabilitys. And despite the cost, Airforces are queuing up to buy it. So do yourself a favour, start liking it, understand the capability, and why real fast jet pilots and engineers think it’s the deadliest fighter ever made, that is only going to get better and better as the years roll on.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davedeptula/2020/07/20/f-35-problem-child-or-on-track-for-success/

Ah, another website link lol.

Try this one, it explains why the F35 Program is such a mess.

“There soon turned out to be an essential flaw in the grand plan for a single plane that could do everything. Design specifications demanded by one branch of the military would adversely impact the F-35’s performance in another area. “It turns out when you combine the requirements of the three services, what you end up with is the F-35, which is an aircraft that is in many ways suboptimal for what each of the services really want,” said Todd Harrison, an aerospace expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “It is much more expensive than originally envisioned, and the three versions of the plane actually don’t have that much in common.”

But early in the program, Lockheed Martin began construction with glowing optimism. The company decided to build the Air Force’s F-35A first because it was considered the simplest model, then move on to the difficulties of the F-35B short-takeoff and vertical-landing version and then the F-35C, which can land on an aircraft carrier — a decision that turned out to be a mistake. Once Lockheed’s engineers proceeded with the more demanding design of the F-35B, they found that their initial weight estimates were no longer accurate and the B model was on track to be 3,000 pounds too heavy to meet specifications. The company was forced to begin an extensive redesign project that added an 18-month delay to the program.

Later, serious problems resulted from starting production while the aircraft was still under development, a process the Pentagon calls concurrency. The strategy was meant to allow the services to begin flying their F-35s sooner. Instead, F-35s started rolling off the production line with unresolved technical problems, forcing the Pentagon to continually retrofit even newly built jets.”

You do realise all new fast jet’s have long lists of design flaws and bugs? the only difference is, more F35 information is available to the public in this modern era of the Internet. again, F22 had just the same troubled start in life.

“more F35 information is available to the public in this modern era of the Internet.”

Thankfully yes. the whole F35 program is a mess.

Apart from the spiralling costs, what do you think is going to happen when they go ahead with full-rate production to reduce costs and then try to implement Block 4 hardware and software?

There are already numerous versions of it, so it will turn into the biggest cluster f–K to date with endless patches to try to get it working correctly on all the aircraft. In short, a programmers nightmare.

Just to give you an idea.

The program is also discovering issues during Block 4 testing, causing the testing to take longer than anticipated.

According to a DOT&E official, Block 4 software changes caused issues with functionality of F-35 baseline aircraft capabilities that worked before the program installed new Block 4 software onto the aircraft.

The program discovered issues with each new software version during flight testing and has been working to
fix these issues in subsequent software updates. Testing and DOD officials stated that the contractor had not performed adequate testing of the software before delivering it to the test fleet as the reason for these issues.

Contractor representatives acknowledged these issues and stated that they will conduct additional lab testing for future software releases to avoid such problems going forward.”

“In May 2019, the program also updated its Block 4 development cost estimate, increasing both the time and cost to complete the work, but this updated estimate was not included in its May 2019 report to Congress.

54. The updated cost estimate reflects that the program office will be fielding Block 4 capabilities into fiscal year 2026. This new schedule adds 2 years.

Report to Congressional Committees

May 2020

https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/706815.pdf

Good copy and pasting Nigel. Like I said, Get used to it, it’s going to be around for a very long time, like it or not. You haven’t answered a single one of my questions. Because you don’t know a dam thing do you. You are good with Google search, I’ll give you that. Why don’t you join the Air League, or the Royal Aeronautical Society and bag yourself a visit to Marham, and hear the facts from the horses mouth, then come back and tell us all about it. As you seem to have all the answers, how much will Tempest cost the UK?? if it happens at all, and seeing as there is a pretty big black hole in the equipment budget, I have my doubts.

I thought it was blindly obvious why I had’nt bothered to reply to your questions Robert, they have nothing to do with the manufacture or cost of the F35 other than show no lessons have been learned hence the most expensive aircraft program in history and counting.

As you always seem to quote The RAF and your mates from said force who you drink with down the pub, perhaps you could advise them that Tempest is’nt going to happen in your opinion!

Enjoy the 3D moddeling by the way!

https://www.raf.mod.uk/what-we-do/team-tempest/

Yeah the RAF, they know a thing or two about the F35, why oh why would I ever listen to them ?‍♂️I’ll tell them about you, they could do with a good laugh. So again Nigel. How much is Tempest going to cost us mear tax payer’s? You think we should ditch F35 after the first 48 and go for Tempest, which I hope we do go for Tempest, but I’m also realistic. And it’s to replace Typhoon, not F35. So how are we going to afford a 6th gen fighter in the current covid hit financial climate? and a considerable black hole in the defence equipment budget to sort out? merge with the French/Germany project? surely Europe can’t afford two 6th gen rival projects. We haven’t even built a 5th gen. Apart from the 15% of every single F35. Or we havent learnt a thing from Typhoon Rafale and Gripen.

And yet, all that still hasn’t put off countless countries buying it. Because they know a lot more about it then some dumb wannabe bloke on a defence website. Cheers Nigel ?

I’ll let others decide on here Robert, getting personal only shows another persons ignorance and failure to respond in an educated manner.

The good news is, your not alone!

No Robert, from the horses mouth.

You might consider using this end for future responses to my posts which include the DOD, DOT&E, UK defence select committe and other oversight committes plus respected websites like UKDJ and of course Janes Defence, not to mention STRN.

As for my opinion, I listen to thse who are informed in these matters and have concluded that the F35 will be of little use to the UK until at least 2027-2030, what the final cost will end up being???

As for how many Tempest aircraft we will buy, how can anyone know as the plane is still in the design phase? Stupid question.

We have never designed a fifth generation aircraft? Have you heard of Taranis or Replica, we have all the experience required to get the job done, including the powerplant from Reaction engines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiFIw8OkTWk

Note the comment, the most technologically advanced aircraft the UK has ever designed and built.

I had no idea you knew so little!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPAOO5LoFvM

Allow me to keep you up to date, future UK designed technologies which will no doubt be included into the design of Tempest.

And where is the money coming from to fund this? Do what I do, research it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI6ouhXjjk4&t=12s

Building a plastic mock up for wind tunnel tests is not delivering a 5th gen aircraft to the front line is it. If you worked for BAE Systems or RR, or Lockheed Martin, or had first hand experience with the F35 i’d let you off Nigel. But you don’t. Quoting websites and declassified DOD documents does not paint an accurate picture of what is happening on the front line. I’m not denying the eye watering cost, this is a hugely complex project. But only a moron cannot see that this aircraft will provide game changing capability. And if you childishly believe it isn’t useful before block 4 then you need to do more research. Ask the Israelis how useful it is so far. I think an experienced F35 pilot could tell you square to your face how good it is, and you would still argue the toss! Lot’s of aircrew interviews around the web are available praising the aircraft if you choose to find them. At the of the day, it’s in service now and delivering, and will be in service for a very long time. So you might want to get used to it. Put the same effort into critizing new Russian or Chinese aircraft, they will be full of bugs and delays and huge cost overuns for you to get excited about. Until the next F35 article Nigel. ??‍♂️

As far as I am aware this is an issue that was picked up and only seen a couple of times on pre-production aircraft. They have tried to replicate the issue but do not see that same problems. Then they developed a new coating that mitigates the issue if it does occur again. I think this was sensationalised into a more major problem that it actually was. Possibly this was by Russian media manipulation or simply by sites wanting to generate more clicks.

I have Ron, many times in the past and the prices are correct unless you know more than the US Navy Procurement department?

I said poppycock and I mean it. F-35B cost $115m accord in UK government and not these ridiculous numbers you are dredging up from wacky websites.

And that $115m is way cheaper than Typhoon whose current price is at least 50% higher.

Lol flyaway costs only represent a fraction of the costs of the plane, you need to consider lifetime costs which include sims, maintenace costs (currently at about $35k per hour, much more expensive than other aircraft), spare parts , upgrades (block 4 is not cheap, MoD recently said it may not upgrade current F35B because too expensive)
Even the GAO is still not confident of what all these extra costs will be, i think they know a lot more than either of us.

Not Ron 5, nobody does! The full report can be accessed from this link.

F-35 SUSTAINMENT:
DOD Needs to Address Key Uncertainties as It Re-Designs the Aircraft’s Logistics System
GAO-20-665T: Published: Jul 22, 2020. Publicly Released: Jul 22, 2020.

What GAO Found

The Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) is integral to supporting F-35 aircraft operations and maintenance. However, F-35 personnel at 5 locations GAO visited for its March 2020 report cited several challenges.

For example, users at all 5 locations we visited stated that electronic records of F-35 parts in ALIS are frequently incorrect, corrupt, or missing, resulting in the system signalling that an aircraft should be grounded in cases where personnel know that parts have been correctly installed and are safe for flight.

At times, F-35 squadron leaders have decided to fly an aircraft when ALIS has signalled not to, thus assuming operational risk to meet mission requirements.

GAO found that DOD had not (1) developed a performance-measurement process for ALIS to define how the system should perform or (2) determined how ALIS issues were affecting overall F-35 fleet readiness, which remains below warfighter requirements.

DOD recognizes that ALIS needs improvement and plans to leverage ongoing re-design efforts to eventually replace ALIS with a new logistics system. However, as DOD embarks on this effort, it faces key technical and programmatic uncertainties.”

https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-665T

Block 4, a bug fixers nightmare still to come.

I love this part!

Turkey to continue part production until 2022

PARIS — The cost of developing the F-35’s Block 4 upgrade has grown by $1.5 billion in the past year, and has now reached $12.1 billion despite Joint Program Office attempts to understate it, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) said in its latest annual report on the program released Tuesday.

The GAO also reported that Block 4 development will take two years longer than planned and that despite promises of improvement the delivery of Block 4 capabilities will not be completed until 2026, instead of 2024.

In addition, “the fielded aircraft, over 500 so far, do not meet the program’s reliability and maintainability goals,” notably because “only about 3,000 of the over 10,000 [Lockheed Martin] manufacturing key processes meet predefined design standards for ensuring product quality.”

“The program is not delivering aircraft at the level of quality expected,” GAO added.”

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/211183/f_35-block-4-upgrade-slides-two-years-as-cost-increases-by-%241.5-bn%3A-gao.html

Clearly you think you do!

Bronk wrote his own resume that you are quoting. In other words, a self professed expert. Read what he writes and you’ll soon discover how flimsy his “expertise” really is.

The rear fuselage of all versions of the F-35 is made in BAE’s main factory in the UK.

I forgot the dam name of the place!

It’s a crying shame the F136 engine didn’t win the competition to be fitted to the F35. As part of the deal, the engine does stand a second chance from Lot 6 onwards. It is now unlikely though, as the combined team of General Electric and Rolls Royce wound down the engine’s development in 2011.

The F136 had a better growth margin than the Pratt and Witney F135 engine. The DoD believed the F135 had the least technological risk, as it was a pretty bog standard low bypass turbofan compared to the F136. The F136 was partly based on the earlier F120 engine used in the YF22/23 program. It had a degree of variable cycle, in that it could take some of the bypass air and feed it to the front end of the high pressure turbine. With more mass going through, the specific fuel consumption was lowered and the thrust increased. Both the F135 and F136 produced nearly the same amount of power in reheat, the 136 was better in the dry condition.

That was nearly 10 years ago and technology has moved on. GE/RR would nearly have to start from scratch to get the F136 up to the same level as the F135 is now, especially in terms of reliability and sustainability. The F135 will be undergoing its first major upgrade where the combustion chambers are being replaced. This will give the engine a 10% boost in fuel consumption as well as thrust. There are a number of other upgrades in the pipeline, such as a replacement compressor section.

To be blunt, Pratt and Witney have the US 5th gen market sown up, even the B21 is getting the F135 engines. There’s very little ambition for a new engine for the F35 at present. Even if it could be proven that a development of the F136 could produce more power. GE have won the contract to fit the F110-GE-129 engines to the F15EX though.

The future of fighter jet engines is a combined variable cycle engine that combines a turbofan with aspects of a turbojet and perhaps the ability to run as a ramjet. This is done by by feeding bypass air into various stages of the engine. The RR development of the EJ200 is supposed to be going this way.

I find ‘The Thin Pinstriped Line’ blogger to be about the best all rounder. He’s ex RN officer, and worked in the MOD. Writes very detailed and well balanced articles. ?

u are reffering to that PR stunt announcement a while back then i have news for you. Those F35 kill ratios are pure fantasy. The F35 was not alone in those exercises, there were many other types of planes helping it (F22, F15, F18 Growlers, AWACS etc…). We cannot attribute all those kills to the F35 alone. (F35 doesn’t even carry that many weapons to kill that many targets lol)

Secondly the adversary in those exercises were early 1980s versions of gen 4 aircraft (F16C). They are not representative of current gen 4 aircraft capabilities which have brand new avionics, weapons etc…

When was this deployement of F35 to UAE? On what base because neither US nor UK operate from there AFAIK. 100% availability lol, they couldn’t even get 4 F35 across the pond for Finland’s bid (HX Challenge) for new aircraft just a few months ago. In the end, only 2 made it across to Finland and of the 2 only 1 was able to do the evaluation tests in Finland, the other was grounded. I suggest you read Corporal Frisk’s blog.

I think there is a bridge someplace that you need to get back underneath.

Insults since you have no valid counter arguments to make. Classic troll